invite them to come to the Lords Table Therefore say they the foresaid Rubrick seems to dispense with Gods invitation How rightly say they let all sober men consider I answer That whether that be a Dispensation with Gods invitation let all sober men judge too and of these three Easter is to be one because though every Lords day be celebrated in memory of our Lords Resurrection yet Easter day according to the judgement of the Church comes nearest the day of his Resurrection But 6ly where it is added in that Rubrick He shall receive the Sacraments and other Rites c. This say they is no other but non-sense or worse for what other Sacraments are then to be received or what other Rites I answ. 1. That by Sacraments are understood the two signes Bread and Wine which being partes integrales similares receive the denomination of the whole as every part of water is water because 't is a similar part So that were there nothing more then this piece of Phylosophy in it it were not to be accounted non-sense But there 's Divinity too to make it good For first you must grant the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and the holy Communion to be in substance the same but now sayes the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread that we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing that we bless is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ Wherein you see that both the integrall parts of the Communion receive the denomination of the whole 2. For other Rites the party to communicate may need and desire absolution in case of scandalous and Conscience-wasting sins He may receive confirmation in case he hath never received that or the Communion before And are not these rites or can these be done without rites 7. Exception is this The last Rubrick before the Catechisme in order to Confirmation concludeth thus It is certain that children baptized have all things necessary to salvation and be undoubtedly saved Is this a truth say they Answ. That it is a great truth inasmuch as no other ceremony is required on our parts and the promise of God makes it sure on his part wherefore if they cast not themselves into doubtings charity binds us not to doubt of their salvation 8. Exception is That the Rubrick after Matrimony says that the new married persons the same day of their Marriage must receive the Communion and yet no man is bound to receive it above three times a year Answ. 1. Why may not this day be one 2. They are not ordinarily to receive above three times a year but in this extraordinary case they are and many do desire to do it but there is not alwayes a sufficient number to communicate a thing required by the Rubrick 9. Exception is That in the last Rubrick for the Communion of the sicke in the time of Plague or any other contagious disease when none of the Parish can be gotten to communicate with the sicke for fear of infection the Minister may onely communicate with him By this say they the Minister is bound not onely to visite him but to communicate with him a thing no way agreeable 1. To Christianity in as much as the very nature of a Sacrament requires a publique administration besides that other Rubricks require a greater number of Communicants even when the Sacrament is given to a sicke person 2. No way agreeable to common humanity in as much as a Minister is bound to hazard his health and life to gratifie an infectious person I answ. 1. That this is not disagreeable to Christianity because that God has promised to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in Christs name 2ly The Rubricks require greater numbers in other cases where they are more likely to be procured as in ordinary diseases they may which cannot be done in this and that 's the reason why the Rubrick here requires it not 2. 'T is not dis-agreeable to humanity in as much as it is said that the Minister may communicate only with the infected person it doth not say that he must do it and therefore he 's not bound hereby to do it unlesse he finds himself bound in conscience or can secure himself from infection 3. Of the body of the Book THe first Exception is That the first words of it are these At what time soever a sinner doth repent c. This in the Rubrick before it is called a sentence of Scripture but say they 't is not onely no sentence of Scripture but it is also dissonant from another To day if ye will hear his voice c. and besides it implies that a man may repent when he will I answer That 't is a sentence of Scripture rendred according to the sense of the place for the If is indefinitely taken it is not if to day onely or if to morrow onely if at this time only or if at that timeonely but if at all if at any time that is to say at what time soever God often in mercy calls us to repentance if at any time at what time soever we answer his call he will receive us graciously yet this does not argue that it is in our power to repent when we will after our refusall of Gods severall gracious invitations But this is not all for after our regeneration and first conversion unto God we fall into sin we go astray and that every day yea seven times a day which makes vs every day confesse and pray to God to forgive us our trespasses according as we are taught by our Saviour And therefore the If signifies not onely At what particular time soever but as often as a sinner shall repent c. so often will God forgive Now nothing that hath been said is dissonant to that place To day if ye will hear his voice c. For though it be the surest way to hear Gods voice to day that is at present lest any should be hardened through the deceitfulnesse of sin Yet God was grieved forty years with his people in the wildernesse before he sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest The refusall of the present invitation may prove a means of hardning of us through the deceitfulness of sin but it enforceth no present shutting of the door of mercy against us 2. Exception is against that expression in the Confession there is no health in us as if it were not to be understood by the common sort Answ. That no body can understand this of bodily health but of the salvable condition of the soule which is taken away by sin 3. Exception is against the reading of Te Deum and the Benedicite as interrupting the continued reading of the holy Scriptures which the Preface of that Book say they beareth us in hand is provided against Ans. That there it is provided against breaking of one piece of a Chapter from another and after such
interruption reading forward again like the interposition of a Selah or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} things wherof we have examples in the Psalms but no where else 4th Exception is against Te Deum and Benedicite because they are both Apocrypha and taken out of the Masse-book from whence they would argue the unfitness of Bishops to govern who not able to express their thanksgiving to God for extraordinary mercies do it in this superstitions formall dress usually sung in Popish Churches I answ. That the best service that any man performs besides the saying of the Lords Prayer and the reading of the holy Scripture is Apocryphall nor is there a better piece of service in the Church of God except before excepted then that piece of Apocrypha viz. Te Deum is Then which had the Masse-book no worse it would need no Reformation And many of those that have gone about to make expressions of thanksgiving for Gods extraordinary mercies in termes and methods of their own have performed it so ill that they had better have contented themselves with a bare Te Deum If they say It 's but a generall and ordinary forme of praising not applicable to the occasion I answer That at such times we in like manner use to sing Psalmes in meter which quatenus such are Apocryphal and generall formes or at most not in all things applicable to the present occasion As for the Benedicite they except not so much against the matter of as the title given to it in the Bible not here as also against some alterations made in it none whereof are against the Analogy of Faith I therefore passe it over for it answers it self 5th Exception is That the many Antiphonies and Responds except the peoples saying Amen have no pattern nor warrant in the Word Answ. That they have a pattern 1 Sam. 18. 7. where it is said that the women answered c. that is sayes Junius Hunc amaebaeum versum alternis canebant they sang interchangeably Saul hath slain his thousand and David hs ten thonsand as it is also Exod. 15. 2. Besides divers patterns that there are in the Psalmes of such interchangeable singing 6th Exception is that from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities is left out in the Letany inasmuch as he had never more instruments at work then now Answ. That the Act for Uniformity gives notice of an alteration in the Letany but whether herein or no is uncertain Mean time we may very well pray so since the Pope had never more instruments who thinking to do their own work have done his 8. Exception for I omit the seventh here as answered before is that it 's said in the Collect for Christmas that Christ was this day viz. Decemb. 25. borne c. which is evidently grounded on no place of Scripture Answ. On what place of Scripture is it evidently grounded that this day viz. August 19. is the Lords day have you any more then Ecclesiastical tradition for it as for saying the same seven dayes after this hath been spoken to before 9. Exception is against our saying at the Communion Therefore with Angels and Archangels c. the Scripture never speaking of more Archangels then one which is mentioned 1 Thes. 4. 16. This one was Michael Jude 9. to wit Christ the Prince of his people Dan. 10. 21. Which most if not all expound of Christ For answer whereunto I say That that place of 1 Thess. 4. 16. does neither imply that there is but that one Archangel nor yet that that one Archangel is Christ For 1. It is said that the Lord shal descend from heaven {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the voice ef an Arch-angel not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} In the voyce of the Arch-angell as if there were no more but that 2. If the Lord shall descend in the voice of an Arch-angel and this Arch-angel were Christ then Christ who is meant by Lord there must descend in his own voice and he must be Gods Trumpeter to give summons to his own Tribunal which cannnt be imagined Indeed Jude 9. there is mention made of Michael {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Arch-angel disputing with the Devill but how by that Christ should be understood is not at all clear as I suppose they themselves will confesse if they consider the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Text he durst not Sure if it had been Christ St. Jude would have said he would not not he durst not for what durst not Christ say or do Dares not he rebuke his creatures though Devils who hath rebuked so many unclean spirits in his time who trembled at his presence in humane flesh the meaning is then that Michael that good Arch-angel and he of a great sphere too would not rail at the Devill though he knew him to be a damned spirit because he was in great dignity amongst them yet those men spake evill of dignities they understood not And for that Dan. 10. they say most if not all expound it of Christ That if not all was well put in for they know I believe that many learned men understand it not of Christ Now as for the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dyonisius the Areopagite though the book may be supposititious yet the thing it self Gregory the great testifies to be received for Dyonisius his own Hom. 34. in Evangelia 10. Exception is that in the second prayer at publique baptisme we pray that Iufants coming to baptisme may receive remission of sins by spirituall regèneration how can this say they be when remission of sins is received not by or from spirituall regeneration but by and from the blood of Christ I answer That the end of Baptisme is that thereby as an outward means we may receive remission of sins this baptisme whereby we are baptized into the remission of sins is likewise rightly called an outward and Elementary regeneration Now therefore we pray to God that Infants coming to baptisme may receive remission of sinnes not in an Elementary way and signo tenus onely but also truly and effectually by spirituall regeneration or spirituall baptisme these being the Conduit-pipes whereby and through which Christs blood is conveyed unto Infants 11. Exception is That children being not able to perform the things promised for them are said to perform them by their sureties and therefore they repent and believe say they by their Sureties which is a meer tale Answ. That here is no such thing implyed as repenting and believing one for another but a promise of a holding of the Infants baptized to that profession by instruction of and vigilance over them and that they shall perform all outward acts of Christianity when they come of age and this was a very great charge in the primitive times when either for fear or favour or profit Apostacy was so frequent 12. Exception is against the
that of every consultation conditionall the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly The Kings answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right but to yeild to his Subjects according to Law Answ. All this might have been spared and it shall be granted upon their bare words without further enquiry it being great reason that nothing be done to the prejudice of the King or the Laws of the Land for which reason the French K. hath alwayes a Commissary in the Protestants Conventions as may appear by the Edicts themselves Onely thus much I must say by the way that in my cursory observation I find that for one Act made against there are 3. for the immunities of Bishops in the time of that renowned King That which is said concerning the Bishops making his Will though true is little to the question But besides this 3. Many things are alleaged to weaken the authority of Bishops but the last and heaviest thing of all is that by Act of Parl. all their power and jurisdiction is taken away 17 Car. 1. Answ. That by that Act of 17 Car. is intended the taking away of the High Commission only as I humbly conceive If as I have heard Lawyers say preambles to Acts are the best interpreters of the Acts themselves For the preamble to that Act witnesseth the abuses of the Authority given to the high Commissiners by that Act of 1 Eliz. to be the grouud of the Act it selfe of 17 Car. 1. Again if Episcopal Jurisdiction had been wholy taken away by the repealing of that clanse of 1 Eliz. they would never have added another clause after that to restrain the power of Bishops in case of penalties for this had been to fight with a shadow But though it were granted that the power of exercising Episcopal jurisdiction be taken away contrary to the intent of the Legislative power yet all the world cannot take away Episcopacy it self it being an Ordinance of God as is here confessed The Reasons given by them why they should not sit in Parliament are but the killing of a dead man and so I let them passe III. Of DISCIPLINE FIrst they shew how this Discipline is bounded 2. They will have no Canon Laws to be in force And why Because say they the old Canons were enacted 25 H. 8. 19. to be in force till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by 32 persons or the more part of them But Dr. Heylin confesseth that they were viewed searched and drawn into a body but never had the Kings Royal assent unto them therefore the said old Canons c. say they are abrogated Answ. By what authentick Record doth it or can it appear that those 32 persons did view search order or determine any thing therein Since well might they be written or printed in a book but the Kings Royal assent being never had they were never authentickly recorded consequently they have neither force in themselves nor do they abrogate or null any other Canons or Constitutions not contrariant to the Laws of the Land Inventa meliore Lege prior est abroganda and not before 2. Now passing by the Canons and Injunctions of Qu. Eliz. we come to those made in Convocation 1603. published by authority of King James under the great Seal and these onely can be pretended to be of any force say they Answ. That this is more then I can see if the other had the Queens Royal assent and were never expresly call'd in after especially if â—hey be not repugnant to after Canons c. But say they Even those Canons of 1603. are not binding in as much as they were never confirmed by Act of Parl. although the Kings Royal assent was to them For say they it seems to be contrary to the Petition of Right that they should Answ. That I cannot dive into the intrigues of Disputes touching these Canons the legality whereof hath been the business of Learned men who have so well justified it in the opinion of all impartial auditors of the long Parliam where the argument was made that they deserve an everlasting name for it 3 In the close of all they say that albeit it be pleaded by some that Liturgies and among them the substance of ours are ancienter then the Popish mass books by many hundred of years And for that they produce Fathers and the Liturgies of St. James Peter and others although by many learned men censured as suppositious Yet none of these Authors do mention any publique forme the same for substance with ours although they speak of publick prayers made in the Congregation which none ever denyed Publique prayer is one thing a publique form another I answ. That it follows not that those forms are supposititious because some of the matters therein contained are so A child is not therefore supposititious because it has the Rickets and is either swelled in one part or pined away in others beyond its just and naturall proportion But what do they think of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostome translated out of the Syriack by Masius and used generally throughout all the Greek Church as my Lord Primate of Armagh hath noted Is that no forme or is it onely a supposititious form Or what do they think of other Liturgies as well as this which have the Lords Prayer and giving of thanks in them together with snch improvements as are Explications of the Lords Prayer and the parts thereof are not these formes yea and the same in substance with ours but that these were the first Liturgies that ever were is testified by Cassander out of Dionysius in Liturgicis Who sayes that Eucharistea solâ Oratione Dominicâ cum gratiarum actione primis temporibus celebrabatur But now they speak out For whereas in the begiuning they said that they were not against nay they were for Liturgies c. Yet now they say that though the Ancients speak of publique prayers which none say they ever denyed yet they never spake of publique formes which is as much as to say that we have no antiquity to justifie publique formes and therefore it were better be without them But first they confesse that these Ancients mention publique prayers and that these publique prayers were publique forms is already proved Indeed there was a time when some used publique prayers in no publique formes but that they used such alone can never be proved and what inconveniences ensued upon it is too evident by the 12th Canon of the Milevitan Council made against them wherein it is provided that no Prayers be used but such as were approved by the wiser sort in the Synod least any thing should be vented against the Faith either through ignorance or want of meditation FINIS The faults being few may be amended in reading