de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct
Day lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin Most men are convinced of the necessity of repenting but such is the deceitfulness of their hearts that too many defer it and that upon that very ground expressed in these words which have no ground or warrant from the Word of God At what time soever a sinner repenteth c. as if he could repent when he list which carries many to Hell It is true this is seemingly put off by a great Doctor thus D. P. de Disciâ— Eccl. 2. â— Sect. 3. Dixit Dominus quoad sensum licet non verbatim The Book speaks the sense although not the very words of the Text. But this is too frigid an answer to satisfie the Objection For 1. It is said to be a sentence of Scripture not an Exhortation according to the sense onely It is one thing to give the sense another to repeat the words 2. This agrees not with the sense but is contrary thereunto as was but now demonstrated Therefore it is untrue and injurious to charge the Apostles with the like in alledging the Old Testament in the New 2. That expression in the general Confession of sins viz. There is no health in us although well meant is incongruous and improper because most of the common sort understand not the true meaning of it yet patter it over out of custom without being through their ignorance duly sensible of what is indeed intended by it Howbeit the Minister may not alter the Phrase 3. After the first Lesson at Morn Prayer Te Deum or Benedicite both of them being Apochrypals are to be read before the second Lesson and so they interrupt the continued reading of the holy Scripture which the Preface to that Book would bear us in hand is provided against As for Te Deum or We praise thee O God c. it is a piece taken out of the mass-Mass-Book and in Popish Churches usually sung at times of great Victories Deliverances and other Triumphs From thence some Bishops little to their credit have introduced it upon like occasions into Protestant Churches that being no where enjoyned nor warranted by any Law in force This shews what able men such Bishops are to govern that know not how to express their thanksgiving to God for any extraordinary mercy so well as in a superstitious formal dress usually sung in Popish Churches And as for Benedicite viz. O all ye works of the Lord c. it is a piece of the Mass-Book also and taken out of the Apocryphal song of the three Children And it is bungled too not set forth as it is in the Song it self as by comparing them may appear And whereas that Song is said in the Title of it in the Apocrypha to be the song of the three holy Children which followeth in the third of Daniel after this place And they walked in the midst of the fire praising God and blessing the Lord this is an abusing and belying of the Canonical Text in Daniel 3. in which there is no hint of any such thing Yet must this come in and be kept in in our Liturgy though cast out of the Scotch Book to give another lye to the Preface of our Book of Common-Prayer of which more by and by 4. The many Antiphonies Responds except the peoples saying Amen have no pattern or warrant in the Word Yet above an hundred of these Antiphonies and Responsals or Answerings between Minister Clerk and people are enjoyned to be used beside the accompanying of him in the Confession of sins Creed reading every other verse of the Psalms c. How can such things having no warrant in the Word be done in Faith in the Publique Worship of God and not rather be accounted Will-Worship This is the rather to be excepted against not onely because it is so frequent in the Mass-Books but no where else but because also the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer saith That the reading of the holy Scripture is therein so set forth that all things shall be done in order without breaking one piece thereof from another and for this cause be cut off Antiphonies Responds Invitatories and such like things as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scripture How then do so many Responds and Answers of Clerk and People while the Minister is reading as likewise those Anthems before-mentioned which interpose between the first and second Lesson all which are still continued in the Book agree with that Preface still printed with the Book 5. If the Letany must be read which contains petitions for more particulars then all the Book besides and being put into one continued prayer without so many interpositions and interruptions might be of far better use then now it is why must the praying part be so much performed by the People and not by the Minister whose proper Office it is in publique to pray for the people as their mouth and not they to be his mouth There is no ground for this in Scripture yet we must be made to believe that there is nothing in the Leiturgy but what is evidently grounded upon the Word And wherefore must that clause in the Let any from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities be still left out was there no fear of his return to tyrannize over this Land again Had he ever more Instruments at Work in this Kingdom since the Reformation then now If it be said The Act for Vniformity gives notice of an alteration in the Letany yet that Act doth not tell us what that is in particular Therefore till that alteration be named that clause needeth not yea ought not to be omitted so long as the Letany is used 6. In the Book printed in 1 Eliz. there be added after the Letany two Prayers one for the then Queen another for Bishops both which were prayed for before in the Letany and also in the Prayer at the Communion for the whole estate of Christs Church which are not in the Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. And in 1 Jac. these were continued with one other Prayer for Queen Anne the Prince c. Now albeit the Prayers for the King Queen and Royal Family be useful and necessary yet when the Act of 1. Eliz. 2. admits of no alterations from or additions to that Book in 5.6 Ed. 6. save only in proper Lessons for Sundays one in the Letany and two more in the Communion and none other or otherwise how can those Prayers be used without making them that use them liable to the Law if rigorously urged till they be confirmed by Act of Parliament Or rather till that Act of 1. Eliz. 2. be repealed and taken away 7. Albeit the Preface to the Book saith that therein many things be left out whereof some be untrue some uncertain some vain and superstitious and nothing is ordained to be read but the very pure Word of God the holy Scriptures or
elected there can be legally and regularly no succession of Bishops There is no necessity of such a Consequence nor of making more Archbishops or Deans and Chapters or continuing of any such if it shall please the King and Parliament by any Act or Statute to appoint any other way and course of Election and Consecration of Bishops Which is as easie to be done as any thing else Enacted in Parliament there being no Divine Right so much as pretended unto for such Election or Consecration as of late was used in England 2. Whereas it is of late much insisted upon that Episcopacy is not only an Office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers given to them by the free Election of the rest to regulate order and act things agreed upon by the Presbytery joyned with them as the Commander in chief in an Army as the Capital Justice in a Court or as the Speaker in either House of Parliament but that it is a distinct and specifical Order by Divine Right Superiour to all other Presbyters which Order onely is Authorized to exercise such things as none else may medle with We say that this in England was never at all arrogated by any Bishops till of very late times 2. The things they make peculiar to Bishops ratione Ordinis are sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction as if none had power in either of these but themselves neither of which even they who pretend to derive their Episcopacy from the Apostles ever undertook to make good by any solid Antiquity Yea 3. those very Antiquities which they allege are either spurious or else speak nothing either of sole Ordination or of sole Jurisdiction but rather the contrary as might easily be made out But we tye our selves to speak to these particulars only as said to be made out by Law 3. This was never yielded by any Law of England nor by the Book of Ordination For however that Book established in 5.6 Edw. 6. and after repeal by Queen Mary confirmed in 8. Eliz. cap. 1. Yet when it speaks of the making of Bishops it calls that a Consecration and not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters which it calleth Priests calling one The form and manner of Ordering Deacons the other The form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this Word Ordering and calls it The form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop Which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never meant to make Bishops or as Dr. Gauden calls it Legal Episcopacy to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ's and his Apostles institution Superiour to a Presbyter It is indeed an easie matter for a bold man to contradict this and to say that the antient Writers call the Solemn form of consecrating a Bishop by no other name then that of Ordinatio Episcopi but it seems it is not so easie to prove what he saith For he produceth no such proof at all so that this confident saying touching such Ordination of Bishops affirmed by his Adversary to be a Novel Popish Position that this is Not Novel he is sure is but a meer shift and a put off no confutation at all And where he is pleased afterwards to urge the Preface to the Book of Ordination Dr Heylin Certam Epistol p. 143. which mentioneth three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and one passage in one of the Prayers at the Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop to prove that Episcopacy is a distinct Order from and Superiour to that of Presbyters he must be intreated to take notice 1. That the Preface alleged saith not as he speaks these THREE Orders but onely these Orders of Ministers c. But even there by way of explanation the Preface calls them Offices which Offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation c. now we deny them not to be distinct Offices only we cannot admit in his sense the Office of a Bishop to be a distinct Order above Presbytery For even in that very Preface it speaks of Consecrating not of Ordaining a Bishop as the Book all along doth of Ordering that is Ordaining of Deacons and Priests but never of other then of Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops that is of setting them over the rest in degree to be the mouth and hand of the rest in executing what by the rest is agreed upon And 2. touching that Prayer he mentions wherein Episcopacy is called in that Part of the Book it self which concerneth Bishops an Order This is but a wyre-drawing of the Words and a meer wresting of them The Words of the Prayer are these Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Now how do these words prove a Bishop to be a distinct Order when speaking of the person then to be made Bishop it is not said he is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And seeing he onely talks of antient Writers but produceth none we shall make bold to mind him what is the sense of the Canon-Law which he pleads to be still in force in England if Lindwood that great English Canonist be of any value with him who saith expresly Episcopatus non est Ordo Yea the very Book of Ordination in ordering of Priests appointing 1 Tim. 3. to be then read If any desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth an honest work A Bishop must be blameless c. doth more then tacitly admit a Bishop and a Presbyter not to differ in Order To which we shall add the judgement of an antient Archbishop of Canterbury even Anselmus himself an high man for the Pope and a great Contestor with the King for Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction even beyond the bounds of the Laws of this Land who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians where Paul cap. 1. saluteth but two Orders Bishops and Deacons on the word Episcopis saith thus Episcopis id est Presbyteris Episcopos namque pro Presbyteris more suo posuit Non enim plures Episcopi in una civitate erant neque Presbyteros intermitteret ut ad Diaconos descenderet Sed dignitatem excellentiam Presbyterorum declarat dum eosdem qui Presbyteri sunt Episcopos esse manifestat Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedio facium est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Evangelium rumperet Nam est Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos qui sederunt in Centuria 3. Presbyterum unum de se elecium in Excelsiori loco Gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si Exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi elegant
within two moneths after his Induction c. upon default hereof to be ipsofacto immediately deprived And if any Ecclesiastical Person shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented shall persist therein or not revoke his errour or after revocation return again to it he shall be deprived of his Ecclesiastical Promotions This is the effect of that Statute as to this Point But these Articles are both Doubtful and Defective 1. Doubtful 1. Because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13 Eliz. for as much as they are not therein in expresly inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-Page of them mentioned Nor is it known where the Original is enrolled 2. Of those 39 Articles there were 36 of them set forth yet not ratified by Parliament in Edw. 6. his reign the other were added by the Convocation in An. 1562. 3. In the Books of Articles now printed and ever since 10 Caroli 1. there is a Declaration of that his late Majesty prefixed thereunto by the advice and procurement of the then Bishops after Arminianism began to perk and to be openly preached by the rising Party to this effect viz. 1. That those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods Word all therefore are required to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and the least difference from them prohibited 2. That the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire should have licence under the Broad * This shews who did pen it Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by his then Majesty shall concern the setled continuance of the said Doctrine as well as Discipline then established from which no variying or deparing in the least degree should be endured 3. That all curious search and disputes touching any points contained therein be laid aside and shut up in Gods Promises as generally set forth and in the general meaning of these Articles And that no man shall either print or preach to draw any Article aside any way nor put his own sense or Comment upon it but shall take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it This Declaration is published with the said Articles by Command If this be still continued and confirmed then all these sad Consequences must needs follow 1. That no Minister shall have so much liberty to interpret any one of those Articles as is not onely allowed but required of him in his Ordination to expound the Word of God it self But this is a notorious truth that after that Declaration was printed and published as also a Proclamation to the same effect issued those of the Prelatical Party had their Spies every where to see who durst to preach a word against any Arminian Tenet or to explain any one Article as not making for but against any of those Opinions If any were found so to do he was sure to be Convented for breach of the Kings Declaration and Proclamation yea some have been brought into the High Commission-Court for this very cause While in the mean time that other Party took liberty to vent and preach up those points without controul Which no Anti-Arminians durst call into question for that the then Bishops of greatest power who might by that Declaration obtain licence to explain all things as they thought fit favoured those Advocates of Arminianism and must have been their Judges if they had been complained of 2. That where in Art 16. it is said Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is a sin against the Holy Ghost We may not dare to open the nature of deadly sin nor to say that all sins are deadly contrary to the Popish distinction of sins into mortal and venial Nor may we presume to explain the next part of that Article viz. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given c. which Clause Bishop Montacute and after him others allege to prove falling from grace and thereby pretend that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England which is contrary not onely to Art 17. but to 1 John 3.9 1 Pet. 1.5 3. That it being said Art 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith we may not enquire what is meant by the Church whether the Church Catholick or of England nor what the Church of England is what Rites or Ceremonies it may ordain or how far her Authority extendeth in Controversies of Faith And if she do happen to ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation that is beside the Word no man may question it but we must if a Convocation once declare for it assent and subscribe unto it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it or be deprived of all Ecclesiastical Promotions 4. That whereas the 34 Article treateth of the Traditions of the Church we must not curiously search what is here meant by Traditions and whether it be meant of the Traditions of the Church of Rome or of any other Church But we must rest in this General That whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly as offending against the common Order of the Church hurting the Authority of the Magistrate and wounding the weak Whereas this Church hath no where set forth what she meaneth by Traditions whether distinct from Ceremonies or the same with them how a Tradition may be said to be ordained and what is meant by common Authority Yea if power be given to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation when and so often as they shall desire it to ordain any more Traditions which seems to be a strange Expression and new Ceremonies and the Royal Assent pass thereupon all Ministers must subscribe thereunto before they know what they be yea before they be ordained after which it will be too late to dispute them or to vary from them in the least degree upon any pretence whatsoever It will be too late then for any man to say They are repugnant to the Word of God 5. That all being by Art 35. to admit both Books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times and therefore to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently men must subscribe to false Doctrines or assertions Take instance in but one or two particulars for brevities sake Par. 2. Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer pag. 147. Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the Old Testament not for
satisfying their carnal and fleshly lusts but to have many children because every one of them hoped and begged oft-times of God in their Prayers that that blessed seed which God promised should come into the world to break the Serpents head might come and be born of his stock and kindred As if all did not know out of what Tribe Christ was to issue Par. 2. Hom. 2. of Alms pag. 160. The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of the Scripture saying Mercifulness and alms-giving purgeth from all sins delivereth from death and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness For this is alledged Tob. 4. ver 10. Then there is added The wise Preacher the son of Sirach confirmeth the same when he saith That as water quencheth burningfire even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth sins Excellent sense For this Ecclus. 5. is quoted in the margent But it is cap. 3.30 where the words in the New Translation are Alms maketh an atonement for sins Of which words however a charitable construction may be wyre-drawn yet those expressions the same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of the Scripture evidently admit of these two gross Errours 1. That the Book of Tobit is to be taken for Holy Scripture 2. That it was indited by the Holy Ghost The former of these is contrary to Art 6. in which only the Canonical Books there named are owned for the Scripture of the Old Testament And that of Tobit is there numbred among the Apoeryphals which the Article saith out of Hierom the Church doth not apply to establish Doctrine yet this Homily applies these Apocryphal passages to confirm the Doctrine of Alms deeds And as touching the Holy Ghosts teaching of this in those places alledged out of Tobit and Siracides this is denyed by all who receive not those Books as Canonical Take but one witness instead of many King James who in his Book directed to his Eldest son and called Basilicon Doren having spoken to him of reading of the Holy Scriptures saith thus As to the Apocrypha Books I omit them because I am no Papist and indeed some of them are no way like the ditement of the Spirit of God 6. That by the 37th Article as it is still printed and may not be altered where it is said The Queens Majesty hath the chief power in the Realm of England c. meaning Queen Elizabeth who is after named therein all Ministers are bound to read those very words unto this day and may not say The Kings Majesty hath the chief power for the Articles must be read every word of them as they are printed with the Kings Declaration before them or the Minister must be deprived if he alter any word or shall not take it in the sense of the very Letter of it And if he keep not to all the very words of the Articles who can swear that he did read them after his Induction if put unto it 7. That by this means we shall have no setled or fixed Doctrine of the Church of England at all if so often as the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation shall obtain License to deliberate of all such things as they shall think fit to explain and shall obtain thereto the Royal Assent they may put what sense they please upon the Doctrine established which by the Declaration prefixed to the Articles is promised to be from time to time granted unto them If it be said There is an easie Cure for all this The Declaration before the 39 Articles was never confirmed by any Act of Parliament nor is now in force or if it be it is but the taking of that away and causing the Books to be printed without it So will the subscribers to the Articles be at as much liberty as by the Act of 13 Eliz. was allowed them To this it is Answered that this will signifie nothing if Ministers be still tyed to subscription For 1. It hath been already declared yea adjudged that by that Statute there is no liberty for any man to subscribe the Articles with any limitation or explication if any credit be given to Sir Edward Cook who saith * Instit 4.47 p. 324. edit 1658. that he hath heard Wray chief Justice in the Kings Bench Pasch 23 Eliz. quoting Dier 23 Eliz. 377. lib. 6. fol. 69. Grenes Case Smiths Case report that where one Smith subscribed to the said 39 Articles of Religion with this addition so far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God that it was resolved by him and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. Because the Statute required an absolute subscription and this subscription made it conditional and that this Act was made for avoiding diversities of opinions c. And by this Addition the party might by his own private opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God and by this means diversities of opinions should not be avoided which was the scope of the Statute and the very Act it self made touching subscription hereby of none effect Thus He. 2. This shews a necessity of repealing that branch of the Act so far as it concerneth subscription because 1. if we may not subscribe with such an addition so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word it must needs be granted that the Composers of them are admitted to be infallible and their Articles of equal Authority with Canonical Scripture or else that the Statute intended to tyrannize over the Consciences of men which is not to be imagined 2. There is no more necessity for Ministers to subscribe those Articles which that Act confirmes then there is for others to subscribe to all other Acts of Parliament which do concern them If an Act once confirm and ratifie a thing under a penalty it will take place and keep all in as much obedience as if all the Subscriptions in the world were made to it It is not particular Subscriptions but publique Legislative Authority that makes it a binding Law 3. This Subscription is for the most part required of men while they be young and have not time or solidity throughly to ponder and weigh all the Articles in the balance of the Sanctuary or in the scaies of the Laws so that hereby they are cast into a snare ere they be aware and by their own inconsiderate and rash act bound as men are apt to make them believe if they afterwards upon never so just grounds begin to hesitate to maintain every of those Articles although contrary to the Word of God which is expresly contrary to the very Letter of the 20th Article which saith It is not lawful to ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written And afterwards As it ought not to decree any thing against the same that is the Word so beside the same ought it not to enforce any thing
to be believed for necessity of Salvation But the Statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles when it enjoyns not only subscription but an assent unto them punishing all with Deprivation that shall affirm and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them which every man must do if they be found contrariant to the Word or he must be false to God 4. If subscription to these or any other Articles be still continued How can any just liberty be granted to tender Consciences But that they must swallow all that is enjoyned although beside yea contrary to the Word or be persecuted and ruined Thus much of the Doubtfulness of the Articles and of the inconvenience and mischief of subscribing them Which inconvenience and mischief will be greater if we should be tyed to those Articles alone though never so sound as shall now appear in the Defectiveness of them 2. The Articles are Defective Because 1. The sixth Article speaking of the Holy Scripture saith In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church Nevertheless albeit it enumerate the Canonical Books of the Old Testament yea and all the Apocrypha too yet it nameth not any of the New Testament but only concludeth thus All the Books of the New Testament as they are commonly received we do receive and account Canonical Now it being not unknown that there hath been doubts in the Church of some of them insomuch as the Epistle of St. James the second Epistle of St. Peter and several other books and passages in the New Testament have been not only doubted but refused the Article is defective in the not enumerating all the Books of the New Testament 2. There are no Articles for discovering and condemning sundry points of Popery in Doctrine which being first the Tenets of Arminius the first Protestant Writer that was not a professed Lutheran that ever openly maintained them are too commonly suckt in and cryed up by some as the Doctrine of the Church of England which since the Reformation never own'd them but are all maintained by Bellarmine and generally by all Franciscans and Jesuites but confuted by all approved Writers of the Protestant Reformed party that have written against Bellarmine and others of that crew as likewise by the learned Whitgift Whitaker Junius Zanchius Pareus Chamier Dr. Prideaux and many others The learned King James also took so much notice of and distaste at those Arminian-Popish Opinions touching Predestination abused universal Redemption universal Grace the manner of conversion and falling from grace that his Majesty was the chief procurer and promoter of the late Synode of Dort to which he sent Bishop Carlton Dr. Davenant Dr. Hall afterwards Bishops Dr. Goad and Dr. Balcanqual to assist in that Synode whose judgements touching all those points were given in to the said Council subscribed with their hands and afterwards printed and published Agreeable whereunto in the main hath the late Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster declared their judgements in the Confession of Faith afterwards ratified by both Houses of the late Long Parliment for which reason is that Assembly so much slighted reviled and opposed 3. Those Articles contain nothing of the Creation of Providence Fall of man of Sin of the Punishment of sin of Gods Covenants Effectual Calling Adoption Sanctification Faith Repentance Perseverance of the Law of God Christian liberty and Liberty of conscience Religious Worship of the Sabbath or Lords day of Marriage and Divorce the Communion of Saints Church-government and Discipline of the Resurrection or of the last Judgement all which the Scripture teacheth and that as necessary as appears by the comprizing most of them in the Apostles Creed and therefore necessary to be explained and held forth unto all as the Doctrine of this Church especially considering the differences and Controversies about many of them Upon this reason it was that the late Assembly of Divines have taken so much pains to compose several Articles which they call Chapters wherein both those of the 39 Articles which are held to be indeed fit to be retained are more fully cleared and explained and the rest added with pertinent proofs of Scripture to make it manifest that they are all evidently grounded upon the Word of God But all proofs are wanting in the 39 Articles no text of Scripture being produced to make cut any one of them II. Of WORSHIP THe Form of Publick Worship in England except Preaching is set down in the Liturgy or Book of Common-Prayer established by Law in 1 Eliz. 2. intituled An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer and Service in the Church and the Administration of the Sacraments This Act repealeth another made in 1 Mar. 2. which had repealed a former Statute made in 5.6 Edw. 6. for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. and re-established that Common-Prayer-Book which the said last mentioned Act of Edw. 6. had ratified and confirmed But yet the Act of 1 Eliz. which authorizeth and enjoyneth the use of that Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. doth it with allowance of one alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year and the form of the Letany altered and corrected and two sentences onely added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants but none other or otherwise Now it is here to be observed that in the Act of 5.6 Edw. 6. for confirming that Book it is said that The Kings most Excellent Majesty with th' assent of the Lords and Commons in that Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same had caused the aforesaid Order of common service intituled The Book of Common-Prayer to be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect and by the foresaid Authority annexed and enjoyned it so explained and perfected to that present Statute So that the same was enrolled together with the Act it self Which being repealed by Queen Mary the Original Book was taken off from the Parliament-Roll and so lost But in the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. there is no mention at all of joyning the Book then revived and re-confirmed to the said Act nor doth it appear that ever it was again enrolled whereby by having recourse to any Record or Parliament-Roll it may be proved that that Book of Common-Prayer printed in the year 1559. the first of Qâ—een Eliz. is confirmed by Law or that any man is bound to use it as the onely form now established by Parliament or to be punished for not using it at all And albeit the Act of 1 Eliz. Quere therefore whether he that either useth them not or useth other be punishaable taketh notice of some alterations above mentioned to be made in the Book then ratified yet it doth not name nor express what those alterations were So that all men are lest in a blind touching the same if put to prove that those
of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year but after mention of some by name it addeth And none other or otherwise Also in the present Kalendars there are four Chapters of Joshua left out that were in the Kalendars of 5. and 6. Edw. 6. And on Octob. 13. Judith 15.16 are appointed now to be read which was not so in 5.6 Edw. 6. This deserves consideration seeing so many Canonical Chapters of use are not at all appointed to be read in publick The RUBRICKS The first Page of the present Books appoint Ministers to use such Ornaments as were of use in 2. Edw. 6. not declaring what they be The Book of 2. Edw. 6. enjoyned onely a surâ—lis in Parish Churches and Chappels See last page of that Book where are notes for explanation So also in Rubr. before Morn Prayer 5 6. Edw. 6. The Book established in 5.6 Edw. 6. names a Surplice onely The Book of Canons Can. 58. enjoyneth other Ornaments Hereby some Ministers must break that Canon or the present Rubrick which the 14th Canon requireth all to observe So that the 14th Canon and the 58th contradict each other And neither those Canons nor that Rubrick nor this Book are established by Law After the Communion there are in all Service-Books of 5.6 Edw. 6. seven Rubricks Which number remaineth but the Third is divided into two and the fourth wholly lost In which fourth the Compilers had solidly and excellently declared in what sense they intended Kneeling at the Communion The loss whereof hath occasioned much stumbling and offence yea much trouble and persecution That Rubrick was this Although no Order can be so perfectly devised but it may be of some either for their Ignorance and Infirmity or else of Malice and Obstinacy misconstrued depraved or interpreted in a wrong part yet because brotherly Charity willeth that so much as conveniently may be Offences should be taken away therefore we willing to do the same Whereas it is Ordained in the Book of Common-Prayer in the Administration of the Lords Supper that the Communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion which thing being well meant for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ given unto the Worthy Receiver and to avoid the profanation and disorder which about the holy Communion might else ensue Lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise we do declare that it is not meant thereby that any Adoration is done or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread Wine there bodily received nor unto any real and essential Presence there being of Christs natural flesh and blood For as concerning the Sacramental Bread and Wine they remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And as concerning the natural Body and Bloud of our Saviour Christ they are in Heaven and not here for it is contrary to the truth of Christs true natural Body to be in moe places than one at one time The Body of the Book it self There is a whole Prayer now left out at the end of the Letany which was extant in the Books of 5.6 Edw. 6. to be used in times of Dearth or Famine which was this O God merciful Father which in the time of Heliseus the Prophet didst suddenly turn in Samaria great scarcity and dearth into plenty and cheapness and extream famine into abundance of victual have pity upon us that now be punished for our sins with like adversity Encrease the fruits of the Earth by thy heavenly benedi ction and grant that we receiving thy bountifvl liberality may use the same to thy glory our comfort and relief of our needy Neighbours through Jesu Christ our Lord Amen Moreover there are sundry Prayers some before some in King James his time put into the present Leiturgy as also some things into the Catechism which are not confirmed by Parliament Which Additions although useful being not legally ratified hath imboldened some to make alterations at their pleasure For instance The Prayer for the Queen and Royal Family before the year 1627. began thus Almighty God which hast promised to be a Father of thine elect and of their seed but now thus Almighty God the fountain of all goodness Which change was a great Presumption and may seem to imply an exclusion of the Royal Stem out of the number of Gods Elect. This alteration was first made in the Books appointed to be used about that time at publick Fasts and thence was stollen into the Book of Common-Prayer Of which no reason can be discovered unless this that the word Elect distasted the favourers of Popish Arminianism Likewise the reading Psalms now thrust into the Common Prayer Books pretended to be established by Law were no part thereof in 5.6 Edw. or in 1. Eliz. For neither of the Books then printed in Folio for publick use in Churches had the Psalms in them but only a direction what Psalms should every day be read which were accordingly read out of the Bibles then used in Churches It is therefore very hard and unreasonable to continue that Translation and to enjoyn and tye men to read out those abused Psalms as now they stand in that Book And it is a great wrong to the people that Version being very defective and corrupt Take some instances wherein that differs from the Kings last authorized Translation now only allowed to be read in Churches as also from the Original it self Psal 28.9 The Lord is my strength In the new thus Old Transt The Lord is their strength ver 8. 37.38 Keep innocency and take heed to the thing that is right In the new Mark the perfect man and behold the just ver 37. 58.8 So let indignation vex them as a thing that is raw In the new He taketh them away as with a whirlewind both living and in his wrath ver 9. 68.6 Maketh men to be of one mind in an house In the new Setteth the solitary in families 105.28 They were not obedient In the new They rebelled not against his word * * Let which of those by Fuller or Dr. Prideaux be thought the better yet while they both stand they cause scandal 107.40 Though he suffer them to be evil intreated In the new He poureth contempt upon Princes 125.3 The rod of the wicked cometh not In the new the rod of the wicked resteth not upon the lot of the righteous In Psal 14. there are three whole Verses which are not in the Original nor in the revised Translation nor in the Greek 72. but only in the Popish vulgar Bibles To excuse it by saying All those Verses are found together in Rom. 3. is a fig-leaf For the Apostle never meant to produce all those words as taken out of one place but only to collect out of several Texts of the Old Testament sundry testimonies to prove all men
to be sinners Accordingly he took three Verses out of Psal 14. one out of Psal 140. another out of Psal 10. another out of Isa 59. All which the Old Translators unadvisedly thrust into the 14. Psalm as parts of that one Scripture I forbear to mention other Psalms wherein sometimes words sometimes whole verses are left out and much of the rest is very improperly and impertinently translated which in the Leiturgy provided for Scotland was redressed yet the Book for sundry other defects impertinencies and redundances was refused This makes sport for Papists and Atheists to find how much our Translations publickly used do enterfere and jar and how corrupt some of them be Thus of the differences between the old common-prayer-Common-prayer-books confirmed by Law and the present common-prayer-Common-prayer-books so much magnified and adored not only by the common sort but by too many of those who pretend to learning and skill in the Publike Offices of the Church of England but abuse the people yea Magistracy and God himself therein For still the Preface of the Book runs thus That nothing is enjoyned to be read but that which is the pure word of God or that which is evidently grounded thereupon which as our bold Masters have ordered the matter is false and a meer cheat put upon the people of God Having thus given a taste of the Differences between the Old and New Books I hold it needful to shew how unsafe it might be hereupon to conclude no more but this Then let the present Book of Common-prayer be compared with the old that was established and be reformed by it For even in the Book that was established by Parliament there are sundry incongruous and uncomely expressions unwarrantable passages and some gross mistakes of the Scripture it self especially in the Translations of the Epistles and Gospels Which Translation used in the Book of Common-prayer is as antient as the 35. of Hen. 8. and used first in private Primmars being translated out of the Mass books and other Offices of the Romish Church for want of a better Translation in the Reign of Edward the sixth For Example Gâ—sp The old Translation on 2 Sund. after Epiph. When men be drunk But in the new When men have well drunk Epist Indeed Dr. Prideaux saith all these are amended in the Kings New Transtation of the Bible But what is this to the Service-book in which these corrupt passages are still printed and pressed to be read in Divine Service on 4 Sund. in Lent Mount Sinai is Agar in Arabia and hordereth upon the City which is now called Jerusalem a gross mistake both of Scripture and Topography The new Translation therefore renders it thus This Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Hierusalem which now is He saith not Mount Sinai is Agar for that is not so But Hagar is mount Sinai that is a representation or figure of it Nor doth the Apostle say that mount Sinai in Arabia bordered upon Hierusalem For that is false Arabia being many hundred miles distant from Hierusalem And the Mount whereof St. Paul speaks was a type of it not bordering on it Epist on Palm-Sunday He was found in his apparel as a man In the new He was found in fashion as a man The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports not apparel but the form or figure which includeth the real substance and true nature of the thing whereof it is a form Epist on 16 Sun after Trin. Which is Father of all that is called father in heaven and in earth Then the Father must needs be Father to himself The new Translation therefore renders it Of whom the whole family of heaven and earth is named So the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Much more might be added not only against the present unestablished Leiturgy but against that which was confirmed But this shall suffice For my intention neither is nor ever was to destroy or cast off all Forms but only to shew some grounds of exception against this And seeing this is so much cried up that the most place all their Devotion and Religion in it and come little short of the Israelites in abusing of the brazen Serpent which by Gods own command was erected in the Wilderness Authority may consider whether it be not honourable safe and necessary to deal with both Books as Hezekiah did with that Idolized Serpent and carefully to provide a better in the room as that good King did in reforming the whole Publick Service of God there being now far better means and fairer opportunities of so doing than in the times of compiling the Antient Leiturgy by those Reverend and Renowned Bishops and Matyrs that did compose it ROM 10.22 Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth Having reprinted the foregoing Sheet we must now go on in the same Order and Method as was before promised to observe some more incongruous and unworthy passages all which call for a New Form of Liturgy in the rest of the Kalendar Rubricks and Body of the Book it self I. In the KALENDAR THe Kalendar is either that which appoints Proper Lessons for Sundays and Holy-days to speak in the Common-prayer-book Language or that which in each Month sheweth what Chapters are to be daily read on week-days according to the days of the month and is prefixed in all Editions to the Book it self In the Proper Lessons appointed for Holy-days The Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. omitteth proper Lessons for the Conversion of Paul because that was then no Holy-day but abrogated by the Act of 5.6 Edw. 6. ca. 3. Therefore in the Common Kalendar then established the first Lessons for that day being Jan. 25. as being a Common-day of the Week were Gen. 46. and Gen. 47. But in the Book of 1 Eliz. these two Chapters are laid by and Wisd 5 and 6. put in the room This however toucht upon in the printed Sheet is here again taken notice of to shew by this among other arguments that the Book then printed was not confirmed by 1. Eliz. 2. because that Act admits of no alterations of Lessons on Holy-days or other days save only on Sundays Yet is this also thrust into the New Scotish Leiturgy and that day made an Holy-day again And whereas in all the proper Lessons for Holy-days in 5.6 Edw. 6. only All Saints day had for those Lessons Wisd 3 and 5. and all other Holy-day Lessons were Lessons out of the Canonical Books the Kalendar of 1 Eliz. hath appointed 20. more Apocryphal Chapters for Holy-days and thrust out so many Canonical Chapters that by the Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. were appointed for those very days as for instance  Kalendar 5.6 Edw. Kal. of 1 Eliz. On the Purification None yet on Feb. 1 which is the Day Exod. 12. Exod. 13. Wisd 9. Wisd 12. On St. Mathias None yet on Feb. 25. which is the Day Numb 33. Numb 34. Wisd 19. Ecclus. 3. On the
Annunciat None yet on Mar. 25. which is the day Josh 21. Josh 22. Ecclus. 2. Eccl. 3. On St. Mark None yet on Apr. 25 which is the day 2 Sam. 3. 2 Sam. 4. Ecclus 4. Ecclus. 5. On St. Barnaby None 't is no holy-day Yet on June 11. Hest 3. Hest 4. Eccl. 10. Eccl. 12. On St. Peter None yet on Jun. 29. which is the day Job 31. Job 32. Eccl. 15. Eccl. 19. On St. James None yet on July 25. which is the day Eccles 10. Eccles 1â— Eccl. 21. Eccl. 23. On St. Barthol None yet on Aug. 24. which is the day Ezek. 3. Ezek. 6. Eccl. 25. Eccl. 29. On St. Matthew None yet on Sept. 21. which is the day Mic. 7. Naum 1. Eccl. 35. Eccl. 38. On St. Mich. None yet on Sept. 29. which is the day Zech. 7. Zech. 8. Eccl. 39. Eccl. 44. Can we think there could ever have been so much boldness in those that printed the Common-Prayer-Book in 1 Eliz. to make so many alterations in that very year wherein the Act of Eliz. passed for confirmation of that in 5.6 Edw. 6. which admits not of one of them if that Book which hath been followed ever since printed in 1 Eliz. were the very Book then re-established And is not every Minister which readeth those Apocryphals on the days aforesaid punishable if he persisteth therein by the Act of 1. Eliz. 2 And here let it be noted that albeit there be sundry whole Canonical Books left out and no less then 188. Chapters of the Old Testament not read at all yet of the Apocrypha which contains but 173 Chapters there are read 121 Chapters by the Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. as well as the Kalendars of later date Whereas St. Hierom in his directions for reading the Scriptures in private by an holy woman gives warning Caveat omnia Apocrypha Let her beware of all the Apocrypha Which is not unlike to that of King James to his Son who by saying I omit them because I am no Papist declares plainly that such husks were first cast before the Church by Popery and is fit food for none but doting Papists No more is that Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. from Octob. 5. to Novemb. 28. wherein very few Canonical Chapters are appointed to be read We shall now offer one Observation out of the late compiled Liturgy for Scotland which is this that however so many Apocryphal Chapters still stand in our Liturgies in all the Kalendar for Scotland there are but 12. Apocryphals to be read in their Churches which yet they would not endure this shews plainly that our great zealous Masters who gave order for the Composing of that Book had somewhat upon their Consciences that rounded them in the ear against the continuing so many Apocryphals in ours especially considering that some of them have been reputed but Fables as namely the Book of Judith the History of Susanna c. acted first in Interludes or Plays And some of the Chapters contain meer delusions and lyes yet even those very Chapters are appointed to be read in our Churches To make this last out take notice of somewhat observed before out of the second Homily of Alms-deeds which quoteth Tobit 4. and Eccluâ— 5. both being appointed to be read the one Octob. 6. the other Octob. 30. which I here pass over In Tobit 3. appointed by the Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. to be read Octob. 6. where mention is made ver 8. that Sarah the daughter of Raguel had been marryed to seven husbands whom Asmodeus the evil spirit had killed before they had lien with her a likely matter Yet was she reproached by her own Fathers maids that she had strangled them all In Tobit 3. ordered to be read Octob. 9. ver 9. it is said Alms doth deliver from death and shall purge away all sin What need then the bloud of Christ And in ver 15. one Raphael telleth Tobit thus I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the holy One. Whereas none but the Angel of the Covenant now at the right hand of God to make intercession for the Saints do present their prayers Revel 8.3 This Raphael was far from being one of the Angels that go in and out before the glory of the holy one for he was a lying either man or spirit This was he that was hired by Tobias son to Tobit to shew him the way to Rages and being asked by Tobit himself of what Tribe he was answered I am Azarias the son of Ananias the great and of thy brethren Tob. 5.12 Now you find him in two tales to the same man in one of which he must needs lye They that desire to read more of his pranks may read that Book of Tobit and particularly Chap. 6. where he taught Tobias how to chase away the Devil by taking the heart the liver and gall of a fish and thereof to make a smoak which when the Devil who was said to be in love with Sarah before named and therefore in the Marriage-Chamber had killed those seven husbands before mentioned who had marryed her should smell he should flee away and never come again any more And are not these gallant Chapters to be read in Churches yet our Kalendar appointeth them to be read viz. Tob. 5. and 6. on Octob. 7. So likewise Judith cap. 9. appointed to be read Octob. 16. tells a story of a prayer which her self made to God when she had it in design to cut off Holofernes head in which prayer she takes notice of father Simeon who with Levi slew the Shechemites for deflouring their sisters Gen. 34. and tells God concerning the Shechemites ver 4. Thou hast given their wives for a prey and their daughters to be captives and all their spoils to be divided among thy dear children which were moved with thy zeal and abhorred the pollution of their bloud and called upon thee for aid c. Can we think this pious Amazon had ever read Jacobs censure of that fact of Simeon and Levi and his curse upon it Gen. 49.5 6 7. even while he was blessing the rest of his Sons except incestuous Reuben at the very point of death Simeon and Levi are brethren instruments of cruelty are in their habitations O my soul come not thou into their secret unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united for in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they digg'd down a wall Cursed be their anger for it was fierce and their wrath for it was cruel I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel The rest of her prayer is conformable to this Therefore she prayeth ver 10. in reference to Holofernes and his men smite by the deceit of my lips for she meant to destroy him by lying the servant with the prince and the prince with his servant c. And in ver 13. Make my
exigitur quam consulitur there is a service set up which however it was appointed by God to be once used by the children of Israel so soon as they were gone over Jordan into Canaan Deut. 27. yet is now no way warrantable in the Publique Worship of God that is for the Minister openly to denounce Curses upon all sinners divers times in the year and that not in the ordinary Reading-place but out of the Pulpit To which all the people are required to say Amen Whereby many of them are necessitated to curse themselves But as for that place in Deuteronomy that is no warrant for this now Because that was no part of the Publique Service then incumbent on the Priests or Levites nor to be done by any in the place of Publique Worship but upon Mount Ebal and that by six of the Tribes to wit Reuben Gad Asher Zebulun Dan and Naphtali ver 13. and that but once And let it be observed that Levi was none of them that were appointed to Curse nor were they of that Tribe so much as among them But he was to be upon Mount Gerizzim with Simcon Judah Issâ—char Joseph and Benjamin to bless ver 12. And this was the charge before given of God by Moses unto Aaron and his sons as their constant duty at all publique Assemblies of the Congregation for Worship Numb 6.23 c. to bless the Congregation thus The Lord bless thee and keep thee the Lord make his face to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee and give thee peace This indeed was an Ordinance to which God there promiseth a good success saying They shall put my Name upon the children of Israel and I will bless them For Ministers of the Gospel then whose Office it is to be Messengers of Peace and to bring glad tidings of good things to his people to be imployed and that often in cursing the people as a part of his Office and of publique Worship not this or that particular offender being according to Christs Ordinance convicted and censured and still remaining refractory and impenitent is such a piece of humane and unchristian-like invention as hath no warrant from the Word of God nor from the practise of the Primitive Church which this very Commination it self in the first lines of it plainly confesseth where it saith that then the Discipline was to put notorious sinners to open penance in Lent and that in stead thereof until the said Discipline may be restored it is thought good to use this Which shews plainly that this is no other then a later spawn of Antichrist in his Popish Services More might be said of sundry other particulars in the Service-Book but we suppose that he that shall duly weigh that which hath been already noted will think these enow III. Of RITES and CEREMONIES HAving spoken of the necessity of Reformation in Worship it is necessary in the next place to shew the like necessity of Reformation in Rites and Ceremonies which are appurtenances of and appendents to Worship in relation to the Injunctions of the Apostle Let all things be done decently and in order a 1 Cor. 14.40 and to the use of edifying b 1 Cor. 14.26 And here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies which be Divine by Gods own Institution for these are all in some respects parts of external Divine Worship in their use prescribed by himself such are the outward elements in the Sacraments c. and in other respects Ceremonies appendent to that Worship which is internal and principally intended in and by that which is external by Divine Institution But we speak of Rites and Ceremonies appointed by the Lights and Guides of the Church for decency order and edification being of Humane institution and alterable although used in the exercise of Religious Worship according to the 34th Article of Religion which teacheth that it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly like for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of Countries Times and Mens manners c. The reasons why such Ceremonies not only may but sometimes must be changed according to the diversities of Countries Times and Mens manners which may make it evident that what is now desired no way tendeth to disorder confusion or Schism but to godly order without the least infringement of holy unity in the Church are plainly set forth before the Book of Common-prayer it self under that Preface or Title Of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained Where it is said Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church and have had their beginning by the institution of man some at the first were of godly intent and purpose devised and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition some entred into the Church by indiscret Devotion and such a zeal as was without knowledge and for because they were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more abuses which not only for their unprofitableness but because they have much blinded the people and obscured the glory of God are worthy to be cut away and clean rejected The same Preface saith further Some are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these later days that the burden of them was intolerable whereof St. Augustine in his time complained that they were grown to such a number that the estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter then were the Jews And he counselled that such yoke and burthen should be taken away as time would serve quietly to do it But what would St. Augustine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark that they did more confound and darken then declare and set forth Christs benefits unto us Upon these and other reasons it was that many Ceremonies introduced into the Mass-Books and other Popish Breviaries such as ducking and bowing to the East to the Altar the standing up at Gloria Patri or Glory be to the Father c. at the reading of the Gospels of the Day the wearing of Robes Copes Lawn sleeves or other Vestments save onely a Rochet to be worn by an Archbishop or Bishop and Surplice only by Priests and Deacons the wearing of Sandals or Slippers when men go into Churches or Chappels the turning Communion Tables and setting them Altar-wise at the East end of the Chanâ—â—l or setting up Altars of stone in that place whether the Congregation can hear or not womens wearing of Vails and offering of Chrisomes at Churchings and that at the high Altar the reading of the Lessons in one place and the second Service at the Altar which second Service was never appointed by the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book to
the said Letters Patents to him or them made and delivered as is aforesaid shall have full power and authority by vertue of this Act and of the said Letters Patents under your Highness your Heirs or Successours to exercise use and execute all the premises according to the tenour and effect of the said Letters Patents any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding This is one entire Clause of that Act nor is there any Branch or Clause in that whole Act that gives more or other Jurisdiction to Bishops or any other Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever 2. Now the Act of 17. Car. 1.11 having repeted this Clause at large addeth Be it Enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That the aforesaid Branch Clause Article or Sentence contained in the said Act and every word matter and thing contained in that Branch Clause Article or Sentence shall from henceforth be repealed annulled revoked annihilated and utterly made void for ever any thing in the said Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding This as we humbly conceive puts a period to all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Bishops Deans and Chapters and Archdeacons whatsoever And even before that Act of 17. Car. 1. that Government which they exercised was without yea contrary to Law For whereas by the Statute of 1. Edw. 6.2 it was Enacted that all Summons and Citations or other process Ecclesiastical in all Suits and Causes c. should from the first day of July thence next following be made in the name and with the stile of the King as it is in Writs Original or Judicial at the Common Law And that the Teste thereof be in the name of the Archbishop or Bishop or other having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction who hath the Commission and grant of the Ecclesiastical Authority immediately from the Kings Highness And that his Commissary Official or Substitute exercising jurisdiction under him shall put his name in the Citation or Process after the Teste And that they in all Seals of their Office shall have the Kings Highness Arms decently set with certain Characters under the Arms for the knowledge of the Diocess and shall use no other Seal of Jurisdiction c. upon pain of his Majesties displeasure and imprisonment during his Majesties pleasure * So also it is Enacted 1. Edw. 6.12 that they should make their Process and Writings in the Ks. name and not under their own names and that their Seals should be the Kings Arms. In which Act nevertheless they were allowed to use their own Seals in admission and ordering all their own Officers in all Certificates in all Collations Presentations Institutions and Inductions of Benefices Letters of Orders or Dimissories as formerly was accustomed But under colour of this last Toleration they have used their own Names and Seals onely in all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions for many years last past without taking the least notice of King or Queen or taking any special Commission from them for ought hath appeared in any of their pretendedly juridical proceedings which are therefore apprehended to be all void in Law albeit they had obtained in secret Letters Patents so to act as they have done For that Statute being repealed in 1. Mar. 2. was again in general terms revived and re-established in 1. Eliz. 1. and never since made void And whereas our Bishops and Archbishops in England and Wales are in all but twenty six in number which being far too few to be able to execute the Office of Bishops as by the Word of God they are bound to do there was in the 26th year of Hen. 8. cap. 14. an Act of Parliament made for adding six and twenty Suffragan Bishops more unto them which that Statute saith hath been accustomed to be had in this Realm It was Enacted that Thâ—tford Ipswich Colchester Dover Gilford Southhampton Taunton Shaftsbury Molton Marleborough Bedford Leicester Glocester Shrewsbury Bristol Penreth Bridgwater Notingham Grantham Hull Huntington Cambridge and the Town of Pereth and Barwick St. Germans in Cornwal and the Isle of Wight shall be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffragans to be made in this Realm These to be chosen thus Every Archbishop and Bishop that would have Suffragans must for each place nominate two persons to the King whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the name title and dignity of Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid as he should be nominated unto and he to be called Bishop Suffragan of that See And the King by his Letters Patents is to present him to the Archbishop of the Province where this Suffragan is to be requiring the Archbishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more to be procured by the Bishop that names him to Consecrate the said person to the same name title stile and dignity of Bishop as to the Office of a Bâ—shop Suffragan appertaineth and then to execute such power and authority as by the Archbishop or Bishop within whose Diocess he is to be he shall be Commissionated to do but no other under pain of a Premunire but not to partake any of the Profits of the Bishoprick of the Diocess But our Bishops like none of this although heretofore used which Act being repealed by Queen Mary was revived in 1. Eliz. 1. by name and is still in force Therefore in stead of twenty six Bishops to desire fifty two is no Puritanical request but a legal and just demand For there are so many allowed by Law already Yea if two hundred Bishops should be setled in England they would be too few to execute all the duties which by the Word are incumbent on a Bishop And verily we are perswaded in Conscience that this must be done if there be any due care of Souls by such as have power to do it if Episcopacy be again set up in England And we speak thus because we apprehend that by Act of Parliament all their power and jurisdiction is absolutely taken away and therefore by consequent the Office it self although the Ordinance of both Houses of Parliament of October 9. 1646. had never been For when their power of Jurisdiction is gone for ever what of the Office of a Bishop as such remaineth This was the sense of both Houses of Parliament as appears by that Ordinance which makes all their Grants since 17. Car. 1. to be null and void because their Office then expired If it shall be thought fit to set up Episcopacy again We most humbly pray that it may be no other but that Primitive Episcopacy agreeable to the Apostles rules in that form method and power mentioned in the Book of Reduction of Episcopacy composed and published in the year 1641. by Dr. James Vsher late Archbishop of Armagh always provided that there be such a competent number of Bishops set up as may be able faithfully and profitably to discharge the Office of
be used but onely at the celebration of the Lords Supper the setting up of Tapers of wax Candlesticks Basons and Ewres upon the high Altar and ducking to them every time a man comes into the Church or goes out or stirs while he is in it Whereas Cups Pots and Basons for Alms were never since 5. Edw. 6. to be set there but at the Communion nor then to be bowed unto though the Bread and Wine were on the Table The wearing of Hoods of degrees and many other such like devices all which were laid aside in 5.6 Edw. 6. as appears by the Rubricks and the Act for Uniformity in 1. Eliz. 2. compared together which allows nothing but what was in the Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. save onely the alterations mentioned in the said Act as hath been before shewed And however the Rubrick before the Book printed in 1. Eliz. directeth to use such Ornaments as were in use in 2. Edw. 6. yet that is no part of the Book established because the Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. hath no such Rubrick and the Act enjoyns all to be done according to that Book and none other or otherwise However afterwards another Statute of Q. Eliz. did so appoint Now the same Preface before the Common-prayer touching Ceremonies giveth all men to understand that the most weighty cause of the abolishing of certain Ceremonies was that they were so far abused partly by the Superstitious blindness of the rude and unlearned and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own luere then the glory of God that the abuses could not well be taken away the thing remaining still Upon which grounds there was a removal of them in 5.6 Edw. 6. For then was that Preface of Ceremonies first prefixed to the Book of Common-prayer But so great is the itch of mans corrupt nature after Humane inventions in Divine Worship and so natural are Popish Gue-gaws and outward pompous toyes that please the senses that many of these who had been laid aside as abovesaid in 5.6 Edw. 6. and that at the Conference at Hampton-court it was desired that those Ceremonies and Rites of the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Communion the Surplice c. might be put away yet such was the violence of the prevailing party at that time that having obtained License under the Great Seal they in Convocation An. 1603. recalled sundry of those rejected Ceremonies again and enjoyned all Students in Colleges to wear Surplices in time of Divine service Can. 17. Copes by him that Ministreth the Sacrament Epistolers and Gospelers according to 7. Eliz. there being no such Statute nor Parliament in 7. Eliz. and sundry other things under colour whereof by degrees most of those things before cast out viz. bowing to the East and to the Altar with the rest before named were retroduced and now devoutly or rather superstitiously observed without any shew or colour of warrant but ancient custom which being duly examined will appear to all to be first used in the Popish Churches as too palpably appeareth by the Preface touching Ceremonies before alledged Yea those very men who are so much for these and not onely urge the 18th Canon of 1603. but the Queens Injunctions * 52 Injunct for bowing at the Name of Jesus which no Common-prayer-book or Statute hath enjoyned yet in other things regard not those Injunctions nor the Book of Homilies no nor the Act for Vniformity it self touching such Ceremonies as they have a mind to recal and advance witness their setting up Candles in Candlesticks on the High Altar as they call it and such like superstitions which the third Injunction of Eliz. reckons among those things which tend to Idolatry and Superstition which of all other offences God doth most detest and abhor They must have their Antiphonies Responds c. which the Preface to the Common-prayer-book tells us are laid aside c. Not content with this they must have all except Candles lighted that are upon the Popish Altars where Mass is used upon their high Altars yea piping on divers Instruments singing so as none can understand the matter but onely be tickled with the musick playing upon Organs c. all which were laid aside in Edw. 6. and even by the 2 Hom. of the Place and time of Prayer which is by vertue of Art 35. subscribed unto by every Minister in England that ever was admitted to any Ecclesiastical Promotion according to the Act of 13. Eliz. 12. are censured and declared openly to all to be displeasing unto God and sore and filthily to defile his holy House and Place of Prayer All which are here mentioned to shew how far they deviate and whither they are tending and posting amain who under colour of upholding and practising of the laudable Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England do recal and retroduce many Popish Rites cast out of this Church and despise all Laws and Constitutions made against them and are thereby lyable to Inditements every time they use them upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2. We shall forbear to insist longer upon this but leave it to others to judge what sad and dangerous effects these things if they be suffered and countenanced are likely to produce That which we chiefly aim at is to shew a necessity of reforming those Rites and Ceremonies contained in the Book of Common-Prayer or enjoyned by the Canons of 1603. Such are the Surplice Copes c. enjoyned to be used by Ministers the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion Marriage with the Ring Bowing at the Name of Jesus and such like imposed upon all as established by Law But such Establishment we do and must deny until we see a Record produced by which that Book now in use or printed in 1 Eliz. is by Act of Parliament ratified and confirmed For if either there be no Record of that to which an Act referreth or that there be more alterations in the Book said to be established than the Act mentioneth can that Book be properly said to be established by Law and not rather made void thereby In all other things nothing is admitted for Law or as being of force by Law but what is expresly contained in verbis in the Act it self especially if the Act refer to any thing to be confirmed by it of which no Record can be produced and which differs from ought else that is said to be ratified by it And this is the case of the present Liturgy which neither is Recorded nor agreeth with but hath sundry alterations from and additions to that of 5.6 Edw. 6. besides those hinted in the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. And if any Deed or Bond be rased or altered after sealing or if rased or altered before sealing and that not witnessed will such a Deed or Bond be admitted as good evidence at Law or in Equity if produced and pleaded We therefore cannot understand how the present Service-Book can be established by