I [...]ve of late so wholly addicted my self to practical Theology, and taken so huge a pleasure, in reading those Au­thors that never espoused the petty inte­rest of the Times, that next to wishing for Mr. Durell's sake, his Eristical volume had never been written, I wish for my own sake you had never sent it me, or at least sent it me under such circumstances, that I might have laid it down assoon as it had given me enough of it, i. e. as soon as I had read the Title page. Certainly if you had left me to pay the Stationer for it, if I had not returned it, it should only have stood in my Library, to encrease the number of my Books: nor should I have ever taken it down, unless when I take down Bonarscius his Amphitheatrum, i. e. when I have a mind to discover unto my self, or others, unto what a height of bitterness, corrupt nature, not re­strained by Grace, will transport men even in controversies relating to Religion; which of all others require to be managed with exemplary moderation and meekness: but [Page 2] seeing you have thought meet to be so bountiful as to bestow a Book on me, which must needs cost you sundry shillings: and seeing you have desired of me (for a requi­tal of your cost and charges) to throw a­way some time upon it, I should be extream­ly uncivil and unthankful, if I should not bestow a few hours in reading of it, or so much of it, as may be sufficient to pass a judgement upon the whole, the which yet I cannot so well do, until I have first given my censure of that English Treatise printed, 1662 the answering whereof in a Latin Apo­logy for the Nonconformists, has produced these voluminous Vindiciae, and of that Treatise my censure in brief is this, that a Noncomformist cannot better secure himself against it, then by standing at the mark, at the which its Author pretends to shoot all his Arrows; The controversies betwixt Con­formists and Non-Conformists being brought to their true State, it will appear that Mr. Durell either never knew them, or was afraid to come near them: To instance in a few particulars of many.

Several hundreds of Ministers during the late distractions, were ordained by meer Pres­byters, they only having courage enough to confer orders publickly, and solemnly with Fasting, Prayer and imposition of hands: None [Page 3] of these would the Bishops admit to Ecclesia­stical employment, unless they would submit to be re-ordained with and by that very form of Ordination, which is used for the Translating of Laicks into the state of Cler­gymen: Here two Questions arise, first, Whether a valid Ordination may be repeat­ed? and that the far greater part as well of Conformists, as Non-Conformists deny: the second therefore and only remaining Questi­on is, Whether an Ordination by meer Pres­byters be valid? if it be not, we nullifie the most famous Churches beyond the Seas, whom God has so remarkably owned and supported amid all the troubles and perse­cutions of their Popish Adversaries; if it be valid, then by the judgement even of the very Conformists, no other Ordination can be received: Mr. Durell was unwilling to an­nihilate those Churches in which he was bap­tized, and yet was as unwilling to justifie the English Presbyterians in not submitting to Re­ordination, and therefore wisely passed over these Questions in silence; but being by the Latin Apologist reprove for omitting so Ca­pital a controversie, he grows more hardy, and adventures to affirm the Case of the Pres­byterians beyond the Sea, and those in Eng­land, is not the same: because among them there are no Bishops, as among ours there [Page 4] were, and so they are defended by necessity, which ours cannnot plead. How much bet­ter had it been to have left this sore naked and exposed to the Eyes of all, than to have used a Plaister that can neither Cure, nor cover it? Is the Case of Transmarine and English Pres­byterians so vastly different? Why is the same hard measure meeted out to both? How comes it to pass, that if a man ordained at Rome, could obtain leave of himself to assent and consent, he were capable of the highest Ecclesiastical dignities: but if a man were or­dained at Geneva, the most unfeigned assent and consent will not qualify him for Ecclesia­stical dignities, unless he will also receive new Orders. Was it so from the beginning either of our first or second Reformations? were any of those, that either in the persecutions of King Henry the eight, or Queen Mary, fled be­yond the Seas, and received orders in reform­ed Churches, looked upon at their return as meer Lay-men? our Histories tell us they were not: nor would the right Reverend and Learned Bishop Morton so far scandalize the Neighbour Churches, as to re-ordain one of their Ministers, though strongly importuned so to do, by a Letter of the dissembling Arch­bishop of Spalato. Nor could Bishop Bán­croft be induced to give way, that the Scotch Divines should first be made Priests before [Page 5] they were Bishops, although it was alleadged that they had never been made Priests, but by Presbyters. So as this custom of Presbyte­rifying de novo those that before had received the gift of Presbytery, must needs be an in­novation here in England: of the which I wish I could give a more fair and plausible ac­count unto Forreigners, then for the present I am able; For it would greatly dishearten those renowned Ministers abroad, who live un­der a King of a different Religion from them, to come over to our Nation for a Sanctuary, if they must when come hither, break the Seal that God hath set to their Ministry, before they be admitted to any cure of Souls.

2. I say this pretended difference is no difference at all, for what though there were Bishops in England, yet did they not appear to magnifie their offices And it hath been wont to be accounted the same thing not to be, and not to appear: and if they had appeared, their appearance might perhaps make those Presbyters who gave orders without them Schismaticks, it could not possible make their orders null: for as formerly where our Church thought that Baptisme administred by a Mid­wife was valid, and allowed and enjoyned her in Case of necessity to baptize, the Mid­wife had offended, if she had baptized where there was no true necessity; yet this [Page 6] offence notwithstanding, her baptisme would have been reputed valid: so here, if our Pres­byters could confer a valid Ordination, when Bishops were not at hand, their Ordination must needs be valid, though Bishops were at hand; & therefore all the dust that is raised by Mr. D. to shew some difference between the Presbyters of our own and other Churches, could be designed to no other end, but to blind his own and his Readers Eyes, that so no notice might be taken how he got off this controversie: it may be he may come nearer the mark in the point of Episcopacy it self, but of that also we shall find that his Arrows fall Heavenly wide: For the Non-Conformist has again and again professed in conference and writing, that he can and would for peace­sake receive a Bishop, that should have as great a superintendence over Presbyters as ever Cyprian had over his, but they say that by assenting and consenting to the present Book of Ordination, they must acknowledge a Bishop to be by divine Institution, of a superiour order to a Presbyter; and for this they say they can find no Foundation in Scrip­ture, and less then none in any writings of modern reformed Divines: If they are mi­staken either in setting our Bishops higher then they have set themselves, or in making a Bishop when set to such a heighth, to be an [Page 7] Officer unknown to Primitive or Modern Churches, Mr. Durell had done a very Chri­stian work: if he had taken pains in the Spirit of meekness, to shew them their mi­stake: but he cannot sure think that he hath endeavoured any such thing: ‘He tells us page 4th. and the 5th. that all the Lutheran Churches have a subordination of Pastours, and that those who are in them called Su­perintendents, or Bishops, have the power of Ordination as the Bishops of the Church of England have.’

But does he believe what he himself writes? does he not know that they all found their Su­perintendency on a human and not on a divine institution? does he not know that some Luthe­ran Divines of eminent note, do with full mouth declaim against us here in England, because we so much appropriate the power of Ordi­nation unto Bishops? Tobias Major I am sure on this very score calls us Angli Papizantes: let all Scholars consult Chemnitius, Ge­rard, Brockmand, or any other Lutheran that writes common places, or if they be too ma­ny to consult, let them consult Hunnius's de­monstration of the Lutheran Ministry, in which they shall find him, though himself a Superintendent, making a Bishop in Ordina­tion to act only as the Churches instrument; and averring, that if the Church should dele­gate [Page 8] her power to a Presbyter, or to a Layman, the Ordination would be as valid, as if per­formed by a Bishop. The Non-Conformists have no quarrel against the name, either of Su­perintendent or Bishop, nor will it be any sa­tisfaction to them, to shew them Ecclesiasti­cal Persons in the Lutheran Churches, digni­fied by the name of Superintendents or Epis­copi, unless it could also be shewed, that they claim that dignity by divine right, and are re­ceived by the Elders, as an Order of men su­periour to them: the which will never be shewed: nay it will easily be proved, that meer Presbyters have ordained those who in Germany and Denmark go by the name of Bishops and Super-intendents: Nicholas, Amsdorft, as appears in his Life written by Melchior Adam, was created Bishop; but by whom was he created? by Martin Luther the Pastour of the place where the Ordination was solemnized, and two Pastours more. Now did these set this Bishop into an order superiour to their own? if they did, who gave them authority so to do? if they did not, then his Title notwithstanding he was still of the Order of Presbyters, and those that were afterwards ordained by him, were ordained but by a Presbyter. Likewise in Den­mark when Reformation there first began, se­ven Bishops of the Kingdome being cast out, [Page 9] there were seven Super-intendents ordained, who were to do the work of the expelled Bi­shops, and to be Executors of the whole Ec­clesiastical Ordination; but by whom were these seven ordained? even by John Bugenhagh, who was but a Presbyter, as may be seen in his Life, written by the forementioned Au­thor; so that such Episcopacy as is scrupled by the English Non-Conformist, has no place in any Lutheran Churches: and if not in the Lutheran, I am sure not in the reformed Churches.

Yet Mr. Durell in many places of his Book, makes shew as if the Episcopacy quarrelled against here in England, had place in some re­formed Churches, and that those very Churches among whose Ministers there is an equality, do not condemn Episcopal Go­vernment: the French Churches he is certain page 13. ‘are so far from averseness to it, that they rather wish they were in a condition to en­joy that sacred order.’

Now what means he by that sacred Order? if he do not mean an Order by Divine ap­pointment, superiour to the order of Presby­tery, he doth most egregiously trifle; If he do mean such an Order, I say that as many French Divines as do desire such an Order, are manifestly fallen off from the confession exhi­bited to Charles 9th. 1561. the 30th. Arti­cle whereof is this.

[Page 10] ‘We believe that all true Pastours in what place so ever they are set, are all endued with the same and equal power among them­selves, under that one head and chief and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ.’ And if any Ministers of the Belgick Churches do either desire or could approve of the English Hierarchy, they also must fall off from the Bel­gick Confession, which in the Synod of Dort was reviewed and approved: for if that Con­fession, had no inimicous aspect upon the Church Government in Britain, why did our Divines of England approve only that part of it, which related to Doctrine, not that which related to Discipline?

Our Prelates and their Friends in England do very much build their Hierarchy upon Ig­natius his Epistles. If the French Churches did not dislike the building, why do the most Learned of them take so much pains to ruine and pull up the Foundation? why have Blon­del, Salmasius, Dally, so long employed their Pens to prove the Epistles even in the best E­dition to be spurious; I know Mr. Durell tells a story concerning Blondel, that in his Apo­logy for the opinion of Hierom, he had insert­ed a passage, which some Scotch Ministers prevailed with him to blot out: in which he declares himself to be no Enemy unto Primi­tive Episcopacy: if that be true, he did not [Page 11] sure think our Episcopacy to be Primitive, for Doctor Hammond in his Answer to Blondel complains of him, as if he were so far from be­ing touched with any care of our Church, or sense of our miseries, that he thought meet contrarily more sharply to prick those that were already oppressed, and endeavoured to triumph over our Church when it was sick and staggering, and ready by reason of inward troubles to give up the Ghost; let Mr. Durell now consider, whether he will make his Countryman Blondell an Enemy to our Hierarchy, or make our Countryman Dr. Hammond a Calumniatour; one of the two he must unavoidably do: And for the future let him bethink himself how to wipe off that great and black blot, which he hath let fall upon some of the best and most obedient of the Sons of the Church of England, page 2. ‘viz. that they weakly suffered themselves to be brought into a bad and false opinion of the Transmarine reformed Churches, mee [...]ly by the reports given them by the new Presbyterians.’

For certainly it is little to their credit, when they had the Confessions and Symbolical Books of the reformed Churches in their Libraries, never to consult them, but to take up reports concerning their Neighbours, from Men, whose interest did lead them to make the world believe, that they had a many Friends a­broad, [Page 12] though but few at home. Doubtless our Episcopal Divines knew well enough, that the Hierarchy they aimed at was not counte­nanced by Sister-Churches; and long before Smectymnuus was heard of, or ever such a crea­ture as an Ordinance of Lords and Com­mons saw the light, one among us had said publickly, perfecto odio odi. Calvinum: and Bishop Laud had inured his tongue to say Ecclesia Romana, and Turba Genevensis: he had also told Bishop Hall, that though he did well to put a difference betwixt the Scottish and other Churches, yet he had written more favourably even of other Churches, than their cause would then bare; and the good cause then in hand did work so powerfully even up­on the Holy and Learned Bishop Hall him­self, that he adventured, as Mr. Prin tells us, to reordain Mr. John Dury, though he had been before ordained in some Reformed Church. Such an Episcopacy as was claim­ed by Arch-bishop Cranmer, the far greater part at least of present Non-Conformists could admit but such an Episcopacy as Arch-bishop Laud was introducing they cannot yet digest, and that is the Episcopacy that the present book of Ordination, if assented and consented unto, would engage us in: and let it not seem strange that the present Non-Con­formists startle at it, when as Dr. Holland the [Page 13] Kings professour of Divinity in Oxford, was so much offended with Dr. Laud for asserting it, that he did not stick to affirm he was a Schismatick, and went about to make a Di­vision betwixt the English and other Reform­ed Churches: yet though the Non-Conformists do not like such a kind of Hierarchy, they will if they consult the peace of their Consciences, use no such incivil language against it as some of Mr. Durells Countrymen have done: they will not be so uncivil as to call Dr. Ham­mond Knave, which is the English to Salma­sius his Nebulo: they will not say as Mare­sius does in his Examen of Dr. Prideaux his four Questions, pag. 1. ‘That Dr. Hammond as proceeded to such a degree of fury, as professedly to propugne the cause of the Pope. Much less will they say that the English Bi­shops had better consulted their eminence, if they had acted more moderately in it, and had rather with the rest of Protestants made it to be of humane institution, than so stifly to assert the jus divinum of it: for as a bow by too much bending of it is broken, so they too much stretching their Authority and dignity fell, quite from it, like the Camel in the Fable, who because he affected horns lost his ears, pag. 68. least of all will they say, as the same Author says pag. 71.’ (which I tremble to English) ‘Prae­sules [Page 14] Angli ex parte collimarunt ad Papi­smi restitutionem jure postliminii: and pag. 111.’ Ʋt dicam quod res est, haec defensio tem­poralis Jurisdictionis pro Ecclesiae Ministris por­tio aliqua est illius fermenti Papistici quo Hie­rarchiae Anglicanae massa paulatim se infici passa fuit, dum magis ambit Typhum Seculi, quam humilitatem Crucis meditatur.

To conclude all, when the Learned Gata­ker was most bitterly railed upon by Lilly for being a Presbyterian, he answers in his Apo­logy, pag. 24. ‘A duly bounded and well regulated Prelacy, joyned with a Presbyte­ry, wherein one as President, Superinten­dent, Moderator (term him what you please) whether Annual or Occasional, or more constant and continual, either in re­gard of years or parts, or both jointly, hath some preheminence above the rest, yet so, as that he do nothing without joint consent of the rest: Such a Prelacy I never durst, nor yet dare condemn.’ The like he says for divers others, if not the greater part of the Assembly, pag. 26. And the same dare I ad­venture to say, in reference to the far greater part of the present suffering Ministers; nay I may further undertake for them, that if any one should publish in print, that the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter is by divine institution, they would not think themselves [Page 15] any way concerned to have such a one sus­pended from his Ministry: yet if my memo­ry greatly fail me not, Mounsieur Peter Mou­lin in his first Epistle to Bishop Andrews, ma­king Apology for some passages in his Tract of the Vocation of Pastors, excepted against by K. James, useth these or the like words; That if he had made the difference betwixt a Bishop and Presbyter to be founded on a di­vine Law, his own Churches would have in­flicted Ecclesiastical censures upon him.

It will concern Mr. Durell highly, either to prove that Moulin wronged his own Chur­ches, or that they have abated of their zeal against Episcopy; for if he prove neither of these, he will lose (that which is better then all his Ecclesiastical revenues) a good name, and when his hand is in at this work, he may also do well to take Bishop Mountague to task, who in his appeal to Caesar by his Majesties special direction and command perused by Dr. White, and approved as fit to be Printed, says p. 70. ‘That the Discipline of the Church of England in the Synod of Dort, and other Dutch Synods is held unlawful.’

If it be held unlawful in the Synod of Dort, it may be presumed it was held unlawful by almost all other Reformed Churches; for, almost all sent thither their Delegates: and these Delegates approved the confession of [Page 16] Faith, in which onely the Discipline of our Church can be thought to be condemned. Now let Mr. Durell bid his zeal awake, for certainly Hannibal est ad portas: either he or Bishop Mountague will be found false witnes­ses against the Reformed Churches, I will not determine whither must be branded for a Ca­luminator. Bishop Carleton hath written an examination of Mountagues appeal, And pag. 111. gives us to understand, ‘That instead of yielding his consent to that strange con­ceit of the parity of Ministers to be insti­tuted by Christ, which was inserted into the Belgick Confession; he openly protest­ed his dissent thereunto:’ And I believe that such protestation was by him made in his own name, and the name of those sent out of England with him. But I would willingly be satisfied, why the Divines of other Churches did not make such protestation also? Did they think the parity of Ministers a strange conceit? If they did not, down falls the whole structure of Mr. Durells Book: if they did, why did they enter no dissent to this strange conceit? And I would also be satisfi­ed, what might move our Reverend and Learned Carleton to say, That the cause of all the troubles in the Belgick Church was this, That they had not Bishops amongst them, who by their Authority might repress those [Page 17] who brought in novelties. Sure I am, that not long after the sitting of that Synod, the Ar­minian novelties were broached to purpose in England, and yet we who wanted not Bi­shops, either would not, or could not, repress the broachers of them. This Reverend Pre­late was Diocesan to Mr. Mountague, who made it his business to infect us with Armini­anism: If his Episcopal power were so sove­raign an Antidote against the spreading of this infection, why did he never make use of it? or how came it to have so little success? Oh that it were not too manifest, that errours may grow in a Reformed Church where Hierar­chy is established.

I have one thing more to add which it may not be amiss here to relate. The Ministers of the Palatinate being brought into a great deal of distress, his late Majesty thought meet under the Broad Seal, to grant them a Collection here in England for their Relief. The Letters Patents being Sealed, Archbishop Laud thought meet to have an Alteration made, in the form of the Letters, and obtained of the King to have it made. It had been said, that the Ministers extream miseries fell upon them for their sincerity and constancy in the true Religion, which we together with them pro­fess, and because they would not submit them­selves to the Antichristian yoke: our most Re­verend [Page 18] Primate thought not meet to have Po­pery call'd the Antichristian Yoke, though it had been so called here in England by Per­sons as great as himself. Nor did it relish with him, that the Religion of the Palatinate Chur­ches should be called the same with ours. Dr. Heylin in the History of his Life, pag. 306. gives the reason: ‘Because by the Religion of those Churches the Calvinian rigors a­bout Predestination, &c. are received as Orthodox, and because they maintain a pa­rity of Ministers directly contrary both to the Doctrine and Government of the Church of England.’ Either therefore what Mr. Durell saith from the Palatinate Ministers in favour of our English Hierarchy is a meer falsity, or else there is some such Alteration made in the Judgment of those men of late, as the world formerly knew not of; or else the Archbishop and his Second laid to the charge of the Palatinate Ministers, what they were not truly to be charged with.

I have insisted too long on this point, and shall conclude it with a profession of my per­swasion, that if a Synod should be called, made up of the most sober forreign Divines, they would advise his Majesty to establish a moderated, limited Episcopacy, as more suit­ed to the Generality of our English tempers, than that Presbytery which the two Houses, [Page 19] to satisfie the importunities of the Sects, ra­ther made a shew they would establish, then did establish: but I can as soon believe they would publish to the whole world their own Hypocrisie, as advise to settle a Government by Bishops, pretending to be Jure Divino, su­periour to the Presbyters, claiming sole power of Order and Jurisdiction and exercising their Jurisdiction by Lay-Chancellors: and if they would not advise this, much less would they advise to silence every one that should not assent to, and approve of such a Government. If you can think that Mr. Durells Testimonies prove they would; I beseech you then make use of your Logick, reduce his Testimonies into the form of a Syllogism, and if the con­clusion follow from every one of his premises, or from any one of them, I will then humbly beg your pardon and his too: Indeed some of his Testimonies are such, as I much doubt, whether he brought them in jest, or in earnest. Peter Martyr and Bogerman are made to ap­prove the English Hierarchy, pag. 252, 268. Because the one did write, the other speak to English Bishops by those names and titles by which they are commonly notified here in England. But is not this to affront us, as if we were quite void of Learning? may we not as well argue from Mr. Prynn's un-Bishoping of Timothy and Titus, that he also appro­ved [Page 20] the English Hierarchy, because he dedi­cates a Book with that name to the two Arch-Bishops by the Titles of Right Reverend Fa­thers in God, Primates and Metropolitanes of all England: Is not this to lay a stumbling block in the way of the blind Quakers, and to make that silly Generation yet more averse from giving men those names, by which they are dignified in the places where they live? To suggest that a man cannot call one by the name commonly given him, but he must be interpreted to approve his office, and the way of coming to his office, and the claim he makes to his office? But it is also said of Peter Martyr, that he submitted to the Bishops whilst he was in England, pag. 252. Did he so? In what I wonder? Had they any pow­er over the Kings Professor? Could they ei­ther visit him or silence him? And what if he had submitted to them? must he needs sub­mit to them as to an order of men superior by Divine Law? to that Order of which he him­self was? Cranmer most familiar with Mar­tyr, never claim'd to be of such an Order, as his Manuscript kept by Dr. Stillingfleet will witness; much less did he desire Martyr, or Bucer, or Fagius, to be reordain'd by him, that they might be capable of Ecclesiastical preferments; so as submission then was quite another thing to what it is now. Yet even the [Page 21] Non-Conformists of that age thought they had wherewith to justifie their Non-Conformity, and to speak as softly as is possible, they did as much credit the cause of the Protestants by suffering, as did any of the Conformists. And if I might make com­parisons, none of them ever recanted for a time, as Cranmer did; none of them during the time of imprisonment went to Mass as Ridley had begun to do, and probably had continued so to do, had he not been recalled from that abomination, by the Letter of his Noncon­forming Friend Mr. Bradford. And the ex­emplary courage and constancy of our Proto­martyr, John Rogers, a very rigid Noncon­formist, did greatly animate Bishop Ridly, as he himself acknowledges, I please not my self in these comparisons, should not have made them, had not Mr. Durell's pen dropt somwhat a foul blot upon the name of Bishop Hooper's friend Peter Martyr, whom he will needs represent to be so simple, as to scruple the Cap, because of its Mathematicalness: But he was too wise, to scruple the Cap on a­ny such account; And hath better deserved of the English Church, than that he should so many years after his death be so flouted at, as also Bishop Hooper should have had more reverence shew'd him, than to be charged as he is pag. 239. with a strange weakness, [Page 22] for sticking at our Ceremonies.

Let us now see how well Mr. Durell hath acquitted himself about forms of Prayer: It must be acknowledg'd he hath sufficiently prov'd from the Testimonies of Reformed Di­vines, that forms of Prayer of humane compo­sition are not unlawful; but the same thing had been long ago proved to his hand by a Nonconformist Minister, Mr. John Ball in his Discourse against Separation, as also by Dr. John Hoornbek in his Epistle touching Inde­pendency: so that I cannot wel tel what it was that made Mr. Durell so copious on this sub­ject, unless he thought it wisdom to drive that nail which would go. I do assure him, I never yet met with a Presbyterian that thought forms of Prayer unlawful, or that thought it simply unlawful for a Church to agree upon forms of Prayer to be used by Mi­nisters in the Publick Congregation. But if he can either prove that it is lawful for the Church to allow her Ministers no Liberty to use their own gifts for Prayer in the Publick, or prove that our English Church hath left her Ministers any such Liberty, then shall he do Knight-service.

In the first undertaking, he will have the Presbyterians his adversaries; In the second, he will have Dr. Heylin, and many others as Canonical as himself to cope with. I have [Page 23] heard a Presbyterian disputing against sundry Passages in the Common-Prayer Book, and wondring why the Convocation should tye all Colledges and Halls to make use thereof, without any omission or alteration, when as there is not in the whole Book any one Peti­tion for the Universities, and I was heartily troubled that I had not wherewith to remove my Friends admiration: But had I ever heard him say that a Form of Prayer was a breach of the second Commandment, I should have pittied his Ignoranc, as I unfeignedly do the Ignorance of all those who account it any glory to a Reformation to leave in it no helps for some Ministers Infirmities. In this number cannot be placed either the Assembly of Divines, or the two Houses of Parliament that convened them. They both intended the Directory that Ministers might, if need were, have some help and furniture in their Administrations; and truly it was so sufficient an help and furniture, that he who needed o­ther, could scarce be thought worthy to be a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ in the work of the Ministry. Here I must be pardon'd, if I reprove the presumption of Mr. Durell, who trembles not pag. 3. to lay to the charge of Lords and Commons, and Assembly of Divines, the delivering of manifest untruths: The untruths are there said to be,

[Page 24]First, That the Common Prayer Book had prov'd an offence to the Reformed Churches a­broad.

Secondly, That it was abolish'd to answer the expectations of other Reformed Churches.

I say those are no untruths; The Com­mon-Prayer Book had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad. Apollonius hath signified so much in reference to the Walachrian Churches, and others as famous as Apollonius have given us to understand as much in relation to the Churches of which they were Ministers; as the Latine Apologist hath too plainly proved: and can any one imagine that some Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy, were not an offence to Martyr and Zanchy? Perhaps those learned men did not count them simply unlawful, but certain­ly they were offended with them, and wisht them remov'd: Was it no offence to any Re­formed Churches, that so many Legends out of the Apocrypha were appointed to be read in our Temples? No offence to Reformed Chur­ches, that Infants Baptized were affirmed to to be undoubtedly saved? Less colour is there to say there was a manifest untruth in assert­ing that the Common-Prayer Book was ta­ken away to answer the expectation of other Reformed Churches; For it is notorious that the Churches of Scotland and New-England, [Page 25] did expect from the Parliament the abolition of the Liturgy; and certainly, they might with propriety enough be called other Re­formed Churches, if none besides them had expected the said abolition, as we can prove some others did: I must also crave leave to censure the Manifesto of Mr. Durell, publisht with a Noverint universi. Let all the world know that there never was, nor is yet any Re­formed Church, that hath onely a Directory and not a Book of Common-Prayer for the publick worship of God. I ask, were there no Refor­med Churches in the times of the Apostles, or men Apostolical? I trow there were, Yet it is certain, saith Capellus, that then there was no Prescript Form of Liturgy; nor doth that Author give us any notice of any Prescript Li­turgies, untill Leaders and Doctors grew idle: were there when his Manifesto was published no Reformed Churches in New-England? or had these Churches Books of Common-Pray­er? and why I strange are Directory and Book of Common-Prayer made opposit? were there not in some Reformed Churches Books of Common-Prayer, that were ap­pointed to be used but as Directories, it be­ing left free to the Ministers, either to use those Printed Prayers, or any other agreeable to them; this freedome I am sure sundry emi­nent and worthy Divines in Holland have all [Page 26] along used: Mr. Durell indeed saith, that there is not one Minister in all Franoe but hath made unto himself a set Form which he useth alwaies, and no other; pag. 18. which is cer­tainly a bold assertion and supposeth him to have had conference with every Minister in France, or to have received Letters from eve­ry one, or at least to have employ'd Agents that had made enquiry concerning every one; which if true, would argue him a man of wonderful intelligence: Did never any one Minister in all France, make unto himself above one set Form of Prayer. Did, and doth every one of them precisely keep him­self to those very words which he put together when he first entred into his Mi­nistry? Did never any one after God had re­stored him to his Congregation from some e­minent sickness, put in any one word to ex­press his sense of Divine Goodness? I will here suspend my belief till I have received some farther Information, or can better tell in what sense Mr. Durell would have his words taken; for it may be he would have his own Phrases expounded as he himself, pag. 17. expounds some Phrases in one of the French Rubricks upon Sundays in the morning, the following Form is commonly used; The mean­ing whereof he tells us there, is, That it is to be alway used, and no other: A gloss that [Page 27] sounds marvellous strange to our English ears, which have been accustomed to distinguish betwixt Commonly and Always; and will not easily unlearn that distinction: and so when we hear out of the Harmony of the Belgick Synods a Minister shall pray either by a certain Form proposed to himself, or else the Spirit shall dictate; we are wont to ima­gine that the meaning is not that a Minister shall never pray but by a Form; it may be Mr. Durell is of another mind: if he be, he may do well to communicate to the world the grounds of so singular an opinion, and when he shall so do he may do well also to give us his thoughts concerning the practice of the Bohemian Churches, where it seems the Ritual Books or Formula's are delivered onely to the Pastors, the Reason whereof Comenius in his Annot. pag. 101. saith is, That the Auditors might be more attent, and more profoundly ad­mire the grace of God, for (says he) if onely prescribed things are alwaies recited, what is there that may stir up attention, Curiosity ra­ther will be stirred up whilst this and the other man attends, whether the Minister reads exact­ly the same things which they behold in their own books; nor (addeth he) must we think that the Ministers are tyed to the very words and syl­lables of the books delivered to them; it is free according to variety of occasions to use any thing [Page 28] drawn out of the Treasures of mystical wisdome which makes for the exciting of zeal, whence it eomes to pass that pious Auditors are scarcely ever present at holy Mysteries without a new motion of heart.

My imagination on the reading of these words is, that Comenius was not hugely fond of prescribed Formula's in which the people were as well versed as the Minister: he seems rather to be of opinion, that if words flow from the mouth of the Minister which the People had not seen before hand, they will be heard with the more Devotion: whether Mr. Durell's imaginations agree with mine, time may discover; mean while I may have leave to guess what it was that moved Mr. Durell's pen to run into such excess of riot against the two Houses and Assembly, and I conceive it was the extravagance of his Country-man Ludovicus Capellus in his discourse about Li­turgies, unhappily inserted into the Theses Dal­murienses; for his words Mr. Durell has punctually transcribed and done into English, a Scholler may find them in the third part of those Theses, p. 707.

I shall follow Mr. Durell's own Translation pag. 15.

One hundred forty years ago when the separa­tion was made from the Church of Rome, and that the Christian people coming out of Babylon, [Page 29] did cast off the Popes Tyranny, the sacred Li­turgy was purged of all that Popish Superstition and Idolatry, and all such things as were overbur­densom, or which did contribute but little or no­thing to 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 antient 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 one­ly to blame, but to cashier and 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.

On the words thus translated I adventure to say.

First, That I am not much in love with the Professors Chronology; He gratifies the Papists too much to say, or but to intimate [Page 30] that no secession was made from their Church till an hundred and forty Years before he put forth those Theses, some Churches had gone out of Babylon much sooner, some not so soon.

Secondly, I am less in love with his jum­bling together of the Liturgies of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Belgia, for if the Germans did purge their Liturgie of every thing that was over-burdensom and trouble­some, or which did contribute but little or nothing to the edification of the Church, let a reason be given me why we leave any thing out of our Liturgies which they retain? did this Professor of Divinity think that nothing is retained in the Lutheran Liturgies that is burdensom and operosous or that makes little to edification, or did he conceit that none of the Lutheran Churches are German? do the Lutherans Latine Songs contribute much to edification? are their Images apt to teach the soul? did ever any one get much good by having the bread put into his mouth in­stead of having it broken and delivered into his hand? what is I wonder the advantage of Exorcism? certainly if the Lutheran Litur­gies recede as little as may be from the Forms of the Primitive Church, other Churches have receded very much from them.

[Page 31]Thirdly, It was a great misadventure to affirm that the Reformed had with profit and happiness each of them in their several Nati­ons and Districts, used set Forms till lately the Liturgy was Cashired in England.

Had not Calderwood told the world long since, that for many years he had not used set Forms whilst he was Minister in Scotland? was not the Liturgy laid aside in Scotland be­fore in England.

Fourthly, It is a sign of no great humility, for one Professor so severely to censure the actings of a whole Assembly of Divines, in which were many Superiour to himself in Learning; but let not Episcopal Divines much glory to find the Assemblies Reasons so vilified, they will find the Reason of Mr. Hook­er, their Oracle, as much vilified in this Cen­sor's Thesis de Festis.

Fifthly, It is very Probable the good Pro­fessor had never read the Directory, else he would not have left it on Record, that the Directo­ry contains onely the Arguments of things to be said and done in the Administration of the Sa­craments; for in the Directory, the words for Administration of Baptism are prescribed, so are the words for the Administration of the Lords Supper.

Mr. Durell therefore by translating Capellus into English, hath but uncovered his naked­ness, [Page 32] exposing him to contempt, who was before become too contemptible, by decrying the Hebrew points and Scripture Chronology, so opening a door to down-right infidelity: Yet as if he had not done him spight enough, He not only gives us his Text, but also draws six Observations from it, pag. 15, 16. in five of which he most grosly abuses him. The first is, That all Reformed Churches have Liturgies: This I say follows not from any words of Ca­pellus, if Mr. Durell say it doth, his Logick is his own, let him make use of it. The second is, That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man to be not onely pure and free from all Popish Superstition and Idola­try, but also from all such things as were onerous and troublesome, or which did contribute but lit­tle to the Edification of the Church, as well as o­ther Reformed Churches. Twenty Cart-ropes will not pull this observation out of Capellus his words. He onely speaks of the Liturgy made by the first Reformers of our Church, which vastly differs from the present Liturgy that Mr. Durell takes upon him to defend. The third Observation is of all most marvel­lous, thus worded; If these Liturgies ought to recede as little as possible 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.

[Page 33]If Mr. Durell will have this observed, we will observe it as the issue of an over-confident fan­cy, yet humbly praying that he would allow us to think that this observation hath no rela­tion in the world to any words of Capellus; If he may be judge, our Liturgy differs more from the Primitive Liturgies, then the Litur­gy of any Reformed Churches; for he sayes, Primitive Liturgies were most brief and most simple, consisting of a few prayers, &c. Now if we should grant our Liturgy to be very simple, certainly it is not very brief, nor does it consist of but a few Prayers: let Mr. Du­rell officiate according to it Morning and Even­ing, which I never knew any Conformist to do, and I will be bold to say, his Sermons af­terwards shall not be over tedious: The fourth Observation is, That of all who call themselves Reformed, the Presbyterians are the first that ever left off the use of set Forms of Prayer. Capellus hath not the word Presbyte­rians in his work; nor am I certain whom Mr. Durell understands by them; perhaps he means the English Presbyterians, but how came they to be Presbyterians [...]? Capellus was too wise a man to say, that they were the first that left off set Forms of Prayer; he knew well enough unless he onely was a stranger in Israel, that many years before the Assembly met at Westminster set Forms of [Page 34] Prayer had been laid aside and condemned as unlawful, by huge multitudes who were angry with the old meer Nonconformist be­cause he would not seperate from the English Church, as well as endeavour a Reformation of some things. The fifth Observation is, That the many reasons for which the Presbyteri­ans had rejected the Common-Prayer Book, are very light, and almost of no moment at all: 'Tis true that Capellus hath written something to this purpose, but it is the same Capellus who hath written so many bug-bear words against our English Bishops, in his Theses de descrimi­ne Episcopi & Presbyteri, & de vario Ecclesiae regimine, the former Theses he concludes thus, That there was no cause why the Bishops and their Patrons should so greatly insult, and onely not grow insolent against those whom invidiously they called Puritans and Presbyterians.

And let it be observed; that if the Presby­terians had onely reproved, and not cashier­ed the Common-Prayer Book, their Reasons might have been sufficient, notwithstanding any thing Capellus saith to the contrary. Sixth­ly, Mr. Durell would have it observed, That the Presbyterians themselves who are the known Authors of the Directory, are in Capellus his Judgment a froward, peevish and superstitous Generation of men. Capellus does indeed call the Composers of the Directory morose and [Page 35] froward, but seems unwilling to call them superstitious; and the same Capellus had com­mended them for shaking off the Yoke of E­piscopacy in his Theses de Vario Ecclesiae regi­mine Sect. 24. Let Mr. Durell when he puts out next, English these words, for they seem framed according to the Heart of the Presby­terians, and let him then also tell us, why he calls the Presbyterians the known Authors of the Directory. That Assembly that presented the Directory to the two Houses, was as to most of its Members, when first called, Hie­rarchical, and under an Oath of Canonical o­bedience; there are not very many of them living at present; of them diverse conform, and are as deeply engaged to use Liturgical worship as Mr. Durell himself; let him there­fore when he has opportunity, enquire of them, whether they consented to have the Liturgy cashiered? and how they came to fall in love with it again? and what made them so fearful least the old subscription should choak us, when as they themselves can swallow these new ones that are far bigger and more bulky?

By this time I hope it is come to my turn to make some observations upon the The­ses of Capellus, and my Observations may be the fewer because I have already suggest­ed so many, and the first thing I observe is, [Page 36] That the men against whom Capellus was so not, could not be the English Presbyterians, unless they were falsly represented to him: for these are his words, pag. 710, 711. They with whom we have to do, bewray a manifest enough hatred against Formula's of Symbols or Confessions of Faith, and of Catechism, and the both antient and recent use and custome of them received in the Christian Church. If these are the men he had to deal with, then had he nothing to do with the English Presbyterians, no men having more contended for Confessions of Faith and Catechisms in set words than they. Secondly, I observe that he represents himself and his fellow Professors as not con­demning or inhibiting a free use of Prayers composed by Ministers themselves. Nay these are his words, pag. 713. We plainly think it both lawful and consentaneous that they who can do it, should discover their gift and indu­stry in praying, as in preaching, this onely we will, that the use of such prayers ought not to hinder the Liturgy constituted by publick Authority, and to take away and abrogate all use of it out of the Church. And a little after he adds. We de­servedly condemn the rigour of those, who under pretext of a praescript Form of Liturgy, do study to eliminate out of the Church all use of Prayers conceived by Ministers themselves. Let Mr. Du­rell consider, whether this Damnatory sen­tence [Page 37] do not fall upon many of his own Pa­trons and Abettours. Thirdly, I observe that when the Professor comes to contract what he had said, he determines concerning Formu­la's, as if Smectymnuus had too much influen­ced him, for he saith first, That they are not absolutely in every time and place, and with all men necessary, because the Christian Church want­ed them for some time; and it does not appear from sacred or exotick History, whether the Jew­ish Church did not want them before Christ, and Ezra, and from the time of Moses. Secondly, That they are not commonly necessary but for or­der and Decorum. Thirdly, Where and when there cannot be had learned Pastours who are able to teach, the people by their Sermons and proper Prayers, that there Formula's are plainly necessa­ry. Fourthly, Where there are learned and skilful Pastors, a publick Form of Liturgy is very profitable, and necessary to the Common E­dification of the Church in the same Communion of Divine worship. Fifthly, That the use of such Forms cannot justly be condemned or disaproved, nor ought it, seeing it may be alwaies and every where profitable and most convenient, and has obtained in the whole Christian Church all the world over, for above 1300 years, and does eve­ry where now obtain, but with those Independant Novices. Let Mr. Durell after this, take heed how he commends Liturgies, by the pen of his [Page 38] most applauded forreign Divines: and let him know, that all the pains he takes, to make the French and Dutch Liturgies the same, or near a kin with and to ours, doth indeed tend to the reproach of Archbishop Laud. For if there were no difference, or but small betwixt them, why was he so zealous as his Historian represents him, in prosecuting and pressing the French and Dutch Churches, to have our Liturgy translated into their Lan­guage, and used by them in all their Chur­ches granted them in England? however, let me warn Mr. Durell to take heed, that he do not go on with that designe he hath so oft ac­quainted us with, I mean the design of Print­ing together the Formula's and Agenda's of all the Reformed Churches in Christendome: for though this design might perhaps please himself (as who is not pleased with the issue of his own Brain) yet I much question whe­ther it would be any way pleasing to the most Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates of our Church. Certain I am, that it is not many years, since some of our greatest Ecclesiasticks plainly enough declared, that such a designe would not much rellish with them, for when the Prince Elector Palatine came over to visit his Unckle, King Charles I. in England, which was about 34 years ago, some busie heads (as Dr. Heylin calls them) published [Page 39] a book intituled, A Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palsgraves Churches. What was the effect of the Publication? a course was forthwith taken to call it in for the same cause, and on the same prudential grounds (adds Dr. Heylin) on which the alteration (I before mentioned) was made in the Letters Pa­tents. But I needed not so long to have insist­ed upon Liturgies, having before told you what he must do that hopes to bring the Non­conformist to subscription; he must prove that the Church of England hath left Ministers any power to make use of their gifts in pray­er, for if that be not proved, they will shrewd­ly argue against the lawfulness of promises to bury their gift in a napkin, but whether this be proved or no, the Nonconformists that I speak with, will be but Nonconformists; not forsaking the publick Assemblies, but rejoyce­ing to hear Christ Preached, though not without some bitter reflections upon them­selves.

I come to Ceremonies, and the first of them that occurres, is the Surplice, concern­ing which, my Nonconformists Friends say, That if they used it as enjoyned by the Litur­gy, they must receive it; as a vestment apt by some notable signification it hath, to stir up the dull mind; Now that I might satisfie their Scruple, I have gone to some Conformists and [Page 40] enquired of them, whether ever they experi­mented any such aptness in it to stir up their dull minds; they most of them wondred at my Question, telling me that by assenting and consenting, they meant no more but onely to promise, that they would not openly con­tradict any thing in the Liturgy; you may easily imagine what motion this reply stirred up in my dull mind; onely one answered, that though he would not boast of his own expe­riences, yet he doubted not but the holy Vestment had a fitness in it to stir up the dull mind; but I asking him further, whether it was apt to stir him up as a man, or as an Eng­lish man? he gave me to understand that he was not willing to be pressed further. I com­forted my self however in this, that Mr. Du­rell would tell me some stories, of some great liveliness put into men by the wearing of the white Garment, but he quite deceived me, onely giving me to understand, pag. 24, 25. Of some of other Reformed Churches that to comply with the Lutherans, do somtimes wear Surplices. This is but cold kindness, and that I may not be in debt to him for it, I give him to understand, That no Lutherans in the Low Countries do wear Surplices; and they forbear to wear them, not because the Magistrate would not give them leave to wear them, but because they want a will to wear them, which [Page 41] makes me think that they have no high opi­nion concerning the usefulness of them; nor can I think that our own Ministers have any huge apprehensions of this ex­citing vertue of the Surplice, for whereas they are enjoined to wear it as oft as they officiate; I find few of them so to do, ma­ny of them never wear it, but when a Sacra­ment is to be Administred. Perhaps I shall be able to afford my Nonconformists more help and assistance against his Scruples a­bout the Cross in Baptisme: His Scruples are founded upon this bottom; That the Cross is made asign of the Childs Dedica­tion to God, and also a sign of his perseve­rance in Grace, and such a sign they say is Sacramental, which kind of sign the Church has no Commission from God to institute; I have taken some pains that I might be able from the writings of Con­formists to assoile this Objection. Mr. Du­rell tells us, Serm. pag. 29. That the Cross is indeed a visible sign, but there is no invisible Grace answering to it; and so no Sacrament. I could not acquiesce in this, for I thought Dedication to God, and Perseverance were graces; and if they be Graces, I am sure they are invisible Graces; I have also som­times wondred, seeing Baptism it self was instituted as a Dedicating sign, and seeing [Page 42] by it we engage our selves to perseverance, and God also engages to give unto Belie­vers the Grace of Perseverance; what might move our Church to institute the Cross as a new sign of any of these things? especially seeing yet I never had the hap to meet with any who could from their ex­perience averre unto me that the sign of the Cross with which they were signed at Bap­tisme, had added to them any degree of manfulness: nor by comparing several Bap­tized persons could I ever observe, that persons Crossed at Baptisme, were less in­clined to be ashamed of Christ Crucified, than those that were Baptized, not being Crossed. Indeed this sign of the Cross hath Ministred more matter of Scruple to the Nonconformists, then any other Ceremo­ny besides; and therefore Mr. Durell should not have dealt slightly in this matter, which yet any one may observe that he does, for instead of giving us instances of Reformed Churches that use the Cross in Baptisme. He contents himself to give us a few in­stances of Reformed Churches, that use the Cross out of Baptisme; the Church of Ge­neva, he saies, Makes the Christian Religion in a picture, to lean upon the Cross, page 21. and page 31. Does not think the Christian Religion sufficiently represented without the fi­gure [Page 43] of a Cross. And the French Churches agreed Anno 1609. That they would not de­barre from the Sacrament, such as should wear Crosses upon their Cloaks; in case the King would not allow them the maintenance for maimed souldiers untill they did wear such Crosses; He might also have added that the Erectors of the short lived Commonwealth among us, did appoint a Cross to be set upon that Money which they presumed to Coin, and also put the figure of a Cross into the Flags of those ships which they set forth against his Sacred Majesty; and had he so done, would not any one at last have asked him to what purpose is all this waste of Examples? never did sober Pres­byterian or Independant question such kind of Crosses, many of them perhaps will be found to have them in their Coat of Arms, and in their Signets with which they use to Seal their Letters; and yet would at no hand be induced to suffer their Children to be Baptized with the sign of the Cross, as a signe of their Dedication to God, or as a token that afterwards they should not be asha­med of Christ Crucified, &c. Mr. Durell had sure forgot that the Cross our Church ap­points is a Transient Cross (by which Bi­shop Sanderson would have it distinguished sufficiently from the Cross of the Papists [Page 44] which is permanent) else he would not have brought so many instances of perma­nent Crosses which being the Objects of sight, may occasion in us some good thoughts and meditations concerning the Cross on which our Lord Jesus did suffer, but the Transient Cross leaving no visible impression on us, has no such aptness objectively to stir in us any good thought concerning Christ Crucified, and it is hard to conceive how it should be useful in the way of ad­monition, unless we had some one to ad­monish us that we were Crossed with such a Cross: I know that dipping, or sprink­ling the Water, upon the body, leaves no visible impression upon it neither, but the spirit who alwaies abides in believers, hath an office to bring baptism to their remem­brance, and hath so effectually brought it to remembrance that they have from con­siderations drawn from it, quenched the fiery darts of Satan, that this blessed Spirit will concern himself to bring our being Crossed in Baptisme to remembrance Mr. Durell will not hastily affirm: what then? would Presbyterians better approve of the making of a permanent Cross on the fore­head of newly Baptised Infants? surely no. But they sometimes argue thus, ad homi­nem, and think that their is strength in [Page 45] their arguings. Mr. Durell hath no where that I can find, shewed their strength to be but weakness; rather he hath strengthen­ed their hands by some expressions used in his Sermon, pag. 23. Where he placeth Chrism used in Confirmation amongst supersti­tious or superfluous Ceremonies: Now why the Chrism in Confirmation should be account­ed superstitious or superfluous, and the Cross in Baptisme not be so accounted, there can no good reason at all be assign­ed. Is the Cross antient, so is Chrisme; the Cross as much abused by the Papists, as ever was the Chrism: the Cross made significant of what Baptisme it self signifi­ed; and signified more clearly than the Cross can signifie: and therefore superfluous enough, if that be superfluous which is used for the doing of that which was sufficient­ly done before; whereas in Confirmation there is no outward visible sign to signifie that which Chrism signifies; viz. Anoint­ing with the Holy Ghost inwardly, as may be collected from a Petition yet retained in the Liturgy for Confirmation.

I am not now at leisure to enquire strict­ly into the usuages of Reformed Churches abroad, nor into the Sentiments of their Divines concerning our Ceremonies; but this I have found, that those who have [Page 46] gone from our Universities and travelled into forreign Reformed Churches, and Kingdomes, have generally returned to us again with very little fondness for our Ce­remonies; now it seems very strange, that if the same Ceremonies be used abroad, that are used here, or if they abroad count them as indifferent as we do them at home, that Travells should ingenerate in any a dislike of them: and it is strange also if Mr. Beza had no worse thoughts of out Discipline and Rights, then Mr. Durell would make shew of; that he should have so good thoughts of Mr. Travers, and seve­ral other chief Nonconformists in England, as to make them his greatest Correspon­dents; for so I can prove he did by Letters still extant.

Hitherto I have shewed you, how much Mr. Durell hath mistaken, and mis-repre­sented the state of those Controversies that are on foot among us; I will now give you in a short Catalogue of Impertinences, by which you shall see that he hath stuff­ed his Book with Testimonies, to prove that which never any Presbyterian deny­ed, or ever gave him the least occasion to think he denyed; The first place in this Catalogue is due to his Testimonies mustered up, pag. 51, 52. relating to Sa­criledge, [Page 47] a Species whereof he saies is the purchasing and detaining of Church Lands: I for my part think so too, and never yet met with a Presbyterian that thought otherwise: if there be a true superfluity of Church Lands, then the Magistrate doubtless may out of that superfluity take for any other good use, though it be not directly Ecclesiastical. In ca­ses also of great necessity Church Lands seem not to be priviledged from sale; nor can any wise man doubt but that it is the Magistrates duty to convert such Lands as were given to the Church by a Zeale without knowledge, and to promote Idolatry and Superstition, un­to such uses as are truly pious and acceptable unto God. These, and other such like Cases ex­cepted, the Presbyterians would as willingly have a Noli me tangere upon every parcel of the Church Lands as Mr. Durell himself. He tells us indeed, page 51. That many here among us and some of them Presbyterian Ministers made nothing of purchasing and detaining Church Lands; and another, as very a Scribler as him­self, hath told us, That in the Annotations com­monly known by the name of the Assemblies Anno­tations he could never meet with any thing against Sacriledge in any of those places where he had consulted them; the first edition of those An­notations I have not by me, but if that Edi­tion had nothing in it against Sacriledge, let [Page 48] the Saddle be set upon the right Horse, and the blame laid upon Dr. Daniel Feately, who Commenting upon Romans the 2d. where the word Sacriledge occurs, would let it pass uncensured; but I have heard that in our latter Editions of the English An­notations Dr. Feateleys Notes are not altered; if so, the Debator hath reason to be ashamed of his impudence, and railing accusation, for any one may see that Sacriledge is sufficient­ly condemned at Rom. 2.22. and it is se­verely Censured Acts 5. as also Prov. 20.25. and if that be not also censured Ezekiel 48. who must bear the blame, but Bishop Rich­ardson to whose share it fell to Comment on that portion of Scripture: Certainly the se­cond and third Editions of the English Anno­tations were Printed in times in which it was all out as dangerous to reprove Sacriledge, as in those times in which the first Edition was put forth. In those Editions I have already referred to enough that makes against Sacri­ledge, yet if need were, I could referr to much more, and possibly should so do, were it not that the work had been long since done to my hand by an Episcopal Divine, in a Dis­course Printed 1648. with this Title, Church Lands not to be sold. He that will be at pains to peruse that book, shall soon find that no one could keep the Covenant and not be a­gainst [Page 49] the alienating of Church Lands, page 27. he quotes these words from Mr. Gearee an holy Nonconformist: To abolish Prelacy, and to seize the Lands of Prelates to private, or civil Interest, undoubtedly could neither want stain nor guilt; adding, I am confident, by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, that at the least three parts, if not all of them are of the same Judgment with Mr. Gearee, and that they would openly profess as much if they were put to answer the Question. But saith Mr. Durell, some of the many who made nothing of purchasing and detaining Church Lands, were Presbyterian Ministers, and to prove this, in the Margent he puts Dr. Burgess never so much as adding an &c. so that in his Arithmetick Dr. Burgess is some Presby­terian Ministers. But he should first have proved that he was one Presbyterian Mi­nister before he had gone about to per­swade us that he was sundry Presbyterian Ministers. He is not that Dr. Burgess who defended the three Ceremonies against Dr. Ames, but yet he is the Dr. Burgess that took care to have that Defence Printed, and beautified the Margent of it to make it he more pleasing to the Readers eye; and he is the Dr. Burgess that did write for Baptismal Regeneration, which the [Page 50] Presbyterian can by no means swallow. I have heard indeed that he took the Cove­nant, but not till he saw that it was dange­rous not to take it. I have heard also that he was employed to make a Speech in answer to Dr. John Hackett, who was to plead for the continuance of Deanes and Chapiters, but in that Speech he openly declared the utter unlawfulness of converting Dean and Chapiters Lands to any private persons profit: so that he then delivered the same Doctrine with Dr. Hackett, only differing in the Application, as Mr. Fuller words it, book 11. page 179. It seems af­terwards he himself was a Purchaser, and a great Purchaser contrary to the Doctrine delivered by him, for which I leave him to his own Master, unto whom he hath some years since given his Accounts. Mr. Durell as if he were a Privy-Councellor in Heaven, presumes in his Latin book to say, That the Cancer of which he dyed, befel him for his Sacriledge; I dare not so say, the Pro­vidences of God are too great a deep for any man to venture himself into, and me­thinks Mr. Durell might have been deter­red from such presumption, by the exam­ple of Gods dealing with Bishop Gawden, who after that he had written for the Li­turgy, and against Sacriledge, dyed not [Page 51] long after of a Disease as loathsome, and far more painful than that which brought Dr. Burgess to his Grave, and this Di­sease was that very Disease unto which he had compared the Presbyterian Sermons, and befell him in a very short time after he had made the Comparison; yet all these Circumstances notwithstanding no man shall ever hear me say That the sickness was a stroak of Divine Justice inflicted on him for his fierceness against the Presbyterians. Indeed the Providence of God is to us so hidden and secret, that there is no con­cluding from it either love or hatred: and therefore the Sons of the Church have no reason to thank Mr. Durell for saying, page 17. of his Sermon, That the wonderful man­ner of raising our Church up again is an e­vident proof that she is her Beloveds, and her Beloved hers, and an Argument that her Reformation (since neither mens Craft nor violence which so far prevailed against it were never able to destroy it) is certainly the work of God and his Counsel which shall stand. Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis. Our Church needs no such Tophicks, she will think that he has a minde to betray her, who useth them on her behalf, for who knows how soon God provoked by our sins, may turn the stream of his Providences, and bring [Page 52] our Church Governours under as great po­verty and reproach as ever: If the stream of Providence should never turn, yet all Theological ears will abhor to hear our English Reformation called the Counsell of the Lord which shall stand. That is a Scrip­ture Phrase and Printed as such by Mr. Durell, and therefore ought not to have been so palpably wrested by him: Dare any man think that the Decrees and Coun­sels of God are changed, unless our Re­formation as attended with all its Rites, and Cermonies, endure from generation to generation? But I have almost run away from the business of Sacriledge. If any man desire to know how zealous Refor­med Divines have been against this sin, he may quickly inform himself from Dr. Hornebeckes Examen bullae Papalis. I only adde, that some men have been so har­dy, as to to say that our Impropriations are a kind of Sacrilege. The Lord Bacon seems to be of that mind, and charges all the Parliaments since the 31. of Henry VIII. with debarring Christs Wife of a great part of her dowry: if so, Mr. Durell may find more Sacriledge among his friends then he is aware of, and he may do well to en­quire whether the impropriations of the se­veral Cathedrals, to which he himself be­longs, [Page 53] are so disposed of, as that the In­cumbants residing upon them have a suffi­cient and honerable maintenance allowed them. His Majesty hath graciously emit­ted a Letter, that it might be so; if the Letter have been universally obeyed, I re­joyce in the obedience given to it, but I am sure heretofore no Impropriators allow­ed less then Clergy-men; no parishes were worse supplied, than those in which the Titles went to the Cathedralls, unless Mr. Durell be sure that he and his Fraternities be free from this sin, it will not be season­able for him to throw stones at other sin­ners, least it should be said, thou Hypocrite, first, &c.

A Second of Mr. Durell's Impertinencies, is his Quotation, pag. 40. of the Bohemian Churches, for the peoples saying Amen at theend of Prayers. Did the Presbyterians ever say, the People might not say Amen at the end of Prayers? are they not rather judged by their Adversaries, to erre by affirming, that it were meet for the people to say nothing else but Amen?

Thirdly, What made him, pag. 43. Waste paper to prove that Confirmation is used in most Reformed Churches? Did not Mr. Hanmer, and Mr. Baxter, write whole books in the commendation of Confirmation? [Page 54] Did the Presbyterians ever more heartily desire any thing, than that adult persons might before they were admitted to the Lords Supper, he ordered to make a Con­fession of Faith, and to declare their Reso­lution to own that Faith, and to walk ac­cording to it? Did they not alway with grief of heart complain that Confirmation had never been practised here in England, or else had been turned into a meer form?

Fourthly, Wherefore are we told page 37, 38. That the Lords Prayer and Ten Commandments and Creeds, are sung in some Reformed Churches; as also the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc dimittis. Do the Presbyterians question the lawfulness of singing any of these? or do they require any more than that they should be put in­to Meeter, and set into such tunes as ordinary people might follow? I my self have heare an eminent Presbyterian Divine on a day of Humiliation, read and sing the Lords Prayer, as it is Translated and Printed at the end of our Psalm books. Yea, where as Mr. Durell tells us That the French Church does not sing the Lords Prayer, and the Creed of the Apostles, because both the Rhyme and Language were somthing course and old. Presbyterians never left off to sing accor­ding [Page 55] to the Vulgar Translation, its oldness and coursness notwithstanding, and if hymns should be made out of other places of Scri­pture by men wise and skilful, who is there that would blame them?

Fifthly, Who ever quarrelled with the French Churches, for having great silver Cha­lices for the Communion, as he tells us they have, pag. 32.

Or who would be offended if richer Churches had the ten Commandments in Letters of Gold, and the Creed, and the Lords Prayer in the same form. I have heard one of the chief Presbyterian Ministers did rejoice, that the Lords Prayer was by the Painter drawn in very visible Characters up­on a wall, just over against his Pulpit, for by that means, if at any time he happened to be as much out in repeating of that form; as Mr. Durell lately was in the repeating of the Belief, he might help himself, and not put himself and others to shame, as Mr. Durell did.

Sixthly, He tells us pag. 32. That in all Reformed Churches men used to enter into the place of publick worship with their hats off, which is as great an untruth, as ever drop­ped from writers pen, unless it be under­stood of places of publick worship, whilst publick worship is actually performed in [Page 56] them, and if it may be so understood, then the Presbyterians would hugely approve of it. By the Directory it was enjoined that, all enter the Assembly not irreverently, but in a grave and seemly manner: gravity and seemliness do include putting off the hat, which yet would be a ridiculous action, if a man should use it, as too many now a days do as oft as they go through the Church, though none be met for worship, and though they themselves intended no wor­ship: nor does the Directory any where condemn the manner which Mr. Durell tells us hath obtained among the French Ladies, viz. to unmask themselves when they come in­to the Temple; provided they do not un­mask themselves out of a vain or wanton design; if they should do so, they know by whom they are condemned. [I but saith Mr. Durell, the devoutest sort both of men and women, use to kneel and make a Prayer for Gods blessing, before they sit down, and this the Directory prohibites.] Had he said that the devouter sort use a short Prayer when they took no seats, and came to perform no service to God; then he had said some­thing to excuse the actings of some among us. The peoples making a secret Prayer be­fore they sit down in their seats, is not for­bidden by the Directory, unto all, or unto [Page 57] any, but these who come into the Church the publick worship being begun, and whe­ther it be more meet for such to betake themselves to their private devotions, or to join with the Assembly in that ordinance that is in hand, let the learned judge for they are wise.

Seventhly, All might have been spared that is brought, pag. 33. Of Peoples stand­ing bare in time of Divine Service, and at the Administration of Sacraments: In the very Church of Scotland all are uncovered at the Administration of the Sacraments; here in England men had left off to put on their hats in time of Sermon (which Mr. Durell seems to distinguish from Service) had Mr. Calamy and others been hearken­ed to.

Eighthly, Above all, what need we be told, pag. 22. That Calvin wore a Gown and a Cap: Were not Presbyterians accu­stomed so to do in the Universities? Those sent down by the two Houses to Cambridge, did all of them preach in the University Church in their Gowns, and in their Hoods; and I never heard of any, but Brownists, that questioned the using of the very same Churches that the Papists had used; yet we have fine stories of that, pag. 28. As also of the Ring in Marriage, as if there were some [Page 58] odde Nonconformists that did scruple being Married with a Ring. He tells us also of Matrimony in the publick Congregation, pag. 47. celebrated also by a Minister just according as the Directory orders; but if he would have gratified us here in England, he should have told us that all Reformed Churches do count Marriages valid, though made without and against the consent of Parents, as also that they have Officers, whom they allow to give Licenses for Mar­riages, though there have been no Banes published, nor any thing equivolent there­unto, but to affirm this had been somewhat too gross. Pag. 48, and 49. He minds us, that in most Reformed Churches the dead are buried with great solemnity, singing of Psalms, and Funeral Sermons; as if Presbyterians had scrupled the Preaching of Funeral Ser­mons, or had not been wont when desired to Preach them. I believe if Comparison were made, Presbyterians formerly preach­ed more Funeral Sermons, then Prelatical men do now, and that very many of those for whom Sermons are now Preached, are addicted to Presbytery. Mr. Durell should have called to remembrance, that our Church hath appointed no Funeral Sermons, nor re­quired any more of her Ministers, save on­ly to meet the Corps at the Church Stile, [Page 59] and so go either into the Church, or to­wards the Grave, to say or sing some ver­sicles out of Holy Writ: I do not find that by the old Liturgy it was required that the Corps should be brought into the Church, though now I find one or two Psalms ap­pointed to be read after the Minister and people are come into the Church, and by Comparing the old and new Liturgy toge­ther, I find where in the old was the word [Minister] in the new there is constant­ly the word [Priest,] so that whereas a Deacon may preach to us, and Baptize our Children, he may not bury our dead, which seems to be a Mystery worthy Mr. Durells unridling. Our Clergy men themselves seem Strangers to this mystery, for nothing is more usual among them, than to set Dea­cons to bury their dead; nor can I in that old Liturgy which I follow, find any notice given, that the office for the burial of the dead, is not to be used at the burial of such as die unbaptized, in the new Liturgy such notice is given; the reason whereof I am not so happy at present as to know: why should Infants that die unbaptized, through no fault of their Parents, be denied such a burial as Baptized Infants have? Mr. Du­rell is a knowing man, and can satisfie us about these matters, and brings us, no que­stion, [Page 60] many Reformed Churches where the same usage obtains; but why did he bring in his Friend, Mr. Drelincourt, saying pag. 49. That he should account the Custome of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches in France, being silent at dead mens burial, unsufferable, were it not for their present condition.

That learned worthy Divine knows, that the Reformed Churches in Holland, are un­der no such condition as the French Chur­ches, and yet their Ministers are perpetu­ally silent at the burials of dead men; Is their Custome unsufferable? I believe he will not so pronounce, and therefore will scarce think himself civilly dealt with, to have a Fragment of a private Epistle thus published, especially seeing it reflects dis­grace upon the Ministers of his own nation, who are Pastors in Holland; I have been too tedious in examining this impertinence. The Communion also he tells us, pag. 44. Is constantly celebrated at certain set times in all Reformed Churches. And is there any thing in the Directory against the celebra­ting of it at certain set times? Does it not say, that it is frequently to be celebrated? And take order that notice shall be given be­fore hand of its celebration? nor does the Directory any where forbid the Admini­string of the Communion unto those that [Page 61] are sick in private houses, though if it had so done, it might have justified it self by the Example of many of the best Reform­ed Churches. Let Mr. Durell when he is at leisure, enquire whether one of the As­sembly of Divines did not Administer the Sacrament to Captain Hotham when he was just going to be Beheaded? or whether he was ever censured for so doing?

I will enlarge my Catalogue no farther; by the instances already produced, it appears, that Mr. Durell may well be called Mr. Im­pertinent. But I shall now by sundry instan­ces make it evident also, that he hath thrust sundry things into his book, that are like e­nough, if they fall into the hands of a weak Reader, to be prejudicial and pernicious, and to alienate him from our Church. He tells us page 8. the Hungarian and Tran­silvanian Churches are as Pure and Reform­ed, as any whatsoever; but page 10, & 11. he spoils all, and takes a great deal of pains so to do, borrowing a book very rare and scarce; and out of it acquainting us, That in those Churches Ministers swear obedience Ca­nonical unto Presbyters as well as Bishops: and, That Ministers are to be governed by certain Laws by an eminent sort of Presbyters, called Elders, as well as by Bishops. Then which, what can be more derogatory to the Episco­pal [Page 62] Power, Place, Juriisdiction, and Ordi­nation in Presbyters as well as Bishops? and what Eminence will there then be left for Bi­shops? what will there be left to a Bishop, more than what the Presbyterians have a thousand times over acknowledged them­selves ready to yield him? It may be he thought he should heal his wound by say­ing as he does, page 8. That these Elders are indeed Bishops, and the Bishops Archbishops. But I say they are indeed but a more Emi­nent sort of Presbyters; so they are expres­ly called, and they can be no other; because they were never by Ordination put into an Office, or Order superior to that of Presby­ters; and observable it is (vid. pag. praedict.) That the Minister acknowledgeth himself in his Oath, to receive the function of the sacred Mi­nistry from the there present Ministers of God, and most Faithful dispensers of his Mysteries. Which are Phrases agreeing unto all that are entrusted with the word of Reconciliation: So that this Testimony looks with a very e­vil eye upon Episcopacy: and so does much more the Testimony of the Bohemian Chur­ches, related pag. 11, 12, 13. for in that we have Presbyters Ordaining Bohemian Bishops, a thing that sounds dreadful to an Episcopal ear. This story will strengthen the Presby­terians, and be a second unto that with which [Page 63] they are wont so much to confirme them­selves; I mean the History of Pelagius Bishop of Rome being ordained by two Bishops and one Presbyter. These Histories do at least prove that Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order, and that Presbyters as well as Bishops, may lay hands upon Bishops, and confer the power of making Ministers. Indeed the man makes himself ridiculous who goes about to look for any Bishop pro­perly so called among the Waldenses; and he does gratifie the Presbyterians not a little, page 38. whilst he tells them, That the French Churches sing at the end of the Commandments, these four verses which answer to our Lord have mercy upon us and incline, &c. for this is the very thing that Presbyterians desire, that these words might be uttered at the end of the Commandments, and not at the end of every particular Commandment: pag. 45, 46. he takes Mr. Calvins pen and drops a very foul blot upon our Church; for the custome of Receiving thrice a year, which is known to be our custome, (for no man is bound to Receive oftner) is by him the called vitiosus mos, (i. e.) a vitious custome at least, if not a custome full of vice. But page 53. he calls us all, Fools by Craft; for these are his words, That every National Church ought to have Ʋ ­niformity within it self, hath alwaies been the [Page 64] judgment of all sober and wise Christians, and is at this day the good example of all the Reformed Churches in the world. I assume, that there ought to be Uniformity in every National Church, hath not alwaies been, nor yet is the Judgment of the Church of England; what Conclusion hence arises every one seeth, but the Conclusion is so horrid that I will not form it. My Assumption I prove from the Canons of 1640. which are so far from de­termining that there ought to be an Unifor­mity, that they expresly allow a Difformity, desiring in reference to the Rite of doing Re­verence and Obeysance towards the East at our coming in, or going out of the Church, that the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, (i. e.) That they which use this Rite, despise not them who use it not; and that they who use it not, condemn not those that use it. And how will the Presbyte­rians rejoyce to read those high commendati­ons of the Bohemian Churches. 'Tis said page 64. That they are the first that Reformed Religion from Popery to True and Pri­mitive Christianity: and page 99. 'tis said, Happy had been all the Christian word, if, as the said Churches were the first that Reformed themselves from Popery, the way of their Refor­mation had been followed by all others who Re­formed after them. This his high Opinion he [Page 65] confirms by the Testimony of Learned Za [...] ­chy, and might also have confirmed it by the Testimony of Luther. Well! this being sup­posed must not the Presbyterians carry the day? they think they must, and therefore one of them, not many years since, Trans­lated Comenius into English, as making very much for that Plat-form they aimed at. In­deed in the Order of those Churches I find Lay-Presbyters, and which is more, Lay-Presbytresses, and Eleemosynaries answering to the Presbyterians Deacons. Officers I know they have called by the name of An­tistites, which may be rendered Bishops; but every one of them to submit himself to the judgment not only of his Colleagues but also of the Conseniours, and to admit ad­monition, Counsels, and reproof from them, and these Conseniours are together with their Antistites to exercise Discipline upon Mini­sters. The Lords day those Churches keep as strictly as the Presbyterians contend to have them kept. Baptisme they administer without the sign of the Cross; with them none are thought to belong to the Pastoral Cure of Ministers, but those who do with good will submit themselves to that Unity and Order; whereas among us every one must be a Church Member or else go to the Common Goal; and that which answers un­to [Page 66] Confirmation amongst them is performed only by the Minister; and before every Sacra­ment, the Master of a Family and his House­hold come to the Minister and are by him examined; some few Holy-dayes indeed are kept in these Churches, but so, that when Divine Service is ended, people go to their work as upon other dayes: There is no order among them to abstain from the works of their Calling on the Saints day, or to keep the Evening before, Fast, so that these Churches are as Presbyterian as Presbyterians themselves can desire; what was it then that moved Mr. Durell so tran­scendently to extol them? page 46. He tells us, That those Churches that first Reformed from Popery, receive the Communion kneel­ing, and it is true, they do so; but they did not do so from the beginning. In the year 1494. they received the Communion standing, but were forced to leave off that gesture, because their Persecutors were the more bitter upon that account, and would not this be a goodly Argument think you? the Bohemian Church to avoid persecution receives the Sacrament kneeling, therefore it is conformable with the English Church, that persecutes all who do not receive the Sacrament kneeling. I but, when these Chur­ches did joyn with those of Major Polonia and [Page 67] Lithuania, it was unanimously forbidden to re­ceive that blessed Sacrament sitting, because a­mong other Reasons, that unmannerly and ir­reverent gesture was peculiar to those Miscre­ants the Arrians amongst them, and they made this observation, That the custome of sitting at the Lords Table was first brought into some of their Churches by those who most miserably falling from their Communion did renounce the Lord who redeemed them, wherefore they intreat and exhort all their Company and Bretheren, that they would change sitting, into standing or kneeling. For this Mr. Durell refers us to a general Synod celebrated 1583. But every one that looks into the Harmony of Con­fessions will see that Mr. Durell hath not dealt fairly; for first, He leaves out a Pa­renthesis of the Synod, in the which it is ex­presly said, That that gesture of Session with o­thers is free. Secondly, Whereas the Synod saies that Session was brought in potissimum malo Auspicio. This Mr. Durell Translates was first brought in. I grant indeed that in another Synod, to which this Synod doth refer, celebrated 1578. it is expresly said, That they who fell off to Arrianisme were the first Authors of sitting in their Churches; but that Synods words Mr. Durell does not Translate, and therefore has Translated ei­ther ignorantly or dishonestly. Let it also be [Page 68] observed, that this Synod does pray and beseech people to leave off sitting, not com­mand them under the pain of Excommuni­cation; yea this Synod by allowing what was done in the former Synod, does determine, That it is unlawful to smite God­ly men with Ecclesiastical Descipline because of external Rites. Let me also add, that the Fathers of this Synod were under a mistake when they said, That no Church in Europe anno 1583. did use sitting at the Lords Table, and Mr. Durell is much more mistaken if he thinks that any Socinians first brought up the custome of sitting amongst us here in England, for what if Dr. Owen said truly when he confuted the Socinians, That So­cinianisme had generally spread it self into the Nation; yet sitting had been used before Socinianisme so spread it self, I never heard that there was a Socinian either in the As­sembly, or in the two Houses untill that one Mr. Free got among the Commons, who for his Blasphemies was cashiered that House, as I have somewhere read.

Had Mr. Durell pleased, he might have consulted a Catechisme made by Thomas Beacon Prebend of Canterbury, and Printed cum Privilegio 1563. in which Catechisme, the Learned Divine and Godly Confessour saith; That if sitting at the Lords Table, [Page 69] which was then used in certain Reformed Chur­ches, were recived by publick Authority, and common Consent, and might be convenient­ly used in our Churches, he could allow that gesture best. And Mr. Robert Nicholls, in a Discourse of kneeling in the act of Recei­ving, long since presented to Bishop Mor­ton, but not printed till 1660, would have informed him; That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign, standing was Or­dained at Coventry and Northampton, by her Majesties Commission, and kneeling abo­lished.

But there was another thing perhaps, that might move Mr. Durell to be so su­perlative in the commendation of the Bohe­mian Churches; namely, a Crotchet got into his head, of calling an Assembly of forreign Divines that should all give their suffrage for the Discipline and Rites of the English Church: which Crotchet did so please him, that he begins to call that As­sembly, page 200 and Comenius, the only surviving Bishop of the Bohemian Churches, he will give the Honour to speak first; and accordingly doth bring him in, pag. 202, 203, 204, 205. with a long Harangue of words in the commendation of Unity or Order; but is so uncivil to the aged Bishop, as not to allow him liberty to [Page 70] speak all he had to speak: I must there­fore, out of the Reverence I have for his gray haires, and the respect that all Chri­stian Churches bear to him for his Learn­ing and Piety, doe him so much right, as to let him speak farther about the Contro­versies agitated among us: he hath a Pa­raeness to the Churches, and by name, the English Church; in that page 146. he tells us what he would have taken from Epis­copacy Secular Dominion, Terrene Riches or Wealth, and the Pompe of Ceremonies: and in the next page, brings in the Papists laughing and jearing at us for the Cere­monies that we retained here in England, since our Reformation; so that I may well conclude, that it had been more for the interest of the Church, to have passed o­ver the Bohemian Churches in silence; and it had been well also, if the Consensus Po­loniae had never been mentioned; for in that we shall find a Synod at Cracovia, anno 1573. disputing de Choreis, and when some had alledged that there were honest as well as dishonest dancings, it was at last concluded by the suffrage of all, as well Seculars as Clergy, that they were to be condemned according to the Scripture, and to be forbidden unto all that profess true Piety. Will it much please some of our Go­vernours [Page 71] that young Students are by Mr. Durell directed to read the Determinations of this Synod, but this is one of the least of the mischiefs that he doth us; pag. 93. being surprised with a pang of vain glory, and designing to acquaint us with his own Sufferings, he doth not stick to deliver that which involves the farre greater part of his present Conforming Brethren under the guilt of Rebellion and Schisme, for these are his words, pag. 93. It is known how great the Persecution was against all Mi­nisters who adhered to the King and Church of England, during the late troubles, those who were more gently dealt with, were onely plundered, turned out of their Livings, or imprisoned; there were others, whom it was thought fitter to cast out of the Land, &c. Out of these words, supposing what is ma­nifest, that they who adhered not to the King and to the Church, are Traytors and Schismaticks, thus I argue: All that ad­hered to King and Church suffered, either to Deprivation or Banishment, most of the present Conformists, neither suffered to Deprivation nor Banishment; therefore most of the present Conformists neither adhe­red to King nor Church, and by Conse­quence were Traytors and Schismaticks. The Major is Mr. Durells own; The Minor [Page 72] is known to all the Nation; most of the present Conformists either enjoyed their own Livings during the late troubles, or were put into new Livings. If Mr. Durell had enquired of him who Licensed his Book, he would have told him that he enjoyed a very good Fellowship in All-Souls, during the late confusions, but it is usual with Mr. Durell, where he thinks any Presbyte­rian is within his reach, to lay about him, though he must needs strike through the love of most of his own Friends. So pag. 44 [...] tel [...] us, That those who profess them­selves to be Orthodox had either altogether neglected the Sacrament in most Parishes of these three Kingdomes, or else had ministred it onely to some few choice persons. Which is to throw dirt into the faces of his Epispo­pal Brethren, for they possessed most of the Parishes in this Kingdome to be sure, and as for the Kingdome of Scotland, there war no neglect of the Sacrament, untill that our English Armies had made it impossible for them to exercise their Discipline. But Aquilla non capit muscas, it is a small thing with Mr. Durell thus to scratch our English Clergy unless he also wound the whole English Nation, and that we find him do­ing; for after he had told us that he would set down out of Monsieur Le Moyne's Let­ter [Page 73] as much as fitted his purpose, he sets down this, pag. 136. The English have a Natural fierceness, and withall a natural in­clination to Superstition; Doth this Cha­racter of our Nation fit Mr. Durell's pur­pose? then certainly it is a wicked pur­pose, which cannot be managed but by the causless aspersion of a whole Nation: Usu­ally Superstition dwells in the timerous and dastardly Nature. We, unhappy Mortalls that we be, are naturally fierce, and yet naturally Superstitious; he that had obser­ved this concerning us, should have been so friendly as to tell us what kind of Su­perstition it is, that we are so naturally in­clined to, that so we might have known how to have watched, and prepared Anti­dotes against it, if there be any Antidotes strong enough to expell that which is natu­rall. The Author of this Letter whom Mr. Durell calls one of the ordinary Preachers to the Reformed Congregation of Roan, (which certainly is a Phrase of disparage­ment to English ears) thinkes that upon account of our Natural fierceness and su­perstition, We stand in need of a Govern­ment somewhat Despoticall, that is, of a Go­vernment by Bishops; but I would que­ry what kind of Bishops we must have: Nature teacheth us to desire some of our [Page 74] own Nation, and if they be of our own Nation, are not they Naturally Fierce and Superstitious too; if they be, what Despoti­call power shall we have to cure them; if they be not, then it seems the Episco­pal Character expells the Natural Fierce­ness and Superstition that dwells in English Natures; but we never yet had any ex­perience, that a mans being made a Bi­shop in England did work any cure of his Natural Fierceness and Superstition. Some men have thought that divers after they were advanced to Episcopal Dignity grew more fierce and more superstitious, but this I neither affirm nor deny. In the same Let­ter pag. 134. it is said, That it cannot enter into a Rational Mans Imagination, that a great Kingdome should come by custome to be content to see its Bishops no more, having ho­noured and reverenced them for the space of one thousand four hundred years. This is good news to the Bishops, and if they can be­lieve it, they may in utramque aurem indor­mire, for Episcopacy it seems as well as Superstition is grafted into the Natures of the members of this great Kingdome, and they can neither suddenly, nor by custome be brought so much as to a contentedness to want their Hierarchy. The Author of this Epistle is famed to be a great Histo­rian, [Page 75] and I doubt not but he is so, but me­thinks he is mistaken in his Chronology, whilest he makes this great Kingdome to have reverenced and honoured Bishops for one thousand four hundred years. I find not any good evidence that there were any Bishops among us, till Augustine the Monk was sent to us from Rome, and it is not one thousand four hundred years since Au­gustine came hither. I say there is no good evidence of Bishops till then, for Venera­ble Bede the onely Author to be regarded concerning matters Ecclesiastical, preceding Augustins mission from the Pope, tells us indeed of Brittish Bishops, but after he hath said Episcopi he adds seu Doctores which renders it very uncertain, what kind of men he means by Bishops: And Mr. Petoy a late Historian hath adventured to say, That our Church as well as the Scottish Church was at first planted and Governed without Bishops, till Bishops were sent to us from Rome. But be this as it will, certain I am, our great Kingdome could not be said to honour and reverence Bishops, till by the Preaching of Augustine and his Associates, the Nation ceased to be Pagan; since which time, Bi­shops have not alwaies been so reverenced and honoured as the Reverend Author of this Epistle pretends. Their disloyalty and [Page 76] pride rendred them so odious in the Reigns of many Kings, that had it been put to the Vote, whether there should have been Bishops or no Bishops, it is easy enough to see how it would have been carried. Nor is it truly said page 133. That we owe our Reformation to the Care and Zeal of our Bishops, who did so wonderfully well repurge the Church of England an hundred years ago.

The first dawnings of Reformation we owe under God, to Wickliff, who was no Bishop, nor friend to Bishops; as Bishops signifie men of a superior Order to Pres­byters, those who sealed the Truth with their Bloud, in King Henry the eighths dayes, were none of them Bishops: We can prove from the writings they have left behind them, that they were against Bishops. Seeing this Letter is so well penned Mr. Durells anger will not wax hot; if I dwell upon it a little longer The Author of it tells us page 139 That he fears not to say, 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 progresses of Reformation, and the resistance of a great many persons overcome, who are frighttd from their Communion by [Page 77] the irregularity of their Government, and the bareness of their Service. I design not to put this Reverend Pastor into any fright because of any thing that he hath said, but really I do not understand what he means by [the Reformed French keeping their Bi­shops] for I never heard that they had a­ny Bishops of their Religion to part with; much less do I understand upon what he founds his certain asseverations that more Papists would have come over to them, if they had had Bishops and more Ceremo­nies. We had before the Wars Bishops in our Nation, and Ceremonies enough; yet did we not find any great additions made to our Churches by the coming in of Recu­sants. I hope they in France can reckon up more Converts from Popery, than we can here in England, or else Conversions have been but rare. I also hope, that so many have not apostatized among them, as have apostatized among us: If they have, Rome hath more to boast of than I could wish. But there is one thing more marvellous than all this; The Author of the Letter thinks, That if the English Dissentors have any Charity, they would consent to the Re­establishment of the Episcopal Government, though there were something in it they could not approve of: if it were but for the sake [Page 78] of those that follow the Confession of Aspurg. For can this learned man think, that Hie­rarchy, as an Order superiour to Presby­tery, and as founded upon a Divine Insti­tution, would be an Offering well pleasing to the Lutheran Divines? he is not so un­acquainted with their Writings as that he can so think. If Episcopacy upholds the Lu­theran Churches, as he tells us page 138. I am sure it is not such an Episcopacy as we have here in England; for such an E­piscopacy hath no place among them. And oh that it could be said, That they in Den­marke, Norway, Sweden, and Germany, were very quiet under the Episcopal Govern­ment, seldom seen to slander and tear one ano­ther. We know they have their differen­ces, and that none are more molested, than the moderate party among them: so far was Episcopal Government from keeping us quiet in England, that the Divisions and Animosities did arise and grow to a great height among the Bishops themselves. Some were told that nothing but their Bishop­ricks kept them from being Puritans: O­thers were told, that nothing but their Wives kept them from being Papists. Sun­dry Parliaments complained to the King of the growth of Arminianisme, and what did the Church do, to prevent or take away [Page 79] the ground and cause such Complaints? truly Dr. Heylin in his History of Laud, tells us, that there was a Consultation whether it were meet to bring the thing to a Convocation; but it was concluded, that it was not safe so to do; because there were too many Members of the Convoca­tion inclined to Calvinisme, though there were some that were as strangly inclined to Arminianisme, our Pulpits had not fail­ed to ring with Declamations against Pe­lagianisme in some places, and against Sto­icall Fatality in others, had not the King by a Proclamation, put some stop to those Controversies: so that the quietness which the Church enjoyed, was rather due to Monarchy than Epispacy. Now of late in­deeed, Arnold Polenberg in his preface to the second Tome of Episcopius his works, gives us to understand, that he designed to dedicate that great Folio to our English Clergy, and particularly to both our Uni­versities; promising himself, that almost all the Bishops of our Churches do defend that Opi­nion concerning Predestination, which was con­demned in the Synod of Dort: Whether he be out in his account, 'tis not for me to enquire, who have work enough to do at home, but it seems even in this Gentle­mans account, all our Bishops are not be­come Episcopian, and therfore preserve U­nity [Page 80] among themselves, by having their knowledge in those matters unto themselves. Now if it be found necessary to tolerate dif­ference of Judgment among the Bishops themselves in Doctrines of so high con­cernment? it may be worth the Conside­ration of those who are in Authority, whe­ther they also may not be suffered to en­joy Ecclesiastical preferment, who differ from their Bretheren only in some few points of Discipline: I say in a few points of Dis­cipline, for as to the essentials of Disci­pline I am not so quick-sighted, as to find that we disagree. The things that breed discord among us, are said, by those who are the chief causes of their imposition, to be Adiaphorous, (i. e.) such things as are there­fore good because imposed, rather than im­posed because good. On the other hand, those who suffer for not yeilding to the Impositions, do judge there is some evil in the things imposed, and desire they may be indulged not to Practise them. A Book­ish man who is not much versed in the In­trigues of Ecclesiasticall Pollicy, would think no bigger a breach than this, might easily be stopped up.

I shall dismiss this Letter, only adding, That I would not have Mounsieur Le-Moyn estimated by it, having certain knowledge that he hath both with his tongue and [Page 81] pen declared, that Mr. Durell hath much abused him, in leaving out sundry passa­ges in his Letter wherin he did moderate and regulate the Episcopal power, which if they had been inserted, the Letter would not at all have fitted his design.

Lastly, it plainly appears, that Mr. Du­rell is no observer of the Act of Unifor­mity, for he over and over confesseth, that he hath suffered those to preach in his Church, who had no Episcopal Ordinati­on, which is a Crime severely to be pu­nished by the Act. And I much doubt whether Mr. Durell himself be qualified to be a Preacher in England; for though he make shift to tell us, that he was Or­dained by a Scotch Bishop, yet it is pro­bable enough, that that Bishop was Ordain­ed Presbyter, by Presbyters; or at least by those, who never had themselves any Ordination to be Presbyters, but by Pres­byters: and if so, there was an error in the first Concoction, and we know that is not to be corrected. Our Bishops lately took care to prevent this scruple, and con­secrated Mr. Sharp first Deacon, then Priest, then Bishop, &c. But we are sure from History, that the first Bishops who came over hither to receive Ordination, were not so dealt with: and therefore Mr. Durell may do well to consider upon what ground he [Page 82] stands, and whether according to the Princi­ple now prevailing, he be not still a Laick.

I have one Catalogue more to give you still, and that will consist of things which Country men call Whiskers; you may if you please more civilly call them, Durellisme, I shall not reckon up all, but yet I must be allowed to mention some.

The first occurs, page 31. I know none that did ever so much as move the question, in what place, and which way the Communi­nion Table ought to stand, so it be seated where the people may hear and see, except the new Scotch and English Presbyterians.

A man must have a large measure of Charity that can think him ignorant, that there were great questions moved among our Bishops themseves, concerning the pla­cing of the Communion Table: and some did urge Ministers to read Service there, though it was demonstrated that the one halfe of the people could neither see nor hear them.

A second I find page 32. In all Reformed Churches men use to enter into the places of Publick Worship with their Hats off.

This is a most notorious — nothing being more usual in some Reformed Chur­ches than to pass through and through the places of Worship, never stirring their Hats: But if he would have the saying understood of mens putting off their Hats [Page 83] when they enter into the place of Publick Worship, whilst the Congregation is Wor­shipping, then must this speech be placed where it is already placed, among the Gen­tlemans impertinencies.

Thirdly, page 44. he averrs, That those who profess themselves to be Orthodox, either altoge­ther neglected the Lords Supper for many years in both Ʋniversities, that of Oxford having had no Communion for above 12 years; or only admitted some few choice persons to the same, refusing it to all others, though their outward carriage were sober, honest, and religious.

There are hundreds of Scholars and Citi­zens know this to be an untruth; no Presby­terian in the University of Oxford, that had a Pastoral Charge, or any thing like it, neglect­ed to administer the Sacrament for many years, or for any one year; or refused any whose conversation was sober, honest, and religious. Some of them were blamed for ad­mitting such whose conversation was not so sober and religious, as all Rules of good Dis­cipline do require in Church-members. The phrase, That of Oxford having had no Commu­nion for above 12 years, perhaps was intended only to bear this sence, That the University did not for above 12 years meet together to receive the Sacrament in St. Maries before the Terms: If this be any fault, the Presbyterian is not concerned in it. In those 12 years time, [Page 84] there were but four Vice-Chancellors, all of them right-worthy persons, but not one of them professing himself a Presbyterian. But indeed it may be question'd, whether it was veri nominis crimen, not to keep up that Sacra­ment. For I wonder who made the University, as the University, a Church? or who is the Pastour of that Church? what Bishop hath Jurisdiction over it? or who shall Excommu­nicate those Members that come not to the Ordinance? I never heard that ever the hun­dred part of the University was at that Sacra­ment when administred, or that any one man was ever censured for being absent from it: nay I believe the Statute injoyning this Sacra­ment in that Church, will be found a spick and span new Statute, coyned on purpose to inure the Scholars to Bowing towards the Altar.

Fourthly, In the same page, and the ve­ry next words, we have an Assertion as void of all Truth, viz. That all the Reformed world over, no man that is not a notorious ill Liver is debarred from that Comfort which Christ hath left to his Church for the sick and weak as a Medicine against their Diseases.

Had it been said that all the Reform­ed World over, no one is to be debarred from the Sacrament by the Rules of Dis­cipline, but a notorious ill Liver, the Asser­tion had had some modesty, but what in­tolerable [Page 85] impudence is it for any man to arrogate so much to himself as to adven­ture to say no man is debarred indeed in all Reformed Churches: others are to be debarred besides notorious ill Livers, name­ly the ignorant and those that have any heretical opinions, which they make known, yea, and all those who cannot satisfie them­selves to conform to all the Rites and Ce­remonies used in the Churches, if we may believe Mr. Durell himself. Yet I trow, there's no necessity such should be notori­ous evil Livers.

Fifthly, Pag. 61. He finds a forehead to leave these words on Record, 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 to conform to them. By whom was this ever said? either in so many words, or in any expressions tantamount? and how would Mr. Durell have this uncouth affirmation to be understood? universally, or particularly? It should be understood univer­sally, or else Mr. Durell's going about to prove the Negative is very needless; and if it be so understood, he might as well have charged us to say, that the Reformed Churches count it a sin in the English Church to use her own Na­tive Language. The French Ministers preach with their Hats on, did ever Nonconformist [Page 86] say, that they count it sinful in us to preach with our hats off? or did ever Nonconformist go about to bring the French mode into his Church?

Sixthly, Pag. 85. he acquaints us, That the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas are told, that the Convocations of the Church of England con­sist onely of Archbishops and Bishops, and that the inferiour Clergy are not admitted to sit and vote in them.

Till any persons be produc'd who told the Reformed Churches any such tales, Mr. Durell must be content to be thought a spreader of false informations; if he can produce any such, by my consent let him have the whetstone and keep it untill he can find Mr. Durell telling something that will make him deserve to have it returned. But he shall not need to keep it very long: For

Seventhly, Pag. 86. he tells us, That the Bi­shops in England are to rule by the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, and by the Laws of the Land and no otherwise; calling alwaies to joyn with them in imposition of hands, and other mat­ters of weighty concernment, some of the Prebends of their Cathedralls, or other gra [...] Ministers of the Diocess.

Where was shame when this was pen'd? do the Canons require any Bishop to call any one Minister to join with him in imposition of hands upon a Deacon, or in the Confirmation of [Page 87] persons before they are admitted to the Lords Supper? or doth the Bishop offend against any Law or Canon, if he call none of his Ministers to joyn with him, when a Presbyter is Ex­communicated? or is it so much as necessary, that the Bishop himself should be present, when Excommunication is decreed? Is any thing more usual, then for Lay-Chancellors to decree Excommunication? calling only some Minister for fashion sake to pronounce the sentence: I would Mr. Durell would shew us any Reformed Church that hath any such custom; and I wish also he would tell us, what those Canons and Constitutions are, ac­cording to which our Bishops are to rule us: For some tell us, that they are to proceed not only according to the Canons of 1603. but also according to sundry other Canons that ordinary people know not, nor ever had an opportunity to read of; provided they be not repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Nation. Mr. Durell 'tis like hath all the 77. Le­gatine Canons, as also the 212 Provincial Ca­nons, at his fingers ends; If he can find any Canon among them all, commanding our Bi­shops to call in some of the Presbyters to joyn with them in imposition of hands, and all other weighty matters, let him discharge it in their faces; yet taking heed left it recoyle, and do himself some mischief: For Bishops do not love to have their power limited, or [Page 88] the Canons relating to it expounded, by any but themselves. I hope no Canons are in force but those of 1603. and by them I am sure the Bishop is not required, to call in Presbyters to joyn with him, in every imposition of hands. In the 31 Canon indeed, he is appointed to cele­brate Ordinations on the four Sundays after the Ember weeks, and in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth, and in the time of Divine Service, in the presence not only of the Archdeacon, but of the Dean and two Prebenda­ries at the least; or if they be let or hindred, in the presence of four Grave persons, Masters of Art, and allowed Preachers. The 35 Canon also saith, That the Bishop shall diligently exa­mine him that is to be admitted to Holy Orders, in the presence of those that shall assist him at the imposition of hands; or else cause the said Mini­sters carefully to examine every such person. All this doth not amount to the calling in of Pres­byters to joyn with him in the imposition of hands. The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons, doth indeed require, that the Priests that are present with the Bishop, shall toge­ther with him lay on their hands when a Priest is ordained; but how if no Priest should lay on his hand, the Ordination is valid however, as is again and again determined by Bishop Taylor, in his Episcopacy asserted. Yea he saith, pag. 197, 198. That it was declared Heresie to communicate the power of giving Or­ders [Page 89] to Presbyters, either alone or in conjunction with Bishops. What he saith concerning the Decree of the 4th. Council of Carthage, pag. 189. I leave to others to examine, con­fessing that I innocently thought, that when our Presbyters laid on hands together with the Bishop, they as well as he had conferred Orders; Dr. Heylin in his History of Episco­pacy, pag. 162. hath undeceiv'd me, for these are his words: The conjunction of the Presby­ters in the solemnities of this Act, was more for the honour of the Priesthood, than for the essence of the work: Nor did the laying on of the Pres­byters hands, conferr upon the party that was or­dained any power or order, but only testified their consent unto the business, and approbation of the man.

I must also confess that I did not apprehend things aright, in reference to the Bishop and his Presbyters, untill lately I read in the fore­said Bishop Taylor, p. 257, 258. That to the Bi­shop is committed the care of the whole Diocess He it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock. The Presbyters are admitted in par­tem sollicitudinis, but still the Jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop, and without the Bi­shops admission to a part of it, per tracit onem subditorum, although the Presbyter by his Ordi­nation have a capacity of Preaching and Admini­string Sacraments, yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge, either [Page 90] temporary or fixed, and p. 262. after he had mu­ster'd up many Testimonies, he tells us, They shew that the Presbyters in their several charges, whether of temporary mission or fixed residence, be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop, to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess, And p. 282, 283. he hath these words. As I have shewn that the Bishop of every Dss. did give Laws to his own Church for particulars, so it is evident that the Laws of Provinces 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 these are just so many as there are Councils, and more plainly 287. Till the Council of Basil, the Church never admitted Presbyters, as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Coun­cil we know savor'd too much of the Schismatick. Nay Mr. Jeans tells me, That in the Convoca­tion which was the last before the late wars, Bi­shop Pierce told the Ministers of his Diocess, that it was an unquestionable Priviledge due unto his See, for him to propound unto them the Clerks that they should choose, unto which he expected their Conformity, part. 2. pag. 131. Now if all this should be true, it might be a kind of a Quodlibetical Question, whether in our Con­vocations any do sit and vote beside the Bi­shops, for they that sit not in their own rights, but in the right of others, and as they are De­legates and Substitutes, are scarce said to sit: [Page 80] And so the men whom Mr. Durell so much con­demns for false accusations will be found ra­ther to have spoken incautelously than falsly: As for the other false accusation relating to Archbishop Laud, that he should make a Li­turgy differing from the Liturgies of Q. Eliz. and K. James, and K. Charles I. I must needs say, that is no false accusation. Mounsieur Chabret in his Letter recorded, pag. 82. Doth not say that it was reported Archbishop Laud had compiled a new Liturgy for the Church of Eng­land, but onely that a new one was compilled by him: which had occasioned much clamour, and been the ground of fears and jealousies. Now I beseech Mr. Durell to tell me. Did not Arch-bishop Laud compile a Liturgy for the Scotch Nation? if he did not, let those who have charged him so to do, in allowed writings be confuted; If he did compile that Liturgy, or which is all one, direct those who compiled it; I am sure it did differ from ours, and occasi­oned much clamour, raised many fears and jealousies, which at last ended in a war betwixt the two Nations. Yea, there were some few alterations made by the said Archbish. or some of his Creatures in the Liturgy for our own Church, which were not very well relished by those that never were enemies to the le­gally established Government, what those al­terations were may be seen in the Dedicatory of Mr. Prynn's Quench Coal.

[Page 92]But I must give check to my running pen, and take notice of some [...]ner failures against truth p. 8. Mr. Durell thus P [...]sifieth, Oecolampadius who reformed the City of Basil, is stiled Bishop of that Church upon his Tomb, of which Bellarmine himself was an eye witnes in his time much against his will, for this we are referred to Bellar. de notis Eecles. l. 4 c. 8. where Bellarm. indeed does tell us, That he was at Basil, and there saw the in­scription on Oecolampadius his Tomb, and read it not without laughter. Now it is hard to con­ceive that he should see that much against his will, the sight whereof caused laughter in him, but the truth is, Bellar. laughter was ridiculous, for the words upon the Tomb are not Primus hujus urbis Episcopus, as Bellarm. quotes them, but Author Evangelicae doctrinae in hac urbe pri­mus: Episcopus indeed he is called, but how? Hujus Templi verus Episcopus, and if such an Episcopus will do, Mr. Durell any pleasure, he most be a very humoursome man that will envy him such a pleasure.

Ninthly, Page 13. He fears not to affirme, That all understanding men among the French Churches say plainly, that if God Almighty were pleased that all France should embrace the Refor­med Religion, as England hath; the Episcopal Government must of necessity be established in their Churches. That all understanding men should say this and say it plainly, is certainly a — all understanding men were never heard to [Page 92] speak about this matter; and should they be called together to speak, they would not utter any such speech as is here fathered on them: it is scarce sence, to say if all France should em­brace the Reformed Religion as England hath; for certainly all England hath not embraced the Reformed Religion, the more the pity: and what necessity could there be if France should generally embrace the Reformed Religion, that Episcopal Government should be establi­shed in it? I am not more certain that ever I saw the Sun, than I am certain that many un­derstanding Frenchmen will never be brought to say, that Episcopal Government must ne­cessarily be established.

Tenthly, Page 27. Having told us the Hel­vetick Confession does vehemently approve of the observation of some Holy-days, he dreads not to tell us, That the Ministers of the Church of Scotland subscribed that Confession An. 1566. the Ministers of that Church being then of another Judgment, and of a temper far different from that their Successors have shewed of latter years. Whereas the Scotch Ministers who subscribed the Helvetick Confession, subscribed it with ex­press exception of that part of it which con­cerns the observation of the Holy-days; and so as to that matter plainly shewed themselves to be of the same temper and Judgment with their Successors, as plainly appears from the Records of that Church. Let the World judge what credit is to be given to Mr. Durell con­cerning [Page 94] remote Churches, who relates things so contrary to truth about a neigbour Church.

Eleventhly, Page 28. He would perswade us, That the Crosses have not been pulled down from the top of Churches, unless perhaps in som popular Storm; but we can tell him of Crosses that have been taken from the top of Churches by the Magistrates appointment, and with the Mini­sters aprobation, which things are not to be found in a popular Storm.

Twelfthly, P. 29. He bears us in hand, That the Bohemians have solemn dedication of Chur­ches, which Ceremony is to be performed with them by the Bishop in the same manner as with us here in England. Which words I know not how to reconcile to truth: For what Law is there a­mong us enjoyning Churches to be Consecra­ted by a Bishop; or where may a man find the form and manner of Consecraring a Church here in England, or read the Prayers with the which the Consecration is to be performed: how shall I be able to convince Parishoners that they are bound to desire the Consecration of their newly built, or newly inlarged Chur­ches, or the Bishop that he is bound to under­take this Consecra.. I though he be not desired, and must the Diocesan bear the charges of his journey, or have them born by the people, sun­dry such questions as these need resolution, which is a sign that the Laws and Canons now in force, concern not themselves at all in this business of Consecraition.

[Page 111]13thly. Pag. 30. Mr. D. bears witness a­gainst the Directorians, which is either non­sense or a falsity, for these are his words; ‘At Bazil in the Cathedral Church they have their Fonts of Stone, and use them for the baptism of Infants as we do here; they have & use them alike in the City of Breme; and so in other places; by which we see they are not of the same judgment with the Directorians, who find Popery and Super­stition in the very placing of them:’ If the meaning of these words be, that the Directo­rians find Popery and Superstition in placing of Fonts as they are placed at Bazil and Breme, it is a perfect calumny; if the mean­ing be that the Directorians find Popery and Superstition in some kind of placing of the Fonts, how can a man thence gather, that they of Breme and Bazil are not of the same judgment with the Directorians: all that the Directory orders is, that Baptisme be admi­nistred in the face of the Congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear, and not in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly and su­perstitiously placed: Here is no finding of Po­pery and Superstition in the very placing of Fonts, but onely a prohibiting the admini­stration of Baptisme in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly and [Page 112] superstitiously placed; and what, I wonder, could move the Papists to place their Fonts where the Congregation could neither hear nor see the Minister, what I say, but meer Superstition?

14thly. Page 42. He falls again to the a­busing of Presbyterians, saying, ‘That they ought to have as bad an Opinion of the Trine aspersion of the Cross in Baptisme:’ adding towards the end of that Page his con­fidence, ‘That if the Trine aspersion were used in our Church, or if she had retain­ed the Trine immersion, as at the begin­ning of King Edward rhe Sixth's Reign, it would be counted a great Superstition.’ This is a great slander, no Presbyterians that ever I heard of, have any such Principles from which they can charge Superstition up­on Trine immersion, or upon Trine asper­sion: they say, it is the command of God that water should be applied to the Bapti­zed, had he commanded that this application should be by dipping or sprinkling once or twice, his command must have been obser­ved; seeing there is no such Command, they say, that Superiours are at liberty to ap­point which they please, provided nothing be appointed that is imprudent or uncharita­ble: and now that we are fallen upon this point, I would gladly know what it is that [Page 113] our Church hath appointed; by the Liturgy. I see the Minister is appointed to dipp the Child in the water, if the Sponsors certifie that the Babe can well endure it; but if they certifie that the Child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it; so that here is no al­lowance of any Rite but Dipping, unless there be a Certificate of the Childs weakness: But when, I wonder, did any Baptist demand such a Certificate? as for the Quoties no meaner a man than Bishop Mountague in his Articles of Visitation positively asserted, that the Child is thrice to be aspersed with water on the face: So that the Act of Uni­formity notwithstanding, it seems the Do­ctors of the Church were not agreed, and for ought I can observe notwithstanding any Rubrick or Canon now in force, Ministers are at their Liberty to apply the water once or thrice, though I think Bishop Mountague was much mistaken, when he said that the Child was thrice to be aspersed; the Church hath not commanded Trine aspersion, but there is no constat that she hath forbidden it. Nor is this the only thing in our Administra­tion of Baptisme, about which I am at a loss. Immersion I do hugely approve, yea, I can­not see how it can be forborn, unless charity or modesty, on something of that nature do forbid it. But what may be the Reason that [Page 114] our Church allows not pouring water upon Infants without a Certificate that they are weak; and yet in the form of Baptism ap­pointed for adult persons, leaves it wholly at the Ministers discretion, either to dip them into the water, or to pour water upon them. There is another thing in which aqua mihi haeret. I am marvellously also perplext about the Administrator or Administratrix of Bap­tism. In the Hampton-Court Conference, K. James stumbled something at some expressi­ons in our Liturgy which seemed to give Li­berty to women and Maids to Administer Baptisme in case of extreme necessity, and he was then answer'd by Archbishop Whitgift, that Baptism by Women and Lay-persons, was not allow'd in the practise of the Church, but was enquired of, and cen­sur'd in the Bishops Visitations, and that the words in the Book inferred no such meaning. But Bishop Bancroft declared, that the Church by those words did intend in case of necessity, a permission of private persons to Baptize, and that this permission was agreeable to the practise of the ancient Churches: Withal opening the absurdities and impieties of their Opinion who think there is no necessity of Baptisme: I confess, I could not but wonder that they who had so strongly pleaded for the Liturgy, and [Page 115] pleas'd themselves in silencing those who could not conform unto it, should be as con­trary as North and South in expounding a material passage of it: But however for the credit of the Ordinance, I rejoyced greatly to find that at the motion of the King, it was ordred that the words, A Lawful Mi­nister, should be put into the Rubrick, for by this means I thought us sufficiently secu­red against any female Baptizers. But he who doth not love to conceal any thing Dr. P. H. in his necessary Introduction to the History of Bishop Laud, pag. 27. hath quite took away the cause of my rejoycing; for he saith, ‘The alteration was greater in sound than sense, it being the Opinion of many great Clerks, that any man in cases of extreme necessity, who can pronounce the words of Baptism, may pass in the no­tion of & account of a lawful Minister.’ By any man, I suppose, he means any one that is de humano genere, and by consequence either a Child or a Natural; but I hope some one will give check to this extravagant Notion, that so a stop may be put to the Licentiousness of those, unto whom God hath no more given a power to Baptize, than to Ordain Mini­sters. And therefore I wish that to stop this gap, instead of the Minister of the Parish, or any other lawful Minister, it had been said, [Page 116] the lawful Minister of any other Parish; and then I should have thought it impossible for any man to be so impudent as to opine that our Church had not restrained Baptisme to the Clergy. But they who made our new Liturgy were wiser then I; and some that have subscrib'd it, it seems had got some such way of Interpretation as no Logick ever led me into.

15thly. Pag. 103. He makes bold with the whole Church of England: For of her, these are his words: ‘She holdeth subor­dination of Ministers in the Christian Church to be of Apostolical, nay, of Di­vine Institution, having as she conceiveth for Grounds of this her Judgment besides Scripture, the Practise of the Holy Apo­stles in their time, of the Universal Church ever since, until this later Age; and which is more, of Christ himself, who ordained the Apostles, and the Seventy Disciples in an imparity as two distinct Orders of Mi­nisters in his Church.’ I suppose this Re­verend Praedicant doth not pretend to any faculty of discerning the secret thoughts and inward conceptions of our Churches heart, farther then when she discov'rs them by some words or other signification; let him there­fore tell us where the Church hath declared her self thus to hold, thus to conceive as in [Page 117] the fore-quoted words is represented, That the Church holds subordination of Ministers to be an Apostolical Institution is plain e­nough; and therefore Mr. D. beats the Air as oft as he brings any Testimonies for Epis­copacie, which do not place it among Apo­stolical Institutions: but I cannot finde that the Church any where distinguisheth Apostolical and Divine; much less doth she say, that she hath besides Scripture the pra­ctice of the Apostles, and of Christ himself. The Practice of the Apostles and Christ him­self are recorded in Scripture, and be a part of Scripture, and therefore it is not sense to say that she hath these Arguments besides Scripture, unless she thinks that these are not Scriptural Arguments: Besides, where doth our Church say, Christ ordained the Apostles and Seventy Disciples in an imparity, as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church; possibly some Writers of our Church may so say, our Church, I believe will never be found to have said any such thing: if she have, the Speech hath given her Adversaries too much advantage, for they will ask in what order Christ placed the Seventy? If in the Order of Presbyters how came some of them afterwards to be made Deacons as it is generally held that some of them were in the Acts of the Apostles.

[Page 118]16thly. Pag. 144. He leaves upon record 4 great Untruths, and yet makes them or 3 of them to be Truths known to all the three Kingdoms: they all relate to the Presbyte­rians, the first is, ‘That they had no set Forms, nor indeed would admit of any whether for Common-Prayer, or Admi­nistration of the Sacraments, Matrimony, &c.’ How doth he know they had no set Forms for these, or some of these? I believe sundry of them had Forms, or quasi-forms for all these, and I am confident the Major part of them would, if need required, swear that they never declared that they would not re­ceive any set Forms for these. But Second­ly, he saith, ‘That for a long time many of them had left off using that very Form our Lord hath taught us:’ Pag. 37. he had said, That most if not all the Directorians had for a long time here in England left it out of their Service: But wisely then adds, It will be hard to make Transmarine Brethren be­lieve, that there were any such men among us. And certainly it will be impossible to make our own Nation believe that this had any truth in it; for it is known all the Nation over, that those whom he must mean by the Presbyterians, did many, if not most of them, and that very often, use the Lords Prayer, though they did not think it their [Page 119] Duty to use it every time they officiated in publick. I my self for some years attended upon a Lecture in this Nation, carried on by thirteen persons, as [...] of them used the Lords Prayer, and usually concluded their Prayers with it. I should wrong the English Pres­byterian Nonconformists should I not here acknowledg that they have very wel deserv'd of the Church of Christ by their Pious and Learned Discourses and Sermons upon the Lords Prayer: I believe no Church can shew a more full and profitable Treatise of it than that composed by Mr. John Ball, and pub­lished by his loving Friend Mr. Simeon Ash, towards the end of a Book, Entituled, The Powwer of Godliness; nor do I know that ever the use of the Lords Prayer was more fully Apologiz'd for, against the Exceptions of the Brownists and others, than by Mr. Pa­get, and Mr. Thom. Hodges, the one sundry years since dead in the Lord, the other still in the Land of the Living. Oh that I had so much reason to commend the Zeal of all the Episcopal Ministers of my Acquaintance! But indeed I have not; Sundry of them whose parts I greatly esteemed I have known to conclude their Prayers before Sermon with­out any use of the Lords Prayer, as oft as they could conceive that there was any Great Person in the Congregation, who [Page 120] would think the worse of them for using it.

To conclude this business, I Question not but it is both lawful and expedient to use the Lords Prayer, as a Prayer as well as a pattern; but let not Mr. D. too severely cen­sure those who cannot as yet obtain leave of themselves to use it as a Prayer, especial­ly at such times when they have before prayed largely both for themselves and others; for where can he find a Law ma­king it our duty to use those words com­monly called the Lords Prayer, any other­wise than as a pattern and example of our Prayers. I know he somewhere produceth the words of St. Luke, When ye pray, say, &c. But were those words brought into the form of a Syllogism, it would not to the Brownists themselves appear very formidable; for they will ask what the words be that Christ there commands to use: if it should be answered them, the words that follow in St. Lukes Gospel, then would they reply, that all who tye themselves to the use of our English Li­turgy would be transgressours of this Law; for no where in all the Liturgy does the Lords Prayer occur as it is recorded in St. Lukes Gospel. Indeed the Compilers of our Liturgy do neither follow St. Matthew nor St Luke, but vary from them both, as [Page 121] will appear to any that shall compare the Lords Prayer in the Liturgy, with the Lords Prayer in the New Testament, whether of the last or former Translation. But if it should be said to them that the Command­ment requires only that words be used to the same sense and purpose with those in St. Luke; then is the Brownist at as great Li­berty as he could wish; They who lay it as a burden upon our Consciences to use the same words in English that the Evangelists used in Greek, should do well clearly to satisfie us, what words were used by the Evange­lists, for in no other matter do the Copies more vary. I have enough to satisfie my self, that the Doxology in Matthew was not added in later times, as some think; but if any one should differ from me in this Opinion, I should be loath to tye my self neither to eat nor drink, till I had convinced him. Grotius tells me that it is in the Syriack and Arabick Translations, yea, and in the La­tine too; but I am sure it is not in that A­rabick Translation exhibited to us in our late Polyglotts, and it is in very few Latine Translations, if any that are considerable. A­men is wanting in the very Syriack Transla­tion, which all Scholars acknowledge to be ancient; but how shall I be able to perswade a dissenter, that this Syriack Translation, [Page 122] which we follow, is the Ancientest in that kind; If it be the Ancientest, then must I needs acknowledge that from thence may be fetched a very good Argument for the An­tiquity of Holy-dayes: But perhaps it is not the Ancientest: that which Immanuel Tre­melius followed, having no such Inscripti­ons and various Titles; by which is signified that these and the other things were done certain dayes in the Year; How should I convince him that would say, Our Father on­ly, and not, Our Father which art in Heaven, or him that would use fewer Petitions by two, then we commonly use, or him that would not say, Amen, at the end of the Prayer. Above all things this makes me that I dare not too confidently assert that our Lord Jesus intended to make it the Duty of his Disciples after his departure to use those very words which he delivered to them, because I do not find in those words any mention of his own most sweet & preci­ous Name: whereas when he comes to give them a standing Directory for Prayer, he enjoyns them, John 16. to ask in his Name, assuring them that Prayers made in his Name should be answered, but letting them know withal, that at that time they had never as­ked any thing in his Name, what shall we say to this? If we should say, that the Apostles, [Page 123] Christs Directions notwithstanding, had never used his Prayer, the Brownists will make an advantage of such a Confession; if we should say, that though they used the Lords Prayer, yet by using of it they had not prayed in the Name of Christ, i. e. explicite­ly, and so as they were to do, after they had a more explicite knowledge of the Nature and Offices of Christ; then though this prayer will still contain all needful matter to be prayed for, yet it will admit of Dis­pute, whether our prayers are not to be ten­dered unto God in such phrases and forms as do more distinctly mention the Death, Re­surrection, and Intercession of our Blessed Mediator. Granting the Doxology to be a part of the Lords Prayer, as I am of a strong Opinion it is, it is plain that is is not so distinct and particular as some others in the Epistles and Revelations be, which of­fer and ascribe praise and Glory unto God by Christ, as Eph. 3.21. or unto Christ, as 1 Timothy 6.16. or to God and the Lamb Christ Jesus, as Rev. 5.13. Later Doxo­logies do make an acknowledgment of the Blessed Trinity as to every Person. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: and it seems but meet that the Doxo­logies of Christians (properly so called) should have something in them, to distin­guish [Page 124] them from the Doxologies and Suppli­cations not only of Heathens, but also of Jews. There be some that say our Lord took this form of prayer out of the Jewish Liturgies, and one undertakes to give us an account from the Jewish Liturgies, of that variety and difference that is to be found in the recital of it in Mathew and Luke, viz. he would have us think that the prayer, as in Mathew was intended for the Disciples more publick use, as in Luke for their more private use: But in all this that Learned Man does need a credulous Reader, who will not too strictly enquire into the grounds of his asseveration; Most plain it is, that our Savior made this Prayer for his Disciples, whilest they were Members of the Jewish Church, and before he had blotted out the Hand-wri­ting of Ordinances, or had sent the Spirit to lead them into all Truth: let it therefore be considered, whether we are not rather ordinarily to express our selves in a Dialect more sutable to the New Testament Dispen­sation, than is used in the Lords Prayer, yet using that prayer also, as a prayer, and ma­king it the patern and example, as to the things to be prayed for, in all the prayers that we make; and let men have a care how they adventure to conclude their own pray­ers:] thus we further pray unto thee in that [Page 125] very form of words which Christ himself hath taught us,] till they have made them­selves certain what form of words Christ did use when he directed his Disciples. 3dly. he saith, ‘Most of them had likewise whol­ly neglected the use of the Lords Supper for many years.’ He might with as much truth have said, that most of them for ma­ny years had lived without eating and drink­ing; The most of them ministred the Sacra­ments frequently, and I know where they have been blamed for administring it too frequently; if this Characterizer say this is not a truth, he may chance in a short time by printed Testimonials to see himself con­futed: But he hath not done, but for a Con­clusion tells us, ‘There was a great irreve­rence at Prayer in their Congregations, very few kneeling, many not so much as putting off their Hats, and of this, he saith, he was an Eye-witness.’ I demand only whether he think it be irreverence for a man not to kneel in the publick Congrega­tion in time of Prayer? Whether standing be not a posture of Reverence? Whether in the London Churches it be not morally im­possible for the one half of the Congregati­on to kneel in time of Prayer? Into how many Congregations he went where many did not so much as put off their Hats in the [Page 126] time of Prayer? And whether he either saw or heard that the Ministers of those Church­es did any way countenance that irreve­rence? If he cannot answer these Questions roundly and readily, oh, what work hath he made for an accusing Conscience! For ought I know those in whom he observed this irreverence, might be Sectaries, who did more bitterly inveigh against Presbyterians than against any other men whatever; per­haps also they might be Episcopal-men, who designed to put an affront upon the Presby­terians Prayers: just as now some are obser­ved to sit upon their Breech all the time of Pulpit-prayer, unless when just the Lords Prayer is repeating, because forsooth Pulpit-prayer is not allowed by the Church, but onely bidding of Prayer. I write it with grief, but I must write it, I never in any Congregations where I have been, observed so much irreverence as I have observed in those in which there is the greatest abun­dance of such as alwayes pretended a love to the English Liturgy; particular Stories I might relate, and would relate did I not fear to set deluded people at a greater distance from our Assemblies; but if Mr. D. will call for them, he shal have them by the peck & by the bushel; I need not stay about these parti­culars: the World I trust will not long want [Page 127] sufficient information how much the Presby­terians have been abus'd by Mercenary Pens.

I have only two Animadversions on this Authors Sermon, and then your trouble will not be much longer continued. Pag. 20. He tells us, That those who have Devotion and leisure enough to come to Church, and be pre­sent at Divine Service may hear the whole Bi­ble read every year, the Old Testament once, and the new no less than thrice. A man scarce knows where to be present at Divine Service every day morning & evening, unless at some Cathedral or Collegiate Church; for though all Priests and Deacons are appointed to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, ei­ther privately, or openly, not being let by Sickness, or some other urgent cause, and though Curats be appointed being at home, and not otherwise reasonably hindred, to say the Prayers in the Parish Church, or Chappel, and to toll the Bell that the people may come and hear the word and pray with them, yet the Assenters, and Consenters that do this, are as rare as black Swans, and if a man had health and Devotion so much as to inable him to attend upon the Cathe­dral Service Morning and Evening from the first of January to the last of December, yet should he not by that means hear the whole [Page 128] Bible read, either the Old Testament once, or the New Testament thrice, there being several Chapters ia both, that are never ag­pointed to be read.

Whether the Church do well to appoint above an hundred of Apocryphal Chapters to be read, and about an hundred eighty eight Canonical Chapters, never to be read, is [...], certainly he that would adventure, in a Sermon to say, de facto, That the Church had appointed the whole Bible to be read over once a year, had taught his tongue not much to regard Truth: So had he also who adventured to say, pag. 23. That it is requi­red of the people that they repeat aloud the Con­fession of sins; No such thing is required of the people, rather it is required that they should repeat the Confession of sins with a lowly and submiss voice; Should all lift up their voyces aloud, there might be more confusion then Mr. D. is aware of.

But though I am confident Mr. D. is mi­staken about the two last mentioned particu­lars, yet I must profess I am not clear about the Churches meaning in either of them: Af­ter order taken for the reading of the Psalms, we are thus directed, ‘Then shall be read distinctly with an audible voice the first Lesson taken out of the Old Testament, as is appointed in the Kalendar (except, &c.)’ [Page 129] Any man by this would think that the first Lesson were alway by the Kalendar appoint­ed to be taken out of the Canonical Scrip­tures of the Old Testament; yet the Kalen­dar appoints many Apocryphal Chapters to be read for the first Lesson: Is Apocrypha become a part of the Old Testament? I know our Church had no intention to make it so, yet the Phrase used by her in a Com­plex Notion, sounds as if she did; I suppose therefore she calls all Books preceding the New Testament, whether Canonical or A­pocryphal by the name of the Old Testa­ment; If this supposition hold, than the ad­monition to all Ministers Ecclesiastical pre­fixed to the Second Book of Homilies will warrant them to change all the Chapters A­pocryphal that shall fall in course to be read on every Sunday or Holiday into a Chapter of the New Testament; for in that Admo­nition such Liberty is granted, or rather such course is prescribed in reference to the less edifying Chapters of the Old Testament. But perhaps by assenting and consenting to all and any thing, Ministers have given a­way their liberty to make any such exchange. Let those whom it concerns consider. Where I live I have little opportunity to hear Apo­crypha read publickly, and if in my Family I make choice of Divinely inspired Writings [Page 130] to read, I hope I am no transgressour of the Law.

Nor really do I know what is meant in our Liturgy by a loud voice; In the old Com­mon Prayer Book after the absolution the Minister was appointed to begin the Lords Prayer with a loud voice, In the new, loud is changed into audible, and we are also requi­red at that time to repeat it after the Mini­ster, which was not required in the old. But now coming to look upon our directions for the rehearsing of the Lords Prayer, after the repeating of the Creed, I find that not only the Minister, but Clerks and people are appointed to say it with a loud voice. I cannot think the phrase is meerly varied by Chance, nor yet do I see the Reason of the variation, nor do I observe any, either Priests or people, thus to vary by straining their voice higher at one time than another. Perhaps our last Amenders of the Liturgy did put audible, instead of loud, in some pla­ces; that we might know that voice was loud enough on the Ministers part which the peo­ple could hear; but what shall be called ei­ther an audible or loud voice on the peoples part? Are those people that kneel at one end of the Church to speak so loud as they may be heard of those who kneel at the o­ther end, or loud enough to be heard of the [Page 131] Minister, or only loud enough to be heard of those who are next to them. Mr. D. hath had many occasions and opportunities to as­sent and consent to all and every thing con­tained and prescribed, and therefore is ig­norant of none of these things; Let him be him be intreated to help us poor Ingrams; for our Countrey Priests are as unable to untie these knots as our selves.

All this I have written, not out of any dislike to those who put out their Books in the defence of the English Liturgy, for I should be right glad of the pains of any who would justifie it against all the Objections with which it is pressed; provided he would do it like a Scholar and like a Christian, grounding whatever he writes upon such Reasons as are apt to move those who have Consciences, and do remember that God will bring them to a strict account for all that they do in his Worship; but Mr. D. evidently is no meet person to make our Churches defence; for he has been so highly rewarded, is so overwhelmed with Ecclesi­astical Preferments, and Dignities, that the World will hardly think any thing put him upon writing besides filthy lucre. If he would have done our Church service, be should have contented himself with some one Eccle­siastical Preferment, spending himself in that, [Page 132] going to his people, from house to house, perswading them to credit the Liturgy, by excelling all those in Virtue that used no Li­turgy; he should have conjur'd them to de­ny all ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to use their best wisdom so to order their af­fairs, as that they might have leisure to come Morning and Evening every day, and receive the benefit of their Churches Litur­gy: but as the Apostle said, That they who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law: so we say, that they who have assented and consented, do not observe the Orders and Rules to which they have given assent and consent, nor yield that Obedience which they have sworn to yield: How few be they that Catechise half an hour every Sunday and Holiday? How few be they that have called and advertised notorious evil-livers not to approach the Lords Table, until they have truly repented and amended their naughty lives? How many have subscribed the Articles who never so much as read the Homilies that by the Articles they are to approve? I once happened into the Company of the Rectour of a Parish, who signifying to me that he had lately been with the Bishop to receive Orders from him, I asked what things were required of him in order to Ordination? He told me among other things, he had subscri­bed [Page 133] the three Articles in the 36 Canon: but when I demanded of him what those Arti­cles were, he confessed he knew not what they were, nor had he ever seen them, but followed his Leader: and not long since, one had confidence enough to come to a Reverend Minister of my acquaintance with a purpose to perswade him to Conformity; but my Friend arguing for his Non-conformity from a very plain passage in the Liturgy, he denied that there was any such passage to be found; and had not this man then well read and stu­died the Book, to which he so solemnly gave assent and consent. I profess where-ever I come, I make it my business to reconcile people to the publick Assemblies, my Con­science would fly in my face if I should do o­therwise; but I find my self unable to pre­vail with them through the prejudice they have taken up against the Liturgy, and their prejudices are grounded for the most part upon the wicked lives of those that are the most constant Readers and frequenters of it. I shall never upon this account cease to joyn in prayers and to hear Sermons; but yet I rejoyce that a great Prelate lately in his Visi­tation openly declared in his Speech, his re­solution to proceed, and deal more severely against those who should be found loose and profane, than against those that differed from [Page 134] him only in Ceremonies, The Lord give hearts to those whom it concerns, to think immorality worthy of presentment, and to set a mark upon all whose feet run into all excess of Riot, and whose Tongues are set on fire from Hell, that so we may have where­with to stop the mouths of those who are bent upon Separation, and employ their Rhetorick in nothing more, than in perswa­ding the people that God is departed from us: It would be a small trouble to me to find the Non-conformists disarmed, did I find the Weapons of their Warfare put into the hands of those, who would use them more, to the disadvantage of the World, Flesh, and Devil.

I have mentioned one thing that makes Mr. D. not the fittest person in the World to manage this Controversie, that is, his not being free from, at least the suspicion, of Co­vetousness. I will suggest one or two more: He seems to be very injudicious, and there­fore puts into his Book such cold Commen­dations of Church and Liturgy, as do only not dispraise it. I instance only in Monsieur Vauqueline, whom he brings in Pag. 189. thus extolling our Liturgy, The Book of Common Prayer is very far from any Idolatry, and there is not in it any formal Superstition. Is not this a rare Elogium? But above all he disparages [Page 135] himself by giving flattering Titles unto men, Pag. 87. he tells us that Monsieur Goyen is as versed in Antiquity as possible; a Commenda­tion too high to be given to any man, and such as that Reverend persons worth will never suffer him to accept of, or so much as to commend the love of him who gave it; let any one read the Epistle Dedicatory to his Book, he will find the Lord Chancellour so highly commended, that any one may see the Com­mendations were rather given to his Place, than to his Virtues; all the Authority of the Nation hath lately sentenced him to Banish­ment, and yet Mr. D. could not find so much humility, as either to bewail his fault, or his unhappiness, who had bestowed such praises, in a printed letter upon him, whom the King­dom has declared to have deserved ill of it, and of the Church too.

I may well think you will begin to say what is all this to the Latine Book that I sent you? Or how can I by all you have hitherto writ, perceive your Judgment about it? Surely, Sir, the things I have noted out of the English Book, are sufficient to let you see, that his 2d. Book is not worth your reading; Scarcely can you find more words put together to less purpose. The very Title-Page suffici­ently exposes him either to the scorn, or pity of those whom he chose for his Adversaries. [Page 136] Vindiciae Sacrae Ecclesiae Anglicanae: What is this Holy English Church? Does he mean that Company of men and women in En­gland who exercise themselves therein, that they may be holy as God is holy: Quis La­cedaemoniorum vituperat? Why is this Church vindicated that no sober man ever went a­bout to accuse? If by the Holy Church of England he mean the late Convocation, then he hath written as our Episcopal men are wont to write; and by the Canons of 1603. it is made a very dangerous point, to deny that a Convocation is the Church of England by Repraesentation; and I have no mind to try how near I can come to that danger without incurring it; Seeing Mr. D. has pro­fessed with thankfulness, that he learned Di­vinity under Amyraldus; he may do well to try whether he can confute his Master in his Theses de Ecclesia nomine, ac definitione, and, de ratione convocandorum Conciliorum; which do not look very smilingly upon that form of Speech which we use in England, or upon the way of constituting our Convocations. Mr. Jeanes a man of a very Scholastical Head, had called the Convocation, The Church of England: but in the Second part of his Di­vinity, he wonders upon what account he or any one else could think it to be the Church of England; he instances in his own Dio­cess, [Page 137] in which there was one Dean, one Pre­bend, three Arch-Deacons; whereas the whole Clergy of the Diocess chose but two; so that he thinks our Convocations may be rather called Repraesentatives of the Bishops and Cathedrals, than of the Church of En-England: And he asks whether if the King should chuse two hundred into the House of Commons, and the people one, that Meet­ing could be called the Representative of the People of England? Mr. D. who has used this Title should have done well to give sa­tisfaction to such kind of Questions is these, and to have shewed us Synods in other Churches, the Major part of the Members whereof, are neither chosen by the people, nor by the Clergy; instead of doing so, he hath left it doubtful, what he means by the Church: And it is much more doubtful to me whom he means by his Schismaticks: against whose vociferations he pretends to defend his Church: When you have called a man Schismatick, you have call'd him every thing: but I believe no man in the world thinks that all those against whom he vents his spleen in this Book, deserve to be called Schismaticks. I am sure according to the definition of Schisme, that is given by Dr. Hammond, they are not Schismaticks: Mr. D. seems to thrust out his sharpest sting against Mr. Bax­ter, [Page 138] Now it is notoriously known that he con­stantly went to the publick Congregation: its known also that he has in the publick Congregation received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper according to the form that is by Law established: he has Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinan­ces, takes a great deal of pains to resolve the doubts of those who scruple Communion with her, and yet is in Mr. D's account one of the Heads of the Schismaticks; Let him take heed that he do not throw this dirt in­to such mens faces, if he do, it will fly back into his own. The Case of hundreds of Non-conformists stands thus: When they were School-boyes, or Under-graduates in the University, the King called the so much talked of Long-Parliament; in which both the High-Commission Court, and Star-Cham­ber were taken downa; nd the High-Com­mission Court was taken down in words so general, as were interpreted to reach all o­ther Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and coercive power of Church Consistories: by these two Statutes Dr. Heylin sayes. That the two great Bulwarks of the Church were beaten down; In the same Parliament also passed an Act disabling the Bishops to sit as Members in the House of Peers; in this condition stood things until an unhappy War was be­gun [Page 139] betwixt the King and the two Houses, during the beat of which War, the two Houses Voted away the Episcopal Govern­ment established in the Nation; and Bishops, in the places where their Forces prevailed, ei­ther were not at all, or shewed not them­selves; Divine Providence so ord'red it, that the Kings Forces were at last quite overcome, and with them Bishops also were overcome; so as they no where publickly and solemnly own'd either their Power of order, or Jurisdi­ction: so stood affairs until that his Majesty was restored; but in the mean time young men that had applied themselves to the stu­dy of Divinity, were under necessity either by the Statutes of Colledges, or by accept­ing of Livings, to enter into Holy Orders, and to receive those Holy Orders from meer Presbyters; by which Orders they acted for many Years, the Lord accompanying their Ministry with great success, the people every where receiving the Eucharist at their hands, and bringing their Children also to be baptized by them; the Parliament which had the happiness to bring in the King, con­firming them in their Livings; but the pre­sent Parliament hath thought meet to en-act that all should be uncapable of Cure of Souls that had not Episcopal Ordination; so as they finding themselves under this Di­lemma, [Page 140] that either they must nullifie their former Orders by Re-ordination, or else quit their Livings, chose to relinquish their Benefices, & so made way to the preferment of many every way of Mr. Ds own mind; He himself perhaps he had not had so many Ecclesiastical Benefices, and Dignities, could they have satisfied themselves to keep their stations; this is the Schisme of a great ma­ny of those with whom he is so angry: And can be not forgive them such a Schism which proved so beneficial to himself and others? It will be more difficult to forgive Mr. D. the Schisme that he himself endeavours to make contrary to the Intent of the Act of In­demnity, and Oblivion, by which we are com­manded to bury the Actings of those that were indemnified in the Grave, so as not to mention them to the disparagement of any, but leave them wholly to the Judgment of the Great day; but this bitter man, as if he envied Church, and State, the Peace, and Quietness they both enjoy, will needs open the Grave of Oblivion, rake into the dust, and bring all old Stories and Transactions upon the Stage again. Would any man be like minded; how easie were it to recri­minate; Who knows not that a Primate of England, and Metropolitan took up Arms in the Cause of the two Houses, and had Mo­ney [Page 141] Voted him for his good Service? Was not the Author of Politica Sacra & Civilia, an Episcopal Divine? Doth he not at pre­sent Conform? Is he out of his Living, who writ the Jus Divinum Regiminis Eccle­siastici? If we should make search into our Bishops, Deans, Prebends, Priests, might we not finde such as took the Covenant them­selves, and perswaded others to take it? Nay, might we not among them, even among them, find those that took the Engagement, and came into the Livings of those that were outed for not taking the Engagement? Nay, if a man would make enquiry for Brad­shaw's Chaplains, are they not among the the Conformists? Be they not also among them who justified the Murthering of the King? And if it were allowable to Glory, how many Non-conformists had suffered deeply in the Kings Cause before Mr. D. in the Isle of Jersy was either banished or mo­lested? but these are things wholly He­terogeneous to Conformity, and Non-conformity; So is also the whole series of the late War: It hath been my hap as yet to know but of four meer Non-conformists, that were aged experienced Divines at the beginning of the Warrs; and they four so far as I can learn, were all in their Judg­ments unsatisfied in the Parliament War; It [Page 142] is like enough that there were many others that were satisfied in their Cause, and acted for it: But what need Mr. D. or I be sollici­tous about this? Does not the King under­stand his Supremacie? Has not the Parlia­liament declared it unlawful upon any pre­tence whatsoever to take up Arms against him? After such Declaration, who is he that will dare to call the thing in Question? I do not know that since his Majesties Re­turn any Book has been printed, asserting the Lawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms a­gainst a King, unless that which was publish­ed as Mr. Hookers, by Dr. Gawden, & dedicated to the King himselfe; nor do I find any English Divine, whose testimony the Writers for the Parliaments Cause did more build upon, than Bishop Bilson, the Great Propugner of Hie­rarchy, whose words it would be Treason now to transcribe. Mr. D. knows where to find them; let him take them into his consi­deration, and see how he can qualifie them; for my part I do not love to exercise my self in things too high for me: this I must take leave to say. That Mr. D. hath mani­fested himself very grosly to be a respecter of persons: for whereas he pours out con­tempt upon some now alive, for expressions that fell from them in a time of trouble and confusion, there is scarce one of his beyond-Sea [Page 143] Divines, whom he does not quote with much Honour and Respect, though they did in their Systems of Divinity, and Comments on Scripture lay down the same Doctrine quarrell'd at in Mr. Baxter? Doth he not know what pains David Owen hath taken to make his honest Calvin, and his Learned Be­za, and Danaeus, &c. as guilty of delivering Trayterous Doctrine as the Jesuites them­selves? At least he knows that Paraeus his Book was appointed to be burnt at Oxford, and yet him he makes use of Pag. 8th. and pag. 337. &c. Andrew Rivet also he choo­seth as a man fit to be of the Synod, and yet this Rivet in his Exposition on the 68 Psal. determines very peremptorily for the law­fulness of defensive Arms, and to the Ephori he allowes a liberty to take up offensive Arms. Peter Du Moylin, and Spanhemius he would also have Chieftains in his Synod, And yet these two, the one in his Anatomy of Arminianisme, the other in his Dubia E­vangelica on Matthew 5th do make the Right of Civil things to belong only to the Godly, or to the Elect, then which nothing could be said more dangerous to greater or lesser Soci­eties. I know they both distinguish of a Right in respect of men, and of a Right in respect of God, denying onely the later unto the wicked, but giving them this grain of allow­ance, [Page 144] their position though well meant by them, will be found neither sound, nor safe; Let Mr. D. therefore warn those for whom he designed his Book against this Tenent; & let all men understand that the English Non-Conformists are of a quite contrary Judgment; For they say unanimously, that all wicked men have a true Right, to all that, whether Authority or Estate, unto which they came by due and lawful means, and that God will never punish them because they had no right to the Estates they came ho­nestly to, but because they did not use their Estates aright. I have onely one re­quest more to make to you, and by you to all your Friends, and it is a very reasonable one, namely, that you, and they, would ra­ther credit the Kings Declaration concern­ing the English Presbyterians, than Mr. D's either English or Latine Book; This one desire being granted, the Presbyterians are as safe as an Amulet can make them.

Object. You will say, If they only suffer beyond the Seas through Mr. D's misrepre­sentation, why have not I so much Charity as to reply upon his Book, and make in Latin, as once Mr. Nichols did in English, a Plea for the Innocent?

[Page 145] Answ. Truly Sir, because I have found by Observation that it is in vain to disarm him, who hath a Panoply in the very next Dunghil to which he comes, there is no dea­ling with him; who,

First, Will deny matters of fact without Reason.

Secondly, Will not take notice of the true state of the Controversie.

Thirdly, Will never yield though he have nothing to say for himself. Such an one is Mr. D. For if you look into his Book, you fill find him charging the Apologist with Fables and Legends, that is, in plain English, giving him the Lye, and yet never gi­ving the least Reason to perswade the World that the things written by him were false. He calls it a Fable that any man should be re­ported to give Counsel & advise to have the surplice after it was worn out, burnt to ashes, the Ashes put into an Urn, & buried under the Altar; and yet this very thing I have heard strongly and stoutly asserted by more than one Conformist, who if need require would not be ashamed to testifie it publick­ly. Also he would have it a Fable that a man who had threatned a Minister for not reading the Common Prayer, should being sick send for him, and desire him to pray for him, not making use of the Common-Pray­er; [Page 146] but this as it was long since Printed by Giles Firmin, so it will be verified when he pleases. That Bishop Saunderson should de­sire to have Prayers read him out of the whole Duty of Man, he would also have to be a Fable; but the Chaplain who read them, told me and others so, and I suppose is too honest a man to deny what he said before so many.

As for his not taking notice of the true state of any Controversie, I refer you to his Book to what part or parcel soever of it, you shall please to chuse: If I mistake not, very near his Conclusion, he has a Chap. with this Title, Whether Calvin more favoured Schis­matical Presbyterians, or Prelates? Can you think that ever there was such a Controver­sie on foot in England? Did any one offer to say, that Calvin had favourable thoughts of Schismaticks? The Question is, whether Calvin ever thought Prelacy to be by Divine appointment, an Order Superiour to Presby­tery? And whether he would have all those thrown out of the Ministry, who cannot ac­knowledge it so to be; if any thing of Calvins be by Mr. D. brought to this pur­pose, then will I have a quarrel against him that first taught me to construe Latine: Take another instance, the Apologist had wonde­red that the Non-Conformists were put upon [Page 148] promising, That they would read the Psal­ter according to the Old English Transla­tion, when as we have in our Bibles a New one that is much better: he instanced in a few odd and uncouth Translations; Now what does Mr. D. upon this? Why, he asks whether if the Translation be corrupt a man ought rather to forsake his Ministry than to read a corrupt Translation; as if the Non con­formists had had nothing required of them but only to read the old Translation of the Psalms; Yet I confess all these things would not discourage me from taking him to task, had I any hopes that he had not taught his forehead not to blush; but who would shoot at him that is become unpenetrable? I will tell you one Story: Mr. D. in the presence of a Noble Person of this Nation, said, That all the French Ministens disowned the Presby­terian Non Conformists in England: that Ho­nourable person presently replied, To my knowledge that is not so, Nay, Some of the French Ministers look upon you as a kind of A­postate for doing what you have done here in England. Mr. D. replying, They be onely some few hot-headed men that so think: it was presently returned by the same Noble Per­son, Nay, the men that think so are very Reve­rend and worthy Divines. Yet our Vindex never changed the Copy of his Countenance, and [Page 149] what then can you think is to be done with such a man? Besides he hath abused Dr. Man­ton, the Author of the Comment upon James and Jude; and Mr. Baxter the Author of the Saints Everlasting Rest, and of the Learned Discourse against Atheisme and In­fidelity: and which will render him more odious beyond the Seas, he hath most shame­fully abused Mr. Gattaker, than whom En­gland hath not had a more Learned Critick, or profund Divine: nor doth he spare the gray-hairs of old Gisbert Voet, the only sur­viving Member of the Venerable the Sy­nod of Dort; and he that shall dare to touch such as these, wlll not long want a man that shall let him know, quid distent aera lupinis.

For your part, my Worthy Friend, all you can desire of me in requital of your Ci­vility is but this, that I declare my self rea­dy (as by these presents I do) to remove a­ny scruple that is left in you by the reading of that grand Volumne; send me that pas­sage in which you think Mr. D. hath the Non-conformists at the greatest disadvan­tage; If I do not return you a sudden and sa­tisfactory answer, then say I have not judg­ed fairly and candidly concerning your Au­thor. If you are not at leisure to take this pains, employ our worthy friend S. E. who [Page 150] is grown sufficiently zealous for Conformi­ty, through whose Pen Mr. D. to be sure will suffer no disadvantage: Let him cull out the very best Argument in all this Vindex his Book, if I do not forthwith reply to it, and that rationally (provided the Argument be directed against the Cause, and not against particular Persons) I will then set a Seal up­on my Lips, so as never more to plead in done, you of Non-Conformity; till that be the behalf will give me leave to remain, what I am