own or else to dissolve them I take no notice of the High commendations given of our Liturgy by the noble Princess of Turenne and the Dutchess of la Force her own Mother he that will may see them Page 78 and 186. I only wish that if the English Liturgy be of so great force to edifie people in the Protestant Religion it had been put into the hand of the Noble Marquess of Turenne to prevent his revolt to Popery for it is said that he is grown a Roman Catholick In his Sermon P. 20. He is not ashamed to say that whosoever hath devotion and leisure enough to come to the Church and be present at Divine Service every day morning and evening may hear the whole Bible read every Year the old Testament once and the new no less than thrice and the Book of Psalms no less than twelve times This can only be practised by those who live near to Cathedrals let us imagine that any so living had devotion and leisure enough to come to his mother Church from the first of January to the last of December this man would not hear the whole Bible neither the Old Testament once nor the New Testament thrice The Liturgy saith so yet Mr. D. in a pang of zeal dare say otherwise Whether the Church do well to leave out 188 Chapters of the Old Testament and to appoint 121 of the Apocrypha is not the question we are on a matter of fact and I say Mr. D. hath falsified in that and will have no thanks for his falsification the Church not desiring him to lie for her sake Another tale in P. 23. of his Sermon It is required of the People that they repeat aloud the confession of Sins that they may be more sensibly affected therewith This is just like giving a reason why the Swan sings just before her death whenas we know that she doth not so sing The people are not required to repeat aloud the confession of sins rather they are exhorted to repeat it with a submiss or lowly voice But now we are fallen on this word Loud I would fain know what the meaning of it is In the first Book of Edward the sixth the Priest being in the Quire was appointed to begin the Divine Service with the Lords-Prayer using a loud voice in the late Liturgies he is appointed after the Absolution to begin it with a loud voice in this last with an audible voice the people kneeling and repeating it with him in the Precatiuncles after the Creed the Minister Clarks and People are ordered to say the Lords-Prayer with a loud voice in former and later Books But in K. Edward's first Book the people were not to speak till deliver us from evil at evening prayer t 's appointed that the Minister shall kneel and say the Lords-Prayer the people kneeling and repeating it with him no mention being made of the kind of voice to be used yet after the Creed at evening prayer all are to say the Prayer with a loud voice I never observed any Minister or people to speak louder in repeating the Lords Prayer at one time than at another nor know I what is meant by a loud voice or whether there be any difference betwixt it and an audible voice nor if there be none what 's meant by an audible voice for to whom must the peoples voice be audible to those that sit next to them or to the Minister or to the whole congregation Mr. D. doth converse with great personages and he knows the meaning of these terms P. 265. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth before the making of the Act of Uniformity those that did not love white made a great noise within and without this land and bestirred themselves on all sides that they might be dispensed with for wearing the surplice Among other means used by them to come to their ends they applied themselves to some in the reformed Churches beyond the Seas and perswaded them that if the surplice was imposed huge numbers of Ministers nay many of the Bishops themselves would leave their Ministry Whereupon the Prince Elector Palatine that then was commanded Zanchius to write to the Queen to disswade her Majesty from imposing the use of such Vestments which he did accordingly but the business not succeeding according to their desires and the Nonconformists giving out still that there would be a great dissipation in this Church by the desertion of so many Bishops and Ministers what did Zanchius thereupon c. Such an Harangue of impertinence and falshood have I seldom or never met with and yet we are in the Margin directed to Zanchy's Epistle to Juel as if thence all the materials of it had been fetched In my books Zanchy's Letter to Juel bears date just the very day next to that written to Q. Eliz. so that in twenty four hours time the Nonconformists of England must know that a Letter came from heidelberg to London was received by the Queen and proved not effectual with her and thereupon give out stories of Bishops that would leave their Sees and hope for another Address to be made on their behalf if so they must needs have the Intelligences that move the Primum mobile for their Secretaries and Messengers Zanchy's Letter to Juel I am sure doth not in the least intimate that the English Nonconformists made any applications to some in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas all that can thence be collected is but this that the June before he did write his Letter one called Montius returned out of England and told him besides others that a great difference was stirred up in the English Church about Vestments and therefore desired him that he would by a Letter both admonish the Queen of her Office and also write to those Bishops that were known to him and especially to Juel Upon his and others entreaties and his Princes command Zanchy did write to the Queen a Letter as he was confident not evil which is to be seen and not knowing what the Queen would do he writes also to Juel That he would by his Authority Learning and Prudence endeavour with the Bishops not to leave their Sees rather than wear linnen yet so that they must know that the Queen is inexorable and also when they wear linne make a protestation This Letter 't is like never came to Juel's hands he dying about twelve days after it was written Nor need it trouble us that Juel never saw it seeing there was no Bishop then in any danger to lose his Place for not wearing linnen nor can I think there is any one Minister now so much out of love with white as rather to leave his Ministry than put on a Surplice provided he may but make lawful protestation how and on what accounts he useth it Indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some Nonconformists in the late times was this that they loved white too well for their woollen clothes were white or
Colledg-man than Statesman and by this means no course was taken to prevent such Commentaries both in Philosophy and Divinity as came into England from beyond the Seas to the corrupting and poisoning of young students in the University The motion about Pastors resident and learned pag. 51 52 53 is handsomly avoided by the King with an answer that he had consulted with his Bishops about that whom he found ready and willing to second him in it c. yet all that Kings days and ever since the Nation hath groaned under the burden of an unlearned and non-resident Ministry if the Law of the Land admit of very mean and tolerable sufficiency in any Clerks why have not the Bishops petitioned that the Law be altered so as to require greater sufficiency And if the Lay-Patrons are to blame who present very mean men to their Cures are Ecclesiastical-Patrons to be excused who present Clerks every way as mean Now come the Bishop of Londons motions to be considered in number Three 1. That there might be amongst us a praying Ministry he meant a Ministry that might read the Common-Prayer-Book to which very little learning indeed would suffice but I suppose there was then no want of such a Ministry nor is there now so that the motion might have been spared The Second motion was that till a sufficient and learned Minister might be placed in every Congregation godly Homilies might be read and the number of them encreased This motion sure was not liked for unto this day neither is a learned Minister setled in every Congregation nor the number of Homilies encreased His last motion was that Pulpits might not be made Pasquils wherein every humorous fellow or discontented might traduce his superiors This the King graciously accepted and so did the complaining Ministers as I suppose for that the Pulpit should be made a Stage is certainly a very lewd custom but obtains too too much among I know whom Proceed we with Dr. Reynolds to Subscription as to which we find him only desiring that Ministers might be put upon it to subscribe according to the Statutes of the Realm viz. to the Articles of Religion and the Kings supremacy to subscribe otherwise they could not because among other things the Common Prayer-Book enjoined the Reading of some Chapters in which were manifest errors directly repugnant to Scriptures instancing particularly in Ecclesiasticus 48.10 where the words inferr That Elias in person was to come before Christ and if so Christ is not yet come Now let us take notice of what is answered 1. Bishop Bancroft answers That the most of the objections against the Books of Apocrypha were the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome in his time who was the first that gave them the name of Apocrypha which opinion upon Ruffinus his challenge he after a sort disclaimed the rather because a general offence was taken at his speeches in that kind This I must needs say was a politick answer for first we are told that not all the objections but some of the objections against these books are the old cavils of the Jews renewed by St. Jerome 2. We are told that St. Jerome was the first that called these Books Apocryphal which opinion after a sort he reclaimed upon Ruffinus his challenge What can any man reply to such an answer should one bring an objection against these books that the Jews never would have brought he would have been told That not all objections against them but only some are Jewish cavils Should one say that Jerome disclaimed not his opinion concerning books Apocryphal he would be told That he did not indeed disclaim his opinion absolutely but yet after a sort he did and how far 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or after a sort may reach no one can tell Nor have we the least reference to any place of Jerome's Works in which this disclaiming of his opinion is recorded whether St. Jerome disclaimed his opinion he who hath not St. Jerome's Works by him may find discussed in Dr. Cosens his Scholastical History of the Canon of Scripture I say it cannot be imagined why the Jews should less esteem the Apocryphal books than they deserved they retain the Canonical books of the Old Testament which make more against them than the Apocrypha Nor is St. Jerome the first who called the Apocryphal books by the name of Apocrypha others before him had given them that name or one equivalent as I can make appear Indeed the Ancients of the Church have so blasted some especially of the Apocryphal Writings that I cannot but wonder how they came to be read in our Churches The History of Susanna was accounted a Fable even by Julius Africanus contemporary to Origen and yet our newest Calendar appointeth it to be read as also the story of Bell and Dragon There is a common saying in mens mouths that these books are Canonical not for the confirming of our faith but the regulating of our manners but he who shall make all Apocryphal books a rule for his manners may chance to set more on his Doomsday-book than he will quickly get off again As for him who shall make them a rule of Faith he will undoubtedly become a Heretick Dr. Reynolds his instance the Bishops would not meddle with but the King who was not in conference to be contradicted p. 62. is made 1. To argue and demonstrate That whatsoever Ben Sirach had said Ecclus. 48.10 of Elias Elias had in his own person while he lived performed and accomplished 2. To check Dr. Reynolds for imposing on a man that was dead a sense never meant by him 3. To use a pleasant apostrophe to the Lords VVhat trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus By my soul I think he was a Bishop or else they would never use him so 4. Yet after all to will Dr. Reynolds to note those chapters in the Apocrypha-books that were offensive and bring them to the Lord Archbishop on VVednesday following Had the Relator consulted the Kings honour he had not inserted one of his Jeers managed with an Oath into a Conference concerning Religion nor would he had he regarded his own reputation have called a sarcasm in which was an oath an unnecessary oath a pleasant apostrophe To the place it self I say the Greek copies Ecclus. 48.10 much differ among themselves and as much from the Latin Translation our English Translations also greatly vary but I could never yet meet with any Copy or Translation from which at least an unwary Reader or hearer would not â—ollect that Elias was to come before the day of 〈◊〉 Lord either first or second Junius saith the place argueth the ignorance of the author blind in the promises concerning the Kingdom of Christ Grotius acknowledgeth little less The Syriack and Arabick Translatour carry it clearly for Elias his being to come before the day of the Lord to turn the hearts of the children to the Parents as may be
also infer That Francis Mason had no dislike of Popish Hierarchy because in a Dedicatory to Henry Bishop of Paris he calls him Amplissimum Praesulem and Antistitem Clarissimum and Virum Reverendissimum Dr. Heylin was not Master of so much charitable Logick for speaking Hist of Pres p. 282. of Bishop Grindals holding correspondence with Calvin and Beza Zanchy Bullinger Gualter and some other of the chief Divines among the Switzers he concludes at length That they all had their ends upon him for the advancing of Presbytery and Inconformity in the Church of England And really I have observed that most of the Divines that have by their Letters stroaked our Bishops have in some places of their Writings given a shrewd knock to the Cause defended by them Mr. Durell p. 281. tells us That Danaeus his calling the Archbishop Reverendissimum in Christo Patrem c. is as much as can be wished to testifie his good liking of the Church of England as it is by Law established And yet John Canne a very troublesome Separatist makes use of a passage in Danaeus to justifie his separation from the Church of England Mr. Ball clearly proves that the passage doth not warrant separation but yet Danâ—us might have written more moderately for these are his words on 1 Tim. 5. Ex his omnibus apparet quam nulla sit vel non legitima eorum verbi Dâ—i ministrorum vel Ecclesiae pastorum vocatio qui solius Regis vel Reginae vel Patroni vel Episeopi vel Archiepiscopi authoritate diplomate bullis jussu judicio fiunt vel eligun tur Id quod dolendum est fieri adhuc in iis Ecclesiis quae tamon purum Dei verbum habent sequuntur veluti in media Anglia Nan Anglos homines alioqui sapientissimos acutissimos pientissimos in istis tamen Papisticae Idololatriae tyrannidis reliquiis agnoscendis tollendis scientes prudentesque caecutire mirum est Itaque praeclare sentiunt qui omnem illam chartulariam Episcopaticam Curionum pastorum Ecclesiae ereandorum rationem item ex solo Episcopi consensu diplomate ministrorum verbi coelestis vocationem approbationem inaugurationem damnant tollendamque ex reformata ad Dei verbum Ecclesia censent quod ordo Dei verbo praescriptus in ordinatione hujusmodi personarum sit praetermissus ac violatus sicut perspicue apparet Denique senatui Ecclesiastico populo Christiano insomne suum atque suffragium misere sit hac ratione in hee genere vocationum Ecclesiasticarum ademptum in unum quendum Episcopum magna tyrannide atque abusu translatum Dominus Deus talibus corruptionibus quae adhuc in Ecclesiis ipsius supersunt defenduntur mederi magna sua misericordia dignetur velit quae tandem certe magnam Ecclesiae Dei ruinam secum trahent ipsum sacrosanctum verbi Ministerium reddent efficientq vel mercenarium vel omnino contemptibile abjectum Quod Dominus avertat Certainly this is not as much as can be wished to testifie Danaeus his good liking of the Church of England as it is by Law established Friderick Spanhem is another whose complaisant Dedicatory to the great Vsher seems to Mr. D. a sufficient argument to prove that the Reformed Church of Geneva is no enemy to the Bishops of the Church of England and yet Spanhem in that very third part of his Evangelical Doubts which he dedicates to the Archbishop determines it lawful for the innocent person after divorce to marry another wife quite contrary to Ecclesiastical Laws still unrepealed in the Church of England Well that is but a Peccadillo because many of our own Conformable Divines are of the same mind and as I suppose some of our Bishops also Dr. Abbot answering Bishops Second part p. 315. saith That the limitation of divorce which our Saviour giveth maketh it lawful for the party innocent to marry again the delinquent being left to the censure of the Church until satisfaction be given of true repentance for so hainous a sin The Church of England notwithstanding for the preventing of some mischiess that by the wickedness of men do arise by the abuse of the liberty of marriage upon divorce useth a restraint of that liberty that the parties divorced shall put in caution not to marry again as long as they both live As for the Authors of the reformation of our Ecclesiastical laws de Adult divort c. 6. they determine plainly Cum alter conjux adulterii damnatus est alteri licebit innocenti novum ad matrimonium si volet progredi and c. 7. Judex quoties alterum conjugem adulterii condemnat alteri sincerae personae libertatem denunciare debet ad novum matrimonium transeundi And cap. 19. Mensae societas thori solebat in certis criminibus adimi conjugibus salvo tamen inter illos reliquo matrimonii jure quae constitutio cum à sacris literis aliena sit maximam perversitatem habeat malorum sentinam in matrimonium comportaverit illud authoritate nostra totum aboleri placet But this it seems is not current doctrine now and so let it pass The aforesaid Friderick Spanhem makes Ruling-Elders to be one of those orders of Officers that are designed by Christ for the ruling of his Church and affirms them to be grounded on Scripture 1 Cor. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 So I find him quoted by Hornbeck Institut Theol. p. 523 524. And it will be difficult for Mr. Durell to prove that he can approve the divine right of Episcopacy who makes Lay-Elders commonly so called a divine institution Leaving Episcopacy let us come to Liturgy that we may see whether Mr. Durell be any more happy in managing that Controversie I do easily grant that he hath by a whole cloud of witnesses proved 1. That set-forms of prayer are lawful 2. That most Churches reformed do use set-forms of prayer 3. That the old English Common prayer-prayer-book was not so corrupt as that a man could not without defiling his conscience joyn with those who made use of it in the service of God But all these things had been proved many years before by an old Nonconformist who died about the beginning of the late Wars Mr. John Ball both in his tryal of the grounds tending to separation and in his answer to Mr. Cann and others If Mr. Durell will do any thing to purpose in this Controversie relating to Liturgies he must prove 1. That it is lawful for any Church so strictly to tye up her Ministers to a form as not to allow them to make any use of their own gifts in prayer in publick Or else 2dly That our Church hath not so tied up her Ministers but that they may still any Rubrick or Canon to the contrary notwithstanding use their own prayer at some times and upon some occasions in the publick If he will endeavour to prove the first the Presbyterians will be concerned to
yet many of them never declared dislike of Episcopacy nor opened their mouths against Ceremonies never took the Covenant nor Engagement were presented to vacant Livings by the true and undoubted Patrons By Gods blessing they added to the Church such as should be saved His Majesties return they defired so as none more yet they must not be suffered to continue in an Ecclesiastical Benefice unless they will submit to a thing scarce ever heard of Reordination It may be their mistake that they do not judge Ordination by Presbyters to be a nullity but what is this to Schism Obj. I may expect you will thus accost me If Mr. D. be so easily mastered why do you not pay a debt of love you owe why do you not write in Latin as once Mr. Nichols did in English A Plea for the Innocent Resp Verily for this reason because I love not to have to do with those who when they are put to silence know not how to be ashamed such a one this Monsieur is for not long ago he met with a Noble Gentleman of this Nation who hearing him say That all the Divines beyond seas condemned the English Nonconformists told him plainly That he knew it was not so and that some in France looked on him as an apostate for complying so far as he had done and when he replied These are only some unwise hot-headed men the honourable person rejoined Nay they are worthy and well tempered Ministers Yet did not Mr. D. change the copy of his countenance Is it possible then that I should bring him to repentance In a word if you account Mr. D. an Author any way considerable you have near you our old friend S. E. let him cull out of the Vindiciae what he esteemeth most strong that do you send to me if I do not by the first return of the Carrier send you a satisfactory answer provided it be directed not against persons but the Cause then account me a very vain-glorious animal In the mean time listen not to those who are given to vain jangling and false-witness bearing but put on charity the bond of perfection so shall an abundant entrance be administred unto you into that Kingdom where there are no perverse disputers to that Kingdom that we may be both brought is the sincere prayer of SIR Your humble servant W. B. LOng time after I had written the Appendix against Dr. Heylin I was informed that something else was come abroad in Latin in the which the Nonconformists were concerned I could not think any thing was said in it that had not been said before and therefore I had once some thoughts never so much as to look into it but being told that the Author of it was Mr. Matthew Scrivener reputed at Cambridge while he there resided a close Student and great Scholar I resolved to cast my eye upon some Pages of it that so if it seemed written with any candor and judgement I might either give an answer to it or tell such Nonconforming friends as I was acquainted with that I found it unanswerable But looking into it at the Stationers shop I soon found it to be made up of little besides scurrility and calumny Monsieur Daillees Book of the Right use of the Fathers which I thought no Protestant had looked on without admiration nor Papist without terror this English Presbyter undertakes to answer endeavours first of all to make it appear that the Book deserved not the Elogiums that some of great name and esteem among us had bestowed upon it and that Mr. Daillee was but a Cham taking delight to lay open the nakedness of the Fathers Then proceeds to give him a general and particular answer I confess I was moved not a little to see a writer that had deserved so well of the Reformed Religion so unworthily dealt with by one pretending to be a Protestant For what one thing hath Mr. J. D. said more or less about the Fathers than what had been said many years before by some of our most eminent Divines in England It must be acknowledged that he hath handled the point more copioufly than any who went before him and the heads of his discourse are exemplified with a most admirable collection of particulars but that he hath brought the Fathers any one peg lower than they had been brought by Juel Humfred Whitaker Rainolds Dr. George Abbot Down c. will never be proved Bishop Cosins hath put together all the reasons that were scattered and dispersed in other mens writings to prove the Non-canonicalness of the Apocryphal Books now it would be no wonder if a Protestant in some writing should obiter take notice that the Bishop in some particular had mistook himself but he that should professedly undertake to answer him would scarce be accounted other than a Papist e. c. The Bishop saith p. 18. All the Canonical Books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew except c. but these other books he means those canonized at Trent were all confessedly first written in the Greek tongue c. I may doubt whether all the controverted books were first written in the Greek tongue I may confidently affirm this is not confessed concerning all the controverted books for who knows not that Ecclesiasticus is generally affirmed to be written first in Hebrew to say nothing of other books and yet not be thought spightful nor Popish but if I should publish a whole book against the Bishop labouring to lessen his reputation and esteem to weaken the authorities by him produced would not any man say that either I was a Papist or that I cared not how much I gratified the Papist so I could but show my teeth against Bishop Cosins yet just such a game it is that Mr. Scrivener plays Obj. But if what he hath said against Daillee be truth if his answers to him be rational is it not meet he should be honoured Will it not be for our credit and reputation to let the Papists know that we will not spare our own how renowned soever where they exceed the bounds of modesty and sobriety Ans If any one through a zeal without knowledg against Popery shall say those things against the Fathers that may discourage those who have leasure and money from buying and reading of them or so weaken their authority as to prejudice the interest of Christianity he doth deserve praise and commendation who shall endeavour to bring the Fathers to their due esteem But neither hath Mr. Daillee wronged the Fathers nor Mr. Scrivener righted them but because Mr. Scrivener heard a Presbyterian in a Sermon put off an objection taken from the authority of the Fathers by referring his hearers to Mr. Daillee therefore he resolves to encounter Mr. Daillee And as spleen seems to be the chief thing that put him on this undertaking so in the managing of it he hath discovered more of petulant spleen than of judgment This censure I had some purpose
more but that it is possible that all his pretended zeal for the Fathers may be without any great knowledge of them What the course of his Studies hath been I know not his friends were wont to think that his genius led him rather to School-men than Fathers if it did so he is not the worse to be liked for of the two a Minister who hath the cure of souls may better want Patristical than Scholastical Theology I suppose it would a little discompose his gravity to be catechized any whit strictly concerning the age stile and design of some of the Fathers whom he undertakes to defend if in this I be mistaken the matter is not great for I design it only to keep our Priests from boasting of a false gift 2. I never yet in all my life met with any person of any perswasion whatsoever that would recede from any opinion he had at first imbibed because one or more Fathers were against him We all first take up our opinions from the Catechisms or Confessions that are authorized in those Churches of which we are members and many that I say not most go all their days by an implicit faith believing as the Church believes and as their Ministers do Preach never taking pains to search whether they agree to the Canon of Faith Popish Divines think that their Church cannot err and so strain all their learning and diligence to defend what she hath determined all that call themselves Protestants say they ought to use their judgement of discretion though they may be bound if in some comparatively less matters they have knowledge different from the Church in which they are Ministers to have it to themselves This is truth but the men who do conscientiously and impartially make use of their judgement of discretion are not very many they are very soon tyed up by subscriptions and account it not for their credit to recede from them if in disputation they be pressed with the authority of the Fathers or ancient Doctors they either bluntly declare that they little regard them or else find out some plausible salvo or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude them 1. Some will flatly declare that they do not much matter what mind the Fathers are of The great Patron of Ubiquity Jacobus Andraeas is reported by Scultetus in his Nuncupatory to his Medulla not to value the Fathers at all Athanasius with him was Sathanasius Vigilius Dormilius and all the Patres he would in contempt call Matres that is I suppose weak and silly creatures unfit to be used as guides and directors in matters of Religion The Papists themselves as great a shew as they sometimes make of Fathers do at other times use language not much more civil concerning them Was it not a Pope of Rome that declared his esteem of the learning of Thomas Aquinas to be so great that he doubted not to give unto him the first place after the Canonical Scripture Such a Speech is fathered upon one of the Innocents by Augustin Hunne if I may credit Dr. G. Abbot against Hill Pag. 426. and I suppose I may well credit him because I find as much in Alvarez de Auxiliis lib. 1. pag. 52. Indeed to almost all truly and throughly Popish Writers the Fathers are but Children his Holiness as they call him is all in all with them Suarez in 3. Com. 1. qu. 2. not 2. disp 42. sect 1. saith The definition of the Pope is altogether true and if it should be contrary to the sayings of all Saints it were to be preferred to them Bellar. lib. 4. de Pon. cap. 5. If the Pope should err by commanding vices or prohibiting vertues the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good and vertues bad unless she would sin against her conscience Cornelius Mus in his Comments on the Romans p. 606. e. g. I to confess ingenuously would more believe the Pope alone in those things which concern the mysteries of faith than a thousand Austins Hieroms Gregories c. because the Pope in matters of faith cannot err Much such ranting stuff I could quote did I count it needful but indeed it is not needful for his Holiness takes upon him to have a power to correct Fathers that they may just fit and suit the present state of his Church By the Constitution of Sixtus the Fifth care is taken to set out Fathers free from the corruptions they have contracted by coming through the hands of Hereticks but with this proviso That if any more weighty doubts and difficulties shall happen in the authority of old Books in the correction and emendation of books things being first examined in the Congregation they should be referred to him that in variety of readings he might determine that by a special priviledge granted to his See which was most consonant to orthodox verity and lest we should think that the Pope must determine nothing of his own head but after he hath taken great pains hear Gregory de Valentia Analysis fidei lib. 8. p. 70. Non est ratio ulla firma quamobrem existimare debeamus studii diligentiam Pontifici esse necessariam sive in definiendo studium adhibeat sive non adhibeat infallibiliter certe definiet But this it may be is said but by one and a long time since not so we shall find our Countrey-man Thomas Bacon or Southwell in his Analysis fidei saying as much But do not Calvinists as much set at naught the Fathers when they make not for them Ans So they are charged to do by Papists and the Remonstrants and their adherents Campian saith Causaeus called Dionysius the Areopagite a doting old man but Dr. Humphred denies him to have used any such broad language even of the pretended Dionysius De Patribus p. 520 c. Grotius also gives them such a bob pag. 15. Piet. Illus Ordin Hollandiae but quoteth no Author that gave him any occasion to vent such a reproach 2. Some hating to speak contemptibly of the Fathers will civilly put off their authority either by putting another sense on their words than is commonly given or by blaming the edition or the translation or by opposing one Father to another or the same Father to himself or by saying that he relates the opinion of others So that they do by them just as they do at Oxford by Aristotle his authority must not be denied in disputations under a penalty appointed by the Statutes yet any one in Paervisiis or Augustinensibus holds the opinion that he best liketh how contrary soever it be to Aristotle and if Aristotle be urged against him Loquitur ad modum vulgi disputative non doctrinaliter c. serves well enough to put him by and shift him off The day is yet I suppose to come that ever any Scholar in disputation said I find that Aristotle is against me and therefore I do revoke and recall my opinion promising to be of another mind for the future If
THE Nonconformists VINDICATED FROM THE ABUSES Put upon them By Mr. DVREL and SCRIVENER Being some short Animadversions on their Books soon after they came forth In two Letters to a Friend who could not hitherto get them Published Containing some Remarques upon the Celebrated Conference at Hampton-Court By a Country Scholar LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheap side 1679. THE NONCONFORMISTS Vindicated c. SIR THough I have of late wholly addicted my self to the Study of Practical Theology and spent all that time I could redeem from my necessary occasions in Reading such Authors as make it their business to declare unto us the essentials of Christianity yet it hath been some delight to me from time to time by your Letters to understand what Books have been Printed about those comparatively Petit controversies that have of late years so miserably divided our British Churches I heartily wish you had still continued only to be my Intelligencer then I had been at liberty either not to send for the Authors you mentioned or else when I had sent for them to lay them aside as soon I had enough of them but you were ambitious to be my Benefactor and therefore lately sent me at your own cost Mr. Durells two Eristical Volumes conjuring me by all our friendship to read them over and to return you my thoughts of them and though I have again and again importuned you to excuse me from so unwelcome an employment yet will you take no denial wherefore that I may not seem finally obstinate I do herewith send you some Animadversions the fruit of a few leisure hours in reading whereof if you either encrease the itch of disputation or be forced to abate of the esteem you as yet have of your Author you know where to lay the blame I assure you I envy not unto him the Ecclesiastical dignities and benefices he enjoys but I think he was as unmeet a person as any could have been pitched on to undertake the Cause of our Church against the Nonconforming Ministers for the grounds of this so severe censure I refer you to what follows and at present shall only lay before you three or four necessary qualifications of him that would plead for conformity with any success or credit to our Church 1. He had need to be free from all suspition of ambition and of that which the Apostle calls the root of all evil else his adversaries will say that in his pleadings for the Church he seeks not her but hers The Writings of Mr. Hooker Mr. Sprint Dr. Burges as they are in themselves sober and learned so they are by all or most read without any prejudice because they contented themselves with such ordinary preferments as they either had before they had written or might have expected though they had never written for Ceremonies Nay Dr. Burges professeth that he lost more by conforming than any did by not conforming by the way whereas Dr. Heylin saith Hist of Presby Pag. 327. That King James occasioned this Doctors preferring to the Rectory of Colshill in Warwickshire the Reader may take notice that he was never Rector of Colshill but of Sutton Goldfield unto which the King occasioned not his preferment for the presentation was given him without his seeking by Mr. Shilton after it had been first refused by Dr. Chetwind I therefore doubt not but he did write for the lawfulness of Subscription out of conscience and that he would have continued in that opinion though Authority had frowned upon it I dare not say so much concerning all that were or would have been more highly dignified The first English man that grated hard upon the Presbyterian Government in the Latin tongue was Dr. Matthew Suttliffe Dean of Exeter in a Book entituled de verâ Catholicâ Christianâ Ecclesiâ this very man whether discontented because his Book against Mr. Mountague was suppressed or angry that he missed some preferment he aimed at or for some other reasons we know not of before his death professed his hearty sorrow that he had written so much against Presbytery and for the power of the domineering Prelates as may be seen in the Jus divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici Who professed a greater zeal for Hierarchy than Patrick Adamson But Hierarchy not being able to pay its quarters in the worlds own coin how poorly did he Recant all his actings for it Confessing Presbyteries to be an ordinance of Christ and craving Gods mercy that he had called them a foolish invention bewailing his pride and covetousness that had put him upon undertaking the office of an Archbishop as that wherewith justly the sincerest professors of the word have found fault and condemned as impertinent to the office of a sincere pastor of Gods word ingaging also that if he had health he would write a confutation of Sutliffes Book All which and much more is to be found in the Records of the Scottish Nation 2. He that would with any advantage to the Church undertake to confute Nonconformists must be one that hath seen and well considered either all or the chiefest of their Books and well knows the Histories of the times in which they were written Else first he may commit such foul mistakes in Chronology as will render him ridiculous and contemptible to all his Readers Can the most mortified Presbyterian chuse but laugh when he finds in Dr. Heylins History of Presbyterians Pag. 264 that about 1570. Mr. Carthwrights grace for Doctor was denied him by the major part of the Vniversity which so displeased him and his adherents that from that time the degrees of Doctors Batchelors and Masters were esteemed unlawful and those that took them reckoned for the limbs of Antichrist as appears by the Genevian notes on the Revelations How can it appear from the Geneva notes that from the time of denying Mr. Carthwrights grace degrees were accounted unlawful when every one knows that many years before the denial of that grace those notes had been both made and published perhaps by such as never saw or heard of Mr. Carthwright Nor is that less ridiculous which occurs Pag. 294. where mention being made of a Pamphlet written by Stubbes of Lincolns-Inne it is said that Stubbes had married one of Mr. Carthwrights Sisters and therefore may be thought to have done nothing without his privity Mr. Carthwright indeed married one of Mr. Stubbes his Sisters but that Mr. Stubbes married one of his Sisters is a falshood and if it were supposed to be a truth what ground is that why a man should think that Stubbes did nothing without his privity Do all writers make their Brothers-in-law privy to their designs I acknowledg that Thuanus saith it was found out that Mr. Carthwright instigated him to write the Libel but Thuanus is not to be relied on in matters relating to the English Puritans because in such he follows one who was their bitter adversary as also because Thuanus himself
was too too Antipuritanical perfectly in Religion of the same mind with Cassander and Baldwin whose Character need not be given Doubtless had there been either clear proof or vehement suspition that Mr. Carthwright was accessary to the compiling of the gaping Gulph he had not escaped some signal token of the Queens displeasure for her Majesty was so highly incensed against the Author Printer and Publisher of it that nothing less would satisfie her than arraignment of them upon the Statute of Philip and Mary against the Authors and Dispersers of seditious writings and because some of her chief Lawyers were of opinion That that law was but temporary and of no force in her reign she imprisoneth one of them and turns another out of his place and prevailed so far that both Stubbes and Page who dispersed the Copies had sentence passed upon them to lose their right hands which accordingly were cut off in the market-place of Westminster with a Butchers knife and a Mallet but it is observed by more than one of our Historians that when Stubbes his right hand was cut off he did pull off his Hat with his left hand and cry out God save the Queen and the people by a general silence gave their Testimony that the punishment was too severe Nor did the Queen her self take much pleasure in reflecting on this penalty but rather when the heat of passion was over received Stubbes into some degree of favour as is probable from the imployment that he had under Peregrine Lord Willoughby sent by the Queen with four thousand Soldiers to assist the King of Navar in which imployment he ended his days but by a natural death Secondly if our Writers for Conformity know not the State of the controversies and the times in which they were managed they will go near to contradict one another and will it not make the Nonconformists good sport to see their adversaries at dissension among themselves Could Mr. Durells English Book have been more effectually confuted by any writing than by Dr. Heylins History of Presbyterians Dr. Stradling licenseth a Book tending to prove that the Presbyterians in England are a singular sort of men as contrary to the Presbyterians beyond the Seas as to their own Bishops at home the Vicechancellor of Oxford licenseth a Book designed to prove that all Presbyterians all the reformed Churches over are all acted by one spirit equally prone to sedition and schisme alike bent to destroy all Kingdoms and Churches into which they are received Will not the Presbyterians say Aha! so would we have it will they not even bless themselves in these contradictions of their adversaries Dr. Heylin saith Lib. 7. Pag. 275. Whitgift dissected Carthwrights admonition in a Book entituled An answer to the Admonition Carthwright sets out a reply in the year following and Whitgift presently rejoyns in defence of his Answer against which Carthwright never stirred but left him Master of the field possest of all the signs of an absolute Victory But Sir George Paul saith Mr. Carthwright glorying be-like to have the last word published a second reply fraught with no other stuff than had been before refuted from answering of which Whitgift was disswaded Will not such sweet concord as this make delicate Musick in the ears of the Nonconformists Especially considering that the Letter of Whitaker mentioned by the Doctor is pretended by the Knight to be one of the main inducements moving Whitgift not to rejoyn to the second reply And let me admonish the Conformists not much to glory in Whitakers letter reflecting so much disgrace on Carthwrights Book seeing Whitaker was then 1. Under thirty years of age 2. Never dreamed that his Letter should be made publick 3. Afterwards married the Widow of Dudly Fennor 4. In those writings which were the product and issue of his more mature judgment and study layeth down such principles as the Nonconformists think their conclusions do naturally and lineally descend from 5. Died in over-straining his diligence to suppress the Pelagian notions of Peter Baro so much now-adays applauded and admired Certainly if they are to be accounted Victors who keep the field last the Nonconformists have at least as many Victors as the Conformists though we should grant that Whitgift had the last word of Carthwright which yet is not to be granted But doth not Mr. Fuller say in his Ecclesiastical History he had Answer He doth but I have been assured that being before Olivers triers for a living he ingenuously acknowledged his error and promised to certifie it if ever his Book came to a second Edition which I therefore give notice of that it may proceed no further and that Mr. Isaac Walton who is still alive and hath fallen into the same mistake in his life of Mr. Hooker Pag. 85. may disabuse his Reader The which if he will vouchsafe to do we shall have encouragement to try whether we cannot acquaint him with some more of his mistakes and misadventures In the mean time I should be glad to understand what assurance can be given us that Bishop Jewel ever used such words concerning Carthwright as those mentioned by Dr. Heylin Lib. 7. Pag. 274. and elsewhere viz. Stultitia nata est in corde pueri sed virga disciplinae fugabit eam for it seems improbable that so grave a Prelate should give so unhandsome a character of a very learned man concerning whom he could make no estimation but by a few scattered papers designed for a Book that saw not the light till Jewel was entred into the chambers of Darkness All that I can see any ground to acknowledg at present is but this that Jewel both in a Sermon at Paul's and in a conference with some Brethren had declared himself to be an approver of the English ceremonies and that being ready to leave the world he declared that what he uttered in his Sermon and conference was designed neither to please any mortal nor to embitter or trouble any party that thought otherwise than himself but that neither party might prejudg the other and that the love of God by the Holy spirit which is given to us might be poured forth in the hearts of brethren See his life written by the Nonconforming Dr. Humpred Pag. 255. edit Lond. an 1573. And if Dr. Heylins friends will please to consult Pag. 275. They shall find Jewel died September 23. about three in the afternoon not as the Doctor affirms Lib 6. Pag. 270. September the 22. And then they may also consider whether he hath not erred in dating Zanchies Letter to Queen Elizabeth September the second for in my edition of Zanchies Letters put forth by his Heirs at Hannouae 1609. it bears date the tenth of September 1571. These are small matters it will be said I confess they be but if men will write Histories they ought to be very exact and publish nothing that need fear the severest examination Let me be excused if I here adventure to give
two more instances one of Dr. Heylins imaginary Victories the other of his contrariety to other writers whom he sometimes quotes with applause Lib. 8. Pag. 283. He acquaints us that Dr. Bancroft made a most excellent and judicious Sermon let that pass he gives us the heads of that Sermon saying pag. 284 That they were all proved with such evidence of demonstration such great variety of Learning and strength of arguments that none of all that party could be found to take arms against them in defence either of their leud doctrine or more scandalous Vses All this with bitterness and malice more than enough but with no regard to truth for Dr. John Reynolds at the desire of Sir Francis Knowles did attaque that so much applauded Sermon of Feb. 9th at St. Pauls Cross and pulled down two of the main pillars viz. The superiority which Bishops have among us over their Clergy is Gods own ordinance 2. Jerome and Calvin confess that Bishops have had superiority ever since the time of St. Mark the Evangelist The Letter of Dr. Reynolds in which he doth this is in many mens hands and the Historian doubtless had if not seen yet heard of it and therefore was inexcusable in representing Dr. Bancroft to be so formidable an adversary that none durst look him in the face Let those who account Dr. Bancrofts Sermon unanswerable reply to Dr. Reynolds his Letter and if it be thought that Dr. Reynolds hath not refuted all the passages of the Sermon let us know what the particulars be that still remain unanswered and yet need an answer and if after such notice given such terror seize on Presbyterians that none dare appear let the Sermon then be carried about in triumph till then I hope it will be no presumption to say that Dr. Reynolds as well understood the judgment of the Fathers concerning Episcopacy as Dr. Bancroft The instance of his contradicting others shall be part of the story concerning the infamous separatist Browne Sir George Paul in the life of Archbishop VVhitgift Pag. 53 acquaints us that Brown in the Archbishops time was changed from his fancies and after obtained a benefice called Achurch in Northamptonshire where he became a painful Preacher But Dr. Heylin Lib. 7. Pag. 297. tells us he was prevailed with to accept a place Achurch in Northamptonshire beneficed with cure of Souls a benefice of good value which might tempt him to it the rather in regard that he was excused as well from Preaching as from performing any other part of the publick Ministry Certainly if he became a painful Preacher there was no need of excusing him from Preaching But who is in the truth I think neither the Knight nor the Doctor painful Preacher to be sure Brown never was after his presentation to Achurch nor is it probable that he was excused from Preaching any more than from living quietly with his Wife Bishops have strained their power very high but I am unwilling to believe that any Prelate since our Reformation would institute a man healthful and able to Preach into a cure of Souls and yet excuse him from all parts of the publick Ministry Nay thirdly If men take the field against the Nonconformists before they have sufficiently tried their strength they may chance to be mastered by these arguments they imagined themselves able to master and so even face about in the day of battel fighting against those from whom they received their first pay Mr. Henry Jeanes had never seen a Nonconformist using his own weapon and therefore thought him contemptible and adventured to defie him in a Printed Treatise upon 1 Thes 5.22 But when he came to Read the very Books of the Nonconformists themselves he found himself no longer able to withstand the dint of their arguments but went over to them and died their Convert as all know who were his Neighbour Ministers some Papists by reading Protestant Books with an intent to confute them have been converted by them and therefore the Grandees in the Roman Church will not give leave to one of a thousand to Read all manner of Books nay in some places they will scarcely permit Bellarmines works to be commonly sold lest that little which is in them of Calvin should purge all Catholocism out of their young Students I wish the Prelates of our Church would consider how far the prudence of Papacy is imitable certainly every one who is willing to have a Prebendship from them is not able to stand under the weight and burden that is laid upon Episcopacy If our Church must be vindicated let it be vindicated by another Hooker made up of learning and modesty as for Mr. Durel if he have got a lask and must needs ease himself in the Press it may be worth consideration whether he be not fit to succeed to Tom Nash whose scoffing Pen was not altogether useless in Queen Elizabeths days I had almost added that he who will to purpose defend our Church must not be a Jersey man not only because such a one can scarce be supposed sully to know the intrigues of our differences but also because it can scarce be thought that he should be conscientiously a friend to our Hierarchy for we are not now to be told that the Episcopal Government setled here in England could not get into Jersey but by wile if not force Jersey Guernsey c. are the only remainders of the Crown of England in the Dukedom of Normandy and in former times belonged to the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constance but were governed immediately by a subordinate Officer mixt of a Chancelor and Archdeacon they entertained the Reformed Religion in King Edwards time and some of their Inhabitants suffered for it in the time of Queen Mary Queen Elizabeth reigning by the help of some French Ministers the generality were again brought to seek after Reformation but withall Petition the Queen for an allowance of the Presbyterian Discipline Anno 1563 and Anno 1565 obtain it for all or some part of the Islands on which allowance they adventure to put it in execution and hold a Synod in the Isle of Guernsey Sep. 2. 1567. Nor do I find that they had any considerable disturbance in it till Sir John Peiton was made their Governour who with the Kings Attorney protested against that choice of Mr. Brevin which was made by the Colloquy upon the decease of the Curate of St. Johns the ground of the Protestation was the prejudicialness of such Elections to the Rights and Profits of the King deprived thereby of Vacancies and first Fruits This Protestation though over-ruled for a season wrought so effectually that about 1615 the Governour presented one Mr. Messering to the Parish of St. Peters this Messering had been ordained Priest by Dr. Bridges Bishop of Oxford but his presentation was so offensive to the Colloquy that Governour and Ministers appear before King James referring the whole concernment to his Majesties final Judgment and the
Ministers for ought I find had continued in Statu quo had they been unanimous but Monsieur De la Place being brought into a golden dream that if a Dean were again established in the Isle he and no other should be the man betrayed his brethren and violated the Oath he had before taken so as it was at length ordered by the Council of England That an Officer invested with the authority of the ancient Dean should again be established in the Isle of Jersey and that the Bishop of Winchester should by Commission under his seal give authority unto the said Dean to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the said Isle but not Monsieur Place but Mr. Bandinel an Italian is put into the Deanery which Mr. Places high stomack not digesting he retires into Guernsey breathing out nothing but disgrace to the English Liturgy and the Change of Government made in Jersey by his own Treachery The sum of all is The Islanders of Jersey had the English Liturgy translated into their own Language in the reign of King Edward the sixth in Queen Elizabeths reign they forsook it aesired the Presbyterial discipline and by Oath bound themselves to keep and observe it The Episcopal Government was obtruded upon them through the perjury of an Ambitious Minister who declaimed against it as soon as he saw he could not serve his own ends by it Doth any Law oblige us to believe that any Natives of this Isle heartily embrace it I think it will be no uncharitableness to say Timeo Danaos dona ferentes A fourth qualification required in him that will go a warfare for our Church is a good knowledg of all the rules and forms of Argumentation he that wants such knowledg will no more be able to manage the Churches Arguments than David was to use Sauls Armor nay he will be a stumbling-block and stone of offence to our young students When Dr. Heylin's Certamen Epistolare came abroad I had spent Three years and no more at Cambridg yet I must needs buy the Book because the Author was famed for his Geography and had been represented to me as a very living Library thought I Si pergama dextra Defendi possent certe hac defensa videbo But reading his Answer to Mr. Baxter I found my self quite frustrated in my expectation for whereas Mr. Baxter had made a conditional Syllogism and instead of assuming the words of the antecedent at large had used an allowed brevity But the antecedent is true The Dr. tells him Page 80. That it was a strange piece of news to him to read any one making use of that brief form of conditional Syllogism This startled me for I was sure that almost every System of Logick that fell into the mention of conditional Syllogisms not only allowed but commended it to us for brevity sake after a conditional major to proceed thus But the Antecedent is true Ergo so is the Consequent or but the Consequent is false Ergo so is the Antecedent I was as sure that those Schoolmen in whose Logicks and Metaphysicks I had wasted too much time did usually so argue and I had read that long before them the Stoicks were much pleased with this form of Argumentation and called it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how then said I within my self comes it to pass that an ancient Dr. in Divinity who hath combated not only Puritans but also Bishops and Heads of Houses and sometimes nibbles at Bellarmine himself should upon the reading of such a Syllogism fall into such a fit of admiration What Answer I gave my self is not material but I resolved to lay aside my opinion of the Doctors abilities but rather to hope that he would make known some mystery that was bid from Duncan Burgesdicius Isendorne c. till I came to his 8 Page where I met with these words The Antecedent in all Hypothetical propositions being conditional imperfect and of no full sense cannot be said to be either true or false When I had read them I then concluded the Dr. was void of all rational learning and perhaps did not know what hypothetical signified for certainly every hypothetical Proposition is a compound Proposition and if it be compound it must consist of Two Propositions and one of those Propositions must needs be the Antecedent Now if the Antecedent be a Proposition it must needs be either true or false I know that sometimes the Antecedent as well as the Consequent is not formally a Proposition but it 's evermore at least virtually a Proposition and therefore may be said to be true or false if it could not why do our Logicks so carefully tell us that we must not estimate the verity or falsity of a conditional from the verity or falsity of its parts but from the true or false connexion that is betwixt them It were perfectly needless to tell us that we are not to estimate the verity of a conditional from the verity of the Antecedent if the Antecedent neither can be said to be true nor false Besides if there may be affirmation and negation in the Antecedent then may the Antecedent be either true or false but there may be affirmation or negation in the Antecedent Ergo. The minor I prove from the common rule given for the right making of those conditional Syllogisms in which the major only is Hypothetical the Rule is That we must either proceed from the position of the Antecedent to the position of the Consequent or from the destruction of the Consequent to the destruction of the Antecedent if we proceed not thus we may from true premises infer a false conclusion Now what is it to put ponere the Antecedent Why it is to bring it into the minor with the same quality it had in the major That is if it were affirmative in the major it must be affirmative in the minor if negative in the major then negative in the minor Ay but whatever dull Logicians prate is not the Antecedent in every Hypothetical conditional imperfect Answ Certainly it is not for the if which is commonly prefixed to the Antecedent is no part of the Antecedent but it is the copula that converteth the Antecedent and the Consequent just as the Verb is in a Categorical coupleth the subject and predicate Let this be the example if the Sun shineth it is day here be two propositions the Sun shineth it is day both are joined into one compound proposition by the Conjunction if and the plain meaning is if the first proposition be true the second is also No less ignorance doth the Dr. bewray when he saith In every hypothetical Syllogism the major proposition consisteth of two parts or branches whereof one is called the Antecedent the other the consequent For I can make him an Hundred Hypothetical Syllogisms in which the minor only and conclusion shall be Hypothetical and the major a plain Categorical It may be Mr. D. will say this shakes not his Corn and
indeed it doth not but he also might have done well before he dabled in the Printers Ink to read over some Compendiums then would he have amended the Title of above Fifty Pages in his Book not writing The Conformity of the Reformed Churches with the Reformed Church of England for this Enunciation There is a conformity betwixt the Reformed Churches and the Reformed Church of England in the things of present controversie cannot be proved but by an Induction shewing that all or the most or the most famous Reformed Churches agree with the Church of England in all or most or the chiefest of those matters the present Nonconformists scruple Hath he shewed this he doth as good as confess he hath not for Page 53. Sect. 63. giving us the summa totalis of his atchievements he plainly says it amounts but to thus much There is hardly one of the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England that is not used in some one Reformed Church or other Which suppose he had proved as he hath not he is many stages off from the conclusion he propounded to infer if he deem he is not let him write a Book to prove that the Language of the Matachuses is conformable to the English Language because there is some one word in which both languages do agree and see whether he will not be laughed at to purpose But I will free my mind from all prejudices that may be taken against Mr. D. on the account of his Country nor will I create him any odium from the high elogiums he bestows on the Earl of Clarendon sentenced by King and Parliament to perpetual banishment as unworthy to live in England though I wonder Mr. D. doth no where bewail his sin or misery in heaping so many praises on him who deserved so few 'T is not the man but his Book I am to undertake and in it I will shew 1. Where there is a real controversy betwixt Episcoparians and Presbyterians he quite mistakes it 2. That he takes a great deal of pains to prove that which was never questioned by any sober man among us 3. That he defiles his Paper with many untruths and falshoods 4. That he hath let fall not a few passages which are manifestly prejudicial and destructive to the Church of England as it is now established As to the real controversies now on foot the principal of them may be reduced to three general Heads Episcopacy Liturgy Ceremonies The Presbyterians say that if they conform they must receive Episcopacy as an order by Divine Law superior to Presbytery and invested with sole power of order and jurisdiction Search Mr. Durell's Book with Candles and if there be in it any one Line tending to prove that either there is any such Episcopacy in any one reformed Church or that any one Reformed Church if her judgment were asked would approve such an Episcopacy and I will confess my self mistaken He reckoneth himself most secure of the Lutheran Churches and among the Lutherans especially of such as are governed by a Monarchy particularly he tells us That in Denmark they have Bishops and Arch bishops name and thing Page 5. How much he is mistaken in this will soon appear if we consult the History of the Reformation of that Kingdom About the year 1537 Bugenbagius is sent for into Denmark where the Twelfth of August he performed all the Ecclesiastical part of the Kings Coronation and Fourteen days after that Coronation he ordained Seven Superintendents to be keepers and executors of all Ecclesiastical Ordination and to do the office of Bishops Now I ask seeing Bugenhage was but a Presbyter whether he put the Superintendents into an order higher than his own if he did who gave him an authority so to do If he did not then are there no Bishops properly so called in Denmark Melchior Adam who relates this of Bugenhagius relates also in the life of Luther that he calling Three other Presbyters to join with him in laying on of hands ordained Nicholas Amdsorf Bishop repudiating one chosen by the Colledg of Canons and very dear to the Emperor That is he ordained one by the name of a Bishop but he was only a Presbyter and could not think himself to be of an higher Order being ordained by Luther that was but a meer Presbyter Gerhard acquaints us That the Papists or at least some of them did proclaim the Ordinations in their Churches to be void and null because performed by Luther who was no Bishop but that ever any Lutheran thought their Ordinations less valid on that account will never be proved I have read Hunnius his Demonstration of the Lutheran Ministry and though he were himself a Superintendent yet he so little magnifies his Office that he sticks not to affirm That he who ordains ordains only as the Officer of the Church and that any one whatever that should by the Church be set to ordain would ordain as validly as a Bishop doth And if it will do Mr. D. any kindness I can and will on his desire direct him to a Lutheran who calls us Anglos Papizantes for straining Episcopacy so high and appropriating Ordination to that Order Chemnitius had occasion to examine the Anathematizing Decrees of the Conventicle of Trent one of them was If any one shall say that a Bishop is not superior to a Presbyter let him be Anathema There he was necessitated to shew the judgment of the Lutheran Churches and yet he there delivereth nothing but what the English Presbyterians can subscribe to and though the incomparable Philip Melancthon was blamed for giving more to Bishops than was meet yet he hath not given more to them than what the English Nonconformists are ready to give them Thus of the Lutheran Churches It will not be so difficult for me to find out the judgment of the Churches more strictly called Reformed because I shall find the most famous of them except the Gallican meeting together at the Synod of Dort Of the Gallican therefore by themselves and I say that the Writers of those Churches have done more against our English Hierarchy than the Writers of any or all Reformed Churches besides For 1. Some of them have made it their business to overthrow the credit of Ignatius his Epistles from which more than from any writing whatever our Hierarchy doth strengthen it self Did not Salmasius and Blondell strain their diligence to prove that even the most correct Copy of Ignatius is spurious And when our learned Hammond had taken some pains to vindicate the Epistles Maresius quarrels with Bâ—ondell because he did not presently all other business laid aside take the Doctor to task and maintain against him the Apology he had made for St. Hieroms opinion yet Dally tells us that Blondell had intended to answer for himself had he not been prevented by death Because death did prevent him therefore his friend Monsieur Dally hath done that work for him and it is said that Dr. Pierson hath
answer him If the second there are many of his Conforming brethren will soon be upon his bones but for ought I see or can find Mr. D. never goes about either to prove the one or the other proposition and therefore I might be excused if I did wholly dismiss him and leave him to some of his friends to reconcile him to his own shadow yet because he swaggers and accounts that he hath by one thrust left the Assembly of Divines and the two Houses of Parliament weltring in their blood I will try quid tanto dignum feret hic promissor hiatu The things laid to the charge of the two Houses and the Assembly chosen by them are manifest untruths and those uttered in an Ordinance and in a preface to a Directory for the publick Worship of God throughout the three kingdoms vid. p. 3. If any manifest untruths are delivered by them let them for me lye down in their own sorrow and shame till they have made reparation to the parties injured But first we must see whether this heavy charge can be made good against them else the penance must be laid on him that brought in the charge The first untruth is That the book of Common prayer had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad Is this an untruth and a manifest untruth too Why are not the Walachian Churches in Zealand Resormed Churches and was not the Liturgy used in the Church of England an offence to them Let Mr. D. read what Apollonius in the name of the whole Classis hath written against it and then tell us his mind let him also read the several Letters written by Calvin and Beza touching our Liturgy and it will be very evident that some things in our English Liturgy were offensive at Geneva and a man would think something in it was offensive to the Protestant Churches in France or else certainly they would have used their interest with the French Churches here in England to receive it from Bishop Laud who laboured with all his might for many years to impose it on them but could not prevail at last Lastly for ought I know the Scotish Churches may properly enough be called Churches abroad and Mr D. will not sure deny but that our Liturgy was offensive to them The second manifest untruth is that the two houses did take away the book of Common-prayer to answer the expectation of other Reformed Churches If there were other Reformed Churches besides those for which the Directory was appointed that expected the two Houses should take away the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book used in England then was there no manifest untruth in the before-mentioned expression Let us see whether there were not The abolishing of the Common-prayer-book was forth Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales Can Mr. D. imagine that no other Churches reformed expected the taking away of the English Liturgy What thinks he of the Reformed Churches of Scotland The Churches of New England those English and Scotish Churches that were planted up and down the Low-Countreys and other places of Traffick Will he nullifie all these Churches or had they not desires as well as expectations that the Liturgy should be removed Did he never read with how great regret that Liturgy was obtruded upon those English that trafficked in foreign Nations If he have not let him vouchsafe to read over the History of Archbishop Laud written by Dr. Heylin and then tell us whether he was not too rash to give so many Nobles Gentlemen and Divines the lye If that History bring him under no sense of his temerity then I entreat him to enquire of the Assembly-men still alive whether they cannot help him to a sight of the Answers of Foreign Churches returned to the Latin Letter of the Assembly of Divines and by most of them he will find that the designed Reformation was not disgusted by them Till he have such an opportunity it will be wort his while to bestow a little time in reading Apo lonius his printed Epistle Mr. D. again falls upon the two Houses p. 14. thither I will follow him where conceiving wrath and fiery indignation against an expression in the Ordinance of the two Houses he makes a Manifesto That there was never nor is yet any one Reformed Church that hath only a Directory and not a book of Common-prayer for the publick worship of God To which Manifesto I say That the Church of Scotland had when the two Houses made that Ordinance no Book of Common-prayer for the publick worship of God but what was in the nature of a Directory and that the Church of Scotland was principally in their eye in the management of their Reformation and I also say that the Dutch Liturgy is but in the nature of a Directory for so I understand those words cap. 11. art 11. in the Harmony of the Belgick Synods Minister preces vel dictante spiritu vel certa sibi proposita formula concipiet It may be Mr. D. will put another construction on them for he seems to have used other Dictionaries than those we have opportunity to consult in England In one of the French Rubricks it is said that upon Sundays in the morning the following form is commonly used he tells us p 17. the meaning is That that form is to be used always and no other Could any Presbyterian have thought of such a meaning or how can any one of them be convinced that commonly and always are all one why he may be convinced by constant and uniform practice so he tells us ibid. But I say constant and uniform practice will never make commonly to be always I have been a member of the Church of England for these Thirty years and my occasions have called me to be in most Counties of the Nation and in all these years I never heard any Minister whether Prelatical or Presbyterian read King James his Statute against Swearing and yet the words of the Law are plain That it shall be read twice every year were I not a wise man if I should say the meaning of the Law is that the Statute shall never be read as constant and uniform practice doth shew Thus have I examined what Mr. D. had to say against the Two Houses and the Assembly and must now try not the words but the power of Ludovicus Capellus a man of great Learning but which in his later days especially he made use of to the disturbance of the Church better had it been for the Christian world that Saumur had never had a professor of Hebrew than a Professor that took so much pains to make the Hebrew Points or Vowels and Accents a late invention of the Tiberian Massarites long after sundry Translations were extant in the World All his Theses will not do so much good as his Arcanum punctationis revelatum and Critica Sacra have done hurt Let us notwithstanding hear what he hath concerning Liturgies Mr. D. himself being Translator A Hundred and fourty
years ago when the separation was made from the Church of Rome and that the Christian people coming out of Babylon did cast off the Popes tyranny the sacred Liturgy was purged of all that Popish superstition and idolatry and all such things as were over-burdensom or which did little or nothing contribute towards the edification of the Church and so were framed and prescribed in several places divers set forms of holy Liturgies by the several Authors of the Reformation that then was and those simple and pure in Germany France England Scotland the Netherlands c. differing as little as possible from the ancient set forms of the Primitive Church which set forms the Reformed have used hitherto with happiness and profit each of them in their several Nations and Districts Till at last of very late there did arise in England a froward scrupulous and over-nice that I say not altogether superstitious generation of men unto whom it hath seemed good for many Reasons but those very light and almost of no moment at all not only to blame but to cashier and to abolish wholly the Liturgy used hitherto in their Church together with the whole Hierarchical Government of their Bishops instead of which Liturgy they have brought in their Directory as they call it Mr. D. tells us pag. 15. That from hence the Reader may observe five things 1. That all reformed Churches have Liturgies but I say That from no words of Capellus any such observation can be collected if Mr. D. think otherwise his Logick is his own let him make use of it 2. That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man not only simple and pure and free from all Popish Superstition and Idolatry but also from all such things as were over onerous and troublesom or which did contribute but little to the edification of the Church No such observation can be made from Capellus his words for he only speaks of the Liturgies that were introduced by the first Authors of our Reformation betwixt which and the present Liturgy there may be for ought Mr. Capell saith to the Contrary a vast difference But I believe this great man commended he knew not what and talked at an high rate of confidence concerning Liturgies of the first Reformers which he never saw A Papist will not desire greater advantage against the Praeses in Saumur than to have it granted that in the Liturgies made by the Authors of Reformation in all the places Capell mentioneth nothing was contained onerous or of little edification The Divines of King Henry the 8th were Authors of a Reformation their Liturgy had something in it superstitious idolatrous less profitable So had also the first Liturgy made by our Divines in King Edwards time else we must count it profitable to pray for the dead and to commend our Prayers to be presented by the holy Angels c. And if we speak even of the present Lutherans Liturgies every thing that hath little or nothing of profit in it is not taken away for what is the profit of Latin Cantions or where is the advantage of Exorcisme What good is to be got by the Doctrine of Consubstantiation I might urge other questions which no friend of Capellus would much care for answering 3. If Liturgies ought to recede as little as 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 as coming nearest unto it How the Reader should be able to observe this from any words of Capellus cannot I divine it may be Mr. D. heartily thinks that our Liturgy cometh nearest to the Primitive Liturgies and so is the most perfect because primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum But Capellus neither did think so nor could think so without egregious contradiction to his own Principle for he had said just before That from the beginning the Formula's were most brief and most simple which without pomp and train and manifold variety consisted of a few Prayers and Lessons out of the Psalms and other Scripture Now certainly if our Liturgy be most simple yet it is not most brief nor doth it consist of but a few Prayers let Mr. D. read all that by the Liturgy is appointed to be read without defalcation and I will undertake he shall be under no temptation to make his Sermons tedious 4. That of all men who call themselves Reformed the Presbyterians are the first that ever left the use of set forms of Prayers Capellus useth not the word Presbyterians and if he had used it it would have been a very blind Mr. D. seems by Presbyterians to mean the major part of those Divines who by vertue of an Ordinance of Parliament did meet to give advice concerning Doctrine Discipline Worship If Capellus say that these were the first that left off the use of set forms of Prayer he was much mistaken set forms of Prayer had been long before laid aside and condemned as unlawful by such as were as little in love with Presbytery as Hierarchy he may know whom I mean if he will enquire who they were that left old England Dr. Heylin hath written the History of Presbyterians under which name he seems to bring all those Protestants who are not Lutherans nor satisfied with the Reformation of the Church of England This History his Son hath dedicated to the Two Houses of Parliament now sitting In the 2d Page of that Book it is said The Zuinglian Reformation was begun in defacing Images decrying the established Fasts and appointed Festivals abolishing set forms of worship denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence and consequently all external reverence in the participation of the blessed Sacrament which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present And page 89. speaking of the Palatine Churches he would have us take them for Antilutherans in defacing Images abolishing all distinction of Fasts and Festivals and utterly denying all set forms of publick Worship I know a great deal of this is false maliciously false as is almost every thing in that Book which relates to the foreign Churches and therefore I hope the Bishops or others that have Authority will either call in the Book or some other way discover how much they abhor the design of it in the mean time here is work for Mr. Durell's Pen if he will not be partial and respect persons if he have any zeal left for Zuinglius Calvin Beza let him wipe off the aspersion of Rebellion Schism Aerianism from their faces or else let him know that seeing Dr. Heylins Book came out last his will be thought sufficiently confuted 5. Mr. D. tells us we may observe that the many reasons for which the Presbyterians have rejected the Book of Common Prayer are very light and almost of no moment at all Capell saith not so but
a Surplice no not in their own Churches so little do they find it to contribute to edification that they forbear it where they would not be blamed if they should use it So the Presbyterians are out of his debt A second Ceremony controverted is kneeling at the Sacrament about which I may say Iliacos extra muros peccatur intra I cannot by all that I have read see any unlawfulness in it and I hope the Presbyterians if they should be asked by any whether they had better forbear the Sacrament than receive it kneeling would well bethink themselves what answer to give I find not that ever any of our authorized Liturgies did allow any other gesture yet I have read in a Book called Treasure out of rubbish That some Commissioners of Q. Elizabeth did about the beginning of Her Reign at Coventry and other places appoint not kneeling but standing to be used at the Lords Table The Book was Printed by the Reverend Mr. Simeon Ash since His Majesties return to his Throne and I hear that many conforming Ministers are so compassionate as to deliver the consecrated Elements to those who do not kneel how they can so do non violata fide quam dederunt ecclesiae I understand not they themselves I hope have satisfied their own Consciences and can give a reason of their practice to their Governors though I cannot The Church in the 2d Book of King Edward inserted a Rubrick against Transubstantiation unhappily left out in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the 1st but through the goodness of our present Soveraign now again put into the last Edition of our Liturgy may it never more be left out but continue to the shame of those who feared not to say we left it out because it seemed too much to favour the Sacramentarians The Church also appoints the Minister to use a kind of a Prayer in delivering the Eucharist whilst he useth that Prayer the Communicant is to kneel meekly but when he hath taken the Bread into his own hands he may then sit and eat it or stand and eat it I wish this could satisfie private Christians but there are Hundreds that cannot so quiet their own minds and yet if you discourse with them they can make Syllogisms and they live peaceable and godly lives Now here the Shoe pincheth the Nonconformist Minister whether he can promise never to give the Sacrament to any one who scrupleth kneeling Had Mr. D. clearly and solidly determined this question or had he strongly proved that the Church could not without dishonour allow more than one gesture in receiving the Sacrament I could easily have forgiven him all the raillery of his book but he thought he could get preferment at an easier rate therefore contents himself in a few lines p. 46 47. to instance in a very â—â—w Reformed Churches that receive the Sacrament kneeling First he instanceth in the Reformed Churches of Bohemia Reformed above two hundred years ago the remnant of it now left saith he receive it kneeling This instance little avaâ—leth our Church because from the beginning it was not so the Ancestors of the Bohemians did at first viz. 1494 use standing but being persecuted on that account were compelled to leave it off as Comenius tells us so that Mr. D. by this only proves the conformity of our Church with the Popish Church in persecuting those who will not kneel at the Sacrament Nor is he more lucky in his other instances of Polonia major and Lithuania for which he refers us to the Consensus Poloniae What a Character Dr. Heylin gives of the Reformation of Poland let him that loveth railing see Hist of Presb. 31 32 33. Indeed the Consent of Poland doth not much hit our humour here in England for in the Cracovian Synod 1573 all Choreae are condemned as dishonest A question being moved VVhether the rites in the use of the Lords Supper ought to be uniform It was concluded That according to the custom of the Primitive Church men should be left to their Christian liberty yet with admonition to the brethren that if any used sitting they should leave that proper to the Arrian Anabaptists In the Petricovian Synod Anno 1578 it is determined That uniformity in the rite of receiving the Lords Supper should not be pressed lest it should happen that there might be occasion to exercise Ecclesiastical Discipline upon any of the common people who are not easily brought to unusual ceremonies whereas the Synod judged it neither agreeable to the will of the Lord nor the custom of the Christian Church more pure to strike Christian men with the rod of Discipline for external rites yet so as the gesture of sitting at the Lords Table is rejected for a reason I shall more speak of by and by 'T is the Synodus Wlodislaviensis congregated 1583 that Mr. D. pitcheth upon in which Synod the matter of sitting at the Lords Table is again debated and there it is determined that sitting is as free as any other gesture which being brought in by way of Parenthesis Mr. D. never Englisheth or taketh notice of for he had called it an unmannerly and irreverent gesture and it was no wisdom to touch a knife that would be sure to cut his fingers but there also it was determined That sitting should not be used at the Lords table in any of the Churches of Poland or Lithuania for this ceremony is not used in Christian Churches and Evangelical Assemblies and is only proper to the unbelieving Arrians placing themselves in a seat or throne equal to Christ Seeing therefore sitting crept into some of their Churches especially by occasion of those who denied the Lord that redeemed us they desire and exhort all their assemblies and brethren in the Lord that they would change sitting into standing or kneeling Mr. D. translates potissimum first and I believe he was the first that so translated that word Not content to make so bold with Priscian he riseth to greater impudence saying that what they observed about the first bringers in of sitting into Poland may be our observation also if what Dr. Owen have said be true as it is very likely That there is not a city a town scarce a village in England but had some of the Miscreant Socinians Whether Dr. Owen hath any words of this import I know not if he have 't is like he referred them to the time in which he did make his book which was many years after that sitting was brought into the English Churches by the two Houses Too many there were in the two Houses no doubt that sought their own things more than the Nations peace but they never had among them any Socinian that ever I did hear of but only one Fry who was also expelled when he discovered his blasphemies Nor do I find that these Hereticks do abound in those places of the Kingdom where I have been but Papists abound extremely so as the
same thing that moved the Polonians to forbid sitting may move us to forbid kneeling and leave it proper to the wretched Papists who worship a piece of bread instead of their Saviour But this gesture of kneeling would be a little better considered The Fathers of the before mentioned Synods seem to say not indeed in that Meeting which Mr. D. quotes but in the Meeting of 1578. That those who fell off to Arrianism were the first that were authors of sitting in their Churches If I mistake their meaning detur venia but if I do not I humbly conceive they were themselves mistaken John Alasco a Noble-men of Poland was upon Cranmer's persuasion sent for into our England by King Edward the sixth about the year 1549. and permitted to have a Church of strangers especially of Dutch whom he brought up to receive the Sacrament sitting and also during his abode here put forth a book to prove the lawfulness of that gesture After many troublesome wandrings from place to place at last being invited by at least forty Letters he returned to his own Countrey and no question administred the Sacrament to his flock sitting and taught others on whom he had influence so to do Now this Alasco never fell off to Arrianism perhaps this was the reason why in the Meeting 1583. it is not said that the Arrians first brought in sitting but that it was chiefly brought in by them The aforesaid Fathers seem also to affirm that sitting had not been used by any Evangelical Churches in Europe at the time of their meeting but if they so meant they were greatly mistaken for sitting was brought into the Church of Scotland by authority as the most proper and convenient gesture 1560. and our Confessor Mr. Thomas Beacon in an authorized Catechism 1563. speaks of sitting as a gesture used in certain Reformed Churches and which he himself could best allow if it were received by publick authority and common consent Who the Arrian-Anabaptists were that had caused such a detestation of themselves among the Polonians I cannot certainly know but by such stories as have come to my hands I guess they were Georgius Blandrata and Franciscus Davidis and their Spawn who both denied the Divinity of Jesus and also his adorability Socinus and his followers held the Principle That Jesus is not God and yet denied the conclusion that naturally and lineally descended from it That Jesus is not to be worshipped for they had found out a distinction of Deus natus factus The former would not stick to say That Jesus was one of their brethren and fellow-servants so would the latter for they ascribed unto Christ a dignity and excellency nearly approaching unto the dignity and excellency of the Creator but conferred on him by the singular bounty and good will of him who created him Wherefore the Socinians properly so called could not use sitting at the Lords Table as a token of their equality with Christ nor indeed do they much concern themselves what gesture is used in Sacramental Communion Volkelius saith They use sitting but yet so that they damn not those who had rather use standing so as there be no appearance of idolatry They would have us believe they hate the very appearance of Idolatry and yet they commit Idolatry for what greater Idolatry than to worship him that by nature is not God as they blasphemously say Jesus is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last Ceremony but about which there is the greatest Controversie is the sign of the Cross Nonconformists say this sign is made a Sacramental sign because it is used as a token that the child shall not be ashamed to profess Christ crucified c. and also as a ceremony by which it is dedicated unto God In clearing this ceremony therefore Mr. D. should have taken most pains but in this he is slightest of all He gives us not an instance of any one Reformed Church that hath appointed the sign of the Cross to be used either in Baptism or in any other Ordinance only he tells us of Bibles printed at Geneva for the use of the Church and that before them Christian Religion is represented in an Emblem as leaning upon a Cross and that some Reformed have Crosses upon their Churches and that some Ministers in Prussia to humor the Lutherans will make a Cross in the Air with their hand when they say The Dord be with you All this is to as much purpose as if he had told us that the Rumpers did use the sign of the Cross in the Flags of their Ships and put it on the money which they coined or that some Nonconformists have it in their Coat of Arms as I am sure they have I believe there is not a Nonconformist in England that questioneth the lawfulness of making the sign of a Cross upon any thing he useth And if the sign of the Cross were made so as that it remained and were visible after it were made then perhaps it might have an aptitude to occasion a good thought concerning a crucified Saviour but what can be the benefit of a Cross that leaves no impression on the forehead I know the Baptismal water being applied to an infant leaveth no such mark on the flesh as it can take notice of at years of discretion but the Spirit if he be not grieved will bring our Baptism to our remembrance and he hath so done to many in the hour of temptation but how shall a man be secured that the blessed Spirit will engage himself to bring our being crossed to our remembrance I have made observation and could never find any difference betwixt us that were crossed and those who were not crossed Do we confess the Faith of a crucified Saviour so do they do we fight under his Banner so do they do we joyn our selves to Christs flock so do they the things that we know they know also so that they are under a temptation to think that the Cross is an useless sign I must not dissemble that Mr. D. takes on him in his Sermon page 29 to explicate and shew the usefulness of this sign As when the King having created those noble Knights of his Order bestows on them the Garter and the Blew Riband as Badges to be known by of others and to put them in mind of the great honour done unto them In like manner when an infant hath by Baptism been enrolled in the Militia of the King of Glory Jesus Christ our Lord this sign of the Cross is made upon his forehead to declare unto all such as are present and as many as shall thereafter know it that he hath received it and to himself when he comes to years of understanding that he was consecrated to Christ crucified that he hath put on his Livery and wears his Badge that he is bound to crucifie the old man and to bear the Cross that to this he is called by our Saviour that he ought in all places and
in the most dangerous occurrences boldly and openly to own the name of his Redeemer without ever being ashamed with bearing his reproach As the Barrels go rumbling up and down the Streets so my Lord Mayor owes me a Groat The King the founder of this noble Order gives the Knights created by him a Garter and a Blew Riband as Badges to be known by others but would not be pleased if they should among themselves invent other badges and cognizances of their Order Christ also hath instituted Baptism to distinguish Christians from those who are no Christians How do we know whether it will like him that we should appoint a Cross to distinguish us more especially seeing thereby we shall be distinguished from a great number of our fellow Christians Again the Garter and Blew Riband are things to be worn and that may be seen and occasion spectators to enquire what they mean but so is not the Cross that was made on our foreheads after Baptism the Pagans that any of us have been among could take no notice of it and if our Parents did at any time admonish us of our engagement to crucifie the old man they put us in mind not of being crossed but of being baptized with Water to signifie the not only death but burial of the old man nor have our Kings of England been so fond of all the Rites and Ceremonies used at making of Knights of the Garter but that they have allowed some of them to be omitted where they have conceived they might be less acceptable King James being much pleased with the valour and piety of Maurice Prince of Orange sent him a Garter appointing his Embassador Sir Ralph Winwood to confer the honour on him freely and without any Rites or Laws but what the Prince himself would spontaneously undergo And the Embassador in a French Speech declared that the Rites wonted to be used in creating Knights of the Garter did seem somewhat abhorrent from the Discipline of the Reformed Churches in Holland and not altogether congruous to the polity of the Republick and that therefore the King to avoid offence had appointed it to be conferred without pomp and external magnificence I suppose Mr. D. thinks there is no Rite used in the creation of the Knights of St. George that is contrary to the Discipline of the Dutch Churches but the King was of another mind and chose rather to confer the highest honour without the wonted Ceremonies than not to confer it upon one who was like not to disgrace it And shall Ministers of the Gospel so stifly stand upon Ceremonies as rather not to administer baptism than to administer it without the sign of the Cross I must follow Mr. D. who tells us That several reformed Churches have a Ceremony of which Presbyterians ought to have as bad an opinion as of the Cross in Baptism The Ceremony he meaneth is Trine aspersion page 42. Why ought they to have as bad an opinion of Trine Aspersion as of the Cross in Baptism is there any Law either of God or man that tieth them to have as bad an opinion of the Trine Aspersion as of the Cross or do their Principles lead them to have as bad an opinion of one Ceremony as of the other I verily believe they do not for they say that Christ hath commanded Baptism and hath not strictly determined whether it shall be administred by Aspersion or Immersion nor whether by trine or une aspersion or immersion therefore the Church hath power to chuse the Rite that to her having consulted the general rules of Scripture and practice of the Primitive Churches shall seem best But they also say that God hath no where commanded that a Child shall be crossed or any where appointed his Church to institute any symbolical teaching signs at all if Mr. D. can shew them any command that a Child should be crossed they will not stick to grant that it is in the Churches power to order where the Child shall be crossed and how often and what kind of cross it shall be But it is to be feared he can shew no such command at least none such is shewed by him and yet he saith he is confident that if the trine aspersion were used or if we had retained the trine immersion as at the beginning of King Edward the sixths reign it would be accounted a gross superstition How may a man do to free him from this uncharitable confidence so contrary to Christianity I dare undertake to give it him under the hand and seal of as many as I am acquainted with that if the Church shall think meet to use trine aspersion or trine immersion she shall not be accounted either grosly or at all superstitious provided she declare that she doth not use either rite as necessary If by trine either aspersion or immersion she should prejudice the Babes in their health that would be a sin but not the sin of superstition But how doth Mr. D. prove that the Church hath not retained trine immersion Immersion it is plain she hath enjoyned unless the Sureties certifie that the Child be weak yet never any Minister of the Church in my hearing demanded such Certificate never did any Parents bring their Child in a dress fit for dipping that ever I could observe and yet I believe that I have seen as strong Children Baptized as are in most places of England and she no where saith it shall be dipped but once as neither doth she say that it shall be sprinkled but once so that Bishop Mountague in his Visitation Articles positively asserts That the Child is to be thrice aspersed with water on the face it may be some other Prelate of that age did as positively assert that the Child was to be sprinkled but once for those who have been most zealous to press Conformity have been at Daggers drawing about the meaning of some passages in that Liturgy to which they required subscription In the Hampton Court Conference the Metropolitan told the King That the administration of Baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the practice of the Church but enquired of by Bishops in their visitations and censured neither do the words in the Liturgy infer any such meaning But the Bishop of London replied That those learned men who framed the Book of Common-Prayer intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any but did intend a permission of private persons to baptize in case of necessity and withal declared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church urging both a place in the Acts and the authority of Tertullian and St. Ambrose plain in that point What could a man have done that had lived in those days to know the meaning of the Church But however King James being clear in his own judgment that a Minister is of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the Sacrament carried it so as the words thereafter did run thus
That private Baptism should be performed by the Minister of the Parish or in his absence by any other lawful Minister that can be procured Now any man would think Lay persons are not allowed to Baptize but Dr. Heylin in his introduction to the life of Archbishop Laud page 27. saith That the alteration was greater in sound than sense it being the opinion of many great Clerks That any man in cases of necessity that is extream who can but pronounce the words of Baptism may pass in the account and notion of a lawful Minister A prodigious assertion for a Turk or Jew may pronounce the words of Baptism Is he a lawful Minister of Baptism did ever any that pretended to reverence the authority of the Church thus wrest her words But to return to the rite of Baptism we have got a trick to sprinkle or to let water fall by drops but the Church allows no such rite but most expresly requires pouring even when the Child is at the weakest and seeing in the Baptism of Infants the Administrator is required to dip them if they may well endure it how comes it to pass that in the Baptism of Adult persons who are appointed by fasting and prayers to prepare themselves for the receiving of the Sacrament it is left indifferent to the Ministers either to dip them in the Font or pour water on them though there be a moral certainty that they may endure dipping well enough And what Prayers must these adult persons use to prepare themselves for Baptism must they make them themselves or must they be made by the Bishop or Priest or are there any preparatory Prayers to that purpose made already I wish Mr. D. would answer me these questions Object Well but what say you in the excuse of the Presbyterians who as Dr. Heylin tells us page 293. would not have their Children Baptized by the names of their Ancestors Richard Robert c. but by some name occurring in the Holy Scriptures especially in the Old Testament becouse meerly Hebrew and not prophaned with any mixture of the Greek or Roman Did not Snape and Cartwright in the Book of Discipline agree that the Minister in Baptizing Children should not admit of any such names as had been used in the time of Paganism the names of Idols and the like Did they not also take an bumor of giving such names unto their Children as many of them when they came to age were ashamed of Accepted Deliverance Discipline Praise God Reformation Tribunal Thankful Answ As for the Discipline of Jersy and Guernsey made by Mr. Cartwright and Snape I never saw it but once when I minded not what was in it now I know not where to get it and therefore leave it to Mr. D. to answer for his forefathers and neighbors The Presbyterians have not hired me to be their Advocate I am only for peace and would not have men made worse than they be 'T is doubtless an unjust scrupulosity for any man to question the lawfulness of calling his Child either Robert or Richard or Arthur or VVilliam but if the Question be not what is lawful but what is expedient I say caeteris paribus it is more expedient that Children be named by the names of such persons as were famous in their generations for piety and learning Dr. Rivet tells Baily Tractatu 3. page 33. Quest 8. That they used diligence to bring Parents to give to their Children names borrowed from them whose life was laudable in the Church that they may be stirred up to the imitation of those whose name they bear for such better agree to Christians than either the ambitious or superstitious names of Heathens He also tells us that in his remembrance a vain-glorious fellow whose name was Le Grand would needs name his Child Alexander but the Ministers refused to gratifie his ambition they would not have a mean fellows Child called Alexander the Great but that ever any Presbyterian refused to Baptize a Child because it was to be called Richard may well pass for a Story of Dr. Heylin's which many times are none of the truest As for the reason he gives out of his own head of the Presbyterians chusing Old Testament names because the Old Testament is meerly Hebrew it argueth his great ignorance some of the Presbyterians Children before they come from School know that the Old Testament is not meerly Hebrew Where our English Tongue can afford happy compositions I should think such a composition in a Childs name would not make Baptism contemptible nor the Imposer ridiculous yet I confess I should never advise any man to name his Child Praise God nor The Lord is near for though he may excuse himself by the names of Quod vult Deus A deo-datus usual in St. Austin's time yet it savors of affectation to give such names and it may occasion the taking of the Lords name in vain nor do I find that Presbyterians have delighted themselves in such names Accepted was the name of Dr. Frewen late Archbishop of York was he ever ashamed of it or had he any reason to be ashamed of it or was his Father a Presbyterian Let the Church Books from 1582 be searched and it will be found to the shame of this Historian that Presbyterians have given such names to their Children as other people did and that none of their Children are called by such uncouth names as are mentioned in the Objection My next task is to give in a Catalogue of Mr. D's impertinencies which are indeed many and too many to be insisted on particularly Page 51. He gives us some sayings of some Churches against Sacriledg A thing that hath been done more copiously by Dr. John Hoornbeck in his examination of the Popes Bull sent forth to nullifie the peace of Germany and if Mr. D. please he may read a very smart Discourse against the sin of Sacriledg in Mr. Baxters defence of the VVorcestershire Petition If Ancestors through mistake have given maintenance to Idolatrous uses Magistrates may convert that maintenance to uses truly pious If there be a true superfluity of Church revenues for some one good use Magistrates may out of that superfluity provide for some other good use If the Soveraign power please in cases of true necessity to make use of Church-mens Lands as well as others to maintain the Nation against foreign Invasions c. what is there in such an action blame-worthy These and such like cases excepted I profess I know not the Presbyterian alive or dead that was not against the alienation of Church-Lands Mr. D. tells us he saw some Presbyterian Ministers made nothing of purchasing and detaining Church-Lands and in his Margin nameth Dr. Burges so that it seemeth Dr. Burges is some Presbyterian Ministers But he ought before he so called him to prove that he was so much as one Presbyterian Minister he was not that Dr. Burges of whom we heard before that made the Book against Dr.
Ames his reply to Dr. Morton but he was the Dr. Burges that oversaw that Book in the Press and adorned its Margin to make the reading more pleasant and delightful and he was that Dr. Burges who did write for Baptismal Regeneration a Doctrine distastful to the Presbyterians He took the Covenant indeed but not as I have heard till he was like to be turned out of the Assembly for not taking it It is true that once he made a Speech against the continuance of Deans and Chapters but in that Speech he declared the utter unlawfulness of converting their Lands to any private mans use it seems that he himself afterwards purchased something belonging to the Dean of VVells intending to settle it on his Children how he could satisfie his Conscience so to do I know not perhaps when he saw that that part of the House of Commons which favoured Presbytery was secluded and that Deans and Chapters Lands designed to mend poor Livings must be sold for other uses he resolved to do as Luther saith a Dog which he knew at Erford did when he could defend his Masters dish of meat from other Dogs no longer viz. got as good a share of the prey as he could He hath given his accounts to his Master I am not to judge anothers Servant and therefore I should tremble to write that which Mr. D. hath written viz. That a loathsom sore which brought him to his Grave was sent to punish him for his Sacriledg neither dare I say for all the world that the Disease that befell Bishop Gauden and of which he died besel him for his fierceness against the Bresbyterians and yet it was the very disease unto which he had compared the Presbyterians Sermons and it befell him not long after he had made that odious comparison England hath suffered much by mens undertaking to fetch their Divinity out of the Providences of God which are always righteous but sometimes hidden A greater noise is made in some Books on the account of the Assemblies Annotations in the which or in the first Edition of which it is said Nothing is to be found against Sacriledg and it is easily acknowledged that in the Assemblies Annotations nothing is to be found against Sacriledg for the Assemblies Annotations are not to be found But as for the English Notes made by sundry Divines who were all of them before the Wars Conformists and commonly miscalled the Assemblies Annotations and for the Assembly it self hear an ingenuous but cordial and through-paced Son of the Church in a Discourse entituled Church-Lands not to be sold printed Anno 1648. he quotes with approbation the Note on Rom. 2.22 p. 14. having spoken p. 27. of honest Mr. Geree who avers That to abolish Prelacy and to seize the Lands of the Prelates to any private or civil interest undoubtedly could not want stain nor guilt he adds I am confident by the discourse I have had with the most able of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster that at the least three parts if not all of them are of the same judgment and that they would openly profess as much if they were put to answer the question The same Author quotes with approbation the Note on Gen. 47. and on Mal. 3.8 9. I will not go off from this subject of Sacriledg till I have also observed That some considerable for Learning and of no small authority have not feared to say That Impropriations are sacrilegious I have not much studied the point and therefore interpose not my own judgment but it looks very ugly to take away so much of the tythes and profits of any parish as not to leave a competence for him who hath the cure of souls in that parish yet it hath been observed that no Parishes have so sorry and pitiful an allowance for the Preaching minister as those of which Clergy men are the Impropriators if the Kings Letter since his return hath so kindly operated upon our Cathedralists as to make them more bountiful to the Incumbents it is well but if it have not Mr. D. may do well to consider whether he and his brethren be without fault before he throw stones at the head of others else he may chance to have such an answer as the Bishop of Scotland who having objected Sacriledg to the Presbytery of that Nation is told by Mr. Baily in his Historical Vindication p. 26 27. That the Bishops when they professed their greatest zeal to recover all the Church out of the hand of the Laity were found to be but too ready to dilapidate unto Noblemen and others too much of the Churches Patrimony you your self may remember what bargain you made as I think with the Earl of Seaforth which you know was the first occasion of diminishing your reputation with your great Patron Land of Canterbury I am sure your Colleague Spotswood did sell the whole Abbacy of Kilwinning to the Noblemen and Gentlemen of Guningham to the great prejudice and grief of the University of Glasgow and the Ministers of the bounds who had great interest therein At the Parliament of Lithgow 1606 our good Bishops for their own base ends did consent in the name of the Church though they never consulted her in that business to the greatest dilapidation that ever was heard of in Scotland the Impropriation to Noblemen and Gentlemen of no fewer than sixteen Abbacies every one whereof had incorporate the Rents of a number of Parish-Churches A second impertinence relates to Confirmation which Mr. D. p. 43. saith he finds used in almost all Reformed Churches in some with greater in some with lesser solemnity To what purpose doth he tell us this Would he have the world believe that the Presbyterians are against Confirmation or that they do not earnestly desire it Have not Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Baxter written books to shew the usefulness and necessity of it Do not some of them ground it on Heb. 6.2 and draw thence an argument for Infant-baptism Mr. Tombs knows they do and so do many others of the Antipaedobaptists For my part I bless God that hath put it into the hearts of the Convocation to insert into this last Edition of the Liturgy a question to be propounded to those who are confirmed let conscience be made never to confirm any but those who are well instructed in the Church Catechism and are well reported of for their conversation and I shall think then that nothing is to be blamed in our order for admission to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper But if men will pretend a great reverence to Confirmation and yet suffer the far greatest part of the Nation to communicate unconfirmed and if Bishops will confirm persons grosly ignorant and scandalous in the highest degree and never require Certificates from the Ministers of those Parishes to which they belong God forbid that I should justifie them The only question considerable about Confirmation betwixt those called Presbyterians and their adversaries is
concerning the Minister thereof Presbyterians say That no Law of God hath appropriated it to a Bishop strictly so called If Mr. D. can shew us any such Law or if he can prove that in all or in any Reformed Church a meer Presbyter is not accounted to have power to confirm as well as to baptize he shall do something let him therefore shew himself a man and undertake this work and when he hath his hand in let him also wipe off a blot thrown upon the Church of England and Geneva by Dr. Heylin with the Pen of a virulent Papist VVilliam Reynolds History of Presby pag. 283. viz. That 1576 the common-prayer-Common-prayer-Book was Printed by Richard Jugg the Queens Printer the whole order of private Baptism and confirmation of Children being omitted which omission was designed to bring the Church of England into some Conformity to the desired Orders of Geneva Pag. 47. he is so prodigal of his Ink and Paper as to tell us That in all reformed Churches Matrimony is celebrated in the publick Congregation and by the Minister This may be true of all reformed Churches in reference to their own Members at least I hope it is but if he should intend to assert That Reformed Churches allow not that any who are constant livers in the same Cities with them shall be married otherwise than by the Ministers and in the Church he is mistaken Yet let it be supposed that Papists dwelling with Protestants are forced to marry in the Church and to make use of a Minister what is this to the Presbyterians The composers of the Directory say VVe judge it expedient that Marriage be solemnized by a lawful Minister of the word that he may counsel them and pray for them In the said directory care also is taken that before any marriage the persons intent of marriage be published by the Minister three several sabbath days in the congregation at the place or places of their most usual and constant abode respectively and all Ministers are to have sufficient testimony of this publication before they proceed to solemnize Marriage By the Liturgy also sufficient provision is made that of all that are to be married the Bannes be published in the Church three several sundays or Holy days in the time of Divine service but any one that hath mony may have a licence to be Married without any such publication of Bannes by which means great inconveniences have arisen in Church and State Care also is taken by the 62 Canon of 1603. That none shall be married unless the Parents or Governors of the parties to be married being under the age of twenty one shall either personally or by sufficient testimony signifie their consent given to the said marriage The directory is somewhat more strict requiring that persons though of age shall be bound to have a Certificate of their Parents consent if it be their first marriage And really it seems but rational that a man and a woman though of the age of Thirty if never married before should be bound to signifie their Parents consent before any Minister adventure to marry them The greatest differences I find among Protestants about Marriage are reducible to Two Heads 1. We say here in England That though Children he bound to ask the consent of Parents yet if the marriage be made no such consent asked or obtained the marriage is valid fieri non debet factum valet is our Rule but beyond Seas such marriages are by many held to be void and of no effect Mr. D. hath so many obligations laid on him by our Church that it would be but gratitude to take her part and to answer the Arguments of Dissenters 2. Our Church hath thought meet to prohibit marriage for certain times and seasons which are particularized in our common Almanacks Other Churches leave it free to persons to marry all the year about to these the Presbyterians joyn themselves they say marriage is not to be forbidden at any time unless on such days in which God calls to fasting weeping mourning to confirm them in this opinion they had the judgment of a whole Convocation in England assembled in the year 1575 agreeing That Bishops should take order that it be published and declared in every Parish Church within their Diocesses that marriage might be solemnized at all times of the year but though the Church thought meet to put this Article into the Book the Head of the Church Q. Elizabeth did not so think and therefore suffered it not to be Printed Dr. Heyl. Hist of Presb. 282 283. Object Ay but there are some who scruple the Ring in Marriage which Mr. D. saith is used in Hessen Poland Lithuania Sol. If there be any such the more is the pity for rational ground of scruple there is none any more than there is to scruple taking seisin by a Turf Nor do I know any one Presbyterian now living that doth scruple the use of a Ring in Marriage Pag. 48. we are informed by Mr. D. That in most places of the Reformed Churches they have Funeral Sermons in Hungary and Transilvania two or three in Bohemia but one and that at the Grave As if he would suggest to us that either Presbyterians are against Funeral Sermons or the Episcopal extreamly for them whereas the truth is there never were more Funeral Sermons than in those days when the Presbyterians had their Churches and Pulpits and now that they are thrust out when any one of them dye 't is seldom but some body is hired to Preach a Sermon I say hired for they are as rare as Black Swans that will Preach a Funeral Sermon under an Angel or a Noble And whereas he tells us ibid. of the Minister with singing Boys going before the Corps he knows that in England we have singing Boys but in few places scarce any where but in Cathedrals which do not use to send their singing Boys to go before the Corps at every Funeral Civil respects or differences at Burials may be suted to the rank and condition of the party deceased whiles he was living as for the Religious part of Funerals why should it not be alike to all that have attained like precious faith Doth Mr. D. know any Churches where only the moneyed Christians are honoured with Sermons the poor being laid in their graves without any If he did not why would he lay open the nakedness of his Fathers why would he tempt strangers to think that with them there is respect of persons The Scots say Either let us have Sermons at all Funerals or at none so say the Hollanders so I suppose the French either say or think But Mr. D. Page 49. quotes a scrap of a Letter from Monsieur Drelincourt saying I am so far from allowing the custom of the Reformed Churches of this Kingdom where the Ministers are silent at dead mens Burials that I would think it unsufferable were it not for the condition under which we live I believe Mr.
Drelincourt if he be still alive thinks Mr. D. dealt not civilly with him in publishing this piece of his Letter for he sure took no delight to let the world know that he accounted the custom of the Holland Churches unsufferable especially seeing the French Churches in Holland comply with them and yet cannot plead that they fear persecution The same Drelincourt if we may believe Mr. D. said that he found upon perusal of the Common Prayer Book office for Burial of the dead nothing that was contrary to piety or pure Doctrine and the service of God Is not this a rare commendation of the Liturgy that it hath nothing in it contrary to piety c. But what Common prayer Book did this learned Divine read over in all but this last there were expressions to be used at Burials that were apt to harden men in their impenitence which therefore are now either changed or left quite out At present I know little liable to exception save only that Burial seems appropriated to a Priest may a Deacon Baptise and Preach and may he not bury our dead out of our sight In the Old Liturgy it was said the Minister meeting the Corps at the Church stile shall say in this last edition of the Liturgy it is said the Priests and Clerks and so throughout the whole Office we have no other word but Priest which is never applied to any that are but Deacons there is some mystery in this which Mr. D. can expound or else take no notice of 2. By the Liturgy the form of Burial is not to be used for any that dye unbaptized What 's the meaning of this If Christian Parents lose a child before they can get it to be baptized must they to all other their sorrow have this also added That their child shall not have Christian bâ—rial Shall the Idolatrous Papists child be buried and shall the child of the Antipaedobaptist not be buried according to the Liturgy How will Mr. Tombs after all the pains he hath taken to desend the Liturgy brook this 3. Seeing the Office is to be read at the burial of all baptized being neither excommunicate nor murderers of themselves why is the Priest appointed to say His â—ope is that every one who is buried rests in the Lord. What if a man be killed in bed with another's Wife What if he be killed in a Duel or in an Alehouse half drunk What if he be by God struck dead with an oath or blasphemy upon his tongues end must we use the very same words for him that we use for one that led a most Christian life and died a comfortable death I have much more charity for some that laid violent hands on themselves than for those who contrary to all laws of God and man do dye in Duels by the sword of another Pag. 50. he hath other words of Drelincourts as little to purpose If we were permitted saith he to preach at Paris and there to minister the holy communion I am of this perswasion that it would be a pious and charitable work to give that comfort to those poor sick persons who have kept their bed for many years and are not able to go as far as Charenton which is the place of our ordinary exercises of Religion This is a marvellous wary speech 1. If they were permitted 2. If they were permitted both to preach and administer the Sacrament 3. Then it would be pious and charitable to give the Communion to such as have kept their beds for many years Can Mr. D. think that the English Presbyterians will be offended at a perswasion thus qualified It may rather be questioned Whether some of them would not judg it charitable and pious to administer the Sacrament in such cases though they had no permission from the King at least it may be conceived that they would adventure if they should be permitted only to administer the Sacrament though no leave were given them to preach for a Sermon is not of the essence of a Sacrament and I deem they would perform this act of charity and piety to such as had been confined to their beds though only for one or two years which are not many There is not one word in all the Directory against private Communion P. 40. Mr. D. gives us notice That in the Bohemian Churches the people do alway say Amen at the end of the Prayers in the same manner that we do here in England Which is so far from crossing the Presbyterians that they as many think by their good will would have the people say nothing but Amen P. 39. he fancieth he may put the Presbyterians to silence by telling them of Churches that sing Hymns and spiritual songs besides Psalms But he may know that Presbyterians are as much at liberty to sing any godly Hymn or spiritual Song as he himself is Let him but procure the Te Deum or the Lords prayer to be set to ordinary times and then he shall see whether the Presbyterians will make any scruple for conscience-sake to sing those forms or the three Creeds which are said to be set with musical notes in the French and Dutch Churches but not sung by the French Churches by reason both the Rhime and the language are something course and old Presbyterians are not so dainty they continue to sing the old Psalms though the language and rhime be odd and uncouth in many places P. 183. he goes about to stab the Presbyterians with a declaration of a National Synod met at Figeac 1579. What is the declaration Why it is a declaration against reading verses aloud before they be sung as being inept threatning censure to such Churches as used it The Presbyterians think this custom unfit and therefore exhorted all Congregations to get psalm-Psalm-books and to learn to read they allowed reading of Psalms line by line only for necessity when ignorance had prevailed so far that many in most Congregations could not read at all Let Mr. D. but take care that all be taught to read or learn the psalms without book and I dare half undertake for Presbyterians they shall leave off so inept or unmeet a custom Till then they and Episcopal men too must do as they can and remember that they are debtors to the unwise as well as wise P. 22. Mr. D. makes mention of Churches whose Ministers wear commonly either a long cloak or a gown and long cap nay Calvin saith he did wear a gown and a cap as often as he taught either in the Divinity-School or in the Church at Geneva If Presbyterians do not wear a cap when they teach in the church they may easily be pardoned by Mr. D. As for a gown let him but get them liberty to preach and they will promise never to need his pardon for want of that I am sure I have seen those whom the Parliament sent down to Cambridg into the places of such as were ejected preach both in gowns and
hoods and so I have heard they did at Oxford when they preached Latin Sermons for which they have been scolded at by filly women as Calvin was by the Wife of Frumentius I had almost forgot another Impertinence p. 37. The French Churches require that the Ministers who ought to use Imposition of hands upon those that are to be admitted to the ministry among them should pray standing on that occasion the new received Minister and the Congregation kneeling at the same time This was the constant practice of the Presbyterians as to Ordainers and Ordained in all places where I have been or of which I have heard As for the people they were commonly so numerous at Ordinations that they could not without huge inconvenience kneel I also find that I have passed over something page 32. They have the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables where they are able to be at the charge of it and in some places they have also the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the same manner conformable to one of the constitutions of the Church of England to the same purpose Who are meant by they I cannot tell the precedent words were in Princes Chappels in Germany and other parts they have them i. e. Chalices gilt Are there any Princes in Germany or other parts who cannot be at the charge of having the Ten Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables Or doth Mr. D. mean the French Churches as many as have ability do set up the Commandments in Letters of Gold upon two great Tables If so I doubt he wronged his Conscience But let it be supposed that in all French Churches that are not very poor the Ten Commandments are set up in Letters of Gold what mean those words in some places they have also the Creed and the Lords Prayer in the same manner conformable to one of the constitutions of the Church of England Have the rich French Churches the Lords Prayer and Creed on two Tables and in Letters of Gold If they have not why is it said that they have the Creed and Lords Prayer in the same manner The Churches of France I am certain may be conformable enough to the constitution of the Church of England and yet not have either the Commandments in Two Tables or in Letters of Gold for all the constitution requires is but that the Ten Commandments be set upon the East-end of every Church and Chappel where the people may best see and read the same and other chosen sentences written upon the walls of the said Churches and Chappels in convenient places Here is no mention of two great Tables no mention of Letters of Gold no mention of Creed or Lords Prayer But why did Mr. D. trouble himself to bring in all or any of this Stuff Did Presbyterians ever deny the lawfulness or expedience of having either the Decalogue or Creed or Lords Prayer set upon conspicuous places in the Temple I know an eminent Nonconformist now living who was wont to rejoyce that the Painter had set the Lords Prayer just over against his Pulpit that if it had hapned he had been out he might by his eyes help himself Had the Creed been so placed it had been well for Mr. D. for they say that not long since he was horribly out in repeating the Articles of Faith after Sermon I shall conclude this Catalogue of Impertinencies with Mr. D's stories concerning reformed Churches that â—eep the very same Temples that were used in time of Popery pag. 28. so did the Presbyterians and Mr. Paget hath defended the lawfulness of using such places against the frivolous exceptions of Mr. Ainsworth and now let the world judge whether Mr. D. deserve not to be called and accounted Mr. Impertinent I must come to a third part of my task which will be perhaps necessary but is somewhat more unpleasing than any of the other viz. to muster up some of those Speeches of Mr. Durell which Countreymen call Wiskers you may call them by another name but will not know how to excuse except by the English Proverb that Travellers may by authority Pag. 8. Bellarmine was an eye-witness in his time much against his will of Oecolampadius his being called Bishop of the Church of Basil Oecolampadius on his Tomb in Basil is called Templi hujus verus Episcopus Bellarmine in his fourth Book De notis Eccle. cap. 8. saith That when he was at Basil he read him called on his Tomb the first Bishop of that City which is a Lye but then he also faith that he read this non sine risu if these words do not signifie much against his will where is Mr. D's veracity Pag. 13. All understanding men amongst the French say plainly That if God Almighty were pleased that all France should embrace the Reformed Religion as England hath the Episcopal Government must be established in their Churches Do all understanding men say this and say it plainly I shall manifest the contrary ere I have done and indeed have manifested it already Pag. 16. He dreads not to affirm That Smectymnuus and all Smectymnuans being bound most of them by their Oath to use set forms never use them S. M. T. Y. when Mr. D. Printed this were dead and so not bound by Oath to use set forms as for E. C. M. N. W. S. who were then alive how will it be proved that either they were bound by Oath to use set forms or that they never used them The Smectymnuans if by them he mean the Nonconformists and whom else can he mean were never the most of them by Oath bound to use set forms and yet sometimes some of them have used them yea did use them at that very time when Mr. D. was hammering out this Book Pag. 18. There is not one Minister in all France but hath made unto himself a set form which he useth always and no other What confidence is this hath he received Letters from every Minister in France or spoke with every Minister in France Hath he certain knowledg that every Minister made a form unto himself did never any use a form that he had learned from another did never any make to himself above one form I must needs doubt there is untruth in this till I see the thing proved under the hands of all Ministers in France Pag. 22. In Hungaria and Transilvania Ministers never go abroad without their long Cloak and Cassock just as here Here I am sure Ministers go abroad without long Cloak and Cassock and are by the Canons of the Church allowed so to do Si non caste tamen caute Page 26. speaking of the fratres Bohemi and the Moravians 'tis said that they have days for commemoration of the Blessed Virgin and of the Holy Apostles and other Saints and Martyrs as also one for the commemoration of all the Saints all which days they keep after the same manner that they are kept here in England
according to the Ecclesiastical constitutions and common use of the Church I suppose the Bohemians and Moravians were to have Sermons on Holy days are we bound to have any They are not appointed to fast the Eves of any Saints days but so are we they are not ordered on the Saints days to cease from the works of their callings but so are we and are punishable with severity enough if we do not Page 27. mention being made of the Helvetick confession and of the Holy days commended by it 't is said it was subscribed by the Kirk of Scotland 1566. The Ministers of that Church being then of a different judgment from what their successors have shewed of late years which is a most egregious falshood for the Kirk then discovered her dislike of the festivals appointed or commended in the Confession of Helvetia and so have the Ministers of late years so as they concur in judgment fully as to this matter and I believe in every thing else Page 28. Crosses have not been pulled down from the top of Churches unless in some popular tumults The Latin Apologist hath shewen the falsity of this Page 29. The fratres Bohemi have their 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 The manner of dedication of Churches is not here agreed upon in England nor is there any Law that requires dedications and some places we have that never were dedicated and the ceremonies used in dedication with us are such as are not used in Bohemia Page 30. At Basil and Breme they have their Fonts of stone and use them for the Baptism of Infants by which we see that they are not of the same judgment with the Directorians who find Popery and Superstition in the very placing of them All the Directory saith is that Baptism is to be administred in the face of the Congregation where the people may most conveniently hear and see and not in the places where Fonts in the time of Popery were unfitly and superstitiously placed Are the Fonts at Basil and Breme placed where the people cannot hear and see Are they placed unfitly as in times of Popery if they be I see not how they can justifie themselves if they be not how can we see that the Divines of Basil and Breme are of a different mind about the placing of Fonts from the Directorians Page 31. I know none that did ever so much as move the question in what place and which way the Communion table ought to stand so it be seated where the people may see and hear except the new Scotch and English Presbyterians Either his knowledg is very small or else he did write this against his knowledg and conscience Page 30. In all Reformed Churches men use to enter into the place of publick Worship with their Hats off If this be meant of such times in which the congregation is performing publick Worship the Presbyterians do so and are enjoyned by the Directory so to do but if it be meant of entring at all times and upon all occasions it is known to be an untruth to all that have been in Holland The Divines there would laugh to see any so superstitious as to pull off his Hat every time he hath occasion to go through one of their Temples Ibid. In France the women that are persons of quality unmask themselves and the devoutest sort both of men and women use to kneel and make a short Prayer for Gods blessing on the service they come to perform before they fit down yet the Directory though it pretendeth conformity with them prohibiteth these very things If the French Ladies unmask themselves to shew that they are not ashamed to be seen at Protestant Assemblies what Directorian is he that will blame them But if by so unmasking themselves they design to shew their beauty c. then there is something in the 1 Cor. 11. that they may do well to think of The Directory forbids not private Prayers for Gods blessing unless any come in when the service of God is begun and if the devouter sort of men and women in France are wont to fall on their knees when the congregation is singing c. the Directory pretends not conformity with them they may do well to consider that God is the God of Order and not of Confusion an ejaculation in such cases is as much as can be needful provided it be joyned with shame or trouble for coming so late Page 37. In the Churches of Poland and Lithuania and likewise in them of Transylvania and Hungaria the people useth alway to say the Prayers aloud after the Minister just as we do in the Church of England Such was also the use of the Churches of the Vnity of the fratres Bohemi Our people do not much use to say the Prayers after the Minister that is certain except the Clerk be the people and there are but few Prayers they are enjoyned to repeat after him the Lords prayer is appointed to be said not after but with him What the use of the fratres Bohemi was I do not well know nor hath Mr. D. directed me how I may inform my self But I have met with something in Bishop Amos Comaenius which I commend to the diligent consideration of Mr. D. and all others that are zealous in this matter it is in his Annotations on the Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisq c. Page 100. The Ritual Books the forms of performing the sacred Ministries which they call Agenda are not with us appended to the Catechetical Books so as to come into the hands of the Common people but being put forth by themselves are given only to the Pastors not privately in a corner but in the sight of the Church After the death of the Pastor the same Books are put into the hands of the Seniors Some one wil say what superstition is this Ans Let others have their liberty of judging I do not think things are so to be managed that nothing mystical to be rather adored by the people than proudly to be looked on and afterwards vilely esteemed should be left to the Priests Religion rejoyceth in veils And our chief Master himself was wont to speak some things to his disciples by themselves The Apostle when he commands Bishop Timothy to commit some things to faithful men who are apt to teach others 2 Tim. 2.2 doth he not intimate a certain difference betwixt these things that are given to all and those that are given to the Teachers of others Certainly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he useth signifieth to commit or concredit some thing singular And when we read it written of Christ that having read the sacred Text and laid aside his Book be began his speech so that all fixing their eyes on him admired the words that flowed from his mouth do we think these things happen otherwise to others viz.
next to white their locks were powdered with white powder their white Half-shirts were very visible to the great offence of some serious persons both in Countrey and University But let not Mr. D. rejoice because some Nonconformists did thus habit themselves for these Nonconformists were not Presbyterians but either inclined to ways of separation or else such as had newâ—y laid by their Canonical dress and were resolved no longer to be called black-coats Here therefore let me beseech all who would not be deceived in reading our Histories concerning the disorderly carriages of Ministers in the late times well to consider who they were that were so disorderly and if they find that any of them were of the old Nonconforming Presbyterians I am much mistaken if they find none were such how unreasonable is it to charge on Presbyterians the faults of such as returned to Conformity so soon as His Majesty required them and left not off to conform till they could not keep their Conformity and Livings too Too too long I have been in detecting falshoods had it not been necessary to try whether I could put Mr. D. to some shame I am now to shew you as briefly as I can in how many things he hath wronged his Munificent and Bountiful Mother of England P. 10. He takes pains to tell us of an Oath of Canonical obedience sworn by Ministers in Hungary to the Bishop and to the Seniors in the Oath he that swears acknowledgeth himself to receive his Ministry from both Bishop and Seniors These Seniors are but a more eminent sort of Presbyters as his quotation p. 11. intimates What is this but to bring in Hungary's witness against the sole power of Order and Jurisdiction of the English Bishops P. 12 13. He relates a tedious story of the fratres Bohemi and the care that they took to preserve a succession of Ministers They sent Michael Zambergius and two more to the poor Waldenses who never had a Bishop among them but in title only and two titular Bishops with some that had not so much as the title of Bishops made Zambergius and his two Collegues Bishops giving them power of Ordination This is manifestly to put a weapon into the Presbyterians hands they were wont only to quote the story of Pelagius the Pope being ordained by a Presbyter with two Bishops now Mr. D. hath afforded them another Story to prove that a Presbyter may lay hands on and ordain Bishops Is this his kindness to the Prelates Another prejudice and mischief he designes to the Church is as he tells us Page 14. To set forth a Collection of the several Liturgies of all the Protestant Churches This may please him because it is the brat of his own brain but will not sure please the Reverend Fathers of the Church Doth he not know that Archbishop Laud did put a stop to the Letters Patents for a Collection for the Palatinate because it was said in them that the Palatinate Religion and ours was the same and that Popery was an Antichristian yoke Doth he not also know that when a Book was Published here in England intituled a Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palsgraves Churches Archbishop Laud took a course to call it in I advise him if he love his preferments no more to meddle in this kind Had Dr. Peter du Moulin any thing bestowed on him since he answered Philanax Anglicus P. 45. He quotes Calvin saying that the custom of distributing the Sacrament but thrice a year is vitious and yet that is the custom of our Church and that not observed in all places neither for the generality communicate but once a year and so follow if Mr. D. be in the right the Devils invention P. 53. He saith by just and evident consequence that there is not a wise understanding Christian in our Church for these are his words That every national Church ought to have Vniformity within it self hath always been the judgment of all sober Christians I assume That every national Church should have Vniformity within it self hath not been the judgment of the Church of England I tremble for Mr. D's sake to infer the conclusion The Minor I prove from the Canons of 1640. where a difformity is allowed and the Apostolical rule commended to dissenters not to judge not to despise Follow him but to P. 93 and there you shall have him charging Rebellion and Schisme on the major part of his Conforming brethren For there he tells us of a great persecution against all Ministers who adhered to the King and Church of England during the late troubles this persecution was so gentle to some as only to plunder and turn them out of their livings but cast others out of the Land or forced them to a voluntary exile Thus therefore I argue All Ministers that adhered to the King and Church were either turned out of their livings or banished or left the Land The major part of the Conforming Ministers did neither lose their livings nor were banished nor went into voluntary exile Theâ—â—â—â—re the major part of the Conforming Ministers neither adhered to King nor Church and by just consequence were Traitors and Schismaticks The Minor is as clear as the Sun to all that observed the management of things in England he that Licensed Mr. D's Book had the same Fellowship in All Soules at his Majesties return that he had at the decollation of his Father P. 95. He tells us that he and some others were admitted to livings in France the Synod desiring them only to conform to their Rites Ceremonies and Orders for the time they should live amongst them for a Nonconformist Minister is a thing unknown and never suffered in those Churches This is nonsense to an English ear for the Church may be full of Nonconformists if men are admitted into livings being desired only and not enjoyned to conform to Rites and Ceremonies and Orders But he told us P. 54. All admitted to livings must subscribe to the confession of faith wherefore we may think he subscribed to the parity of Ministers and by an order passed at Charenton all are to swear they will propugne the Canons of the Synod of Dort if that order be not rescinded then 't is like he is under Oath to defend a Doctrine which most of the Fathers of this Church think if not against our own Doctrine yet subversive of the Doctrine according to Godliness P. 96. He saith that it is a principle common to all reformed Churches in the World That every national Church hath power to make Laws for her self in all such outward things as are not either expresly commanded or forbidden in the word of God God forbid that any such principle should be maintained by all or by any Reformed Church in the whole world There are many outward as well as inward things not commanded nor forbidden expresly but only by just and necessary consequence about which the Church hath no power to make
Laws to her self any more than about those things that are expresly either commanded or forbidden else there would be mad work in the World Where doth Mr. D. find family Prayer or infant Baptisme or the observation of the Lords days expresly either forbidden or commanded in Gods word He will say that the Church may make Laws about these I grant she may but no other than what she can make about things either commanded or forbidden expresly So that he wrongeth not only our own Church but all Reformed Churches in affixing such a principle to them Dr. Heylin ascribes to Calvin a quite contrary principle Hist of Presb. 238. That in carrying on the work of a Reformation there is not any thing to be exacted which is not warranted and required by the word of God that in such cases there is no Rule left for worldly wisdom for moderation and compliance but all things to be ordered as they are directed by his will revealed Page 241. He makes this Calvins rule and Martyrs judgment to be grounded on it That nothing should be acted in a Reformation which is not warranted expresly in the word of God Are East and West more opposite than Dr. H. and Mr. D. yet neither truly represents the opinion of the Reformed I beseech those who are at leisure and have well studied the point to state plainly and clearly unto us the due matter of Ecclesiastical Laws and to show us the meaning of the term indifferent so frequently made use of in this Controversy for it seemeth somewhat an uncouth assertion that Church governors may command all things that are usually called indifferent for then many of their Laws would be very contemptible The old definition of things Adiaphorous was that they were things neither commanded nor forbidden this definition seemed to me innocent enough but of late there are Divines sprung up that say the highest acts of love to God are not commanded neither I trow are they forbidden must we call them then things indifferent And hath the Church power to determine who shall put forth those Acts and how often they shall be put forth It may be Mr. D. thinks the highest acts of love are commanded and so do I but he had best not to be too forward in publishing that notion P. 99. He falls into an high commendation of the Bohemian Churches as he doth also in many other Pages of his Book this is little to the advantage of our Church for if that Church be to be imitated we must have lay Presbyters and lay Presbyteresses also Pastors of Parishes must confirm people must come under examination every time they receive the Sacrament we must have no dancings and we may have particular Synods without a Bishop if we communicate the acts thereof presently to the absent Bishops and we must have none brought into Communion but those who are willing and yet we here can by censures if we please make Papists communicate with us or else have them excommunicated and clapt into Prison P. 107. He gives the Presbyterians lame Cause a cruth For he saith God only hath power to bind the Conscience immediately ask him when mens Consciences are bound immediately he tells you when humane Laws and Constitutions are thrust upon men as if they were Divine Here will the Presbyterian say Episcopacy which is but an humane institution is thrust on us as Divine and not only as good and profitable therefore unless we will give men jurisdiction over our consciences we cannot conform Mr. D. cannot bring himself off here but by maintaining that Episcopacy is a Divine institution and it would be too great impudence to say that in so saying he should not contradict every reformed Church almost besides our own P. 118. He mentions the sending of a Printed Copy of the Acts of the Synod of Dort to King James Prince Charles Archbishop of Canterbury by Festus Hommius this is to rub a sore place and to tell the World that we who now suffer our Divines and Students to bespatter that Synod did once well approve of its decisions P. 126. He mentions a Letter of Monsieur le Moine out of which he saith he will set down as much as fits his present design what doth he set down Why Page 136. That the English have a natural fierceness and withal a natural inclination to superstition Is this for Mr. Durells design to blaft the people of that nation where he hath been so highly preferred Are we indeed fierce and superstitious Naturally fierce and naturally Superstitious What kind of superstition is it to which we are so naturally inclined that so we may know how to enquire after the cure of so dangerous a disease It is no matter if we may believe Mr. Moine to enquire further let but Episcopal Authority be established that will keep us from going beyond our bounds Very good but by whom shall this Episcopal Authority be managed By English men I hope but how then can we be assured that their natural fierceness and inclination to superstition will not remain in them We never could observe that a mans being constituted a Bishop did make him less fierce or superstitious any more than less an English man Perhaps this Learned Predicant would have all our Divines come and study in France that they may lose their disease of superstition as sometimes they do their Consumptions in so refined an Air but that Plot will not take He hath another argument for Episcopacy it cannot enter into a rational mans imagination that a great Kingdom should come by custom to be content to see its Bishops no more having honoured and reverenced them for the space of 1400 Years If this be so then may the Bishops be secure we are so accustomed to love them that we cannot be content to be without them and have been a great Kingdom and honoured and reverenced them 1400 Years Where may we that live in England find these things recorded concerning our selves for the Histories we read usually do not make us a great Kingdom but many petty Kingdoms 1400 Years ago If ever any made their ungratefulness notorious certainly they are the English opposers of Episcopacy who will not consider that they owe their Reformation to the care and zeal of their Bishops who did so wonderfully well repurge the Church of England an hundred years ago and so happily set up the holy truth again in its genuine lustre But this is not all they owe unto them they owe them also their Christianity For whether it was brought over into England by Joseph of Arimathea or by Simon Cannaeus or by St. Paul or by St. Peter or by Luke disciple of Philip or by Phaganus and Perusianus in the time of King Lucius it is constant that it was done by the Ministry of Bishops and that they are endebted to their charity zeal and abilities for the holy Reformation they now enjoy Do we indeed owe our late Reformation from Popery
Arch-Deacons and such as were chosen by the respective Chapters of each Cathedral it might then be a Representation of the Cathedral Ministers but not of the Ministry of England and that I make good by two Parallels The first shall be betwixt our Convocation and the Council of Trent many sober and moderate Papists accused this to be a pack'd Assembly a Representation of not the Catholick Church but the Court of Rome because the greatest part of it were of the Popes Faction and depended wholly upon him So the major part of our Convocations were of the Bishops Faction and minded chiefly the interest of Cathedrals and therefore were not a Representative of all the Ministers in England I shall exemplifie this by instancing in the Diocess of Bathe and Wells wherein I lived In this there were Members of the lower house of Convocation one Dean three Arch-Deacons and one chosen by the Chapter of Wells and to ballance these there were but two Clarks chosen by the Ministry of the whole Diocess Now what impartial man but will determine that these seven could be no due representation of the Ministers of the Diocess of Bathe and Wells as long as five of them were Members of the Cathedral in whose Election the Ministers of the Diocess had no hand at all A second parallel shall be betwixt our Convocation and a civil Assembly wherein we will suppose that the Prince chuseth three hundred who are his Courtiers or else such as have their dependance either wholly or in great part upon him and the Nation chuse only a hundred you may call this Assembly a Parliament or what you will but surely no rational man can think it to be a representation of the Nation and as irrational were it to call the Convocation a representation of the Ministers of England seeing those chosen by the Ministers were an inconsiderable part of the Convocation Mr. D. belongeth to a Cathedral nay as report goes to several Cathedrals and therefore he had done but a piece of gratitude to vindicate the Church from the Arguments of a backslider from Conformity Well let him mean what he will by his Holy Church of England we are told that he himself is Presbyter of this Holy Church of England and that is a strange and very unusual phrase Dr. Hammond who deserved well of the Hierarchy in his Title page of his Dissertations calls himself Presbyterum Anglicanum and yet he was born in England and ordained in England and by an English Bishop John Durell was born in Jersey ordained in France and by a Scotish Bishop and yet he calls himself Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyterum I doubt if things were throughly searched into he would appear to be no English Presbyter for we admit no Presbyters but those who are canonically ordained i. e. by a Bishop you 'l say Mr. D. was ordained by a Bishop and he tells you the name of the Bishop and his title I know he doth but I ask who made him a Bishop and a Presbyter I much fear we shall find him one that was never ordained Presbyter but by Presbyters or by those who had been themselves created Presbyters by meer Presbyters though consecrated in England by Bishops and if so then vitium primae concoctionis non corrigitur in secundá aut tertiâ Let him well consider this and if occasion be get himself re-ordained by some Bishop of English Blood and Ordination else any one who envies him his preferments may chance to pick a hole in his coat If he know not the Pedigree of the Scotish Bishops it is in brief thus In the year 1610 King James sent for Mr. John Spotswood Mr. Gawen Hamilton Mr. Andrew Lamb into England that an Episcopal Character might be imprinted on them to that end he issued out a Commission under the great Seal of England to the Bishops of London Ely Wells and Rochester requiring them to proceed to the Consecration of three Scotch-men designed to be Bishops which Consecration they did perform accordingly Octob. 2◠1610. But Bishop Andrews moved a scruple how the persons to be consecrated were capable of Episcopal Consecration seeing none of them had been formerly ordained Priests Dr. Heylin tells us Hist of Pres p. 387. The scruple was removed by Archbishop Bancrost alledging that there was no such necessity of receiving Priesthood but that Episcopal Consecrations might be given without it but he neither tells us the Objection nor Answer aright the Objection was That the three Scots could not be consecrated Bishops because they had never been made Presbyters but by Presbyters to which Bancroft replyed That the Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters was valid But our present Bishops are not of the same mind and therefore before they would consecrate Mr. James Sharp they first ordained him Deacon then Priest and this they did not out of a pike or spleen against the man but from judgement conceiving he would not ordain others legitimè unless he were so ordained such as are by him ordained are capable regularly of preferment among us but so are not any of the former brood of men that were ordained by Scotch Bishops This discourse is only designed to keep Mr. D. from despising the Presbyterians too much to which he would be tempted if he should conceive himself to stand on a basis as firm as some of his fellow Prebends I advise him also not to be too forward to publish to the world how he hath let the Ministers of forreign Churches Preach in his Church at the Savoy for doubtless it is against the Act of Uniformity to let them Preach though but occasionally in that Church unless they have been ordained by some Bishops because that Church at the Savoy hath submitted to the Bishop of London as Pastor and so hath not the immunities that other French Churches may claim and do claim As to the Book it self common fame spreads abroad that an Answer in Latin is preparing for it We must expect and see what kind of thing it will be for we may well conceive it will discover Mr. D. to be John Lack-truth John Lack-modesty Certain I am there be School-boys in England that can discover him to be no familiar of Priscian we lay-men can manifest that he had no regard to truth and for modesty he doth all-along bid defiance to it The Reverend Gisbert Voet Professor of Vtrecht of eminent learning and piety the only surviving member of the Synod of Dort is with him but a pitiful fellow He dares venture to censure Thomas Gataker than whom England scarce ever had either a more exact Critick or accomplished Divine Nay that you may see his pride to the full he was not ashamed to tell an Honourable person of this Nation that one reason which moved him to fall upon Mr. Baxter was because the Latin Apologist for the Nonconformists had represented him as no equal match for Mr. Baxter Could you think it possible that Mr. D. should conceit
most of the Fathers put together they are not much to be blamed But I must needs say that Presbyterians is now become a term that I understand not every Nonconformist who is not Congregational is in some mens mouths a Presbyterian though he never declared any dislike of Episcopacy yea though he vehemently protest that his judgment is for Episcopacy even for all and every part of Primitive Episcopacy In Dr. Heylins late History of Presbyterians a Presbyterian is sometimes one that would have the Lords day observed as a Sabbath one that thinks election and non election to be absolute and if a Presbyterian be such a one sure it would be no difficult task to prove that there were such men in the world long before Culvins name was ever heard of With other mâ—n a Presbyterian is the same with the old Non conformist and against such a Presbyterian it is that Mr. Scrivener seems to have laid his action but besides that he hath laid his Action coram non Judice I think that when the merits of the cause come to be examined he will quickly be non-suited For it will be impossible for him to prove either that such a Presbyterian is a Schismatick or that if he be a Schismatick his Schism is novel The old Non-conformist was one that could not think a Bishop to be by Divine institution an Officer of a superior Order to a Presbyter sole power of Jurisdiction and Ordination was the block he could never get over In matter of worship he could not satisfie himself to practise the Ceremonies retained and prescribed in the Church of England That the Ministers ordained in England were not true Ministers or that they might not be submitted to as such he never thought He could and did give and receive the Sacrament only sometimes he both Preached and Administred the Sacrament in private to such as were of his own opinion and perswasion If every such man must be accounted an Arian and a Schismatick he may comfort himself in this that he hath many among the Ancients who if they had lived in these days must needs have been called by the same name If such a one decline tryal by the Fathers it is only because he hath not had the good hap to read the Fathers or because he foresees the tryal will be too tedious and chargeable and might sooner be ended if only Scripture were made the Rule Mr. Scrivener is not sure such a stranger in our Israel as not to know how hard the Diocesans are put to it when the Fathers are brought against them He can tell no doubt who they be that are wont to call St. Hierom a discontented Presbyter and St. Cyprian a Popular Bishop He knows who they be that have undertaken to ruine Diocesan Episcopacy by Clement and Ignatius And it is possible he hath heard of those who did undertake to overthrow our English Hierarchy by Dr. Hammonds dissertations for Episcopacy He knows that when two were appointed to dispute against Dr. Preston in the five points the Dr. presently divided and set them at variance betwixt themselves and cannot chuse but think it very easie for the present Non-conformists if they were brought to a conference with the Prelatical to make them do execution one upon another To deal a little more closely with Mr. Scrivener he hath in the name of the Church of England and his own laid an action against a Novel Schism If the Non-conformists upon summons made shall think meet to appear to this Action doubtless they will plead not guilty they will not confess themselves guilty of causing any new schism but will averr that they proceed upon the same Principles that were laid down by the great instruments of our reformation here in England It will be replied that they oppugne Bishops they will rejoyn in the words of Dr. Stilling fleet Iren. p. 385. That they doubt not to make it evident that the main ground for setling Episcopal Government in this Nation was not accounted any pretence of Divine right but the convenience of that form of Church government to the state and condition of this Church at the time of its Reformation and that they for their parts were never asked whether Episcopal government was suitable to the condition of this Church when it was at first reformed but whether it be founded on Divine Right Now to answer them here the words of the declaration they are to make must be scanned and the particulars of those Books they are to assent and consent to must be searched if from them it do appear that he who doth without quillets declare assent and consent must receive Bishops as an higher order of Officers than Presbyters and that by Christs institution how will they be found guilty of Novellism or Schism unless Wickliff and Cranmer c. be found guilty also But perhaps it will go harder with them in the matter of Ceremonies Really it will and if for these they separate from the Church I am content they be cast for certainly it is against the whole rule of charity and humility to break off communion in all Ordinances because some one Ordinance is administred with some such ceremony as I account inexpedient or unlawful If any Church make the approving of the expedience or lawfulness of that Ceremony a necessary condition of my holding communion with her then she and not I causeth the Schism But to speak to the matter in issue The present Non-conformists are not the first that scrupled the use of the English Ceremonies Sundry of those who were martyred in Queen Maries days would never be brought to use them most of those who then fled into forreign parts both in their exile and at their return either durst not or did not care to use them Some of them for Non-conformity refused preferment some were turned out of that they had some took up with very small preferment where no eye could envy them I have sometimes thought upon it who they were that in Queen Eliz. Reign did the Church most service in disputing and writing against the Papists and I find them to have been such as either did not conform or conformed heavily and by halves I have heard it censured as an error in policy for a Court not to regard those in a time of peace whom they were forced to make use of in a time of war Let Mr. Scrivener consider whether the Conformists have strength and number sufficient to look the Papists and other adversaries in the face unless they take in the Non-conformists if they have not is it prudence to be at odds with those that must joyn with them in the day of Battel If he say they have number and strength enough let him then consider whether it may not be that some of them will prove false and treacherous or at least make a dishonourable peace I could here shew that sundry of them who most rigorously pressed conformity in Q.
and discipline but only the Bishops and five Deans why neither the Dean of Christ-Church nor the Dean of VVorcester nor the Dean of Windsor were admitted nor yet Dr. Field nor Dr. King I find no reason assigned nor will I guess at so great a distance what might be the reason but why none of the Plaintiffs as they are called were admitted His Majesty gave this reason That the Bishops might not be confronted by the contrary opponents and that if any thing should be found meet to be redressed it might be done without any visible alteration I suppose King James thought the things he mentioned in that days Conference were too too liable to exception and was resolved to take course with his Bishops and their adherents to have some little amendment that if they should happen to be mentioned in the next days designed Conference they might answer they had already considered them and would have no more done or said about them The particulars of that Cabal-Conference are said to be touching the Common-prayer-book Excommunication providing of fit and able Ministers for Ireland How the providing of fit and able Ministers for Ireland could be proper for this days Conference I understand not Dr. Barlow saith p. 9. it was referred to a consultation if so and that consultation produced any good effect all good Christians are to rejoyce for doubtless that Nation then wanted Ministers But the Millenary Petition pretended to be the occasion of this Conference toucheth not upon Ireland if any thing was meet to be done about that Church in this Conference reason rather required that the Council for Ireland and the Irish Bishops should have been summoned to debate and conclude concerning that affair Perhaps the Doctor mistook Ireland for England or was willing to have us believe that there was no want of a Learned Ministry here in England but we shall hear more of this in the second days Conference As to the Common-prayer Book the King desired satisfaction about Confirmation Absolution Private Baptism Confirmation we shall find mentioned in the second days conference and thither I refer my considerations concerning it Absolution His Majesty said he had heard likened to the Popes Pardons If any one had informed His Majesty that Absolution as used or at least as prescribed in the Church of England had any thing in it resembling the abominable pardons of the Pope I know not how he can be excused from bearing false witness against the Liturgy The Millenarian Petitioners only pray that the term Absolution might be corrected which His Majesty was willing to gratifie them in appointing Absolution to be explained by remission of sins There is that I know no real difference betwixt those that are called Presbyterians and Episcopal Divines about Absolution Both allow a general Absolution and a particular Absolution Dr. Heylin chargeth Bp. Vsher with utterly subverting as well the Doctrine of the English Church as her purpose in absolution but from that charge the Primate is acquitted by his Chaplain Dr. Bernard Baptism King James thought was not to be administred by private persons in any case whatsoever and therefore propounded it to the Bishops that the words in the Book purporting a permission and suffering of women and private persons to baptize might be altered And here it is pretty or rather sad to observe how the Prelates contradicted one another Whitgift said The administration of Baptism by women or private persons was not allowed in the practice of our Church but enquired of by Bishops in their Visitation and censured and that the words in the Book did not infer any such meaning as that they were permitted to Baptise But the words of the Book being pressed by His Majesty Bp. Babington confessed that the words were doubtful and might be pressed to such a meaning but yet it seemed by the contrary practice of the Church censuring women in this case that the Compilers of the Book did not so intend them and yet propounded them ambiguously because otherwise perhaps the Book would not then have passed in Parliament But on the contrary Bp. Bancroft for his part declared That the Compilers of the Book of Common Prayer intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any but did indeed by those words intend a permission of private persons to Baptize in case of necessity as appeared by their letters some parts whereof he read declaring that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church urging to that purpose Acts 2. where Three thousand were baptized in one day a thing which could not possibly at least probably be done by the Apostles alone and besides the Apostles there were then no Bishops nor Priests He also alledged Tertullian and Ambrose plain in that point The Bishop of Winchester also spake learnedly and earnestly to the same purpose affirming that the denying of private persons to baptize in case of necessity were to cross all antiquity and that it was a rule agreed upon among Divines That the Minister is not of the essence of the sacrament But King James persisting in his opinion to have the alteration made saith the Relator pag. 19. it was not so much stuck at by the Bishops it seems that to please His Majesty they did not much stick to have all antiquity crossed and a Rule among Divines over-ruled Had the Presbyterians in a point of so great moment shewed themselves so facile what a noise would have been made But seeing the alteration is made and Baptism restrained to Ministers we may now without offence I hope enquire what is to be said in this controversie and whether other Churches do well to allow that which we see not meet to allow And first I would know whether Christ the confessed institutor of Baptism hath any where commanded lay-persons in the absence of those to whom the word of reconciliation is committed to administer Baptism if he have not then their not administring it can be no sin because no transgression of a Law And how can we think that the party who dies unbaptized shall fare the worse for not having received that which no one was bound to give him If it be said he hath laid commandment on lay-persons where a Minister cannot be had to Baptize I desire to see where that command is recorded 2. I demand whether a lay-person male or female do sin in Baptizing If so no power on earth can authorize him or her to Baptize If it be said there is no sin in the case then again I demand where is the permission of Christ granted to him or her for certainly that must needs be sin which is not allowed by Christ the author of the Sacrament 3. How can we in faith expect that any lay-person should convey rem Sacramenti that is be the Minister of Sacramental grace Is it any where revealed in Scripture that he doth any more than the outward act which of it self availeth nothing if it be not why might we
Baptism the last if his Translators have not abused him was scarce sound in any thing But the Cross was used in Constantine's times and why may it not now be used shall we accuse Constantine of Popery and Superstition Thus is the King said to have argued in the Conference and by his argument he gave us to understand that he liked not that any one should charge Constantine with Popery or Superstition I therefore will lay neither to his charge but yet his purpose not to be baptized till he might be baptized in the same River where Christ was baptized viz. Jordan if it did not proceed from superstition proceeded from a very odd humour God crossed him in that his design and put him under a necessity either to receive Baptism in another place than Jordan or not to receive it at all In this I follow Ensebius for whom should I rather follow than him who so well knew Constantine and hath transmitted his History to posterity If any man incline to those who would have Constantine baptized many years before at Rome I leave him to Scultetus in his Medulla who defends Eusebius against Baronius Mr. Knewstubb's second question was supposing the Church had power to add significant ceremonies whether she might there add them where Christ had already ordained one Which he supposed was no less derogatory to Christs Institution than if any Potentate of the Land should presume to add his Seal to the Great Seal of England To this Dr. Barlow saith p. 70. the King answered That the case was not alike for that no sign or thing was added to the Sacrament which was fully and perfectly finished before any mention of the Cross is made I dare not think this was King James his answer for it is only fitted and suted to our own Church as then it was ordered and still continues In the first Book of King Edward crossing was appointed before Baptism could be pretended to be perfected or indeed begun which was also the usage of the ancient Churches 2. I conceive the presumption of any subject would be great if he should add his own seal to confirm or signifie any thing that the King 's Great Seal was appointed to confirm and signifie though the Great Seal had been set before he set his Seal 3. Methinks the argument stands still in its full force If applying of water to a believer in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost do signifie all that the Cross signifies to what end is the Cross used The child that is baptized with us is obliged by Baptism obediently to keep Gods holy will and commandments and walk in the same all the days of his life what can the Cross oblige him to more Is not confessing the saith of Christ crucified one of Gods commandments I know a learned man hath replied that constancy is not distinctly signified in being baptized as it is in being crossed But I ask Is it any benefit to a man to have some ceremony used that doth more distinctly mind him of his constancy than Baptism did If it be none then such a ceremony is needless if it be some benefit how came it to pass that no Apostle ever used any such ceremony and why do we not excogitate other ceremonies to admonish us as distinctly of other duties Mr. Knewstubbes third question was In case the Church had power to institute such a sign how far such an Ordinance was to bind them without impeaching their Christian liberty The King charged him never more to speak to that point And therefore I will not speak to it at all but must needs say it was an odd question if it were so propounded as the Relator hath worded it Dr. Reynolds is again brought on the stage p. 71. objecting the example of the Brazen Serpent stampt to powder because the people abused it to Idolatry wishing the Cross because superstitiously abused might be abandoned also To this the King is made to say 1. If it were abused to Superstition in the time of Popery that plainly implies that it was well used before Popery As if nothing had been abused by the Papists in Divine Worship but what had been once well used 2. That there is no resemblance between the Brazen Serpent a material visible thing and the sign of the Cross made in the air As if a thing made in the air might not be abused to superstition as well as a material visible thing 3. That the Papists themselves did never ascribe any power or spiritual grace to the sign of the Cross in Baptism Whether they did or no their Writings will best testifie 4. The material Crosses which in time of Popery were made for men to fall down before them to worship are removed as they desired Whereas most present at the Conference knew that in many places they were not removed The next thing objected was the wearing of a Surplice a kind of Garment which the Priests of Isis used to wear To which His Majesty answered inter alia That if Heathens were commorant among us so as they might take occasion to be strengthned or confirmed in Paganism then there were just cause to suppress the wearing of it A notable answer and which the Nonconformists may do well to treasure up as like to stand them in good stead in these controversies With my body I thee worship is an old and odd phrase and if it may not be altered it must be explained and then Mumpsimus may do as well as Sumpsimus The Ring in Marriage Dr. Reynolds approved and the corner'd cap. Committing of Ecclesiastical censures unto Lay-chancellors the King promised to take order to reform p. 78. And Archbishop Grindal's prophesyings it is like enough His Majesty would not have disliked if he had not misunderstood the design of them And now I would fain know whether what the Bishops got by this Conference may not be put in a mans eye and he never see the worse Dr. Reynolds got a great deal by it viz. a new Translation of the Bible such an explication of the use of the Cross as if the story be true he did acquiesce in a large addition concerning the Sacraments in the Church-catechism c. so that Dr. Heylin in his History of Presbyterians quarrels with King James for giving any way to the Conference There is but one thing more I will concern my self to take notice of in Mr. Scrivener's Action against the New Schism he desires to have one place in which Presbyter signifies a Lay-man Though I think I could satisfie his desire in this yet I find not my self on any account obliged so to do for the English Nonconformists are not over-fond of Ruling-Elders those Churches that retain such Officers will not acknowledg them to be lay-men nor indeed have they any reason to acknowledg them to be such For why should Church-officers chosen by the Church and commended to the grace of God by prayer be called laicks because they labour at some employment to keep themselves from being chargeable to the congregation why then the Apostle Paul was for some part of his time a Laick for he laboured And in later times I could instance in men that for their Learning and Piety deserved to be Metropolitans who yet were fain to preach and work It were to be wished that many in England to whom the care of souls is committed were permitted and enjoyned to follow some calling in the week-days for by that means they would be less scandalous than now they are Why should men that know not what it is to study be forbidden to dig Are they Laicks because they do not preach Many we have in England who would think scorn to be termed Laicks that never did preach never had licence to preach Are they Laicks because they are not ordained by laying on of hands It will be hard to prove that that ceremony is essential to make a man a Church-officer But yet Mr. Scrivener hath good leave to fall upon these Ruling-Elders to bring them into any Court by a Quo VVarranto and if he do chance to cast them there be but few Nonconformists that will be at cost to bring the business to a new Trial. These Elders in some places are made the more pert because of the multiplicity and variety of answers that the Prelatical give to those places of Scripture on which their divine institution is pretended to be built It would tire an ordinary patience to reckon up the various expositions that are given of 1 Tim. 5.17 Scultetus censures the answers given by Bilson another condemns the answer given by Scultetus others confute all the answers given by Mr. Mede Among all that have written against Elders whether unlearned or learned I have not met with any that have satisfied me yet I can satisfie my self about this place For those Churches that argue heartily for these Elders do argue from the general word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two participles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two articles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the two species or kinds of Elders from the two participles two articles two special Elders divided and separated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the discretive particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Scrivener face this argument with some of the old answers and see what will come on it And let him take heed how he strikes at these Lay-Elders as he will call them lest he wounds those among us known by the name of Lay-chancellors In the mean time I beseech him to commune with his own heart and to consider with what spirit he writ his books against Daillee and the English Nonconformists by so doing he will be brought I doubt not to take shame unto himself and so prevent the far greater shame of having his railings and calumnies laid open by others Quod erat exorandum FINIS