inrollment of that Charter until 2 Ric. 2. will not admit of so great Antiquity thereof And the same Sir Edw. Cook there alledgeth the Red Book of Hen. 1. De general Placitis Comitatuum Cap. 8. extant in the Office of the Kings Rememb in the Exchequer wherein in the Sheriffs Tourne Court is said Ibi agantur primo debita verè Christianitatis jura Secundo Regis placita postremo causae singulorum dignis satisfactionibus expleantur There let be handled first all due Laws of Christianity or Court-Christian Secondly Pleas of the King Lastly Causes of particular persons c. Whereupon they that is others conclude that Ecclesiastical causes were handled in the Tourn in H. 1. long after the said supposed Charter Then he addeth And certain it is the Bishops Consistories were erected and causes Ecclesiastical removed from the Tourn to the Consistory after the making of the said Red Book But let the Antiquity thereof be what it will it is most certain that however the Popes and their Agents did often intrude and usurp Authority within this Realm yet the King and Parliament ever held the Bishops and Clergy of England within the verge of the Laws of the Land never permitting them either by colour of Magna Charta or otherwise to exercise any Authority but with submission to the Municipal Laws So that whoever shall endeavour to put them into any further power in case they have a mind to restore them to former Jurisdictions doth put to his hand to make them so many Popes which this Realm even in times of Popish Religion here would never endure And whereas some are pleased to affirm that by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 19. there was a stricter restraint laid upon the Bishops and Clergy than in the times before when they sate in Convocation viz. No Canons should be made and put in exercise that were contrariant or repugnant to the Laws of the Land it is manifest that the same limitation was long before set upon them For Sir Edw. Cook ibid cap. 74. pag. 323. saith That the King did often appoint Commissioners by Writ to sit with them at the Convecation and to have cognizance of such things as they meant to establish that nothing should be done in prejudice c. and for this he citeth 51. Ed. 3. nu 42.46 Edw. 3. prem 8.21 Ed. 4.45 Rot. Parl. 1 Ric. 2. nu 114. from which he concludeth that the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 is but Declaratory of the old Common Law And so strict were the Kings anciently over Bishops and Archbishops too that when the Clergy petitioned in Parliament 51. Edw. 3. 4 Instit ca. 74. of Archdeacons p. 339. num 83. that of every Consultation conditional the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly that is without appeal to the King whereupon Delegates by Commission under the Great Seal might hear and determine the same The Kings answer was that the King cannot depart with his right but to yeeld to his Subjects according to Law To which Sir Edw. Cook subjoyns an Item to all his Readers Nota hoc stude bene Nay this is not all For so far did the Kings of England engage in the over-ruling of Bishops that they did not onely limit their Jurisdiction but allowed them not liberty to make a Will without licence from the King till they made composition with him as the same Author telleth us saying Ibid. p. 338 It appears by many Records in the reigns of H. 3. Edw. 1. as taking some one or two examples for many that by the Law and custome of England no Bishop could make his Will of his Goods or Chattels coming of his Bishoprick c. without the Kings licence The Bishops that they might freely make their Wills yeelded to give to the King after their deceases respectively for ever six things 1. Their best Horse or Palfrrce with Bridle and Saddle 2. A Cloke with a Cape 3. One Cup with a Cover 4. One Bason and Ewre 5. One Ring of Gold 6. His Kennel of Hounds For these a Writ issueth out of the Exchequer after the decease of every Bishop Whether this be still in use we meddle not but mention it onely to shew what a strict eye our Kings have ever had upon Bishops so as the Law allows them not power so much as of their own personal Estates much less of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction without the King What power they had in the High Commission Court is needless to mention the Court being happily laid aside by the Statute of 17 Car. 1. cap. 11. But whereas they insisted upon sole Jurisdiction and now begin to exercise it or at least to renew their claim thereunto it is very well known that by the Statute of 1. Edw. 6.2 they could hold no Courts but in the Kings name nor that without Commission under the Great Seal which power was indeed revived and re-established by the Act of 1. Eliz. after it had been repealed 1. Mar. 2. Howbeit all that power is again repealed and made void for ever by the same Act of 17. Car. 1. and now no Commissions to be granted them any more To make this out we shall rehearse the words of both those Acts of Parliament which run thus 1. The Act of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. having first united and annexed all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom it after addeth what power shall be given by Commission under the Great Seal to exercise the same in this following Clause onely viz. And that your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority by vertue of this Act by Letters patents under the Great Seal of England to assigne name and authorize when and as often as your Highness your Heirs or Successors shall think meet and convenient and for such and so long time as shall please your Highness your Heirs or Successors such person or persons being natural born Subjects to your Highness your Heirs or Successors as your Majesty your Heirs or Successors shall think meet to exercise and use occupy and execute under your Highness your Heirs and Successors all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within these your Realms of England and Ireland or any other your Highnesses Dominions and Countries And to visit reform redress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Vertue and the Conservation of the Peace and Vnity of this Realm And that such person or persons so to be named assigned authorized and appointed by your Highness your Heirs or Successours after
satisfying their carnal and fleshly lusts but to have many children because every one of them hoped and begged oft-times of God in their Prayers that that blessed seed which God promised should come into the world to break the Serpents head might come and be born of his stock and kindred As if all did not know out of what Tribe Christ was to issue Par. 2. Hom. 2. of Alms pag. 160. The same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of the Scripture saying Mercifulness and alms-giving purgeth from all sins delivereth from death and suffereth not the soul to come into darkness For this is alledged Tob. 4. ver 10. Then there is added The wise Preacher the son of Sirach confirmeth the same when he saith That as water quencheth burningfire even so mercy and alms resisteth and reconcileth sins Excellent sense For this Ecclus. 5. is quoted in the margent But it is cap. 3.30 where the words in the New Translation are Alms maketh an atonement for sins Of which words however a charitable construction may be wyre-drawn yet those expressions the same lesson doth the Holy Ghost teach us in sundry places of the Scripture evidently admit of these two gross Errours 1. That the Book of Tobit is to be taken for Holy Scripture 2. That it was indited by the Holy Ghost The former of these is contrary to Art 6. in which only the Canonical Books there named are owned for the Scripture of the Old Testament And that of Tobit is there numbred among the Apoeryphals which the Article saith out of Hierom the Church doth not apply to establish Doctrine yet this Homily applies these Apocryphal passages to confirm the Doctrine of Alms deeds And as touching the Holy Ghosts teaching of this in those places alledged out of Tobit and Siracides this is denyed by all who receive not those Books as Canonical Take but one witness instead of many King James who in his Book directed to his Eldest son and called Basilicon Doren having spoken to him of reading of the Holy Scriptures saith thus As to the Apocrypha Books I omit them because I am no Papist and indeed some of them are no way like the ditement of the Spirit of God 6. That by the 37th Article as it is still printed and may not be altered where it is said The Queens Majesty hath the chief power in the Realm of England c. meaning Queen Elizabeth who is after named therein all Ministers are bound to read those very words unto this day and may not say The Kings Majesty hath the chief power for the Articles must be read every word of them as they are printed with the Kings Declaration before them or the Minister must be deprived if he alter any word or shall not take it in the sense of the very Letter of it And if he keep not to all the very words of the Articles who can swear that he did read them after his Induction if put unto it 7. That by this means we shall have no setled or fixed Doctrine of the Church of England at all if so often as the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation shall obtain License to deliberate of all such things as they shall think fit to explain and shall obtain thereto the Royal Assent they may put what sense they please upon the Doctrine established which by the Declaration prefixed to the Articles is promised to be from time to time granted unto them If it be said There is an easie Cure for all this The Declaration before the 39 Articles was never confirmed by any Act of Parliament nor is now in force or if it be it is but the taking of that away and causing the Books to be printed without it So will the subscribers to the Articles be at as much liberty as by the Act of 13 Eliz. was allowed them To this it is Answered that this will signifie nothing if Ministers be still tyed to subscription For 1. It hath been already declared yea adjudged that by that Statute there is no liberty for any man to subscribe the Articles with any limitation or explication if any credit be given to Sir Edward Cook who saith * Instit 4.47 p. 324. edit 1658. that he hath heard Wray chief Justice in the Kings Bench Pasch 23 Eliz. quoting Dier 23 Eliz. 377. lib. 6. fol. 69. Grenes Case Smiths Case report that where one Smith subscribed to the said 39 Articles of Religion with this addition so far forth as the same were agreeable to the Word of God that it was resolved by him and all the Judges of England that this subscription was not according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. Because the Statute required an absolute subscription and this subscription made it conditional and that this Act was made for avoiding diversities of opinions c. And by this Addition the party might by his own private opinion take some of them to be against the Word of God and by this means diversities of opinions should not be avoided which was the scope of the Statute and the very Act it self made touching subscription hereby of none effect Thus He. 2. This shews a necessity of repealing that branch of the Act so far as it concerneth subscription because 1. if we may not subscribe with such an addition so far forth as the same Articles are agreeable to Gods Word it must needs be granted that the Composers of them are admitted to be infallible and their Articles of equal Authority with Canonical Scripture or else that the Statute intended to tyrannize over the Consciences of men which is not to be imagined 2. There is no more necessity for Ministers to subscribe those Articles which that Act confirmes then there is for others to subscribe to all other Acts of Parliament which do concern them If an Act once confirm and ratifie a thing under a penalty it will take place and keep all in as much obedience as if all the Subscriptions in the world were made to it It is not particular Subscriptions but publique Legislative Authority that makes it a binding Law 3. This Subscription is for the most part required of men while they be young and have not time or solidity throughly to ponder and weigh all the Articles in the balance of the Sanctuary or in the scaies of the Laws so that hereby they are cast into a snare ere they be aware and by their own inconsiderate and rash act bound as men are apt to make them believe if they afterwards upon never so just grounds begin to hesitate to maintain every of those Articles although contrary to the Word of God which is expresly contrary to the very Letter of the 20th Article which saith It is not lawful to ordain any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written And afterwards As it ought not to decree any thing against the same that is the Word so beside the same ought it not to enforce any thing
elected there can be legally and regularly no succession of Bishops There is no necessity of such a Consequence nor of making more Archbishops or Deans and Chapters or continuing of any such if it shall please the King and Parliament by any Act or Statute to appoint any other way and course of Election and Consecration of Bishops Which is as easie to be done as any thing else Enacted in Parliament there being no Divine Right so much as pretended unto for such Election or Consecration as of late was used in England 2. Whereas it is of late much insisted upon that Episcopacy is not only an Office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers given to them by the free Election of the rest to regulate order and act things agreed upon by the Presbytery joyned with them as the Commander in chief in an Army as the Capital Justice in a Court or as the Speaker in either House of Parliament but that it is a distinct and specifical Order by Divine Right Superiour to all other Presbyters which Order onely is Authorized to exercise such things as none else may medle with We say that this in England was never at all arrogated by any Bishops till of very late times 2. The things they make peculiar to Bishops ratione Ordinis are sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction as if none had power in either of these but themselves neither of which even they who pretend to derive their Episcopacy from the Apostles ever undertook to make good by any solid Antiquity Yea 3. those very Antiquities which they allege are either spurious or else speak nothing either of sole Ordination or of sole Jurisdiction but rather the contrary as might easily be made out But we tye our selves to speak to these particulars only as said to be made out by Law 3. This was never yielded by any Law of England nor by the Book of Ordination For however that Book established in 5.6 Edw. 6. and after repeal by Queen Mary confirmed in 8. Eliz. cap. 1. Yet when it speaks of the making of Bishops it calls that a Consecration and not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters which it calleth Priests calling one The form and manner of Ordering Deacons the other The form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this Word Ordering and calls it The form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop Which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never meant to make Bishops or as Dr. Gauden calls it Legal Episcopacy to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ's and his Apostles institution Superiour to a Presbyter It is indeed an easie matter for a bold man to contradict this and to say that the antient Writers call the Solemn form of consecrating a Bishop by no other name then that of Ordinatio Episcopi but it seems it is not so easie to prove what he saith For he produceth no such proof at all so that this confident saying touching such Ordination of Bishops affirmed by his Adversary to be a Novel Popish Position that this is Not Novel he is sure is but a meer shift and a put off no confutation at all And where he is pleased afterwards to urge the Preface to the Book of Ordination Dr Heylin Certam Epistol p. 143. which mentioneth three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and one passage in one of the Prayers at the Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop to prove that Episcopacy is a distinct Order from and Superiour to that of Presbyters he must be intreated to take notice 1. That the Preface alleged saith not as he speaks these THREE Orders but onely these Orders of Ministers c. But even there by way of explanation the Preface calls them Offices which Offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation c. now we deny them not to be distinct Offices only we cannot admit in his sense the Office of a Bishop to be a distinct Order above Presbytery For even in that very Preface it speaks of Consecrating not of Ordaining a Bishop as the Book all along doth of Ordering that is Ordaining of Deacons and Priests but never of other then of Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops that is of setting them over the rest in degree to be the mouth and hand of the rest in executing what by the rest is agreed upon And 2. touching that Prayer he mentions wherein Episcopacy is called in that Part of the Book it self which concerneth Bishops an Order This is but a wyre-drawing of the Words and a meer wresting of them The Words of the Prayer are these Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Now how do these words prove a Bishop to be a distinct Order when speaking of the person then to be made Bishop it is not said he is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And seeing he onely talks of antient Writers but produceth none we shall make bold to mind him what is the sense of the Canon-Law which he pleads to be still in force in England if Lindwood that great English Canonist be of any value with him who saith expresly Episcopatus non est Ordo Yea the very Book of Ordination in ordering of Priests appointing 1 Tim. 3. to be then read If any desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth an honest work A Bishop must be blameless c. doth more then tacitly admit a Bishop and a Presbyter not to differ in Order To which we shall add the judgement of an antient Archbishop of Canterbury even Anselmus himself an high man for the Pope and a great Contestor with the King for Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction even beyond the bounds of the Laws of this Land who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians where Paul cap. 1. saluteth but two Orders Bishops and Deacons on the word Episcopis saith thus Episcopis id est Presbyteris Episcopos namque pro Presbyteris more suo posuit Non enim plures Episcopi in una civitate erant neque Presbyteros intermitteret ut ad Diaconos descenderet Sed dignitatem excellentiam Presbyterorum declarat dum eosdem qui Presbyteri sunt Episcopos esse manifestat Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedio facium est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Evangelium rumperet Nam est Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos qui sederunt in Centuria 3. Presbyterum unum de se elecium in Excelsiori loco Gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si Exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi elegant
a Bishop according to the mind of Christ expressed in his Word If the late Episcopal Party shall pretend and plead that unless Bishops be restored to all their power and pomp they arrogated before 17. Car. they shall not be able to do his Majesty that service which otherwise they might if so restored To this it is answered 1. That if they mean thereby that they cannot do his Majesty service in Parliament unless they be restored to their Lordships again and re-admitted to the House of Peers we cannot think but that there be Noble Lords enow left in that Honourable House who are far more able to do his Majesty service then the Bishops can do there 2. Whereas the Bishops and Clergy obtained a Command and Charter from William 1. to exclude the Sheriff and the rest of the Laity from medling with matters Ecclesiastical in their Courts as was before shewed we see no reason why Bishops excluded in 17. Car. 1. his reign should be again admitted to intermeddle in the Supreme Court and Judicatory of the Realm in Civil Affairs 3. If they be confined to the Apostolique Constitution and more Bishops made they will be in a capacity of doing God and his Majesty more and better service in a more diligent and circumspect Government of the Church then ever yet they have done or were able to do By all which it appeareth that if they labour to recover their former power the pretence of doing his Majesty better service is but to make way to their own Greatness and to render them less able to serve God or the King as in that Office they ought Nor will his Majesties interest in the Clergy be diminished by making more Bishops without an election by a Dean and Chapter but much increased if by Act of Parliament the same Course be taken for the election of all Bishops which by the Statute of 26. H. 8.14 is appointed for the constituting of Bishops Suffragan and their power of Jurisdiction set out unto them by the King and Parliament as it was in 1. Eliz. at what time the Articles to be ministred in all their Visâ—tations were set forth by the Queen c. are yet extant with her Injunctions Hereby also his Majesty would be sure to have a far greater influence into all the Clergy of note by how much the more the number of Bishops is increased and more learned men made capable of such preferments which a quarter of them cannot be if Episcopacy be confined to twenty six Bishops III. Of DISCIPLINE HAving spoken of the Subject or Persons in whom the Power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Laws of the Realm resided we proceed to offer somewhat touching the Rules or Laws for execution thereof under this Head of Discipline which containeth the Canons or Rules to wit the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws by which alone all persons trusted with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction have been enabled to exercise that Government How that Discipline is bounded appeareth in and by the Acts of Parliament still in force in 25. H. 8.19 and 1. Eliz. 1. which bounds a great Sciolist is pleased to call sad restrictions and limitations * D. Heylin Certam Epistol pag. 89. which sheweth how they like the Laws and how far they would go in making Laws if they durst The bounds in the former Act are these 1. That none of the Clergy should from thence forth presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any other Canons Nor shall enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in time coming which always shall be assembled by Authority of the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent and License to make promulge and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodal upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing contrary to this Act and being thereof convict to suffer imprisonment and make Fine at the Kings Will. It is true that at the suit of the then Clergy divers Constitutions Ordinances and Canons Provincial or Synodal which heretofore had been Enacted and then thought to be not only much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative royal and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm but also over-much onerous to his Highness Subjects by that Act the King was to chuse thirty two Persons to review approve or reject the same which being begun but not perfected by the time limited so as to get the Royal Assent thereunto 3.4 Edw. 6. cap. 11. that Act revived in 3.4 Edw. 6. authorizing him to chuse thirty two Persons to perfect that work The persons were chosen they did the work compiled a Book intituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum yet extant but for lack of the Royal Assent thereunto within the time prefixed that Act expired and their Book of Reformation with it which was never since renewed In the Act of 25. H. 8.19 it is provided that such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial being already made 1 El. 1. which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customes of this Realm nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative-Royal shall now still be used and executed as they were before the making of this Act till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered determined by the said thirty two persons or the more part of them according to the tenor form and effect of this present Act. By occasion hereof Dr. Heylin * Ubi supra affirmeth that so much of the Popes Canon-Law first intended for the Church in general as is not contrary to the Laws Customs c. of the Land is still in force in our Courts Ecclesiastical as the Civil or Imperial Laws are in our Courts of Admiralty and Prerogative for probate of Wills But we humbly conceive this cannot be so because however the Civil Law is still in use in maritine and Testamentary Affairs in regard that Forrainers as well as Natives are or may be therein concerned and so those Civil Laws are permitted not in relation to the Emperour but as the Law of Nations which never was by any Act of Parliament in those eases prohibited in England The Popes Canon-Law on the contrary is ever since disabled by the Statute of 24. H. 8.12 and by that Act before-mentioned is wholly abrogated and null For if his power be renounced can his Laws which are the chief part of a Law-givers power be still in force especially where no Canons but such as have the Royal Assent may be used in England And if that might be admitted yet that very Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 puts a period to it after the time the thirty two persons or major part of them did view and search them and drew up a Body of Ecclesiastical Laws to be used
within two moneths after his Induction c. upon default hereof to be ipsofacto immediately deprived And if any Ecclesiastical Person shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented shall persist therein or not revoke his errour or after revocation return again to it he shall be deprived of his Ecclesiastical Promotions This is the effect of that Statute as to this Point But these Articles are both Doubtful and Defective 1. Doubtful 1. Because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13 Eliz. for as much as they are not therein in expresly inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-Page of them mentioned Nor is it known where the Original is enrolled 2. Of those 39 Articles there were 36 of them set forth yet not ratified by Parliament in Edw. 6. his reign the other were added by the Convocation in An. 1562. 3. In the Books of Articles now printed and ever since 10 Caroli 1. there is a Declaration of that his late Majesty prefixed thereunto by the advice and procurement of the then Bishops after Arminianism began to perk and to be openly preached by the rising Party to this effect viz. 1. That those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods Word all therefore are required to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and the least difference from them prohibited 2. That the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire should have licence under the Broad * This shews who did pen it Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by his then Majesty shall concern the setled continuance of the said Doctrine as well as Discipline then established from which no variying or deparing in the least degree should be endured 3. That all curious search and disputes touching any points contained therein be laid aside and shut up in Gods Promises as generally set forth and in the general meaning of these Articles And that no man shall either print or preach to draw any Article aside any way nor put his own sense or Comment upon it but shall take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it This Declaration is published with the said Articles by Command If this be still continued and confirmed then all these sad Consequences must needs follow 1. That no Minister shall have so much liberty to interpret any one of those Articles as is not onely allowed but required of him in his Ordination to expound the Word of God it self But this is a notorious truth that after that Declaration was printed and published as also a Proclamation to the same effect issued those of the Prelatical Party had their Spies every where to see who durst to preach a word against any Arminian Tenet or to explain any one Article as not making for but against any of those Opinions If any were found so to do he was sure to be Convented for breach of the Kings Declaration and Proclamation yea some have been brought into the High Commission-Court for this very cause While in the mean time that other Party took liberty to vent and preach up those points without controul Which no Anti-Arminians durst call into question for that the then Bishops of greatest power who might by that Declaration obtain licence to explain all things as they thought fit favoured those Advocates of Arminianism and must have been their Judges if they had been complained of 2. That where in Art 16. it is said Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is a sin against the Holy Ghost We may not dare to open the nature of deadly sin nor to say that all sins are deadly contrary to the Popish distinction of sins into mortal and venial Nor may we presume to explain the next part of that Article viz. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given c. which Clause Bishop Montacute and after him others allege to prove falling from grace and thereby pretend that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England which is contrary not onely to Art 17. but to 1 John 3.9 1 Pet. 1.5 3. That it being said Art 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith we may not enquire what is meant by the Church whether the Church Catholick or of England nor what the Church of England is what Rites or Ceremonies it may ordain or how far her Authority extendeth in Controversies of Faith And if she do happen to ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation that is beside the Word no man may question it but we must if a Convocation once declare for it assent and subscribe unto it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it or be deprived of all Ecclesiastical Promotions 4. That whereas the 34 Article treateth of the Traditions of the Church we must not curiously search what is here meant by Traditions and whether it be meant of the Traditions of the Church of Rome or of any other Church But we must rest in this General That whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly as offending against the common Order of the Church hurting the Authority of the Magistrate and wounding the weak Whereas this Church hath no where set forth what she meaneth by Traditions whether distinct from Ceremonies or the same with them how a Tradition may be said to be ordained and what is meant by common Authority Yea if power be given to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation when and so often as they shall desire it to ordain any more Traditions which seems to be a strange Expression and new Ceremonies and the Royal Assent pass thereupon all Ministers must subscribe thereunto before they know what they be yea before they be ordained after which it will be too late to dispute them or to vary from them in the least degree upon any pretence whatsoever It will be too late then for any man to say They are repugnant to the Word of God 5. That all being by Art 35. to admit both Books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times and therefore to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently men must subscribe to false Doctrines or assertions Take instance in but one or two particulars for brevities sake Par. 2. Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer pag. 147. Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the Old Testament not for
to different places within the same Country It is answered that times and mens manners must produce a Change where ever a removal of those in being is necessary as appears by the Article And where things of this nature that at first were of godly intent and purpose devised but at length turned into vanity and superstition by the Preface touching Ceremonies before cited they are adjudged worthy to be cut away and clean rejected and so many of them have already been as was the Brasen Altar by Hezekiah And it further telleth us that as those be taken away which were most abused and burdened mens consciences without any cause so the other that remain may upon just causes be altered and changed So that here is nothing desired in the taking away the imposition yea all use of them but according to Law 4. The Book of Common-Prayer of 2 Edw. 6. is in some things referred to and particularly as to Ornaments and Rites both by the Rubrick before Morning-Prayer in the present Liturgy and by the Stat. of 1 Eliz. 2. So that as to this point so much of that first Book is still in force by Law But that Book hath expresly given a liberty in some of the things here desired to be no further imposed where in the last Page thereof called Certain Notes for the more plain Explication and decent Ministration of things contained therein it saith As touching kneeling crossing holding up of hands knocking upon the breast and other gestures they may be used or left as every mans devotion serveth without blame This is still good Law So that whatever is enjoyned in the Canons for the imposing this is void in Law by the Stat. of 25. H. 8.19 although made by the Kings Licence and Assent because contrary to that Law of 1 Eliz. 2. in this particular Now if the Law it self give a Liberty in some we trust that upon the foregoing Reasons our Law-givers will take off the imposition of the rest if not wholly remove them 5. The Bishops themselves take Liberty to omit one Ornament imposed on them to be used namely the Pastoral Staff which in the same place of the Book of 2. Edw. 6. he is enjoyned to have in his hand or to have it born by his Chaplain and this is not left Arbitrary as the Rites last before named are yet the Bishops herein can dispense for themselves is there not reason then to dispense with Ministers in the rest Having thus pleaded the necessity of Reformation in Rites and Ceremonies but especially of providing against the Imposition of any of them in general we shall not enter into any debate of the particulars for of that there is no need in this place But because we are subject to be upbraided that many of us have both subscribed to use all those contained in the Liturgy and some of us have accordingly used them and that therefore we are Revolters from our Subscription and thereby lyable to the penalty of Excommunication by the sixth Canon It behoves us to make this Apology for our selves 1. That albeit some of us have unadvisedly subscribed to use them and perhaps have used them sometimes yet finding that many sober Christians are scandalized at them we hold our selves bound to imitate the Apostle and what he did in the Case of meat which he held to be lawful we must do in the Case of Ceremonies to use them no more while the world standeth rather then make our brother to offend 2. As to the danger incurred thereby we must not so much stand upon that as to chuse iniquity rather then affliction 3. And as touching the validity and force of the Canon we fear it not it being void in Law of which we shall speak more under the head of Discipline IIII. Of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT BY Church-Government is meant the Ecclesiastcal Government of the Church of England said and commonly reputed to be established by the Laws of the Realm For however some have of late pretended to a Jus Divinum or Divine Institution of Episcopacy of late years used in England yet the Laws of the Kingdom would never own any such thing nor suffer them to exercise any power but what the Municipal Laws Authorize them unto Yea the Statute of Provisors 25th of Edw. 3. An. 1350. Declareth plainly that Prelacy it self was erected in England by the Kings of England and not by any other Authority For that Statute begins thus Whereas late in the Parliament of good memory of Edward King of England Grandfather to our Lord the King that now is the five and twentieth year of his Reign holden at Carlile the Petition heard put before the said Grandfather and his Counsel in his said Parliament by the Comminalty of the said Realm containing That whereas the Holy Church of England was FOUNDED IN THE ESTATE OF PRELACIE within the Realm of England by the said Grandfather and his Progenitors and the Earls and other Nobles of his said Realm and their Ancestors to inform them and the people of the Law of God c. Therefore we cannot look upon such Bishops in any other Capacity in England And according hereunto take notice under this Head of Church-government 1. Of their Constitution by Consecration 2. Of their Jurisdiction by Delegation of his Majesty according to his Laws 3. Of their Execution of Discipline accordingly By their Consecration they have a power of Ordination By their Jurisdiction they have a power to Govern And by their Execution of that Office they have a power of Discipline But all these according to the Laws of the Land and none other or otherwise We shall therefore speak somewhat to each of these and humbly offer Reasons of the necessity of reforming Episcopacy and Church-government in every one of these I. Of the Consecration of Bishops and their power of Ordination thereupon 1. BY the Laws of the Land after the death of any Bishop Dr. Heylin Advertisâ—oâ— Hist of K. Charles p. 193. his Majesty useth to send out his Writ of Conge d' Eslier to the Dean and Chapter to Elect another Which Election being made signified under the Chapter-Seal and confirmed by the Royal Assent the King sendeth out his Mandate to the Archbishop of the Province to proceed to Consecration of the person so elected or Confirmation if consecrated before and now but Translated from one See to another as the case may vary So is it acknowledged by one that takes on him to know more than many others of this particular But whereas he addeth that thereupon it must needs be that when the Church comes to such a condition that is to be without Archbishops and Deans and Chapters of both which the same Author saith the late King was content in the Confer at the Isle of Wight to grant an abolition that this was acknowledged on all sides that where there is no Dean and Chapter to Elect and no Archbishop to Consecrate and Confirm the Person
de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct
the said Letters Patents to him or them made and delivered as is aforesaid shall have full power and authority by vertue of this Act and of the said Letters Patents under your Highness your Heirs or Successours to exercise use and execute all the premises according to the tenour and effect of the said Letters Patents any matter or cause to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding This is one entire Clause of that Act nor is there any Branch or Clause in that whole Act that gives more or other Jurisdiction to Bishops or any other Ecclesiastical persons whatsoever 2. Now the Act of 17. Car. 1.11 having repeted this Clause at large addeth Be it Enacted by the Kings most excellent Majesty and the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That the aforesaid Branch Clause Article or Sentence contained in the said Act and every word matter and thing contained in that Branch Clause Article or Sentence shall from henceforth be repealed annulled revoked annihilated and utterly made void for ever any thing in the said Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding This as we humbly conceive puts a period to all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Bishops Deans and Chapters and Archdeacons whatsoever And even before that Act of 17. Car. 1. that Government which they exercised was without yea contrary to Law For whereas by the Statute of 1. Edw. 6.2 it was Enacted that all Summons and Citations or other process Ecclesiastical in all Suits and Causes c. should from the first day of July thence next following be made in the name and with the stile of the King as it is in Writs Original or Judicial at the Common Law And that the Teste thereof be in the name of the Archbishop or Bishop or other having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction who hath the Commission and grant of the Ecclesiastical Authority immediately from the Kings Highness And that his Commissary Official or Substitute exercising jurisdiction under him shall put his name in the Citation or Process after the Teste And that they in all Seals of their Office shall have the Kings Highness Arms decently set with certain Characters under the Arms for the knowledge of the Diocess and shall use no other Seal of Jurisdiction c. upon pain of his Majesties displeasure and imprisonment during his Majesties pleasure * So also it is Enacted 1. Edw. 6.12 that they should make their Process and Writings in the Ks. name and not under their own names and that their Seals should be the Kings Arms. In which Act nevertheless they were allowed to use their own Seals in admission and ordering all their own Officers in all Certificates in all Collations Presentations Institutions and Inductions of Benefices Letters of Orders or Dimissories as formerly was accustomed But under colour of this last Toleration they have used their own Names and Seals onely in all Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions for many years last past without taking the least notice of King or Queen or taking any special Commission from them for ought hath appeared in any of their pretendedly juridical proceedings which are therefore apprehended to be all void in Law albeit they had obtained in secret Letters Patents so to act as they have done For that Statute being repealed in 1. Mar. 2. was again in general terms revived and re-established in 1. Eliz. 1. and never since made void And whereas our Bishops and Archbishops in England and Wales are in all but twenty six in number which being far too few to be able to execute the Office of Bishops as by the Word of God they are bound to do there was in the 26th year of Hen. 8. cap. 14. an Act of Parliament made for adding six and twenty Suffragan Bishops more unto them which that Statute saith hath been accustomed to be had in this Realm It was Enacted that Thâ—tford Ipswich Colchester Dover Gilford Southhampton Taunton Shaftsbury Molton Marleborough Bedford Leicester Glocester Shrewsbury Bristol Penreth Bridgwater Notingham Grantham Hull Huntington Cambridge and the Town of Pereth and Barwick St. Germans in Cornwal and the Isle of Wight shall be taken and accepted for Sees of Bishops Suffragans to be made in this Realm These to be chosen thus Every Archbishop and Bishop that would have Suffragans must for each place nominate two persons to the King whereof the King to chuse one and to give him the name title and dignity of Bishop of such of the Sees aforesaid as he should be nominated unto and he to be called Bishop Suffragan of that See And the King by his Letters Patents is to present him to the Archbishop of the Province where this Suffragan is to be requiring the Archbishop with two Bishops or Suffragans more to be procured by the Bishop that names him to Consecrate the said person to the same name title stile and dignity of Bishop as to the Office of a Bâ—shop Suffragan appertaineth and then to execute such power and authority as by the Archbishop or Bishop within whose Diocess he is to be he shall be Commissionated to do but no other under pain of a Premunire but not to partake any of the Profits of the Bishoprick of the Diocess But our Bishops like none of this although heretofore used which Act being repealed by Queen Mary was revived in 1. Eliz. 1. by name and is still in force Therefore in stead of twenty six Bishops to desire fifty two is no Puritanical request but a legal and just demand For there are so many allowed by Law already Yea if two hundred Bishops should be setled in England they would be too few to execute all the duties which by the Word are incumbent on a Bishop And verily we are perswaded in Conscience that this must be done if there be any due care of Souls by such as have power to do it if Episcopacy be again set up in England And we speak thus because we apprehend that by Act of Parliament all their power and jurisdiction is absolutely taken away and therefore by consequent the Office it self although the Ordinance of both Houses of Parliament of October 9. 1646. had never been For when their power of Jurisdiction is gone for ever what of the Office of a Bishop as such remaineth This was the sense of both Houses of Parliament as appears by that Ordinance which makes all their Grants since 17. Car. 1. to be null and void because their Office then expired If it shall be thought fit to set up Episcopacy again We most humbly pray that it may be no other but that Primitive Episcopacy agreeable to the Apostles rules in that form method and power mentioned in the Book of Reduction of Episcopacy composed and published in the year 1641. by Dr. James Vsher late Archbishop of Armagh always provided that there be such a competent number of Bishops set up as may be able faithfully and profitably to discharge the Office of
here which the same Doctor confesseth they did although the want of the Kings Assent made it not valid in Law For the Proviso doth not say the old Canons shall be used till the King Assent but onely till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by them or the more part of them Nor doth that Act in any Clause mention any other Canons or Constitutions but such as are Provincial or called by other names always presumed and mentioned to be made in Convocations in England not in the Popes Conclave And to the end it may yet further appear that he who so confidently taketh upon him to improve his knowledge to whom he wrote that Epistle hath mis-informed him and wrested the Laws also take notice that the Canon-Laws of England are onely such as are or have been made in England These are of two sorts legatine or Provincial The Legatine were 77 Canons and Constitutions whereof 26 were made by Otho the Popes Legate President of a Synod here in England the other 51. in another Synod after holden under Othobone Legate of the Pope in 32. Hen. 3. An. 1248. The Provincial Constitutions were such as in several places of England were made under the Archbishops of Canterbury in all 212. whereof the first 48. were made under Stephen Langhton in the reign of King John and the last three were made under Henry Chichley in the reign of Hen. 5. These Provincial Constitutions about the year 1422. were digested into a Body by William Lindwood who also wrote a Commentary upon them the other by Johannes de Aton Canon of Lincoln who likewise Commented upon them all which are yet extant Now we must understand the Act of 25. H. 8.19 speaks onely of Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other or by whatsoever name they be called in their CONVOCATION These and no other were to be reviewed and out of these such as by the thirty two persons chosen by Hen. 8. or Edw. 6. should be viewed ordered and determined to stand were onely to be in force as is evident to every impartial eye that shall consult the Statute And these having been in 4. Edw. 6. viewed and thereupon by Gualter Haddon under Archbishop Cranmer and four Classes into which the said thirty two persons were divided that Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum saith the Preface thereunto were compiled And these being so composed and published that all might object what they could if they had ought against them before Confirmation the King died before his Royal Assent was given and so they never were confirmed But yet the very viewing ordering and determining of those old Constitutions be they what they could were by the closing Proviso forementioned in 25. H. 8. all void and of none effect And albeit divers Canons or Constitutions were made in Q. Elizabeths reign beside those Injunctions and Articles for Visitations in her first year yet none of them being for ought we know confirmed by the Royal Assent under the Great Seal are now by any reputed Obligatory It be then onely the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical treated upon by the Bishop of London President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province and agreed upon with the Kings Majesties licence in that Synod begun at London An. Dom. 1603. in the first year of King James his reign over England and after published by his said Majesties Authority under the Great Seal of England which can now be so much as pretended to be of any force And here we shall not dispute their validity after that Kings death ' they being not after re-established by King Charles the first but we shall onely speak to the Legality of them as they were once ratified and as they are any of them contrariant and repugnant to the Laws or Customes of the Land As for Customes which the Statute of 25. H. 8.19 referreth to as well as to the Laws we shall say little because this is more proper for Lawyers upon Prohibitions granted out of his Majesties Civil Courts to confider and debate We therefore consider of the Canons or such of them onely as are repugnant to any of the Laws in force This is a large Field Those Canons being no less than 141. in number which are more then heretofore were ever made in any three Synods by whomsoever held in England We shall therefore keep onely to such as we find most contrariant to those Laws which we are in duty bound chiefly to take notice of As for instance Of those twelve Canons under the first Head or Title viz. Of the Church of England there be eleven of them the breach of any of which is to be punished with Excommunication ipso facto not to be revoked till such as breake them after repent and publickly revoke their wicked errours The persons to be excommunicated are I. Impugners of the Kings Supremacy Can. 2. II. All that affirm the Church of England is not a true and Apostolical Church teaching and maintaining the Doctrine of the Apostles Can. 3. where it is not defined what the Church of England is III. Impugners of the publick Worship of God established Can. 4. which few know to be established IV. Impugners of the Articles of Religion agreed upon 1562. Can. 5. the establishment whereof is doubtful V. Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies established Can. 6. of which there is no certainty VI. Impugners of the Government of the Church of England by Archbishops Bishops c. Can. 7. there being none such VII Impugners of the form of consecrating and ordering Archbishops Bishops c. or that any thing in it is repugnant to the Word of God Can. 8. there being in the form no such Words as ordering of Archbishops and Bishops and it having been made out that there be contradictions in it one of which is repugnant to the Word VIII Authors of Schism Can. 9. IX Maintainers of such as the Canons call Schismaticks that is who affirm such Ministers as refuse to subscribe to the Book of Common-prayer c. Can. 10. which is hard to prove X. Maintainers of Conventicles Can. 11. that is of such as maintain that there are in England other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations of the Kings born Subjects then such as by the Laws are allowed which may rightly claim the name of true and lawful Churches XI Maintainers of Constitutions made in Conventicles without the Kings Authority and submit to them Can. 12. So all the Rules confirmed by Parliament for Church-Government make the Parliament lyable to Excommunication and the Assemby too and all the Presbyterians in England Besides these there is Can. 59. for excommunicating Ministers refusing to Catechise every Sunday after a third offence herein complained of So Can. 68. decreeth Ministers refusing to Christen or Bury to be excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione And Canon 72. ordaineth that if a Minister without