Reverence and Obeysance towards the East at our coming in or going out of the Church that the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed i. e. That they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and that they who use it not condemn not those that use it And how will the Presbyterians rejoyce to read those high commendations of the Bohemian Churches 'T is said page 64. That they are the first that Reformed Religion from Popery to True and Primitive Christianity and page 99. 't is said Happy had been all the Christian word if as the said Churches were the first that Reformed themselves from Popery the way of their Reformation had been followed by all others who Reformed after them This his high Opinion he confirms by the Testimony of Learned Zaâ—chy and might also have confirmed it by the Testimony of Luther Well! this being supposed must not the Presbyterians carry the day they think they must and therefore one of them not many years since Translated Comenius into English as making very much for that Plat-form they aimed at Indeed in the Order of those Churches I find lay-Lay-Presbyters and which is more Lay-Presbytresses and Eleemosynaries answering to the Presbyterians Deacons Officers I know they have called by the name of Antistites which may be rendered Bishops but every one of them to submit himself to the judgment not only of his Colleagues but also of the Conseniours and to admit admonition Counsels and reproof from them and these Conseniours are together with their Antistites to exercise Discipline upon Ministers The Lords day those Churches keep as strictly as the Presbyterians contend to have them kept Baptisme they administer without the sign of the Cross with them none are thought to belong to the Pastoral Cure of Ministers but those who do with good will submit themselves to that Unity and Order whereas among us every one must be a Church Member or else go to the Common Goal and that which answers unto Confirmation amongst them is performed only by the Minister and before every Sacrament the Master of a Family and his Household come to the Minister and are by him examined some few Holy-dayes indeed are kept in these Churches but so that when Divine Service is ended people go to their work as upon other dayes There is no order among them to abstain from the works of their Calling on the Saints day or to keep the Evening before Fast so that these Churches are as Presbyterian as Presbyterians themselves can desire what was it then that moved Mr. Durell so transcendently to extol them page 46. He tells us That those Churches that first Reformed from Popery receive the Communion kneeling and it is true they do so but they did not do so from the beginning In the year 1494. they received the Communion standing but were forced to leave off that gesture because their Persecutors were the more bitter upon that account and would not this be a goodly Argument think you the Bohemian Church to avoid persecution receives the Sacrament kneeling therefore it is conformable with the English Church that persecutes all who do not receive the Sacrament kneeling I but when these Churches did joyn with those of Major Polonia and Lithuania it was unanimously forbidden to receive that blessed Sacrament sitting because among other Reasons that unmannerly and irreverent gesture was peculiar to those Miscreants the Arrians amongst them and they made this observation That the custome of sitting at the Lords Table was first brought into some of their Churches by those who most miserably falling from their Communion did renounce the Lord who redeemed them wherefore they intreat and exhort all their Company and Bretheren that they would change sitting into standing or kneeling For this Mr. Durell refers us to a general Synod celebrated 1583. But every one that looks into the Harmony of Confessions will see that Mr. Durell hath not dealt fairly for first He leaves out a Parenthesis of the Synod in the which it is expresly said That that gesture of Session with others is free Secondly Whereas the Synod saies that Session was brought in potissimum malo Auspicio This Mr. Durell Translates was first brought in I grant indeed that in another Synod to which this Synod doth refer celebrated 1578. it is expresly said That they who fell off to Arrianisme were the first Authors of sitting in their Churches but that Synods words Mr. Durell does not Translate and therefore has Translated either ignorantly or dishonestly Let it also be observed that this Synod does pray and beseech people to leave off sitting not command them under the pain of Excommunication yea this Synod by allowing what was done in the former Synod does determine That it is unlawful to smite Godly men with Ecclesiastical Descipline because of external Rites Let me also add that the Fathers of this Synod were under a mistake when they said That no Church in Europe anno 1583. did use sitting at the Lords Table and Mr. Durell is much more mistaken if he thinks that any Socinians first brought up the custome of sitting amongst us here in England for what if Dr. Owen said truly when he confuted the Socinians That Socinianisme had generally spread it self into the Nation yet sitting had been used before Socinianisme so spread it self I never heard that there was a Socinian either in the Assembly or in the two Houses untill that one Mr. Free got among the Commons who for his Blasphemies was cashiered that House as I have somewhere read Had Mr. Durell pleased he might have consulted a Catechisme made by Thomas Beacon Prebend of Canterbury and Printed cum Privilegio 1563. in which Catechisme the Learned Divine and Godly Confessour saith That if sitting at the Lords Table which was then used in certain Reformed Churches were recived by publick Authority and common Consent and might be conveniently used in our Churches he could allow that gesture best And Mr. Robert Nicholls in a Discourse of kneeling in the act of Receiving long since presented to Bishop Morton but not printed till 1660 would have informed him That in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign standing was Ordained at Coventry and Northampton by her Majesties Commission and kneeling abolished But there was another thing perhaps that might move Mr. Durell to be so superlative in the commendation of the Bohemian Churches namely a Crotchet got into his head of calling an Assembly of forreign Divines that should all give their suffrage for the Discipline and Rites of the English Church which Crotchet did so please him that he begins to call that Assembly page 200 and Comenius the only surviving Bishop of the Bohemian Churches he will give the Honour to speak first and accordingly doth bring him in pag. 202 203 204 205. with a long Harangue of words in the commendation of Unity or Order but is so uncivil to the aged Bishop as not to allow him
hath these Arguments besides Scripture unless she thinks that these are not Scriptural Arguments Besides where doth our Church say Christ ordained the Apostles and Seventy Disciples in an imparity as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church possibly some Writers of our Church may so say our Church I believe will never be found to have said any such thing if she have the Speech hath given her Adversaries too much advantage for they will ask in what order Christ placed the Seventy If in the Order of Presbyters how came some of them afterwards to be made Deacons as it is generally held that some of them were in the Acts of the Apostles 16thly Pag. 144. He leaves upon record 4 great Untruths and yet makes them or 3 of them to be Truths known to all the three Kingdoms they all relate to the Presbyterians the first is That they had no set Forms nor indeed would admit of any whether for Common-Prayer or Administration of the Sacraments Matrimony c. How doth he know they had no set Forms for these or some of these I believe sundry of them had Forms or quasi-forms for all these and I am confident the Major part of them would if need required swear that they never declared that they would not receive any set Forms for these But Secondly he saith That for a long time many of them had left off using that very Form our Lord hath taught us Pag. 37. he had said That most if not all the Directorians had for a long time here in England left it out of their Service But wisely then adds It will be hard to make Transmarine Brethren believe that there were any such men among us And certainly it will be impossible to make our own Nation believe that this had any truth in it for it is known all the Nation over that those whom he must mean by the Presbyterians did many if not most of them and that very often use the Lords Prayer though they did not think it their Duty to use it every time they officiated in publick I my self for some years attended upon a Lecture in this Nation carried on by thirteen persons asâ— of them used the Lords Prayer and usually concluded their Prayers with it I should wrong the English Presbyterian Nonconformists should I not here acknowledg that they have very wel deserv'd of the Church of Christ by their Pious and Learned Discourses and Sermons upon the Lords Prayer I believe no Church can shew a more full and profitable Treatise of it than that composed by Mr. John Ball and published by his loving Friend Mr. Simeon Ash towards the end of a Book Entituled The Powwer of Godliness nor do I know that ever the use of the Lords Prayer was more fully Apologiz'd for against the Exceptions of the Brownists and others than by Mr. Paget and Mr. Thom. Hodges the one sundry years since dead in the Lord the other still in the Land of the Living Oh that I had so much reason to commend the Zeal of all the Episcopal Ministers of my Acquaintance But indeed I have not Sundry of them whose parts I greatly esteemed I have known to conclude their Prayers before Sermon without any use of the Lords Prayer as oft as they could conceive that there was any Great Person in the Congregation who would think the worse of them for using it To conclude this business I Question not but it is both lawful and expedient to use the Lords Prayer as a Prayer as well as a pattern but let not Mr. D. too severely censure those who cannot as yet obtain leave of themselves to use it as a Prayer especially at such times when they have before prayed largely both for themselves and others for where can he find a Law making it our duty to use those words commonly called the Lords Prayer any otherwise than as a pattern and example of our Prayers I know he somewhere produceth the words of St. Luke When ye pray say c. But were those words brought into the form of a Syllogism it would not to the Brownists themselves appear very formidable for they will ask what the words be that Christ there commands to use if it should be answered them the words that follow in St. Lukes Gospel then would they reply that all who tye themselves to the use of our English Liturgy would be transgressours of this Law for no where in all the Liturgy does the Lords Prayer occur as it is recorded in St. Lukes Gospel Indeed the Compilers of our Liturgy do neither follow St. Matthew nor St Luke but vary from them both as will appear to any that shall compare the Lords Prayer in the Liturgy with the Lords Prayer in the New Testament whether of the last or former Translation But if it should be said to them that the Commandment requires only that words be used to the same sense and purpose with those in St. Luke then is the Brownist at as great Liberty as he could wish They who lay it as a burden upon our Consciences to use the same words in English that the Evangelists used in Greek should do well clearly to satisfie us what words were used by the Evangelists for in no other matter do the Copies more vary I have enough to satisfie my self that the Doxology in Matthew was not added in later times as some think but if any one should differ from me in this Opinion I should be loath to tye my self neither to eat nor drink till I had convinced him Grotius tells me that it is in the Syriack and Arabick Translations yea and in the Latine too but I am sure it is not in that Arabick Translation exhibited to us in our late Polyglotts and it is in very few Latine Translations if any that are considerable Amen is wanting in the very Syriack Translation which all Scholars acknowledge to be ancient but how shall I be able to perswade a dissenter that this Syriack Translation which we follow is the Ancientest in that kind If it be the Ancientest then must I needs acknowledge that from thence may be fetched a very good Argument for the Antiquity of Holy-dayes But perhaps it is not the Ancientest that which Immanuel Tremelius followed having no such Inscriptions and various Titles by which is signified that these and the other things were done certain dayes in the Year How should I convince him that would say Our Father only and not Our Father which art in Heaven or him that would use fewer Petitions by two then we commonly use or him that would not say Amen at the end of the Prayer Above all things this makes me that I dare not too confidently assert that our Lord Jesus intended to make it the Duty of his Disciples after his departure to use those very words which he delivered to them because I do not find in those words any mention of his own most sweet precious Name whereas
to be accounted the same thing not to be and not to appear and if they had appeared their appearance might perhaps make those Presbyters who gave orders without them Schismaticks it could not possible make their orders null for as formerly where our Church thought that Baptisme administred by a Midwife was valid and allowed and enjoyned her in Case of necessity to baptize the Midwife had offended if she had baptized where there was no true necessity yet this offence notwithstanding her baptisme would have been reputed valid so here if our Presbyters could confer a valid Ordination when Bishops were not at hand their Ordination must needs be valid though Bishops were at hand therefore all the dust that is raised by Mr. D. to shew some difference between the Presbyters of our own and other Churches could be designed to no other end but to blind his own and his Readers Eyes that so no notice might be taken how he got off this controversie it may be he may come nearer the mark in the point of Episcopacy it self but of that also we shall find that his Arrows fall Heavenly wide For the Non-Conformist has again and again professed in conference and writing that he can and would for peace-sake receive a Bishop that should have as great a superintendence over Presbyters as ever Cyprian had over his but they say that by assenting and consenting to the present Book of Ordination they must acknowledge a Bishop to be by divine Institution of a superiour order to a Presbyter and for this they say they can find no Foundation in Scripture and less then none in any writings of modern reformed Divines If they are mistaken either in setting our Bishops higher then they have set themselves or in making a Bishop when set to such a heighth to be an Officer unknown to Primitive or Modern Churches Mr. Durell had done a very Christian work if he had taken pains in the Spirit of meekness to shew them their mistake but he cannot sure think that he hath endeavoured any such thing He tells us page 4th and the 5th that all the Lutheran Churches have a subordination of Pastours and that those who are in them called Superintendents or Bishops have the power of Ordination as the Bishops of the Church of England have But does he believe what he himself writes does he not know that they all found their Superintendency on a human and not on a divine institution does he not know that some Lutheran Divines of eminent note do with full mouth declaim against us here in England because we so much appropriate the power of Ordination unto Bishops Tobias Major I am sure on this very score calls us Angli Papizantes let all Scholars consult Chemnitius Gerard Brockmand or any other Lutheran that writes common places or if they be too many to consult let them consult Hunnius's demonstration of the Lutheran Ministry in which they shall find him though himself a Superintendent making a Bishop in Ordination to act only as the Churches instrument and averring that if the Church should delegate her power to a Presbyter or to a Layman the Ordination would be as valid as if performed by a Bishop The Non-Conformists have no quarrel against the name either of Superintendent or Bishop nor will it be any satisfaction to them to shew them Ecclesiastical Persons in the Lutheran Churches dignified by the name of Superintendents or Episcopi unless it could also be shewed that they claim that dignity by divine right and are received by the Elders as an Order of men superiour to them the which will never be shewed nay it will easily be proved that meer Presbyters have ordained those who in Germany and Denmark go by the name of Bishops and Super-intendents Nicholas Amsdorft as appears in his Life written by Melchior Adam was created Bishop but by whom was he created by Martin Luther the Pastour of the place where the Ordination was solemnized and two Pastours more Now did these set this Bishop into an order superiour to their own if they did who gave them authority so to do if they did not then his Title notwithstanding he was still of the Order of Presbyters and those that were afterwards ordained by him were ordained but by a Presbyter Likewise in Denmark when Reformation there first began seven Bishops of the Kingdome being cast out there were seven Super-intendents ordained who were to do the work of the expelled Bishops and to be Executors of the whole Ecclesiastical Ordination but by whom were these seven ordained even by John Bugenhagh who was but a Presbyter as may be seen in his Life written by the forementioned Author so that such Episcopacy as is scrupled by the English Non-Conformist has no place in any Lutheran Churches and if not in the Lutheran I am sure not in the reformed Churches Yet Mr. Durell in many places of his Book makes shew as if the Episcopacy quarrelled against here in England had place in some reformed Churches and that those very Churches among whose Ministers there is an equality do not condemn Episcopal Government the French Churches he is certain page 13. are so far from averseness to it that they rather wish they were in a condition to enjoy that sacred order Now what means he by that sacred Order if he do not mean an Order by Divine appointment superiour to the order of Presbytery he doth most egregiously trifle If he do mean such an Order I say that as many French Divines as do desire such an Order are manifestly fallen off from the confession exhibited to Charles 9th 1561. the 30th Article whereof is this We believe that all true Pastours in what place so ever they are set are all endued with the same and equal power among themselves under that one head and chief and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ And if any Ministers of the Belgick Churches do either desire or could approve of the English Hierarchy they also must fall off from the Belgick Confession which in the Synod of Dort was reviewed and approved for if that Confession had no inimicous aspect upon the Church Government in Britain why did our Divines of England approve only that part of it which related to Doctrine not that which related to Discipline Our Prelates and their Friends in England do very much build their Hierarchy upon Ignatius his Epistles If the French Churches did not dislike the building why do the most Learned of them take so much pains to ruine and pull up the Foundation why have Blondel Salmasius Dally so long employed their Pens to prove the Epistles even in the best Edition to be spurious I know Mr. Durell tells a story concerning Blondel that in his Apology for the opinion of Hierom he had inserted a passage which some Scotch Ministers prevailed with him to blot out in which he declares himself to be no Enemy unto Primitive Episcopacy if that be true he did not sure
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
that the Corps should be brought into the Church though now I find one or two Psalms appointed to be read after the Minister and people are come into the Church and by Comparing the old and new Liturgy together I find where in the old was the word Minister in the new there is constantly the word Priest so that whereas a Deacon may preach to us and Baptize our Children he may not bury our dead which seems to be a Mystery worthy Mr. Durells unridling Our Clergy men themselves seem Strangers to this mystery for nothing is more usual among them than to set Deacons to bury their dead nor can I in that old Liturgy which I follow find any notice given that the office for the burial of the dead is not to be used at the burial of such as die unbaptized in the new Liturgy such notice is given the reason whereof I am not so happy at present as to know why should Infants that die unbaptized through no fault of their Parents be denied such a burial as Baptized Infants have Mr. Durell is a knowing man and can satisfie us about these matters and brings us no question many Reformed Churches where the same usage obtains but why did he bring in his Friend Mr. Drelincourt saying pag. 49. That he should account the Custome of the Ministers of the Reformed Churches in France being silent at dead mens burial unsufferable were it not for their present condition That learned worthy Divine knows that the Reformed Churches in Holland are under no such condition as the French Churches and yet their Ministers are perpetually silent at the burials of dead men Is their Custome unsufferable I believe he will not so pronounce and therefore will scarce think himself civilly dealt with to have a Fragment of a private Epistle thus published especially seeing it reflects disgrace upon the Ministers of his own nation who are Pastors in Holland I have been too tedious in examining this impertinence The Communion also he tells us pag. 44. Is constantly celebrated at certain set times in all Reformed Churches And is there any thing in the Directory against the celebrating of it at certain set times Does it not say that it is frequently to be celebrated And take order that notice shall be given before hand of its celebration nor does the Directory any where forbid the Administring of the Communion unto those that are sick in private houses though if it had so done it might have justified it self by the Example of many of the best Reformed Churches Let Mr. Durell when he is at leisure enquire whether one of the Assembly of Divines did not Administer the Sacrament to Captain Hotham when he was just going to be Beheaded or whether he was ever censured for so doing I will enlarge my Catalogue no farther by the instances already produced it appears that Mr. Durell may well be called Mr. Impertinent But I shall now by sundry instances make it evident also that he hath thrust sundry things into his book that are like enough if they fall into the hands of a weak Reader to be prejudicial and pernicious and to alienate him from our Church He tells us page 8. the Hungarian and Transilvanian Churches are as Pure and Reformed as any whatsoever but page 10 11. he spoils all and takes a great deal of pains so to do borrowing a book very rare and scarce and out of it acquainting us That in those Churches Ministers swear obedience Canonical unto Presbyters as well as Bishops and That Ministers are to be governed by certain Laws by an eminent sort of Presbyters called Elders as well as by Bishops Then which what can be more derogatory to the Episcopal Power Place Juriisdiction and Ordination in Presbyters as well as Bishops and what Eminence will there then be left for Bishops what will there be left to a Bishop more than what the Presbyterians have a thousand times over acknowledged themselves ready to yield him It may be he thought he should heal his wound by saying as he does page 8. That these Elders are indeed Bishops and the Bishops Archbishops But I say they are indeed but a more Eminent sort of Presbyters so they are expresly called and they can be no other because they were never by Ordination put into an Office or Order superior to that of Presbyters and observable it is vid. pag. praedict That the Minister acknowledgeth himself in his Oath to receive the function of the sacred Ministry from the there present Ministers of God and most Faithful dispensers of his Mysteries Which are Phrases agreeing unto all that are entrusted with the word of Reconciliation So that this Testimony looks with a very evil eye upon Episcopacy and so does much more the Testimony of the Bohemian Churches related pag. 11 12 13. for in that we have Presbyters Ordaining Bohemian Bishops a thing that sounds dreadful to an Episcopal ear This story will strengthen the Presbyterians and be a second unto that with which they are wont so much to confirme themselves I mean the History of Pelagius Bishop of Rome being ordained by two Bishops and one Presbyter These Histories do at least prove that Presbyters and Bishops were of the same Order and that Presbyters as well as Bishops may lay hands upon Bishops and confer the power of making Ministers Indeed the man makes himself ridiculous who goes about to look for any Bishop properly so called among the Waldenses and he does gratifie the Presbyterians not a little page 38. whilst he tells them That the French Churches sing at the end of the Commandments these four verses which answer to our Lord have mercy upon us and incline c. for this is the very thing that Presbyterians desire that these words might be uttered at the end of the Commandments and not at the end of every particular Commandment pag. 45 46. he takes Mr. Calvins pen and drops a very foul blot upon our Church for the custome of Receiving thrice a year which is known to be our custome for no man is bound to Receive oftner is by him the called vitiosus mos i. e. a vitious custome at least if not a custome full of vice But page 53. he calls us all Fools by Craft for these are his words That every National Church ought to have Vniformity within it self hath alwaies been the judgment of all sober and wise Christians and is at this day the good example of all the Reformed Churches in the world I assume that there ought to be Uniformity in every National Church hath not alwaies been nor yet is the Judgment of the Church of England what Conclusion hence arises every one seeth but the Conclusion is so horrid that I will not form it My Assumption I prove from the Canons of 1640. which are so far from determining that there ought to be an Uniformity that they expresly allow a Difformity desiring in reference to the Rite of doing
he hath said Episcopi he adds seu Doctores which renders it very uncertain what kind of men he means by Bishops And Mr. Petoy a late Historian hath adventured to say That our Church as well as the Scottish Church was at first planted and Governed without Bishops till Bishops were sent to us from Rome But be this as it will certain I am our great Kingdome could not be said to honour and reverence Bishops till by the Preaching of Augustine and his Associates the Nation ceased to be Pagan since which time Bishops have not alwaies been so reverenced and honoured as the Reverend Author of this Epistle pretends Their disloyalty and pride rendred them so odious in the Reigns of many Kings that had it been put to the Vote whether there should have been Bishops or no Bishops it is easy enough to see how it would have been carried Nor is it truly said page 133. That we owe our Reformation to the Care and Zeal of our Bishops who did so wonderfully well repurge the Church of England an hundred years ago The first dawnings of Reformation we owe under God to Wickliff who was no Bishop nor friend to Bishops as Bishops signifie men of a superior Order to Presbyters those who sealed the Truth with their Bloud in King Henry the eighths dayes were none of them Bishops We can prove from the writings they have left behind them that they were against Bishops Seeing this Letter is so well penned Mr. Durells anger will not wax hot if I dwell upon it a little longer The Author of it tells us page 139 That he fears not to say if the French had kept Bishops and as many Ceremonies as would serve to fix the attention of the people without Superstition they should have seen for certain far greater progresses of Reformation and the resistance of a great many persons overcome who are frighttd from their Communion by the irregularity of their Government and the bareness of their Service I design not to put this Reverend Pastor into any fright because of any thing that he hath said but really I do not understand what he means by the Reformed French keeping their Bishops for I never heard that they had any Bishops of their Religion to part with much less do I understand upon what he founds his certain asseverations that more Papists would have come over to them if they had had Bishops and more Ceremonies We had before the Wars Bishops in our Nation and Ceremonies enough yet did we not find any great additions made to our Churches by the coming in of Recusants I hope they in France can reckon up more Converts from Popery than we can here in England or else Conversions have been but rare I also hope that so many have not apostatized among them as have apostatized among us If they have Rome hath more to boast of than I could wish But there is one thing more marvellous than all this The Author of the Letter thinks That if the English Dissentors have any Charity they would consent to the Re-establishment of the Episcopal Government though there were something in it they could not approve of if it were but for the sake of those that follow the Confession of Aspurg For can this learned man think that Hierarchy as an Order superiour to Presbytery and as founded upon a Divine Institution would be an Offering well pleasing to the Lutheran Divines he is not so unacquainted with their Writings as that he can so think If Episcopacy upholds the Lutheran Churches as he tells us page 138. I am sure it is not such an Episcopacy as we have here in England for such an Episcopacy hath no place among them And oh that it could be said That they in Denmarke Norway Sweden and Germany were very quiet under the Episcopal Government seldom seen to slander and tear one another We know they have their differences and that none are more molested than the moderate party among them so far was Episcopal Government from keeping us quiet in England that the Divisions and Animosities did arise and grow to a great height among the Bishops themselves Some were told that nothing but their Bishopricks kept them from being Puritans Others were told that nothing but their Wives kept them from being Papists Sundry Parliaments complained to the King of the growth of Arminianisme and what did the Church do to prevent or take away the ground and cause such Complaints truly Dr. Heylin in his History of Laud tells us that there was a Consultation whether it were meet to bring the thing to a Convocation but it was concluded that it was not safe so to do because there were too many Members of the Convocation inclined to Calvinisme though there were some that were as strangly inclined to Arminianisme our Pulpits had not failed to ring with Declamations against Pelagianisme in some places and against Stoicall Fatality in others had not the King by a Proclamation put some stop to those Controversies so that the quietness which the Church enjoyed was rather due to Monarchy than Epispacy Now of late indeeed Arnold Polenberg in his preface to the second Tome of Episcopius his works gives us to understand that he designed to dedicate that great Folio to our English Clergy and particularly to both our Universities promising himself that almost all the Bishops of our Churches do defend that Opinion concerning Predestination which was condemned in the Synod of Dort Whether he be out in his account 't is not for me to enquire who have work enough to do at home but it seems even in this Gentlemans account all our Bishops are not become Episcopian and therfore preserve Unity among themselves by having their knowledge in those matters unto themselves Now if it be found necessary to tolerate difference of Judgment among the Bishops themselves in Doctrines of so high concernment it may be worth the Consideration of those who are in Authority whether they also may not be suffered to enjoy Ecclesiastical preferment who differ from their Bretheren only in some few points of Discipline I say in a few points of Discipline for as to the essentials of Discipline I am not so quick-sighted as to find that we disagree The things that breed discord among us are said by those who are the chief causes of their imposition to be Adiaphorous i. e. such things as are therefore good because imposed rather than imposed because good On the other hand those who suffer for not yeilding to the Impositions do judge there is some evil in the things imposed and desire they may be indulged not to Practise them A Bookish man who is not much versed in the Intrigues of Ecclesiasticall Pollicy would think no bigger a breach than this might easily be stopped up I shall dismiss this Letter only adding That I would not have Mounsieur Le-Moyn estimated by it having certain knowledge that he hath both with his tongue and pen
any persons be produc'd who told the Reformed Churches any such tales Mr. Durell must be content to be thought a spreader of false informations if he can produce any such by my consent let him have the whetstone and keep it untill he can find Mr. Durell telling something that will make him deserve to have it returned But he shall not need to keep it very long For Seventhly Pag. 86. he tells us That the Bishops in England are to rule by the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical and by the Laws of the Land and no otherwise calling alwaies to joyn with them in imposition of hands and other matters of weighty concernment some of the Prebends of their Cathedralls or other graâ—â— Ministers of the Diocess Where was shame when this was pen'd do the Canons require any Bishop to call any one Minister to join with him in imposition of hands upon a Deacon or in the Confirmation of persons before they are admitted to the Lords Supper or doth the Bishop offend against any Law or Canon if he call none of his Ministers to joyn with him when a Presbyter is Excommunicated or is it so much as necessary that the Bishop himself should be present when Excommunication is decreed Is any thing more usual then for Lay-Chancellors to decree Excommunication calling only some Minister for fashion sake to pronounce the sentence I would Mr. Durell would shew us any Reformed Church that hath any such custom and I wish also he would tell us what those Canons and Constitutions are according to which our Bishops are to rule us For some tell us that they are to proceed not only according to the Canons of 1603. but also according to sundry other Canons that ordinary people know not nor ever had an opportunity to read of provided they be not repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Nation Mr. Durell 't is like hath all the 77. Legatine Canons as also the 212 Provincial Canons at his fingers ends If he can find any Canon among them all commanding our Bishops to call in some of the Presbyters to joyn with them in imposition of hands and all other weighty matters let him discharge it in their faces yet taking heed left it recoyle and do himself some mischief For Bishops do not love to have their power limited or the Canons relating to it expounded by any but themselves I hope no Canons are in force but those of 1603. and by them I am sure the Bishop is not required to call in Presbyters to joyn with him in every imposition of hands In the 31 Canon indeed he is appointed to celebrate Ordinations on the four Sundays after the Ember weeks and in the Cathedral or Parish Church where the Bishop resideth and in the time of Divine Service in the presence not only of the Archdeacon but of the Dean and two Prebendaries at the least or if they be let or hindred in the presence of four Grave persons Masters of Art and allowed Preachers The 35 Canon also saith That the Bishop shall diligently examine him that is to be admitted to Holy Orders in the presence of those that shall assist him at the imposition of hands or else cause the said Ministers carefully to examine every such person All this doth not amount to the calling in of Presbyters to joyn with him in the imposition of hands The Book of ordering Priests and Deacons doth indeed require that the Priests that are present with the Bishop shall together with him lay on their hands when a Priest is ordained but how if no Priest should lay on his hand the Ordination is valid however as is again and again determined by Bishop Taylor in his Episcopacy asserted Yea he saith pag. 197 198. That it was declared Heresie to communicate the power of giving Orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops What he saith concerning the Decree of the 4th Council of Carthage pag. 189. I leave to others to examine confessing that I innocently thought that when our Presbyters laid on hands together with the Bishop they as well as he had conferred Orders Dr. Heylin in his History of Episcopacy pag. 162. hath undeceiv'd me for these are his words The conjunction of the Presbyters in the solemnities of this Act was more for the honour of the Priesthood than for the essence of the work Nor did the laying on of the Presbyters hands conferr upon the party that was ordained any power or order but only testified their consent unto the business and approbation of the man I must also confess that I did not apprehend things aright in reference to the Bishop and his Presbyters untill lately I read in the foresaid Bishop Taylor p. 257 258. That to the Bishop is committed the care of the whole Diocess He it is who is appointed by peculiar designation to feed the flock The Presbyters are admitted in partem sollicitudinis but still the Jurisdiction of the whole Diocess is in the Bishop and without the Bishops admission to a part of it per tracit onem subditorum although the Presbyter by his Ordination have a capacity of Preaching and Administring Sacraments yet he cannot exercise this without designation of a particular charge either temporary or fixed and p. 262. after he had muster'd up many Testimonies he tells us They shew that the Presbyters in their several charges whether of temporary mission or fixed residence be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess And p. 282 283. he hath these words As I have shewn that the Bishop of every Dss did give Laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the Laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by Conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision The instances of these are just so many as there are Councils and more plainly 287. Till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Council we know savor'd too much of the Schismatick Nay Mr. Jeans tells me That in the Convocation which was the last before the late wars Bishop Pierce told the Ministers of his Diocess that it was an unquestionable Priviledge due unto his See for him to propound unto them the Clerks that they should choose unto which he expected their Conformity part 2. pag. 131. Now if all this should be true it might be a kind of a Quodlibetical Question whether in our Convocations any do sit and vote beside the Bishops for they that sit not in their own rights but in the right of others and as they are Delegates and Substitutes are scarce said to sit And so the men whom Mr. Durell so much condemns for false accusations will be found rather to have spoken incautelously than falsly As for the other false accusation relating to Archbishop Laud
the Congregation could neither hear nor see the Minister what I say but meer Superstition 14thly Page 42. He falls again to the abusing of Presbyterians saying That they ought to have as bad an Opinion of the Trine aspersion of the Cross in Baptisme adding towards the end of that Page his confidence That if the Trine aspersion were used in our Church or if she had retained the Trine immersion as at the beginning of King Edward rhe Sixth's Reign it would be counted a great Superstition This is a great slander no Presbyterians that ever I heard of have any such Principles from which they can charge Superstition upon Trine immersion or upon Trine aspersion they say it is the command of God that water should be applied to the Baptized had he commanded that this application should be by dipping or sprinkling once or twice his command must have been observed seeing there is no such Command they say that Superiours are at liberty to appoint which they please provided nothing be appointed that is imprudent or uncharitable and now that we are fallen upon this point I would gladly know what it is that our Church hath appointed by the Liturgy I see the Minister is appointed to dipp the Child in the water if the Sponsors certifie that the Babe can well endure it but if they certifie that the Child is weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it so that here is no allowance of any Rite but Dipping unless there be a Certificate of the Childs weakness But when I wonder did any Baptist demand such a Certificate as for the Quoties no meaner a man than Bishop Mountague in his Articles of Visitation positively asserted that the Child is thrice to be aspersed with water on the face So that the Act of Uniformity notwithstanding it seems the Doctors of the Church were not agreed and for ought I can observe notwithstanding any Rubrick or Canon now in force Ministers are at their Liberty to apply the water once or thrice though I think Bishop Mountague was much mistaken when he said that the Child was thrice to be aspersed the Church hath not commanded Trine aspersion but there is no constat that she hath forbidden it Nor is this the only thing in our Administration of Baptisme about which I am at a loss Immersion I do hugely approve yea I cannot see how it can be forborn unless charity or modesty on something of that nature do forbid it But what may be the Reason that our Church allows not pouring water upon Infants without a Certificate that they are weak and yet in the form of Baptism appointed for adult persons leaves it wholly at the Ministers discretion either to dip them into the water or to pour water upon them There is another thing in which aqua mihi haeret I am marvellously also perplext about the Administrator or Administratrix of Baptism In the Hampton-Court Conference K. James stumbled something at some expressions in our Liturgy which seemed to give Liberty to women and Maids to Administer Baptisme in case of extreme necessity and he was then answer'd by Archbishop Whitgift that Baptism by Women and Lay-persons was not allow'd in the practise of the Church but was enquired of and censur'd in the Bishops Visitations and that the words in the Book inferred no such meaning But Bishop Bancroft declared that the Church by those words did intend in case of necessity a permission of private persons to Baptize and that this permission was agreeable to the practise of the ancient Churches Withal opening the absurdities and impieties of their Opinion who think there is no necessity of Baptisme I confess I could not but wonder that they who had so strongly pleaded for the Liturgy and pleas'd themselves in silencing those who could not conform unto it should be as contrary as North and South in expounding a material passage of it But however for the credit of the Ordinance I rejoyced greatly to find that at the motion of the King it was ordred that the words A Lawful Minister should be put into the Rubrick for by this means I thought us sufficiently secured against any female Baptizers But he who doth not love to conceal any thing Dr. P. H. in his necessary Introduction to the History of Bishop Laud pag. 27. hath quite took away the cause of my rejoycing for he saith The alteration was greater in sound than sense it being the Opinion of many great Clerks that any man in cases of extreme necessity who can pronounce the words of Baptism may pass in the notion of account of a lawful Minister By any man I suppose he means any one that is de humano genere and by consequence either a Child or a Natural but I hope some one will give check to this extravagant Notion that so a stop may be put to the Licentiousness of those unto whom God hath no more given a power to Baptize than to Ordain Ministers And therefore I wish that to stop this gap instead of the Minister of the Parish or any other lawful Minister it had been said the lawful Minister of any other Parish and then I should have thought it impossible for any man to be so impudent as to opine that our Church had not restrained Baptisme to the Clergy But they who made our new Liturgy were wiser then I and some that have subscrib'd it it seems had got some such way of Interpretation as no Logick ever led me into 15thly Pag. 103. He makes bold with the whole Church of England For of her these are his words She holdeth subordination of Ministers in the Christian Church to be of Apostolical nay of Divine Institution having as she conceiveth for Grounds of this her Judgment besides Scripture the Practise of the Holy Apostles in their time of the Universal Church ever since until this later Age and which is more of Christ himself who ordained the Apostles and the Seventy Disciples in an imparity as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church I suppose this Reverend Praedicant doth not pretend to any faculty of discerning the secret thoughts and inward conceptions of our Churches heart farther then when she discov'rs them by some words or other signification let him therefore tell us where the Church hath declared her self thus to hold thus to conceive as in the fore-quoted words is represented That the Church holds subordination of Ministers to be an Apostolical Institution is plain enough and therefore Mr. D. beats the Air as oft as he brings any Testimonies for Episcopacie which do not place it among Apostolical Institutions but I cannot finde that the Church any where distinguisheth Apostolical and Divine much less doth she say that she hath besides Scripture the practice of the Apostles and of Christ himself The Practice of the Apostles and Christ himself are recorded in Scripture and be a part of Scripture and therefore it is not sense to say that she