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
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
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
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
before the Congregation according to the custome of other Reformed Churches of which care there had been no need if the publick Liturgy had been read as it ought to be as well the Commandments as the Creed being appointed to be read publickly in the Course thereof But being it is said with reference to the Reformed Churches I want reason to believe that the often publick reading of the Commandments and the Creed supplied the place of the Publick Liturgy on the dayes of Preaching according to the Custome of some of the Reformed Churches which were therein imitated Secondly it is appointed by the Liturgy or Common-prayer-Book of Both Churches what dayes should be accounted holy and observed as Festivals each of them having their several Lessons Collects Epistles and Gospels as well the Sunday or Lords day it selfe or as the greater Festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide or those of the Ascension and Nativity of our Lord and Saviour No difference made between them except it be the addition of some proper Psalmes to some special Festivals in the intent and purpose of the publick Liturgies But whether the Lord Primate observed all these several Holy dayes which the Church allows of and in such manner as is prescribed by the Church may be very well doubted It s true that Doctor Bernard tells us that it was the Lord Primates judgement and opinion That the Annual Commemorations of the Articles of the Faith such as the Nativity Passion Resurrection of our Saviour c. were still to be observed which Saint Austin saith in his time were in use through the whole Catholick Church of Christ and is now in other Reformed Churches as a means to keep them in the memory of the vulgar according to the pattern of Gods injunction to the Israelites in the Old Testament for the types of them as appeared by his then constant preaching on those Subjects p. 152. But then it is as true withal that Doctor Bernard tells us nothing of the Lord Primates observation of the other Holy dayes as certainly he would have done had there been ground for it And therefore if the Lord Primate were so punctual in keeping the Anniversaries of the Nativity Passion Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord and Saviour and of the coming down of the Holy Ghost as Doctor Bernard saith he was it may be probably conceived that this was done rather in compliance with some of the forraign Reformed Churches which observe those dayes and those dayes onely than in obedience to the prescripts of the Churches of England and Ireland Thirdly the day of the Passion of our Saviour commonly called Goodfriday is by both Churches reckoned for jejunium statum a standing though but an Annual Fast as well as Lent the Ember dayes and Rogation week and hath its proper and distinct office that is to say its proper Lessons Collect Epistle and Gospel accommodated to the day and every way instructive in the story of our Saviours passion And it is ordered by the thirteenth Canon of the year 1603. That all Ministers shall observe the Orders Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer as well in reading the holy Scriptures and saying of Prayers as in Administration of the Sacraments without either diminishing in regard of preaching or in any other respect or adding any thing in the matter and form thereof But on the contrary Doctor Bernard telleth us that the Friday before Easter Good Friday by no means take heed of that appointed for the remembrance of the Passion of our Saviour was by the Lord Primate at Droghedah in Ireland observed duly as a solemn fast inclining the rather to that choice that is to say of making it a solemn not a standing fast out of prudence and the security from censure by the then custome of having Sermons beyond their ordinary limit in England and that when the publick prayers were ended that is to say so much of the publick prayers as might be no hindrance to his preaching be preached upon that subject extending himself in Prayer and Sermon beyond his ordinary time which being known to be his constant custom some from Dublin as other parts came to partake of it p. 154. Fourthly by the 55. Canon of the year 1603. there is a form of Prayer prescribed to be used by Preachers before their Sermons the beginning of which Canon is as followeth viz. Before all Sermons Lectures and Homilies Preachers and Ministers shall move the people to joyn with them in prayer in this Form or to this effect as briefly as conveniently they may Ye shall pray for Christs holy Catholick Church c. But on the contrary Doctor Bernard tells us of the Lord Primate that he did not onely spin out his own Prayers to a more then ordinary length as appeareth by the former passage but that he was also much for the Ministers improving of their gifts and abilities in prayer before Sermon and after according to his own practice p. 150. and that he required the like extemporary and unpremeditated prayers of his houshold Chaplains in his Family-prayers at six of the clock in the morning and at eight at night Fifthly it is appointed by the eighteenth Canon of the year 1603. That as often as in the Divine Service the Lord JESUS shall be mentioned due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons present as it hath been accustomed testifying by these outward Ceremonies Gestures their inward Humility Christian Resolution and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ the true and eternal Son of God is the onely Saviour of the World in whom alone all Mercies Graces and Promises of God to mankind for this life and the life to come are fully and wholly comprised But on the contrary Doctor Bernard tells us of the Lord Primate p. 147. That as for bowing at the name of Jesus though he censured not those that did either in our or other Reformed Churches according to the custome of each which we of England must needs take for a special favour yet he did not conceive the injunction of it could be founded upon that of the Apostle Phil. 2. 10. and wondered at some learned mens assertions that it was the exposition of all the Fathers upon it a touch for Doctor Andrews the late learned and most renowned Bishop of Winchester and as the wise composers of the Liturgy gave no direct injunction for it there so in Ireland he withstood the putting of it into the Canon Anno 1634. Sixthly it is appointed by the said eighteenth Canon of the year 1603. That no man shall cover his head in the Church or Chappel in the time of Divine Service whereof I hope the Sermon did deserve to be accounted part except he have some infirmity in which case let him wear a night-Cap or Coif and in the seventh Canon of the year 1640. that all good and well-affected people members of this Church be ready to tender their acknowledgement
precept of the Moral Law or the Law of Natures are not to be dispenst withal upon any occasion or necessity whatsoever it be and much less to be changed and abrogated at the will of man which explanation not to dispute the mutability or immutability of a positive Law will find as many Adversaries as the proposition as that which crosseth with the Doctrine of some of the first Martyrs in the Church of England and with the first Reformers and other leading men of the Protestant and Reformed Churches And first it is resolved thus by Mr. Tyndal a man sufficiently famous for his great pains in translating the Bible into English who suffered Martyrdom in the year 1536. As for the Sabbath saith he we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Monday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day a holy day onely if we see cause why Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it And somewhat to this purpose though not in terms so fully significant and express we find affirmed by John Frith a man of much learning for his age who suffered Martyrdom in the year 1533. Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an example of Christian liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And although they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Which words of his if they seem rather to demonstrate the Churches power in altering the time of worship from one day to another then the mutability of the precept on the which it was founded I am sure that Zuinglius the first Reformer of the Church among the Switzers will speak more fully to the purpose Hearken now Valentine saith he by what wayes and means the Sabbath may be made a ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed unto any time Vt nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a ceremony But Calvin speaks more plain then he when he professeth that he regarded not so much the number of seven Vt ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it And this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much as can be comprehended in so narrow a compass More largely Vrsine the Divinity Reader in the University of Heidelberg and a great follower of Calvin in all his writings who makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without express Commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of Divine Worship but for the Christian Church that that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian Liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holiness affixt unto them Ecclesia verò Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinions cultus vel necessitatis as his own words are Chemnitius yet more plainly for the Lutheran Churches who frequently affirms that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tied to dayes and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example singulis diebus vel quocunque die that every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for religious exercises And finally as Bullinger Bucer Brentius cited by Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato è nostri◠non pauci besides many others of the Reformed Churches by telling us that the Church hath still a power to change the time of worship from one day to another do tacitly infer that the Church hath power to change that time from the seventh day to the tenth or twelfth as well as from the first day of the week to the third or fourth so they which teach us that the sanctifying of one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandment do imply no less Of which opinion beside Tostatus and the Schoolmen before remembred we find also Calvin to have been Lib. Instit 2. c. 8. 11. 34. besides Simler in Exod. 20. Aretius in his common places Loco 55. Franciscus Gomarus in his Book De origine Institutione Sabbati Ryvet in Exod. 20. p. 190. to whom Chemnitius may be added for the Lutheran Churches In one of which it is affirmed that the sanctifying of a seventh day rather then of the eighth or ninth juris est Divini sed ceremonialis And if it be ceremonial only though of Gods appointment it must be subject unto change and mutability as well as Circumcision and the Passover or any other of the legal or Mosaical Ordinances And by another it is said that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature or Text of Scripture or any solid Argument drawn from thence Vnum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessariò observandum that by the fourth commandment one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service which does as plainly contradict the Lord Primates second Proposition as the Explication of it is found contrary to the rest before The second way whereby the Lord Primate doth strengthen and support his positive Law and makes it to come more near to the Sabbatarians of these later times is by his fixing the first Institution of it on the second of Genesis which makes it equal in a manner to the Law of Nature if not part thereof For that the institution of it in the first beginning is the very same with making it a part or branch of the Law of Nature may be inferred first from these words of Tostatus in Gen. 2. Num Sabbatum cùm à Deo sanctificatum fuerit in primordio rerum c. whether the Sabbath being sanctified by God in the infancy of the World had been observed by men by the Law of Nature And secondly it may be inferred from Dr. Prideaux in his Tract De Sabbato Sect. 2. Some saith he fetch the Original of the Sabbath from the beginning of the World
Mr. Ley accused by the Lord Primate for being too cold and waterish in the point of the Sabbath That by the Declaration of the three Estates convened in Parliament 5. 6. of Edw. 6. the times of publick worship are left to the liberty of the Church and that by the Doctrine of the Homilies the keeping of the Lords day hath no other ground then the consent of godly Christian people in the Primitive times No more of the fourth commandment to be now retained by the Book of Homilies then what belongs to the Law of Nature Working in Harvest and doing other necessary business permitted on the Lords day both by that Act of Parliament and the Queens Iniunctions No restraint made from Recreations on the Lords day till the first of King James The Sundaies and other Festivals made equal in a manner by the publick Liturgy and equal altogether by two Acts of Parliament The Answer to the Lord Primates Obiection from the Book of Homilies with reference to the grounds before laid down The difference between the Homilies of England and the Articles of Ireland in the present case Several strong Arguments to prove the Homily to mean no otherwise then as laid down in the said Answer Doctor Bounds Sabbath Doctrines lookt on as a general grievance and the care taken to suppress them WE are now come unto the third most material charge of all the rest by which the Historian stands accused for opposing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies to which he had formerly subscribed and that too in so gross a manner that all the Sophistry he had could neither save him harmless for it nor defend him in it This is an heavy charge indeed and that it may appear the greater the Lord Primate layes it down with all those aggravations which might render the Historian the less able either to traverse the Indictment or plead not guilty to the Bill I wonder saith he in his Letter to an Honourable Person pag. 110. how Doctor Heylyn having himself subscribed to the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Synod held at London Anno 1562. can oppose the conclusion which he findeth directly laid down in the Homily of the time and place of Prayer viz. God hath given express charge to all men in the fourth Commandment that upon the Sabbath day which is now our Sunday they shall cease from all weekly and week-day labour to the intent that like as God himself wrought six dayes and rested the seventh and blessed and consecrated it to quietness and rest from labour even so Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business and also give themselves wholly to the heavenly exercise of Gods true Religion and service This is the charge which the Historian suffers under wherewith the Lord Primate as it seems did so please himself that like a crambe his cocta it is served in again in his Letter unto Mr. Ley but ushered in with greater preparation then before it was For whereas Mr. Ley had hammered a Discourse about the Sabbath which he communicated to the Lord Primate to the end it might be approved by him the Lord Primate finds some fault with the modesty of the man as if he came not home enough in his Propositions to the point in hand Your second Proposition saith he p. 105. is too waterish viz. That this Doctrine rather then the contrary is to be held the Doctrine of the Church of England and may well be gathered out of her publick Liturgy and the first part of the Homily concerning the place and time of prayer Whereas you should have said that this is to be held undoubtedly the Doctrine of the Church of England For if there could be any reasonable doubt made of the meaning of the Church of England in her Liturgy who should better declare her meaning then her self in her Homily where she peremptorily declareth her mind That in the fourth Commandment God hath given express charge to all men c. as before we had it Assuredly a man that reads these passages cannot chuse but think that the Lord Primate was a very zealous Champion for the Doctrine of the Church of England but upon better consideration we shall find it otherwise that he only advocateth for the Sabbatarians not onely contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England but the practise also which that we may the better see I shall lay down plainly and without any sophistry at all upon what grounds the Lords day stood in the Church of England at the time of the making of this Homily both absolutely in it self and relatively in respect of the other Holy dayes And first we are to understand that by the joint Declaration of the Lords Spiritual Temporal and the Commons assembled in Parliament in the 5. 6. years of King Edw. 6. the Lords day stands on no other ground then the Authority of the Church not as enjoyned by Christ or ordained by any of his Apostles For in that Parliament to the honour of Almighty God it was thus declared viz. Forasmuch as men be not at all times so mindful to laud and praise God so ready to resort to hear Gods holy word and to come to the holy Communion c. as their bounden duty doth require therefore to call men to remembrance of their duty and to help their infirmities it hath been wholsomly provided that there should be some certain times and dayes appointed wherein Christians should cease from all kind of labour and apply themselves onely and wholly unto the aforesaid holy works properly pertaining to true Religion c. which works as they may well be called Gods service so the times especially appointed for the same are called holy dayes Not for the matter or the nature either of the time or day c. for so all dayes and times are of like holiness but for the nature and condition of such holy works c. whereunto such dayes and times are sanctified and hallowed that is to say separated from all profane uses and dedicated not unto any Saint or Creature but onely unto God and his service dayesâ—rescribed â—rescribed 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 unto the liberty of Christs Church to be determined and assigned orderly in every Country by the discretion of the Rulers and Ministers thereof as they shall judge most expedient to the setting forth of Gods glory and edification of their people Which Statute being repealed in the Reign of Queen Mary was revived again in the first year of Queen Elizabeth and did not stand in force at the time of the making of this Homily which the Lord Primate so much builds on but at such time also as he wrote his Letter to Mr. Ley and to that Honourable Person whosoever he was
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
new Testament quodque ex illa ipsa Doctrina Catholici Patres veteres Episcopi collegerint and had been thence collected by the Orthodox Fathers and ancient Bishops And though H. B. of Friday-street in his seditious Sermon preached on the fifth of November Anno 1636. and the Author of the Book entituled The Liberty of Prophecy published in the year 1647. endevour to make them of no reckoning yet was King James a learned and well studied Prince perswaded otherwise then so And thereupon in some Directions sent by him to the Vice-Chancellor and other of the Heads of the University of Oxford bearing date January 18. An. 1616. it was advised and required That young Students in Divinity be directed to study such Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and Discipline to the Church of England and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers and Councils School-men Histories and Controversies and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviators making them the grounds of their study in Divinity By which we see that the first place is given to Fathers and Councils as they whose writings and decrees were thought to have been most agreeable to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England The like may be said also of the usages and customes of the Primitive times which the first Reformers of this Church had a principal care of it being asfirmed in the Act of Parliament 2. 3. of Edw. 6. by which the first Liturgy of that Kings time was confirmed and ratified that the Compilers of the same not onely had an eye to the most pure sincere Christian Religion taught in the Scriptures but also a respect to the usages in the Primitive Church They had not else retained so many of the ancient Ceremonies as bowing at the name of Jesus kneeling at the Communion the Cross in Baptism standing up at the Creed and Gospels praying toward the East c. besides the ancient Festivals of the Saints and Martyrs who have their place and distinct offices in the present Liturgy And as for the neighbouring Protestant and Reformed Churches although she differ from them in her Polity and form of government yet did she never authorize any publick Doctrine which might have proved a scandal to them in the condemning of those Recreations works of labour and other matters of that nature which the general practice of those Churches both approve and tolerate And therefore if it can be proved that the spending of the whole Lords day or the Lords day wholly in Religious exercises accompanied as needs it must be with a restraint from necessary labour and lawful pleasures be contrary to the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers the usages and customes of the Primitive times and to the general practice of the Protestant and Reformed Churches I doubt not but it will appear to all equal and indifferent men that there is no such mind and meaning in the Book of Homilies or in them that made it as the Lord Primate hath been pleas'd to put upon it or to gather from it And first beginning with the Fathers Councils and the Usages of the Primitive Church it is not to be found that ever they required that the whole day should be employed in Gods publick service without permission of such necessary business and honest recreations as mens occasions might require or invite them to It was ordained indeed by the Council of Laodicea spoken of before that Christians on the Lords day should give themselves to ease and rest otiari is the word in Latine which possibly may be meant also of a rest from labour but it is qualified with a si modo possint if it may stand with the conveniences of their Affairs and the condition which they lived in And so the Canon is expounded by Zonaras in his gloss upon it It is appointed saith he by this Canon that none abstain from labour on the Sabbath day which plainly was a Jewish custome and an Anathema laid on those who offended herein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But they are willing to rest from labour on the Lords day in honour of the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour But here we must observe that the Canon addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in case they may For by the Civil Law it is precisely ordered that every man shall rest that day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hindes and Husbandmen excepted his reason is the very same with that before expressed in the Emperours Edict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for unto them it is permitted to work and travel on that day because perhaps if they neglect it they may not find another day so fit and serviceable for their occasions Besides which it is to be considered that many Christians of those times were servants unto Heathen Masters or otherwise obnoxious to the power of those under whom they lived and therefore could not on the Lords day abstain from any manner of work further then it might stand with the will and pleasure of those Superiours to whom the Lord had made them subject A Christian servant living under the command of an Heathen Master might otherwise neglect this Masters business one whole day in seven and plead the Canon of this Council for his justification which whether it would have saved him from correction or the Church from scandal I leave to be considered by all sober and unbiassed men All that the Church required of her conformable Children during the first 300. years was onely to attend the publick ministration or morning-service of the day leaving them to dispose of the rest thereof at their will and pleasure the very toil of Husbandry not being prohibited or restrained for some ages following For proof whereof take these words of Beza a man of great credit and esteem not onely with our English Presbyterians but the Lord Primate himself Vt autem Christiani eo die à suis quotidianis laboribus abstinerent praeter id temporis quod in coetu ponebatur id neque illis Apostolicis temporibus mandatum neque prius fuit observatum quam id à Christianis Imperatoribus nequis à rerum sacrarum meditatione abstraheretur quidem non ita praecise observatum That Christians ought saith he to abstain that day from their labour except that part alone which was appointed for the meetings of the Congregation was never either commanded in the Apostles times nor otherwise observed in the Church until such time that so it was enjoyned by Christian Emperours to the end the people might not be diverted from meditating on holy matters nor was it then so strictly kept as it was enjoyned Now the first Christian Emperour was the famous and renowned Constantine who was the first that established the Lords day which formerly had stood on no other ground then the Authority of the Church and consent of Gods people by Imperial Edicts so by the like Imperial Edict he restrained
that the first day of the Week which is the Lords day was wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and therefore that men should be bound to rest therein from their common and daily business which is the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of Ireland Next let us look upon the Protestant Lutheran Churches amongst whom though restraints from labour formerly imposed by many Canons Laws and Imperial Edicts do remain in force yet they indulge unto themselves all honest and lawful recreations and spare not to travel on that day as well as upon any other as their necessities or pleasures give occasion for it If they repair unto the Church and give their diligent attendance on Gods publick service there is no more expected of them they may dispose of all the rest of the day in their own affairs and follow all such businesses from which they are not barred by the Laws of the several Countries in which they live without being called to an account or censured for it And as for the Reformed or Calvinian Churches they give themselves more liberty on that day then the Lutherans doe few of them having any Divine offices until now of late in the Afternoons as neither had the Primitive Christians till toward the later end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth Century In those of the Palatinate the Gentlemen betake themselves in the Afternoon of the Lords day to Hawking and Hunting according as the season of the year is fit for either or spend it in taking the Air visiting their Friends or whatsoever else shall seem pleasing unto them as doth the Husbandman in looking over his grounds ordering his cattel or following of such Recreations as are most agreeable to his nature and education And so it stood in the year 1612. at what time the Lady Elizabeth daughter to King James and wife to Frederick the fifth Prince Elector Palatine came first into that Countrey whose having Divine Service every afternoon in her Chappel or Closet officiated by her own Chaplains according to the Liturgy of the Church of England might give some hint to the Prince her Husband to cause the like religious offices to be performed in some part of the Afternoon in the City of Heidelberg and after by degrees in other the Cities and towns of his Dominions In the Netherlands they have not onely practice but a Canon for it it being thus decreed by the Synod of Dort Anno 1574. Publicae vespertinae preces non sunt introducendae ubi non sunt introductae ubi sunt tollantur that is to say That in such Churches where publick Evening prayer had not been admitted it should continue as it was and where they were admitted they should be put down And if they had no Evening Prayers there is no question to be made but that they had their Evening Pastimes and that the Afternoon was spent in such employments as were most suitable to the condition of each several man And so it stood till the last Synod of Dort Anno 1618. in which it was ordained that Catechism-Lectures should be read in their Churches on Sundayes in the Afternoon the Minister not to be deterred from doing his duty propter Auditorum infrequentiam though possibly at the first he might have few Auditors and that the Civil Magistrate should be implored ut omnia opera servilia quotidiana c. That all servile works and other prophanations of that day might be restrained quibus tempus pomeridianum maxime in pagis plerumque transique soleret wherewith the Afternoon chiefly in smaller Towns and Villages had before been spent that so they might repair to the Catechizing For both before that time and since they held their Fairs and Markets their Kirk-masses as they used to call them as well upon the Lords day as on any other and those as well frequented in the Afternoon as were the Churches in the forenoon France and even in Geneva it self the New Rome of the Calvinian party all honest Exercises shooting in peeces long-bows cross-bows c. are used on the Sunday and that in the morning both before and after Sermon neither do the Ministers find fault therewith so they hinder not from hearing of the Word at the time appointed And as for the Churches of the Switzers Zuinglius avoweth it to be lawful Die dominico peractis sacris laboribus incumbere On the Lords day after the end of Divine Service for any man to follow and pursue his labours as commonly we do saith he in the time of Harvest And possible enough it is that the pure Kirk of Scotland might have thought so too the Ministers thereof being very inclinable to the Doctrine of Zuinglius and the practise of the Helvetian Churches which they had readily taken into their Confession Anno 1561 but that they were resolved not to keep those holy dayes which in those Churches are allowed of all Holy dayes but the Lords day onely having been formerly put down by their Book of Discipline Nor could I ever learn from any of my Acquaintance of that Kingdom but that men followed their necessary businesses and honest recreations on the Lords day till by commerce and correspondence with the Puritan or Presbyterian party here in England the Sabbatarian Doctrines began by little and little to get ground amongst them On all which premises I conclude that the Authors of that Homily had neither any mind or meaning to contradict the Ancient Fathers the usages and customes of the Primitive times in the general practice of the Protestant and Reformed Churches and therefore that the words of the Homily are not to be understood in any such sense as he puts upon them The Doctrine of the Church of England is clear and uniform every way consonant to it self not to be bowed to a compliance with the Irish Articles of the year 1615. and much less with the judgement and opinion of one single person in 640. No Sophistry in all this but good Topical Arguments and such as may be more easily contemned then answered And so much toward the exonerating of the fourth charge the most material of them all in which the Historian stands accused for opposing the Doctrine of this Church in the Book of Homilies to which he had formerly subscribed SECT IX The Historian charged for mistaking the affairs of Ireland in two particulars which he ingenuously confesseth The great cunning of the Puritan faction in effecting their desires in the Convocation of Dublin Anno 1615. which they could not compass here in England The Historian accused for shamelesness c. for the second mistake though onely in a point of Circumstance the Articles of Ireland being called in and those of England received in the place thereof by the Convocation though not by Parliament The Lord Primates narrative of this business he finds himself surprized in passing the Canon and makes use of a sorry shift to salve
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-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-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
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
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
as are to receive the Communion viz. Almighty God our Heavenly Father who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them which with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him have mercy upon you pardon and deliver you from all your sins and confirm and strengthen you in all goodness and bring you to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Or else the first clause in the form of Absolution used at the visitation of the sick would have served the turn that is to say Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truely repent and believe in him of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences And there could be no reason at all imaginable why the next clause should be superadded to this prayer viz. And by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins c. if the Priest did not forgive sins Authoritativè by such a delegated and commissionated power as before we spake of And that this is the Doctrine and intent of the Church of England appears by the acknowledgement of two learned men of the opposite faction For thus saith one of the great sticklers for the Church of Rome viz. Hereunto is also pertinent the Doctrine of those Protestants who hold that Priests have power not onely to pronounce but to give remission of sins Yea it seemeth to be the Doctrine of the Communion-Book in the visitation of the sick where the Priest saith And by his Authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins Then which there could not come a clearer Testimony from the mouth of an Adversary And for the other side I will take Dr. Lewis Bayley afterwards Bishop of Bangor a man precise enough as to the perpetual morality of the Lords day Sabbath and Calvinist enough in some other Tenets of that rigid Sect And yet this man in his Book called the Practice of Piety not onely doth advise his sick Penitent to send in time for some godly Minister to whom he may unfold his griefs confess his sins that so he may receive the benefit of Absolution but tells him that then he should not doubt in foro conscientiae but that his sins be as verily forgiven on earth as if he did hear Christ himself in foro judicii pronouncing them to be forgiven in Heaven And this he doth exemplifie in Doctor Reynolds the ablest and most learned man of all that shewed themselves on the Puritan party who being on his death-bed did earnestly desire to receive the benefit of sacerdotal Absolution according to the form prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer and humbly received it at the hands of Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Divinity in the University of Oxon for the time then being and when he was not able to express his joy thankfulness in the way of speech did most affectionatly kiss the hand that gave it and yet this Doctor had not only a chief hand in the Millenary Petition as they commonly called it presented to K. James at his first coming to this Crown wherein they excepted not only against the use but the very name of Absolution as being a forinsecal word which they desired to have corrected but managed the whole busines of it at Hampton Court And this he did with such fidelity and zeal that to give that party some contentment it was ordered in the Conference there that to the word Absolution in the Rubrick following the general confession these words Remission of sins should be added for explanation sake as it stil continueth so powerful an Orator is death as to perswade men in extremities of sickness to apply those remedies which in the times of health they neither thought lawful nor convenient to be used in such extremities 7. But to proceed in the Article of Christs descending into Hell the Church of England doth maintain a local descent that is to say That the Soul of Christ at such time as his body lay in the grave did locally descend into the nethermost parts in which the Devil and his Angels are reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great terrible day This proved at large by Bishop Bilson in his learned and laborious Work entituled The Survey of Christ's sufferings in which he hath amassed together whatsoever the Fathers Greek and Latine or any of the ancient Writers have affirmed of this Article with all the Points and Branches which depend upon it And that this was the meaning of the first Reformers when this Article amongst others was first agreed upon in the Convocation of the year 1552. appears by that passage of S. Peter which is cited by them touching Christs preaching to the Spirits which were in prison And though that passage be left out of the present Article according as it passed in the Convocation of the year 1562. yet cannot that be used as an Argument to prove that the Church hath altered her judgment in that Point as some men would have it that passage being left out for these reasons following For first that passage was conceived to make the Article too inclinable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the chief end of Christs descent into Hell to be the fetching thence the souls of the Fathers who died before and under the Law and secondly because it was conceived by some learned men that the Text was capable of some other construction than to be used for an argument of this Descent The judgment of the Church continueth still the same as before it was and is as plain and positive for a local descent as ever formerly She had not else left this Article in the same place in which She found it or given it the same distinct Title as before it had viz. De Descensu Christi ad Inferos in the Latine Copies of King Edward the Sixth that is to say Of the going down of Christ into Hell as in the English Copies of Queen Elizabeths Reign Nor indeed was there any reason why this Article should have any distinct place or Title at all unlesse the maintenance of a local Descent were intended by it For having spoken in the former Article of Christs Suffering Crucifying Death and Burial it had been a very great impertinency not to call it worse to make a distinct Article of his Descending into Hell if to Descend into Hell did signifie the same with this being buried as some men then fancied or that there were not in it some further meaning which might deserve a place distinct from his Death and Burial The Article speaking thus viz. As Christ died for us and was buried so is it to be believed that he went down into Hell is either to be understood of a local Descent or else we are tied to believe nothing by it but what was explicitely or implicitely comprehended in the former Article Now that this
is the Churches meaning cannot be better manifested then in the words of Mr. Alexander Noel before mentioned who being Prolocutor of the Convocation in the year 1562. when this Article was disputed approved and ratified cannot in reason be supposed to be ignorant of the true sense and meaning of this Church in that particular And he accordingly in his Catechism publickly allowed of with reference to a local Descent doth declare it thus viz. Ut Christus corpore in terrae viscera ita anima corpore separata ad Inferos descendit pariterque Mortis ejus vis ad mortuos Inferosque adeo ipsos usque eò permanavit ut Animae incredulorum tristissimae ipsorum incredulitati maximè debitae condemnationis sensum perciperent ipseque Satanas Inferorum Princeps tyrannidis suae tenebrarum potentiam omnem afflictam profligatam ruina oppressam esse animad verteret Id est As Christ descended in his body into the bowels of the earth so in his soul separated from that body he descended also into Hell by means whereof the power and efficacy of his death was not made known onely to the dead but the Divels themselves insomuch that both the souls of the unbelievers did sensibly perceive that condemnation which was most justly due to them for their incredulity and Satan himself the Prince of Divels did as plainly see that his tyrannie and all the powers of darknesse were opprest ruined and destroyed But on the contrary the Lord Primate alloweth not any such local Descent as is maintained by the Church and defended by the most learned Members of it who have left us any thing in writing about this Article And yet he neither follows the opinion of Calvin himself nor of the generality of those of the Calvinian party who herein differ from their Master but goes a new way of a later discovery in which although he had few Leaders he hath found many followers By Christs Descending into Hell he would have nothing else to be understood but his continuing in the state of separation between the body and the soul his remaining under the power of Death during the time that he lay buried in the grave which is no more in effect though it differ somewhat in the terms then to say that he died and was buried and rose not till the third day as the Creed instructs us And yet to set out this opinion to the best advantage he hath laid out more cost upon it then upon all the rest of his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge thronging together so many citations concerning the word Hades out of old Greek Authors so many Critical Observations on their Words and Phrases out of Grammarians Scholiasts and Etymologists as serve abundantly both to amaze the ignorant and to confound the learned Nothing lesse meant in all those Collections then to assert the Doctrine of the Church of England in this particular no more then he hath done in the other Points before remembred though all of them are either to be found in the Book of Articles to which he had subscribed as Doctor Bernard hath informed us p. 118. or in the Book of Common Prayer which he was bound to conform himself unto both in judgment and practice as being impos'd by Act of Parliament on the Church of Ireland 7. I should now proceed to see what difference there is between the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Lord Primates own judgment in the point of Free-will which he hath given us in his Answer to the Jesuits Challenge p. 464. But because that point hath some relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth I shall take no other notice of it then as it is comprehended in those Articles in the defence whereof the Lord Primate did appear with so great affection as made him very gracious in the eyes of the Calvinian Party both at Home and Abroad But this together with the little esteem he had of the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England is left to be the subject of the following Section SECT XI The Articles of Lambeth when made and on what occasion Dislik't and supprest by Queen Elizabeth and rejected by King James at the Conference at Hampton-Court Countenanced and defended by the Lord Primate who for so doing is much honoured by the English Puritans The History of Goteschalcus publisht by him and the great thanks he received for it from Doctor Twisse What else it was that made the Lord Primate so esteemed by the Brethren here His Inconformity to the Orders Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England in six particulars WE are informed by Doctor Bernard that the Lord Primate did fully approve the Articles of Religion of the Church of England in points of Doctrine as the same more enlarged in the Articles of Ireland and that he also did approve the Discipline and Constitution of both Churches p. 144. By which if Doctor Bernard means that the Articles of England were the same with those of the Church of Ireland though more enlarged in theirs of Ireland than in ours of England he is much mistaken there being many things contained in the Articles of the Church of Ireland extremely differing from the Doctrine of the Church of England as shall be shewn particularly in a place more proper But because the Lord Primate is no otherwise concerned therein then in relation to the Nine Articles of Lambeth which are incorporated and contained in those of Ireland I shall confine my self precisely unto that particular And I shall find enough in that to shew the Lord Primates further differences from the Church of England those Articles containing all the Calvinian Rigours in the Points of Praedestination Grace Free-will c. which have produced so much Disturbance in these parts of Christendom Those Articles first occasioned by some Differences which arose in Cambridge between Doctor Whitaker the Queens Professor and Doctor Peter Baro the Lady Margarets Professor in that University agreed on at a private meeting in Lambeth-house Anno 1595. None but the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Bishop Elect of London and the Bishop of Bangor with some learned men of Doctor Whitakers own party being present at it and being so made were sent to Cambridge rather to silence Doctor Baro than to compose the Differences by any equal expedient So that being made on a particular occasion at a private meeting and by men not impowered to any such purpose they were never looked on otherwise than as private Opinions not as the Tendries of this Church So far disliked by Q. Elizabeth when she first heard of them that they were presently supprest by her command and so supprest that we hear no more news of them till the Conference at Hampton-Court where they found no better entertainment from the hands of King James for Doctor Reinolds having mov'd that the Nine Orthodoxal Assertions as he called them which were made at Lambeth might be added
unto the Lord in whose house they are by doing reverence and obeisance at their coming in and going out of the Church Chancel or Chappel according to the most ancient custome of the Primitive Church in the purest times and of this Church also for many years in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth What low esteem the Lord Primate had of these two Canons and how little he conformed himself to the tenour and intent thereof might be easily proved but that I am to go no further in these particulars then Doctor Bernard doth conduct me All therefore I shall adde is this that though these Canons did not bind the Lord Primate unto any observance when he was in Ireland yet at such time as he was in England and constantly repaired to one Church or other he was obliged both in obedience to the Law and for the avoiding of scandal to conform unto them Cum Romae sum jejuno Sabbato cum hic sum non jejuno Sabbato was the rule and practice of Saint Ambrose who was not only Arch-Bishop of Millan but perhaps Lord Primate of the Diocess of Italy also All this considered Doctor Bernard needed not to have told us of him That he did not affect some arbitrary innovations not within the compass of the Rule and Order of the Book and that he did not take upon him to introduce any Rite or Ceremony upon his own opinion of Decency till the Church had judged it so p. 147. It was too manifest by that which hath been said before that there were no works of supererogation to be lookt for from him It had been well if he had readily observed what was commanded in the Book as Doctor Bernard sayes he did when he was in Ireland and had applyed himself to those Decencies which the Church had judged to be fit when he was iâ— England Nor needed so much boast be made of his Conformity to the Discipline Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England or that many of those who were asperst by the name of Puritans received such satisfaction from him as to concur with him in the above said particulars p. 160. For this might very well be done and yet the men remain as unconformable to the Rules of the Church their kneeling at the Communion excepted onely as they were before Matters which had not now been brought to the publick view if Doctor Bernard had not given as well the hints as the occasion for these Discoveries So that it may be truly said in the words of Tacitus though not altogether in his meaning Pessimum inimicorum genus laudantes viz. that the Panegyrist is sometimes a mans greatest enemy unless perhaps it might be Doctor Bernards purpose to set forth the Lord Primate as the pattern of a complete Prelate as Xenophon set forth his Cyrus for the example of a gallant and perfect Prince by telling us rather what he should have been then what he was Finally whereas the Doctor tells us that each party had a great and reverent opinion of him p. 163. I am sorry that any part of it should be lost by this unlucky Adventure this most unseasonable publishing of his private Letters For my part I had no intent of saying any thing to lessen that great and reverent opinion which each party had of him and am sorry that Doctor Bernard hath provoked me to say so much And so I lay him down again in the Bed of Peace desiring heartily ut placida compostus morte quiescat that he may rest in quiet there without more disturbances SECT XII Doctor Bernards endevour to revive the old quarrel touching the Lord Primate and the Earl of Strafford the Answerers resolution not to engage himself therein The Canon of the year 1634. for the approving and receiving of the Articles of the Church of England A Recapitulation of the Arguments used by the Observator to prove that the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England was a repealing of the Articles of Ireland Doctor Bernards weak Answers to those Arguments and his weaker Arguments to prove the contrary The Difference between the Articles of England and Ireland consists not onely in some Circumstantials as Doctor Bernard would fain have it A view of some material and substantial differences between those Articles The Conclusion of the whole Discourse ANd now we are come to Doctor Bernard who promising no more then the confirmation of something which the Lord Primate had written in one of his Letters viz. That the Articles of Ireland were not called in Anno 1634. as Doctor Heylyn had affirmed p. 173. must needs go somewhat out of his way to hook in the remembrance of some former Quarrels which Doctor Heylyn had forgotten and is not now willing to remember The Author of the Book called Extraneus vapulans whosoever he was declares himself unwilling to receive that Question Whether the Lord Primate had any sharp tooth against the Lord Lieutenant or not in regard the parties were both dead and all displeasures buried in the same grave with them p. 292. He also wished that the Doctor by his Panegyrick had not awakened those enquiries which were like to be so little advantagious to the memory of that learned Prelate p. 296. And finally conceived that Doctor Bernard would have done that reverend person and himself some right if he had suffered such Enquiries to die with the parties most concerned in them without reviving them again by his double diligence p. 298. Which passages if Doctor Bernard had laid to heart he would not so unseasonably have endevoured to revive that Quarrel and brought Doctor Heylyn on the stage provoking him by several wayes to resume that Argument which he had long since laid aside and is resolved upon no provocation whatsoever to take up again He hath laid the Lord Primate down again in the Bed of Peace and will not raise him from it by a new disturbance But whereas Doctor Bernard tells us that it is left to the prudence of a third person who hath a convenient opportunity in his History to clear the whole in the Examination and Moderation of all the passages between Mr. l'Estrange and him p. 114. That third person whosoever he is must be very prudent if he can carry the matter so and with such Moderation as not to give offence to both parties and be called to an account by each of them for his Examination For so it hapneth many times that he who voluntarily steps in to part a fray between two persons gets some knocks on both sides at the least from one And therefore it was well resolved by one of the old Heathen Philosophers Se nolle inter duos Amicos Arbitrum esse c. that he vvould never arbitrate any business betvveen tvvo of his Friends because he vvas sure that by his so doing he must make one of them to become his Enemy The preamble of Doctor Bernard being thus passed over
we next proceed unto the Confirmation which he hath in hand And therein also pretermitting his whole Narrative touching the carriage of the business in the Convocation of the year 1634. we will pitch only on the examination of this point viz. whether the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England were not a virtual repealing of the Articles of the Church of Ireland And for the better proceeding in it I think it not unnecessary to produce that Canon which is the ground of the Dispute The Title of it this viz. Of the Agreement of the Church of England and Ireland in the profession of the same Christian faith The Body of it this viz. For the manifestation of our Agreement with the Church of England in the Confession of the same Christian Faith and Doctrine of the Sacraments We do receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops and Bishops and the whole Clergy in the whole convocation holden at London Anno Dom. 1562. for avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion And therefore if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto Let him be excommunicated and not absolved before he make a publick revocation of his error These are the very words of the Canon it selfe and from these words the Observator did conclude that the Articles of England were received in stead of the other but Doctor Bernard makes this construction of the Canon That there was not a reception of the one in stead of the other but the one with the other p. 119. That in the Canon the Articles of England are received not in stead but with those of Ireland p. 120. But which of the two is in the right will be best seen by the Arguments produced on both sides and by the Answers which are made to those several Arguments And first the Observator takes notice of some scandal given unto the Papists and the occasion of some derisions which they had thereby that in the Churches of three Kingdoms professing the same Religion being under the patronage of one soveraign Prince there should be three distinct and in some points contrary confessions and that for the avoiding of this scandal it was thought fit there should be one Confession or one Book of Articles onely for the Churches of England and Ireland not without hope that Scotland would soon follow after And thereupon he doth infer that if the superinducing or receiving of a new Confession be not a repealing of the old there must be two Confessions in the same Church differing in many points from one another Which would have been so far from creating an uniformity of belief between the Churches and taking away thereby the matter of derision which was given the Papists in two distinct and in some points contrary Confessions yet both pretending unto one and the same Religion that it would rather have increased their scorn and made a greater disagreement in Ireland it selfe then was before between the Churches of both Kingdoms The second Argument is taken from these words of Saint Paul Heb. 8. 13. viz. Dicendo novum veteravit prius c. that is to say in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old as our English reads it and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the abolishment of its use and practice So that unless it may be thought that Saint Paul was out in his Logick as I think it may not the superinducing of a new Covenant must be the abrogating of the old His third Argument is taken from the Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath by superinducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lessened in authority and reputation by little and little and in short time vvas absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the fourth Commandment by vvhich it vvas at first ordained being still in force His fourth and last Argument vvas that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth confirmed in Parliament vvith several penalties to those vvho should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it as appears by the Statute 2 3. Edw. 6. c. 1. vvas actually repealed by the authorizing of the second Liturgy of the 5 6. of King Edw. 6. vvhich vvas forthvvith received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in then by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing unrepealed in full force and virtue and many Clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second Upon which Ground it was inferred that the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally abrogated by the superinducing of the Articles of the Church of England Of the first and last of these four Arguments Doctor Bernard takes no notice at all and returns but one Answer to the second and third which notwithstanding may serve also for the first and last just as an Almanack calculated for the Meridian of London may generally serve for the use of all Great Britain The Answer is That the Apostles speech of making void the old Covenant by speaking of a new or taking in the first day of the Week to be the Sabbath instead of the last when but one of the seven was to be kept doth not fit the Case for in these there was a Superinduction and reception of the one for the other but in the Canon the Articles of England are received not instead but with those of Ireland which by his leave is not so much an Answer to the Observators Arguments as a plain begging of the Question For if this Answer will hold good in Ireland it might have held good also in the Land of Judaea and the Parts adjoyning where both the Lords-day and the Sabbath the old Law and the Gospel did for a time remain together As for the Doctors Arguments That the Reception of the Articles of the Church of England doth no more argue an Abrogation of the Articles of Ireland than that the Apostles Creed was abrogated by the reception of the Nicene and Athanasian p. 118. it is easily answered For as the Doctor well observes the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are but Enlargements of the other and that in some particular Points onely in which the Hereticks of those times had disturbed the peace of the Church So that those Creeds are but the Explanations of the other in the Points disputed and were received by the Church with reference onely to the condemnation of some Heresies and the Explication of some Orthodox or Catholick Doctrines which had been opposed by
those Heresies More easily is the Argument answered importing That the reception into our use the form of the Lords Prayer according to S. Matthew should by the same reason abrogate that of S. Luke being the shorter For first the Lords Prayer as it stands in S. Lukes Gospel was never received into the Lyturgie of the Church and therefore could not be abrogated by the Churches making choice of the other which we find in S. Matthew And secondly it was not in the power of the Church to have abrogated that Prayer as it stands in S. Luke because it is a part of the Gospel of the word of God which the Church hath no Authority to change or alter and much lesse to abrogate All that the Church can be said to have done in this particular is that the Church made choice rather of the Lords Prayer as it stands in S. Matthew then as it stands in S. Luke when it was absolutely in her power to make choice of either No contrariety to be found in any one clause of the said two Pater Nosters nor any the least contradiction to be met with between those three Creeds or any one Article of the same differing no otherwise in a manner but as the Commentary and the Text. But so it is not in the Case which is now before us nor in the supposition of making one general confession of all the Reformed Churches if they were severally subscribed with the Irish Articles He that subscribes unto the Articles of Ireland may without any doubt or scruple subscribe unto the Articles or Confessions of all the Reformed or Calvinian Churches But if he take the Articles of England also into that account he must of necessity subscribe to many plain and manifest contrarieties Against this nothing hath been said but that there is no substantial difference between those Articles as was conceived by the Lord Primate p. 118. that both Confessions are consistent as is affirmed by Doctor Bernards most eminent learned and judicious person p. 121. and finally that there is no difference in substance but onely in Method number of Subjects determined and other circumstantials as is declared by Doctor Bernard p. 119. But if the contrary be proved and that it shall appear that there is a substantial difference between those Articles that the Confessions of both Churches are inconsistent and that they do not onely differ in the Circumstantials of Method Number and the like I hope that then it will be granted that the approving and receiving of the Articles of England was virtually and in effect an Abrogating of the former Articles of the Church of Ireland And for the proof of this I shall compare some passages in the Articles of Ireland as they passed in Convocation Anno 1615. with the Doctrines publickly professed in the Church of England either contained expresly and in terminis in the Book of Articles or else delivered in some other publick Monument of Record of the Church of England to which those Articles relate First then The Articles of the Church of Ireland have entertained and incorporated the Nine Articles of Lambeth containing all the Calvinian Rigours in the Points of Predestination Grace Free-will c. which Articles or any of them could never find admittance in the Church of England by reason of their inconsistency with the authorized Doctrines of it as before was said so that by the incorporating of those Nine Articles into the Articles of Ireland there are as many aberrations from the doctrine of the Church of England Secondly It is said of Christ Num. 30. that for our sakes he endured most grievous torments immediately in his Soul and most painful sufferings in his Body The enduring of which grievous torments in his Soul as Calvin not without some touch of Blasphemy did first devise so did he lay it down for the true sense and meaning of the Article of Christs descending into Hell In which expression as the Articles of Ireland have taken up the words of Calvin so it may rationally be conceived that they take them with his meaning and construction also the rather in regard that there is no particular Article of Christs descending into Hell as in those of England and consequently no such Doctrine of a local Descent as the Church of England hath maintained Thirdly it is declared Num. 50. That the Abstinencies which are appointed by publick order of that State for eating of Fish and forbearing of Flesh at certain times and dayes appointed are no wayes meant to be Religious Fasts nor intended for the maintenance of any superstition in the choice of meats but are grounded meerly upon Politick Considerations for provision of things tending to the better preservation of the Common-wealth But the Church of England not taking notice of any Politick Considerations for the breeding of Cattle increase of shipping or the like as the Statists do nor intending the maintenance of any Superstition in choice of meats as the Papists do retaineth both her Weekly and her Annual Fasts ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis as Apostolical and Primitive Institutions and she retains them also not as Politick but as Religious Fasts as appears by the Epistle for Ash-wednesday taken out of the second Chapter of Joel from verse 12. unto verse 18. and by the Gospel for that day taken out of the sixth Chapter of S. Matthew from verse 16. unto verse 22. And more particularly from the Prayer appointed to be used on the first Sunday in Lent viz. O Lord which for our sakes didst fast fourty dayes and fourty nights give us grace to use such abstinence that our flesh being subdued to the Spirit we may ever obey the Godly motions in righteousness and true holinesse to thy honour and glory which livest and reignest c. Fourthly It is affirmed Num. 56. That the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and therefore we are bound to rest therein from our common and daily businesse and to bestow that leisure upon Holy Exercises both publick and private How contrary this is to the Doctrine of the Church of England in the Book of Homilies we have seen already and if it be contrary to the Book of Homilies it must be also contrary to the Book of Articles by which those Homilies are approved and recommended to the use of the Church Besides it is declared in the seventh of those Articles first that the Law given by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian men nor ought the Civil Precepts thereof to be received in any Common-wealth and secondly that no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral So that the Ceremonial part of the Law of Moses being wholly abrogated there is no more to be observed in any of the said Commandments then that which is naturally and plainly moral For otherwise the Old Testament must be
Illud totum à Chrysostomo repetitum repudiari necesse est Quem trahit volentem trahit So he in the second Book of his Institutions Cap. 3. Upon which Dictate of their Master the Calvinists or Contra-Remonstrants whom the Lord Primate in compiling the Articles of Ireland followeth point per point affirmed expresly in the Conference holden at the Hague Sicut ad Nativitatem suam nemo de suo quicquam confert neque ad sui excitationem à mortuis quicquam confert de suo Ita etiam ad Conversionem suam nemo homo quicquam confert That is to say that as a man contributes nothing either towards his natural Generation or Resurrection from the dead so doth he not contribute any thing towards his Conversion and Regeneration Ninthly the twentieth Article of England ascribes unto the Church a power in determining Controversies of the faith of which the Articles of Ireland are utterly silent as if the Church were vested with no such authority contrary to Acts 15. v. 6 c. Tenthly it is declared in the 34. Article of the Church of England 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 and approved by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly that others may fear to do the like as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak Brethren But of this there is nothing said in the Articles of Ireland and thereby a wide gap laid open to all private men either out of singularity faction or perverseness of spirit to oppose the Ceremonies of the Church and deny conformity thereunto at their will and pleasure Eleventhly the 36. Article of England approves the Book of the Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops c. of which Consecration we find nothing in the Articles of Ireland as if such Consecrations had something in them which of it selfe is superstitious and ungodly or that the calling of Bishops was not warranted by the word of God Twelfthly it is declared in the 38. Article of England That the riches and goods of Christians are not common as touching the right title and possession of the same as certain Anabaptists do falsly boast Of which the Articles of Ireland are as silent as in the point of Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops the dangerous consequence whereof may be felt too soon I know that these two last passages may rather argue some deficiency in the Articles of Ireland then any contrariety unto those of England But I have cause enough to think that many of those who willingly subscribe the Articles of Ireland as being totally Genevian both in the matter and method will be apt to boggle at these two the first as being contrary to the common Principles of the Presbyterians the second as being no less opposite to that levelling humour which doth affect as great a Parity in the Civil State as the others have contended for in the Ecclesiastical And thus far I have gone along with Doctor Bernard in answering all the several Charges which are laid upon me and freeing my selfe from all such opposition to the publick Doctrine of this Church as I stand accused for A crime for which I could not easily acquit my self and not take notice by the way how much the Doctrine Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England were opposed by him who laid that heavy charge upon me In the pursuit of which particulars I have not gone much further though somewhat further I have gone then I am warranted and instructed by Doctor Bernard himself and possibly had not gone so far but that I knew how speedily the examples of some men may be drawn into practice their practice made exemplary and the Obliquities of their judgement taken up as a Rule for others if warning of the danger be not given in convenient time Magnos errores magnorum virorum authoritate transmitti as was well observed by Vadianus is a thing too ordinary It is my wish that the business may rest here though I fear it will not the Doctors Book being such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such an occasion of creating new contentions and reviving the old as if it had been publisht and intended to no other end then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to put the whole State of Greece into fresh combustions Others there are who either are concerned by name or interessed in the defence of that which they have formerly written in the Churches cause who may conceive themselves obliged to the like engagements as well to do themselves right in the eyes of the world as to maintain the dignity of the Episcopal calling in behalfe of the Church And to these last I shall refer the further prosecuting of the point of Episcopacy as it relates to Doctor Bernards actings in it who by furnishing the Lord Primates naked Affirmation with some Armour of Proof and citing many Forraign and Domestick Authors of the same opinion hath made himself a second party in the Quarrel and consequently stands bound by the Laws of Duel to abide the Combat If in that part which I have done I have done any thing amiss as I hope I have not I shall crave pardon for my errors though I may say with truth and modesty enough Si fuit errandum causas habet error honestas in the Poets language if well in any thing I shall expect no thanks for it from the hands of men considering that when I have done the best I can I am but an unprofitable servant in the Church of Christ a Tacit. in vit Agric. b In Epist ad Aenae c 2 Kings 23. 18. d Tertul. Apolog. 1 Sam. 28. 15. Deut. 18. 11. Andriant 12. Tom. 6. Contra Judaeos Dial. cum Tryâ—hone Lib. 1. Epist 2. Tostatus in Exod. 12. a Tract in Joan. b De 10. Cordis cap. 3. In Psal 91. c In Psal 23. Answ to Sir Tho. More p. 287. Declarat of Baptism p. 96. Contra Valent. Gentil Tom. 1. p. 254. Catech. qu. 103. Simner in Exod 20. Gomarus de orig Sabbati Bound Editio 2. p. 10. In Ezek. c. 20. In Rom. 3 In Orthod fide l. 24. c. 4. In Luk. 19. In Exod. 2. qu. 11. Hosp in de Fest Ethn. Jud. l. 3. c. 3. Annal. d. 7. De creat hominis l. 1. ad finem Hebr. 7. 10. Chap. 16. 29. In Decalogo Opera dies Dies Geniales l. 3. c. 18. Hospin De orig Fest c. 5. 2 Edit p. 65. Joseph adversus Apion l. 2. De Abrahamo Problem loc 55 Apud Euseb a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Purch pilgr. l. 1. c. 4. Emend Temp. l. 3. Id. l. 4. Id. l. 1. Ed. 2. In Levit. 13. qu. 3. Hist l. 36. Marlorat 7. a Illic secundâ feriâ populus terrae cum flamine regulo convenire solebant propter judicia Helmold Chron. Sclav l. 1. c. 24. Page 80. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. De doctr temp l. 7. c. 3. Emend temp l. 2. Epist Oenon. ad Parid. Isych l. 6. in Levit. c. 23. In Psal 47. De coronâ mil. c. 3. Can. 16. Can. 49. Can. 52. De Castigatione Epist 289. Expos fidei Cath. 24. Injunct 20. In Exod. 20. qu. 12. Ibid. In Can. Con. Laod. In Can. Sol. Hom. 30. Iâ— omnes cap. de seriis Ad Eustochian In Num. Hom. 2. Hom. 5. in Mat. 1. Conc. Matiscon Can. 1. Collat. doct Cathol Protestant cap. 68. Synod Dordra Sess 14. Resp ad Cal. Gent. Consil redeundi Artic. 35. 36. Carthag 4 Can. 3. Ibid. Can. 4. Can. 2. Concil Antioch Can. 19. True subject p. 779. Mont. Gag cap. 11. p. 78. * Tacit. inâ— Agric.