elected there can be legally and regularly no succession of Bishops There is no necessity of such a Consequence nor of making more Archbishops or Deans and Chapters or continuing of any such if it shall please the King and Parliament by any Act or Statute to appoint any other way and course of Election and Consecration of Bishops Which is as easie to be done as any thing else Enacted in Parliament there being no Divine Right so much as pretended unto for such Election or Consecration as of late was used in England 2. Whereas it is of late much insisted upon that Episcopacy is not only an Office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers given to them by the free Election of the rest to regulate order and act things agreed upon by the Presbytery joyned with them as the Commander in chief in an Army as the Capital Justice in a Court or as the Speaker in either House of Parliament but that it is a distinct and specifical Order by Divine Right Superiour to all other Presbyters which Order onely is Authorized to exercise such things as none else may medle with We say that this in England was never at all arrogated by any Bishops till of very late times 2. The things they make peculiar to Bishops ratione Ordinis are sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction as if none had power in either of these but themselves neither of which even they who pretend to derive their Episcopacy from the Apostles ever undertook to make good by any solid Antiquity Yea 3. those very Antiquities which they allege are either spurious or else speak nothing either of sole Ordination or of sole Jurisdiction but rather the contrary as might easily be made out But we tye our selves to speak to these particulars only as said to be made out by Law 3. This was never yielded by any Law of England nor by the Book of Ordination For however that Book established in 5.6 Edw. 6. and after repeal by Queen Mary confirmed in 8. Eliz. cap. 1. Yet when it speaks of the making of Bishops it calls that a Consecration and not an Ordination as it doth when it speaks of making Deacons and Presbyters which it calleth Priests calling one The form and manner of Ordering Deacons the other The form of Ordering Priests But when it speaks of the other it changeth this Word Ordering and calls it The form of Consecrating an Archbishop or Bishop Which shews plainly that the Book of Ordination never meant to make Bishops or as Dr. Gauden calls it Legal Episcopacy to be not only in Degree and Office of Prolocutor but in a distinct Order of Christ's and his Apostles institution Superiour to a Presbyter It is indeed an easie matter for a bold man to contradict this and to say that the antient Writers call the Solemn form of consecrating a Bishop by no other name then that of Ordinatio Episcopi but it seems it is not so easie to prove what he saith For he produceth no such proof at all so that this confident saying touching such Ordination of Bishops affirmed by his Adversary to be a Novel Popish Position that this is Not Novel he is sure is but a meer shift and a put off no confutation at all And where he is pleased afterwards to urge the Preface to the Book of Ordination Dr Heylin Certam Epistol p. 143. which mentioneth three Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons and one passage in one of the Prayers at the Consecration of an Archbishop or Bishop to prove that Episcopacy is a distinct Order from and Superiour to that of Presbyters he must be intreated to take notice 1. That the Preface alleged saith not as he speaks these THREE Orders but onely these Orders of Ministers c. But even there by way of explanation the Preface calls them Offices which Offices were evermore had in such reverent estimation c. now we deny them not to be distinct Offices only we cannot admit in his sense the Office of a Bishop to be a distinct Order above Presbytery For even in that very Preface it speaks of Consecrating not of Ordaining a Bishop as the Book all along doth of Ordering that is Ordaining of Deacons and Priests but never of other then of Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops that is of setting them over the rest in degree to be the mouth and hand of the rest in executing what by the rest is agreed upon And 2. touching that Prayer he mentions wherein Episcopacy is called in that Part of the Book it self which concerneth Bishops an Order This is but a wyre-drawing of the Words and a meer wresting of them The Words of the Prayer are these Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy Servant now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop c. Now how do these words prove a Bishop to be a distinct Order when speaking of the person then to be made Bishop it is not said he is called to the Order but to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop And seeing he onely talks of antient Writers but produceth none we shall make bold to mind him what is the sense of the Canon-Law which he pleads to be still in force in England if Lindwood that great English Canonist be of any value with him who saith expresly Episcopatus non est Ordo Yea the very Book of Ordination in ordering of Priests appointing 1 Tim. 3. to be then read If any desire the Office of a Bishop he desireth an honest work A Bishop must be blameless c. doth more then tacitly admit a Bishop and a Presbyter not to differ in Order To which we shall add the judgement of an antient Archbishop of Canterbury even Anselmus himself an high man for the Pope and a great Contestor with the King for Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction even beyond the bounds of the Laws of this Land who in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians where Paul cap. 1. saluteth but two Orders Bishops and Deacons on the word Episcopis saith thus Episcopis id est Presbyteris Episcopos namque pro Presbyteris more suo posuit Non enim plures Episcopi in una civitate erant neque Presbyteros intermitteret ut ad Diaconos descenderet Sed dignitatem excellentiam Presbyterorum declarat dum eosdem qui Presbyteri sunt Episcopos esse manifestat Quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in Schismatis remedio facium est ne unusquisque ad se trahens Evangelium rumperet Nam est Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam Dionysium Episcopos qui sederunt in Centuria 3. Presbyterum unum de se elecium in Excelsiori loco Gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si Exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi elegant
de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct
within two moneths after his Induction c. upon default hereof to be ipsofacto immediately deprived And if any Ecclesiastical Person shall advisedly maintain or affirm any Doctrine contrary or repugnant to any of the said Articles and being convented shall persist therein or not revoke his errour or after revocation return again to it he shall be deprived of his Ecclesiastical Promotions This is the effect of that Statute as to this Point But these Articles are both Doubtful and Defective 1. Doubtful 1. Because it appears not that they were all or any of them confirmed by Parliament in the 13 Eliz. for as much as they are not therein in expresly inserted nor so much as their number but onely the Title-Page of them mentioned Nor is it known where the Original is enrolled 2. Of those 39 Articles there were 36 of them set forth yet not ratified by Parliament in Edw. 6. his reign the other were added by the Convocation in An. 1562. 3. In the Books of Articles now printed and ever since 10 Caroli 1. there is a Declaration of that his late Majesty prefixed thereunto by the advice and procurement of the then Bishops after Arminianism began to perk and to be openly preached by the rising Party to this effect viz. 1. That those Articles contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods Word all therefore are required to continue in the Vniform Profession thereof and the least difference from them prohibited 2. That the Bishops and Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire should have licence under the Broad * This shews who did pen it Seal to deliberate of and to do all such things as being made plain by them and assented unto by his then Majesty shall concern the setled continuance of the said Doctrine as well as Discipline then established from which no variying or deparing in the least degree should be endured 3. That all curious search and disputes touching any points contained therein be laid aside and shut up in Gods Promises as generally set forth and in the general meaning of these Articles And that no man shall either print or preach to draw any Article aside any way nor put his own sense or Comment upon it but shall take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it This Declaration is published with the said Articles by Command If this be still continued and confirmed then all these sad Consequences must needs follow 1. That no Minister shall have so much liberty to interpret any one of those Articles as is not onely allowed but required of him in his Ordination to expound the Word of God it self But this is a notorious truth that after that Declaration was printed and published as also a Proclamation to the same effect issued those of the Prelatical Party had their Spies every where to see who durst to preach a word against any Arminian Tenet or to explain any one Article as not making for but against any of those Opinions If any were found so to do he was sure to be Convented for breach of the Kings Declaration and Proclamation yea some have been brought into the High Commission-Court for this very cause While in the mean time that other Party took liberty to vent and preach up those points without controul Which no Anti-Arminians durst call into question for that the then Bishops of greatest power who might by that Declaration obtain licence to explain all things as they thought fit favoured those Advocates of Arminianism and must have been their Judges if they had been complained of 2. That where in Art 16. it is said Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is a sin against the Holy Ghost We may not dare to open the nature of deadly sin nor to say that all sins are deadly contrary to the Popish distinction of sins into mortal and venial Nor may we presume to explain the next part of that Article viz. After we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given c. which Clause Bishop Montacute and after him others allege to prove falling from grace and thereby pretend that this is the Doctrine of the Church of England which is contrary not onely to Art 17. but to 1 John 3.9 1 Pet. 1.5 3. That it being said Art 20. The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith we may not enquire what is meant by the Church whether the Church Catholick or of England nor what the Church of England is what Rites or Ceremonies it may ordain or how far her Authority extendeth in Controversies of Faith And if she do happen to ordain ought contrary to Gods Word or expound one place of Scripture repugnant to another or to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation that is beside the Word no man may question it but we must if a Convocation once declare for it assent and subscribe unto it in the Literal and Grammatical sense of it or be deprived of all Ecclesiastical Promotions 4. That whereas the 34 Article treateth of the Traditions of the Church we must not curiously search what is here meant by Traditions and whether it be meant of the Traditions of the Church of Rome or of any other Church But we must rest in this General That whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of God and be ordained by common Authority ought to be rebuked openly as offending against the common Order of the Church hurting the Authority of the Magistrate and wounding the weak Whereas this Church hath no where set forth what she meaneth by Traditions whether distinct from Ceremonies or the same with them how a Tradition may be said to be ordained and what is meant by common Authority Yea if power be given to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation when and so often as they shall desire it to ordain any more Traditions which seems to be a strange Expression and new Ceremonies and the Royal Assent pass thereupon all Ministers must subscribe thereunto before they know what they be yea before they be ordained after which it will be too late to dispute them or to vary from them in the least degree upon any pretence whatsoever It will be too late then for any man to say They are repugnant to the Word of God 5. That all being by Art 35. to admit both Books of Homilies to contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine necessary for these times and therefore to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently men must subscribe to false Doctrines or assertions Take instance in but one or two particulars for brevities sake Par. 2. Hom. 2. Of the place and time of Prayer pag. 147. Pluralities of wives was by special Prerogative suffered to the Fathers of the Old Testament not for
alterations now found in the printed Common-Prayer Books are the very same which the last mentioned Act intended to allow and confirm Howbeit that we may go so far as we can herein take notice that by-comparing the Book printed in 5 6 Edw. 6. with that which was printed in 1 Eliz. the alterations therein found which are onely hinted in the Stat. of 1 Eliz. 2. are these 1. As touching Proper Lessons The Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. appointed no Proper Lessons for Sundays except for Easter-day Whitsunday and Trinity Sunday but onely for Holy-Days The Lessons for all other Sundays were onely set down in the Kalendar in ordinary course of reading the rest of the Bible upon that and other days of the week in a continued way of reading all But the Book in 1 Eliz. in the Kalendar of Proper Lessons hath it thus Proper Lessons to be read for the first Lessons both at morning Prayer and evening Prayer on the Sundays throughout the year and for some also the second Lessons Then it after adds Lessons proper for Holy Days All which proper Lessons were appointed in 1 Eliz. to take place of all Chapters which in ordinary course of reading according to the day of each moneth had been before ordered in the Kalendar to be read without respect to either Sunday or Holy-Day but onely to the day of the moneth in course What alterations have been made either in that Book printed An. 1559. 1 Eliz. of other proper Lessons not warranted by the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. namely of such as were before appointed for Holy-days c. or that have been made since shall be afterwards shewed 2. As touching the Letany there is no material alteration in that save onely this that whereas both the Books of 2 Edw. 6. ran thus From all sedition and privy conspiracy from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities from all false Doctrine and Heresie c. those words touching the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities are lest out in 1 Eliz. 2. and ever sithence 3. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the words used at the delivery of the bread and wine ran thus Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving but in the Book of 1 Eliz. and in all since the words are these The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving The words at giving the Cup in 5.6 Edw. 6. were these Drink this in remembrance Christs blood was shed for thee and be thankful But in 1 Eliz. and since the words are The Blood of our Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy Body and Soul into everlasting life drink this in remembrance Christs Blood was shed for thee and be thankful Now it is to be noted that whereas onely the two former Clauses which run in the forms of Prayers were in the Book of 2. Edw. 6. and the two latter Clauses onely are in the Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. as here above shewed that Book of 1. Eliz. takes in and joyns them both together If these be not the alterations to which the Act of 1 Eliz. referreth it will be very difficult if not impossible to find what they were Now having thus prepared the way to speak to the necessity of Reformation in Worship it is desired that all Readers of this Piece will take notice that there was lately printed in one sheet of Paper some of the Differences and alterations in the present Common-Prayer-Book from that which was established by Law in 5.6 Edw. 6. and in 1 Eliz. or at least supposed so to be which is but a Specimen or short hint of what is here intended to be set forth more largely and fully and that in the same Order and Method which is there propounded none of those printed Papers being now left it is thought fit to reprint and insert that sheet with some few Revisals in this larger Tract which shall now follow in the next place And then after that we shall add what shall be necessary for making out more fully the necessity of reforming the whole Liturgy not by way of reducing so much as of new moulding the whole Some of the DIFFERENCES and ALTERATIONS In the present Common-Prayer-Book FROM The Book established by Law in quinto sexto Edw. 6. and 1 Eliz. The KALENDAR THere are sundry Saints days although in black Letters not found in the Books of 5.6 Edw. 6. or 1. Eliz. to the number of 50. and moe Which however it may seem a small matter yet Time may turn them into Red Letters and so claim observance of them For Dr. Cousens in his Kalendar which he calls the Kalendar of the Church in his Book of Devotion hath put one of them already viz. St. Barnabies Day into Red. But however the Epistle and Gospel for that day and for the Conversion of St. Paul be extant in the Service-Book and in the Liturgy printed for Scotland An. 1637. both these are put into Red and enjoyned to be observed yet in 2. Edw. 6. and in 5.6 Edw. 6. those days were expunged out of the Catalogue of Holy Days On Aug. 7. The Name of Jesus is put in for an old Holy-day which however used in times of Popery but under a more gentle Title a a Fest Jesu yet even in 2. as well as in 5.6 Edw. 6. and 1 Eliz. it was expelled Howbeit Dr. Cousens in his forementioned Devotions hath already set down proper Lessons for that day viz. Mat. 1. and Philip. 2. which shews how desirous some are to keep an Holy-day to a Name The Order for Proper Lessons On Whitsunday 1. Eliz. the first Lesson at Even Prayer was Deut. 18. now that is thrust out and Wisd 1. crept into the room And if we look into the Lessons for Holy-days we shall find many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture laid aside and Apochyphal Chapters ordered to be read See some instances in the Margent at the Letter c c Old Kalendar The New Jan. 25. Gen. 46. Wisd 5. Jan. 25. Gen. 47. Wisd 6. Feb. 2. Exod. 12. Wisd 9. Feb. 2. Exod 13. Wisd 12. Feb. 2â— Numb 33. Wisd 19. Jun. 29. Job 31. Ecclus. 15. Jun. 29. Job 32. Ecclus 19. Jul. 25. Eccles 10. Ecclus. 21. Jul. 25. Eccles 11. Ecclus. 23. Aug. 24. Ezek 3. Ecclus. 25. Aug. 24. Ezek 6. Ecclus. 29. Sep. 21. Mic. 7. Ecclus 35. Sep. 21. Naum. 1. Ecclus 38. Sept. 29. Zach 7. Ecclus. 39. Sept. 29. Zach 8. Ecclus. 44. Octob. 18. Judg. 14. Ecclus. â—1 Dec. 28. Isa 60. Wisd 1. There are sundry other Lessons altered which I here omit It is true the Stat. of 1. Eliz. alloweth one alteration or addition
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
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
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
four other learned and grave Persons Masters of Art at the least and allowed for publique Preachers What Law for confining Ordination to four times a year If there be a Law do Bishops now observe it Is it not usual to ordain in other mens Diocesses which they can no more legally do then a Sheriff execute his Office when he is out of his County How often do Deans and Prebendaries assist at Ordinations And why must all other Assistants be Masters of Arts at least What Law or Rule for any of these things unless for being Assistants to and Co-ordainers with the Bishop which this Canon doth tacitely deny when it saith such and such shall be present but not a word of their Laying on of Hands according to the Book of Ordination And whereas by the 36th Canon Subscription is enjoyned to the Books of Common-prayer and of Ordination not only upon all Ordinations and Institutions to Benefices c. which by Can. 37. is required also of all Lecturers Catechists Readers yea by Can. 77. of all School-masters too unless to the last clause of Art 2. touching using the book of Common-prayer whereas the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. requires no subscription but to the 39. Articles nor that save only of such as are to be instituted to a Benefice not at Ordination or at taking Licenses to Preach only The 38th Canon touching Revolters after Subscription hath been spoken to before The 40th Canon enjoyning an Oath against Simony is necessary yet against Law and particularly against the Petition of Right This therefore we say no more of but humbly pray such an Oath may be imposed by Law But whereas the 49th Canon prohibiteth Ministers not to expound Scripture c. if not Licensed by the Bishop this is expresly contrary to Law 8. Eliz. 1. which confirmeth the Book of Ordination in and by which every one ordained a Presbyter hath the Bible delivered into his hand by the Bishop with these Words Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God c. Yet must every such ordained Minister be compelled to be at the charge of taking out a further License from the same Bishop at the same time to preach in the same place or else not to perform that duty which he promised solemnly to the Bishop and by him was authorized to perform at his Ordination Nor may any Ministers be suffered by the 51. Canon to preach in any other Church without shewing such License although otherwise well known to be sufficiently authorized thereunto And whereas the 62. Canon alloweth Ministers to celebrate Matrimony between other persons without asking the Bannes in Churches if he have a License for doing of it from the Bishop Archdeacon or their Officicals this is expresly contradictory to the Book of Common-prayer Rubrick 1. before the form of Matrimony and so contrary to Law of 1. Eliz. 2. if that Book be confirmed thereby There be sundry other Exceptions justly to be taken to the Book of Canons as namely to such Ecclesiastical Offices besides Bishops and Presbyters as be admitted to bear a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction albeit they be Lay-men while yet they abominate Lay-Elders in the Presbyterian Government beside many other all which we at present forbear not as approving of them but as hoping for a Reformation of that as well as of other things We therefore shall now only with all humility propound a few Queries very necessary as we conceive to be seriously considered 1 Quere Whether if there be any thing of substance altered in or added to the Articles of Religion or Books of Common-Prayer or Ordination and those Alterations or Additions not expresly mentioned and confirmed by Parliament this doth not make those Books to be void in Law if pleaded at Law The Grounds of this Quere are the Acts of 13. Eliz. 12. as touching the Articles that of 1. Eliz. 2. as to the Book of Common-prayer and the Statute of Eliz. 8.1 and of 5.6 Edw. 6.1 as to Ordination Which last named Act saith that the Books therein mentioned were annexed to the said Statute yet are they not to be found inrolled therewith no more is the other Book of Articles in 13. Eliz. inrolled with that Act. 2 Quere Whether the Statutes which are said to confirm any of the things named in the former Quere mentioning only the Titles but not reciting the matter of the Books themselves do make those Books or the things contained in them which have been several times altered although never so much as said to be inrolled nor found so to be do make those things to be established and good in Law because now commonly reputed received and generally used as ratified by Law The Ground of this Quere is that clause in 1. Eliz. 2. which after mentioning some Alterations but not particularly naming them in the Common-prayer-book prohibiteth all other Alterations saying And none other or otherwise 3 Quere If any man be indited or sued at Law upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. for not reading of or coming to hear the Book of Common-prayer or upon the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. for not reading the Articles of 1562 and the Defendant plead Not guilty and deny these Books to be those confirmed by those Laws till the Plaintiff prove them to be of Record whether is not the Plaintiff bound to prove that and in the mean time the Defendant not punishable by those Statutes The Grounds of this Quere are first that there are no Records of these to be found secondly the Books have been several times altered since those Acts and thirdly many punished upon the said Acts because those Books have been generally received and used as established by Law 4 Quere Whether notwithstanding the Royal Licence before and Assent after any Canons made in Convocation be valid in Law before they be ratified by Act of Parliament as the Service-book and Articles of Religion were said to be and whether by consequent the Canons of 1603. be now binding The grounds hereof are first that all other Constitutions are or are reputed to be ratified in Parliament Secondly the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. which gives power to the Queen her Heirs and Successours to grant Licence to Commissioners Bishops and others to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction when it speaks of withdrawing or altering any Rites and Ceremonies or adding new the power is there given to the Queen alone without mention of Heirs and Successours And when any thing is ordered or authorized by the King although under the Great Seal yet the enforcing thereof before ratification by Parliament is held to be contrary to the Petition of Right We shall now close up all with this humble Advertisement that whereas it is pleaded by some that Liturgies and among them the substance of ours are ancienter then the Popish Mass-Books by many hundreds of years whence they infer the weakness and folly of their Objections who say that all or most or any of the things contained in our Service-Book are taken out of the Mass-Book and so are Popish and upon that account would have them abolished and for that purpose produce some passages out of Ignatius Clem Alexandrinus Justin Martyr Tertullian Cyprian Chrysostome c. wherein sundry things in use among us are found mentioned in them and by some the Liturgy of St. James Peter c. are also urged although by many Learned men censured as supposititious Yet none of these Authors do mention any Publick Form the same for substance with ours although they speak of Publick Prayers made in the Congregation which none ever denyed Publick Prayer is one thing a Publick Form another Nor are we against all Liturgies but onely against that which is liable to such material Exceptions as necessitate us to desire a new Form And albeit some of the Rites and Ceremonies now in use may be mentioned in sundry of the Fathers within the first 600 years after Christ yet the mentioning of them is no evidence of the lawfulness of them or that they are not Popish although of latter times espoused by that Synagogue of Rome for as much as Popery was in the Egge and the mystery of iniquity began to work although under disguises and other names even in the time of St. Paul himself 2 Thes 2.7 Yea some of those very Fathers have sundry passages in them which condemn those very things which are now cryed up upon the very authority of their venerable names We shall for brevity give but one instance which every Reader may find in the Preface touching Ceremonies before the Book of Common-Prayer which albeit it hath been before alledged we here briefly touch upon again for better satisfaction of such as cannot consult the Author himself The particular mentioned in that Preface is a passage out of St. Augustine who was so far from approving such a number of Ceremonies yet not to be compared with the multitude in after-times that he complained that hereby Christians were in worse case then were the Jews and therefore counselled to take off that yoke and burden so soon as it might quietly be done And this was one of the Grounds and Reasons there alledged of the cutting off of so many superstitious Ceremonies in the first Reformation under that blessed King Edward the sixth which of late our Arminians and Grotian Divines and Prelates have sought to recal under the colour and guise of Antiquity for which they produce onely some bits and scraps of Fathers to prove their Antiquity but no solid Arguments to make out their lawfulness and conveniency and yet seek to impose them on those who hold themselves bound to hate the garments spotted with the flesh as well as the flesh that is the corruption it self We therefore conclude That it is not bare Antiquity but Divine Verity that must be the onely Rule and Standard of all Doctrine Worship Rites and Ceremonies Ordination Jurisdiction and Discipline among all that intend Conformity to the Mind of Christ FINIS Page 2. line 7. read 4 Car. p. 7. l. 4. r. them in print p. 34. l. 18. r. that and another p. 43. l. 26. r. Presbyteris l. 30. r. qui.