Chapters ia both that are never agpointed to be read Whether the Church do well to appoint above an hundred of Apocryphal Chapters to be read and about an hundred eighty eight Canonical Chapters never to be read is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 certainly he that would adventure in a Sermon to say de facto That the Church had appointed the whole Bible to be read over once a year had taught his tongue not much to regard Truth So had he also who adventured to say pag. 23. That it is required of the people that they repeat aloud the Confession of sins No such thing is required of the people rather it is required that they should repeat the Confession of sins with a lowly and submiss voice Should all lift up their voyces aloud there might be more confusion then Mr. D. is aware of But though I am confident Mr. D. is mistaken about the two last mentioned particulars yet I must profess I am not clear about the Churches meaning in either of them After order taken for the reading of the Psalms we are thus directed Then shall be read distinctly with an audible voice the first Lesson taken out of the Old Testament as is appointed in the Kalendar except c. Any man by this would think that the first Lesson were alway by the Kalendar appointed to be taken out of the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament yet the Kalendar appoints many Apocryphal Chapters to be read for the first Lesson Is Apocrypha become a part of the Old Testament I know our Church had no intention to make it so yet the Phrase used by her in a Complex Notion sounds as if she did I suppose therefore she calls all Books preceding the New Testament whether Canonical or Apocryphal by the name of the Old Testament If this supposition hold than the admonition to all Ministers Ecclesiastical prefixed to the Second Book of Homilies will warrant them to change all the Chapters Apocryphal that shall fall in course to be read on every Sunday or Holiday into a Chapter of the New Testament for in that Admonition such Liberty is granted or rather such course is prescribed in reference to the less edifying Chapters of the Old Testament But perhaps by assenting and consenting to all and any thing Ministers have given away their liberty to make any such exchange Let those whom it concerns consider Where I live I have little opportunity to hear Apocrypha read publickly and if in my Family I make choice of Divinely inspired Writings to read I hope I am no transgressour of the Law Nor really do I know what is meant in our Liturgy by a loud voice In the old Common Prayer Book after the absolution the Minister was appointed to begin the Lords Prayer with a loud voice In the new loud is changed into audible and we are also required at that time to repeat it after the Minister which was not required in the old But now coming to look upon our directions for the rehearsing of the Lords Prayer after the repeating of the Creed I find that not only the Minister but Clerks and people are appointed to say it with a loud voice I cannot think the phrase is meerly varied by Chance nor yet do I see the Reason of the variation nor do I observe any either Priests or people thus to vary by straining their voice higher at one time than another Perhaps our last Amenders of the Liturgy did put audible instead of loud in some places that we might know that voice was loud enough on the Ministers part which the people could hear but what shall be called either an audible or loud voice on the peoples part Are those people that kneel at one end of the Church to speak so loud as they may be heard of those who kneel at the other end or loud enough to be heard of the Minister or only loud enough to be heard of those who are next to them Mr. D. hath had many occasions and opportunities to assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed and therefore is ignorant of none of these things Let him be him be intreated to help us poor Ingrams for our Countrey Priests are as unable to untie these knots as our selves All this I have written not out of any dislike to those who put out their Books in the defence of the English Liturgy for I should be right glad of the pains of any who would justifie it against all the Objections with which it is pressed provided he would do it like a Scholar and like a Christian grounding whatever he writes upon such Reasons as are apt to move those who have Consciences and do remember that God will bring them to a strict account for all that they do in his Worship but Mr. D. evidently is no meet person to make our Churches defence for he has been so highly rewarded is so overwhelmed with Ecclesiastical Preferments and Dignities that the World will hardly think any thing put him upon writing besides filthy lucre If he would have done our Church service be should have contented himself with some one Ecclesiastical Preferment spending himself in that going to his people from house to house perswading them to credit the Liturgy by excelling all those in Virtue that used no Liturgy he should have conjur'd them to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts and to use their best wisdom so to order their affairs as that they might have leisure to come Morning and Evening every day and receive the benefit of their Churches Liturgy but as the Apostle said That they who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law so we say that they who have assented and consented do not observe the Orders and Rules to which they have given assent and consent nor yield that Obedience which they have sworn to yield How few be they that Catechise half an hour every Sunday and Holiday How few be they that have called and advertised notorious evil-livers not to approach the Lords Table until they have truly repented and amended their naughty lives How many have subscribed the Articles who never so much as read the Homilies that by the Articles they are to approve I once happened into the Company of the Rectour of a Parish who signifying to me that he had lately been with the Bishop to receive Orders from him I asked what things were required of him in order to Ordination He told me among other things he had subscribed the three Articles in the 36 Canon but when I demanded of him what those Articles were he confessed he knew not what they were nor had he ever seen them but followed his Leader and not long since one had confidence enough to come to a Reverend Minister of my acquaintance with a purpose to perswade him to Conformity but my Friend arguing for his Non-conformity from a very plain passage in the Liturgy he denied that there was any such passage
BONASVS VAPVLANS OR Some Castigations given to Mr. John Durell for fouling himself and others in his English and Latin Book By a Country Scholar LONDON Printed in the Year 1672. ERRATA Page 3. l. 25. r. reproved p. 12. l. 15. r. bear p. 13. l. 16. r. hasp 16 l. 7. r. whether p. 21. l. 18. r. nor should have p. 26. l. 26. r. Phrases In on s p. 28. l. 21. r. Salmurienses p. 30. l. 17. r. operous p. 39 l. 25. 41. l. 10. r. Nonconformist p. 44. l. 22. r. That l. ult r. there is p. 49. l. antepen r. the more p. 53 l. 11. 〈◊〉 Tithes p. 59. l. ult r. bring us p. 63. l. 25. r. there called p. 64. l 26. r. world p 72. l. 21. r. was l. 25. r. Aquila p 79. l. 1. r. of such l. 9. r. strongly l. 17. r. Episcopacy p. 94. l. 26. r. Consecration though p. 114. l. 7. r. there p. 119. l. 3. r. all p 128. l. 3. r. in p. 136. l. 20. r. Ecclesiae p. 138. l. 20. r. down and p. 145. l. 13. r. will find p. ult l. 10. r. in the behalf of l. 11. r. done you will SIR I â—â—ve of late so wholly addicted my self to practical Theology and taken so huge a pleasure in reading those Authors that never espoused the petty interest of the Times that next to wishing for Mr. Durell's sake his Eristical volume had never been written I wish for my own sake you had never sent it me or at least sent it me under such circumstances that I might have laid it down assoon as it had given me enough of it i. e. as soon as I had read the Title page Certainly if you had left me to pay the Stationer for it if I had not returned it it should only have stood in my Library to encrease the number of my Books nor should I have ever taken it down unless when I take down Bonarscius his Amphitheatrum i. e. when I have a mind to discover unto my self or others unto what a height of bitterness corrupt nature not restrained by Grace will transport men even in controversies relating to Religion which of all others require to be managed with exemplary moderation and meekness but seeing you have thought meet to be so bountiful as to bestow a Book on me which must needs cost you sundry shillings and seeing you have desired of me for a requital of your cost and charges to throw away some time upon it I should be extreamly uncivil and unthankful if I should not bestow a few hours in reading of it or so much of it as may be sufficient to pass a judgement upon the whole the which yet I cannot so well do until I have first given my censure of that English Treatise printed 1662 the answering whereof in a Latin Apology for the Nonconformists has produced these voluminous Vindiciae and of that Treatise my censure in brief is this that a Noncomformist cannot better secure himself against it then by standing at the mark at the which its Author pretends to shoot all his Arrows The controversies betwixt Conformists and Non-Conformists being brought to their true State it will appear that Mr. Durell either never knew them or was afraid to come near them To instance in a few particulars of many Several hundreds of Ministers during the late distractions were ordained by meer Presbyters they only having courage enough to confer orders publickly and solemnly with Fasting Prayer and imposition of hands None of these would the Bishops admit to Ecclesiastical employment unless they would submit to be re-ordained with and by that very form of Ordination which is used for the Translating of Laicks into the state of Clergymen Here two Questions arise first Whether a valid Ordination may be repeated and that the far greater part as well of Conformists as Non-Conformists deny the second therefore and only remaining Question is Whether an Ordination by meer Presbyters be valid if it be not we nullifie the most famous Churches beyond the Seas whom God has so remarkably owned and supported amid all the troubles and persecutions of their Popish Adversaries if it be valid then by the judgement even of the very Conformists no other Ordination can be received Mr. Durell was unwilling to annihilate those Churches in which he was baptized and yet was as unwilling to justifie the English Presbyterians in not submitting to Re-ordination and therefore wisely passed over these Questions in silence but being by the Latin Apologist reprove for omitting so Capital a controversie he grows more hardy and adventures to affirm the Case of the Presbyterians beyond the Sea and those in England is not the same because among them there are no Bishops as among ours there were and so they are defended by necessity which ours cannnot plead How much better had it been to have left this sore naked and exposed to the Eyes of all than to have used a Plaister that can neither Cure nor cover it Is the Case of Transmarine and English Presbyterians so vastly different Why is the same hard measure meeted out to both How comes it to pass that if a man ordained at Rome could obtain leave of himself to assent and consent he were capable of the highest Ecclesiastical dignities but if a man were ordained at Geneva the most unfeigned assent and consent will not qualify him for Ecclesiastical dignities unless he will also receive new Orders Was it so from the beginning either of our first or second Reformations were any of those that either in the persecutions of King Henry the eight or Queen Mary fled beyond the Seas and received orders in reformed Churches looked upon at their return as meer Lay-men our Histories tell us they were not nor would the right Reverend and Learned Bishop Morton so far scandalize the Neighbour Churches as to re-ordain one of their Ministers though strongly importuned so to do by a Letter of the dissembling Archbishop of Spalato Nor could Bishop Báncroft be induced to give way that the Scotch Divines should first be made Priests before they were Bishops although it was alleadged that they had never been made Priests but by Presbyters So as this custom of Presbyterifying de novo those that before had received the gift of Presbytery must needs be an innovation here in England of the which I wish I could give a more fair and plausible account unto Forreigners then for the present I am able For it would greatly dishearten those renowned Ministers abroad who live under a King of a different Religion from them to come over to our Nation for a Sanctuary if they must when come hither break the Seal that God hath set to their Ministry before they be admitted to any cure of Souls 2. I say this pretended difference is no difference at all for what though there were Bishops in England yet did they not appear to magnifie their offices And it hath been wont
John Rogers a very rigid Nonconformist did greatly animate Bishop Ridly as he himself acknowledges I please not my self in these comparisons should not have made them had not Mr. Durell's pen dropt somwhat a foul blot upon the name of Bishop Hooper's friend Peter Martyr whom he will needs represent to be so simple as to scruple the Cap because of its Mathematicalness But he was too wise to scruple the Cap on any such account And hath better deserved of the English Church than that he should so many years after his death be so flouted at as also Bishop Hooper should have had more reverence shew'd him than to be charged as he is pag. 239. with a strange weakness for sticking at our Ceremonies Let us now see how well Mr. Durell hath acquitted himself about forms of Prayer It must be acknowledg'd he hath sufficiently prov'd from the Testimonies of Reformed Divines that forms of Prayer of humane composition are not unlawful but the same thing had been long ago proved to his hand by a Nonconformist Minister Mr. John Ball in his Discourse against Separation as also by Dr. John Hoornbek in his Epistle touching Independency so that I cannot wel tel what it was that made Mr. Durell so copious on this subject unless he thought it wisdom to drive that nail which would go I do assure him I never yet met with a Presbyterian that thought forms of Prayer unlawful or that thought it simply unlawful for a Church to agree upon forms of Prayer to be used by Ministers in the Publick Congregation But if he can either prove that it is lawful for the Church to allow her Ministers no Liberty to use their own gifts for Prayer in the Publick or prove that our English Church hath left her Ministers any such Liberty then shall he do Knight-service In the first undertaking he will have the Presbyterians his adversaries In the second he will have Dr. Heylin and many others as Canonical as himself to cope with I have heard a Presbyterian disputing against sundry Passages in the Common-Prayer Book and wondring why the Convocation should tye all Colledges and Halls to make use thereof without any omission or alteration when as there is not in the whole Book any one Petition for the Universities and I was heartily troubled that I had not wherewith to remove my Friends admiration But had I ever heard him say that a Form of Prayer was a breach of the second Commandment I should have pittied his Ignoranc as I unfeignedly do the Ignorance of all those who account it any glory to a Reformation to leave in it no helps for some Ministers Infirmities In this number cannot be placed either the Assembly of Divines or the two Houses of Parliament that convened them They both intended the Directory that Ministers might if need were have some help and furniture in their Administrations and truly it was so sufficient an help and furniture that he who needed other could scarce be thought worthy to be a servant of our Lord Jesus Christ in the work of the Ministry Here I must be pardon'd if I reprove the presumption of Mr. Durell who trembles not pag. 3. to lay to the charge of Lords and Commons and Assembly of Divines the delivering of manifest untruths The untruths are there said to be First That the Common Prayer Book had prov'd an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad Secondly That it was abolish'd to answer the expectations of other Reformed Churches I say those are no untruths The Common-Prayer Book had proved an offence to the Reformed Churches abroad Apollonius hath signified so much in reference to the Walachrian Churches and others as famous as Apollonius have given us to understand as much in relation to the Churches of which they were Ministers as the Latine Apologist hath too plainly proved and can any one imagine that some Ceremonies prescribed in the Liturgy were not an offence to Martyr and Zanchy Perhaps those learned men did not count them simply unlawful but certainly they were offended with them and wisht them remov'd Was it no offence to any Reformed Churches that so many Legends out of the Apocrypha were appointed to be read in our Temples No offence to Reformed Churches that Infants Baptized were affirmed to to be undoubtedly saved Less colour is there to say there was a manifest untruth in asserting that the Common-Prayer Book was taken away to answer the expectation of other Reformed Churches For it is notorious that the Churches of Scotland and New-England did expect from the Parliament the abolition of the Liturgy and certainly they might with propriety enough be called other Reformed Churches if none besides them had expected the said abolition as we can prove some others did I must also crave leave to censure the Manifesto of Mr. Durell publisht with a Noverint universi Let all the world know that there never was nor is yet any Reformed Church that hath onely a Directory and not a Book of Common-Prayer for the publick worship of God I ask were there no Reformed Churches in the times of the Apostles or men Apostolical I trow there were Yet it is certain saith Capellus that then there was no Prescript Form of Liturgy nor doth that Author give us any notice of any Prescript Liturgies untill Leaders and Doctors grew idle were there when his Manifesto was published no Reformed Churches in New-England or had these Churches Books of Common-Prayer and why I strange are Directory and Book of Common-Prayer made opposit were there not in some Reformed Churches Books of Common-Prayer that were appointed to be used but as Directories it being left free to the Ministers either to use those Printed Prayers or any other agreeable to them this freedome I am sure sundry eminent and worthy Divines in Holland have all along used Mr. Durell indeed saith that there is not one Minister in all Franoe but hath made unto himself a set Form which he useth alwaies and no other pag. 18. which is certainly a bold assertion and supposeth him to have had conference with every Minister in France or to have received Letters from every one or at least to have employ'd Agents that had made enquiry concerning every one which if true would argue him a man of wonderful intelligence Did never any one Minister in all France make unto himself above one set Form of Prayer Did and doth every one of them precisely keep himself to those very words which he put together when he first entred into his Ministry Did never any one after God had restored him to his Congregation from some eminent sickness put in any one word to express his sense of Divine Goodness I will here suspend my belief till I have received some farther Information or can better tell in what sense Mr. Durell would have his words taken for it may be he would have his own Phrases expounded as he himself pag. 17. expounds some Phrases in one of
in five of which he most grosly abuses him The first is That all Reformed Churches have Liturgies This I say follows not from any words of Capellus if Mr. Durell say it doth his Logick is his own let him make use of it The second is That the Liturgy of the Church of England is judged by this great man to be not onely pure and free from all Popish Superstition and Idolatry but also from all such things as were onerous and troublesome or which did contribute but little to the Edification of the Church as well as other Reformed Churches Twenty Cart-ropes will not pull this observation out of Capellus his words He onely speaks of the Liturgy made by the first Reformers of our Church which vastly differs from the present Liturgy that Mr. Durell takes upon him to defend The third Observation is of all most marvellous thus worded If these Liturgies ought to recede as little as possible from that of the Primitive Church as he doth intimate undoubtedly the Liturgy of the Church of England is the best and most perfect of them all If Mr. Durell will have this observed we will observe it as the issue of an over-confident fancy yet humbly praying that he would allow us to think that this observation hath no relation in the world to any words of Capellus If he may be judge our Liturgy differs more from the Primitive Liturgies then the Liturgy of any Reformed Churches for he sayes Primitive Liturgies were most brief and most simple consisting of a few prayers c. Now if we should grant our Liturgy to be very simple certainly it is not very brief nor does it consist of but a few Prayers let Mr. Durell officiate according to it Morning and Evening which I never knew any Conformist to do and I will be bold to say his Sermons afterwards shall not be over tedious The fourth Observation is That of all who call themselves Reformed the Presbyterians are the first that ever left off the use of set Forms of Prayer Capellus hath not the word Presbyterians in his work nor am I certain whom Mr. Durell understands by them perhaps he means the English Presbyterians but how came they to be Presbyterians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Capellus was too wise a man to say that they were the first that left off set Forms of Prayer he knew well enough unless he onely was a stranger in Israel that many years before the Assembly met at Westminster set Forms of Prayer had been laid aside and condemned as unlawful by huge multitudes who were angry with the old meer Nonconformist because he would not seperate from the English Church as well as endeavour a Reformation of some things The fifth Observation is That the many reasons for which the Presbyterians had rejected the Common-Prayer Book are very light and almost of no moment at all 'T is true that Capellus hath written something to this purpose but it is the same Capellus who hath written so many bug-bear words against our English Bishops in his Theses de descrimine Episcopi Presbyteri de vario Ecclesiae regimine the former Theses he concludes thus That there was no cause why the Bishops and their Patrons should so greatly insult and onely not grow insolent against those whom invidiously they called Puritans and Presbyterians And let it be observed that if the Presbyterians had onely reproved and not cashiered the Common-Prayer Book their Reasons might have been sufficient notwithstanding any thing Capellus saith to the contrary Sixthly Mr. Durell would have it observed That the Presbyterians themselves who are the known Authors of the Directory are in Capellus his Judgment a froward peevish and superstitous Generation of men Capellus does indeed call the Composers of the Directory morose and froward but seems unwilling to call them superstitious and the same Capellus had commended them for shaking off the Yoke of Episcopacy in his Theses de Vario Ecclesiae regimine Sect. 24. Let Mr. Durell when he puts out next English these words for they seem framed according to the Heart of the Presbyterians and let him then also tell us why he calls the Presbyterians the known Authors of the Directory That Assembly that presented the Directory to the two Houses was as to most of its Members when first called Hierarchical and under an Oath of Canonical obedience there are not very many of them living at present of them diverse conform and are as deeply engaged to use Liturgical worship as Mr. Durell himself let him therefore when he has opportunity enquire of them whether they consented to have the Liturgy cashiered and how they came to fall in love with it again and what made them so fearful least the old subscription should choak us when as they themselves can swallow these new ones that are far bigger and more bulky By this time I hope it is come to my turn to make some observations upon the Theses of Capellus and my Observations may be the fewer because I have already suggested so many and the first thing I observe is That the men against whom Capellus was so not could not be the English Presbyterians unless they were falsly represented to him for these are his words pag. 710 711. They with whom we have to do bewray a manifest enough hatred against Formula's of Symbols or Confessions of Faith and of Catechism and the both antient and recent use and custome of them received in the Christian Church If these are the men he had to deal with then had he nothing to do with the English Presbyterians no men having more contended for Confessions of Faith and Catechisms in set words than they Secondly I observe that he represents himself and his fellow Professors as not condemning or inhibiting a free use of Prayers composed by Ministers themselves Nay these are his words pag. 713. We plainly think it both lawful and consentaneous that they who can do it should discover their gift and industry in praying as in preaching this onely we will that the use of such prayers ought not to hinder the Liturgy constituted by publick Authority and to take away and abrogate all use of it out of the Church And a little after he adds We deservedly condemn the rigour of those who under pretext of a praescript Form of Liturgy do study to eliminate out of the Church all use of Prayers conceived by Ministers themselves Let Mr. Durell consider whether this Damnatory sentence do not fall upon many of his own Patrons and Abettours Thirdly I observe that when the Professor comes to contract what he had said he determines concerning Formula's as if Smectymnuus had too much influenced him for he saith first That they are not absolutely in every time and place and with all men necessary because the Christian Church wanted them for some time and it does not appear from sacred or exotick History whether the Jewish Church did not want them before Christ and