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
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
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-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
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
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-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
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-book to
a Bishop according to the mind of Christ expressed in his Word If the late Episcopal Party shall pretend and plead that unless Bishops be restored to all their power and pomp they arrogated before 17. Car. they shall not be able to do his Majesty that service which otherwise they might if so restored To this it is answered 1. That if they mean thereby that they cannot do his Majesty service in Parliament unless they be restored to their Lordships again and re-admitted to the House of Peers we cannot think but that there be Noble Lords enow left in that Honourable House who are far more able to do his Majesty service then the Bishops can do there 2. Whereas the Bishops and Clergy obtained a Command and Charter from William 1. to exclude the Sheriff and the rest of the Laity from medling with matters Ecclesiastical in their Courts as was before shewed we see no reason why Bishops excluded in 17. Car. 1. his reign should be again admitted to intermeddle in the Supreme Court and Judicatory of the Realm in Civil Affairs 3. If they be confined to the Apostolique Constitution and more Bishops made they will be in a capacity of doing God and his Majesty more and better service in a more diligent and circumspect Government of the Church then ever yet they have done or were able to do By all which it appeareth that if they labour to recover their former power the pretence of doing his Majesty better service is but to make way to their own Greatness and to render them less able to serve God or the King as in that Office they ought Nor will his Majesties interest in the Clergy be diminished by making more Bishops without an election by a Dean and Chapter but much increased if by Act of Parliament the same Course be taken for the election of all Bishops which by the Statute of 26. H. 8.14 is appointed for the constituting of Bishops Suffragan and their power of Jurisdiction set out unto them by the King and Parliament as it was in 1. Eliz. at what time the Articles to be ministred in all their Visâ—tations were set forth by the Queen c. are yet extant with her Injunctions Hereby also his Majesty would be sure to have a far greater influence into all the Clergy of note by how much the more the number of Bishops is increased and more learned men made capable of such preferments which a quarter of them cannot be if Episcopacy be confined to twenty six Bishops III. Of DISCIPLINE HAving spoken of the Subject or Persons in whom the Power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realm resided we proceed to offer somewhat touching the Rules or Laws for execution thereof under this Head of Discipline which containeth the Canons or Rules to wit the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws by which alone all persons trusted with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction have been enabled to exercise that Government How that Discipline is bounded appeareth in and by the Acts of Parliament still in force in 25. H. 8.19 and 1. Eliz. 1. which bounds a great Sciolist is pleased to call sad restrictions and limitations * D. Heylin Certam Epistol pag. 89. which sheweth how they like the Laws and how far they would go in making Laws if they durst The bounds in the former Act are these 1. That none of the Clergy should from thence forth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any other Canons Nor shall enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in time coming which always shall be assembled by Authority of the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and License to make promulge and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodal upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing contrary to this Act and being thereof convict to suffer imprisonment and make Fine at the Kings Will. It is true that at the suit of the then Clergy divers Constitutions Ordinances and Canons Provincial or Synodal which heretofore had been Enacted and then thought to be not only much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative royal and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness Subjects by that Act the King was to chuse thirty two Persons to review approve or reject the same which being begun but not perfected by the time limited so as to get the Royal Assent thereunto 3.4 Edw. 6. cap. 11. that Act revived in 3.4 Edw. 6. authorizing him to chuse thirty two Persons to perfect that work The persons were chosen they did the work compiled a Book intituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum yet extant but for lack of the Royal Assent thereunto within the time prefixed that Act expired and their Book of Reformation with it which was never since renewed In the Act of 25. H. 8.19 it is provided that such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial being already made 1 El. 1. which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative-Royal shall now still be used and executed as they were before the making of this Act till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered determined by the said thirty two persons or the more part of them according to the tenor form and effect of this present Act. By occasion hereof Dr. Heylin * Ubi supra affirmeth that so much of the Popes Canon-Law first intended for the Church in general as is not contrary to the Laws Customs c. of the Land is still in force in our Courts Ecclesiastical as the Civil or Imperial Laws are in our Courts of Admiralty and Prerogative for probate of Wills But we humbly conceive this cannot be so because however the Civil Law is still in use in maritine and Testamentary Affairs in regard that Forrainers as well as Natives are or may be therein concerned and so those Civil Laws are permitted not in relation to the Emperour but as the Law of Nations which never was by any Act of Parliament in those eases prohibited in England The Popes Canon-Law on the contrary is ever since disabled by the Statute of 24. H. 8.12 and by that Act before-mentioned is wholly abrogated and null For if his power be renounced can his Laws which are the chief part of a Law-givers power be still in force especially where no Canons but such as have the Royal Assent may be used in England And if that might be admitted yet that very Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 puts a period to it after the time the thirty two persons or major part of them did view and search them and drew up a Body of Ecclesiastical Laws to be used
four other learned and grave Persons Masters of Art at the least and allowed for publique Preachers What Law for confining Ordination to four times a year If there be a Law do Bishops now observe it Is it not usual to ordain in other mens Diocesses which they can no more legally do then a Sheriff execute his Office when he is out of his County How often do Deans and Prebendaries assist at Ordinations And why must all other Assistants be Masters of Arts at least What Law or Rule for any of these things unless for being Assistants to and Co-ordainers with the Bishop which this Canon doth tacitely deny when it saith such and such shall be present but not a word of their Laying on of Hands according to the Book of Ordination And whereas by the 36th Canon Subscription is enjoyned to the Books of Common-prayer and of Ordination not only upon all Ordinations and Institutions to Benefices c. which by Can. 37. is required also of all Lecturers Catechists Readers yea by Can. 77. of all School-masters too unless to the last clause of Art 2. touching using the book of Common-prayer whereas the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. requires no subscription but to the 39. Articles nor that save only of such as are to be instituted to a Benefice not at Ordination or at taking Licenses to Preach only The 38th Canon touching Revolters after Subscription hath been spoken to before The 40th Canon enjoyning an Oath against Simony is necessary yet against Law and particularly against the Petition of Right This therefore we say no more of but humbly pray such an Oath may be imposed by Law But whereas the 49th Canon prohibiteth Ministers not to expound Scripture c. if not Licensed by the Bishop this is expresly contrary to Law 8. Eliz. 1. which confirmeth the Book of Ordination in and by which every one ordained a Presbyter hath the Bible delivered into his hand by the Bishop with these Words Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God c. Yet must every such ordained Minister be compelled to be at the charge of taking out a further License from the same Bishop at the same time to preach in the same place or else not to perform that duty which he promised solemnly to the Bishop and by him was authorized to perform at his Ordination Nor may any Ministers be suffered by the 51. Canon to preach in any other Church without shewing such License although otherwise well known to be sufficiently authorized thereunto And whereas the 62. Canon alloweth Ministers to celebrate Matrimony between other persons without asking the Bannes in Churches if he have a License for doing of it from the Bishop Archdeacon or their Officicals this is expresly contradictory to the Book of Common-prayer Rubrick 1. before the form of Matrimony and so contrary to Law of 1. Eliz. 2. if that Book be confirmed thereby There be sundry other Exceptions justly to be taken to the Book of Canons as namely to such Ecclesiastical Offices besides Bishops and Presbyters as be admitted to bear a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction albeit they be Lay-men while yet they abominate Lay-Elders in the Presbyterian Government beside many other all which we at present forbear not as approving of them but as hoping for a Reformation of that as well as of other things We therefore shall now only with all humility propound a few Queries very necessary as we conceive to be seriously considered 1 Quere Whether if there be any thing of substance altered in or added to the Articles of Religion or Books of Common-Prayer or Ordination and those Alterations or Additions not expresly mentioned and confirmed by Parliament this doth not make those Books to be void in Law if pleaded at Law The Grounds of this Quere are the Acts of 13. Eliz. 12. as touching the Articles that of 1. Eliz. 2. as to the Book of Common-prayer and the Statute of Eliz. 8.1 and of 5.6 Edw. 6.1 as to Ordination Which last named Act saith that the Books therein mentioned were annexed to the said Statute yet are they not to be found inrolled therewith no more is the other Book of Articles in 13. Eliz. inrolled with that Act. 2 Quere Whether the Statutes which are said to confirm any of the things named in the former Quere mentioning only the Titles but not reciting the matter of the Books themselves do make those Books or the things contained in them which have been several times altered although never so much as said to be inrolled nor found so to be do make those things to be established and good in Law because now commonly reputed received and generally used as ratified by Law The Ground of this Quere is that clause in 1. Eliz. 2. which after mentioning some Alterations but not particularly naming them in the Common-prayer-book prohibiteth all other Alterations saying And none other or otherwise 3 Quere If any man be indited or sued at Law upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. for not reading of or coming to hear the Book of Common-prayer or upon the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. for not reading the Articles of 1562 and the Defendant plead Not guilty and deny these Books to be those confirmed by those Laws till the Plaintiff prove them to be of Record whether is not the Plaintiff bound to prove that and in the mean time the Defendant not punishable by those Statutes The Grounds of this Quere are first that there are no Records of these to be found secondly the Books have been several times altered since those Acts and thirdly many punished upon the said Acts because those Books have been generally received and used as established by Law 4 Quere Whether notwithstanding the Royal Licence before and Assent after any Canons made in Convocation be valid in Law before they be ratified by Act of Parliament as the Service-book and Articles of Religion were said to be and whether by consequent the Canons of 1603. be now binding The grounds hereof are first that all other Constitutions are or are reputed to be ratified in Parliament Secondly the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. which gives power to the Queen her Heirs and Successours to grant Licence to Commissioners Bishops and others to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when it speaks of withdrawing or altering any Rites and Ceremonies or adding new the power is there given to the Queen alone without mention of Heirs and Successours And when any thing is ordered or authorized by the King although under the Great Seal yet the enforcing thereof before ratification by Parliament is held to be contrary to the Petition of Right We shall now close up all with this humble Advertisement that whereas it is pleaded by some that Liturgies and among them the substance of ours are ancienter then the Popish Mass-Books by many hundreds of years whence they infer the weakness and folly of their Objections who say that all or most or any of the things contained in our Service-Book are taken out of the Mass-Book and so are Popish and upon that account would have them abolished and for that purpose produce some passages out of Ignatius Clem Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome c. wherein sundry things in use among us are found mentioned in them and by some the Liturgy of St. James Peter c. are also urged although by many Learned men censured as supposititious Yet none of these Authors do mention any Publick Form the same for substance with ours although they speak of Publick Prayers made in the Congregation which none ever denyed Publick Prayer is one thing a Publick Form another Nor are we against all Liturgies but onely against that which is liable to such material Exceptions as necessitate us to desire a new Form And albeit some of the Rites and Ceremonies now in use may be mentioned in sundry of the Fathers within the first 600 years after Christ yet the mentioning of them is no evidence of the lawfulness of them or that they are not Popish although of latter times espoused by that Synagogue of Rome for as much as Popery was in the Egge and the mystery of iniquity began to work although under disguises and other names even in the time of St. Paul himself 2 Thes 2.7 Yea some of those very Fathers have sundry passages in them which condemn those very things which are now cryed up upon the very authority of their venerable names We shall for brevity give but one instance which every Reader may find in the Preface touching Ceremonies before the Book of Common-Prayer which albeit it hath been before alledged we here briefly touch upon again for better satisfaction of such as cannot consult the Author himself The particular mentioned in that Preface is a passage out of St. Augustine who was so far from approving such a number of Ceremonies yet not to be compared with the multitude in after-times that he complained that hereby Christians were in worse case then were the Jews and therefore counselled to take off that yoke and burden so soon as it might quietly be done And this was one of the Grounds and Reasons there alledged of the cutting off of so many superstitious Ceremonies in the first Reformation under that blessed King Edward the sixth which of late our Arminians and Grotian Divines and Prelates have sought to recal under the colour and guise of Antiquity for which they produce onely some bits and scraps of Fathers to prove their Antiquity but no solid Arguments to make out their lawfulness and conveniency and yet seek to impose them on those who hold themselves bound to hate the garments spotted with the flesh as well as the flesh that is the corruption it self We therefore conclude That it is not bare Antiquity but Divine Verity that must be the onely Rule and Standard of all Doctrine Worship Rites and Ceremonies Ordination Jurisdiction and Discipline among all that intend Conformity to the Mind of Christ FINIS Page 2. line 7. read 4 Car. p. 7. l. 4. r. them in print p. 34. l. 18. r. that and another p. 43. l. 26. r. Presbyteris l. 30. r. qui.