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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 peace-sake 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 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 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 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 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 sure