in no point else But Doctor Bernard gives us some and the Answer to the Jesuites challenge hath given given us others First the Lord Primate tells us in a Letter writ to Doctor Bernard and by him now published That he ever declared his opinion to be but it was onely in private to some special Friends that Episcopus Presbyter gradu tantum differunt non ordine and consequently that in places where Bishops cannot be had the Ordination by Presbyters standeth valid And howsoever saith he I must needs think that the Churches which have no Bishops are thereby become very defective in their Government and that the Churches in France who living under a Popish power and cannot do what they would are more excusable in this defect then the Low-Countreyes that live under a a free State yet for the testifying my Communion with these Churches which I do love and honour as true Members of the Church universal I do profess that with like affection I should receive the blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch Ministers if I were in Holland as I should do at the hands of the French Ministers if I were in Charentone And this I must needs say though I never saw it before in Print is no news to me at all For I have heard long since and from very good hands that the Lord Primate did so fully communicate his judgement in the point of Episcopacy to Doctor Preston then of Cambridge a man of quick parts and deep comprehensions that he used to say many times to his Friends and followers that if the Bishops of England did lay the foundation of their calling on no other grounds then the Primate did the differences between them would be soon agreed But on the other side it is the Doctrine of the Church of England that a Bishop and a Presbyter do differ Ordine in respect of some super our order which the Presbyter hath not and not Gradu onely in respect of some superiority of Degree which every Bishop hath above the Presbyters And this appears plainly by the Preface of the Book entituled The form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons approved by the Articles of the Church and established by the Laws of the Land in which Preface it is said expresly that it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons It follows not long after thus viz. And therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in this Church of England it is requisite that no man not being at this present Bishop Priest nor Deacon shall execute any of them except he be called tried examined and admitted according to the form hereafter following Here then we have 3. Orders of Ministers Bishops Priests and Deacons the Bishop differing as much in Order from the Priest as the Priest differs in Order from the Deacon But because perhaps it may be said that this Preface is no part of the Book which stands approved by the Articles of the Church and establisht by the Laws of the Land let us next look into the body of the Book it selfe where in the form of consecrating an Arch-Bishop or Bishop we shall find a prayer in these words following viz. Almighty God giver of all good things who hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the work and Ministry of a Bishop and replenish him so with the truth of thy Doctrine and innocency of life that both by word and deed he may faithfully serve thee in this office c. By which Prayer it doth as evidently appear as it did before in the Preface not onely that the office of a Bishop doth differ from the Office of the Priests and Deacons but that the Bishop is of a different Order from all other Ministers And this appears yet further by the different forms used in the ordering of the Priests and Deacons and the form of consecrating an Arch-Bishop or Bishop Which certainly the Church had never distinguished in such solemnity for frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora if the consecrating of a Bishop did not adde some further Order to him which before he had not as a Priest or Presbyter But because possibly some may say that the Church of England is either singular in this point or else did borrow these forms from the popish Ordinals as it is said to have borrowed her publick Liturgy from the popish Missals it will be found on the first search that nothing is done or appointed to be done by the Church of England but what was regulated and prescribed by the fourth Council of Carthage Anno 401. or thereabout In which Council it is first ordained that in the ordination of a Priest or Presbyter the Bishop holding his hand on his head and blessing him all the Presbyters that were present should hold their hands by the hands of the Bishop Whereas in the ordination of a Deacon it sufficeth that the Bishop alone put his hands upon the head of him that is ordained because he is not sanctified to priestly dignity but to the service of the Church But in the consecration of a Bishop it is there required that two Bishops holding the Book of Gospels over his head the third which regularly was to be the Metropolitan of the Province should pronounce the words of Consecration all the other Bishops which are present laying their hands upon him as others did I said that regularly the Bishop which pronounced the words of Consecration was to be the Metropolitan of the Province in which the New Bishop was ordained because we find it so ordered in the Council of Antioch Anno 365. in which it was decreed that a Bishop should not be ordained without a Synod and the presence of the Metropolitan that the Metropolitan by his letters should call unto him all the Bishops in the Province if conveniently they might come together if not that at the least the greater part should be present or give their consent by writing By which it seems that the consecration of a Bishop was esteemed a work of so great dignity in it self and of so great importance to the Church of Christ that all the Bishops of the Province were required to be present at it if they could conveniently But to return again to the fourth Council of Carthage we find therein three several and distinct forms of Ordination and consequently three several Orders of Ministers to be so ordained For otherwise it had been very unnecessary to use one form in the making of a Presbyter another in the consecrating of Bishops the one to be performed by the Bishop and some Presbyters onely the other not to be attempted but with the presence or the
Verdict of the Church of England the Lords day had obtained such a pitch of credit as nothing more could be left to the Church of Ireland in their Articles afterward to adde unto it But against this Judgment I appeal and must reverse the same by Writ of Error For first although the Lords day had obtained such a pitch of credit in the Realm of England as is here affirmed it was obtained rather by the practises of the Sabbatarians who were instant in season and out of season to promote the Cause then by any countenance given unto it by the Church and the Rulers of it And secondly if any such Verdict had been given it was not given by any Jury which was legally summoned or trusted by the Church to act any thing in that particular And then the Foreman of this Jury must be Doctor Bound Master Greenham Master Perkins Doctor Lewis Bayley Master Dod Master Clever Doctor Gouge Master Whateley Doctor Sibs Doctor Preston Master Bifield Doctor Twisse and Master Ley must make up the Pannel the five Smectymnuans and he that pulled down the Cross in Saint Pauls Church-yard standing by in a readiness to put in for the Tales as occasion served Unless the Verdict had been given by these or such as these the Lords day never had attained such a pitch of credit as is here supposed but how a Verdict so given in may be affirmed to be a Verdict of the Church of England I am yet to seek So that except there had been something left to the Church of Ireland in their Articles to adde unto it The Sabbatarian Brethren would have found small comfort from any Verdict given on their side by the Church of England The Church of England differs as much in this point from the Articles of Ireland as the Lord Primate differeth in it from the Church of England The Lord Primate sets it down for a Proposition that the setting apart of one day in seven for Gods solemn worship is juris Divini Positivi recorded in the fourth Commandment p. 105. But the Lords Spiritual the most eminent Representers of the Church of England declared in the Parliament in the 5 6. of Edw. 6. That there is no certain time or definite number of dayes prescribed in holy Scripture but the appointment both of the time and also of the number of dayes is left by the Authority of Gods word to the liberty of Christs Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every Countrey by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof as they shall judge most expedient to the setting forth Gods glory and edification of their people The Church of England hath declared in the Homily of the time and place of prayer that the Lords day was instituted by the Authority of the Church and the consent of godly Christian people after Christs Ascension But the Lord Primate doth entitle it unto Christ himself and to that end alledgeth a passage out of the Homily De Semente ascribed but ascribed falsly unto S. Athanasius viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The proper meaning of which words hath been shewen already in the first Section of this Treatise The Lord Primate in conformity to the Articles of the Church of Ireland affirms for certain that the whole day must be set apart for Gods solemn worship But in the Church of England there is liberty given upon that day not onely for honest Recreations but also for such necessary works of labour as are not or have not been restrained by the Laws of the Land Which makes the difference in this case between the Lord Primate and the Church of England to be irreconcilable And here I would have left the Lord Primates Letter writ to his Honourable Friend the Contents whereof have been the sole Subject of the present Section but that the Lord Primate will not so part with the Historian he must needs bestow a dash upon him before he leaves him telling his Honourable Friend How little credit the Historian deserves in his Geography when he brings news of the remote parts of the world that tells so many untruths of things so lately and so publickly acted in his neighbour Nation This I must needs say comes in very unhandsomely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dictum at the best and savours little of that moderation humility and meekness of Spirit for which Doctor Bernard hath so fam'd him not onely in this present Treatise but his Funeral Sermon But let this pass cum caeteris erroribus without more ado I have some other game in chase to which now I hasten SECT X. Seven Points of Doctrine in which the Lord Primate differeth from the Church of England The Lord Primates judgment in the point of Episcopacy and the ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas That Bishops and Presbyters did differ Ordine and not onely Gradu proved by three passages in the Book of Consecration and by the different forms of the Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons used in the said Book The form and manner of making Bishops Priests and Deacons expresly regulated by the Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage The Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters declared unlawful by the Rules of the Primitive Church The Universal Redemption of Mankind by the blood of Christ maintained by the Church of England but denied by the Lord Primate not constant to himselfe in his own opinion A Real presence of Christ in the Sacrament maintained by the Church of England and affirmed by the most eminent Prelates of it but both denied and opposed by the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge That the Priest hath power to forgive sins proved by three several passages out of the Book of Common-Prayer The meaning of the two first passages subverted by the Lord Primates Gloss or Descant on them but no notice taken by him of the last which is most material That the Priest forgiveth sins either Declarativè or Optativè better approved by the Lord Primate neither of which come up close to the Church of England and the reason why The Church of England holdeth that the Priect forgiveth sins Authoritativè by a delegated not a soveraign power and that she so holdeth is affirmed by some learned men of the Church of Rome The benefit of Absolution from the hands of the Priest humbly desired and received by Doctor Reynolds at the time of his death The Church of England maintains a local Descent and the proof thereof The Church not altered in her judgement since the first making of that Article Anno 1552. as some men imagine The Lord Primate goes a different way from the Church of England and the great pains by him taken to make it good A transition to the nine Articles of Lambeth THe difference between the Church of England and the Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath we have shewed already and well it were if he differed from the Church of England
consent at least of the Metropolitan all other Bishops of the Province consenting to it and giving their assistance at that sacred Ceremony if not otherwise hindered And though this fourth Council of Carthage was but National onely yet was it universally received and that too in a very short time over all the Church and made the standing Rule by which the consecrating of Bishops and the ordaining of Priests and Deacons was to be officiated A Rule so punctually followed by the Church of England that it seemeth to be rather of the Carthaginian then the Roman party and more to savour of the Primitive then the popish Ordinals And to this Rule the Church did tie it selfe so strictly concerning the consecration of an Arch Bishop or Bishop that though a Bishop in some cases might ordain a Priest or Presbyter without the presence and co-operation of other Presbyters yet was there no case whatsoever in which it was lawful for one or more Priests or Presbyters to ordain another And so it was adjudged in the case of Coluthus whose ordinations were therfore declared void of no effect because he was no Bishop but a Presbyter onely as is affirmed by Athanasius in Apol. 2. Which as it clearly contradicted the Lord Primates judgement in the point of the lawfulness of the Ordination of Presbyters by Presbyters without the concurrence of a Bishop so doth it justifie the Church of England against him in the point of Episcopacy which she affirms and he denies to be a distinct Order from that of the Priest or Presbyter But nothing doth more fully manifest the Lord Primates judgement in this particular and consequently his dissent therein from the Church of England then his publishing the judgement and opinion of Doctor Reynolds in this point which he so far enlarged and explicated that Doctor Bernard reckoneth it amongst his works The title of the Book runs thus The judgement of Doctor Reynolds touching the Original of Episcopacy more largely confirmed out of Antiquity by James Arch-Bishop of Armagh The Doctors judgement is as followeth viz. When Elders were ordained by the Apostles in every Church through every City to feed the flock of Christ whereof the Holy Ghost had made them overseers they to the intent they might the better do it by common Counsel and consent did use to assemble themselves and meet together In which meetings for the more orderly handling and concluding of things pertaining to their charge they chose one amongst them to be the President of their Company and Moderator of their Actions As in the Church of Ephesus though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it yet amongst those sundry was there one chief whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church and writeth that to him which by him the rest should know And this is he whom afterwards in the Primitive Church the Fathers called Bishop So far the words of Dr. Reynolds then which there nothing can be said more contrary to the first institution nor more derogatory to the Order and Estate of Bishops And if the Lord Primate did magnifie his own office no better in other things then he did in publishing this piece Doctor Bernard might have spared that part of the character which he gives us of him for so doing p. 151. For by this magnifying of his Office he made himself no better then the President of the Presbyters within his Diocess the chief Priest or Arch-Priest we may fitly call him though possibly in regard of his personal abilities he might be suffered to enjoy that presidency for term of life such a perpetual Presidency as Calvin was possessed of when he reigned in Geneva and sate as Pope over all the Churches of his Platform and was enjoyed by Beza many years after his decease till Danaeus thinking himself as good a man as the best made a party against him and set him quite beside the Cushion Since which time that Presidency hath continued no longer in any one man then from Session to Session from one Classical meeting to another loco libertatis erat quod eligi coeperunt in the words of Tacitus Which fate would questionless befall all the Bishops in Christendom if their Presbyters were once possessed with this fansie that the Bishop was but a Creature of their own making as is affirmed by Doctor Reynolds or that they and their Bishop did not differ Ordine but Gradu onely which the Lord Primate to the great magnifying of his office hath declared to be his own constant opinion 3. In the next place the Church of England doth maintain an Universal Redemption of all mankind by the death and sufferings of our Saviour This first proved by that passage in the publick Catechism by which the party catechized is taught to believe in God the Son who redeemed him and all mankind secondly by that clause in the Letany viz. O God the Son Redeemer of the world have mercy upon us c. thirdly by the prayer of consecrating the Elements of Bread and Wine viz. Almighty God our Heavenly Father which of thy tender mercy didst give thine onely Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our Redemption who made there by his own oblation of himself once offered a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD c. Nor was it without some such meaning that she selected those words of our Saviour in Saint Johns Gospel viz. God so loved the World that he gave his onely begotten Son c. to be used in the preparation to the Communion as she reiterated some others viz. O Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world incorporated into the Gloria in Excelsis at the end thereof But in this point the Lord Primate is of a contrary judgement to the Church of England For as he seems not to like their opinion who contract the riches of Christs satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any interess therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the world so he declareth his dislike of the other extreme as he is pleas'd to call it by which the benefit of this satisfaction is extended to the Redemption of all mankind The one extremity saith he extends the benefit of Christs satisfaction so far ut reconciliationem cum Deo peccatorum Remissionem singulis impetraverit as to obtain a Reconciliation with God and a Remission of sins for all men at his merciful hands p. 21. Which though they are the words of the Remonstrants at the Conference at the Hague Anno 1611. and are by him reckoned for untrue yet do they naturally result from the Doctrine of Universal Redemption which is maintained in the Church of England Not that all Mankind is so perfectly reconciled to Almighty God as to be really and actually discharged from all their sins before they actually believe which the Lord Primate makes to be
contrary to the New which is denied in the first clause of this Article and secondly this Article must be contradicted by the Book of Homilies which in another of these Articles is approved as before was said As Adversaries to which truth the Author of the Book entitled The Faith Doctrine and Religion professed and protected in the Realm of England c. being a Commentary on the 39. Articles Perused and by the lawful Authority of the Church of England allowed to be publick doth account all such as have taught and published first that whereas all other things were so changed that they were clean taken away as the Priesthood the Sacrifice and Sacraments this day that is the Sabbath day was so changd that it yet remaineth and secondly that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual If so then no such thing required of Christians as to dedicate the first day of the week wholly to the service of God or to rest thereon from our common and dayly business as it is positively determined in this Article of the Church of Ireland Adde here those desperate consequences which have been raised by some men from these Sabbath-Doctrines It having been preacht in some of the Pulpits in this Kingdom as Mr. Rogers tells us in his Preface to the Book above mentioned that to do any servile work or business on the Lords day is as great a sin as to kill a man or commit adultery that to throw a Bowle to make a Feast or dress a VVedding Dinner on the Lords day is as great a sin as for a man to take a knife and cut his childs throat and that to ring more Bells then one on the Lords day is as great a sin as to commit a wilful murder Most desperate consequents indeed but such as naturally do arise from such dangerous premises Fifthly it is declared Num. 71. that we ought to judg those Ministers to be lawfully called and sent which be called and chosen to the work of the Ministry by men who have publick Authority given them in the Church This serves to countenance the Ordination of Ministers beyond the Seas ordained if I may so call it by the imposition of the hands of two Lay-Elders for each single Presbyter without the assistance or benediction of the Bishop and is directly contrary to the Book entituled The form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons according to which Book justified and approved by the 36. Article of the Church of England no Priest or Presbyter can be otherwise ordained then by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop Sixthly it is declared Num. 74. That God hath given power to his Ministers not simply to forgive sins which prerogative he hath reserved onely to himselfe but in his name to declare and pronounce unto such as truly repent and unfainedly believe his Holy Gospel the absolution and forgiveness of sins VVhich Doctrine how contrary it is to the Doctrine of the Church of England hath been shewed at large in the tenth Section of this Book To which I shall now onely adde that for the better encouragement of the penitent party to make a true and sincere confession of his sins that so the Priest may proceed to Absolution on the better grounds it is ordered by the 113. Canon of the year 1603. That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister for the unburthening of his conscience and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him the said Minister shall not at any time reveale and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy except they be such crimes as by the Laws of this Realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same under pain of Irregularity By incurring of which pain of Irregularity he doth not onely actually forfeit all those spiritual promotions of which he is at that time possessed but is rendered utterly uncapable of receiving any other for the time to come Seventhly it is declared Num. 80. That the Bishop of Rome is so far from being the Supreme head of the Universal Church of Christ that his works and Doctrine do plainly discover him to be that man of sin foretold in the holy Scriptures whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and abolish with the brightness of his coming Of which opinion the Lord Primate also was as is affirmed by Doctor Bernard p. 162. where he telleth that the Lord Primate had in two learned Sermons given his judgement at large that the Papacy was meant by Babylon in the seventeenth and eighteenth of the Revelation But there is no such Doctrine concerning Antichrist in the Book of Articles or in any other publick Monument or Record of the Church of England but the contrary rather And this appeareth by a prayer at the end of the second Homily for Whitsunday viz. That by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost the comfortable Doctrine of Christ may be truly preached truly received and truly followed in all places to the beating down of Sin Death the Pope the Devil and all the Kingdom of Antichrist In which words the Pope the Devil and the Kingdom of Antichrist being reckoned as the three great enemies of the Church of Christ it must needs be by the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies that the Pope and Antichrist are as much distinguished as either the Devil and the Pope or the Devil and Antichrist which no man of reason can conceive to be one and the same Eighthly the Church of England in the tenth Article speaks very favourably of the will of man in the act of Conversion and all the other Acts of Piety which depend upon it viz. That we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the grace of God by Christ preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when we have that good will according to that memorable saying of Saint Augustine the greatest Champion of Gods grace against the Pelagian Heresies Praevenit nos gratia Dei ut velimus subsequitur ne frustra velimus Whereas it is declared in the Articles of Ireland that man is meerly passive in the work of his own Conversion velut inanimatum quiddam as was said by Luther the Article affirming Num. 32. That no man can come unto Christ unless the Father draw him that is to say unless the Father doth so draw him that nothing be ascribed to mans will either in receiving of Grace preventing or working any thing by the assistance of Grace subsequent or Grace concurring no other kind of drawing by our Heavenly Father being allowed of in this Act in the Schools of Calvin For on this ground Calvin dislikes that saying of Saint Chrysostome that God draws none but such as are willing to come
which was so plainly and professedly contrary to her own Injunctions Secondly from the strong Alarm which was taken generally by the Clergy and the most knowing men of the Laity also at the coming out of Doctor Bounds Book about the Sabbath Anno 1595. In which book it is declared amongst other things that the Commandment of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is Natural Moral and Perpetual That there is great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath that there should be no buying of victuals upon that day no Carriers Packmen Drovers or other men to be suffered to travel no Scholars to study the Liberal Arts no Lawyers to consult the case of their Clients or peruse their Evidences no Justices to examine Causes for preservation of the peace no Bells to ring upon that day no solemn Feasts or Wedding Dinners to be made on it with so many other prohibitions and negative precepts that men of all sorts and professions looked upon it as a common grievance Thirdly from the great care which was presently taken by such as were in Authority to suppress those Doctrines the said Book being called in by Arch-Bishop Whitgift both by his Letters missive and his visitations as soon as the danger was discovered Anno 1599. and a command signified in the Queens name by Chief Justice Popham at the Assizes held at Bury in Suffolk Anno 1600. that the said Book should no more be printed though afterward in the more remiss Government of King James it came out again with many Additions Anno 1606. Fourthly and finally from the permitting of all sorts of Recreations even common Enterludes and Bear-baitings in the so much celebrated Reign of Queen Elizabeth as also by the Declaration about Lawful sports published by King James An. 1618. and revived afterwards by King Charles Anno 1633 which certainly those godly and religions Princes would neither have suffered nor have done had they conceived it to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England of which they were such zealous Patrons and such stout Defenders No breaking of Subscription here by the Historian no crossing or opposing of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies and consequently no such need of Sophistry to elude the Lord Primates Argument which was drawn from thence as the said Honourable Person N. N. must believe there was SECT VIII A further Argument to prove the meaning of the Homily as before laid down The high esteem which the Church of England hath of the ancient Fathers as also of the usages of the primitive times with her respect unto the neighbouring Reformed Churches No restraint from labour on the Lords day imposed by the Council of Laodicea Beza's opinion of the liberty in those times allowed of Law-suits and Handy-crafts prohibited in great Cities on the Lords day by the Emperour Constantine but Husbandry permitted in the country Villages Proof from Saint Jerome Chrysostom Augustine that after the Divine service of the day was ended the rest of the day was spent in mens several businesses Husbandry first restrained in the Western Churches in the Council of Orleans Anno 540. and by the Edict of the Emperour Leo Philosophus in the Eastern parts about the year 890. Several restraints laid on the Lords day by the Council of Mascon Anno 588. Pope Gregory offended at such restraints and his censure of such as did enioyn them The liberty allowed in the Lutheran Churches on the Lords day as also in those of the Palatinate till after the year 1612. Nor in the Churches of the Low-Countries till the year 1618. Not onely servile Works but Fairs and Markets continued on the Lords day in those Countries till the same year also Necessary labour permitted on the Lords day in the Reformed Churches of the Switzers and honest Recreations in the French and Genevian Churches as also in the Kirk of Scotland The conclusion and application of the last Argument IT hath been proved sufficiently in the former Section that the passage alledged by the Lord Primate from the Book of Homilies and that twice for failing is capable of no such sense and meaning as he puts upon it for if it were the Homily must not only contradict it self but the Authors of it must be thought to propound a Doctrine directly contrary to the Queens Injunctions and the publick Liturgy of this Church and several Acts of Parliament which were then in force And which is more the whole body of Gods people in this Land by following their necessary business and lawful pleasures upon the Sunday or Lords day when no attendance at the place and hours of Gods publick service was required of them must be supposed to have run on in a course of sin against Gods Commandments and of contempt and disobedience to the publick Doctrine of the Church for the space of 80. years and upwards without contradiction or restraint which to imagine in a Church so wisely constituted and in a State founded on so many good Lawes cannot find place with any man of sober judgement But there is one Argument yet to come of as much weight and consequence as those before that is to say that if any such restraint from labour and honest recreations was by the Doctrine of this Church imposed on the people of God this Church must openly oppose the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the laudable usages and customes of the Primitive times together with the general practise and perswasion of all the Protestant and Reformed Churches in these parts of the world a matter so abhorrent from the principles of the first Reformers and from the Canons and Determinations of this Church and the Rulers of it that no surmises of this kind can consist with reason The Church of England hath alwayes held the Fathers in an high regard whether we look upon them in their learned and laborious writings or as convened in General National and Provincial Councils appealing to them in all Differences between her and the Church of Rome and making use of their authority and consent in expounding Scripture witness that famous challenge made by Bishop Jewel in a Sermon preached at Saint Pauls Cross Anno 1560. in which he publickly declared that if all or any of the learned men of the Church of Rome could produce any one sentence out of the writings of any of the ancient Fathers or any General or National Council for the space of the first 600. years in justification of some Doctrines by them maintained and by us denied he would relinquish his own Religion and subscribe to theirs Witness the Canon made in a Convocation of the Prelates and Câ—ergy of England Anno 1571. Cap. De concionatoribus by which it was ordered and decreed that nothing should be preacht to the people but what was consonant unto the Doctrine of the old and
the matter The matter of a Commandment how and in what sense made an Article of the Faith and made a matter of the faith in this particular of the Lords day by the Assemblie of Divines at Westminster The consecration of arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops as capable of being taken into the Creed as the Parity of Ministers No verdict passed in behalf of the Lords day Sabbath by the Church of England The great difference between the Lord Primate and the Church of England in this business of the Lords day Sabbath A parting dash bestowed by the Lord Primate on the Historian THis leads me on to the fifth and last charge laid on the Historian meerly extrinsecal as to the main concernments of the point in hand though such as hath better ground to stand on then the other four The Historian having carried on his design as far as he could by the help of Books was forced to take up two passages concerning the affairs of Ireland upon information an information not took up upon a vulgar hear-say but given to him by such hands from which he was confident he might receive it without doubt or scruple The first particular is this that at such time as his Majesties Commissioners in Ireland employed about the setling of that Church Anno 1615. there passed an Article touching the keeping of the Lords day by which the English Sabbatarians were much confirmed in their Courses and hath been often since alledged to justifie both them and their proceedings Hist Sab. p. 2. l c. 8. n. 9. But the Lotd Primate now assures us that the said Article was passed and the Book of Articles published in Print divers yeares before the Commissioners whom he meaneth came thither p. 109. And thereunto Doctor Bernard addeth that the said Articles were subscribed by the Arch-Bishop of Dublin then Speaker of the House of Bishops in Convocation by the Prolocutor of the House of the Clergy in their names and signed by the Lord Deputy Chichester in the name of King James If so as now I believe it was I must needs say that the Sabbatarians and the rest of the Calvinian party in England were wiser in their generations then the children of light who seeing that they had no hopes of thrusting the nine Articles of Lambeth their Sabbath Speculations and the rest of their Heterodoxies of which particularly hereafter on the Church of England they began to cast their eyes on Ireland which lying further off might be less looked after And in that Realm they made themselves so strong a party that they obtained those Points in the Convocation held at Dublin Anno 1615. which neither their seditious clamours in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth nor their Petition to King James at his first entrance on this Kingdom nor their motion at the Conference in Hampton Court nor their continual Addresses to the Houses of Parliament were able to effect in England The out-works being thus easily gained they made from thence their Batteries on the Fort it self of which they doubted not to make themselves Masters in short time as in fine they did For after this when the Sabbath Quarrels were revived and the Arminian Controversies in agitation no argument was more hotly prest by those of the Puritan faction then the Authority of these Articles and the infallible judgement of King James to confirm the same The other particular in which the Historian doth confess himself to have been too credulous in believing and inconsiderate in publishing such mistaken intelligence is that the Articles of Ireland were called in and that in their place the Articles of the Church of England were confirmed by Parliament in that Kingdom Anno 1634. For this mistake though it be only in the circumstance not in the substance of the fact which is now before us he stands accused by the Lord Primate of no less then shamelesness Nor shames he to affirm saith he that the whole Book of the Articles of Ireland is now called in which is a notorious untruth and that the Articles of the Church of England were confirmed by Parliament in this Kingdom Anno 1634. Which passage with some others in this Letter makes me apt to think that it was never the Lord Primates meaning or desire to have it published in Print though Dr. Bernard hath been pleased to adventure on it For if it had been so intended he would have shewed less passion and more civility towards a Doctor in Divinity Chaplain in ordinary to the King and one not altogether untravelled in the wayes of Learning then to brand him with Sophistry Shamelessness and extravagant Fancies to tax him with notorious untruths speaking inconsiderately and finally to send him back to School again to learn his Catechism Egregiam vero laudem spolia ampla tulistis Tuque puerque tuus Assuredly the Lord Primate and his Chaplain too have reapt great praise and micle meed for this notable victory by which notwithstanding they have gain'd nothing but the name and noise For if it can be proved as I think it may that the Articles of Ireland were called in and that those of England were received in their place then whether it were done by Parliament or Convocation is not much material But on the contrary it is affirmed by the Lord Primate That the House of Convocation in the beginning of their Canons for the manifestation of their agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Chrstian faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments as themselves profess and for no other end in the world did receive and approve of the Articles of England but that either the Articles of Ireland were ever called in or any Article or Canons at all were ever here confirmed by Act of Parliament may well be reckoned amongst Dr. Heylyns fancies This the Lord Primate hath affirmed but takes no notice that the receiving of the Articles of England imports no less then the repealing of those of Ireland of which since Doctor Bernard hath discoursed more fully in his following Paper I shall reserve my Answer unto this Objection till I come to him In the mean time we are to know that the Lord Primate having been wrought on to propose the Canon which he speaks of about the Articles of England did readily consent unto it conceiving it to be without any prejudice to the other and thereupon he did not onely propose it in the House of the Bishops but commended it to the House of the Clergy where by his motion many assented the more readily as Dr. Bernard hath informed us p. 118. But afterwards the Lord Primate upon further consideration conceiving that he had been surprized and that he had passed more away in that Canon then he first intended began to cast about for some expedient to salve the matter and keep the Articles of Ireland in their former credit And thereupon it was thought fit that both the Lord Primate himself and some other
Bishops of his party should at an Ordination take the subscription of the party ordained to both Articles the Articles of England not being received instead but with those of Ireland p. 120 121. A sorry shift but such as was conceived to be better then none though as good as nothing But leaving this Dispute to another place as before was intimated we now proceed to the Examination of some other passages in the Lord Primates Letter unto his Honourable Friend in which he first chargeth the Historian for speaking inconsiderately in saying that before that time viz. Anno 1615. The Lords day had never attained such credit as to be thought an Article of the Faith though of some mens fancies And why was this so inconsiderately spoken Because saith he he that would confound the ten Commandments whereof this must he accounted for one unless he will leave us but nine with the Articles of Faith had need be put to learn his Catechisme again But this I look on as a flourish or a fansie onely For I hope the Lord Primate doth not think the Historian so extremely ignorant as to mean there a justifying and salvifical faith but that he takes faith there in the general notion as it importeth a firm perswasion and beliefe that those things are undoubtedly true which are commended to him by the Church in which he liveth or found in any creditable and unquestioned Author And in this notion of the word the matter of a Commandment being made a Doctrine may be called an Article of the Faith without any such scorn as to be put to learn the Catechism again The Articles of England by such as write of them in Latine are called Confessio Ecclesiae Anglicanae praeter Confessionem Anglicanam quam mihi ut modestam praedicabant c. saith the Arch-Bishop of Spalato In like manner and in the same sense and signification as the Articles of the Belgick Churches and the Kirk of Scotland are called confessio fidei Ecclesiarum Belgicarum Confessio fidei Scoticana sit de caeteris that is to say the confession of the Faith of those several Churches By which name the Articles of Ireland being also called by a most eminent learned and judicious person as Doctor Bernard sets him out p. 121. and the new Doctrine of the Sabbath being made a part of that Confession it may be said without any absurdity or being put to School again to learn the Catechisme that till that time viz. 1615. the Lords day never had attained that credit as to be thought an Article of the Faith But to make the matter sure and beyond exception I must put Dr. Bernard in mind of a Book entituled The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines assembled at Westminster by the Authority of Parliament concerning a Confession of Faith In which Confession of the Faith it is said expresly that As it is in the Law of Nature that in general a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God so in his word by a positive moral and perpetual Commandment binding all men in all ages he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him which from the beginning of the world to the Resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week and from the Resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week which in Scripture is called the Lords day and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath The institution and keeping of the Lords day here is made an Article of the Faith an Article of that Confession of the Faith which by the Assembly of Divines whereof the Lord Primate was nominated to be one was recommended to the two Houses of Parliament and yet I trow the Lord Primate wil not send the whole Assembly to learn their Catechism again unless it were one of the Catechisms of their own making either the larger or the lesser 't is no matter which But the Lord Primate stayes not here he goes on and saith That he that would have every thing which is put into the Articles of Religion to be held for an Article of Faith should do well to tell us whether he hath as yet admitted the Book of the ordination of Bishops and the two volumes of Homilies into his Creed both which he shall find received in the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at London Anno 1562. But unto this it may be answered that the Book of the Ordination of Bishops and the two Volumes of Homilies may be so far taken into the Historians Creed as to believe as much of either as is required of him in the Book of Articles For he may very warrantably and safely say that he does verily believe that the second Book of Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine and necessary for those times that is to say the times in which they were first publisht and that the Book of Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and ordering and that it hath nothing that of it self is superstitious or ungodly All this the Historian doth and may believe without making it an Article of his Faith except it be in that general notion of the word which before we spake of and in which notion of the word the Article of the Consecration of arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. may as well finde a place in the Confession of the Faith of the Church of England as that Article of the Parity of Ministers hath found admittance in the Confessions of the Belgick Scotish and other Reformed Churches For in the Belgick Confession Art 31. it is thus declared quantum vero attinet Divini verbi Ministros ubicunque locorum sint eandem illi Potestatem Authoritatem habent ut qui omnes sint Christi unici illius Episcopi universalis unicique Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri The French Confession bearing this Title Gallicarum Ecclesiarum Confessio fidei that is to say The Confession of the Faith of the French or Gallick Churches as the Scotish Confession is called Confessio fidei Scoticana doth affirm as much viz. Credimus omnes veros Pastores ubicunque locorum collocati fuerint eadem aequali inter se potestate esse praeditos sub unico illo capite summoque solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christo And so no question in the rest The Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops may as well be an Article of the Faith amongst us in England as the Parity of Ministers amongst those of France or the Low-Countries These Interlocutories being thus passed over the Lord Primate comes at last to his final and definitive sentence for what remaineth after the Verdict is once given but that Judgment in the Case be pronounced accordingly And the Judgment is given us in these Words viz. By the
the meaning and effect of that extremity as he calls it p. 2. but that they are so far reconciled unto him as to be capable of the Remission of their sins in case they do not want that faith in their common Saviour which is required thereunto And here I should have left this point but that I must first desire Dr. Bernard to reconcile these two passages which I find in the Lord Primates Letter of the year 1617. in one of which he seems to dislike of their opinion who contract the Riches of Christs satisfaction into too narrow a room as if none had any kind of interess therein but such as were elected before the foundation of the world as before was said And in the other he declares that he is well assured that our Saviour hath obtained at the hands of his Father Reconciliation and forgiveness of sins not for the Reprobate but Elect onely p. 21. Let Dr. Bernard reconcile these so different passages erit mihi magnus Apollo in the Poets language If the Lord Primate did subscribe the Articles of the Church of England as Doctor Bernard saies he did p. 118. I know who may be better blam'd for breaking his subscription then he whom the Lord Primate hath accused for it p. 110. For in the second Article of the Church of England it is said expresly that Christ suffered was crucified dead and buried to reconcile his Father to us and to be a sacrifice not onely for original guilt but also for the actual sins of men In which as well the sacrifice as the effect and fruit thereof which is the Reconciliation of mankind to God the Father is delivered in general terms without any restriction put upon them neither the Sacrifice nor the Reconciliation being restrained to this man or that man some certain quidams of their own whom they pass commonly by the name of Gods Elect. The sacrifice being made for the sins of men of men indefinitely without limitation is not to be confined to some few men onely as the general current of the Calvinian Divines have been pleased to make it as if Christ really and intentionally died for none but them 4. The Church of England doth maintain that Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament of his most precious body and blood Which Doctrine of a Real presence is first concluded from the words of the Distribution retained in the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth and formerly prescribed to be used in the ancient Missals viz. The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy Body and Soul unto life everlasting The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which words being thought by some precise and scrupulous persons to incline too much towards Transubstantiation and therefore not unfit to justifie a real presence were quite omitted in the second Liturgy of that King Anno 1552. wheâ— Dudly of Northumberland who favoured the Calvinian party carried all before him the void place being filled up with thâ— words of the Participation viz. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee c. Take and drink this in remembrance c. An alteration not well grounded and of short continuance For when that Book was brought under a review in the first year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth those words of the Distribution were reâ—â—ored to their former place and followed by those of the Participation as it still continueth It is proved secondly by that passage in the publick Catechisme in which the Party catechized is taught to say that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper Now if a Question should be made what the Church means by verily and indeed in the former passage it must be answered that she means that Christ is truly and really present in that blessed Sacrament as before was said the words being rendered thus in the Latine Translation viz. Corpus sanguis Domini quae vere realiter exhibentur c. Verily and indeed as the English hath it the same with vere and realiter that is to say truly and really as it is in the Latine And thirdly this appears to be the Doctrine of this Church by the most Orthodox and Learned Prelates of the same the words of three of which only I shall now produce that out of the mouths of two or three witnesses the truth hereof may be established God forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lords Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves withal Secondly Bishop Morton as great an enemy to the Superstitions of the Romish Mass as ever wrote against it doth expresly say That the question is not concerning a real presence which Protestants as their own Jesuites witness do also profess Fortunatus a Protestant holding that Christ is in the Sacrament most really verissime realissimeque as his own words are But none more positively and clearly then Doctor Lancelor Andrews then Lord Bishop of Chichester who in his Apology written in Answer to Cardinal Bellarmin thus declares himself as one and one of the chief Members of the Church of England viz. Praesentiam credimus non minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nil temere definimus We acknowledge saith he a presence as true and real as you do but we determine nothing rashly of the manner of it And in his Answer to the eighteenth Chapter of Cardinal Perrons Reply he thus speaks of Zuinglius It is well known saith he that Zuinglius to avoid Est in these words hoc est Corpus meum in the Church of Romes sense fell to be all for significat and nothing for est at all And whatsoever went farther then significat he took to savour of the Carnal presence For which if the Cardinal mislike him so do we a further declaration of the true sense and meaning of the Church in this particular we have from Mr. Alexander Noel Dean of Saint Pauls and Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when the Articles or Confession of this Church were approved and ratified who in his Catechism publickly allowed to be taught in all the Grammar Schools of this Realm thus resolves the point The Question is Coelestis pars ab omni sensu externo longe disjuncta quaenam est That is to say what is the Heavenly or Spiritual part of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper To which the party Catechised returns this Answer Corpus sanguis Christi quae fidelibus in Coena Dominica praebentur ab illisque accipiuntur comeduntur bibuntur coelesti tantum spirituali modo vere tamen atque reipsa id est the Heavenly or Spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Christ which are given to the faithful in the Lords
Supper and are taken eaten and drank by them which though it be onely in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner yet are they both given and taken truly and really or in very deed by Gods faithful people By which it seems that it is agreed on on both sides that is to say the Church of England and the Church of Rome that there is a true and real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist the disagreement being onely in the modus Praesentiae But on the contrary the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge hath written one whole Chapter against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament In which though he would seem to aim at the Church of Rome though by that Church not onely the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the corporal eating of his body is maintained and taught yet doth he strike obliquely and on the by on the Church of England All that he doth allow concerning the real presence is no more then this viz. That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament we are to distinguish between the outward and thâ— inward Action of the Communicant In the outward wiâ—â— our bodily mouth we receive really the visible elements of Bread and Wine in the inward we do by faith really receive the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say we are truely and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual strengthning of our inward man Which is no more then any Calvinist in the pack which either do not understand or wilfully oppose the Doctrines of the Church of England will stick to say 5. The Church of England teacheth that the Priest hath power to forgive sins as may be easily proved by three several Arguments not very easie to be answered The first is from those solemn words used in the Ordination of the Priest or Presbyter that is to say Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven and whose sins ye retain they are retained Which were a gross prophanation of the words of our Lord and Saviour and a meer mockery of the Priest if no such power were given unto him as is there affirmed The second Argument is taken from one of the Exhortations before the Communion where we find it thus viz. And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods mercy and with a quiet conscience therefore if there be any of you which by the means aforesaid cannot quiet his own Conscience but requireth further comfort or counsel then let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned Minister of Gods word and open his grief that he may receive such ghostly counsel advice and comfort as his conscience may be relieved and that by the Ministry of Gods word he may receive comfort and the benefit of absolution to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness The third and most material proof we have in the form prescribed for the visitation of the sick In which it is required that after the sick person hath made a confession of his faith and profest himselfe to be in charity with all men he shall then make a special confession if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter And then it followeth that after such confession the Minister shall absolve him in this manner viz. Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truly repent and believe in him of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences and by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Of the first of these three places deduced all of them from the best Monuments and Records of the Church of England the Lord Primate takes notice in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge p. 109. where he treatech purposely of the Priests power to forgive sins but gives us such a gloss upon it as utterly subverts as well the Doctrine of this Church in that particular as her purpose in it and of the second he takes notice p. 81. where he speaks purposely of Confession but gives us such a gloss upon that also as he did on the other But of the third which is more positive and material then the other two he is not pleased to take any notice at all as if no such Doctrine were either taught by the Church of England or no such power had been ever exercised by the Ministers of it For in the canvassing of this point he declares sometimes that the Priest doth forgive sins onely declarative by the way of declaration only when on the consideration of the true Faith and sincere Repentance of the party penitent he doth declare unto him in the name of God that his sins are pardoned and sometimes that the Priest forgives sins only optativè by the way of prayers and intercession when on the like consideration he makes his prayers unto God that the sins of the penitent may be pardoned Neither of which comes up unto the Doctrine of the Church of England which holdeth that the Priest forgiveth sins authoritativè by vertue of a power committed to him by our Lord and Saviour That the supreme power of forgiving sins is in God alone against whose Divine Majesty all sins of what sort soever may be truly said to be committed was never questioned by any which pretended to the Christian faith The power which is given to the Priest is but a delegated gower such as is exercised by Judges under Soveraign Princes where they are not tied unto the Verdict of twelve men as with us in England who by the power committed to them in their several Circuits and Divisions do actually absolve the party which is brought before them if on good proof they find him innocent of the crimes which he stands accused for and so discharge him of his Irons And such a power as this I say is both given to and exercised by the Priests or Presbyters in the Church of England For if they did forgive sins onely Declarativè that form of Absolution which follows the general Confession in the beginning of the Common-prayer-Book would have been sufficient that is to say Almighty God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which desireth not the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live and hath given power and commandment to his Ministers to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent the absolution and remission of their sins and pardoneth and absolveth all them which truly repent and unfainedly believe his holy Gospel Or if he did forgive sins onely Optativè in the way of prayers and intercession there could not be a better way of Absolution then that which is prescribed to be used by the Priest or Bishop after the general confession made by such
to the Articles of the Church of England the motion was not onely opposed by the Bishops but denied by the King opposed by the Bishops by reason of their inconsistency with the Doctrine of the Church of England denied and rejected by the King because he held the matters therein contained to be fitter for the publick Schools than the Book of Articles But on the contrary the Lord Primate alwayes shewed himself in favour of those Articles those Orthodoxal Assertions as the Doctor called them praetermitting no occasion to defend and countenance them and to that end caused them to be inserted into the Articles of the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. For if we may believe Dr. Bernard as in this case questionless we may it was his doing that these Nine Articles of Lambeth together wth the precise observance of the New Lords-day-Sabbath a different explication of the Article of Christs Descent into Hell from that allowed of by this Church and almost all the other Heterodoxies of the Sect of Calvin were interserted and incorporated into the Articles of Ireland we being told by Doctor Bernard in the History of his Life and Death p. 49. that in the Convocation held at Dublin Anno 1615. he being then a Member of that Synod was appointed to draw up those Articles which then and there were approved and ratified for the establisht Doctrine of the Church of Ireland This did he towards the advancing of the Calvinian Doctrines in his own native Countrey and for so doing was much flattered and applauded by the English Calvinists as the chief Patron of the Cause the Cause of God as some of them were pleased to call it Vissius a Divine of the Low Countreys publisht a Book entituled The Pelagian History demonstrating therein that the Fathers and other ancient Writers in their several ages maintained successively those Opinions in the matters of Predestination and the Points depending thereupon as the Remonstrants or Arminians as some call them did in the Belgick Churches A Book which suddenly grew into great reputation with most knowing and unbiassed men who had not been before engaged in the present quarrels And thereupon to give a stop to it in the middle of its full carere the Lord Primate published the History of Goteschalcus Of which thus Doctor Twisse in his Letter to the Lord Primate of the 29. of May 1640. Where having first spoken of his Singular Piety and Wisdom in reference to the necessitous condition of those times in inserting the History of Pelagius in his Book De primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum so opportunely coming in his way he after addeth that his History of Goteschalcus was a piece of the like nature and that it came out most seasonably in respect of Vossius for the relieving of whose credit thereupon there had been many meetings by some in London that by the coming forth of that Piece he was the better inabled in the pursuit of his Answer to Corvinus which he was in hand with and to meet with the Dictates of N. N. who endeavoured to justifie some conceit of Vossius but upon very weak grounds Thus saith he I have observed with comfort the hand of God to have gone along with your Grace for the honouring the Cause of his Truth in so precious a Point as is the glory of his Grace And I nothing doubt but the same hand of our good God will be with you still and his wisdom will appear in all things you undertake whether of your own choice or upon the motion of others So he and in him we may partly see the minds of the rest But there was somewhat else which did as much indear him to that Party as the Nine Articles of Lambeth namely the little esteem he had of the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England which made him so agreeable to them that they plied him with continual Letters when he was in Ireland Doctor Bernard telling us and I dare take it on his word That he had seen divers Letters wrote unto him from those who were aspersed with the name of Puritans full of respect and large expressions of their love to him p. 160. And at his comings into England he was much visited by the Grandees and learned Men of that Faction not that they found any reason to make use of him for design and counsel but partly for the reputation which he brought with him to the Cause and partly for the benefit they received by conferring with him who was indeed a walking Concordance and a living Library Nor was he less courted by their Followers the Lay-Brethren also by whom he was caressed complemented feasted wheresoever he came many good people being admitted to those Meetings as well to feed on his Discourses as to fill their bellies For though Doctor Bernard please to tell us that the Lord Primate did approve the Discipline and Constitutions of both Churches yet when he comes unto particulars he confutes himself giving us gratis several instances which are but sorry proofs of such Approbation whether we look upon the Canons of the Church of England separately and in themselves or on the publick Liturgy also which though first fitted for the use and edification of the Church of England were afterwards imposed by Act of Parliament in that Kingdom on the Church of Ireland In the particulars whereof we shall go no further then Doctor Bernard doth conduct us First then It is appointed by one Rubrick in the Liturgy or Common-Prayer Book That all Priests and Deacons shall be bound to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer either privately or openly except they be let by preaching studying of Divinity or some other urgent cause and in the rest it is directed in what course and order the said Morning and Evening Prayer is to be Officiated on what dayes the Letany is to be said or sung as also upon what dayes the Communion-service is to be used and in what part of that service the Sermon is to have its place and what other parts of that service are to follow after it Which last observance being neglected by some who would not tie themselves unto any Rule by others because being Lecturers onely they were not charged with Cure of Souls it was required by King Charles in some Instructions which he sent to all the Bishops severally and respectively in the Realm of England Anno 1628. That every Lecturer should read the Divine Service according to the Liturgy printed by Authority in his Surplice and Hood before the Lecture But on the contrary Doctor Bernard tells us of the Lord Primate That he was not so rigid as to tie all men in the private to an absolute necessary use of it or in the publick that a Sermon was not to be heard unlesse that did precede p. 145. He took great care as Doctor Bernard hath informed us p. 155. for the often publick reading of the Ten Commandments and the Creed