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-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
the Congregation could neither hear nor see the Minister what I say but meer Superstition 14thly Page 42. He falls again to the abusing of Presbyterians saying That they ought to have as bad an Opinion of the Trine aspersion of the Cross in Baptisme adding towards the end of that Page his confidence That if the Trine aspersion were used in our Church or if she had retained the Trine immersion as at the beginning of King Edward rhe Sixth's Reign it would be counted a great Superstition This is a great slander no Presbyterians that ever I heard of have any such Principles from which they can charge Superstition upon Trine immersion or upon Trine aspersion they say it is the command of God that water should be applied to the Baptized had he commanded that this application should be by dipping or sprinkling once or twice his command must have been observed seeing there is no such Command they say that Superiours are at liberty to appoint which they please provided nothing be appointed that is imprudent or uncharitable and now that we are fallen upon this point I would gladly know what it is that our Church hath appointed by the Liturgy I see the Minister is appointed to dipp the Child in the water if the Sponsors certifie that the Babe can well endure it but if they certifie that the Child is weak it shall suffice to pour water upon it so that here is no allowance of any Rite but Dipping unless there be a Certificate of the Childs weakness But when I wonder did any Baptist demand such a Certificate as for the Quoties no meaner a man than Bishop Mountague in his Articles of Visitation positively asserted that the Child is thrice to be aspersed with water on the face So that the Act of Uniformity notwithstanding it seems the Doctors of the Church were not agreed and for ought I can observe notwithstanding any Rubrick or Canon now in force Ministers are at their Liberty to apply the water once or thrice though I think Bishop Mountague was much mistaken when he said that the Child was thrice to be aspersed the Church hath not commanded Trine aspersion but there is no constat that she hath forbidden it Nor is this the only thing in our Administration of Baptisme about which I am at a loss Immersion I do hugely approve yea I cannot see how it can be forborn unless charity or modesty on something of that nature do forbid it But what may be the Reason that our Church allows not pouring water upon Infants without a Certificate that they are weak and yet in the form of Baptism appointed for adult persons leaves it wholly at the Ministers discretion either to dip them into the water or to pour water upon them There is another thing in which aqua mihi haeret I am marvellously also perplext about the Administrator or Administratrix of Baptism In the Hampton-Court Conference K. James stumbled something at some expressions in our Liturgy which seemed to give Liberty to women and Maids to Administer Baptisme in case of extreme necessity and he was then answer'd by Archbishop Whitgift that Baptism by Women and Lay-persons was not allow'd in the practise of the Church but was enquired of and censur'd in the Bishops Visitations and that the words in the Book inferred no such meaning But Bishop Bancroft declared that the Church by those words did intend in case of necessity a permission of private persons to Baptize and that this permission was agreeable to the practise of the ancient Churches Withal opening the absurdities and impieties of their Opinion who think there is no necessity of Baptisme I confess I could not but wonder that they who had so strongly pleaded for the Liturgy and pleas'd themselves in silencing those who could not conform unto it should be as contrary as North and South in expounding a material passage of it But however for the credit of the Ordinance I rejoyced greatly to find that at the motion of the King it was ordred that the words A Lawful Minister should be put into the Rubrick for by this means I thought us sufficiently secured against any female Baptizers But he who doth not love to conceal any thing Dr. P. H. in his necessary Introduction to the History of Bishop Laud pag. 27. hath quite took away the cause of my rejoycing for he saith The alteration was greater in sound than sense it being the Opinion of many great Clerks that any man in cases of extreme necessity who can pronounce the words of Baptism may pass in the notion of account of a lawful Minister By any man I suppose he means any one that is de humano genere and by consequence either a Child or a Natural but I hope some one will give check to this extravagant Notion that so a stop may be put to the Licentiousness of those unto whom God hath no more given a power to Baptize than to Ordain Ministers And therefore I wish that to stop this gap instead of the Minister of the Parish or any other lawful Minister it had been said the lawful Minister of any other Parish and then I should have thought it impossible for any man to be so impudent as to opine that our Church had not restrained Baptisme to the Clergy But they who made our new Liturgy were wiser then I and some that have subscrib'd it it seems had got some such way of Interpretation as no Logick ever led me into 15thly Pag. 103. He makes bold with the whole Church of England For of her these are his words She holdeth subordination of Ministers in the Christian Church to be of Apostolical nay of Divine Institution having as she conceiveth for Grounds of this her Judgment besides Scripture the Practise of the Holy Apostles in their time of the Universal Church ever since until this later Age and which is more of Christ himself who ordained the Apostles and the Seventy Disciples in an imparity as two distinct Orders of Ministers in his Church I suppose this Reverend Praedicant doth not pretend to any faculty of discerning the secret thoughts and inward conceptions of our Churches heart farther then when she discov'rs them by some words or other signification let him therefore tell us where the Church hath declared her self thus to hold thus to conceive as in the fore-quoted words is represented That the Church holds subordination of Ministers to be an Apostolical Institution is plain enough and therefore Mr. D. beats the Air as oft as he brings any Testimonies for Episcopacie which do not place it among Apostolical Institutions but I cannot finde that the Church any where distinguisheth Apostolical and Divine much less doth she say that she hath besides Scripture the practice of the Apostles and of Christ himself The Practice of the Apostles and Christ himself are recorded in Scripture and be a part of Scripture and therefore it is not sense to say that she
to be accounted the same thing not to be and not to appear and if they had appeared their appearance might perhaps make those Presbyters who gave orders without them Schismaticks it could not possible make their orders null for as formerly where our Church thought that Baptisme administred by a Midwife was valid and allowed and enjoyned her in Case of necessity to baptize the Midwife had offended if she had baptized where there was no true necessity yet this offence notwithstanding her baptisme would have been reputed valid so here if our Presbyters could confer a valid Ordination when Bishops were not at hand their Ordination must needs be valid though Bishops were at hand therefore all the dust that is raised by Mr. D. to shew some difference between the Presbyters of our own and other Churches could be designed to no other end but to blind his own and his Readers Eyes that so no notice might be taken how he got off this controversie it may be he may come nearer the mark in the point of Episcopacy it self but of that also we shall find that his Arrows fall Heavenly wide For the Non-Conformist has again and again professed in conference and writing that he can and would for peace-sake receive a Bishop that should have as great a superintendence over Presbyters as ever Cyprian had over his but they say that by assenting and consenting to the present Book of Ordination they must acknowledge a Bishop to be by divine Institution of a superiour order to a Presbyter and for this they say they can find no Foundation in Scripture and less then none in any writings of modern reformed Divines If they are mistaken either in setting our Bishops higher then they have set themselves or in making a Bishop when set to such a heighth to be an Officer unknown to Primitive or Modern Churches Mr. Durell had done a very Christian work if he had taken pains in the Spirit of meekness to shew them their mistake but he cannot sure think that he hath endeavoured any such thing He tells us page 4th and the 5th that all the Lutheran Churches have a subordination of Pastours and that those who are in them called Superintendents or Bishops have the power of Ordination as the Bishops of the Church of England have But does he believe what he himself writes does he not know that they all found their Superintendency on a human and not on a divine institution does he not know that some Lutheran Divines of eminent note do with full mouth declaim against us here in England because we so much appropriate the power of Ordination unto Bishops Tobias Major I am sure on this very score calls us Angli Papizantes let all Scholars consult Chemnitius Gerard Brockmand or any other Lutheran that writes common places or if they be too many to consult let them consult Hunnius's demonstration of the Lutheran Ministry in which they shall find him though himself a Superintendent making a Bishop in Ordination to act only as the Churches instrument and averring that if the Church should delegate her power to a Presbyter or to a Layman the Ordination would be as valid as if performed by a Bishop The Non-Conformists have no quarrel against the name either of Superintendent or Bishop nor will it be any satisfaction to them to shew them Ecclesiastical Persons in the Lutheran Churches dignified by the name of Superintendents or Episcopi unless it could also be shewed that they claim that dignity by divine right and are received by the Elders as an Order of men superiour to them the which will never be shewed nay it will easily be proved that meer Presbyters have ordained those who in Germany and Denmark go by the name of Bishops and Super-intendents Nicholas Amsdorft as appears in his Life written by Melchior Adam was created Bishop but by whom was he created by Martin Luther the Pastour of the place where the Ordination was solemnized and two Pastours more Now did these set this Bishop into an order superiour to their own if they did who gave them authority so to do if they did not then his Title notwithstanding he was still of the Order of Presbyters and those that were afterwards ordained by him were ordained but by a Presbyter Likewise in Denmark when Reformation there first began seven Bishops of the Kingdome being cast out there were seven Super-intendents ordained who were to do the work of the expelled Bishops and to be Executors of the whole Ecclesiastical Ordination but by whom were these seven ordained even by John Bugenhagh who was but a Presbyter as may be seen in his Life written by the forementioned Author so that such Episcopacy as is scrupled by the English Non-Conformist has no place in any Lutheran Churches and if not in the Lutheran I am sure not in the reformed Churches Yet Mr. Durell in many places of his Book makes shew as if the Episcopacy quarrelled against here in England had place in some reformed Churches and that those very Churches among whose Ministers there is an equality do not condemn Episcopal Government the French Churches he is certain page 13. are so far from averseness to it that they rather wish they were in a condition to enjoy that sacred order Now what means he by that sacred Order if he do not mean an Order by Divine appointment superiour to the order of Presbytery he doth most egregiously trifle If he do mean such an Order I say that as many French Divines as do desire such an Order are manifestly fallen off from the confession exhibited to Charles 9th 1561. the 30th Article whereof is this We believe that all true Pastours in what place so ever they are set are all endued with the same and equal power among themselves under that one head and chief and sole universal Bishop Jesus Christ And if any Ministers of the Belgick Churches do either desire or could approve of the English Hierarchy they also must fall off from the Belgick Confession which in the Synod of Dort was reviewed and approved for if that Confession had no inimicous aspect upon the Church Government in Britain why did our Divines of England approve only that part of it which related to Doctrine not that which related to Discipline Our Prelates and their Friends in England do very much build their Hierarchy upon Ignatius his Epistles If the French Churches did not dislike the building why do the most Learned of them take so much pains to ruine and pull up the Foundation why have Blondel Salmasius Dally so long employed their Pens to prove the Epistles even in the best Edition to be spurious I know Mr. Durell tells a story concerning Blondel that in his Apology for the opinion of Hierom he had inserted a passage which some Scotch Ministers prevailed with him to blot out in which he declares himself to be no Enemy unto Primitive Episcopacy if that be true he did not sure
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
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
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
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
Ezra and from the time of Moses Secondly That they are not commonly necessary but for order and Decorum Thirdly Where and when there cannot be had learned Pastours who are able to teach the people by their Sermons and proper Prayers that there Formula's are plainly necessary Fourthly Where there are learned and skilful Pastors a publick Form of Liturgy is very profitable and necessary to the Common Edification of the Church in the same Communion of Divine worship Fifthly That the use of such Forms cannot justly be condemned or disaproved nor ought it seeing it may be alwaies and every where profitable and most convenient and has obtained in the whole Christian Church all the world over for above 1300 years and does every where now obtain but with those Independant Novices Let Mr. Durell after this take heed how he commends Liturgies by the pen of his most applauded forreign Divines and let him know that all the pains he takes to make the French and Dutch Liturgies the same or near a kin with and to ours doth indeed tend to the reproach of Archbishop Laud. For if there were no difference or but small betwixt them why was he so zealous as his Historian represents him in prosecuting and pressing the French and Dutch Churches to have our Liturgy translated into their Language and used by them in all their Churches granted them in England however let me warn Mr. Durell to take heed that he do not go on with that designe he hath so oft acquainted us with I mean the design of Printing together the Formula's and Agenda's of all the Reformed Churches in Christendome for though this design might perhaps please himself as who is not pleased with the issue of his own Brain yet I much question whether it would be any way pleasing to the most Reverend and Right Reverend Prelates of our Church Certain I am that it is not many years since some of our greatest Ecclesiasticks plainly enough declared that such a designe would not much rellish with them for when the Prince Elector Palatine came over to visit his Unckle King Charles I. in England which was about 34 years ago some busie heads as Dr. Heylin calls them published a book intituled A Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Palsgraves Churches What was the effect of the Publication a course was forthwith taken to call it in for the same cause and on the same prudential grounds adds Dr. Heylin on which the alteration I before mentioned was made in the Letters Patents But I needed not so long to have insisted upon Liturgies having before told you what he must do that hopes to bring the Nonconformist to subscription he must prove that the Church of England hath left Ministers any power to make use of their gifts in prayer for if that be not proved they will shrewdly argue against the lawfulness of promises to bury their gift in a napkin but whether this be proved or no the Nonconformists that I speak with will be but Nonconformists not forsaking the publick Assemblies but rejoyceing to hear Christ Preached though not without some bitter reflections upon themselves I come to Ceremonies and the first of them that occurres is the Surplice concerning which my Nonconformists Friends say That if they used it as enjoyned by the Liturgy they must receive it as a vestment apt by some notable signification it hath to stir up the dull mind Now that I might satisfie their Scruple I have gone to some Conformists and enquired of them whether ever they experimented any such aptness in it to stir up their dull minds they most of them wondred at my Question telling me that by assenting and consenting they meant no more but onely to promise that they would not openly contradict any thing in the Liturgy you may easily imagine what motion this reply stirred up in my dull mind onely one answered that though he would not boast of his own experiences yet he doubted not but the holy Vestment had a fitness in it to stir up the dull mind but I asking him further whether it was apt to stir him up as a man or as an English man he gave me to understand that he was not willing to be pressed further I comforted my self however in this that Mr. Durell would tell me some stories of some great liveliness put into men by the wearing of the white Garment but he quite deceived me onely giving me to understand pag. 24 25. Of some of other Reformed Churches that to comply with the Lutherans do somtimes wear Surplices This is but cold kindness and that I may not be in debt to him for it I give him to understand That no Lutherans in the Low Countries do wear Surplices and they forbear to wear them not because the Magistrate would not give them leave to wear them but because they want a will to wear them which makes me think that they have no high opinion concerning the usefulness of them nor can I think that our own Ministers have any huge apprehensions of this exciting vertue of the Surplice for whereas they are enjoined to wear it as oft as they officiate I find few of them so to do many of them never wear it but when a Sacrament is to be Administred Perhaps I shall be able to afford my Nonconformists more help and assistance against his Scruples about the Cross in Baptisme His Scruples are founded upon this bottom That the Cross is made asign of the Childs Dedication to God and also a sign of his perseverance in Grace and such a sign they say is Sacramental which kind of sign the Church has no Commission from God to institute I have taken some pains that I might be able from the writings of Conformists to assoile this Objection Mr. Durell tells us Serm. pag. 29. That the Cross is indeed a visible sign but there is no invisible Grace answering to it and so no Sacrament I could not acquiesce in this for I thought Dedication to God and Perseverance were graces and if they be Graces I am sure they are invisible Graces I have also somtimes wondred seeing Baptism it self was instituted as a Dedicating sign and seeing by it we engage our selves to perseverance and God also engages to give unto Believers the Grace of Perseverance what might move our Church to institute the Cross as a new sign of any of these things especially seeing yet I never had the hap to meet with any who could from their experience averre unto me that the sign of the Cross with which they were signed at Baptisme had added to them any degree of manfulness nor by comparing several Baptized persons could I ever observe that persons Crossed at Baptisme were less inclined to be ashamed of Christ Crucified than those that were Baptized not being Crossed Indeed this sign of the Cross hath Ministred more matter of Scruple to the Nonconformists then any other Ceremony besides and therefore Mr. Durell
liberty to speak all he had to speak I must therefore out of the Reverence I have for his gray haires and the respect that all Christian Churches bear to him for his Learning and Piety doe him so much right as to let him speak farther about the Controversies agitated among us he hath a Paraeness to the Churches and by name the English Church in that page 146. he tells us what he would have taken from Episcopacy Secular Dominion Terrene Riches or Wealth and the Pompe of Ceremonies and in the next page brings in the Papists laughing and jearing at us for the Ceremonies that we retained here in England since our Reformation so that I may well conclude that it had been more for the interest of the Church to have passed over the Bohemian Churches in silence and it had been well also if the Consensus Poloniae had never been mentioned for in that we shall find a Synod at Cracovia anno 1573. disputing de Choreis and when some had alledged that there were honest as well as dishonest dancings it was at last concluded by the suffrage of all as well Seculars as Clergy that they were to be condemned according to the Scripture and to be forbidden unto all that profess true Piety Will it much please some of our Governours that young Students are by Mr. Durell directed to read the Determinations of this Synod but this is one of the least of the mischiefs that he doth us pag. 93. being surprised with a pang of vain glory and designing to acquaint us with his own Sufferings he doth not stick to deliver that which involves the farre greater part of his present Conforming Brethren under the guilt of Rebellion and Schisme for these are his words pag. 93. It is known how great the Persecution was against all Ministers who adhered to the King and Church of England during the late troubles those who were more gently dealt with were onely plundered turned out of their Livings or imprisoned there were others whom it was thought fitter to cast out of the Land c. Out of these words supposing what is manifest that they who adhered not to the King and to the Church are Traytors and Schismaticks thus I argue All that adhered to King and Church suffered either to Deprivation or Banishment most of the present Conformists neither suffered to Deprivation nor Banishment therefore most of the present Conformists neither adhered to King nor Church and by Consequence were Traytors and Schismaticks The Major is Mr. Durells own The Minor is known to all the Nation most of the present Conformists either enjoyed their own Livings during the late troubles or were put into new Livings If Mr. Durell had enquired of him who Licensed his Book he would have told him that he enjoyed a very good Fellowship in All-Souls during the late confusions but it is usual with Mr. Durell where he thinks any Presbyterian is within his reach to lay about him though he must needs strike through the love of most of his own Friends So pag. 44 〈◊〉 telâ—â— us That those who profess themselves to be Orthodox had either altogether neglected the Sacrament in most Parishes of these three Kingdomes or else had ministred it onely to some few choice persons Which is to throw dirt into the faces of his Epispopal Brethren for they possessed most of the Parishes in this Kingdome to be sure and as for the Kingdome of Scotland there war no neglect of the Sacrament untill that our English Armies had made it impossible for them to exercise their Discipline But Aquilla non capit muscas it is a small thing with Mr. Durell thus to scratch our English Clergy unless he also wound the whole English Nation and that we find him doing for after he had told us that he would set down out of Monsieur Le Moyne's Letter as much as fitted his purpose he sets down this pag. 136. The English have a Natural fierceness and withall a natural inclination to Superstition Doth this Character of our Nation fit Mr. Durell's purpose then certainly it is a wicked purpose which cannot be managed but by the causless aspersion of a whole Nation Usually Superstition dwells in the timerous and dastardly Nature We unhappy Mortalls that we be are naturally fierce and yet naturally Superstitious he that had observed this concerning us should have been so friendly as to tell us what kind of Superstition it is that we are so naturally inclined to that so we might have known how to have watched and prepared Antidotes against it if there be any Antidotes strong enough to expell that which is naturall The Author of this Letter whom Mr. Durell calls one of the ordinary Preachers to the Reformed Congregation of Roan which certainly is a Phrase of disparagement to English ears thinkes that upon account of our Natural fierceness and superstition We stand in need of a Government somewhat Despoticall that is of a Government by Bishops but I would query what kind of Bishops we must have Nature teacheth us to desire some of our own Nation and if they be of our own Nation are not they Naturally Fierce and Superstitious too if they be what Despoticall power shall we have to cure them if they be not then it seems the Episcopal Character expells the Natural Fierceness and Superstition that dwells in English Natures but we never yet had any experience that a mans being made a Bishop in England did work any cure of his Natural Fierceness and Superstition Some men have thought that divers after they were advanced to Episcopal Dignity grew more fierce and more superstitious but this I neither affirm nor deny In the same Letter pag. 134. it is said That it cannot enter into a Rational Mans Imagination that a great Kingdome should come by custome to be content to see its Bishops no more having honoured and reverenced them for the space of one thousand four hundred years This is good news to the Bishops and if they can believe it they may in utramque aurem indormire for Episcopacy it seems as well as Superstition is grafted into the Natures of the members of this great Kingdome and they can neither suddenly nor by custome be brought so much as to a contentedness to want their Hierarchy The Author of this Epistle is famed to be a great Historian and I doubt not but he is so but methinks he is mistaken in his Chronology whilest he makes this great Kingdome to have reverenced and honoured Bishops for one thousand four hundred years I find not any good evidence that there were any Bishops among us till Augustine the Monk was sent to us from Rome and it is not one thousand four hundred years since Augustine came hither I say there is no good evidence of Bishops till then for Venerable Bede the onely Author to be regarded concerning matters Ecclesiastical preceding Augustins mission from the Pope tells us indeed of Brittish Bishops but after