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
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
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-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-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
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-books confirmed by Law and the present 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-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
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
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
Order to have the sole power of Ordination which hath been proved not to be so It is requisite that herein also some Declaration be made to the contrary that we may not give offence to the Protestant Churches with whom we hold Communion nor admit of such an untruth among our selves to which all must subscribe 4. As for Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops in which the same Scripture 1 Tim. 3. is read again that was used in Ordaining of Priests which sheweth that the Compilers of that Book never dreamt of a distinction of Orders between Bishops and Presbyters we onely say thus much That there being no warrant in Scripture for Archbishops but onely from the practice of after-times whereby they were by men onely called to that height we see no necessity of their Consecration no more doth our Church for that it makes the same Consecration which is for Bishops to serve for Archbishops Upon this account we see no reason why a solemn Oath of Canonical Obedience to the Archbishop should then be administred to every person that is to be Bishop The Exception against that Expression of the Archbishop in the act of Consecration of a Bishop Take the Holy Ghost being spoken to before here we onely make the same profession against it which there we did and so leave it and proceed to the next Head of Ecclesiastical Government which is Jurisdiction II. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction IT hath been of late the claim of our Bishops to have in them the sole power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical which is now pleaded for so boldly and openly by their Advocates and such as asspire to the same Office and Dignity that it is now made though very groundlesly an Essential part of Episcopacy by Divine Right witness among other the Author of an Answer to a Letter sent to Doctor Turner to Oxford who alledgeth several Scriptures viz. 1 Tim. 5.19 Tit. 1.5 to prove that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is in Bishops onely To the same effect the Author of another Book intituled Church-Lands not to be sold So others But seeing Bishops can exercise no Jurisdiction in England but what is allowed by the Laws of the Land as we shall after make it manifest to every eye we shall not much trouble our selves at this time with their claim by Divine Right Howbeit lest they should think there is nothing to be said against it we desire it may be considered which is known to all that have seriously consulted Antiquity that in the Primitive Ages of the Church there was no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercised but by the Bishops and their Consistory of Presbyters together Even in Rome it self there was even in Cyprians time a number of the Clergy who acted with the Bishop as well as elsewhere Thence grew by Corruption their Conclave of Cardinals And from the same Original here in England first Monks afterwards Deans and Chapters were joyned with the Bishops to assist both in Ordination and Jurisdiction although of late times they joyned with them in neither Such was the Pride of the one and the Idleness of the other Which last his late Majesty was content to part withal They being of no use but onely to confirm Grants of the Bishop as he confirmed theirs keeping sundry Benefices of Cure in their hands and seldome or never residing on them under pretence of residence near the Bishop whereas the Canons of 1603. require them to reside on their Benefices with Cure all but the space of one moneth in the year * Can. 44. unless he be a Dean Master Warden or chief Governour of a Cathedral or Church who by Can. 42. is to reside there ninety days Conjunctim or Divisim This is spoken not to justifie the Continuation of Deans and Chapters or to move for reducing them to the ancient course of corrupt times in making them alone to be the Adjutors of Bishops for Jurisdiction is as proper to all the Presbytery as to those Cathedral Presbyters But we urge it meerly and onely to demonstrate the falshood of that upstart Assertion that Bishops have sole power of Jurisdiction And that we may contract our selves within necessary brevity considering to whom we make our Address we shall give but one instance more and that shall be out of the Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests Where among other Questions propounded by the Bishop to him that is to be ordained Priest this is one Will you reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you following with a glad mind and will their godly Admonition and submitting your self to their godly Judgements To this each of them that are to be ordained answereth I will so do the Lord being my helper By this it is evident that more beside Bishops have power of Jurisdiction If it be said this may be meant of ARchdeacons Deans c. that have it under the Bishop what is this to the intituling of all Ministers thereunto It is answered out of the Rubrick before the Communion whereby every Curate is authorized to keep off from that Sacrament every open and notorious Liver by whom the Congregation is offended until he have openly declared himself to have truely repented and amended his former wicked life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied Yea where he finds hatred and variance he is to suspend from the Sacrament the party refusing to be reconciled to the other and be content to forgive from the bottom of his heart all that the other hath transgressed against him and to make amends for that he himself hath offended What is this but as much and as high Jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular If this suffice not take one passage more In the same Book of Ordination in the Ordering of Priests The Bishop asketh every person whom he ordaineth a Priest this Question Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the DISCIPLINE of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same c. To which each Priest is to answer I will so do by the help of the Lord. What can be a more clear evidence of the intention of our Church in the first Reformation then to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in the Administration of it How long Bishops and others under them have had Ecclesiastical Consistories to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to us is not certain Yet it appeareth by Sir Edw. Cook â— Instit ca. 53. p. 2259. that William the Conqueror was the first that by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln did prohibit Sheriffs in their Tourne Courts wherein before-time all Ecclesiastical matters were heard and determined to intermedle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes but leave them to the Bishops Thence some conclude that Bishops have held Courts ever since William 1. Others finding no