The nonconformists vindicated from the abuses put upon them by Mr. [brace] Durel and Scrivener being some short animadversions on their books soon after they came forth : in two letters to a friend (who could not hitherto get them published) : containing some remarques upon the celebrated conference at Hampton-Court / by a country scholar.

THE NONCONFORMISTS Vindicated, &c.

SIR,

THough I have of late wholly ad∣dicted my self to the Study of Practical Theology, and spent all that time I could redeem from my necessary occasions, in Reading such Authors as make it their busi∣ness to declare unto us the essentials of Christia∣nity; yet it hath been some delight to me, from time to time, by your Letters, to understand what Books have been Printed about those (comparative∣ly) Petit controversies that have of late years so miserably divided our British Churches. I heartily wish, you had still continued only to be my In∣telligencer, then I had been at liberty, either not to send for the Authors you mentioned, or else when I had sent for them, to lay them aside as soon I had enough of them: but you were am∣bitious to be my Benefactor, and therefore lately sent me at your own cost Mr. Durells two Eristical Volumes, conjuring me, by all our friendship, to read them over, and to return you my thoughts

of them: and though I have again and again im∣portuned you to excuse me from so unwelcome an employment, yet will you take no denial; wherefore that I may not seem finally obstinate, I do, here∣with, send you some Animadversions, the fruit of a few leisure hours; in reading whereof, if you either encrease the itch of disputation, or be forced to abate of the esteem you as yet have of your Author, you know where to lay the blame. I as∣sure you, I envy not unto him the Ecclesiastical dignities and benefices he enjoys: but I think he was as unmeet a person, as any could have been pitched on, to undertake the Cause of our Church, against the Nonconforming Ministers: for the grounds of this so severe censure, I refer you to what follows, and at present shall only lay before you three or four necessary qualifications of him that would plead for conformity with any success, or credit to our Church.

1. He had need to be free from all suspition of ambition, and of that, which the Apostle calls, the root of all evil; else his adversaries will say, that in his pleadings for the Church, he seeks not her, but hers. The Writings of Mr. Hooker, Mr. Sprint, Dr. Burges, as they are in themselves sober, and learned, so they are by all, or most, read with∣out any prejudice: because they contented them∣selves with such ordinary preferments, as they either had before they had written, or might have expected though they had never written for Cere∣monies. Nay Dr. Burges professeth, that he lost more by conforming, than any did by not conforming, (by the way, whereas Dr. Heylin saith Hist. of

Presby. Pag. 327. That King James occasioned this Doctors preferring to the Rectory of Colshill in War∣wickshire: the Reader may take notice that he was never Rector of Colshill, but of Sutton Goldfield, unto which the King occasioned not his preferment, for the presentation was given him without his seeking, by Mr. Shilton, after it had been first refused by Dr. Chetwind); I therefore doubt not but he did write for the lawfulness of Subscription, out of conscience, and that he would have con∣tinued in that opinion, though Authority had frowned upon it.

I dare not say so much concerning all that were, or would have been, more highly dignified. The first English man that grated hard upon the Pres∣byterian Government in the Latin tongue, was Dr. Matthew Suttliffe, Dean of Exeter, in a Book entituled de verâ, Catholicâ & Christianâ, Ecclesiâ, this very man, whether discontented, because his Book against Mr. Mountague was suppressed; or angry that he missed some preferment he aimed at, or for some other reasons we know not of, before his death, professed his hearty sorrow that he had written so much against Presbytery and for the power of the domineering Prelates, as may be seen in the Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici. Who pro∣fessed a greater zeal for Hierarchy than Patrick Adamson? But Hierarchy not being able to pay its quarters in the worlds own coin, how poorly did he Recant all his actings for it? Confessing Presbyteries to be an ordinance of Christ, and craving Gods mercy that he had called them a foolish inven∣tion; bewailing his pride and covetousness that had put

him upon undertaking the office of an Archbishop, as that wherewith justly the sincerest professors of the word have found fault, and condemned as impertinent to the office of a sincere pastor of Gods word; ingaging also that if he had health, he would write a confu∣tation of Sutliffes Book. All which, and much more, is to be found in the Records of the Scottish Nation.

2. He that would, with any advantage to the Church, undertake to confute Nonconformists, must be one that hath seen and well considered, either all, or the chiefest of their Books, and well knows the Histories of the times in which they were written. Else, first he may commit such foul mistakes in Chronology, as will render him ridiculous and contemptible to all his Readers. Can the most mortified Presbyterian chuse but laugh, when he finds in Dr. Heylins History of Presbyterians, Pag. 264, that about 1570. Mr. Carthwrights grace for Doctor was denied him, by the major part of the Ʋniversity; which so displeased him, and his adherents, that, from that time, the degrees of Do∣ctors, Batchelors, and Masters, were esteemed unlaw∣ful, and those that took them reckoned for the limbs of Antichrist, as appears by the Genevian notes on the Revelations. How can it appear from the Geneva notes, that from the time of denying Mr. Carth∣wrights grace, degrees were accounted unlawful? when every one knows, that many years before the denial of that grace, those notes had been both made, and published, perhaps by such as never saw or heard of Mr. Carthwright: Nor is that less ridiculous which occurs, Pag. 294. where

mention being made of a Pamphlet written by Stubbes of Lincolns-Inne, it is said, that Stubbes had married one of Mr. Carthwrights Sisters, and therefore may be thought to have done nothing without his privity. Mr. Carthwright indeed married one of Mr. Stubbes his Sisters, but that Mr. Stubbes married one of his Sisters is a falshood; and if it were supposed to be a truth, what ground is that, why a man should think that Stubbes did nothing without his privity? Do all writers make their Brothers-in-law privy to their designs? I acknow∣ledg that Thuanus saith it was found out that Mr. Carthwright instigated him to write the Libel; but Thuanus is not to be relied on in mat∣ters relating to the English Puritans, because in such, he follows one who was their bitter adver∣sary; as also because Thuanus himself was too too Antipuritanical, perfectly in Religion of the same mind with Cassander and Baldwin, whose Character need not be given. Doubtless had there been either clear proof, or vehement suspition, that Mr. Carthwright was accessary to the compiling of the gaping Gulph, he had not escaped some signal token of the Queens displeasure; for her Majesty was so highly incensed against the Author, Printer, and Publisher of it, that nothing less would satisfie her, than arraignment of them upon the Statute of Philip and Mary, against the Authors and Dispersers of seditious writings; and because some of her chief Lawyers were of opinion, That that law was but temporary, and of no force in her reign, she im∣prisoneth one of them, and turns another out of his place, and prevailed so far, that both Stubbes,

and Page (who dispersed the Copies) had sentence passed upon them, to lose their right hands: which accordingly were cut off in the market-place of Westminster, with a Butchers knife and a Mallet; but it is observed by more than one of our Historians, that when Stubbes his right hand was cut off, he did pull off his Hat with his left hand, and cry out, God save the Queen: and the people by a general silence gave their Testimony, that the punishment was too severe. Nor did the Queen her self take much pleasure in reflecting on this penalty, but rather when the heat of passion was over, received Stubbes into some degree of favour, as is probable from the imployment that he had under Peregrine Lord Willoughby, sent by the Queen with four thousand Soldiers to assist the King of Navar, in which imployment he ended his days, but by a natural death.

Secondly, if our Writers for Conformity know not the State of the controversies, and the times, in which they were managed, they will go near to contradict one another; and will it not make the Nonconformists good sport, to see their adver∣saries at dissension among themselves? Could Mr. Durells English Book have been more effectually confuted by any writing, than by Dr. Heylins History of Presbyterians? Dr. Stradling licenseth a Book tending to prove that the Presbyterians in England are a singular sort of men, as contrary to the Presbyterians beyond the Seas, as to their own Bishops at home; the Vicechancellor of Oxford licenseth a Book designed to prove that all Pres∣byterians, all the reformed Churches over, are all

acted by one spirit, equally prone to sedition and schisme, alike bent to destroy all Kingdoms and Churches into which they are received. Will not the Presbyterians say Aha! so would we have it? will they not even bless themselves in these con∣tradictions of their adversaries? Dr. Heylin saith, Lib. 7. Pag. 275.

Whitgift dissected Carth∣wrights admonition, in a Book entituled, An answer to the Admonition. Carthwright sets out a reply in the year following, and Whitgift pre∣sently rejoyns in defence of his Answer; against which Carthwright never stirred, but left him Master of the field, possest of all the signs of an absolute Victory. But Sir George Paul saith, Mr. Carthwright (glorying be-like to have the last word) published a second reply, fraught with no other stuff than had been before refuted, from answering of which Whitgift was disswaded.

Will not such sweet concord as this, make delicate Musick in the ears of the Nonconformists? Espe∣cially considering that the Letter of Whitaker mentioned by the Doctor, is pretended by the Knight to be one of the main inducements moving Whitgift not to rejoyn to the second reply. And let me admonish the Conformists not much to glory in Whitakers letter, reflecting so much disgrace on Carthwrights Book, seeing Whitaker was then, 1. Under thirty years of age. 2. Never dreamed that his Letter should be made publick. 3. After∣wards married the Widow of Dudly Fennor. 4. In those writings which were the product and issue of his more mature judgment and study, layeth down such principles as the Nonconformists think

their conclusions do naturally and lineally descend from. 5. Died in over-straining his diligence to suppress the Pelagian notions of Peter Baro, so much now-adays applauded and admired. Certainly if they are to be accounted Victors who keep the field last, the Nonconformists have at least as many Victors as the Conformists, though we should grant that Whitgift had the last word of Carthwright, which yet is not to be granted. But doth not Mr. Fuller say in his Ecclesiastical History, he had? Answer, He doth; but I have been assured, that being before Olivers triers for a living, he ingenuously ac∣knowledged his error, and promised to certifie it, if ever his Book came to a second Edition, which I therefore give notice of, that it may proceed no further, and that Mr. Isaac Walton, who is still alive, and hath fallen into the same mistake in his life of Mr. Hooker, Pag. 85. may disabuse his Reader. The which if he will vouchsafe to do, we shall have encouragement to try, whether we cannot acquaint him with some more of his mi∣stakes, and misadventures. In the mean time I should be glad to understand, what assurance can be given us, that Bishop Jewel ever used such words concerning Carthwright as those mentioned by Dr. Heylin. Lib. 7. Pag. 274. and elsewhere, viz. Stultitia nata est in corde pueri sed virga disciplinae fugabit eam: for it seems improbable, that so grave a Prelate, should give so unhandsome a character of a very learned man, concerning whom he could make no estimation, but by a few scattered papers, designed for a Book that saw not the light till Jewel was entred into the chambers of Darkness.

All that I can see any ground to acknowledg, at present, is but this, that Jewel both in a Sermon at Paul's, and in a conference with some Brethren, had declared himself to be an approver of the Eng∣lish ceremonies; and that being ready to leave the world, he declared that what he uttered in his Ser∣mon, and conference, was designed neither to please any mortal, nor to embitter or trouble any party that thought otherwise than himself; but that neither party might prejudg the other, and that the love of God by the Holy spirit which is given to us, might be poured forth in the hearts of brethren. See his life written by the Nonconforming Dr. Humpred. Pag. 255. edit. Lond. an. 1573. And if Dr. Heylins friends will please to consult, Pag. 275. They shall find Jewel died September 23. about three in the afternoon, not as the Doctor affirms, Lib 6. Pag. 270. Sep∣tember the 22. And then they may also consider whether he hath not erred in dating Zanchies Letter to Queen Elizabeth, September the second; for in my edition of Zanchies Letters put forth by his Heirs at Hannouae 1609. it bears date the tenth of September, 1571. These are small matters, it will be said; I confess they be; but if men will write Histories, they ought to be very exact, and publish nothing that need fear the severest examina∣tion.

Let me be excused if I here adventure to give two more instances, one of Dr. Heylins imaginary Victories; the other of his contrariety to other writers whom he sometimes quotes with applause. Lib. 8. Pag. 283. He acquaints us that Dr. Ban∣croft made a most excellent and judicious Sermon (let

that pass) he gives us the heads of that Sermon, saying, pag. 284, That they were all proved with such evidence of demonstration, such great variety of Learning, and strength of arguments, that none of all that party could be found to take arms against them in defence either of their leud doctrine, or more scandalous Ʋses. All this with bitterness and ma∣lice more than enough; but with no regard to truth: for Dr. John Reynolds at the desire of Sir Francis Knowles, did attaque that so much ap∣plauded Sermon of Feb. 9th. at St. Pauls Cross, and pulled down two of the main pillars, viz. The superiority which Bishops have among us over their Clergy, is Gods own ordinance. 2. Jerome and Calvin confess that Bishops have had superiority ever since the time of St. Mark the Evangelist. The Letter of Dr. Reynolds in which he doth this, is in many mens hands, and the Historian doubtless had, if not seen, yet heard of it, and therefore was inexcusable in representing Dr. Bancroft to be so formidable an adversary, that none durst look him in the face. Let those who account Dr. Ban∣crofts Sermon unanswerable, reply to Dr. Reynolds his Letter, and if it be thought that Dr. Reynolds hath not refuted all the passages of the Sermon, let us know what the particulars be that still re∣main unanswered, and yet need an answer, and if after such notice given, such terror seize on Pres∣byterians that none dare appear, let the Sermon then be carried about in triumph; till then I hope it will be no presumption to say, that Dr. Reynolds as well understood the judgment of the Fathers, concerning Episcopacy, as Dr. Bancroft.

The instance of his contradicting others, shall be part of the story concerning the infamous se∣paratist Browne: Sir George Paul in the life of Archbishop VVhitgift, Pag. 53, acquaints us, that Brown in the Archbishops time was changed from his fancies, and after obtained a benefice called A∣church in Northamptonshire where he became a pain∣ful Preacher. But Dr. Heylin, Lib. 7. Pag. 297. tells us, he was prevailed with to accept a place, Achurch in Northamptonshire, beneficed with cure of Souls; a benefice of good value, which might tempt him to it the rather, in regard that he was excused as well from Preaching as from performing any other part of the publick Ministry. Certainly, if he became a painful Preacher, there was no need of excusing him from Preaching.

But who is in the truth? I think neither the Knight nor the Doctor; painful Preacher to be sure Brown never was, after his presentation to A∣church; nor is it probable that he was excused from Preaching, any more than from living quietly with his Wife. Bishops have strained their power very high, but I am unwilling to believe that any Pre∣late since our Reformation would institute a man healthful and able to Preach, into a cure of Souls, and yet excuse him from all parts of the publick Ministry.

Nay, thirdly, If men take the field against the Nonconformists before they have sufficiently tried their strength, they may chance to be mastered by these arguments they imagined themselves able to master; and so even face about in the day of battel, fighting against those from whom they received

their first pay. Mr. Henry Jeanes had never seen a Nonconformist using his own weapon, and there∣fore thought him contemptible, and adventured to defie him in a Printed Treatise upon 1 Thes. 5.22. But when he came to Read the very Books of the Nonconformists themselves, he found himself no longer able to withstand the dint of their argu∣ments, but went over to them, and died their Convert, as all know who were his Neighbour Ministers: some Papists by reading Protestant Books, with an intent to confute them, have been con∣verted by them; and therefore the Grandees in the Roman Church, will not give leave to one of a thousand, to Read all manner of Books; nay in some places they will scarcely permit Bellarmines works to be commonly sold, lest that little which is in them of Calvin should purge all Catholocism out of their young Students. I wish the Prelates of our Church would consider how far the prudence of Papacy is imitable; certainly every one who is willing to have a Prebendship from them, is not able to stand under the weight and burden that is laid upon Episcopacy. If our Church must be vindicated, let it be vindicated by another Hooker, made up of learning and modesty; as for Mr. Durel, if he have got a lask, and must needs ease himself in the Press, it may be worth considera∣tion, whether he be not fit to succeed to Tom Nash, whose scoffing Pen was not altogether useless in Queen Elizabeths days.

I had almost added, that he who will to purpose defend our Church, must not be a Jersey man; not only, because such a one can scarce be sup∣posed

sully to know the intrigues of our differences; but also because it can scarce be thought, that he should be conscientiously a friend to our Hierarchy: for we are not now to be told, that the Episcopal Government setled here in England, could not get into Jersey, but by wile, if not force. Jersey, Guernsey, &c. are the only remainders of the Crown of England in the Dukedom of Normandy, and in former times belonged to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constance, but were governed immediately by a subordinate Officer mixt of a Chancelor and Archdeacon; they entertained the Reformed Religion in King Edwards time, and some of their Inhabitants suffered for it in the time of Queen Mary; Queen Elizabeth reigning, by the help of some French Ministers, the generality were again brought to seek after Reformation; but withall Petition the Queen for an allowance of the Presbyterian Discipline, Anno 1563; and Anno 1565, obtain it for all, or some part of the Islands: on which allowance they adventure to put it in execution, and hold a Synod in the Isle of Guernsey, Sep. 2. 1567. Nor do I find that they had any considerable disturbance in it, till Sir John Peiton was made their Governour, who with the Kings Attorney protested against that choice of Mr. Brevin, which was made by the Colloquy, upon the decease of the Curate of St. Johns: the ground of the Protestation was the prejudicialness of such Elections to the Rights and Profits of the King, deprived thereby of Vacancies, and first Fruits. This Protestation, though over-ruled for a season, wrought so effectually, that about 1615,

the Governour presented one Mr. Messering to the Parish of St. Peters; this Messering had been ordained Priest by Dr. Bridges Bishop of Oxford, but his presentation was so offensive to the Col∣loquy, that Governour and Ministers appear be∣fore King James, referring the whole concernment to his Majesties final Judgment; and the Ministers for ought I find, had continued in Statu quo, had they been unanimous; but Monsieur De la Place being brought into a golden dream, that if a Dean were again established in the Isle, he, and no other should be the man, betrayed his brethren, and violated the Oath he had before taken, so as it was at length ordered by the Council of England, That an Officer invested with the authority of the ancient Dean, should again be established in the Isle of Jersey, and that the Bishop of Winchester should by Commission under his seal give authority unto the said Dean, to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the said Isle: but not Monsieur Place, but Mr. Bandinel, an Italian, is put into the Deanery; which Mr. Places high stomack not digesting, he retires into Guernsey, breathing out nothing but disgrace to the English Liturgy, and the Change of Govern∣ment made in Jersey, by his own Treachery. The sum of all is: The Islanders of Jersey had the English Liturgy translated into their own Language in the reign of King Edward the sixth; in Queen Eliza∣beths reign, they forsook it, aesired the Presbyterial discipline, and by Oath bound themselves to keep and observe it. The Episcopal Government was obtruded upon them, through the perjury of an Ambitious Minister who declaimed against it as soon as he saw he could

not serve his own ends by it. Doth any Law oblige us to believe that any Natives of this Isle heartily embrace it? I think it will be no uncharitableness to say—Timeo Danaos, & dona ferentes.

A fourth qualification required in him that will go a warfare for our Church, is a good knowledg of all the rules and forms of Argumentation; he that wants such knowledg, will no more be able to manage the Churches Arguments, than David was to use Sauls Armor; nay, he will be a stum∣bling-block and stone of offence to our young stu∣dents. When Dr. Heylin's Certamen Epistolare came abroad, I had spent Three years and no more at Cambridg; yet I must needs buy the Book, be∣cause the Author was famed for his Geography, and had been represented to me as a very living Library; thought I,

Si pergama dextra Defendi possent, certe hac defensa videbo.

But reading his Answer to Mr. Baxter, I found my self quite frustrated in my expectation; for whereas Mr. Baxter had made a conditional Syllo∣gism, and instead of assuming the words of the antecedent at large, had used an allowed brevity, But the antecedent is true: The Dr. tells him Page 80. That it was a strange piece of news to him, to read any one making use of that brief form of condi∣tional Syllogism. This startled me, for I was sure that almost every System of Logick, that fell into the mention of conditional Syllogisms, not only allowed, but commended it to us, for brevity

sake, after a conditional major to proceed thus, But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, so is the Conse∣quent; or, but the Consequent is false, Ergo, so is the Antecedent: I was as sure that those School∣men (in whose Logicks and Metaphysicks I had wasted too much time) did usually so argue, and I had read that long before them, the Stoicks were much pleased with this form of Argumenta∣tion, and called it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; how then (said I within my self) comes it to pass, that an ancient Dr. in Divinity, who hath combated not only Pu∣ritans, but also Bishops and Heads of Houses, and sometimes nibbles at Bellarmine himself, should upon the reading of such a Syllogism fall into such a fit of admiration? What Answer I gave my self, is not material; but I resolved to lay aside my opinion of the Doctors abilities; but rather to hope that he would make known some mystery that was bid from Duncan, Burgesdicius, Isendorne, &c. till I came to his 8, Page, where I met with these words, The Antecedent in all Hypothetical propositions being conditional, imperfect, and of no full sense, cannot be said to be either true or false. When I had read them, I then concluded the Dr. was void of all rational learning, and perhaps did not know what hypothetical signified; for certainly every hypothetical Proposition is a com∣pound Proposition; and if it be compound, it must consist of Two Propositions, and one of those Propositions must needs be the Antecedent: Now if the Antecedent be a Proposition, it must needs be either true or false. I know that sometimes the Antecedent, as well as the Consequent, is not

formally a Proposition; but it's evermore, at least virtually a Proposition, and therefore may be said to be true or false; if it could not, why do our Logicks so carefully tell us, that we must not esti∣mate the verity or falsity of a conditional, from the verity or falsity of its parts, but from the true or false connexion that is betwixt them? It were per∣fectly needless to tell us, that we are not to estimate the verity of a conditional, from the verity of the Antecedent, if the Antecedent neither can be said to be true nor false. Be∣sides, if there may be affirmation and negation in the Antecedent, then may the Antecedent be either true or false; but there may be affirmation or negation in the Antecedent, Ergo. The minor I prove from the common rule given for the right making of those conditional Syllogisms, in which the major only is Hypothetical; the Rule is, That we must either proceed from the position of the An∣tecedent, to the position of the Consequent; or from the destruction of the Consequent to the destruction of the Antecedent; if we proceed not thus, we may from true premises infer a false conclusion: Now what is it to put ponere the Antecedent? Why, it is to bring it into the minor, with the same quality it had in the major; That is, if it were affirmative in the major, it must be affirmative in the minor; if negative in the major, then nega∣tive in the minor: Ay, but whatever dull Logici∣ans prate, is not the Antecedent in every Hypo∣thetical, conditional, imperfect? Answ. Certain∣ly it is not; for the [if] which is commonly pre∣fixed to the Antecedent, is no part of the Antece∣dent;

but it is the copula that converteth the An∣tecedent and the Consequent, just as the Verb [is] in a Categorical, coupleth the subject and predi∣cate. Let this be the example, if the Sun shineth, it is day; here be two propositions, the Sun shineth, it is day, both are joined into one compound pro∣position by the Conjunction if; and the plain mean∣ing is, if the first proposition be true, the second is also. No less ignorance doth the Dr. bewray, when he saith, In every hypothetical Syllogism, the major proposition consisteth of two parts, or branch∣es, whereof one is called the Antecedent, the other the consequent: For I can make him an Hundred Hypothetical Syllogisms, in which the minor only and conclusion shall be Hypothetical, and the major a plain Categorical. It may be Mr. D. will say, this shakes not his Corn; and indeed it doth not: but he also might have done well, before he dabled in the Printers Ink, to read over some Compendi∣ums; then would he have amended the Title of above Fifty Pages in his Book, not writing The Conformity of the Reformed Churches, with the Re∣formed Church of England; for this Enunciation, There is a conformity betwixt the Reformed Church∣es, and the Reformed Church of England in the things of present controversie, cannot be proved, but by an Induction, shewing, that all, or the most, or the most famous Reformed Churches, agree with the Church of England in all, or most, or the chiefest of those matters the present Nonconform∣ists scruple. Hath he shewed this? he doth as good as confess he hath not; for Page 53. Sect. 63. giving us the summa totalis of his atchievements,

he plainly says, it amounts but to thus much, There is hardly one of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England that is not used in some one Reformed Church or other. Which suppose he had proved (as he hath not) he is, many stages off from the conclusion he propounded to infer; if he deem he is not, let him write a Book to prove that the Language of the Matachuses is conforma∣ble to the English Language, because there is some one word in which both languages do agree, and see whether he will not be laughed at to pur∣pose.

But I will free my mind from all prejudices that may be taken against Mr. D. on the account of his Country; nor will I create him any odium from the high elogiums he bestows on the Earl of Clarendon, sentenced by King and Parliament to perpetual banishment, as unworthy to live in England, (though I wonder Mr. D. doth no where bewail his sin or misery in heaping so many praises on him who deserved so few) 'Tis not the man, but his Book I am to undertake, and in it I will shew,

1. Where there is a real controversy betwixt Episcoparians and Presbyterians, he quite mistakes it.

2. That he takes a great deal of pains to prove that which was never questioned by any sober man among us.

3. That he defiles his Paper with many untruths and falshoods.

4. That he hath let fall not a few passages which are manifestly prejudicial and destructive

to the Church of England, as it is now esta∣blished.

As to the real controversies now on foot, the principal of them may be reduced to three general Heads, Episcopacy, Liturgy, Ceremonies.

The Presbyterians say, that if they conform, they must receive Episcopacy as an order by Divine Law, superior to Presbytery, and invested with sole power of order and jurisdiction: Search Mr. Durell's Book with Candles, and if there be in it any one Line tending to prove that either there is any such Episcopacy in any one reformed Church, or that any one Reformed Church, if her judgment were asked, would approve such an Episcopacy, and I will confess my self mistaken. He reckoneth him∣self most secure of the Lutheran Churches, and among the Lutherans, especially of such as are go∣verned by a Monarchy, particularly he tells us, That in Denmark they have Bishops, and Arch bi∣shops, name and thing, Page 5. How much he is mistaken in this, will soon appear, if we consult the History of the Reformation of that Kingdom. About the year 1537, Bugenbagius is sent for into Denmark, where the Twelfth of August, he per∣formed all the Ecclesiastical part of the Kings Co∣ronation; and Fourteen days after that Corona∣tion, he ordained Seven Superintendents, to be keepers and executors of all Ecclesiastical Ordina∣tion, and to do the office of Bishops: Now I ask, seeing Bugenhage was but a Presbyter, whether he put the Superintendents into an order higher than his own? if he did, who gave him an autho∣rity so to do? If he did not, then are there no

Bishops properly so called in Denmark. Melchior Adam, who relates this of Bugenhagius, relates also in the life of Luther, that he, calling Three other Presbyters to join with him in laying on of hands, ordained Nicholas Amdsorf Bishop, repu∣diating one chosen by the Colledg of Canons, and very dear to the Emperor; That is, he ordained one by the name of a Bishop, but he was only a Presbyter, and could not think himself to be of an higher Order, being ordained by Luther that was but a meer Presbyter.

Gerhard acquaints us, That the Papists, or at least some of them, did proclaim the Ordinations in their Churches to be void and null, because per∣formed by Luther who was no Bishop; but that ever any Lutheran thought their Ordinations less valid on that account, will never be proved. I have read Hunnius his Demonstration of the Lutheran Ministry; and though he were himself a Super∣intendent, yet he so little magnifies his Office, that he sticks not to affirm, That he who ordains, ordains only as the Officer of the Church; and that any one whatever that should by the Church be set to ordain, would ordain as validly as a Bishop doth. And, if it will do Mr. D. any kindness, I can, and will on his desire, direct him to a Lutheran, who calls us Anglos Papizantes, for straining Episco∣pacy so high, and appropriating Ordination to that Order: Chemnitius had occasion to examine the Anathematizing Decrees of the Conventicle of Trent; one of them was, If any one shall say that a Bishop is not superior to a Presbyter, let him be Anathema. There he was necessitated to shew the

judgment of the Lutheran Churches, and yet he there delivereth nothing, but what the English-Presbyterians can subscribe to; and though the in∣comparable Philip Melancthon was blamed for gi∣ving more to Bishops than was meet; yet he hath not given more to them, than what the English Nonconformists are ready to give them.

Thus of the Lutheran Churches. It will not be so difficult for me to find out the judgment of the Churches more strictly called Reformed, because I shall find the most famous of them except the Gal∣lican, meeting together at the Synod of Dort. Of the Gallican therefore by themselves; and I say, that the Writers of those Churches have done more against our English Hierarchy, than the Wri∣ters of any, or all Reformed Churches besides. For,

1. Some of them have made it their business to overthrow the credit of Ignatius his Epistles, from which, more than from any writing whatever, our Hierarchy doth strengthen it self. Did not Sal∣masius and Blondell strain their diligence, to prove that even the most correct Copy of Ignatius is spu∣rious? And when our learned Hammond had taken some pains to vindicate the Epistles, Maresius quarrels with B••ondell, because he did not present∣ly all other business laid aside) take the Doctor to task, and maintain against him the Apology he had made for St. Hieroms opinion; yet Dally tells us, that Blondell had intended to answer for him∣self, had he not been prevented by death. Because death did prevent him, therefore his friend Mon∣sieur Dally hath done that work for him; and it is

said, that Dr. Pierson hath news sent him, That if he think meet to reply upon Dally, he shall not long want a rejoinder.

2. Those that have defended our English Hierar∣chy, have not been more uncivilly dealt with by any, than by learned French-men. I will not now (because indeed I am ashamed) tell what language Danaeus gave Saravia, because of his Book De di∣versis Ministrorum gradibus. Salmasius imagining himself disparaged by a word never intended as a disparagement, could not forbear calling Dr. Ham∣mond Knave. Maresius (in the first question he handleth against Dr. Prideaux) not so bluntly, but more virulently, tells us, That Dr. Hammond had proceeded to such a degree of fury, as that he did professedly propugne the cause of the Pope; not content to spit in a single Doctors face, he thus censures all our Bishops, Melius suae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consu∣luissent Praesules Anglicani, si & moderatius in ea egissent, & illam cum reliquis Protestantibus malu∣issent agnoscere juris ecclesiastici, quam mordicus as∣serere juris Divini. Nam ut arcus nimia intensione frangitur, sis & illi nimium intendentes suam au∣thoritatem, & dignitatem ea penitus exciderunt, in∣star Cameli in fabula, qui quod cornua affectasset, etiam auribus multatus fuit, page 68. And then page 70, speaking of some mischiefs that had be∣fallen the Bishops, he thus expresseth himself, Ipsimet Praesules Angli, fuissent ea declinaturi, si fortunam suam magis reverenter habuissent, ne{que} ex parte collimassent ad Papismi restitutionem, jure post∣liminii, licet majorem aut saltem meliorem partem corum haec iniquitatis mysteria latuerint. Quare

nobis eminus hanc catastrophem spectantibus; id so∣lum dicendum restat, domine justus es, & justa ju∣dicia tua. And then page 111, speaking of our Bishops arrogating to themselves temporal juris∣diction, he dreads not to let fall these Lines; Haec defensio Jurisdictionis temporalis pro Ecclesiae Mini∣stris portio aliqua est, illius fermenti Papistici, quo Hierarchiae Anglicanae massa, paulatim se infici passa fuit, dum magis ambit typhum saeculi, ut loquar cum patribus Africanis, quam humilitatem crucis meditatur: potuissent forte Episcopi Anglicani suam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & sua rura retinuisse, nisi vo••uissent pe∣nitus suum Episcopatum ad modulum Romanum com∣ponere.

3. But above all, let that be considered which is laid down by Peter Moulin in his Letter to the Bishop of Winchester, Where to excuse himself for not making the difference betwixt Bishops and Pres∣byters to be of Divine appointment, he pleads, that if he had laid the difference on that foundation, the French Churches would have silenced him.

Will the French Churches silence him that should assert the jus Divinum of Episcopacy? and yet will Mr. Durell go about to perswade us, that they do not condemn our English Hierarchy, which asserts it self to be Divine, and cares not for be∣ing at all, if it be not such? The Two Arch∣bishops in Dr. Bastwicks Case, did protest even in open Court, That if they could not prove their Episco∣pal Jurisdiction and Function, which they claimed and exercised over other Ministers, and themselves as they were Bishops, to be superior in power, digni∣ty, and degree to other Ministers, Jure Divino,

they would forthwith cast away their Rochets off their backs, lay down their Bishopricks at his Majesties feet, and not continue one hour longer Bishops. If therefore Mr. D. can bring any eminent French Divines that found Episcopacy, as distinct from, and superior to, Presbytery, on any Divine Law, he will do something to stop the mouths of Non∣conformists; but such he will never be able to bring, unless he first cause the Golden Ball to run before them, or fill them with that which blind∣eth the eyes of the wise. Certain I am, that Dr. Andrew Rivet, in his summa Controver. Se∣cond Tract. 22. Quest. thus states the question: We dispute not whether Bishops be, de facto, above Presbyters; but whether they be so, de jure; nor is the question of Humane, but Divine Law: We deny that Bishops by Divine Law have any pre-eminence above Presbyters. This is the more considerable, because it is dedicated to four great Protestant Divines, Peter Moulin, William Rivet, John Maxi∣milian Langle, Samuel Bochart; and because it is again repeated in Rivets Writings against Grotius. When some Ministers were by the Assembly em∣ployed to get foreign Divines, by some Letters, to signifie their minds in the controversy of our Episcopacy; among others, the said Ministers went to this Dr. Rivet, then at the Hague, desiring him, that he would be pleased to signifie his mind: He excused himself from Writing, because of his re∣lation to—but took down one of his Books, in which he denied the Divine Right of Episcopacy; delaring, That was his judgment, which he would never deny. This I had from the mouth of a

very Reverend person still alive, who was one em∣ployed to discourse him.

But I have a later testimony; when the Scots went to Breda to treat with their King, Dr. Rivet put a Preface to Bodius his Comment on the Ephesians, commending it to the World, and I am sure in that, the English Hierarchy is suffici∣ently beaten down. I have said all that for the present I intend to say about the French Church∣es; of other Reformed Churches I may speak more briefly, because most of them met together in a Synod at Dort, to put an end to the differences about the five points: What was done in that Sy∣nod? Why, saith Mr. Mountague in his Appeal, page 70, In it, and in other Dutch Synods, the Discipline of the Church of England is held unlaw∣ful. At this Mr. Durell had need to bestir him∣self; for either Mr. Mountague, or he will be found to be a Liar: I shall not determine who is to blame; but by reading the Acts of that Synod, I do find, that Session 144, notice was given, That it was the will of the States, that the Confession of Faith of the Belgick Churches, should be read and examined by the Synod, the Exteri being also present. The One and thirtieth Article of that Confession, when it comes to speak particularly of the Ministers of the Word, saith, That in what place soever they be, they have the same power and authority, as being all the Ministers of Christ, the only Ʋniversal Bishop, and only Head of the Church. These words would not down with our British Di∣vines, because directly opposite to government by Archbishops and Bishops in England: Whereupon

the Lord Bishop of Landaff, in his own name, and the name of his Brethren, made open protestation, That whereas in the Confession there was inserted a strange conceit of the Parity of Ministers to be insti∣tuted by Christ, he declared his own and his bre∣threns utter dissent in that point. Now hence, I thus argue, either the words in that Article do condemn our Government in England, or they do not; if they do not, why did our British Divines concern themselves to make protestation, open pro∣testation against them? If they did, then all at once down falls the one half of Mr. Durell's Book: For then the Holland Churches in their very Con∣fession of Faith condemn the Discipline of the Church of England; and if the Holland Churches do so, other Churches do so also: For by the Di∣vines of no other Church besides the English, was a∣ny dislike shewn to those words, asserting the parity of all Ministers. As for the Deputies of the Gallo-Belgick Churches, they declared, That the French Churches, though not there present, had before, in a National Synod held in the City of Vitriack 1583, declared solemnly, their approbation, not only of the Doctrine, but also of the Discipline of their Holland Brethren: No wonder they so readi∣ly consented, for an Egg is not more like to an Egg, than is the Gallican Confession to the Bel∣gick, in the matters of Ministers and Discipline; both of them are a note above the Ela of many, who have the ill hap to be called Presbyterians, and lose their livings here in England: both say, That this is one part of the Polity taught in the word, that there should be in the Church of Christ, Pastors,

Elders, Deacons. To this it is like that Mr. Durell himself hath subscribed; for he somewhere tells us, That he had for some years a place among the French Protestants; and he tells us, page 54, That no man is to be ordained a Minister, or ad∣mitted to any other office in the said hurc••es, but he must subscribe, besides the publick Confession of their Faith, the Canons and Constitutions agreed on at Pa∣ris, commonly known by the name of their Discipline. Now if a man should go to him, and ask him whether he believes it to be any piece of Christs Polity, that there should be in his Church Elders, Ruling-Elders, distinct from Preaching Elders or Pastors, he would either say no or say nothing. Why did he with his hand subscribe to that which he did not with his heart believe? Perhaps he is a Latitudinarian, or hath a Sluce in his Conscience. But the simple Nonconformists in England dare not say they assent to all, and every thing, if there be something unto which they do not unfeignedly as∣sent; they say, they can promise not publickly to contradict any thing delivered in the Liturgy or Book of Ordination; and some who are beneficed and dignified, tell them, they mean no more, by professing assent and consent. But Nonconformists cannot bring themselves to imagine, that form of words imports no more. What a misery it is, that so many Families should be ruined for want of a distinguishing faculty! Episcopius hath pre∣scribed a Receipt, which if they can but take, may cure them of their scrupulosity; (but let them fear lest it purge them of their Conscience also:) For thus he, What if the Magistrate re∣quire

words and forms of speaking, by which an opinion directly contrary to our faith and opinion is wont to be expressed? Answ. As long as my opinion is not known, if those forms be such, or con∣ceived in such words which admit a true sense, though a false be wont to be expressed by them, I allow them for peace sake. Respon. ad 64. Quest. Page 54.

My Lord of Landaff's Protestation hath set my Pen a running further and faster than I designed; yet I will not give it check, until I have also taken notice of something else, which his Lordship re∣lates in his Book against Mountague, viz. That he told some Divines of the Synod, the cause of all their troubles was, because they had no Bishops amongst them, who by their authority might repress turbulent spirits, that broached novelty, every man having liberty to speak or write what they ist. It seems his Lordship was of opinion, thas if Holland had but been blessed with Bishops, Arminianism had never come to such an Head in the Low-Countries; and so the Papists tell us, That if we would but sub∣mit our selves to the Bishop of Rome, we should then have no differences about the sense of Scrip∣ture; yet never any Pope of Rome hath set out any infallible Commentary upon the Bible; nor hath any Episcopal authority in England proved sufficient to root up Arminianism among us. Mr. Mountague when he first sowed the seeds thereof, was of Bishop Carleton's own Diocess, why did he not prevent his innovations taking root? Why could he not keep his own Book against them, from being suppressed? What was the matter that no Convocation ever decided so important a contro∣versy?

I find indeed His Majesty (Mountague having been much vexed by the Commons) about the year 1626, commanding all the Bishops to come before him, reprehending such as appeared, for not making known to him what was meet to be done about the Five points that made such a noise: but Bishop Andrews and Bishop Laud laying their heads together, thought it was not safe to adven∣ture the determining of those points to a Convoca∣tion, till they could get a Convocation more of their own minds; wherefore after all expectati∣ons, nothing came forth, but a Proclamation from His Majesty, Charging his Divines not to vent their heats, by raising any doubts, or publishing and main∣taining any new inventions or opinions concerning Re∣ligion: Much like to an Order, the Remonstrants by means of Barnevelt procured from the States of Holland, on purpose to prevent the calling of a Synod. Of late indeed, I find Arnold Poelen∣berg, in a Preface to the 2d Volume of Episcopius his Works, boasting of the great favour that the Remonstrant opinions and Authors, find with our Prelates, and with the leading men in both Universities; but perhaps he reckons, as the Pro∣verb is, without his host. All experience tells us, that Episcopacy without the Assistance of the Civil Magistrate, will not put an end to our strifes and contentions; and with the assistance of the Civil Ma∣gistrate Presbytery may do it. But I return to Mr. D. whom I opposed with an Argument drawn from the Synod of Dort; I must not forget that he also takes notice of the Synod of Dort, and from the civil and respectful language given in it by Bogerman to

the Bishop of Landaff, concludes, That Holland condemns not our Hierarchy. And look how many Transmarine Divines he finds dedicating Books to our Bishops or Archbishops, and giving them the titles by which they are commonly called among us; so many good mediums he conceives he hath found to prove that beyond the seas the office of a Bishop or Archbishop is liked and honoured. I only desire him, if he can, to be as good natured to our English-men, and to believe Thomas Cartwright was a Convert, because writing to the Archbishop he gives him his Titles; and that Mr. Prynne had no design to unbishop Timothy and Titus, because he de∣dicates his book to the right reverend Fathers in God, William of Canterbury, and Richard of York, Pri∣mates of all England, and Metropolitans. And if his heart do not fail him, let him also infer, That Francis Mason had no dislike of Popish Hierarchy, because in a Dedicatory to Henry Bishop of Paris, he calls him Amplissimum Praesulem, and Antisti∣tem Clarissimum, and Virum Reverendissimum. Dr. Heylin was not Master of so much charitable Logick; for speaking (Hist. of Pres. p. 282.) of Bishop Grindals holding correspondence with Calvin and Beza, Zanchy, Bullinger, Gualter, and some other of the chief Divines among the Switzers, he con∣cludes at length, That they all had their ends upon him, for the advancing of Presbytery and Inconfor∣mity in the Church of England. And really I have observed, that most of the Divines that have by their Letters stroaked our Bishops, have in some places of their Writings given a shrewd knock to the Cause defended by them. Mr. Durell, p. 281. tells us,

That Danaeus his calling the Archbishop Reveren∣dissimum in Christo Patrem, &c. is as much as can be wished to testifie his good liking of the Church of Eng∣land as it is by Law established: And yet John Canne a very troublesome Separatist, makes use of a pas∣sage in Danaeus to justifie his separation from the Church of England. Mr. Ball clearly proves that the passage doth not warrant separation; but yet Dan••us might have written more moderately: for these are his words on 1 Tim. 5. Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit, vel non legitima eorum verbi D••i ministrorum vel Ecclesiae pastorum vocatio, qui solius Regis, vel Reginae, vel Patroni vel Episeopi vel Archiepiscopi authoritate diplomate, bullis, jussu & judicio fiunt vel eligun tur. Id quod dolendum est, fieri adhuc in iis Ecclesiis, quae tamon purum Dei verbum habent, & sequuntur, veluti in media Anglia. Nan Anglos homines alioqui sapientissimos, acutissimos, & pientissimos, in istis tamen Papisticae Idololatriae, & ty∣rannidis reliquiis agnoscendis, & tollendis, scientes prudentesque caecutire mirum est. Itaque praeclare sen∣tiunt, qui omnem illam chartulariam, & Episcopati∣cam Curionum & pastorum Ecclesiae ereandorum ratio∣nem, item ex solo Episcopi consensu & diplomate mi∣nistrorum verbi coelestis vocationem, approbationem, & inaugurationem damnant, tollendam{que} ex reformata ad Dei verbum Ecclesia censent: quod ordo Dei ver∣bo praescriptus in ordinatione hujusmodi personarum sit praetermissus, ac violatus, sicut perspicue apparet. De∣nique & senatui Ecclesiastico, & populo Christiano insomne suum at{que} suffragium misere sit hac ratione, & in hee genere vocationum Ecclesiasticarum ademp∣tum, & in unum quendum Episcopum magna tyrannide

at{que} abusu translatum. Dominus Deus talibus corrup∣tionibus, quae adhuc in Ecclesiis ipsius supersunt, & de∣fenduntur, mederi magna sua misericordia digne∣tur, & velit, quae tandem certe magnam Ecclesiae Dei ruinam secum trahent, & ipsum sacrosanctum verbi Ministerium reddent efficientq. vel mercenarium, vel omnino contemptibile & abjectum. Quod Dominus avertat.

Certainly this is not as much as can be wished to testifie Danaeus his good liking of the Church of England as it is by Law established. Friderick Span∣hem is another whose complaisant Dedicatory to the great Ʋsher seems to Mr. D. a sufficient argument to prove that the Reformed Church of Geneva is no enemy to the Bishops of the Church of England; and yet Spanhem in that very third part of his E∣vangelical Doubts, which he dedicates to the Arch∣bishop, determines it lawful for the innocent person after divorce to marry another wife; quite contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws still unrepealed in the Church of England. Well, that is but a Peccadillo, be∣cause many of our own Conformable Divines are of the same mind, and as I suppose, some of our Bishops also. Dr. Abbot answering Bishops Second part, p. 315. saith,

That the limitation of divorce which our Saviour giveth, maketh it lawful for the party innocent to marry again, the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church, until satisfaction be given of true repentance for so hainous a sin. The Church of England notwithstanding, for the pre∣venting of some mischiess that by the wickedness of men do arise by the abuse of the liberty of mar∣riage upon divorce, useth a restraint of that liber∣ty,

that the parties divorced shall put in caution not to marry again as long as they both live.

As for the Authors of the reformation of our Ecclesiastical laws de Adult. & divort. c. 6. they determine plainly, Cum alter conjux adulterii damnatus est, alteri licebit inno∣centi novum ad matrimonium (si volet) progredi: and c. 7. Judex quoties alterum conjugem adulterii condemnat, alteri sincerae personae libertatem denunciare debet ad novum matrimonium transeundi. And cap. 19. Mensae societas & thori solebat in certis criminibus adimi con∣jugibus, salvo tamen inter illos reliquo matrimonii jure; quae constitutio cum à sacris literis aliena sit, & maximam perversitatem habeat, & malorum sen∣tinam in matrimonium comportaverit, illud authoritate nostra totum aboleri placet. But this, it seems, is not current doctrine now, and so let it pass. The afore∣said Friderick Spanhem makes Ruling-Elders to be one of those orders of Officers that are designed by Christ for the ruling of his Church, and affirms them to be grounded on Scripture, 1 Cor. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. So I find him quoted by Hornbeck Institut. Theol. p. 523, 524. And it will be difficult for Mr. Durell to prove that he can approve the divine right of Episcopacy, who makes Lay-Elders (com∣monly so called) a divine institution.

Leaving Episcopacy, let us come to Liturgy, that we may see whether Mr. Durell be any more hap∣py in managing that Controversie. I do easily grant, that he hath by a whole cloud of witnesses proved,

1. That set-forms of prayer are lawful.

2. That most Churches reformed do use set-forms of prayer.

3. That the old English Common prayer-book

was not so corrupt, as that a man could not without defiling his conscience, joyn with those who made use of it in the service of God. But all these things had been proved many years before, by an old Non∣conformist (who died about the beginning of the late Wars) Mr. John Ball, both in his tryal of the grounds tending to separation, and in his answer to Mr. Cann and others.

If Mr. Durell will do any thing to purpose in this Controversie relating to Liturgies, he must prove,

1. That it is lawful for any Church so strictly to tye up her Ministers to a form, as not to allow them to make any use of their own gifts in prayer in pub∣lick.

Or else, 2dly, That our Church hath not so tied up her Ministers, but that they may still, any Ru∣brick or Canon to the contrary notwithstanding, use their own prayer at some times, and upon some occasions in the publick.

If he will endeavour to prove the first, the Pres∣byterians will be concerned to answer him. If the second, there are many of his Conforming bre∣thren will soon be upon his bones; but for ought I see or can find, Mr. D. never goes about either to prove the one or the other proposition; and there∣fore I might be excused if I did wholly dismiss him, and leave him to some of his friends to reconcile him to his own shadow; yet because he swaggers, and accounts that he hath by one thrust left the Assem∣bly of Divines, and the two Houses of Parliament weltring in their blood, I will try quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu.

The things laid to the charge of the two Houses, and the Assembly chosen by them, are manifest un∣truths, and those uttered in an Ordinance, and in a preface to a Directory for the publick Worship of God throughout the three kingdoms, vid. p. 3. If any manifest untruths are delivered by them, let them (for me) lye down in their own sorrow and shame, till they have made reparation to the parties injured. But first, we must see whether this heavy charge can be made good against them, else the pe∣nance must be laid on him that brought in the charge. The first untruth is, That the book of Com∣mon prayer had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad. Is this an untruth, and a manifest untruth too? Why, are not the Walachian Chur∣ches in Zealand, Resormed Churches? and was not the Liturgy used in the Church of England, an of∣fence to them? Let Mr. D. read what Apollonius in the name of the whole Classis hath written a∣gainst it, and then tell us his mind; let him also read the several Letters written by Calvin and Beza touching our Liturgy, and it will be very evident, that some things in our English Liturgy were of∣fensive at Geneva; and a man would think some∣thing in it was offensive to the Protestant Churches in France, or else certainly they would have used their interest with the French Churches here in England to receive it from Bishop Laud, who la∣boured with all his might for many years to impose it on them, but could not prevail at last. Lastly, for ought I know the Scotish Churches may properly enough be called Churches abroad, and Mr D. will not sure deny but that our Liturgy was offensive to them.

The second manifest untruth is, that the two hou∣ses did take away the book of Common-prayer to answer the expectation of other Reformed Churches. If there were other Reformed Churches besides those, for which the Directory was appointed, that expected the two Houses should take away the Common-prayer-book used in England, then was there no ma∣nifest untruth in the before-mentioned expression: Let us see whether there were not. The abolishing of the Common-prayer-book was forth Kingdom of England, and Dominion of Wales. Can Mr. D. imagine that no other Churches reformed, expect∣ed the taking away of the English Liturgy? What thinks he of the Reformed Churches of Scotland? The Churches of New England? those English and Scotish Churches that were planted up and down the Low-Countreys, and other places of Traffick? Will he nullifie all these Churches? or had they not de∣sires as well as expectations that the Liturgy should be removed? Did he never read with how great regret that Liturgy was obtruded upon those English that trafficked in foreign Nations? If he have not, let him vouchsafe to read over the Hi∣story of Archbishop Laud, written by Dr. Heylin, and then tell us whether he was not too rash to give so many Nobles, Gentlemen, and Divines the lye. If that History bring him under no sense of his te∣merity, then I entreat him to enquire of the Assem∣bly-men still alive, whether they cannot help him to a sight of the Answers of Foreign Churches, re∣turned to the Latin Letter of the Assembly of Di∣vines; and by most of them he will find, that the designed Reformation was not disgusted by them.

Till he have such an opportunity, it will be wort his while to bestow a little time in reading Apo lonius his printed Epistle.

Mr. D. again falls upon the two Houses, p. 14. thither I will follow him; where conceiving wrath and fiery indignation against an expression in the Ordinance of the two Houses, he makes a Manifesto, That there was never, nor is yet any one Reformed Church, that hath only a Directory, and not a book of Common-prayer for the publick worship of God. To which Manifesto I say, That the Church of Scotland had, when the two Houses made that Or∣dinance, no Book of Common-prayer for the pub∣lick worship of God, but what was in the nature of a Directory; and that the Church of Scotland was principally in their eye in the management of their Reformation; and I also say, that the Dutch Li∣turgy is but in the nature of a Directory, for so I understand those words, cap. 11. art. 11. in the Harmony of the Belgick Synods, Minister preces vel dictante spiritu, vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet. It may be Mr. D. will put another con∣struction on them, for he seems to have used other Dictionaries than those we have opportunity to consult in England. In one of the French Rubricks it is said, that upon Sundays in the morning the fol∣lowing form is commonly used; he tells us, p 17. the meaning is, That that form is to be used always, and no other. Could any Presbyterian have thought of such a meaning? or how can any one of them be convinced that commonly and always are all one? why, he may be convinced by constant and uniform practice, so he tells us, ibid. But I say, constant

and uniform practice will never make commonly, to be always. I have been a member of the Church of England for these Thirty years, and my occasions have called me to be in most Coun∣ties of the Nation, and in all these years I never heard any Minister, whether Prelatical or Presby∣terian read King James his Statute against Swear∣ing, and yet the words of the Law are plain, That it shall be read twice every year, were I not a wise man if I should say, the meaning of the Law is, that the Statute shall never be read, as constant and uniform practice doth shew? Thus have I examined what Mr. D. had to say against the Two Houses, and the Assembly, and must now try not the words, but the power of Ludovicus Capellus a man of great Learning; but which in his later days especially, he made use of, to the disturbance of the Church: better had it been for the Chri∣stian world, that Saumur had never had a profes∣sor of Hebrew, than a Professor that took so much pains to make the Hebrew Points, or Vowels, and Accents, a late invention of the Tiberian Massa∣rites, long after sundry Translations were extant in the World. All his Theses will not do so much good, as his Arcanum punctationis revelatum, and Critica Sacra have done hurt. Let us notwith∣standing hear what he hath concerning Liturgies, Mr. D. himself being Translator.

A Hundred and fourty years ago, when the separation was made from the Church of Rome, and that the Christian people, coming out of Babylon, did cast off the Popes tyranny, the sa∣cred Liturgy was purged of all that Popish su∣perstition

and idolatry, and all such things as were over-burdensom, or which did little or no∣thing contribute towards the edification of the Church; and so were framed and prescribed in several places, divers set forms of holy Liturgies by the several Authors of the Reformation that then was, and those simple and pure in Germany, France, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, &c. differing as little as possible from the ancient set forms of the Primitive Church: which set forms the Reformed have used hitherto with happiness and profit, each of them in their several Nations and Districts: Till at last of very late, there did arise in England, a froward, scrupulous and over∣nice (that I say not altogether superstitious) generation of men, unto whom it hath seemed good for many Reasons, but those very light, and almost of no moment at all, not only to blame, but to cashier, and to abolish wholly the Liturgy used hitherto in their Church, (together with the whole Hierarchical Government of their Bishops) instead of which Liturgy they have brought in their Directory as they call it.

Mr. D. tells us, pag. 15. That from hence the Reader may observe five things:

1. That all reformed Churches have Liturgies; but I say, That from no words of Capellus, any such observation can be collected; if Mr. D. think otherwise, his Logick is his own, let him make use of it.

2. That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man, not only simple, and pure, and free from all Popish Superstition and Idolatry;

but also from all such things as were over onerous and troublesom, or which did contribute but little to the edification of the Church. No such observation can be made from Capellus his words, for he only speaks of the Liturgies that were introduced by the first Authors of our Reformation, betwixt which and the present Liturgy there may be, for ought Mr. Capell saith to the Contrary, a vast difference: But I believe this great man com∣mended he knew not what, and talked at an high rate of confidence concerning Liturgies of the first Reformers which he never saw. A Papist will not desire greater advantage against the Praeses in Saumur, than to have it granted, that in the Li∣turgies made by the Authors of Reformation in all the places Capell mentioneth, nothing was con∣tained onerous, or of little edification. The Di∣vines of King Henry the 8th were Authors of a Reformation, their Liturgy had something in it superstitious, idolatrous, less profitable. So had also the first Liturgy made by our Divines in King Edwards time, else we must count it profitable to pray for the dead, and to commend our Prayers to be presented by the holy Angels, &c. And if we speak even of the present Lutherans Liturgies, every thing that hath little or nothing of profit in it, is not taken away; for what is the profit of Latin Cantions? or where is the advantage of Exorcisme? What good is to be got by the Do∣ctrine of Consubstantiation? I might urge other questions which no friend of Capellus would much care for answering.

3. If Liturgies ought to recede as little as possi∣ble from that of the Primitive Church, as he doth intimate, undoubtedly the Liturgy of the Church of England is the best, and most perfect of them all as coming nearest unto it. How the Reader should be able to observe this from any words of Capel∣lus cannot I divine; it may be Mr. D. heartily thinks that our Liturgy cometh nearest to the Primitive Liturgies, and so is the most perfect, because primum in unoquo{que} genere est mensura reliquorum: But Capellus neither did think so, nor could think so, without egregious contradiction to his own Principle; for he had said just before, That from the beginning the Formula's were most brief, and most simple, which without pomp and train, and manifold variety, consisted of a few Prayers, and Lessons out of the Psalms and other Scripture: Now certainly if our Liturgy be most simple, yet it is not most brief, nor doth it consist of but a few Prayers; let Mr. D. read all that by the Li∣turgy is appointed to be read without defalcation, and I will undertake he shall be under no tempta∣tion to make his Sermons tedious.

4. That of all men who call themselves Reformed, the Presbyterians are the first that ever left the use of set forms of Prayers. Capellus useth not the word Presbyterians, and if he had used it, it would have been a very blind. Mr. D. seems by Presby∣terians to mean the major part of those Divines, who by vertue of an Ordinance of Parliament did meet to give advice, concerning Doctrine, Disci∣pline, Worship: If Capellus say, that these were the first that left off the use of set forms of Prayer,

he was much mistaken; set forms of Prayer had been long before laid aside and condemned as un∣lawful, by such as were as little in love with Pres∣bytery as Hierarchy; he may know whom I mean, if he will enquire who they were that left old England. Dr. Heylin hath written the History of Presbyterians, under which name, he seems to bring all those Protestants who are not Lutherans, nor satisfied with the Reformation of the Church of England: This History his Son hath dedicated to the Two Houses of Parliament now sitting. In the 2d Page of that Book it is said,

The Zuinglian Reformation was begun in defacing Images, de∣crying the established Fasts and appointed Festi∣vals, abolishing set forms of worship, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence, and consequently all external reverence in the participation of the blessed Sacrament; which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present.

And page 89. speaking of the Palatine Churches, he would have us take them for Antilutherans in defacing Images, abolishing all distinction of Fasts and Festivals, and utterly denying all set forms of publick Worship. I know a great deal of this is false, maliciously false, as is almost every thing in that Book which relates to the foreign Churches; and therefore I hope the Bishops, or others that have Authority, will either call in the Book, or some other way discover how much they abhor the design of it; in the mean time, here is work for Mr. Durell's Pen, if he will not be partial, and re∣spect persons; if he have any zeal left for Zuing∣lius,

Calvin, Beza, let him wipe off the aspersion of Rebellion, Schism, Aerianism from their fa∣ces, or else let him know, that seeing Dr. Heylins Book came out last, his will be thought sufficiently confuted.

5. Mr. D. tells us, we may observe that the ma∣ny reasons for which the Presbyterians have rejected the Book of Common Prayer, are very light, and al∣most of no moment at all. Capell saith not so, but that the Reasons for which it seemed to some scru∣pulous men, that the Liturgy used by their Church was not only to be disapproved, but also to be plainly abrogated, and wholly to be abolish∣ed and obliterated, were light and almost of no moment; so that if any man do only, improbare, having no design plainly to abrogate and wholly to obliterate the Liturgy composed by our first Reformers, he may have Reasons good enough, for ought Capell affirms to the contrary.

6. That as for the Presbyterians (who are the known Authors of the Directory) they are in Ca∣pell's judgment a froward, peevish and superstiti∣ous generation of men. Capell was indeed a man who was free enough in his censures, of any one whether Presbyterian or Episcopal that stood in his way, not searing to throw dirt in the face of the great Hooker himself, as appears in his Theses about Feasts or Holy days: But I would fain understand how the Presbyterians are the known Authors of the Directory; most of those who were called to give advice about the Directory, were when called to give their advice. Readers of the Liturgy, and had subscribed to the Three Articles in the

36th Canon: When His Majesty was restored few of them were alive, of those few, some at this day are Conformists; let Mr. D. ask them whether they were Presbyterians when they consented to the laying aside of the Liturgy? and how they came to widen their Throats so, as to be able to swallow the present Declarations, much bigger than any heretofore enjoyned.

And now I will try whether I can make some truer observations upon Capellus his Theses about Liturgies; in doing which I shall follow the edi∣tion of Saumur, 1651.

1. He saith it is certain that the Apostles and Apostolical men had no prescript form of Litur∣gy, and that they never did write, and leave or prescribe to their successors any such; for the Apostles needed no such form, nor did those need any whom they made prefects of the Church, and that prescript Liturgies were not necessary, till persecution ceasing, the number of professors much increased, and Piety began to grow cold, and Teachers waxed lazy, so as there could not every where be had Pastors sufficiently learned, and Heresies began to multiply; and that the first prescript forms that were made, were made for the sake of unlearned and simple Pastors, page 706.

2. That Liturgies first began to be made in the more famous Metropolitan and Patriarchal Churches, and that in the Countries called by the name of Gallia, there were several Liturgies in almost every several famous Bishoprick, and that every several did contain something proper and singular, and different from the rest, until

at last by the tyranny of the Pope, the Roman Liturgy obtained through all the West.

So that it seems, with him, Liturgies are no older than Metropolitan and Patriarchal Churches; how old such Churches were in his judgment, and upon what occasion first erected, is at large declared in his Theses, 337, 338, 339, &c. little as I suppose to the gust of Mr. D.

3. He doth, Page 707, plainly mistake the meaning of the Directory, and the Composers of it, when he suggests that by it, 'tis left free to Ministers to pray and administer the Sacraments in what words they please; for the Directory tieth Ministers to a certain form in the administration of Baptism and the Lords-Supper, as also in the solemnization of Marriage. Throughout the whole Directory there are, though not Prayers prescribed to be used totidem verbis, without any variation, yet such Heads of Prayer, as that he who needs greater help and furniture to enable him for Confession, Petition, Thanksgiving, may well be thought unfit for the Office of a Pastor. And I observe, That the Directory orders Mini∣sters in Prayer before Sermon, to commend to Gods blessing the Parliament if sitting, and the Ʋniversi∣ties, and all Schools, and Religious Seminaries of Church and Common-wealth, but in no Liturgy be∣sides this last, was there any Prayer for the High Court of Parliament; nor in this last is there any Prayer for the Universities or Schools of Learning; yet in the Constitutions of 1603, In all Colledges and Halls in both Ʋniversities, order, form, cere∣monies are to be observed, as they are set down,

and prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, with∣out any omission or alteration. Is not this in effect to tie the Universities never publickly to pray for them∣selves? If any one should prescribe a Family a form of Prayer, in which was no mention of a Family, it would be thought a strange form.

The said Capell, page 708. tells us, That sacred Sermons to the people, and exhortations, should be made and composed by the Pastors themselves, and recited to the people either by heart, or out of a Pa∣per, if they can do no other. Postills and Homilies as much as may be are to be driven out of the Church; yet it is better, saith he, that men should hear one reading anothers Sermons, than hear none at all. In this the Nonconformists throughly agree with him, but some of them will not stick to say, that if some in authority had been as zealous for Ser∣mons as they might have been, we needed not be∣fore this time, have wanted for any Cure, a Mi∣nister able to make a Sermon of his own: And whereas Capel saith, That Homilies should not be read, lest they prove, pulvinar ignaviae & so∣cordiae, & fomes ignorantiae, they are wont to urge the same Argument against set forms of Prayer; he might have done well to shew that the Reason is not alike forcible in both.

He saith, ibid. Those he had to deal with, deny not but that Lessons, Psalms and Hymns may be read out of a Book to the people, recited and sung; only Hymns and Songs composed by others than men divinely inspired, he saith, they allow not to have any use in the publick Congregation. Therefore, say I, he did not intend to deal with the Presby∣terians,

who will never be found any where to have said, that no Hymns may lawfully be sung, but such as are composed by men divinely inspired; I my self have heard some of them sing others, without blame from any of their brethren, nor is there any one tittle in the Directory to the con∣trary. Let me here enquire whether the English Church hath taken any care to have any Psalms sung in the Congregation; translation of the Psalms into meter we have none generally known, but only that composed by Hopkins, Sternhold, &c. 'Tis said that Translation is allowed (allowed, not enjoyned) to be used in the Congregation; but Dr. Heylin again and again, denieth that ever there was any allowance of it given by any lawful authority; so that the whole service of God with us may be performed, it seems, without any sing∣ing at all; for though the Common Prayer Book hath sundry parts in it which may be sung, yet it hath nothing that is appointed to be sung, but in∣differently, either sung or read. I believe in this we are a singular Church, there being no other that I ever heard, or read of, that hath not en∣joyned her Congregations to sing some Psalms. Mr. D certainly can either prove that our Church hath allowed, and enjoyned us to sing Psalms, or else he can shew us some Reformed Church, that doth not enjoyn Psalmody. But such is my weakness that I cannot.

6. Capellus asketh us, p. 709. Whether it were not better wisely to prescribe certain forms of Prayer, fit for the publick edification of the Church, than to permit them to the liberty of many Pastors, unlearn∣ed

and unexercised, where others cannot be had? The Presbyterians will answer yes; but they think, in a wealthy Nation, where the King is a Prote∣stant, there is no necessity to take any into the Church for Ministers, if they be unlearned, and unexercised.

7. Page 100. He asketh whether in all the Prayers that are to be made in the Church, Pastors can per∣petually vary them, or express themselves in divers Words and Phrases concerning the same Argument; yea, he asketh what Prophet or Apostle can do this with edification? Sure he forgets himself, for he before told us, Apostles could and did do it, and I am sure we have had ordinary Pastors here in England that have done it, and we have still hun∣dreds and thousands that can, and would do it, might they be permitted: Nor can I understand how it can be difficult to any one who hath well studied the Scriptures, and observeth the Provi∣dences of God, and is affected duly with his own and peoples wants and necessities. I in my Family find it not difficult to vary as I please.

8. Page 710, 711. He contends that the Creeds are to be recited in a certain form of words; but adds, those whom he dealt with did bewray a mani∣fest hatred against certain forms of Symbols, Con∣fessions and Catechism. Whence again I infer, that he dealt not with the Directorians, for they liked the use of Confessions and Catechisms in set forms.

9. Page 713. He thinks the Apotomy and rigor of those men worthily to be condemned, who under pretext of certain and prescribed forms of Liturgy,

do study to eliminate out of the Church all use of Prayers conceived by Ministers themselves. This will touch Mr. D s Copyhold, unless he can prove against Dr. Heylin and others, that some Prayers, besides those prescribed in the Liturgy, are allow∣ed to Ministers in publick ministration.

10. Page 716. He determines, that it is better by much, and more convenient and safe, that those writings only should be publickly read which are truly Canonical, and divinely inspired. What will the peremptory enjoyners of the Apocryphal Chapters say to this?

11. Page 719. Drawing up the sum of all his conceptions, he saith, 1. That forms are not sim∣ply and absolutely necessary. 2. That they are not commonly necessary, but only for order and deco∣rum sake. 3. That they are plainly necessary, where we cannot have learned Ministers. 4. Where there are learned and skilful Pastors, a publick form of Liturgie is very useful and necessary to the common edification of the Church, in the same com∣munion of Divine worship. 5. The use of Liturgies cannot of right be condemned or disallowed. To all these Propositions there are Hundreds of Non-con∣formists can subscribe, and are ready to subscribe, the two last only being qualified with such distin∣ctions, as I believe, were not either against, or besides the mind of this Professor. The Argu∣ments of the Brownists and others which he scat∣tereth up and down, were fully propounded, and clearly answered by Mr. John Ball, before his The∣ses saw the light. Let Mr. Baxters propositions concerning Liturgies be read and weighed, and

it will be found, that they come very near to these of Capellus.

I must now come to Ceremonies: The first I mention, is the use of a Surplice; concerning which, the Nonconformists say, That if they re∣ceive it, they must receive it not only as serving to a decent order and godly discipline; but as apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some notable and special signi∣fication, whereby he might be edified; but they have never found any such aptness in it to stir up their dull minds to the remembrance of their duty, and that they dare not pretend to use a thing in or∣der to such an end, as they never expect to attain by it. I my self have talked with some conforma∣ble Ministers, and asked them, whether they ever found their dull minds stirred up by the use of it? they have been loth to give me any answer, but what moved on the Latitudinarian hinge: One in∣deed told me, he did verily believe there was a wonderful vertue in it to excite his dull mind; but asking him further, whether it was apt to ex∣cite him as a man, or as an English man, or as a Minister? He gave me a reply, which for Friend∣ship sake, I will not here insert; but such it was, that I easily saw the Surplice had not cured him of all his dulness. Nor can I chuse but wonder why they who pretend to be stirred up to a re∣membrance of their duty by a Surplice, do use it so seldom: there are but few that use it constantly, some use it not above once a quarter, few use it in the Pulpit, yet I suppose their minds are apt

to be as dull in the Pulpit as in the Desk; and the Church as much requires them to use the Sur∣plice at all times of their Ministration, as at any time. Perhaps we must say of Surplices, as of pleasure, commendat rarior usus.

Well, but how doth Mr. D. discourse of Sur∣plices? Truly very innocently: He tells us, Page 23, 24. That in Aquitan when a Minister is buried, the neighbour Ministers that be present must all have their Gowns, if Gowns can conveniently be had (that was wisely put in). Now this changing of ap∣parel for divine service (it seems burving of a Minister in France is Divine Service) is the very same thing for which the Church of England is by some men reputed Popish and superstitious, when she will have her Ministers to wear Surplices on the same occasion. It should seem with him the Surplice is no Symbolical Vestment, and that he reckons all those who put on their solemn apparel and best Clothes do the same thing that he doth, when he puts on significant Garments: But he is so kind, that lest this should not satisfie, he will find out some of the best Reformed Churches, that count it no superstition for their Ministers to wear a Surplice, and he instanceth in the Bohemians, Po∣lonians, Lithuanians, who did put on the surplice as oft as they preached in the Churches of the Au∣gustan confession: But it seems they lost nothing by this condescension, for the Lutherans officiated in their Churches without a Surplice. To requite him for this discovery, I will tell him of some Luther∣an Ministers (viz. the Lutherans in Holland) that do not use a Surplice, no not in their own

Churches; so little do they find it to contribute to edification, that they forbear it, where they would not be blamed if they should use it: So the Presbyterians are out of his debt.

A second Ceremony controverted is kneeling at the Sacrament; about which, I may say, [Iliacos extra muros peccatur & intra] I cannot by all that I have read, see any unlawfulness in it, and I hope the Presbyterians, if they should be asked by any, whether they had better forbear the Sa∣crament than receive it kneeling, would well be∣think themselves what answer to give. I find not that ever any of our authorized Liturgies did allow any other gesture; yet I have read in a Book, called Treasure out of rubbish,

That some Commissioners of Q. Elizabeth did about the beginning of Her Reign, at Coventry, and other places appoint, not kneeling, but standing to be used at the Lords Table:

The Book was Printed by the Reverend Mr. Simeon Ash since His Maje∣sties return to his Throne; and I hear that many conforming Ministers are so compassionate, as to deliver the consecrated Elements to those who do not kneel; how they can so do, non violata fide quam dederunt ecclesiae, I understand not, they themselves I hope have satisfied their own Consci∣ences, and can give a reason of their practice to their Governors though I cannot. The Church in the 2d Book of King Edward inserted a Rubrick against Transubstantiation, unhappily left out in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the 1st, but through the goodness of our present Soveraign, now again put into the last

Edition of our Liturgy; may it never more be left out, but continue to the shame of those who feared not to say, we left it out, because it seemed too much to favour the Sacramentarians. The Church also appoints the Minister to use a kind of a Prayer, in delivering the Eucharist, whilst he useth that Prayer, the Communicant is to kneel meekly; but when he hath taken the Bread into his own hands, he may then sit and eat it, or stand and eat it; I wish this could satisfie private Christians, but there are Hundreds that cannot so quiet their own minds; and yet if you discourse with them, they can make Syllogisms, and they live peaceable and godly lives: Now here the Shoe pincheth the Non∣conformist Minister, whether he can promise ne∣ver to give the Sacrament to any one who scru∣pleth kneeling?

Had Mr. D. clearly and solidly determined this question, or had he strongly proved that the Church could not without dishonour allow more than one gesture in receiving the Sacrament, I could easily have forgiven him all the raillery of his book; but he thought he could get preferment at an easier rate, & therefore contents himself, in a few lines (p. 46, 47.) to instance in a very ••••w Reformed Churches that receive the Sacrament kneeling: First, he instanceth in the Reformed Churches of Bohemia, Reformed above two hundred years ago; the remnant of it now left, saith he, receive it kneeling. This instance little ava••leth our Church, because from the beginning it was not so; the Ancestors of the Bohemians did at first, viz. 1494, use standing; but being persecuted on that account, were compelled to leave it off, as Co∣menius

tells us; so that Mr. D. by this only proves the conformity of our Church with the Popish Church, in persecuting those who will not kneel at the Sacrament. Nor is he more lucky in his other instances of Polonia major, and Lithuania, for which he refers us to the Consensus Poloniae. What a Character Dr. Heylin gives of the Reformation of Poland, let him that loveth railing see, Hist. of Presb. 31, 32, 33. Indeed the Consent of Poland doth not much hit our humour here in England; for in the Cracovian Synod, 1573, all Choreae are con∣demned as dishonest. A question being moved, VVhe∣ther the rites in the use of the Lords Supper ought to be uniform? It was concluded, That according to the custom of the Primitive Church, men should be left to their Christian liberty, yet with admonition to the brethren, that if any used sitting, they should leave that proper to the Arrian Anabaptists. In the Petri∣covian Synod, Anno 1578, it is determined, That uniformity in the rite of receiving the Lords Sup∣per, should not be pressed, lest it should happen that there might be occasion to exercise Ecclesiastical Dis∣cipline upon any of the common people, who are not ea∣sily brought to unusual ceremonies; whereas the Sy∣nod judged it neither agreeable to the will of the Lord, nor the custom of the Christian Church more pure, to strike Christian men with the rod of Discipline for external rites, yet so as the gesture of sitting at the Lords Table is rejected for a reason I shall more speak of by and by. 'Tis the Synodus Wlodislavien∣sis congregated 1583, that Mr. D. pitcheth upon, in which Synod the matter of sitting at the Lords Table is again debated; and there it is determined,

that sitting is as free as any other gesture; which be∣ing brought in by way of Parenthesis, Mr. D. ne∣ver Englisheth or taketh notice of; for he had cal∣led it an unmannerly and irreverent gesture; and it was no wisdom to touch a knife that would be sure to cut his fingers; but there also it was determined, That sitting should not be used at the Lords table in any of the Churches of Poland or Lithuania, for this ceremony is not used in Christian Churches, and E∣vangelical Assemblies, and is only proper to the unbe∣lieving Arrians placing themselves in a seat or throne equal to Christ. Seeing therefore sitting crept into some of their Churches, especially by occasion of those who denied the Lord that redeemed us; they de∣sire and exhort all their assemblies and brethren in the Lord, that they would change sitting into standing or kneeling. Mr. D. translates potissimum first; and I be∣lieve he was the first that so translated that word. Not content to make so bold with Priscian, he ri∣seth to greater impudence, saying that what they observed about the first bringers in of sitting into Poland, may be our observation also, if what Dr. Owen have said be true, as it is very likely, That there is not a city, a town, scarce a village in England, but had some of the Miscreant Socinians. Whether Dr. Owen hath any words of this import, I know not; if he have, 'tis like he referred them to the time in which he did make his book, which was ma∣ny years after that sitting was brought into the English Churches by the two Houses. Too many there were in the two Houses, no doubt, that sought their own things more than the Nations peace; but they never had among them any Socinian that ever

I did hear of, but only one Fry, who was also ex∣pelled when he discovered his blasphemies: Nor do I find that these Hereticks do abound in those places of the Kingdom where I have been, but Papists a∣bound extremely; so as the same thing that moved the Polonians to forbid sitting, may move us to for∣bid kneeling, and leave it proper to the wretched Pa∣pists, who worship a piece of bread instead of their Saviour.

But this gesture of kneeling would be a little better considered: The Fathers of the before men∣tioned Synods seem to say (not indeed in that Meeting which Mr. D. quotes, but in the Meeting of 1578.) That those who fell off to Arrianism, were the first that were authors of sitting in their Churches. If I mistake their meaning, detur venia; but if I do not, I humbly conceive they were themselves mi∣staken. John Alasco, a Noble-men of Poland, was upon Cranmer's persuasion sent for into our Eng∣land by King Edward the sixth, about the year 1549. and permitted to have a Church of strangers, especially of Dutch, whom he brought up to re∣ceive the Sacrament sitting; and also during his abode here, put forth a book to prove the lawful∣ness of that gesture: After many troublesome wandrings from place to place, at last being invited by at least forty Letters, he returned to his own Countrey, and no question administred the Sacra∣ment to his flock sitting, and taught others on whom he had influence so to do: Now this Alasco never fell off to Arrianism; perhaps this was the rea∣son why in the Meeting 1583. it is not said, that the Arrians first brought in sitting, but that it was chiefly

brought in by them. The aforesaid Fathers seem also to affirm, that sitting had not been used by any Evan∣gelical Churches in Europe, at the time of their meeting; but if they so meant, they were greatly mistaken; for sitting was brought into the Church of Scotland by authority, as the most proper and convenient gesture, 1560. and our Confessor Mr. Thomas Beacon, in an authorized Catechism 1563. speaks of sitting as a gesture used in certain Re∣formed Churches, and which he himself could best allow, if it were received by publick authority and common consent. Who the Arrian-Anabaptists were, that had caused such a detestation of them∣selves among the Polonians, I cannot certainly know; but by such stories as have come to my hands, I guess they were Georgius Blandrata, and Franciscus Davidis and their Spawn, who both de∣nied the Divinity of Jesus, and also his adorability. Socinus and his followers held the Principle, That Jesus is not God, and yet denied the conclusion that naturally and lineally descended from it, That Jesus is not to be worshipped; for they had found out a distinction of Deus natus & factus. The former would not stick to say. That Jesus was one of their brethren and fellow-servants; so would the lat∣ter: for they ascribed unto Christ a dignity and excellency nearly approaching unto the dignity and excellency of the Creator, but conferred on him by the singular bounty and good will of him who created him. Wherefore the Socinians properly so called, could not use sitting at the Lords Table as a token of their equality with Christ, nor indeed do they much concern themselves what gesture is

used in Sacramental Communion. Volkelius saith, They use sitting; but yet so, that they damn not those who had rather use standing, so as there be no appearance of idolatry. They would have us be∣lieve they hate the very appearance of Idolatry, and yet they commit Idolatry: for what greater Ido∣latry, than to worship him that by nature is not God, as they blasphemously say Jesus is not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The last Ceremony, but about which there is the greatest Controversie, is the sign of the Cross. Non∣conformists say this sign is made a Sacramental sign, because it is used as a token that the child shall not be ashamed to profess Christ crucified, &c. and also as a ceremony by which it is dedicated unto God. In clearing this ceremony therefore, Mr. D. should have taken most pains; but in this he is slightest of all. He gives us not an instance of any one Reform∣ed Church that hath appointed the sign of the Cross to be used either in Baptism or in any other Ordinance; only he tells us of Bibles printed at Geneva for the use of the Church, and that before them, Christian Religion is represented in an Em∣blem as leaning upon a Cross, and that some Re∣formed have Crosses upon their Churches, and that some Ministers in Prussia, to humor the Lu∣therans, will make a Cross in the Air with their hand when they say, The Dord be with you. All this is to as much purpose, as if he had told us, that the Rumpers did use the sign of the Cross in the Flags of their Ships, and put it on the money which they coined, or that some Nonconformists have it in their Coat of Arms, as I am sure they have.

I believe there is not a Nonconformist in Eng∣land, that questioneth the lawfulness of making the sign of a Cross upon any thing he useth: And if the sign of the Cross were made so, as that it remain∣ed, and were visible after it were made, then per∣haps it might have an aptitude to occasion a good thought concerning a crucified Saviour; but what can be the benefit of a Cross that leaves no im∣pression on the forehead? I know the Baptismal water being applied to an infant, leaveth no such mark on the flesh as it can take notice of at years of discretion; but the Spirit, if he be not grieved, will bring our Baptism to our remembrance, and he hath so done to many in the hour of temptation; but how shall a man be secured, that the blessed Spirit will engage himself to bring our being cros∣sed to our remembrance? I have made observa∣tion, and could never find any difference betwixt us that were crossed, and those who were not cros∣sed; Do we confess the Faith of a crucified Savi∣our? so do they; do we fight under his Banner? so do they; do we joyn our selves to Christs flock? so do they; the things that we know, they know also; so that they are under a temptation to think that the Cross is an useless sign.

I must not dissemble that Mr. D. takes on him in his Sermon, page 29 to explicate and shew the usefulness of this sign. As when the King having created those noble Knights of his Order bestows on them the Garter and the Blew Riband, as Badges to be known by of others, and to put them in mind of the great honour done unto them: In like manner, when an infant hath by Baptism been enrolled in the

Militia of the King of Glory, Jesus Christ our Lord; this sign of the Cross is made upon his forehead, to declare unto all such as are present, and as many as shall thereafter know it, that he hath received it, and to himself when he comes to years of under∣standing, that he was consecrated to Christ crucified, that he hath put on his Livery, and wears his Badge, that he is bound to crucifie the old man, and to bear the Cross, that to this he is called by our Saviour; that he ought in all places, and in the most dan∣gerous occurrences, boldly and openly to own the name of his Redeemer, without ever being ashamed with bearing his reproach. As the Barrels go rumbling up and down the Streets, so my Lord Mayor owes me a Groat. The King, the founder of this no∣ble Order, gives the Knights created by him a Garter and a Blew Riband, as Badges to be known by others, but would not be pleased if they should among themselves invent other badges and cogni∣zances of their Order. Christ also hath instituted Baptism to distinguish Christians from those who are no Christians; How do we know whether it will like him, that we should appoint a Cross to distinguish us more, especially seeing thereby we shall be distinguished from a great number of our fellow Christians. Again, the Garter and Blew Riband are things to be worn, and that may be seen, and occasion spectators to enquire what they mean, but so is not the Cross that was made on our foreheads after Baptism; the Pagans that any of us have been among, could take no notice of it; and if our Parents did at any time admonish us of our engagement to crucifie the old man, they

put us in mind, not of being crossed, but of being baptized with Water, to signifie the not only death, but burial of the old man; nor have our Kings of England been so fond of all the Rites and Ceremo∣nies used at making of Knights of the Garter, but that they have allowed some of them to be omit∣ted, where they have conceived they might be less acceptable. King James being much pleased with the valour and piety of Maurice Prince of Orange, sent him a Garter, appointing his Embas∣sador Sir Ralph Winwood to confer the honour on him freely, and without any Rites or Laws, but what the Prince himself would spontaneously un∣dergo. And the Embassador in a French Speech declared, that the Rites wonted to be used in creating Knights of the Garter, did seem some∣what abhorrent from the Discipline of the Re∣formed Churches in Holland, and not altogether congruous to the polity of the Republick; and that therefore the King to avoid offence had ap∣pointed it to be conferred without pomp and ex∣ternal magnificence. I suppose Mr. D. thinks there is no Rite used in the creation of the Knights of St. George, that is contrary to the Discipline of the Dutch Churches; but the King was of another mind, and chose rather to con∣fer the highest honour without the wonted Ce∣remonies, than not to confer it upon one who was like not to disgrace it. And shall Ministers of the Gospel so stifly stand upon Ceremonies, as rather not to administer baptism, than to admini∣ster it without the sign of the Cross?

I must follow Mr. D. who tells, us, That seve∣ral

reformed Churches have a Ceremony, of which, Presbyterians ought to have as bad an opinion, as of the Cross in Baptism: The Ceremony he meaneth is Trine aspersion, page 42. Why ought they to have as bad an opinion of Trine Aspersion, as of the Cross in Baptism? is there any Law either of God or man, that tieth them to have as bad an opinion of the Trine Aspersion as of the Cross? or do their Principles lead them to have as bad an opinion of one Ceremony as of the other? I verily believe they do not; for they say, that Christ hath commanded Baptism, and hath not strictly determined whether it shall be administred by Aspersion or Immersion, nor whether by trine or une aspersion or immersion; therefore the Church hath power to chuse the Rite, that to her, ha∣ving consulted the general rules of Scripture, and practice of the Primitive Churches, shall seem best. But they also say, that God hath no where com∣manded that a Child shall be crossed, or any where appointed his Church to institute any sym∣bolical, teaching signs at all; if Mr. D. can shew them any command that a Child should be crossed, they will not stick to grant, that it is in the Churches power to order, where the Child shall be crossed, and how often, and what kind of cross it shall be: But it is to be feared he can shew no such command, at least none such is shewed by him; and yet he saith, he is confident that if the trine aspersion were used, or if we had retained the trine immersion, as at the beginning of King Ed∣ward the sixths reign, it would be accounted a gross superstition. How may a man do to free him from

this uncharitable confidence so contrary to Chri∣stianity? I dare undertake to give it him under the hand and seal of as many as I am acquainted with, that if the Church shall think meet to use trine aspersion, or trine immersion, she shall not be accounted either grosly, or at all superstitious, provided she declare that she doth not use either rite as necessary. If by trine either aspersion or immersion she should prejudice the Babes in their health, that would be a sin, but not the sin of superstition. But how doth Mr. D. prove, that the Church hath not retained trine immersion? Immersion it is plain she hath enjoyned, unless the Sureties certifie that the Child be weak (yet ne∣ver any Minister of the Church, in my hearing, demanded such Certificate; never did any Parents bring their Child in a dress fit for dipping, that ever I could observe, and yet I believe that I have seen as strong Children Baptized as are in most places of England) and she no where saith it shall be dipped but once, as neither doth she say, that it shall be sprinkled but once; so that Bishop Mountague in his Visitation Articles positively as∣serts, That the Child is to be thrice aspersed with water on the face; it may be some other Prelate of that age did as positively assert that the Child was to be sprinkled but once, for those who have been most zealous to press Conformity, have been at Daggers drawing about the meaning of some passages in that Liturgy, to which they re∣quired subscription. In the Hampton Court Con∣ference, the Metropolitan told the King, That the administration of Baptism by women and lay persons

was not allowed in the practice of the Church, but enquired of by Bishops in their visitations and cen∣sured; neither do the words in the Liturgy infer any such meaning: But the Bishop of London re∣plied, That those learned men who framed the Book of Common-Prayer, intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any, but did intend a permission of pri∣vate persons to baptize in case of necessity, and withal declared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church, urging both a place in the Acts, and the authority of Tertullian and St. Ambrose plain in that point: (What could a man have done that had lived in those days to know the meaning of the Church?) But however King James being clear in his own judgment, that a Minister is of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the Sacrament, carried it, so as the words thereafter did run thus, That private Bap∣tism should be performed by the Minister of the Pa∣rish, or in his absence by any other lawful Minister that can be procured: Now any man would think Lay persons are not allowed to Baptize; but Dr. Heylin in his introduction to the life of Arch∣bishop Laud, page 27. saith, That the alteration was greater in sound than sense, it being the opini∣on of many great Clerks, That any man in cases of necessity (that is extream) who can but pronounce the words of Baptism, may pass in the account and notion of a lawful Minister. A prodigious asser∣tion! for a Turk or Jew may pronounce the words of Baptism, Is he a lawful Minister of Baptism? did ever any that pretended to reverence the au∣thority of the Church thus wrest her words?

But to return to the rite of Baptism; we have got a trick to sprinkle, or to let water fall by drops, but the Church allows no such rite, but most expresly requires pouring, even when the Child is at the weakest; and seeing in the Baptism of Infants the Administrator is required to dip them if they may well endure it, how comes it to pass that in the Baptism of Adult persons who are appointed by fasting and prayers to prepare them∣selves for the receiving of the Sacrament, it is left indifferent to the Ministers either to dip them in the Font, or pour water on them, though there be a moral certainty, that they may endure dip∣ping well enough? And what Prayers must these adult persons use to prepare themselves for Bap∣tism, must they make them themselves, or must they be made by the Bishop or Priest? or are there any preparatory Prayers to that purpose made already? I wish Mr. D. would answer me these questions.

Object. Well, but what say you in the excuse of the Presbyterians, who as Dr. Heylin tells us, page 293. would not have their Children Baptized by the names of their Ancestors, Richard, Robert, &c. but by some name occurring in the Holy Scriptures, especially in the Old Testament, becouse meerly He∣brew, and not prophaned with any mixture of the Greek or Roman. Did not Snape and Cartwright in the Book of Discipline agree that the Minister in Baptizing Children, should not admit of any such names as had been used in the time of Paganism, the names of Idols and the like? Did they not also

take an bumor of giving such names unto their Chil∣dren, as many of them when they came to age were ashamed of, Accepted, Deliverance, Discipline, Praise God, Reformation, Tribunal, Thank∣ful.

Answ. As for the Discipline of Jersy and Guernsey, made by Mr. Cartwright and Snape, I never saw it but once, when I minded not what was in it; now I know not where to get it, and therefore leave it to Mr. D. to answer for his fore∣fathers and neighbors. The Presbyterians have not hired me to be their Advocate, I am only for peace, and would not have men made worse than they be: 'Tis doubtless an unjust scrupulosity for any man to question the lawfulness of calling his Child either Robert, or Richard, or Arthur, or VVilliam; but if the Question be not what is law∣ful, but what is expedient, I say, caeteris paribus, it is more expedient that Children be named by the names of such persons as were famous in their generations for piety and learning.

Dr. Rivet tells Baily, Tractatu 3. page 33. Quest. 8. That they used diligence to bring Parents to give to their Children names borrowed from them whose life was laudable in the Church, that they may be stirred up to the imitation of those whose name they bear, for such better agree to Christians, than either the ambitious or superstitious names of Hea∣thens. He also tells us, that in his remembrance a vain-glorious fellow whose name was Le Grand, would needs name his Child Alexander, but the Ministers refused to gratifie his ambition, they would not have a mean fellows Child called

Alexander the Great; but that ever any Presby∣terian refused to Baptize a Child because it was to be called Richard, may well pass for a Story of Dr. Heylin's (which many times are none of the truest) As for the reason he gives out of his own head, of the Presbyterians chusing Old Testament names, because the Old Testament is meerly Hebrew; it argueth his great ignorance, some of the Pres∣byterians Children, before they come from School, know that the Old Testament is not meerly Hebrew. Where our English Tongue can afford happy com∣positions, I should think such a composition in a Childs name would not make Baptism contempti∣ble, nor the Imposer ridiculous; yet I confess I should never advise any man to name his Child Praise God, nor, The Lord is near, for though he may excuse himself, by the names of Quod vult Deus, A deo-datus, usual in St. Austin's time, yet it savors of affectation to give such names, and it may occasion the taking of the Lords name in vain, nor do I find that Presbyterians have de∣lighted themselves in such names. Accepted was the name of Dr. Frewen late Archbishop of York, was he ever ashamed of it? or had he any reason to be ashamed of it? or was his Father a Presbyte∣rian? Let the Church Books from 1582 be searched, and it will be found to the shame of this Histori∣an, that Presbyterians have given such names to their Children as other people did, and that none of their Children are called by such uncouth names as are mentioned in the Objection.

My next task is to give in a Catalogue of Mr. D's impertinencies, which are indeed many, and too many to be insisted on particularly.

Page 51. He gives us some sayings of some Churches against Sacriledg: A thing that hath been done more copiously by Dr. John Hoornbeck in his examination of the Popes Bull, sent forth to nulli∣fie the peace of Germany; and if Mr. D. please, he may read a very smart Discourse against the sin of Sacriledg in Mr. Baxters defence of the VVor∣cestershire Petition. If Ancestors through mistake have given maintenance to Idolatrous uses, Magi∣strates may convert that maintenance to uses truly pious. If there be a true superfluity of Church revenues for some one good use, Magistrates may out of that superfluity provide for some other good use. If the Soveraign power please in cases of true necessity, to make use of Church-mens Lands, as well as others, to maintain the Nation against fo∣reign Invasions, &c. what is there in such an acti∣on blame-worthy? These and such like cases ex∣cepted, I profess I know not the Presbyterian alive or dead, that was not against the alienation of Church-Lands. Mr. D. tells us, he saw some Pres∣byterian Ministers made nothing of purchasing and detaining Church-Lands, and in his Margin nameth Dr. Burges; so that it seemeth, Dr. Burges is some Presbyterian Ministers: But he ought before he so called him, to prove that he was so much as one Presbyterian Minister; he was not that Dr. Burges, of whom we heard before, that made the Book against Dr. Ames his reply to Dr. Morton,

but he was the Dr. Burges that oversaw that Book in the Press, and adorned its Margin to make the reading more pleasant and delightful; and he was that Dr. Burges who did write for Baptismal Rege∣neration (a Doctrine distastful to the Presbyterians). He took the Covenant indeed, but not (as I have heard) till he was like to be turned out of the Assembly for not taking it. It is true, that once he made a Speech against the continuance of Deans and Chapters, but in that Speech he declared the utter unlawfulness of converting their Lands to any private mans use; it seems that he himself after∣wards purchased something belonging to the Dean of VVells, intending to settle it on his Children; how he could satisfie his Conscience so to do I know not; perhaps when he saw that that part of the House of Commons which favoured Presbytery was secluded, and that Deans and Chapters Lands design∣ed to mend poor Livings, must be sold for other uses, he resolved to do as Luther saith a Dog which he knew at Erford did, when he could defend his Ma∣sters dish of meat from other Dogs no longer, viz. got as good a share of the prey as he could. He hath given his accounts to his Master, I am not to judge anothers Servant, and therefore I should tremble to write that which Mr. D. hath written, viz. That a loathsom sore which brought him to his Grave, was sent to punish him for his Sacriledg; nei∣ther dare I say, for all the world, that the Disease that befell Bishop Gauden (and of which he died) besel him for his fierceness against the Bresbyterians; and yet, it was the very disease unto which he had compared the Presbyterians Sermons, and it befell

him not long after he had made that odious compa∣rison.

England hath suffered much by mens underta∣king to fetch their Divinity out of the Providen∣ces of God, which are always righteous, but some∣times hidden.

A greater noise is made in some Books, on the account of the Assemblies Annotations; in the which, or in the first Edition of which, it is said, Nothing is to be found against Sacriledg; and it is easily acknowledged, that in the Assemblies An∣notations nothing is to be found against Sacriledg, for the Assemblies Annotations are not to be found: But as for the English Notes made by sundry Divines, who were all of them before the Wars, Conformists, and commonly miscalled the Assemblies Annotations; and for the Assembly it self, hear an ingenuous, but cordial and through-paced Son of the Church, in a Discourse entituled, Church-Lands not to be sold, printed Anno 1648. he quotes with approbation the Note on Rom. 2.22. p. 14. having spoken p. 27. of honest Mr. Geree, who avers, That to abolish Prelacy, and to seize the Lands of the Prelates to any private or civil interest, undoubtedly could not want stain nor guilt: he adds, I am confident, by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westmin∣ster, that at the least three parts, if not all of them, are of the same judgment; and that they would openly profess as much, if they were put to answer the question. The same Author quotes with appro∣bation the Note on Gen. 47. and on Mal. 3.8, 9. I will not go off from this subject of Sacriledg, till

I have also observed, That some, considerable for Learning, and of no small authority, have not feared to say, That Impropriations are sacrilegious. I have not much studied the point, and therefore interpose not my own judgment; but it looks very ugly to take away so much of the tythes and profits of any parish, as not to leave a competence for him who hath the cure of souls in that parish: yet it hath been observed, that no Parishes have so sorry and pitiful an allowance for the Preaching minister, as those of which Clergy men are the Impropriators; if the Kings Letter since his return hath so kindly operated upon our Cathedralists, as to make them more bountiful to the Incumbents, it is well; but if it have not, Mr. D. may do well to consider whether he and his brethren be without fault, be∣fore he throw stones at the head of others, else he may chance to have such an answer as the Bishop of Scotland, who having objected Sacriledg to the Presbytery of that Nation, is told by Mr. Baily in his Historical Vindication, p. 26, 27.

That the Bishops when they professed their greatest zeal to recover all the Church out of the hand of the Laity, were found to be but too ready to dila∣pidate unto Noblemen, and others too much of the Churches Patrimony: you your self may remember what bargain you made, as I think with the Earl of Seaforth, which you know was the first occasion of diminishing your reputation with your great Patron Land of Canterbury, I am sure your Colleague Spotswood did sell the whole Abbacy of Kilwinning to the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Guningham, to the great pre∣judice

and grief of the University of Glasgow, and the Ministers of the bounds, who had great interest therein. At the Parliament of Lithgow, 1606, our good Bishops for their own base ends did consent in the name of the Church (though they never consulted her in that business) to the greatest dilapidation that ever was heard of in Scotland, the Impropriation to Noblemen and Gentlemen of no fewer than sixteen Abbacies, every one whereof had incorporate the Rents of a number of Parish-Churches.

A second impertinence relates to Confirmation, which Mr. D. p. 43. saith, he finds used in almost all Reformed Churches, in some with greater, in some with lesser solemnity. To what purpose doth he tell us this? Would he have the world believe, that the Presbyterians are against Confirmation? or that they do not earnestly desire it? Have not Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter written books to shew the usefulness and necessity of it? Do not some of them ground it on Heb. 6.2. and draw thence an argument for Infant-baptism? Mr. Tombs knows they do, and so do many others of the Antipaedo∣baptists. For my part I bless God that hath put it into the hearts of the Convocation, to insert into this last Edition of the Liturgy, a question to be propounded to those who are confirmed: let con∣science be made never to confirm any but those who are well instructed in the Church Catechism, and are well reported of for their conversation, and I shall think then that nothing is to be blamed in our order for admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. But if men will pretend a great reve∣rence

to Confirmation, and yet suffer the far great∣est part of the Nation to communicate uncon∣firmed; and if Bishops will confirm persons grosly ignorant and scandalous in the highest degree, and never require Certificates from the Ministers of those Parishes to which they belong, God forbid that I should justifie them.

The only question considerable about Confirma∣tion, betwixt those called Presbyterians, and their adversaries, is concerning the Minister thereof: Presbyterians say. That no Law of God hath appro∣priated it to a Bishop strictly so called. If Mr. D. can shew us any such Law, or if he can prove that in all or in any Reformed Church, a meer Presby∣ter is not accounted to have power to confirm, as well as to baptize, he shall do something; let him therefore shew himself a man, and undertake this work, and when he hath his hand in, let him also wipe off a blot thrown upon the Church of Eng∣land and Geneva by Dr. Heylin, with the Pen of a virulent Papist, VVilliam Reynolds, History of Presby. pag. 283. viz. That, 1576, the Common-prayer-Book was Printed by Richard Jugg the Queens Printer, the whole order of private Baptism, and con∣firmation of Children being omitted, which omission was designed to bring the Church of England into some Conformity to the desired Orders of Geneva.

Pag. 47. he is so prodigal of his Ink and Paper, as to tell us, That in all reformed Churches Matri∣mony is celebrated in the publick Congregation, and by the Minister. This may be true of all reformed Churches in reference to their own Members, at least I hope it is; but if he should intend to assert,

That Reformed Churches allow not that any who are constant livers in the same Cities with them, shall be married otherwise than by the Ministers, and in the Church, he is mistaken. Yet let it be supposed, that Papists, dwelling with Protestants, are forced to marry in the Church, and to make use of a Minister; what is this to the Presbyterians? The composers of the Directory say, VVe judge it expedient that Marriage be solemnized by a law∣ful Minister of the word, that he may counsel them and pray for them; In the said directory, care also is taken, that before any marriage the persons intent of marriage be published by the Minister three several sabbath days in the congregation at the place, or places of their most usual and constant abode re∣spectively, and all Ministers are to have sufficient testimony of this publication before they proceed to solemnize Marriage. By the Liturgy also sufficient provision is made that of all that are to be mar∣ried, the Bannes be published in the Church, three several sundays, or Holy days in the time of Di∣vine service, but any one, that hath mony may have a licence to be Married without any such publication of Bannes, by which means great in∣conveniences have arisen in Church and State. Care also is taken by the 62 Canon of 1603.

That none shall be married, unless the Parents, or Governors of the parties to be married being under the age of twenty one, shall either per∣sonally, or by sufficient testimony, signifie their consent given to the said marriage. The directory is somewhat more strict,

requiring, that persons though of age shall be bound to have a Certificate of

their Parents consent, if it be their first marriage: And really it seems but rational, that a man and a woman, though of the age of Thirty, if never married before, should be bound to signifie their Parents consent, before any Minister adventure to marry them.

The greatest differences I find among Protestants about Marriage, are reducible to Two Heads:

1. We say here in England, That though Chil∣dren he bound to ask the consent of Parents, yet if the marriage be made, no such consent asked or ob∣tained, the marriage is valid; fieri non debet, factum valet, is our Rule; but beyond Seas, such marriages are by many held to be void and of no effect. Mr. D. hath so many obligations laid on him by our Church, that it would be but gratitude to take her part, and to answer the Arguments of Dis∣senters.

2. Our Church hath thought meet to prohibit marriage for certain times and seasons, which are particularized in our common Almanacks. Other Churches leave it free to persons to marry all the year about, to these the Presbyterians joyn them∣selves, they say marriage is not to be forbidden at any time, unless on such days, in which God calls to fasting, weeping, mourning; to confirm them in this opinion, they had the judgment of a whole Convocation in England assembled in the year 1575, agreeing, That Bishops should take order that it be published and declared in every Parish Church within their Diocesses, that marriage might be solemnized at all times of the year; but though the Church thought meet to put this Article into

the Book, the Head of the Church, Q. Elizabeth, did not so think, and therefore suffered it not to be Printed. Dr. Heyl. Hist. of Presb. 282, 283.

Object. Ay, but there are some who scruple the Ring in Marriage, which Mr. D. saith is used in Hessen, Poland, Lithuania.

Sol. If there be any such, the more is the pity, for rational ground of scruple there is none, any more than there is to scruple taking seisin by a Turf: Nor do I know any one Presbyterian now living, that doth scruple the use of a Ring in Mar∣riage.

Pag. 48. we are informed by Mr. D. That in most places of the Reformed Churches, they have Fu∣neral Sermons, in Hungary and Transilvania, two or three, in Bohemia but one, and that at the Grave. As if he would suggest to us, that either Presby∣terians are against Funeral Sermons, or the Episco∣pal extreamly for them; whereas the truth is, there never were more Funeral Sermons than in those days, when the Presbyterians had their Churches and Pulpits; and now that they are thrust out, when any one of them dye, 'tis seldom but some body is hired to Preach a Sermon, I say, hired, for they are as rare as Black Swans, that will Preach a Funeral Sermon under an Angel or a Noble. And whereas he tells us, ibid. of the Minister with singing Boys going before the Corps; he knows, that in England we have singing Boys but in few places, scarce any where but in Ca∣thedrals, which do not use to send their singing Boys to go before the Corps at every Funeral.

Civil respects, or differences at Burials may be suted to the rank and condition of the party deceased, whiles he was living; as for the Religious part of Funerals, why should it not be alike to all that have attained like precious faith? Doth Mr. D. know any Church∣es where only the moneyed Christians are ho∣noured with Sermons; the poor being laid in their graves without any? If he did not, why would he lay open the nakedness of his Fathers, why would he tempt strangers to think, that with them there is respect of persons? The Scots say, Either let us have Sermons at all Funerals, or at none, so say the Hollanders. so I suppose the French either say or think: But Mr. D. Page 49. quotes a scrap of a Letter from Monsieur Drelin∣court saying, I am so far from allowing the custom of the Reformed Churches of this Kingdom, where the Ministers are silent at dead mens Burials, that I would think it unsufferable were it not for the condition under which we live. I believe Mr. Dre∣lincourt, if he be still alive, thinks Mr. D. dealt not civilly with him, in publishing this piece of his Letter, for he sure took no delight to let the world know, that he accounted the custom of the Holland Churches unsufferable, especially seeing the French Churches in Holland comply with them, and yet cannot plead that they fear perse∣cution. The same Drelincourt, if we may believe Mr. D. said, that he found upon perusal of the Common Prayer Book office for Burial of the dead, nothing that was contrary to piety, or pure Doctrine, and the service of God.

Is not this a rare commendation of the Liturgy, that it hath nothing in it contrary to piety, &c. But what Common prayer Book did this learned Divine read over? in all but this last there were expressions to be used at Burials, that were apt to harden men in their impenitence, which there∣fore are now either changed, or left quite out. At present I know little liable to exception, save only, that Burial seems appropriated to a Priest: may a Deacon Baptise and Preach, and may he not bury our dead out of our sight? In the Old Li∣turgy, it was said, the Minister meeting the Corps at the Church stile shall say; in this last edition of the Liturgy it is said the Priests and Clerks, and so throughout the whole Office we have no other word but Priest, which is never applied to any that are but Deacons; there is some mystery in this which Mr. D. can expound, or else take no notice of. 2. By the Liturgy the form of Burial is not to be used for any that dye unbaptized. What's the meaning of this? If Christian Parents lose a child before they can get it to be baptized, must they, to all other their sorrow, have this also ad∣ded, That their child shall not have Christian b••∣rial? Shall the Idolatrous Papists child be buried, and shall the child of the Antipaedobaptist not be buried according to the Liturgy? How will Mr. Tombs, after all the pains he hath taken to desend the Liturgy, brook this? 3. Seeing the Office is to be read at the burial of all baptized, being nei∣ther excommunicate nor murderers of themselves, why is the Priest appointed to say, His ••ope is that every one who is buried, rests in the Lord. What if a

man be killed in bed with another's Wife? What if he be killed in a Duel, or in an Alehouse half drunk? What if he be by God struck dead with an oath or blasphemy upon his tongues end? must we use the very same words for him, that we use for one that led a most Christian life, and died a comfortable death? I have much more charity for some that laid violent hands on themselves, than for those who contrary to all laws of God and man, do dye in Duels by the sword of another?

Pag. 50. he hath other words of Drelincourts as little to purpose, If we were permitted, saith he, to preach at Paris, and there to minister the holy com∣munion, I am of this perswasion, that it would be a pious and charitable work to give that comfort to those poor sick persons who have kept their bed for many years, and are not able to go as far as Charenton, which is the place of our ordinary exercises of Reli∣gion. This is a marvellous wary speech, 1. If they were permitted. 2. If they were permitted both to preach and administer the Sacrament. 3. Then, it would be pious and charitable to give the Communi∣on to such as have kept their beds for many years. Can Mr. D. think that the English Presbyterians will be offended at a perswasion thus qualified? It may rather be questioned, Whether some of them would not judg it charitable and pious to ad∣minister the Sacrament in such cases, though they had no permission from the King; at least it may be conceived, that they would adventure, if they should be permitted only to administer the Sacra∣ment, though no leave were given them to preach; for a Sermon is not of the essence of a Sacrament;

and I deem they would perform this act of charity and piety to such as had been confined to their beds, though only for one or two years, which are not many. There is not one word in all the Di∣rectory against private Communion.

P. 40. Mr. D. gives us notice, That in the Bo∣hemian Churches, the people do alway say Amen at the end of the Prayers, in the same manner that we do here in England. Which is so far from cros∣sing the Presbyterians, that they, as many think, by their good will, would have the people say nothing but Amen.

P. 39. he fancieth he may put the Presbyterians to silence, by telling them of Churches that sing Hymns and spiritual songs, besides Psalms. But he may know, that Presbyterians are as much at liber∣ty to sing any godly Hymn or spiritual Song, as he himself is. Let him but procure the Te Deum or the Lords prayer to be set to ordinary times, and then he shall see whether the Presbyterians will make any scruple for conscience-sake to sing those forms, or the three Creeds which are said to be set with musical notes in the French and Dutch Churches, but not sung by the French Churches, by reason both the Rhime and the language are something course and old. Presbyterians are not so dainty, they continue to sing the old Psalms, though the language and rhime be odd and un∣couth in many places.

P. 183. he goes about to stab the Presbyterians with a declaration of a National Synod met at Fi∣geac 1579. What is the declaration? Why, it is a declaration against reading verses aloud before they

be sung, as being inept, threatning censure to such Churches as used it. The Presbyterians think this custom unfit, and therefore exhorted all Congrega∣tions to get Psalm-books, and to learn to read; they allowed reading of Psalms line by line, only for necessity, when ignorance had prevailed so far, that many in most Congregations could not read at all. Let Mr. D. but take care that all be taught to read, or learn the psalms without book, and I dare half undertake for Presbyterians, they shall leave off so inept or unmeet a custom. Till then, they, and Episcopal men too, must do as they can, and remember that they are debtors to the unwise as well as wise.

P. 22. Mr. D. makes mention of Churches, whose Ministers wear commonly either a long cloak, or a gown and long cap; nay, Calvin (saith he) did wear a gown and a cap, as often as he taught ei∣ther in the Divinity-School, or in the Church at Ge∣neva. If Presbyterians do not wear a cap when they teach in the church, they may easily be pardoned by Mr. D. As for a gown, let him but get them liber∣ty to preach, and they will promise never to need his pardon for want of that. I am sure I have seen those whom the Parliament sent down to Cambridg into the places of such as were ejected, preach both in gowns and hoods, and so I have heard they did at Oxford when they preached Latin Sermons; for which they have been scolded at by filly women, as Calvin was by the Wife of Frumen∣tius.

I had almost forgot another Impertinence, p. 37. The French Churches require that the Ministers,

who ought to use Imposition of hands, upon those that are to be admitted to the ministry among them, should pray standing on that occasion, the new received Mi∣nister and the Congregation kneeling at the same time. This was the constant practice of the Presbyterians, as to Ordainers and Ordained, in all places where I have been, or of which I have heard. As for the people, they were commonly so numerous at Ordinations, that they could not without huge inconvenience kneel. I also find that I have passed over something, page 32.

They have the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables where they are able to be at the charge of it; and in some places they have also the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the same manner, conformable to one of the constituti∣ons of the Church of England to the same pur∣pose.

Who are meant by they, I cannot tell; the precedent words were, in Princes Chappels in Germany, and other parts they have them (i. e. Chalices) gilt. Are there any Princes in Ger∣many or other parts who cannot be at the charge of having the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables? Or doth Mr. D. mean the French Churches, as many as have ability, do set up the Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables? If so, I doubt he wrong∣ed his Conscience. But let it be supposed that in all French Churches that are not very poor, the Ten Commandments are set up in Letters of Gold, what mean those words, in some places they have also the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the same manner, conformable to one of the constitutions of

the Church of England? Have the rich French Churches, the Lords Prayer and Creed on two Tables, and in Letters of Gold? If they have not, why is it said that they have the Creed and Lords Prayer in the same manner? The Churches of France I am certain may be conformable enough to the constitution of the Church of England, and yet not have either the Commandments in Two Tables or in Letters of Gold; for all the constitu∣tion requires, is but that the Ten Commandments be set upon the East-end of every Church and Chappel, where the people may best see and read the same, and other chosen sentences written upon the walls of the said Churches and Chappels in convenient places. Here is no mention of two great Tables, no men∣tion of Letters of Gold, no mention of Creed or Lords Prayer.

But why did Mr. D. trouble himself to bring in all, or any of this Stuff? Did Presbyterians ever de∣ny the lawfulness or expedience of having either the Decalogue, or Creed, or Lords Prayer, set upon conspicuous places in the Temple? I know an eminent Nonconformist now living, who was wont to rejoyce that the Painter had set the Lords Prayer just over against his Pulpit, that if it had hapned he had been out, he might by his eyes help himself. Had the Creed been so placed it had been well for Mr. D. for they say, that not long since, he was horribly out in repeating the Articles of Faith after Sermon.

I shall conclude this Catalogue of Impertinencies with Mr. D's stories concerning reformed Church∣es, that ••eep the very same Temples that were used

in time of Popery, pag. 28. so did the Presbyteri∣ans, and Mr. Paget hath defended the lawfulness of using such places against the frivolous exceptions of Mr. Ainsworth; and now let the world judge, whether Mr. D. deserve not to be called and ac∣counted Mr. Impertinent.

I must come to a third part of my task, which will be perhaps necessary, but is somewhat more unpleasing than any of the other, viz. to muster up some of those Speeches of Mr. Durell, which Countreymen call Wiskers, you may call them by another name, but will not know how to excuse, except by the English Proverb, that Travellers may—by authority.

Pag. 8. Bellarmine was an eye-witness in his time, much against his will, of Oecolampadius his being called Bishop of the Church of Basil: Oecolampadius on his Tomb in Basil, is called Templi hujus verus Episcopus. Bellarmine in his fourth Book, De notis Eccle. cap. 8. saith, That when he was at Basil, he read him, called on his Tomb, the first Bishop of that City, which is a Lye; but then he also faith, that he read this, non sine risu, if these words do not signifie, much against his will, where is Mr. D's veracity?

Pag. 13. All understanding men amongst the French say plainly, That if God Almighty were pleased, that all France should embrace the Reformed Religion, as England hath, the Episcopal Government must be established in their Churches. Do all understanding men say this, and say it plainly? I shall manifest the contrary ere I have done, and indeed have manifested it already.

Pag. 16. He dreads not to affirm, That Sme∣ctymnuus and all Smectymnuans being bound most of them by their Oath to use set forms, never use them. S. M. T. Y. when Mr. D. Printed this, were dead, and so not bound by Oath to use set forms; as for E. C. M. N. W. S. who were then alive, how will it be proved that either they were bound by Oath to use set forms, or that they never used them?

The Smectymnuans, if by them he mean the Non∣conformists (and whom else can he mean) were never the most of them by Oath bound to use set forms, and yet sometimes some of them have used them, yea did use them at that very time when Mr. D. was hammering out this Book.

Pag. 18. There is not one Minister in all France, but hath made unto himself a set form which he useth always and no other. What confidence is this! hath he received Letters from every Minister in France, or spoke with every Minister in France? Hath he certain knowledg that every Minister made a form unto himself? did never any use a form that he had learned from another? did ne∣ver any make to himself above one form? I must needs doubt there is untruth in this, till I see the thing proved under the hands of all Ministers in France.

Pag. 22. In Hungaria and Transilvania, Ministers never go abroad without their long Cloak and Cassock just as here. Here, I am sure, Ministers go abroad without long Cloak and Cassock, and are by the Canons of the Church allowed so to do. Si non caste, tamen caute.

Page 26. speaking of the fratres Bohemi, and the Moravians 'tis said, that they have days for commemoration of the Blessed Virgin, and of the Holy Apostles, and other Saints and Mar∣tyrs, as also one for the commemoration of all the Saints; all which days they keep after the same manner, that they are kept here in England according to the Ecclesiastical constitutions, and common use of the Church.

I suppose the Bohe∣mians and Moravians were to have Sermons on Holy days, are we bound to have any? They are not appointed to fast the Eves of any Saints days, but so are we; they are not ordered on the Saints days to cease from the works of their callings, but so are we, and are punishable with severity enough if we do not.

Page 27. mention being made of the Helvetick confession, and of the Holy days commended by it, 'tis said it was subscribed by the Kirk of Scotland, 1566. The Ministers of that Church being then of a different judgment from what their successors have shewed of late years, which is a most egregious falshood, for the Kirk then discovered her dislike of the festivals appointed, or commended in the Confession of Helvetia, and so have the Ministers of late years, so as they concur in judgment fully as to this matter, and I believe in every thing else.

Page 28. Crosses have not been pulled down from the top of Churches unless in some popular tumults. The Latin Apologist hath shewen the falsity of this.

Page 29. The fratres Bohemi have their so∣lemn dedication of Churches, which ceremony is to be performed with them by the Bishop, in the same manner,

as with us here in England. The manner of dedication of Churches is not here agreed upon in England, nor is there any Law that requires dedications, and some places we have that never were dedicated, and the ceremonies used in dedication with us are such as are not used in Bohemia.

Page 30. At Basil, and Breme, they have their Fonts of stone and use them for the Baptism of Infants; by which we see, that they are not of the same judgment with the Directorians who find Popery and Superstition in the very placing of them.

All the Directory saith is, that Bap∣tism is to be administred in the face of the Congre∣gation, where the people may most conveniently hear, and see, and not in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly, and superstitiously placed. Are the Fonts at Basil, and Breme, placed where the people cannot hear and see? Are they placed unfitly, as in times of Popery? if they be, I see not how they can justifie themselves; if they be not, how can we see that the Divines of Basil and Breme are of a different mind about the placing of Fonts, from the Directorians?

Page 31. I know none that did ever so much as move the question in what place and which way the Communion table ought to stand, (so it be seated where the people may see and hear) except the new Scotch and English Presbyterians.

Either his knowledg is very small, or else he did write this against his knowledg, and conscience.

Page 30. In all Reformed Churches men use to enter into the place of publick Worship with their Hats off. If this be meant of such times in which the congregation is performing publick Worship, the Presbyterians do so, and are enjoyned by the Directory so to do; but if it be meant, of entring at all times, and upon all occasions, it is known to be an untruth to all that have been in Holland. The Divines there would laugh to see any so superstitious as to pull off his Hat every time he hath occasion to go through one of their Tem∣ples.

Ibid. In France the women that are persons of quality unmask themselves, and the devoutest sort both of men and women use to kneel and make a short Prayer for Gods blessing on the service they come to perform, before they fit down; yet the Directory though it pretendeth conformity with them, prohibiteth these very things. If the French Ladies unmask themselves to shew that they are not ashamed to be seen at Protestant Assemblies, what Directorian is he that will blame them? But if by so unmasking themselves they design to shew their beauty, &c. then there is something in the 1 Cor. 11. that they may do well to think of. The Directory forbids not private Prayers for Gods blessing, unless any come in when the service of God is begun, and if the devouter sort of men and women in France are wont to fall on their knees, when the congregation is singing, &c. the Directory pre∣tends not conformity with them, they may do

well to consider, that God is the God of Order, and not of Confusion; an ejaculation in such cases, is as much as can be needful, provided it be joyned with shame, or trouble for coming so late.

Page 37. In the Churches of Poland and Lithu∣ania, and likewise in them of Transylvania and Hungaria the people useth alway to say the Prayers aloud after the Minister just as we do in the Church of England. Such was also the use of the Churches of the Ʋnity of the fratres Bohemi.

Our people do not much use to say the Prayers after the Minister, that is certain, except the Clerk be the people, and there are but few Prayers they are enjoyned to repeat after him, the Lords prayer is appointed to be said not after, but with him. What the use of the fratres Bohemi was, I do not well know, nor hath Mr. D. directed me how I may inform my self. But I have met with some∣thing in Bishop Amos Comaenius which I commend to the diligent consideration of Mr. D. and all others that are zealous in this matter; it is in his Annotations on the Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisq, &c. Page 100.

The Ritual Books (the forms of per∣forming the sacred Ministries which they call Agenda) are not with us appended to the Cate∣chetical Books, so as to come into the hands of the Common people, but being put forth by themselves, are given only to the Pastors, not privately in a corner, but in the sight of the Church. After the death of the Pastor the same Books are put into the hands of the Seniors. Some one wil say what superstition is this? Ans. Let others have their liberty of judging: I do

not think things are so to be managed, that no∣thing mystical (to be rather adored by the peo∣ple, than proudly to be looked on, and after∣wards vilely esteemed) should be left to the Priests. Religion rejoyceth in veils: And our chief Master himself was wont to speak some things to his disciples by themselves. The Apostle when he commands Bishop Timothy to commit some things to faithful men who are apt to teach others, 2 Tim. 2.2. doth he not intimate a certain dif∣ference, betwixt these things that are given to all, and those that are given to the Teachers of others? Certainly the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which he useth signifieth, to commit or concredit some thing singular. And when we read it written of Christ, that having read the sacred Text, and laid aside his Book, be began his speech so, that all fixing their eyes on him, admired the words that flowed from his mouth; do we think these things happen otherwise to others? viz. If words flow from the mouth of Gods messenger not seen before, that the hearers are rendred more attent and more profound admirers of the grace of God. For if prescribed things only be always recited, what will there be to excite attention? Curiosity rather will be excited, whilest this and the other by beholding the same things in his Books attend∣eth whether they be accurately read, what place is here for devotion? Neither is it to be thought that ours are bound to the Books delivered to them, to words and syllables, it is free to them to use any thing drawn out of the treasures of mystical wisdom which make to excite zeal according to variety of

occasions. Whence it comes to pass that Godly hearers are scarce ever present at Sacred my∣steries without new motion of heart.

Page 61. It is said that the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas, take those things in which they differ from the Reformed Church of England, to be sinful, and that therefore they would have her con∣form to them.

By whom is this said in such indefinite terms as are here made use of? I doubt it will be found that none have so said, at least none that are called or accounted Presbyterians; and if none can be found, what opinion will the world have of Mr. D's veracity? But if any have said that some re∣formed Churches abroad have accounted some things in which the English Church differs from them to be sinful, it is a thing so manifest that I wonder Mr. D. can find a forehead to deny it. He mentioneth in this place the Reformed Churches in the Electorate of Brandenburg, and I do not ob∣serve him to have mentioned them any where else, I suppose (by the Churches he joyneth them with) that he meaneth such as close with that Reforma∣tion that the Elector himself affecteth, and would fain have introduced, and it will not be amiss to let our Countrymen understand what that is. The heads of it are recited in the Continuation of Thuanus at the year 1614. Page 396, 397. Edit. Francof. 1628.

1. Images, Crosses, Statues, are to be removed out of Churches.

2. Altars remaining since Popery, and built to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass, are to be taken

away, and in place of them are to be put oblong wooden Tables covered with black cloth, a linnen cloth when the Supper is to be administred, being put upon it.

3. Instead of Hosts, Wafers are to be used, which being cut into long pieces, should be receiv∣ed and broken by the hands of those who come to the Lords Table.

4. That instead of Chalices used in Mass, Cups should be used in the administration of the Lords Supper.

5. The Casiolae (which may very well signifie the Surplice, as well as other Vestments) are to be left to the Popish Priests.

6. No linnen is to be put under, or offer'd to those who come to the Lords Table; nor are they to kneel as if Christ were corporally present.

7. The sign of the Cross is not to be added at the end of the benediction.

8. The Ministers of the Gospel are not to turn the back to men.

9. Prayers and Epistles are not to be sung be∣fore Sermon, but read.

10. Auricular Confession is to be left off.

11. At the Name of Jesus knees are not to be bowed, or head uncovered.

12. Prayers in the Pulpit are not to be mutter∣ed, but pronounced with a loud voice.

13. The Supper of the Lord is not for fear of danger to be administred to sick persons, especi∣ally when the plague is abroad.

14. Stone-Fonts are to be removed, and Ba∣sons substituted in their rooms.

15. The Decalogue is not to be recited imper∣fect, but intire.

16. The Catechism in some things that are ex∣roneous, is to be amended.

17. The Sacred Trinity (a mystery to be ado∣red, and ineffable) is not to be represented by a∣ny images either carved or painted.

18. The words of the holy Supper are to be interpreted by Sacramental analogy, and collation of other places of holy Scripture.

19. To the Gospels and Epistles which are ex∣plicated on Lords days, and yearly repeated, Mi∣nisters ought not so to be bound, that they may not instead of them, read and preach upon any other notable Text of the Bible.

Dr. Heylin hath exemplified the heads of this designed Reformation, on purpose to show, as he tells us, Hist. of Presby. 412. how Calvinian and Lutheran Churches differ, and how near ours ap∣proacheth to the latter; and I have exemplified them to shew, that if Ceremonies be but gnats, English Presbyterians are not the only persons that do strain at them; declaring also my just abhor∣rence of the Historians impudence in ascribing the designment of this Reformation to the plots and pra∣ctices of a subtil Lady.

P. 85. Mr. D. having before recited a Letter of Mr. Chabrets, in which he makes a question whe∣ther the Liturgy received at the Savoy Congrega∣tion, be the same that was used in Q. Eliz. King James, or King Charles I.'s time, or another compi∣led by Archbishop Laud, that had been occasion

of much trouble,

adds words of great reproach against those who accused the late Lord Archbi∣shop of making a new Book of Common-prayer, other than those that were used in the times of our last three Soveraigns: this he makes a thing that never was.

But he is now to know, that Archbishop Laud did make, or cause to be made, a Common-prayer-book for the Kirk of Scotland, different in many things from any that had been used here in Eng∣land, in any of the three last Soveraigns Reigns; which Common-prayer-book, among other things, occasioned great disturbances betwixt the two Kingdoms: nay, he made some alterations in the Liturgy for England, that were not very pleasing to some palates among the sons of the Church; what they were, if Mr. D. pleaseth he may see in Mr. Prynnes Epistle Dedicatory to his Quench∣coal. It is not for such a poor creature as I am, to blame or find fault with those alterations, which I find imitated in our last edition of the Liturgy. Only I wonder why in the Office for the Fifth of No∣vember Ministers are not directed to read the Sta∣tute for the observing of that day, seeing it is by law appointed to be read.

Ibid. He complains that our Convocations are be∣yond seas represented to consist only of Archbi∣shops and Bishops; and that the inferior Clergy is not permitted to sit and vote in them. Really if any gave such information, he was but too like to Mr. D. speaking of that which he either did not, or would not understand. The Convocations of Eng∣land do consist of an upper and lower House; and

though the Upper House consists but of Archbi∣shops and Bishops, yet the Lower consists of the inferior Clergy, Deans, Prebendaries, Arch-dea∣cons and Proctors of the Clergy. P. 116. Mr. D. calls our Convocations a Council consisting of above sixscore reverend, grave, and learned Divines, cho∣sen out of many thousands, whereof twenty-six are Archbishops and Bishops, a greater number Deans, and Prebends, and Archdeacons: Which shews he understandeth not the frame and constitution of our Convocations, though they be the Church-Representative, that he pretends to write for. The Convocation for the very Province of Canterbury, (besides which, there is one for the Province of York) consists of an Archbishop, twenty-one Bi∣shops for the Upper House; the Lower House consist; of Deans twenty-two, Prebendaries twenty-four. Arch deacons fifty-four, Clerks representing the Clergy, forty-four; so that the very Lower House for this one Province, consists of One hun∣dred forty-four persons. But how these are chosen out of many thousands, they are men of rare facul∣ties that can understand. If we speak of the mem∣bers of Convocation, neither Bishops, nor Deans, nor Arch-deacons, are chosen to it, but come of course, just as Peers do to the House of Lords. As for the Prebends, they are chosen only by the Chapters, which I hope are not many thousands; the Diocesan Clergy may be said to be chosen out of many thousands; but they for the Province of Canterbury are but forty-four. It may be Mr. D. meant that these Divines are chosen to their Digni∣ties out of many thousands; but that will be a

grosser untruth than the other: for Bishops are chosen by the Dean and Chapter of that Church to which they are sent, but they have not many thousands to chuse out of; there is but one nomi∣nated to be chosen, and him I believe the Dean and Chapter must chuse, and return his Election; and the Election being returned and ratified by Royal assent, the Metropolitan must either consecrate or confirm, as occasion requireth. That which the Puritans were wont to complain of, was the ine∣quality of the Representative; they say for ex∣ample, If all who are chosen by the Diocesan Clergy for the whole Province of Canterbury, should desire a Reformation, yet they could not carry it; because the Arch-deacons who are the Bishops creatures, as being chosen solely by them, are ten in number more than they; and they also were wont to say, That the Bishops would take on them to nominate the two Clerks for the Dio∣cess; and if it be so, they said it was in effect all one as if the Convocation had consisted only of Bishops. This notwithstanding, Dr. Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted, seems to envy the Presbyters so much as sitting in Councils: 'Tis evident, saith he, Episc. assert. p. 283.) that the Laws of Pro∣vinces, and of the Catholick Church, were made by Conventions of Bishops, without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters, or any else, for sentence and decision; the instances of this are just as many as there are Councils. The parishes of both Pro∣vinces in England, are above nine thousand two hundred; the pastors of these parishes send about Fifty-two to represent them and in the very House

where they sit, there are above twice as many (in whose election they were no way concerned) that have equal votes with them; and besides, there is an Upper House of Bishops. Mr. Durell would exceed Plutarch himself, if he could find in any Reformed Church a parallel. Let him try how such a Synod as this will hit with that which the Theses of Saumur say concerning Councils.

But I have almost forgotten my self. Let Mr. D. go on to wipe off false aspersions cast on our Bishops. P. 86. Men beyond the seas are told that every one of our Bishops is a Pope, nay more than a Pope in his Diocess; prescribing and imposing of himself what he pleaseth to his Clergy; whereas eve∣ry Bishops authority is limited by his subscription to the 39 articles, &c. by the Constitutions and Ca∣nons Ecclesiastical, and by the Laws of the Land, according to the prescript whereof he is to rule his diccess, and no otherwise; calling always to joyn with him in imposition of hands, and other matters of weighty concernment, some of the Prebends of his Cathedral, or other grave Ministers of the Diocess. Certainly this Preacher knows not what a Pope is, if he think that what these calumniators report of the Bishops, makes them worse than Popes. But let them deserve to keep the Whetstone for their tale, Mr. D. will have it from them again; for nothing is more false, than that by any Constituti∣ons or Laws Bishops are bound to call unto them ei∣ther Prebends or grave Ministers to joyn with them in imposition of hands, and in all other weighty mat∣ters. The Bishops lay on hands in confirmation of children, who is to joyn with him in that Imposi∣tion?

They lay on hands when they ordain Dea∣cons, are they to call any to joyn with them in that imposition of hands?

Ay, but they cannot ordain a Presbyter regu∣larly, unless some Presbyters joyn with them in laying on of hands.

Really they cannot: but now the question is, What the hands of the Presbyters signifie? And truly if we ask those that stickle for Hierarchy, they will say, they signifie just nothing, or next to nothing: this conjunction of Presbyters is not ad essentiam operis, but ad dignitatem sacerdotii. The Presbyters hands confer nothing of the power of Order upon the party ordained, but only testifie their consent unto the business, and approbation of the man. So Dr. Heylin History of Episcopacy, p. 162. and to the same purpose Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted. Is not the Presbytery fairly advanced? it may do what the Laity did, or at least may do, testifie consent and approbation of the man? Again, the suspension of a Minister is a weighty thing; who is appointed to joyn with the Bishop in this? Excommunication also is a weighty thing; Who must joyn with the Bishop in that? Finally, Mr. D. would oblige me greatly if he would fully satisfie me what Canons and Constitutions the Bishops are to govern their Clergy by. I hope no Canons are in force but those of 1603. which I am sure are more than be well observed; but there were Legatine Canons in number Seventy-seven, made by Otho and Otho∣bone; and Provincial Canons made under Stephen Langthon and Henry Chichly Archbishops of Can∣terbury,

digested into a body by William Lindwood, as the former were by John Mon, Canon of Lin∣coln; and some say, that so much of all these Ca∣nons as is not contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land, is still in force; if so, as so it may be for ought I know, then I am sure a great many of the Clergy know not how they are to be go∣verned; but if any should know all Canons and Constitutions, and understand that the Bishop pre∣scribes things contrary to all Law and Canons, what then? Why then there lyes an Appeal, or a Prohibition may be obtained, to the cost of nei∣ther of which a poor Countrey-Vicar can easily raise his purse.

P. 87. Mr. D. is at his old trade of over-reach∣ing: for he describeth Monsieur Goyon to be a man as well versed in antiquity, as is possible.

Yet neither he nor I can tell the bounds of pos∣sibility in the skill of antiquity; and perhaps both of us can tell of some that are more skilful in Church-History than this Monsieur.

P. 103. The Church of England is be-lied, for of her it is said, that she holdeth subordination of Ministers in the Christian Church, to be of A∣postolical, nay of Divine Institution, having (as she conceiveth) for grounds of this her judgment, beside Scripture, the practice of the holy Apo∣stles in their times, of the Universal Church ever since, until this latter age; and which is more, of Christ himself, who ordained the Apostles and the Seventy, in an imparity, as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church; yet notwithstand∣ing she doth but simply assert the lawfulness of her own Government.

Certainly this man doth not pretend to know the conceptions of our Church, till they be disco∣vered; and the Church hath no where declared her conceptions to be these, That subordination of Ministers, beside Scripture, is grounded on the pra∣ctice of the Apostles, and of Christ himself. The practice of the Apostles, and of Christ, is not be∣side Scripture, but recorded in Scripture; nor doth the Church any where say that Christ instituted the Apostles and the Seventy as two distinct Or∣ders of Ministers in his Church; if she do, then Dr. Hammond did not know her mind, or else plainly contradicts her.

P. 144. contains no fewer than four calumnies against Presbyterians, which must be manifested in their order.

1. The Presbyterians had no set-forms, nor in∣deed would receive any, whether for Common-prayer or for administration of Sacraments, Matrimony, &c.

I believe some Presbyterians had set-forms for all these; and I am sure they do not account it un∣lawful to receive set-forms for any of these, only they may, and some of them do judge it inexpedi∣ent to have Ministers so tied up in all these, as ne∣ver in the least to vary, either by addition or sub∣straction. I never heard of Presbyterian that ad∣ministred Baptism in any other form of words than those appointed in the Liturgy. I baptize in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; nor the Lords Supper in any other form of words but what is Scriptural; nor Marriage but in a set-form, either that in the Common-prayer-book, or that in the Directory.

2. For a long time many of them had left off the use of that very form our Lord hath taught us, p. 37. He had said, That most, if not all Directorians, had left out of their Service, for a long time, that most complete, most divine form of prayer.

Mr. Paget, Mr. Ball, Mr. Hodges, have printed Apologies for the use of the Lords prayer; hun∣dreds of those who now suffer deprivation, have thousands of witnesses that they have used it in their Churches and in their Families, on Sundays, on Fasting-days, and yet they must have this filth thrown into their dish. However, on this occasi∣on let us try what Mr. D. can say: Suppose some Presbyterians had never used this prayer in the Pulpit, but only at the Lords Supper, had they not president in the ancient Church to justifie them in so doing? yea, suppose some should say that it were no sin never to use this prayer, provided a man took it as the pattern of his prayer, how would Mr. D. stop their mouths, and prove them trans∣gressors? In his Sermon p. 26. he brings the words Luke 11. When ye pray, say; and this place is commonly urged, but perhaps is not so strong as some imagine it to be, at least when managed as they manage it: for I ask, What is the meaning of, When ye pray, say? Is the meaning, When ye pray, say after this manner, or say these words? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but after this manner, then the sword is not long enough to reach Mr. Ainsworth and his disci∣ples, for they pretend to say after that manner, (and not to conceal any part of the truth, the Syriack translation in Luke requires it to be ren∣dred, sic, or ad hunc modum estote dicentes), but

let the words mean, say these words, then I ask, Whether the words in St. Matthew, or St. Luke? If the words that occur in Luke, then we have no precept for the Doxology, as it is in Matthew. And really I have wondred what they meant, who were wont to say at the conclusion of their Pulpit-pray∣ers, In his name and in his words we further pray, saying as he hath taught us; and yet had never satis∣fied themselves, that the Doxology which they con∣stantly in that case used was of our Lords own indi∣ting. There is reason (saith Dr. Hammond) to believe that the words of Doxology came in out of the Greek Liturgies; and that the ancientest Greek Copies have them not, Pract. Cat. lib. 3. sect. 2. Gro∣tius had said as much before. Those who believe these two Learned men, had need alter the form of words with which they usher in the Lords Prayer. 'Tis not safe to ascribe to Christ any thing but what is his; but how shall a man know that the copies in which the Doxology is wanting, are the most an∣cient?

Erasmus saith he found the Doxology in all the Greek Copies: Lucas Brugensis, that it was in all the Greek Parisian Copies but one. And if one look into the various readings collected in our late Polyglot Bibles, he shall find the Copies that want these words of Doxology, to be but few; where∣fore Grotius hath got no credit by saying, Seeing that they are not extant in the most ancient Greek Copies, but are extant in the Syriack, Arabick, and Latin Context, we may learn not only that the Ara∣bick and Latin Version, but also the Syriack, was made after that the Liturgy of the Churches was

brought into a certain form. For the Doxology is not in some Arabick Versions, not in that which is inserted into the Polyglot Bibles. If the Syriack and Arabick (which Grotius saw) had put in the Doxology out of the Greek Liturgies, why did they not also put it in in the Gospel of Luke? un∣less it could be made appear that the Greek Litur∣gies varied, I know not how he can answer this question. Let me add this caution to young Scho∣lars, that they be not too hasty to give credit to every Copy that some men magnifie. That Syriack Translation which is followed in the New Testa∣ment in our Polyglot Bibles, if it were the anci∣entest, would be a good argument of the Antiqui∣ty of Festivals or Holy-days; but the Translation which Immanuel Tremelius followed, for ought I know may be much ancienter; and in it there ap∣peareth no such distinction of days. To return to St. Luke, if his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 import that we must use his very words in Greek, or words in our language as near as may be to his, then must we not follow our Liturgy; for though it sometimes inserts the Doxology, and sometimes omits it, yet it never translateth the Lords Prayer according to St. Luke; Give us this day our daily bread, and for∣give us our trespasses as we forgive them that tre∣spass against us; is not to translate, but paraphrase on St. Luke. It is a little odd, that in the whole Liturgy the Lords Prayer should never be put in the same words that are used in all our Translati∣ons of the Bibles that were authorized, whether new or old. Will Mr. D. say, If Christ bid us use these very words, that we may use other of like

nature and import; and yet that if the Church bid us use her words, that we must use them and no other? The Brownist will say the Church may well allow as much liberty as she taketh. Besides, what assurance can Mr. D. give the Brownists what words the Lord Jesus used when his disciples desired him to teach them how to pray? Grotius the great, saith, It is credible, that several things are thrown into the Greek copies of St. Luke, out of St. Matthew; and the things he supposeth to be thrust in, are all that are left out of the old La∣tin copies; if so, the Lords Prayer must be made much shorter than ever it is made in our Liturgy; we must not say which art in heaven; nor thy will be done as in heaven, so on earth; nor, but deliver us from evil. The Brownist hath not yet done with Mr. D. but will ask him how often he is bound to say the Lords Prayer by virtue of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: p. 27. of his Sermon he tells them, that this and another reason by him there mentioned, obliged those Protestants which follow the Augustane Confession, and those of the Reformed Churches of Holland. to say it ordinarily before and after meals, at the end of their Graces. Had these men reason to think themselves obliged to this cu∣stom? If they had, then is Mr. D. obliged also, and sins every time he doth not use the Lords Prayer before and after meals: if it were their mistake to think themselves obliged, how will he give security that he is not mistaken in counting himself obliged to say a Pater noster every time that he bends his knee to God in prayer, either in the beginning, or middle, or end of his prayer?

If he plead a command of Christ, as he doth in that Sermon, he must prove the quoties, which it will be hard for him to do; and if he talk of Christs sanctifying a form with his own mouth, he must give us either the very words Christ spoke, or else a juster translation of them than any he will find in the Common-prayer-book.

Finally, If we have not received the grace of the Gospel in vain, we must look on Christ as ri∣sen from the dead, ascended into heaven, confirm∣ed the Universal Priest, Intercessor, and Advo∣cate; so could not the Disciples look on him when Christ taught them to pray; which may be the reason why he told them, that hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name, Joh. 16.24. where∣fore though it be lawful and expedient to use the Lords Prayer, as we commonly use it; and though the things to be prayed for, cannot be better sum∣med up, or more briefly comprised; yet vulgar people will be in great danger not to say the Lords Prayer in the Lords name; not to think of his merit and intercession, unless they have prayers so formed as to force them to a more distinct appre∣hension of Christs propitiation, than the Lords Prayer doth. Let it be observed whether the Doxo∣logies made, or mentioned to be made after Christs ascension into heaven, do not lead us distinctly and particularly to offer and ascribe praise unto God, in the name of Christ, or by Christ; or unto God and the Lamb, or unto Christ, Ephes. 3.2••. 1. Tim. 6.16. Rev. 5.13. The more pains that Dr. Light∣foot and others do take to show us the Lords Prayer in the Jewish Liturgies, the more do they unawares

strengthen men in a persuasion that it was not in∣tended to be a pattern to us to form our prayers unto, any more than as to the matter, or things to be prayed for. It cannot be that the Jewish and Christian Liturgy should not differ much in the manner of our addresses unto God: it will be hard to find the Holy One called the God and fa∣ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, or his God and our God, his father and our father, by any Jew; and yet no expressions more meet for the mouth of a Christian.

I pass to the third calumny in Mr. D.'s p. 144. Most of them wholly neglected the Lords Supper for many years. Neglect is when a Minister hath op∣portunity to administer, and doth not administer; Did most of the Presbyterians thus neglect the administration of the Eucharist? Who doth not know that many of them administred it oftner than by the Liturgy is required? Hath Mr. D. never heard of their Associations either printed or not printed, in order to the exercise of discipline? Doth not the Directory say, The Lords Supper is to be administred often? If any secluded any one from that Ordinance who was of an orderly life, and understood the first principles of the Oracles of God, he did it not from Presbyterian principles; but I remember that p. 44. he taxeth the Univer∣sities of this Kingdom, and saith, That the Ʋni∣versity of Oxford had no Communion for above twelve years. Yet the Ministers are known, who did frequently administer the Communion in the Churches and Chappels of that University, in those

twelve years. But it may be he meant, that in twelve years time the Ʋniversity as an Ʋniversity had no Communion. To which I say, If that were a fault, it will not much concern the Presbyteri∣ans; for the four Vicechancellors of Oxford du∣ring those twelve years, were not Presbyterians; and perhaps the University as an University, is not a Church: for if it be, who is Pastor of it? or who hath power to censure those who be disor∣derly? Both Chancellor and Vicechancellor may be lay-men. The Communions appointed to be at St. Maries at the beginning of the Terms, were lately appointed, and the penalties appointed for those who neglect to come to them, are not Eccle∣siastical penalties, and I believe the twentieth part of the University never was at any one of them: was it meet to make such a clamour about the omission of them?

A fourth Calumny is, That in the Presbyterians Congregations, there was a great irreverence at prayer, very few kneeling, many not so much as pulling off their hats. Of this irreverence he saith he is an eye-witness. Was he not well employed the mean while? Could he find nothing else to do when in a Christian Congregation, but only to tell how many kneeled, and who had their hats quite off, and who half off, and who never uncovered their head at all? In how many Congregations was he to make this observation? if (as is proba∣ble) but in a few, what unrighteousness is it to measure all Congregations by a few? And is he sure that the men whom he observed to be so ir∣reverent, were Presbyterians? Why might they

not be some of his own perswasion who did come to put an affront on Presbyterians Prayers? Either kneeling, or standing Presbyterians commended to their people, and never practised (unless in case of infirmity) any other gesture in praying that ever I heard of, and yet I have made enquiry. But it was necessary that Mr. D. should draw them like Devils or else he could not have made them abhorred.

Could a man but obtain leave of his conscience to lay open the irreverence of the Episcopal As∣semblies, what stories might he tell? More I am sure than Mr. D. would be willing to hear. I believe there is not an honest heart but akes to consider the rudeness of the admirers of our Li∣turgy in their addresses to God whether in the Church or in their own houses. I speak of the vulgar sort of them; put on their Hats they do not, but they usually sit on their seats, at publick Prayer, and which is worse stare up and down to see who comes in, and who goes out of the Church, if their Landlord chance to come in, in the midst of their Devotion up they rise and make their obeisance. Follow them to their Houses there you may observe them to truss and pray, to wash their Faces and to say their Prayers. I once met with an old man who had been bred up to Liturgies all his days, dealing with him about his Soul, I found he never prayed any thing at home but the Lords-Prayer, and that he never repeated that Prayer till he was first got into his bed, and he told me he thought no man in England used any other posture in saying his Prayers. And I was

told by a Minister whom I dare believe, that he hapned at an Inn, to lie in the same Chamber with a man of a good estate, who waking in the morn∣ing and thinking the Divine to be asleep, gets out of his bed, takes his Doublet and Breeches, falls to dressing himself, but whilest he dressed himself he said the general confession and the absolution in the Common-Prayer-Book; when he was be∣ginning the Lords-Prayer, then he took the Cham∣ber-pot into his hand, and did it may be imagined what. Here's irreverence with a witness, I charge it not on Episcopacy, yet I may with a better conscience than Mr. D. chargeth the not putting off of Hats at Prayer on Presbytery, or Pres∣byterian Nonconformists. He that would know what outward reverence they require in the wor∣ship of God, and upon what reasons they build it, and how necessary they account it, and what thoughts they have of those who use it not, may inform himself from Mr. Arthur Hildershams plain but very solid discourse on the fourth of St. John. He that hath not the Book by him may find much quoted out of him by Dr. Nicholat Bernard in his discourse of a set form of Prayer, Printed, 1659.

And now that I am fallen upon Mr. D's forty fourth page, it may not be amiss to advert that he fears not to say, all the Reformed world over no man that is not a notorious ill-liver, is debarred from the Sacrament; what will he be afraid to say that fears not to say this? Is there no reformed Church that debars any but a notorious ill-liver from the Sacrament? Certainly it is not necessary

that he who danceth should be a notorious ill liver? and yet Mr. D. knows where any that can be proved to have danced, would be kept from the Sacrament. He that should turn Pelagian may be no notorious ill-liver, yet such a one would be kept from the Sacrament in most if not in all re∣formed Churches, so would he also that should not be satisfied to bring his Child to Baptism; and yet I imagine such a one need not be a noto∣rious ill-liver. Suppose an English Protestant should think it irreverence to receive the Sacrament not kneeling, such a man if Mr. D. be to be believed cannot be admitted to the Sacrament in France, yet such a one may lead a life not notoriously scandalous. By a Canon of our own Church, the communion is to be administred to none but such as kneel, nor to any but such as be present at publick Prayers, according to the orders of the Church, yet I know some such who are far enough from being notorious ill livers. I am almost cer∣tain that there is scarce a reformed Church whose Principles and Rules of discipline do not debar such from Sacramental communion as are no noto∣rious ill livers, I wish I were as certain that no Reformed Churches did contrary to their own Rules of discipline, admit such as are notorious ill-livers, then I should promise my self that Christ would with more delight walk among his golden Candlesticks.

P. 185. Whatever be the reason of it, Our Liturgy hath no other Enemies abroad where it is well known, but the Papists. This is an untruth as might be proved, by a thousand instances. But

let us see the occasion of it, that we have in the same Page. The Magistrate of Paris his stopping the Printing and forbidding the publishing of the English Liturgy, (whereas that of Geneva is dayly Printed and sold there) the reason he thinks could be no other, but a fear that it would be better liked by most Christians, that have either judgment, learning or true piety, and are void of superstition, peevishness, extravagant zeal, and prophaneness, be they of what perswasion soever. This is not very charitable, all or most that are not either super∣stitious, peevish, extravagantly zealous, and pro∣phane will better like the English than the Geneva Liturgy. If after this the French Ministers do not Petition their King that they may exchange the Geneva for the English Liturgy, they know their doom.

Perhaps Mr. D. will plead that the French living in France, would be denied the use of the English Liturgy Translated into their own Lan∣guage though they should desire it. But what will he say to those French Churches that are scat∣tered up and down in this Nation, they are not sure quite void of judgment, learning, true piety, yet it is known, that they when they might have had thanks from Archbishop Laud, if they would have received the English Liturgy for the French, which they had been accustomed to, did not care for receiving of it, but used all possible endeavours to keep themselves in statu quo. Dr. Heylin relates the History of their wrestlings against the intro∣duction of our Liturgy among them, from him Mr. D. may take it at his leisure. If I have not

forgot since I read it, one argument made use of to keep the Metropolitan from pressing them to Conformity, was drawn from the just fear there was, that by so rigorous calling for Uniformity, the Christian King might be moved to persecute his Protestant Subjects; for Cardinal Richlieu had given out such a speech, If the King of England being a Protestant will not suffer two disciplines, why should the King of France being a Papist suffer two Religions? A shrewd speech and well to be thought on by any Metropolitan that shall go about to bring all foreign Churches to comply with our own, or else to dissolve them.

I take no notice of the High commendations given of our Liturgy, by the noble Princess of Turenne, and the Dutchess of la Force her own Mother, he that will may see them Page 78, and 186. I only wish that if the English Liturgy be of so great force to edifie people in the Pro∣testant Religion, it had been put into the hand of the Noble Marquess of Turenne to prevent his revolt to Popery, for it is said that he is grown a Roman Catholick.

In his Sermon P. 20. He is not ashamed to say

that whosoever hath devotion and leisure enough to come to the Church, and be present at Divine Service every day morning and evening may hear the whole Bible read every Year, the old Testament once, and the new no less than thrice, and the Book of Psalms no less than twelve times.

This can only be practised by those who live near to Cathedrals, let us imagine that any so

living, had devotion, and leisure enough, to come to his mother Church, from the first of January, to the last of December, this man would not hear the whole Bible, neither the Old Testament once, nor the New Testament thrice. The Liturgy saith so, yet Mr. D. in a pang of zeal, dare say otherwise. Whether the Church do well to leave out 188 Chapters of the Old Testament, and to appoint 121 of the Apocrypha, is not the question, we are on a matter of fact, and I say Mr. D. hath falsified in that, and will have no thanks for his falsification, the Church not desiring him to lie for her sake.

Another tale in P. 23. of his Sermon. It is re∣quired of the People that they repeat aloud the con∣fession of Sins, that they may be more sensibly affected therewith.

This is just like giving a reason why the Swan sings just before her death whenas we know that she doth not so sing. The people are not required to repeat aloud the confession of sins, rather they are exhorted to repeat it with a submiss, or lowly voice. But now we are fallen on this word Loud, I would fain know what the meaning of it is. In the first Book of Edward the sixth the Priest being in the Quire was appointed to begin the Divine Service with the Lords-Prayer, using a loud voice; in the late Liturgies he is appointed after the Absolution, to begin it with a loud voice; in this last with an audible voice, the people kneeling and repeating it with him; in the Precatiuncles after the Creed, the Minister, Clarks, and People are ordered to say the Lords-Prayer with a loud

voice, in former and later Books. But in K. Ed∣ward's first Book the people were not to speak till deliver us from evil; at evening prayer t's ap∣pointed that the Minister shall kneel, and say the Lords-Prayer, the people kneeling, and repeating it with him, no mention being made of the kind of voice to be used, yet after the Creed at evening prayer, all are to say the Prayer with a loud voice. I never observed any Minister or people to speak louder, in repeating the Lords Prayer at one time than at another, nor know I what is meant by a loud voice, or whether there be any difference betwixt it and an audible voice, nor if there be none, what's meant by an audible voice, for to whom must the peoples voice be audible, to those that sit next to them? or to the Minister? or to the whole congregation? Mr. D. doth converse with great personages, and he knows the meaning of these terms.

P. 265. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth be∣fore the making of the Act of Uniformity, those that did not love white, made a great noise with∣in and without this land, and bestirred themselves on all sides that they might be dispensed with for wearing the surplice. Among other means used by them to come to their ends, they applied themselves to some in the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, and perswaded them that if the surplice was imposed, huge numbers of Ministers, nay many of the Bishops themselves, would leave their Ministry. Whereupon the Prince Elector Palatine that then was, commanded Zanchius to write to the Queen, to disswade her Majesty

from imposing the use of such Vestments, which he did accordingly; but the business not succeed∣ing according to their desires, and the Noncon∣formists giving out still that there would be a great dissipation in this Church by the desertion of so many Bishops and Ministers, what did Zan∣chius thereupon, &c.

Such an Harangue of impertinence and falshood have I seldom or never met with; and yet we are in the Margin directed to Zanchy's Epistle to Juel, as if thence all the materials of it had been fetched. In my books Zanchy's Letter to Juel bears date just the very day next to that written to Q. Eliz. so that in twenty four hours time the Nonconformists of England must know that a Let∣ter came from heidelberg to London, was received by the Queen, and proved not effectual with her, and thereupon give out stories of Bishops that would leave their Sees, and hope for another Ad∣dress to be made on their behalf; if so, they must needs have the Intelligences that move the Pri∣mum mobile for their Secretaries and Messengers. Zanchy's Letter to Juel I am sure doth not in the least intimate, that the English Nonconformists made any applications to some in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas; all that can thence be collected, is but this, that the June before he did write his Letter, one called Montius returned out of England, and told him besides others, that a great difference was stirred up in the English Church a∣bout Vestments, and therefore desired him that he would by a Letter both admonish the Queen of her Office, and also write to those Bishops that were

known to him, and especially to Juel. Upon his and others entreaties, and his Princes command, Zan∣chy did write to the Queen a Letter, as he was con∣fident, not evil, (which is to be seen) and not know∣ing what the Queen would do, he writes also to Juel, That he would by his Authority, Learn∣ing and Prudence, endeavour with the Bishops not to leave their Sees, rather than wear linnen; yet so, that they must know that the Queen is inexo∣rable; and also when they wear linne, make a protestation.

This Letter, 'tis like, never came to Juel's hands, he dying about twelve days after it was written. Nor need it trouble us, that Juel never saw it, seeing there was no Bishop then in any dan∣ger to lose his Place for not wearing linnen; nor can I think there is any one Minister now so much out of love with white, as rather to leave his Mi∣nistry, than put on a Surplice, provided he may but make lawful protestation how and on what accounts he useth it. Indeed the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of some Nonconformists in the late times was this, that they loved white too well; for their woollen clothes were white, or next to white; their locks were powdered with white powder, their white Half∣shirts were very visible, to the great offence of some serious persons both in Countrey and Uni∣versity. But let not Mr. D. rejoice because some Nonconformists did thus habit themselves; for these Nonconformists were not Presbyterians, but either inclined to ways of separation, or else such as had new••y laid by their Canonical dress, and were resolved no longer to be called black-coats.

Here therefore let me beseech all who would not be deceived in reading our Histories concerning the disorderly carriages of Ministers in the late times, well to consider who they were that were so disorderly; and if they find that any of them were of the old Nonconforming Presbyterians, I am much mistaken: if they find none were such, how unreasonable is it to charge on Presbyterians the faults of such as returned to Conformity so soon as His Majesty required them; and left not off to conform till they could not keep their Con∣formity and Livings too?

Too too long I have been in detecting falshoods, had it not been necessary to try whether I could put Mr. D. to some shame. I am now to shew you, as briefly as I can, in how many things he hath wronged his Munificent and Bountiful Mo∣ther of England.

P. 10. He takes pains to tell us of an Oath of Canonical obedience sworn by Ministers in Hun∣gary to the Bishop and to the Seniors: in the Oath he that swears, acknowledgeth himself to re∣ceive his Ministry from both Bishop and Seniors. These Seniors are but a more eminent sort of Pres∣byters, as his quotation p. 11. intimates. What is this but to bring in Hungary's witness against the sole power of Order and Jurisdiction of the En∣glish Bishops?

P. 12, 13. He relates a tedious story of the fra∣tres Bohemi, and the care that they took to preserve a succession of Ministers. They sent Michael Zam∣bergius and two more to the poor Waldenses (who never had a Bishop among them but in title only)

and two titular Bishops, with some that had not so much as the title of Bishops, made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops, giving them power of Ordination. This is manifestly to put a weapon into the Presbyterians hands; they were wont only to quote the story of Pelagius the Pope being ordained by a Presbyter with two Bishops, now Mr. D. hath afforded them another Story, to prove that a Presbyter may lay hands on, and ordain Bishops; Is this his kindness to the Pre∣lates?

Another prejudice and mischief he designes to the Church is as he tells us, Page 14. To set forth a Collection of the several Liturgies of all the Pro∣testant Churches. This may please him, because it is the brat of his own brain, but will not sure please the Reverend Fathers of the Church. Doth he not know that Archbishop Laud did put a stop to the Letters Patents, for a Collection for the Palatinate, because it was said in them, that the Palatinate Religion, and ours was the same, and that Popery was an Antichristian yoke? Doth he not also know that when a Book was Published here in England intituled a Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palsgraves Churches, Arch∣bishop Laud took a course to call it in? I advise him, if he love his preferments, no more to med∣dle in this kind. Had Dr. Peter du Moulin any thing bestowed on him since he answered Philanax Anglicus?

P. 45. He quotes Calvin saying that the custom of distributing the Sacrament but thrice a year is vitious, and yet that is the custom of our Church,

and that not observed in all places neither, for the generality communicate but once a year, and so follow, if Mr. D. be in the right, the Devils invention.

P. 53. He saith by just and evident consequence that there is not a wise understanding Christian in our Church, for these are his words: That every national Church ought to have Ʋniformity within it self, hath always been the judgment of all sober Christians: I assume, That every national Church should have Ʋniformity within it self, hath not been the judgment of the Church of England. I tremble for Mr. D's sake to infer the conclusion. The Minor I prove from the Canons of 1640. where a difformity is allowed, and the Apostolical rule commended to dissenters, not to judge, not to despise.

Follow him but to P. 93 and there you shall have him charging Rebellion and Schisme on the major part of his Conforming brethren. For there he tells us of a great persecution against all Ministers who adhered to the King and Church of England during the late troubles, this persecution was so gentle to some as only to plunder and turn them out of their livings, but cast others out of the Land, or forced them to a voluntary exile. Thus therefore I argue:

All Ministers that adhered to the King and Church, were either turned out of their livings or banished, or left the Land.

The major part of the Conforming Ministers did neither lose their livings, nor were banished, nor went into voluntary exile.

The••••••••re the major part of the Conforming Ministers neither adhered to King, nor Church, and by just consequence were Traitors and Schis∣maticks.

The Minor is as clear as the Sun, to all that observed the management of things in England, he that Licensed Mr. D's Book had the same Fellowship in All Soules, at his Majesties re∣turn, that he had at the decollation of his Fa∣ther.

P. 95. He tells us, that he and some others were admitted to livings in France, the Synod desiring them only to conform to their Rites, Ceremonies, and Orders, for the time they should live amongst them, (for a Nonconformist Minister is a thing un∣known and never suffered in those Churches.) This is nonsense to an English ear, for the Church may be full of Nonconformists if men are admitted into livings, being desired only and not enjoyned to conform to Rites and Ceremonies and Orders. But he told us P. 54. All admitted to livings must subscribe to the confession of faith, wherefore we may think he subscribed to the parity of Ministers, and by an order passed at Charenton all are to swear they will propugne the Canons of the Synod of Dort, if that order be not rescinded, then 'tis like he is under Oath to defend a Doctrine which most of the Fathers of this Church think, if not against our own Doctrine, yet subversive of the Doctrine according to Godliness.

P. 96. He saith that it is a principle common to all reformed Churches in the World, That every national Church hath power to make Laws for her self, in all such outward things as are not either

expresly commanded, or forbidden in the word of God.

God forbid that any such principle should be maintained, by all or by any Reformed Church in the whole world. There are many outward as well as inward things not commanded nor forbidden expresly, but only by just and ne∣cessary consequence, about which the Church hath no power to make Laws to her self any more than about those things that are expresly either com∣manded or forbidden, else there would be mad work in the World. Where doth Mr. D. find family Prayer, or infant Baptisme, or the obser∣vation of the Lords days expresly either forbidden or commanded in Gods word? He will say that the Church may make Laws about these, I grant she may, but no other than what she can make about things either commanded or forbidden expresly. So that he wrongeth not only our own Church, but all Reformed Churches in affixing such a prin∣ciple to them. Dr. Heylin ascribes to Calvin a quite contrary principle. Hist. of Presb. 238.

That in carrying on the work of a Reformation, there is not any thing to be exacted, which is not warranted, and required by the word of God; that in such cases there is no Rule left for worldly wisdom, for moderation and compliance, but all things to be ordered, as they are directed by his will revealed.

Page 241. He makes this Calvins rule, and Martyrs judgment to be grounded on it, That nothing should be acted in a Reformation, which is not warranted expresly in the word of God. Are

East and West more opposite than Dr. H. and Mr. D. yet neither truly represents the opinion of the Reformed. I beseech those who are at leisure, and have well studied the point, to state plainly and clearly unto us the due matter of Ec∣clesiastical Laws, and to show us the meaning of the term, indifferent, so frequently made use of in this Controversy: for it seemeth somewhat an uncouth assertion that Church governors may command all things that are usually called indif∣ferent, for then many of their Laws would be very contemptible. The old definition of things Adiaphorous was, that they were things neither commanded, nor forbidden; this definition seemed to me innocent enough, but of late there are Divines sprung up, that say, the highest acts of love to God are not commanded, neither I trow are they forbidden, must we call them then things indifferent? And hath the Church power to de∣termine who shall put forth those Acts, and how often they shall be put forth? It may be Mr. D. thinks the highest acts of love are commanded, (and so do I) but he had best not to be too forward in publishing that notion.

P. 99. He falls into an high commendation of the Bohemian Churches, as he doth also in many other Pages of his Book; this is little to the ad∣vantage of our Church; for if that Church be to be imitated, we must have lay Presbyters and lay Presbyteresses also, Pastors of Parishes must con∣firm, people must come under examination every time they receive the Sacrament, we must have no dancings, and we may have particular Synods

without a Bishop, if we communicate the acts thereof presently to the absent Bishops, and we must have none brought into Communion but those who are willing, and yet we here can by censures, if we please, make Papists communicate with us, or else have them excommunicated and clapt into Prison.

P. 107. He gives the Presbyterians lame Cause a cruth. For he saith, God only hath power to bind the Conscience immediately; ask him when mens Consciences are bound immediately, he tells you, when humane Laws and Constitutions are thrust upon men, as if they were Divine.

Here will the Presbyterian say, Episcopacy which is but an humane institution, is thrust on us as Divine, and not only as good and profitable; therefore unless we will give men jurisdiction over our consciences, we cannot conform. Mr. D. cannot bring himself off here, but by maintaining that Episcopacy is a Divine institution, and it would be too great impudence to say that in so saying he should not contradict every reformed Church almost besides our own.

P. 118. He mentions the sending of a Printed Copy of the Acts of the Synod of Dort to King James, Prince Charles, Archbishop of Canterbury by Festus Hommius, this is to rub a sore place, and to tell the World, that we who now suffer our Divines and Students to bespatter that Synod, did once well approve of its decisions.

P. 126. He mentions a Letter of Monsieur le Moine, out of which he saith he will set down as much as fits his present design: what doth he set

down? Why Page 136. That the English have a natural fierceness, and withal a natural inclination to superstition. Is this for Mr. Durells design, to blaft the people of that nation where he hath been so highly preferred? Are we indeed fierce and superstitious? Naturally fierce, and naturally Su∣perstitious? What kind of superstition is it to which we are so naturally inclined, that so we may know how to enquire after the cure of so dangerous a disease? It is no matter if we may believe Mr. Moine to enquire further, let but Episcopal Authority be established, that will keep us from going beyond our bounds. Very good, but by whom shall this Episcopal Authority be managed? By English men I hope, but how then can we be assured that their natural fierceness and inclination to superstition will not remain in them? We never could observe that a mans being constituted a Bishop did make him less fierce or superstitious, any more than less an English man. Perhaps this Learned Predicant would have all our Divines come and study in France, that they may lose their disease of superstition, as sometimes they do their Consumptions in so refined an Air, but that Plot will not take. He hath another argu∣ment for Episcopacy, it cannot enter into a rational mans imagination, that a great Kingdom should come by custom to be content to see its Bishops no more, having honoured and reverenced them for the space of 1400 Years. If this be so, then may the Bishops be secure, we are so accustomed to love them, that we cannot be content to be without them, and have been a great Kingdom and honoured and

reverenced them 1400 Years. Where may we that live in England find these things recorded con∣cerning our selves? for the Histories we read usually, do not make us a great Kingdom, but many petty Kingdoms 1400 Years ago.

If ever any made their ungratefulness no∣torious, certainly they are the English opposers of Episcopacy, who will not consider that they owe their Reformation to the care and zeal of their Bishops, who did so wonderfully well re∣purge the Church of England an hundred years ago, and so happily set up the holy truth again, in its genuine lustre. But this is not all they owe unto them: they owe them also their Christi∣anity. For whether it was brought over into England by Joseph of Arimathea, or by Simon Cannaeus, or by St. Paul, or by St. Peter, or by Luke disciple of Philip, or by Phaganus and Perusianus, in the time of King Lucius, it is constant that it was done by the Ministry of Bishops, and that they are endebted to their charity, zeal, and abilities, for the holy Re∣formation they now enjoy.

Do we indeed owe our late Reformation from Popery unto Bishops? Wickliff the day-star of our reformation, was no Bishop; those that suffered in King Henry the eighths time were no Bishops: Cranmer when he first set himself to dispute against the Marriage was no Bishop, when under that King he obtained to be a Bishop he had his hand in the blood of the Saints. Yet we honour his me∣mory, for what he did towards Reformation in King Edward the sixth's time, and for what he had

begun to do in his fathers reign, we can easily forgive him his Petitioning the King for liberty for his sister Mary, and his fierce opposition to Mr. Hooper; but we should be against the truth, if we do not say, that our Reformation had been very imperfect, if not strenuously promoted by the Presbyters and Nonconformists of that age. We must need say, that Cranmer did recant, and that Bishop Ridly had begun in the Tower to go to Mass, and left not off, till reclaimed by the Letter of his Nonconforming friend and Pupil Mr. John Bradford. Those that least loved ceremonies did least love their lives when they were to lose them for Christs sake. I take no pleasure in this com∣parison, nor had I made it, but that Mr. D. ascribes a strange weakness to Mr. Hooper, and makes Peter Martyr to scruple a Cap because it was too Mathe∣matical. As for our first conversion from Pa∣ganisme, Mr. Moine writes very strangely about it.

P. 40. Else he would not saint Peter and Paul, and not Joseph of Arimathea, nor Philip, nor Simon Cannaeus. Nor secondly would he have left out Aristobulus whom some have affirmed to Preach the Gospel among us, and to be Bishop of Britan, and to have ended his days in Britan, and instead of him put in Luke a disciple of Philip: for what considerable Author ever ascribed the first bringing of Christianity among us unto Luke a disciple of Philip? We have indeed a story that St. Philip, (but whether the Apostle or Evangelist none can tell) sent over twelve Preachers into Britan perhaps Mr. Moine hath met with some Autho,

who tells him that one of their names was Luke, but the chief of them being Joseph of Arimathea, as all agree, unto him we must ascribe the work under God.

But he will scarce be proved to be a Bishop, or to have left any Bishop behind him. It may be in the reign of King Lucius we shall meet with Bishops. The story of him runs thus; That about the year 160 he began to have a good liking of Christianity, being convinced by the Miracles he saw or heard to be wrought by the Christians of that age. He had with him, Elvanus, and Med∣vinus two holy men, and well versed in the Scrip∣ture whom he sends to Eleutherius (or as some would have his name written Eleutherus) Bishop of Rome, desiring that by him he might be made a Christian, that is Christned or Baptized, for he is conceived to have believed with the heart before. Why did he send so far to procure Baptisme? had he no Ministers in that Island over a part of which he was an under King? Perhaps he had, but thought it more Royal to send to Rome for Ministers; from Rome he had two sent him, the Roman Martyrology calls them Fugatius, and Donatianus, alias Damianus, others write them Faganus and Derwianus or Dunianus, others Pha∣ganus and Duvianus, (none I think Phaganus and Perusianus but M. M. and D.) That either of these was a Bishop there is no evidence, Mason saith plainly, neither of them did ever attain that dignity. Elvanus some say was made a Bishop, and Medvinus a Doctor or Presbyter. Hitherto we have but a Bishop, no Bishops, to whose zeal

we are endebted for our Christianity. And I am of opinion that as Elvanus was as much a Doctor as Medvinus, so Medvinus was as much a Bishop as Elvanus, and that there never was Bishop pro∣perly so called among us till Austin the Monk was sent hither from Rome. The stories of 28 Bishops made in the room of 28 Flamens, and 3 Archbishops made in the place of 3 Archflamens, seems to me as well as to Mr. Fuller, Flammes, and Archflammes. I know that at the Council of Ari∣minum, Sulpitius makes three Bishops out of Britan, to be present, Anno 259. As also that Athanasius speaks of British Bishops at the Council of Sardis, Anno 347. Nor will I deny that Restitutus Bishop of London is reported to have subscribed to the Council of Arles in France, Anno 314: but if he and others subscribed to the determinations of that Synod, how comes it to pass that the Churches to which they belonged did not account themselves concerned to leave off their old, and almost sin∣gular way of observing Easter? surely it must be because Bishops were not then thought to have so much authority over their Churches as now they would be thought to have. When Austin the Monk had got entertainment in the Kingdom of the Mercians, and was made Archbishop of Can∣terbury, he calls a Council to be made up of British, and Saxons, and now if ever, we shall find what the Government Ecclesiastical of the British was, and pity it is we must fetch our account of it, only, or principally, from Bede, a venerable man indeed, but a Saxon, and professed enemy to the British.

Two Meetings Austin and the British had: To the first came certain Bishops, saith Bede, lib. 2. c. 2. but let his phrase be observed, Episcopi, sive Do∣ctores being come, Austin layeth to their charge, That they practised many things contrary to the unity of the Church. But they continuing to pre∣fer their own rites to those that Austin would have commended to them, the crafty Archbishop per∣swades them to refer the decision to God himself, but so that the British who were in possession, must first try whether God would work a miracle in favour of their opinion; not being able to cure a blind man brought before them. Austin falls on his knees, praying the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that by restoring sight to that one blind man, he would enlighten the eyes of many; and forthwith the blind was enabled to see. What was the effect? the British ought to have condemned themselves for consenting to tempt God; but if we may believe Bede, they acknowledge that Au∣stin declared the way of righteousness (as if the way of righteousness had consisted in rites and ce∣remonies); but that they could not without the con∣sent and leave of theirs, depart from their old cu∣stoms. It seems these Bishops did not think that their consent could conclude their Presbyters and people. Well, another meeting is agreed on, to which came no fewer than seven Bishops and many very learned men, especially out of the famous Mo∣nastry now called Bangor, but anciently Bancorna∣burgh; these, before they came to the place ap∣pointed, ask counsel of a wise and pious Anchoret, whether they had best desert their Traditions upon

the preaching of Austin: If he be a man of God, quoth this Counceller, then follow him; and if when you come into the room, he rise up to you then take him to be a servant of Christ. Austin not rising up to them when they came into the place of confer∣ence, they contradict him in every thing he pro∣pounded. In three things at last, saith Austin, if you will comply, I will bear with all other your diversities; 1. You must celèbrate Easter as we do. 2. You must administer Baptism according to the manner of the holy Roman Church. 3. You must preach with us the Gospel to the English Nation. Of the many other things in which the Britans differed from the Romish, I conceive this was one, that they left both Ordination and Excommunication to a Pres∣byter as well as to a Bishop. And this Austin would have tolerated. The reasons of this my opinion are many, and probable, grounded on the Histories of those times; one I shall mention, viz. that the Scots were mingled with the British when they had these meetings; now that the Scots did originally commit acts of order and jurisdiction to Presby∣ters, is a thing well known; if any doubt concern∣ing it, he may receive satisfaction from the large Preface of Mr. Selden to the Histories published by Mr. Bee not twenty years ago. I am the more con∣fident in this my opinion, because I find that when our British Churches had throughly imbibed the Romish modes and customs, then at a Synod held at Celichyth A. D. 816. it was decreed, That none of the Scottish Nation should be permitted to use the sacred Ministry among us.

This was all I had intended about our old British

Churches when loe there came to my hands the History of Mr. Petry quoted by the Latin Apo∣logist; that Historian goeth a little more confi∣dently to work, than I have done; for thus saith he, Century 11. Pag. 282, 283.

As for England since the Saxons, or Englishes receiving the faith by Augustine, they had always Bishops; for they had their Pattern from Rome as it was then: but if we look up to the Ancient Britans in that Land, we shall find it otherways. I have said in Century 7. Chap. 4. that seven Bishops and one Archbishop, came from the Britans unto Augustin: and there I followed the words of Bishop Juel, in the defence of the Apology, Page 14. An. 1520. where he quoteth Bede, His. lib. 2. cap. 2. and in the same Page he quoteth Galfred, lib. 8. cap. 8. repeating the same words. What I wrote then upon trust, I have afterwards examined: and I find that Bede speaks not so: for in the Edition in Fol. Camb. An. 1643. he saith, Austin called the Bishops or Doctors of the nearest Province of the Britans; and in the same Page, he, speaking of the same persons, saith, a blind English Boy was brought unto the Priests of the Britans, and again they said they would not depart from the Ancient Customs, without the consent and licence, suorum. In the Margin it is said, in the Saxon Language it is said, without the permission, and licence of their Nation. Then speaking of their second conference, he saith, then came seven Bishops as they said, and more very Learned men, espe∣cially of that Famous Monastry, of which the

Governour at that time was Dinooth. In a word, Beda hath not one word of an Archbishop; nor in all his History nameth he one Bishops-See, nor any Bishops name: and whom he calleth Bishops of Britan, he calleth them Doctors, or Teachers, and Priests, yea he calleth them oftner Priests; nor calleth he them simply Bishops, as he calleth them simply Priests, but Bishops, as they say, or Bishops, or Teachers. Yet Beda could distin∣guish between a Bishop and a Priest—What can be concluded from hence, but that no Bishop or Prelate was among the Britans other than Priests? As for Galfrid, it is no marvail that he wrote according to the stile of his own time, that is the year 1150. The said Author also quotes Gildas a Britan Presbyter distinguishing Church-men into Bishops or Priests, and the Clerks, but naming no other degree of Church∣men, calling the first sort oftest Sacerdotes simply, but never Episcopos, unless he adds sive Sacer∣dotes.

What think I of all this? truly whatever I think, I will not say very much, for I have not by me either Juels Apology, or the Cambridg Edition of Bede, or Galfrid, or Gildas. Only thus much I may say, that if Gildas who lived before Austin was sent to us, and Bede who was born as Thomas Stubbes computes but Anno 677. can give us no tidings of any Church Officers above Presbyters among the Britans, it will not signifie much that Jeffry Monmouth who lived but in King Stephens time makes mention of Bishops. To put an end to this matter.

1. He who first converted this Island to Christi∣anity was no Bishop.

2. Those two whom Eleutherius sent (upon the Petition of Lucius) to instruct us, were no Bi∣shops.

3. Austin himself and his associates when they first attempted the conversion of the Mercian Sax∣ons were no Bishops but only Monks.

4. Wickliffe and his followers were no Bishops, but being Presbyters were wont to ordain Pres∣byters.

5. No one Bishop ever suffered death in England for striving against Popery till Queen Maries Reign.

6. Of those Bishops who suffered in Queen Maries Reign the Nonconformists may lay claim to as many at least as the Conformists can do, and perhaps there was not one Martyr in all her Reign that afferted the Jus divinum of Episcopacy. Now if all these things be true, what means the clamor of ingratitude against Presbyterians, for not own∣ing those to whom they owe the Nations Refor∣mation from Popery yea and its Christianity also? But let us view more of Mr. Moines Letter. Pag. 139. If the French had kept Bishops, and as many Ceremonies as would serve to fix the attention of the people without superstition, they should have seen for certain, far greater progress of Reformation, and the resistance of a great many persons overcome who are frighted from their communion by the irre∣gularity of their government and the bareness of their service. If this were certain I could wish that they had Bishops and Ceremonies among them

to morrow, but we in England have not been able to observe that the number of Papists is lessened since the restitution of Bishops and Ceremonies, nay since that some among us have fallen off to Popery who before professed the Reformed Re∣ligion. It is not any form of Government, or external mode of worship, that must put the Pa∣pists to shame, but the exemplary lives of Mini∣sters and people who separate from them. When men once feel in their hearts the power of God∣liness, they are in no great danger to turn Roman Catholicks. He hath another conceit, P. 139, 140. that the not receiving of Episcopal Government, may hinder the much desired union with the brethren that do follow the confession of Auspurg. In this I do vehe∣mently dissent from him, for the yielding to Episco∣pal government would rather alienate them from us. Tell them that the ordinations made by Luther are invalid because he was but a mere Presbyter, or that as many of them as come over hither, must be reordained before they are capable of any Ecclesiastical preferment, unless they have been ordained by Bishops properly so called, they will quickly let you see that no reconciliation is to be hoped for. I dare boldly say the generality of Presbyterians in England are against no Episcopacy but what the Lutherans themselves abhor.

There are sundry other things in Mr. Moines Letter for the which I could expose him, but I forbear, and desire English men not to estimate him by this Letter, which is so interpolated that he need not own it as his. I undertake at any time to bring a credible witness, that shall swear, that

Mr. Moine hath both by word of mouth, and also by Letter under his hand declared that his mind about Episcopacy is not truly represented by this Letter, as Printed by Mr. Durel, many things being left out that would as much have crossed his design, as those which he hath published, do further it.

I come now to the Assembly that Mr. Durell hath called to decide our controversies for us, he will have Joannes Amos Comenius the only sur∣viving Bohemian Bishop permitted to speak first, and the Presbyterians desire nothing more, they have some of them translated a great deal of his Book into English, they refuse not to stand or fall by his Paraenesis directed by name to the Church of England, when it seemed sollicitous concerning the best form of Church Government. Had not Mr. D. picked and culled out of the writings of the Divines whom he quotes just so much as would serve his turn, he had manifestly betrayed the cause of those who have preferred him, in the judgment of uninterested men; he hath done it consequentially by referring Scholars to the Books of the Authors themselves. For let a man go to the Letter of Monsieur Bochart written to Dr. Morley, and there he shall find that Presbytery is Ancienter than Episcopacy. The Reader also is directed to go to a Letter of Monsieur Vauquelins to prove that he thought the Book of common prayer very far from Popery and Superstition, Page 278. but if he go to Page 189. he shall find he saith only that there is not in the Book any formal superstition, which certainly is not to say it is very far from superstition.

I profess I know not any one Member of that Assembly Mr. D. would have called, that hath not in his writings said more against the Church of England in the Controversies now on foot than for it. Of Danaeus I have spoken before, and suppose Mr. D. will be willing enough to have him left out of the Synod; if he will not, let him at his leisure read what he saith of Aerius in his Comment upon St. Augustine de Haeresibus. I shall enquire into the mind only of two or three more, and they shall be such as I suppose he will have no quarrel against, because they are Frenchmen, viz. Capell, Rivet, Casaubon. Capell tells him his mind plainly, in his Theses de divini verbi necessitate, Parag. 29. he saith, that there were by the Apostles themselves instituted Churches, and in every one of them before their death, there was constituted by them a Colledge of Presbyters, by whose Labor, Ministry, and dayly Preaching, the Doctrine of the Gospel might be propagated to the end of the World. In his Theses about the vocation of Evangelical Ministers, Parag. 11. The ordinary power of Preaching the Gospel is that which by the Apostles is committed to their successors, Presbyters being by them appointed in every City, in the Churches founded by them. In his Theses de diversis Mini∣strorum Evang. Ordinibus & gradibus, He vohe∣mently contends that the Ministry was properly in∣stituted by God to procure the eternal Salvation of men, and that the order of Presbyters alone may suffice to that end, and that the dignity and supe∣riority of Bishops above Presbyters is meerly of humane constitution, and that there was no cause

why the Bishops and their Patrons should so much on this cause and account, insult and wax insolent against those whom invidiously they call Puritans, and Presbyterians. In his Theses of the various Regiment of the Church, Parag. 15. He severely censures the pompous mode of worship used in our Cathedrals, but Parag. 24. he saith plainly, that the English-men did not do unwisely who threw the yoke of Episcopacy off their necks.

Ay, but in his Theses about Liturgies he retracts what he had written about abolishing Hierarchical Government. Ans. No man can see such re∣tractation but Mr. D. himself, who sees by ex∣tramission and not by intramission, as we may ob∣serve, Page 193, 194. Had Capell intended any retractation he would have used plain words im∣porting a revocation, or retractation of what he had before written, but he useth no words but what may well consist with what he had before said. When the same Capell comes to deliver his judgment about festivals, he even laughs at the reason or argument used by our great Hooker, to prove them by. But go we from Capell to Dr. Andrew Rivet, whose engagements and obliga∣tions to our Bishops were perhaps greater, for that he was civilly treated by some of them, as he doth somewhere acknowledge; as also that at Oxford he had the Honorary degree of Doctor conferred on him. His judgment about Episcopacy we have seen before; about other things let him now have leave to speak. First, it is like enough that at the University be might observe that form of Oath, Ita me Deus adjuvet, & sancta Dei Evan∣gelia,

whether that Oath stuck in his stomach or no, I cannot tell, but in his explication of the Decalogue, he puts this question,

What is to be thought of that custom which obtaineth in some Churches that have in other things thrown off the Popish superstitions, that he that sweareth should touch the Holy Bibles, or the Gospels, or some part thereof. And answereth, if the words be conceived as among the Papists, so God help me and these Holy Gospels, I see not how the reliques of superstition can be excused.

In the same explication of the Decalogue putting the question concerning the Saints days observed here in England, he saith

he cannot approve the judg∣ment of those who accuse our Church of Idolatry on that account, but wisheth withal the custom were amended, because of the peril of Idolatry.

Just as our Presbyterians are accustomed to say. In his Comment on Exod. cap. 28. He handleth a question about the special and peculiar vestments of Ministers, and hath these words. Whereas in England Ministers put on linen vestments, it were not to be indured, if they did this in imitation of the Jews, or for any mystical signification. But how if they do it only for some distinction, yet still we must be afraid of Gideons Ephod.

Of the novelty of Organical Musick, he speaks expresly and largely, especially in his Preface to his comment on Hosea, and in his Catholicus Ortho∣doxus against Baily. Where also he may be seen decrying the observation of Lent if it pretend to be Apostolical. He is indeed a most professed Champion of the Presbyterian cause in almost every thing under debate.

As for Isaac Casaubon he was indeed a very Learned Critick, and for ought I know a person truly pious. Mr. D. accounts him his own, and therefore in the very title Page of his Vindiciae brings in his testimony to the Church of England, out of an Epistle written to Claudius Salmasius, Quod sime conjectura non fallit, totius Reformatoinis pars integerrima est in Anglia, ubi cum studio veri∣tatis viget studium antiquitatis.

These words are indeed found in an Epistle writ∣ten raptim hastily, by Casaubon to Salmasius much about that time when some of our Bishops had declared their approbation of some of Casaubons Theological Essaies, which sundry Divines both from Holland and France had disliked. In this good mood Casaubon commends the English for the study of Antiquity, but at other times he grievously complains to Thuanus and Heinsius that we encourage no study but Theology. In the 604 Epis. he asks what good could come of instructing his two sons in learning. Medicina hic sane non viget. Jurisprudentia illa vetus & vera plane jacet, vix de nomine paucis nota. Epistle 799. he intimates his design to send his son Merick to Heinsius, be∣cause he desired to have him well exercised in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and could not hope that should be done in England. Is not the study of Antiquity like to be carried on well where a young man cannot he trained up to any eminent skill in Hebrew, Greek or Latin?

I suppose we had not in this last Epistle been so extremely undervalued, had not the learned man been exasperated by Mr. Mountague, whose endea∣vours

against Baronius, he judged very injurious to his own credit and reputation, as may be seen Epistle 717, 718. This may suffice to make us not to be proud of Casaubons commendation; if I thought it not sufficient, I could go near to prove, that Casaubon judged men more or less studious of antiquity, according as they were more or less zealous against the Arminians.

But I let pass his synodical determinations, and come to his Sermon where I find him, Pag. 16. giving leave to Rome to rank our Reformers among the Contentious, if it can be found that either they have laid aside, or taken up any one thing whereof it may be said that the Holy Apostles, or Apostolick Churches had or had not such a Custom: he addes indeed, Rome was never able to do it, nor never shall. But she knows well enough that she can, for she knows, that we have taken up Surplices which were not used by the Holy Apostles or any Apostolick Churches, and we give Baronies to our Bishops which neither the Apostles nor any Apostolick Churches did, and we place our Baptisteries in our Temples, which was done neither by Apostles nor Apostolical Churches. On the other side we have left off Unction, and Love-feasts, and the Holy Kiss, all which were used by the Apostles, and Apostolical Churches. So that Rome by Mr. D's carelesly worded proposition hath leave to reckon our Reformers among contentious ones.

P. 17. He useth a plain Turkish Argument to confirm and uphold the cause of the Church, for he saith, that the miraculous manner whereby it hath pleased God to raise her up ought to be to all an evident

proof that she is her beloveds, and her beloved is hers, and an argument that her Reformation is certainly the work of God, and his Counsel which shall stand. Just thus the Papists were wont to prate when Popery was restored by Q. Mary, and just thus also did the Fanaticks argue when they were per∣mitted by God to conquer three flourishing King∣domes, and to put all the Nations round about into a pannick fear. Let us not be high minded, but rejoice in trembling. God hath pleaded with us by his strange judgments since Episcopacy was re-established among us, we have had a sharp war, a dreadful fire, a sweeping Pestilence; I do not say because Episcopacy is restored, but because sin doth abound, and prophaness runs like a river and migh∣ty flowing stream; if we do not soundly humble our selves, God may soon take from us, his wor∣ship, our Ministers, and all that Reformation in the which we glory, and yet his Counsel will stand nevertheless.

Pag. 22. He perfectly affronteth the express words of our Church in the Liturgy, for there it is said, that the commination of sinners is used until the Primitive discipline of putting persons convicted of notorious sins to pennance at the beginning of Lent, and only until that discipline can be restored which is much to be wished. But Mr. D. saith, there can be nothing more powerful to touch sinners to the quick, and to draw them from their evil courses, than the Commination to which the whole Congregation is bound to say Amen, after every particular denun∣ciation of Gods curse, upon all sorts of sinners who persist in their sins. And indeed it is meet he should

say so, for he had before given Rome leave to call us Contentious, if we had left off any custom used in the Apostolick Churches, and we here do con∣fess, that we have left off one that was very godly; indeed we say, it is to be wished it were restored, but who hinders the restoring of it but our selves? Have other Churches power to enjoyn Penance, and have we none? Or will other people submit to that discipline and not ours? Are not forni∣cators put to open pennance, and why may not other sinners be so punished too? But not to multiply interrogatories, the Church holds pennance would be more powerful than the form of com∣mination she useth; Mr. D. saith, nothing can be more powerful than the commination; he will sure impose some pennance on himself for this boldness, and watch his Pen better for the time to come. Perhaps he will say his meaning was honest, and wholesome, viz. that the form of Commination is very powerful to touch sinners to the quick, if so, he may do well to consider, 1. Whether it be conducible to tye Ministers never to use it but on Ashwednesdays unless they have particular order from their Ordinaries, for why should so powerful a preservative against sin be used but once a year, especially seeing the use of it but once a year is found insufficient to reclaim profaneness cum primis saluturis est caeremonia, sed non video cur debeat exhiberi solum uno die, & non saepius, said the Great Bucer when he saw it restrained by the first Book of K. Edward to one day, thereupon it was altered in following Liturgies to divers times in the year. Grindals Articles enjoyned it to be used on some Sunday near the three great feasts of the Church,

Easter, Pentecost, Christmas, Ashwednesday not excluded, but now no day is allowed but Ashwed∣nesday, unless there come an order from the Ordi∣nary, which I have not heard that any Ordinary hath sent since the return of his Majesty. 2. What meaneth that mincing of the commination, Deut. 27.16. the Text saith, Cursed is he that setteth light by Father and Mother, we say Cursed is he that curseth Father and Mother, what if any should from this take occasion to think that there is no great danger in setting light by Father and Mother, provided they do not rise so high in their impiety as to curse them, (an iniquity that I hope few are guilty of) and what meaneth that addition to the curse of the man that maketh any carved or molten image, viz. to worship it. In the Text there is no such addition, and the Church did afterwards in the last commination curse the wor∣shippers of images though now it be changed into Idolaters. The very making of some images, viz. of God, the Trinity, &c. doth entitle to a curse whether they be worshipped or no, and what hurt were it if people were made to know so much. 3. Why have we no curse against prophane swear∣ing so common among us, nor any against Rebel∣lion? The Scripture affordeth plenty of such curses.

But as the Comminations is now ordered, I can say Amen to it, taking Amen not only as it signi∣fieth, so it is, but as it usually signifieth so be it, so run the words in the Bible, Deut. 27. so also, Jer. 17.5. And he is unworthy to be continued a Church member, who is like to curse himself by

any such imprecation, nor shall any man that so prayeth sin against another that is guilty of those sins, for when we say Cursed is such a sinner, our meaning is if he continue, and whilest he con∣tinueth such, and with that restriction we may say cursed be, as I doubt not but the Israelites did as often as they used this ceremony appointed by God, so thought the Septuagint; else they would not have Translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

The Lords-prayer few scruple to say, yet he that useth that form doth virtually curse himself if he have any malice reigning in his heart.

P. 23. He saith we are appointed to be con∣firmed, to receive the blessing from our Pastor (as if none were our Pastor but a Bishop) and he gives it with the Imposition of hands, and with pray∣ers, without Chrisme, or any such superstitious or superfluous Ceremony. What words are these? they do indeed directly only reflect on the ancient Church and our first Reformers, and the compilers of the first Liturgy of Edward the sixth, by which chrism was appointed at Baptism, though not that I find in Confirmation, by the Ancients I am sure it was used in Confirmation; Mr. D. dare adventure to call it superstitious and superfluous. But his words will by just consequence reach the cross in Baptism, used also in confirmation by the first Reformers, for why should chrisme be ac∣counted a superstitious and superfluous Ceremony, rather than the cross, the one is as Ancient as the other, and as innocent as the other, both were equally abused in Popery, of the two the Cross may seem more superfluous, for in Baptism, we

have an outward rite signifying the same thing that the Cross is pretended to signifie; but to sig∣nifie our unction by the Holy Ghost, which was in the first Liturgy prayed for, and ought still to be prayed for, we have no outward rite at all; Nor do I fee why unction may not as well be used to certifie confirmed persons of the unction from the Holy one, as imposition of hands, to certifie them of Gods gracious favour and goodness towards them, which is made the end, in the Office of Confir∣mation.

P. 26. If the several repetitions of the Lords-prayer, which are to be found in our Liturgy, were made immediately one after another, or within a short time, &c. I say upon such an account we might justly be censured for using vain repetitions. This wounds the Liturgy sorely if it do not strike it to the very heart, for not to say that it doth ap∣point several Lords-prayers to be said within a short space, (which may truly be said) it mani∣festly appoints repetitions of gloria Patri within a short space, and this will bring us within the guilt of vain repetitions, unless a reason can be given why gloria Patri may be repeated within a short space, and Pater noster may not, which rea∣son Mr. D. will give ad Graecas Calendas.

Thus have I given you an account of Mr. D's English Book under four heads, and now you will expect to have my judgment as touching his Latin Book called vindiciae sacrae Ecclesiae Anglicanae. I say first that I know not what he means by his Ecclesia Anglicana, doth he mean the company of true believers or good Christians (really or re∣putatively

so) in England? if he do, quis Lace∣daemoniorum vituperat? why doth he make a vindication of that Church which none went about to accuse? doth he mean by it the Bishops of the several Diocesses in this Kingdom of England, 'tis like he cannot mean them, for they call them∣selves the Sons of the Church, and we look on the Church as that to which the last complaint must be made, for so our Saviour directs, if thy Brother offend first tell him, then take with thee two or three, then tell the Church, now if any one should injure a Bishop (as for my part I judge Mr. D. hath grievously injured every one of them by dedicating such a Volume of raileries to them) the Bishop must first tell him by himself, and then take with him two or three, and if he regard not them, then he must tell the Church, that is himself if a Bishop be the Church. 'Tis like by the Church he means the Church representative, or Convocation, now there is a Canon, that denounceth an heavy penalty against those, who deny the Convocation to be the Church of England by representation, and I am fully resolved not to come within the reach of that Canon, I love not excommengement. But if Mr. D. will take up the patronage of this Church Representative, his best way had been first to prove that it is the Church Representative, or else the Presbyterians will say that his whole dis∣course is de non-ente.

Mr. Henry Jeanes had before he knew how things went in the world set forth a treatise (which it was my hap to read over) asserting the obliga∣tion that lay upon English Divines, to comply with

the Church: but in his retractations and repent∣ings, thus he recalls himself,

I wonder upon what account I or any man else could think the Convocation to be the Church of England; if in any sense it can be called the Church of England, it was because it represented the Ministry of Eng∣land, and that it did not, because the far major part of it were Cathedral-men, Bishops, Deans, Arch-Deacons, and such as were chosen by the respective Chapters of each Cathedral: it might then be a Representation of the Cathedral Mini∣sters, but not of the Ministry of England, and that I make good by two Parallels. The first shall be betwixt our Convocation, and the Coun∣cil of Trent: many sober and moderate Papists accused this to be a pack'd Assembly, a Represen∣tation of, not the Catholick Church, but the Court of Rome, because the greatest part of it were of the Popes Faction, and depended wholly upon him: So the major part of our Convocations were of the Bishops Faction, and minded chiefly the interest of Cathedrals: and therefore were not a Representative of all the Ministers in Eng∣land. I shall exemplifie this by instancing in the Diocess of Bathe and Wells, wherein I lived: In this there were Members of the lower house of Convocation, one Dean, three Arch-Deacons, and one chosen by the Chapter of Wells: and to bal∣lance these, there were but two Clarks chosen by the Ministry of the whole Diocess: Now what impartial man but will determine that these seven could be no due representation of the Ministers of the Diocess of Bathe and Wells, as long as five of

them were Members of the Cathedral, in whose Election the Ministers of the Diocess had no hand at all? A second parallel shall be betwixt our Convocation and a civil Assembly, wherein we will suppose that the Prince chuseth three hun∣dred, who are his Courtiers, or else such as have their dependance, either wholly, or in great part upon him, and the Nation chuse only a hundred: you may call this Assembly a Parliament, or what you will; but surely no rational man can think it to be a representation of the Nation, and as ir∣rational, were it to call the Convocation a repre∣sentation of the Ministers of England, seeing those chosen by the Ministers were an inconsiderable part of the Convocation.

Mr. D. belongeth to a Cathedral, nay as report goes to several Cathe∣drals, and therefore he had done but a piece of gratitude, to vindicate the Church from the Ar∣guments of a backslider from Conformity. Well, let him mean what he will by his Holy Church of England, we are told that he himself is Presbyter of this Holy Church of England, and that is a strange and very unusual phrase. Dr. Hammond, who de∣served well of the Hierarchy, in his Title page of his Dissertations, calls himself, Presbyterum An∣glicanum, and yet he was born in England, and or∣dained in England, and by an English Bishop, John Durell was born in Jersey, ordained in France, and by a Scotish Bishop, and yet he calls himself Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyterum. I doubt if things were throughly searched into, he would appear to be no English Presbyter, for we admit no Presbyters, but those who are canonically ordained, i. e. by a

Bishop; you'l say Mr. D. was ordained by a Bi∣shop, and he tells you the name of the Bishop, and his title: I know he doth, but I ask who made him a Bishop and a Presbyter? I much fear we shall find him one that was never ordained Presbyter but by Presbyters, or by those who had been them∣selves created Presbyters by meer Presbyters, though consecrated in England by Bishops; and if so, then vitium primae concoctionis, non corrigi∣tur in secundá aut tertiâ. Let him well consider this, and if occasion be, get himself re-ordained by some Bishop of English Blood and Ordination, else any one who envies him his preferments may chance to pick a hole in his coat. If he know not the Pe∣digree of the Scotish Bishops, it is in brief thus. In the year 1610, King James sent for Mr. John Spotswood, Mr. Gawen Hamilton, Mr. Andrew Lamb into England, that an Episcopal Character might be imprinted on them; to that end he issued out a Commission under the great Seal of England, to the Bishops of London, Ely, Wells, and Rochester, requiring them to proceed to the Consecration of three Scotch-men designed to be Bishops, which Consecration they did perform accordingly, Octob. 2••, 1610. But Bishop Andrews moved a scruple how the persons to be consecrated, were capable of Episcopal Consecration, seeing none of them had been formerly ordained Priests. Dr. Heylin tells us Hist. of Pres. p. 387. The scruple was removed by Archbishop Bancrost, alledging, that there was no such necessity of receiving Priesthood, but that Epi∣scopal Consecrations might be given without it; but he neither tells us the Objection nor Answer aright:

the Objection was, That the three Scots could not be consecrated Bishops, because they had never been made Presbyters, but by Presbyters; to which Bancroft replyed, That the Ordination of Presby∣ters by Presbyters was valid. But our present Bishops are not of the same mind, and therefore before they would consecrate Mr. James Sharp, they first ordained him Deacon, then Priest, and this they did not out of a pike or spleen against the man, but from judgement, conceiving he would not ordain others legitimè, unless he were so ordained; such as are by him ordained are capable regularly of preferment among us, but so are not any of the former brood of men, that were ordained by Scotch Bishops. This discourse is only designed to keep Mr. D. from despising the Presbyterians too much, to which he would be tempted if he should con∣ceive himself to stand on a basis as firm as some of his fellow Prebends. I advise him also not to be too forward to publish to the world how he hath let the Ministers of forreign Churches, Preach in his Church at the Savoy, for doubtless it is against the Act of Uniformity to let them Preach, though but occasionally in that Church, unless they have been ordained by some Bishops, because that Church at the Savoy hath submitted to the Bishop of Lon∣don as Pastor, and so hath not the immunities, that other French Churches may claim, and do claim.

As to the Book it self, common fame spreads a∣broad, that an Answer in Latin is preparing for it. We must expect and see what kind of thing it will be; for we may well conceive it will discover Mr.

D. to be John Lack-truth, John Lack-modesty. Cer∣tain I am, there be School-boys in England, that can discover him to be no familiar of Priscian; we lay-men can manifest that he had no regard to truth; and for modesty, he doth all-along bid de∣fiance to it. The Reverend Gisbert Voet, Profes∣sor of Ʋtrecht, of eminent learning and piety, the only surviving member of the Synod of Dort, is with him but a pitiful fellow. He dares venture to censure Thomas Gataker, than whom England scarce ever had either a more exact Critick, or ac∣complished Divine. Nay, that you may see his pride to the full, he was not ashamed to tell an Honourable person of this Nation, that one rea∣son which moved him to fall upon Mr. Baxter was, because the Latin Apologist for the Nonconform∣ists, had represented him as no equal match for Mr. Baxter. Could you think it possible that Mr. D. should conceit himself meet to cope with such an Antagonist, whom the Reformed Divines (who can understand the language in which his books are written) admire; to whom Amyrald not long since sent a Letter on purpose to let him know that he had never spoken contemptibly of him. Mr. Gaches is sufficiently depredicated by Mr. D. as an Eloquent Preacher, and as one of the best men living His Letter to Mr. B. is printed; by that let the world make estimation of him: or if Mr. Gaches testimonial can be discredited, then let the Saints everlasting rest, the Treatise against Anabap∣tism, and whatever else he hath written, be read and meditated upon seriously, there will scarce be found a Divine in whom there was a more happy

conjunction of eloquence and judgment, of holi∣ness and peaceableness. Not to detain you long, I shall make a few general animadversion on the Book, and so put an end to these papers which are grown too big.

1. The Author of the Vindiciae egregiously vio∣lates the Act of Indempnity and Oblivion, that buried all former miscarriages, he rakes them all out of the grave, as if he had no belief of the general judgment. If any Presbyterians made any application to such as in the late times took upon them supreme authority, he scores that up as an ar∣gument against Presbytery. Could any Presbyteri∣an be so vile as to imitate him, how easily might he tell him of a Primate of England, and Metro∣politan, who took up arms in the cause of the two Houses, and had a great sum voted him for his good service: Of a Conformist who was the prime Author of Jus Divinum regiminis Ecclesia∣stici: Of an Episcopal Divine now enjoying a good Living, who did write Politica Sacra & Civilia: Of sundry dignified men who came into sequestred places, and versified in behalf of the Protector. The late Wars began when I was a Child, and were finished before I was a man; but I have made the best enquiry that I could, and do find that sundry of the most eminent Nonconfor∣mists were alway unsatisfied about the Parliaments War, and did not stick as occasion was offered to de∣clare their dissatisfaction. I have found also, that the Divines most busie to bring about the late unhappy and deplorable changes, were such as had been of the most rigid Sect of the Conformists; Mr. Ed∣wards

in his Gangraena hath named some of them: I must not without leave from those who sit at the Stern, do so; but I profess I know not that Theologue who did either speak or write for put∣ting of the King to death, that had not been a Conformist before the Wars. The men now in place who lost any thing for refusing the Engage∣ment, will be found to be very few; some will be sound to come into the places of those who were turned out for not engaging. Dr. Heylin himself (as hot as he is against those who go by the name of Presbyterians) did Anno 1657. put forth his Ecclesia vindicata, much of such a strain as Mr. Durell's Vindiciae; in the general Preface to that Book, he addresseth himself to those who were then in power, and pleads for the men of his per∣swasion, by this argument, That they lived so peacea∣bly and inoffensively in their several stations, as that they could not be reproached with any disaffection to the then present Government in word or deed. Had some eminent man called a Presbyterian, said so much for those of his perswasion, what would Mr. D. have made of it? But the Reformed Religion may say, All these things are against me. Mr. D. makes the Principles of the English Presbyterians to lead to Rebellion. Dr. Owen long since equali∣zed the Puritans beyond the seas, with the Jesuits, in point of disloyalty. Dr. Heylin in his History of Presbyterians, hath driven the same nail further and deeper; nothing is wanting but some hot-headed fellow among the Protestants to lay Treason at the door of the Lutherans, and then the cry of the Romanists will be fulfilled. But still the English

Protestant will be white as snow; in vain is it so to think. The Parliament of England hath deter∣mined the matter of the Militia, and declared it unlawful on any account whatsoever to take up Arms against the King. Men will acquiesce in this Declaration, if not for Conscience-sake, yet at least for fear. I know no Book put out since his Majesties return, that hath asserted the lawful∣ness of subjects rising against their Soveraign, but one set forth as Mr. Rich. Hookers, and dedicated with the rest of his Works by Bishop Gauden to the King himself. Mr. Isaac Walton would have us think the Book is not his; and I wish he had brought better arguments to bring us to that per∣swasion. But I am sure that Bishop Bilson hath left things upon record which may vye with any thing quoted out of Calvin or Beza, by Dr. Heylin.

2. This Vindex when he meets in the Apolo∣gist with that he dares not justifie, presently puts it into his Catalogue of Legends, yet brings no probable arguments to prove it a Legend. The A∣pologist, whoever he was, seems to have written his Book under much bodily weakness, and hath plead∣ed for his brethren in Nonconformity rather ho∣nestly than fully; but as for the things that Mr. D. calls sables, I my self know many, if not all of them, to be true, and dare undertake to pro∣duce those who will attest them upon oath; yet if I could meet with the Apologist handsomely, I would severely rebuke him for putting some of them into print, for all truths are not to be pub∣lished at all times. I remember I once heard him that is the reputed Author of the Apology, say in

a Sermon, A man can scarce do a worse office to the Church, than to render Pastors despicable in the eyes of those whom they are to govern.

3. This Vindex when he falls into the mention of any Controversie that should be debated by him, takes his heels, and runs away from it, and drops some question about the which there was never any dispute. Twenty and ten instances might be given of this kind; I only take notice of one; he hath a Chapter utris magis faverit Calvi∣nus, &c. Whether Calvin most favoured the Schis∣matical Presbyterians, or Prelates? If this be to answer the Apologist, then let some one that re∣plies, put a question, Whether Calvin most fa∣voured Arminian Prelates, or Presbyterians? What hath Schism to do in the Controversie a∣bout Nonconformity? The greater part of Non∣conformists cannot be guilty of Schism, except they were guilty of it in their mothers womb, or when they sucked, or whilst they were School-boys: for thus the case stood with them; they were by their Parents sent to the University when Bishops were inter non-entia, or inter non apparentia. By study they came to acquire those gifts that were supposed to qualifie them for the Ministry; to the work of the Ministry they were seperated by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; yet many of them never declared dislike of Episcopa∣cy, nor opened their mouths against Ceremonies; never took the Covenant nor Engagement; were presented to vacant Livings by the true and un∣doubted Patrons: By Gods blessing they added to the Church such as should be saved. His Maje∣sties

return they defired so as none more; yet they must not be suffered to continue in an Ecclesiasti∣cal Benefice, unless they will submit to a thing scarce ever heard of, Reordination. It may be their mistake that they do not judge Ordination by Pres∣byters to be a nullity; but what is this to Schism?

Obj. I may expect you will thus accost me: If Mr. D. be so easily mastered, why do you not pay a debt of love you owe? why do you not write in Latin as once Mr. Nichols did in English, A Plea for the Innocent?

Resp. Verily for this reason, because I love not to have to do with those, who when they are put to silence, know not how to be ashamed; such a one this Monsieur is; for not long ago he met with a Noble Gentleman of this Nation, who hearing him say, That all the Divines beyond seas condemned the English Nonconformists, told him plainly, That he knew it was not so; and that some in France looked on him as an apostate for complying so far as he had done; and when he re∣plied, These are only some unwise hot-headed men; the honourable person rejoined, Nay, they are worthy and well tempered Ministers. Yet did not Mr. D. change the copy of his countenance. Is it possible then that I should bring him to repent∣ance? In a word, if you account Mr. D. an Au∣thor any way considerable, you have near you our old friend S. E. let him cull out of the Vindiciae what he esteemeth most strong, that do you send to me, if I do not by the first return of the Car∣rier send you a satisfactory answer (provided it

be directed not against persons, but the Cause) then account me a very vain-glorious animal. In the mean time listen not to those who are given to vain jangling, and false-witness bearing, but put on charity the bond of perfection, so shall an abundant entrance be administred unto you into that Kingdom, where there are no perverse di∣sputers; to that Kingdom that we may be both brought, is the sincere prayer of,

SIR,

Your humble servant, W. B.