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 [Page 2]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 Ʋniform 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.

[Page 3]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 [Page 4] 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 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; [Page 5]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 [Page 6]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 to be be­lieved for necessity of Salvation. But the Statute doth require belief of every one of these Articles, when it enjoyns not only subscription, but an assent unto them, punishing all with Deprivation, that shall affirm, and maintain any Doctrine repugnant to them; which every man must do, if they be found contrariant to the Word; or, he must be false to God. 4. If subscription to these, or any other Articles, be still conti­nued, How can any just liberty be granted to tender Consciences; But that they must swallow all that is enjoyned, although beside (yea con­trary to) the Word, or be persecuted and ruined? Thus much of the Doubtfulness of the Articles, and of the inconvenience and mischief of subscribing them. Which inconvenience and mischief will be greater, if we should be tyed to those Articles alone (though never so sound:) as shall now appear in the Defectiveness of them.

2. The Articles are Defective: Because

1. The sixth Article, speaking of the Holy Scripture, saith, In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose Authority there was never any doubt in the Church. Nevertheless, albeit it enumerate the Canonical Books of the Old Testament (yea, and all the Apocrypha too) yet it nameth not any of the New Testament; but only concludeth thus; All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account Canonical. Now, it being not unknown, that there hath been doubts in the Church, of some of them; insomuch as the Epi­stle of St. James, the second Epistle of St. Peter, and several other books and passages in the New Testament, have been not only doubt­ed, but refused; the Article is defective in the not enumerating all the Books of the New Testament.

[Page 7]2. There are no Articles for discovering and condemning sundry points of Popery in Doctrine, which (being first the Tenets of Arminius, the first Protestant Writer that was not a professed Lutheran, that ever openly maintained them) are too commonly suckt in, and cryed up by some, as the Doctrine of the Church of England, which, since the Refor­mation, never own'd them; but are all maintained by Bellarmine, and generally by all Franciscans and Jesuites; but confuted by all appro­ved Writers of the Protestant Reformed party, that have written a­gainst Bellarmine and others of that crew: as likewise by the learned Whitgift, Whitaker, Junius, Zanchius, Pareus, Chamier, Dr. Prideaux, and many others. The learned King James also took so much notice of, and distaste at those Arminian-Popish Opinions touching Predestina­tion abused, universal Redemption, universal Grace, the manner of conver­sion, and falling from grace; that his Majesty was the chief procurer and promoter of the late Synode of Dort, to which he sent Bishop Carl­ton, Dr. Davenant, Dr. Hall, (afterwards, Bishops) Dr. Goad, and Dr. Balcanqual, to assist in that Synode; whose judgements touching all those points, were given in to the said Council, subscribed with their hands, and afterwards printed and published. Agreeable whereunto, in the main, hath the late Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, de­clared their judgements in the Confession of Faith (afterwards ratified by both Houses of the late Long Parliment:) for which reason is that Assembly so much slighted, reviled, and opposed.

3. Those Articles contain nothing of the Creation, of Providence, Fall of man, of Sin, of the Punishment of sin, of Gods Covenants, Effe­ctual Calling, Adoption, Sanctification, Faith, Repentance, Perseverance, of the Law of God, Christian liberty and Liberty of conscience, Religious Worship, of the Sabbath or Lords day, of Marriage and Divorce, the Communion of Saints, Church-government and Discipline, of the Resur­rection, or of the last Judgement; all which the Scripture teacheth, and that, as necessary; as appears by the comprizing most of them in the Apostles Creed, and therefore necessary to be explained and held forth unto all, as the Doctrine of this Church; especially considering the dif­ferences and Controversies about many of them. Upon this reason it was, that the late Assembly of Divines have taken so much pains to compose several Articles (which they call Chapters;) wherein both those of the 39 Articles which are held to be indeed fit to be retained, are more fully cleared and explained; and the rest, added, with per­tinent proofs of Scripture, to make it manifest that they are all evident­ly grounded upon the Word of God. But, all proofs are wanting in the 39 Articles: no text of Scripture being produced to make cut any one of them.

I. In the KALENDAR.

THe Kalendar is either that which appoints Proper Lessons for Sun­days and Holy-days (to speak in the Common-prayer-book Lan­guage) or that which in each Month sheweth what Chapters are to be daily read on week-days, according to the days of the month; and is prefixed, in all Editions, to the Book it self.

In the Proper Lessons appointed for Holy-days. The Kalendar of 5.6. Edw. 6. omitteth proper Lessons for the Conversion of Paul, be­cause that was then no Holy-day, but abrogated by the Act of 5.6. Edw. 6. ca. 3. Therefore in the Common Kalendar then established, the first Lessons for that day (being Jan. 25.) as being a Common-day of the Week, were Gen. 46. and Gen. 47. But in the Book of 1 Eliz. these two Chapters are laid by, and Wisd. 5, and 6. put in the room. This (however toucht upon in the printed Sheet) is here again taken notice of, to shew by this (among other arguments) that the Book then printed was not confirmed by 1. Eliz. 2. because that Act admits of no alterations of Lessons on Holy-days, or other days, save only on [Page 19] Sundays. Yet is this also thrust into the New Scotish Leiturgy, and that day, made an Holy-day again.

And whereas in all the proper Lessons for Holy-days in 5.6. Edw. 6. only All Saints day, had, for those Lessons, Wisd. 3, and 5. and all o­ther Holy-day Lessons were Lessons out of the Canonical Books; the Ka­lendar of 1 Eliz. hath appointed 20. more Apocryphal Chapters for Holy-days, and thrust out so many Canonical Chapters, that by the Kalendar of 5.6. Edw. 6. were appointed for those very days; as for instance.

Can we think there could ever have been so much boldness in those that printed the Common-Prayer-Book in 1 Eliz. to make so many alte­rations, in that very year wherein the Act of Eliz. passed for confirma­tion of that in 5.6. Edw. 6. (which admits not of one of them:) if that Book (which hath been followed ever since) printed in 1 Eliz. were the very Book then re-established? And is not every Minister which readeth those Apocryphals on the days aforesaid, punishable (if he per­sisteth therein) by the Act of 1. Eliz. 2?

And here, let it be noted, that albeit there be sundry whole Canoni­cal [Page 20]Books left out, and no less then 188. Chapters of the Old Testa­ment not read at all: yet, of the Apocrypha, which contains but 173 Chapters, there are read 121 Chapters, by the Kalendar of 5.6. Edw. 6. as well as the Kalendars of later date. Whereas St. Hierom in his di­rections for reading the Scriptures in private, by an holy woman, gives warning, Caveat omnia Apocrypha. Let her beware of all the A­pocrypha. Which is not unlike to that of King James, to his Son, who, by saying, (I omit them, because I am no Papist) declares plainly, that such husks were first cast before the Church by Popery, and is fit food for none but doting Papists. No more is that Kalendar, of 5.6. Edw. 6. from Octob. 5. to Novemb. 28. wherein very few Canonical Chapters are appointed to be read.

We shall now offer one Observation out of the late compiled Litur­gy for Scotland, which is this; that (however so many Apocryphal Chapters still stand in our Liturgies:) in all the Kalendar for Scotland, there are but 12. Apocryphals to be read in their Churches (which yet, they would not endure:) this shews plainly, that our great zealous Masters who gave order for the Composing of that Book, had some­what upon their Consciences that rounded them in the ear against the continuing so many Apocryphals in ours: especially considering that some of them, have been reputed but Fables (as namely the Book of Judith, the History of Susanna, &c.) acted first in Interludes or Plays. And some of the Chapters contain meer delusions and lyes: yet even those very Chapters are appointed to be read in our Churches.

To make this last out, take notice of somewhat observed before, out of the second Homily of Alms-deeds, which quoteth Tobit 4. and Ecclu [...]. 5. (both being appointed to be read, the one Octob. 6. the other Octob. 30.) which I here pass over. In Tobit 3. (appointed by the Kalendar of 5.6. Edw. 6. to be read Octob. 6.) where mention is made, ver. 8. that Sarah the daughter of Raguel had been marryed to seven husbands, whom Asmodeus the evil spirit, had killed, before they had lien with her. (a likely matter!) Yet was she reproached by her own Fathers maids, that she had strangled them all. In Tobit 3. (ordered to be read Octob. 9.) ver. 9. it is said, Alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. What need then the bloud of Christ? And in ver. 15. one Raphael telleth Tobit, thus: I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels, which present the prayers of the Saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the holy One. Whereas none but the Angel of the Covenant, now at the right hand of God to make intercession for the Saints, do present their prayers, Revel. 8.3. This Raphael was far from being one of the Angels that go in and out before the glory of the holy one; for he was a lying either man, or spirit. This was he that was hired by To­bias, son to Tobit, to shew him the way to Rages; and being asked by Tobit himself, of what Tribe he was, answered, I am Azarias the son of [Page 21]Ananias the great, and of thy brethren, Tob. 5.12. Now, you find him in two tales to the same man: in one of which he must needs lye. They that desire to read more of his pranks, may read that Book of To­bit: and particularly, Chap. 6. where he taught Tobias how to chase away the Devil, by taking the heart, the liver and gall of a fish, and thereof to make a smoak, which when the Devil (who was said to be in love with Sarah before named, and therefore in the Marriage-Cham­ber, had killed those seven husbands, before mentioned, who had marryed her) should smell, he should flee away, and never come again any more. And are not these gallant Chapters to be read in Churches? yet our Kalendar appointeth them to be read, viz. Tob. 5. and 6. on Octob. 7.

So likewise Judith, cap. 9. (appointed to be read, Octob. 16.) tells a story of a prayer which her self made to God, (when she had it in de­sign to cut off Holofernes head:) in which prayer she takes notice of father Simeon (who with Levi slew the Shechemites, for deflouring their sisters; Gen. 34.) and tells God, concerning the Shechemites, ver. 4. Thou hast given their wives for a prey, and their daughters to be captives, and all their spoils to be divided among thy dear children, which were mo­ved with thy zeal, and abhorred the pollution of their bloud, and called upon thee for aid, &c. Can we think this pious Amazon, had ever read Ja­cobs censure of that fact of Simeon and Levi, and his curse upon it, Gen. 49.5, 6, 7. even while he was blessing the rest of his Sons (except incestuous Reuben) at the very point of death? Simeon and Levi are brethren, instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret: unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digg'd down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, and scat­ter them in Israel.

The rest of her prayer is conformable to this. Therefore she prayeth, ver. 10. (in reference to Holofernes and his men) smite by the deceit of my lips (for she meant to destroy him by lying) the servant with the prince, and the prince with his servant, &c. And in ver. 13. Make my speech and deceit to be their wound and stripe, &c. Was not this a brave resolution, a pious petition, to tell a lye for God? We forbear more instances, because we delight not to scrape in such Dung-hills. We have done with the Kalendar.

II. Of the RUBRICKS.

RƲbricks are Directions given in the Common-Prayer-Book, how to officiate and read the said Book, in the several parts thereof. And they are called Rubricks, because anciently printed in Red Let­ters; and are as much established by Law, as any other part of the Book of Common-Prayer it self. I shall instance onely in some of them, not medling with those before noted in the inserted Paper of Diffe­rences.

1. There are many Rubricks wherein the Minister is called Priest, which is the old Stile and Title in the Mass-Book, from whence it was taken. We never finde it in the New Testament; but onely in the Old: which Title was then given to such of the Levites as were made Priests to sacrifice at the Altar. And thence the Papists borrowed that name for their Popish Sacrificers at their Altars. It is now then, a meer Superstitious and Antichristian Name, no way warranted by the Word of God, in the Pontifician Sense; yet is it used above fifty times in our Liturgy. It is true, one seeks to excuse it by saying, Use hath made this so Popular, as it is not safe to remove it; yet, confes­seth it may be altered without prejudice to Religion. But why may not the Word Priest be taken away, and the word Minister put in the room? The Name of Minister is not unknown: yea, it is as often used in the Rubricks of the same Book, as the name Priest. Therefore it may, without the least danger, or offence, be wholly obliterated. Hence it is, that in the Scots Liturgy it is wholly omitted, and Presby­ter put into the room thereof. Whereas this is a more strange and unknown name, being borrowed from the Greek [...], which was never used to signifie a Priest, but an Elder, and thence borrowed to denote a Minister, as all the Learned know: and none but Papists use the word Priest; unless Scoffers at Ministers, whom in scorn and derision they call and nick-name, Priests.

2. In the fifth Rubrick of the Order for reading of the holy Scripture, it is said, That the Collect, Epistle and Gospel appointed for the Sunday, shall serve all the week after, except there fall some Feast that hath his proper. By vertue of this, these in Cathedrals were read every day, albeit they had no Communions. But another Rubrick prefixed to the Epistles and Gospels, runs thus: The Collects, Epistles and Gospels to be used at the ce­lebration [Page 23]of the Lords Supper, and holy Communion, throughout the year. These therefore were never intended to be read, but when there is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper administred. This was anciently administred every day, in the Church of England; and so, to be used still, at least in Cathedrals, as appears by the Rubrick after the first Exhortation at the Communion. If then, upon any reasonable cause, there be no Communion, there ought at that time to be no Epistle and Gospel read. If there be any read, it is without warrant. So that these two Rubricks fight; and which to follow, is uncertain. And indeed, they are both but blind guides that lead into the ditch, and make a man obnoxious to the Law.

3. The Rubrick before the general Confession at the Communion, runs thus: Then shall this general Confession be made in the name of all those that are to receive the holy Communion, either by one of them, or else by one of the Ministers. This gives liberty to Lay, or private men to offi­ciate, in part at least, as to this Confession, which is a branch of the Of­fice peculiar to the Minister, to be the mouth of the people unto God in Prayer; especially in the Administration of the Sacraments, in the Congregation. What is this but to admit a private person to assist and bear a share in administring the Lords Supper? Is not this to hit against the 17 Article of Religion, which declares it to be unlawful to any but such as be lawfully called, and sent; to wit, Ministers duly or­dained? In all other parts of the Liturgy, all Confessions and Prayers are expresly put upon the Minister alone, at least to begin, and lead the Congregation therein.

4. In the Rubricks before the proper Prefaces at the Communion, it is said, that upon Christmas day, and seven days after; upon Easter-day, and seven days after; upon the Ascention-day, and seven days after; upon Whitson-day, and six days after, the same several Prefaces appoin­ted for each of these solemn days, shall be read; as if every of the se­ven days following were one and the same with the first; and, what was done on the first day, was done over again every one of the fol­lowing days: which yet was never done but once; and, but upon one day, at all; and perhaps, upon neither of those days on which it is said there to be done. But, of this, more, when we come to speak of the Body of the Book.

5. The last Rubrick after the Communion, saith, Note, that every Parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one; and shall also receive the Sacraments, and other rites, &c. But, the first Exhortation before the Communion, to be used when the people are negligent to come unto it, requireth the Minister to say unto the whole Congregation, I bid you all that be here present, and beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christs sake, that ye will not refuse to come thereto, being so lovingly called and bidden of God himself. Yet the a­foresaid [Page 24] Rubrick seems to dispense with Gods own Invitation: How rightly, let all sober men consider. And if thrice communicating will suffice, (contrary to the Primitive Practise, which was, for all to Communicate at every solemn meeting) why must Easter be one of the three times, more then any other Lords Day, seeing every Lords Day is celebrated upon the same account that that called Easter-day, is, viz. in memory of the Resurrection of our Lord?

But where it is added in that Rubrick, He shall also receive the Sa­craments, and other rites, &c. this is no other but non-sense, or worse. For, what Sacraments else are there for a Communicant of the Lords Supper to receive? Is Baptism to be reiterated? are the Popish Sa­craments to be recalled? And if they were, must every Parishioner receive them; and that thrice a year? And what are the Rites he must receive? Be they Ceremonies? Humane Inventions? Superstitious an­tique Crossings; duckings, bowing to the Altar, towards the East, to Images, &c? If so, where are these, or any of these enjoyned? And, if not en­joyned, why must they be all received thrice a year; or, at all? But of this, more hereafter.

6. The last Rubrick before the Catechism, in order to Confirmation, concludeth thus: And that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by Gods Word, that children being baptized, have all things necessary for their salvation, and be undoubtedly saved. Where is that Word of God? This cannot be understood of Children, after Baptism, dying in Infancy; for it speaks of such as are capable of Con­firmation; and, of Confirmation deferred. This supposeth their li­ving a good while after Baptism; even till they come to some under­standing, and are able to give some good account of the Catechism, (else can they not be admitted to Confirmation, as appears by the first Rubrick before Confirmation:) before which time, they may be guilty of many actual sins; every of which (without true repentance) makes lyable to Condemnation. So that this Rubrick gives to Children once baptised, more assurance of their undoubted salvation, than ever God hath given them. For, if they be baptised, let them live or die, be godly or wicked, they must know for truth, that it is certain, (but not by Gods Word:) they not onely have all things (on Gods part) necessary to salvation; but, are undoubtedly saved. Is this a truth?

7. The Rubrick after Matrimony, saith, The new-married persons the same day of their marriage, MƲST receive the holy Communion. Who do so? what necessity of so doing? And if they do not so, who shall be punished for their omission? The Minister, if any body; because he is bound to do all things according to the Book, if established; and not otherwise. And if the marryed Persons will not receive, what can the Minister do? As for the marryed persons, they (by the Rubrick [Page 25]before mentioned) are not bound to receive above thrice in one year: which, if they do, they need not receive on their marriage-day.

8. In the last Rubrick after Communion of the sick, it is said, In the time of the Plague, Sweat, or such other like contagious times of Sick­nesses or Diseases, when none of the Parish, or Neighbours, can be gotten to communicate with the sick in their Houses, for fear of the Infection, upon special request of the diseased, the Minister may onely communicate with him. By this, the Minister is bound not onely to visit every person sick of the Plague, &c. (standing at some distance) but, to administer the Lords Supper also to him, if he desire it; and that alone, if none else will joyn, as it is not to be expected they should. This is no way a­greeable to Christianity, or common Humanity.

Not to Christianity: for, first, the very nature of the Sacrament re­quires a publick Administration, because there must be a Communion of more then two persons in the receiving of it. This appears plain­ly by several other Rubricks of the same Book. For, 1. in the first Ru­brick after the publick Communion, it is ordered, that, if there be not a­bove twenty persons in the Parish, of discretion to receive the Communion, yet there shall be no Communion, except four, or three at the least communicate with the Priest. If it be said, this is the Order for Publick Commu­nions; but, it concerns not Private Communions of the sick: it is answered, 1. that it appears not by the Word, that there is any war­rant, much less necessity for such private Communions: for, the first Ru­brick after Communion of the sick, directeth the Minister thus: If a man, either by extremity of sickness, or for want of warning in due time to the Curate, or for lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood; then the Curate shall instruct him, that if he do truly repent of his sins, and sted­fastly believe that Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the Cross for him, and shed his Blood for his Redemption, earnestly remembring the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty thanks therefore, (without all which, what good will be get by receiving the Sacrament?) he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his souls health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth. 2. In the Rubrick before the Communion of the sick, this Order is given, that the Curate having knowledge over night, or early in the morning, of the de­sire of the sick person to receive the Communion, and being signified also how many be appointed to communicate with him, and having a conve­nient place in the sick mans house, where the Curate may reverently mini­ster, and a good number to receive the Communion with the sick person, with all things necessary for the same, he shall there minister the holy Communi­on. Therefore by these Rubricks, no Communion is to be ministred to the sick, where there be but two to receive it.

Secondly, This is also no way agreeable to Humanity. Must a Mi­nister, who hath the charge of many souls, adventure his health, and life, to gratifie an infectious person in that which (as by what hath been before alledged) is no way of necessity to the fick mans salvation? Must the Minister do this, or be punished with Deprivation, or other­wise? What cruelty is this? Nay, the very Canons of 1603. Can. 67. provided more mercifully then so; which runs thus: When any per­son is dangerously sick in any Parish, the Minister or Curate (having know­ledge thereof) shall resort to him or her, (if the Disease be not known, or probably suspected to be infectious) to instruct and comfort them, &c. Here is a Dispensation in case of the Plague, or other infectious disease, for so much as visiting the sick: and no word at all of giving the Holy Com­munion. So much shall at present suffice to be spoken of the Ru­bricks.

III. Of the Body of the Book.

1. THe first words of it, (which the Minister is to read) are these: At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin from the bottom of his heart, I will put all his wickedness out of my remembrance, saith the Lord. This is (in the Rubrick before it) called, A sentence of Scripture: and the place alledged is Ezek. 21.22. But that Text runs otherwise in the Original, and in the new Translation of the Bible; viz. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful & right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live. Here is little harmony between the Service-Book and Gods Book: especi­ally considering the very first words in the Liturgy, At what time soever. Which hath no warrant from that Text, and is dissonant from ano­ther, [To day if ye will hear his voice, &c.] and from that Application of it, Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of un­belief, in departing from the living God; but exhort one another dayly, while it is called To Day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Most men are convinced of the necessity of repenting: but, such is the deceitfulness of their hearts, that too many defer it, and that up­on that very ground expressed in these words, (which have no ground or warrant from the Word of God) At what time soever a sinner re­penteth, [Page 27]&c. as if he could repent when he list; which carries many to Hell.

It is true, this is seemingly put off by a great Doctor, thus: D. P. de Disci [...]. Eccl. 2. [...]. Sect. 3. Dixit Dominus quoad sensum, licet non verbatim. The Book speaks the sense, although not the very words of the Text. But this is too frigid an an­swer to satisfie the Objection. For, 1. It is said to be a sentence of Scripture; not an Exhortation according to the sense onely. It is one thing to give the sense, another to repeat the words. 2. This agrees not with the sense, but is contrary thereunto, as was but now demonstra­ted. Therefore it is untrue and injurious to charge the Apostles with the like, in alledging the Old Testament in the New.

2. That expression in the general Confession of sins, viz. There is no health in us, (although well meant) is incongruous, and improper, because most of the common sort understand not the true meaning of it; yet patter it over, out of custom, without being (through their ignorance) duly sensible of what is indeed intended by it. Howbeit, the Minister may not alter the Phrase.

3. After the first Lesson, at Morn. Prayer, Te Deum, or, Benedicite, (both of them, being Apochrypals) are to be read before the second Lesson; and so they interrupt the continued reading of the holy Scrip­ture; which, the Preface to that Book would bear us in hand, is provi­ded against.

As for Te Deum; or, We praise thee, O God, &c. it is a piece taken out of the Mass-Book; and in Popish Churches usually sung, at times of great Victories, Deliverances, and other Triumphs. From thence, some Bishops (little to their credit) have introduced it, upon like oc­casions, into Protestant Churches: that being no where enjoyned, nor warranted by any Law in force.

This shews what able men such Bishops are to govern, that know not how to express their thanksgiving to God for any extraordinary mercy, so well, as in a superstitious formal dress usually sung in Popish Churches. And, as for Benedicite, viz. O all ye works of the Lord, &c. it is a piece of the Mass-Book also, and taken out of the Apocryphal song of the three Children. And it is bungled too; not set forth as it is in the Song it self, as by comparing them may appear. And whereas that Song is said, in the Title of it, in the Apocrypha, to be the song of the three holy Children which followeth in the third of Daniel, after this place; [And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord,] this is an abusing, and belying of the Canonical Text, in Da­niel 3. in which there is no hint of any such thing. Yet must this come in, and be kept in, in our Liturgy (though, cast out of the Scotch Book) to give another lye to the Preface of our Book of Common-Prayer; of which, more by and by.

4. The many Antiphonies & Responds (except the peoples saying, Amen) [Page 28]have no pattern or warrant in the Word. Yet above an hundred of these Antiphonies and Responsals, or Answerings between Minister, Clerk and people, are enjoyned to be used; beside the accompanying of him, in the Confession of sins, Creed, reading every other verse of the Psalms, &c. How can such things (having no warrant in the Word) be done in Faith, in the Publique Worship of God; and not rather be accounted Will-Worship? This is the rather to be excepted against, not onely because it is so frequent in the Mass-Books, (but, no where else;) but because also the Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer, saith, That the reading of the holy Scripture is (therein) so set forth, that all things shall be done in order, without breaking one piece thereof from a­nother: and for this cause, be cut off Antiphonies, Responds, Invitatories, and such like things as did break the continual course of the reading of the Scripture. How then, do so many Responds and Answers of Clerk and People, while the Minister is reading; as likewise those Anthems before­mentioned, which interpose between the first and second Lesson (all which are still continued in the Book) agree with that Preface still printed with the Book?

5. If the Letany must be read (which contains petitions for more particulars then all the Book besides; and, being put into one conti­nued prayer, without so many interpositions and interruptions, might be of far better use then now it is) why must the praying part be so much performed by the People, and not by the Minister, whose pro­per Office it is in publique, to pray for the people as their mouth; and not they to be his mouth? There is no ground for this in Scri­pture: yet we must be made to believe, that there is nothing in the Leiturgy, but what is evidently grounded upon the Word. And where­fore must that clause in the Let any [from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities] be still left out? was there no fear of his return to tyrannize over this Land again? Had he ever more Instruments at Work in this Kingdom since the Reformation, then now? If it be said, The Act for Ʋniformity gives notice of an al­teration in the Letany: yet, that Act doth not tell us what that is in particular. Therefore, till that alteration be named, that clause needeth not, yea ought not, to be omitted, so long as the Letany is used.

6. In the Book printed in 1 Eliz. there be added (after the Leta­ny) two Prayers; one for the then Queen, another for Bishops (both which were prayed for before, in the Letany, and also in the Prayer at the Communion for the whole estate of Christs Church) which are not in the Book of 5.6. Edw. 6. And, in 1 Jac. these were continued, with one other Prayer for Queen Anne, the Prince, &c. Now, al­beit the Prayers for the King, Queen, and Royal Family be useful, and necessary; yet, when the Act of 1. Eliz. 2. admits of no alterations from, or additions to that Book in 5.6. Ed. 6. save only in proper Lessons [Page 29]for Sundays, one in the Letany, and two more in the Communion; and, none other, or otherwise; how can those Prayers be used, without ma­king them that use them liable to the Law (if rigorously urged,) till they be confirmed by Act of Parliament; Or rather, till that Act of 1. Eliz. 2. be repealed and taken away?

7. Albeit the Preface to the Book, saith, that therein, many things be left out, whereof some be untrue, some uncertain, some vain, and super­stitious, and nothing is ordained to be read but the very pure Word of God, the holy Scriptures, or that which is evidently grounded upon the same: yet are there sundry things more, in the Body of that Book, which are neither certain, nor true, nor evidently grounded on the Word. For, to omit the imperfect and corrupt Translations mentioned before in the Sheet of Paper inserted into this present Book; and, many more, not therein cited, (which shew there is too much, which is not the very pure Word of God:) it is too too palpable, that, in the Prayers, and pro­per Prefaces for Christmas day, and Whitsunday (as they are called) there are some things not only uncertain, but false; yea, impossible to be true; and therefore, not evidently grounded upon the Word of God. In the Collect or Prayer for Christmas day and seven days after, we must, in prayer, say unto God, that he hath given Christ, this day (viz. Decemb. 25.) to be born of a pure Virgin. On what Scripture is this (viz. that he was born that very day) evidently grounded? and, if it did so appear; how can we say the same (without manifest and gross lying unto God) seven other days more, one after another, seeing he was born but once, and on one day onely? The like must be said of the proper Preface, for that Day; of which before, in the Rubricks. Such also is the Collect for Whitsunday, which begins thus: God which as upon this day, &c. And, more clearly, in the Proper Preface, it is said, the Holy Ghost came down this day from heaven, &c. And this must be said not only on that day, but on six days after. Can this be true, when he came down in that manner, but once? And, when that day was, is very uncertain; especially with us, with whom Whitsunday is a Moveable Feast, falling out (as Lent, and Easter do) some years in one month; some, in another; but never on the same day of the same month, two years together, What horrible abusing of God, and that in very Prayers, is this?

8. After the Proper Prefaces at the Communion, followeth this: Therefore with Angels, and Archangels, and with all the Company of hea­ven, we laud and magnifie thy glorious Name, &c. Here is another un­certainty (to say nothing of the untruth of it;) for the Scripture ne­ver speaks of more Archangels then one: which is mentioned, 1 Thes. 4.16. This one, was Michael, Jude 12. to wit, Christ, the Prince of his people, Dan. 10.21. which most, if not all, expound of Christ: E­ven Him who is mentioned in Revel. 12.7. where it is said, There [Page 30] was war in heaven, Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon, and the Dragon fought and his Angels, and prevailed not, &c. It is true, that the supposititious Dionysius Areopagita, takes upon him, in his Cele­stial Hierarchy, to divide the Angels into three several Hierarchies: but, Quo warranto, further then his own bare word, he doth not at all so much as propound; only he pretendeth to take it from Ephes. 6.12. Col. 1.16. (of which interpretations, see Zanch. in Ephes.) that expo­sition being a meer dream.

9. In one of the Prayers after the Communion, it is prayed, that those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, and for our blindness, we cannot ask, vouchsafe to give us, &c. This is a Contradiction: for, while we say we dare not ask, we do ask, and pray him to give us. Can we pray thus in faith? Yes, you will say, when we pray for this, for the worthiness of Christ, as after followeth. But then take this Re­ply. If our own unworthiness causeth us not to dare to ask, why do we pray elsewhere, for ought else at all? It is not mans worthiness, but Gods promise (2 Sam. 7.18, 19. and ver. 25, 26, 27. and Psal. 119.49) but especially Christs warrant and command (Joh. 16.23, 24.) that gives us boldness, to dare to ask whatsoever we need.

10. In the second Prayer at publique Baptism, we pray, that Infants coming to Baptism, may receive remission of their sins by spiritual regene­ration. How can this be? it is true, Remission of sins and regeneration, flow from one and the same fountain, and are both conveyed and sea­led in Baptism, seminally at least, to those within the Covenant by the same Spirit. But remission of sins is not received by, or from spiritual Regeneration, but by, and from the bloud of Christ. For, without shedding of bloud there is no remission, Heb. 9.22. that is to say, the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us (in respect of guilt) from all sin, 1 Joh. 1.7. It is not then by the grace of regeneration wrought in us, but by the bloud of Christ shed for us, that we receive remission of sins. Away then with that expression in Baptism; unless we be more for mans falshood, then for Gods Truth.

11. All that is in the Catechism, touching the Sacraments, was (contrary to the Act of 1. Eliz. 2.) added in King James his Reign, but never confirmed by Parliament, therefore not safely to be used, although somewhat in that kind be useful and necessary: yet not that model. The Answer to the first Question [viz. to that, How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?] is this, Two only as ge­nerally necessary to salvation: which Answer is very dubious, and liable to exception. For it may (without racking) be interpreted as a tacite admission of more (as Marriage, Holy Orders, &c.] though not generally necessary for all. Again, where it is demanded, why are In­fants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them? that is, they cannot repent, nor believe [which the Answer to [Page 31]the next preceding Questions, admits to be required of persons that are to be baptized] the Answer is this: Yes, they do perform them by their Sureties, &c. which is a meer tale. For, however the Sureties pro­mise, and engage for these, in behalf of the infant; and, upon that ac­count, a charge (after Baptism) is given to the Sureties, to take care that the Infant, so soon as he is able to learn, be taught what he by them, vowed in Baptism, and what further is required of him: yet it was ne­ver read or heard of in Scripture, that one man either repented, or be­lieved in the name and room of another, whereby that other did re­ceive all or any of the spiritual benefits, exhibited and sealed in either of the Sacraments to such as are admitted to them. And to say, the Infants perform (repentance and believing) by their Sureties, because the Sureties vow them both in the Infants names, is a strange and untrue expression: for it is not vowing by one, that another shall repent, and believe, when he is not at present able to do either, that can truely be said, to be a performing of them, by him that makes that vow; supposing him to be a true believer, which many Sureties be not.

12. In the Commination appointed and enjoyned by the Rubrick be­fore it, to be used divers times in the year, (however a learned Doctor would shift off the objection against it, by saying, Non tam exigitur quam consulitur:) there is a service set up, which, however it was ap­pointed by God to be once used by the children of Israel so soon as they were gone over Jordan into Canaan, Deut. 27. yet is now no way warrantable in the Publique Worship of God: that is, for the Mini­ster openly to denounce Curses upon all sinners, divers times in the year; and that, not in the ordinary Reading-place, but out of the Pulpit: To which, all the people are required to say, Amen: Whereby many of them are necessitated to curse themselves. But, as for that place in Deuteronomy, that is no warrant for this, now; Because, that was no part of the Publique Service then incumbent on the Priests, or Levites, nor to be done by any in the place of Publique Worship: but upon Mount Ebal: and that by six of the Tribes, to wit, Reuben, Gad, A­sher, Zebulun, Dan and Naphtali, ver. 13. and that, but once. And let it be observed, that Levi was none of them that were appointed to Curse; nor were they of that Tribe, so much as among them. But he was to be upon Mount Gerizzim, with Simcon, Judah, Iss [...]char, Joseph and Benjamin, to bless, ver. 12. And this was the charge be­fore given of God by Moses unto Aaron and his sons, (as their constant duty at all publique Assemblies of the Congregation for Worship) Numb. 6.23, &c. to bless the Congregation, thus: The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. This indeed was an Ordinance, to which God there promi­seth a good success, saying; They shall put my Name upon the children of [Page 32]Israel, and I will bless them. For Ministers of the Gospel then, whose Office it is to be Messengers of Peace, and to bring glad tidings of good things to his people; to be imployed, and that often, in cursing the people as a part of his Office and of publique Worship, (not this or that particular offender, being according to Christs Ordinance con­victed, and censured, and still remaining refractory and impenitent:) is such a piece of humane and unchristian-like invention, as hath no warrant from the Word of God, nor from the practise of the Primi­tive Church, which this very Commination it self, in the first lines of it plainly confesseth, where it saith that, then the Discipline was, to put notorious sinners to open penance, in Lent: and that, in stead thereof, un­til the said Discipline may be restored, it is thought good, to use this. Which shews plainly, that this is no other then a later spawn of Anti­christ in his Popish Services. More might be said of sundry other particulars in the Service-Book: but we suppose that he that shall du­ly weigh that which hath been already noted, will think these enow.

III. Of RITES and CEREMONIES.

HAving spoken of the necessity of Reformation in Worship, it is ne­cessary, in the next place, to shew the like necessity of Reforma­tion in Rites and Ceremonies, which are appurtenances of, and appen­dents to Worship, in relation to the Injunctions of the Apostle, Let all things be done decently and in order 1 Cor. 14.40.; and, to the use of edi­fying 1 Cor. 14.26..

And here we speak not of Rites and Ceremonies, which be Divine, by Gods own Institution; for these are all, in some respects, parts of external Divine Worship, in their use, prescribed by himself (such are, the outward elements in the Sacraments, &c.) and, in other respects, Ceremonies appendent to that Worship, which is internal, and princi­pally intended in and by that which is external by Divine Insti­tution.

But we speak of Rites and Ceremonies, appointed by the Lights and Guides of the Church, for decency, order and edification; being of Humane institution, and alterable, although used in the exercise of Religious Worship: according to the 34th Article of Religion, which teacheth that it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one, or [Page 33]utterly like; for, at all times they have been divers, and may be changed, according to the diversities of Countries, Times, and Mens man­ners, &c.

The reasons why such Ceremonies not only may, but sometimes must be changed, according to the diversities of Countries, Times, and Mens manners, (which may make it evident that what is now desired, no way tendeth to disorder, confusion, or Schism; but, to godly or­der, without the least infringement of holy unity in the Church) are plainly set forth before the Book of Common-prayer it self, under that Preface, or Title; Of Ceremonies, why some be abolished, and some re­tained. Where it is said, Of such Ceremonies as be used in the Church, and have had their beginning by the institution of man; some, at the first, were of godly intent and purpose devised, and yet at length turned to vanity and superstition; some entred into the Church by indiscret Devotion, and such a zeal as was without knowledge; and for because they were winked at in the beginning, they grew daily to more and more abuses, which not only for their unprofitableness, but because they have much blinded the people, and obscured the glory of God, are worthy to be cut away, and clean rejected.

The same Preface saith further, Some are put away, because the great excess and multitude of them hath so increased in these later days, that the burden of them was intolerable: whereof St. Augustine in his time com­plained, that they were grown to such a number, that the estate of Christi­an people was in worse case concerning that matter, then were the Jews. And he counselled that such yoke and burthen should be taken away, as time would serve quietly to do it. But what would St. Augustine have said, if he had seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us, whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared? This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, then declare and set forth Christs be­nefits unto us.

Upon these and other reasons it was, that many Ceremonies intro­duced into the Mass-Books and other Popish Breviaries, such as, ducking and bowing to the East, to the Altar, the standing up at Gloria Patri, or Glory be to the Father, &c. at the reading of the Gospels of the Day, the wearing of Robes, Copes, Lawn sleeves, or other Vestments, (save onely a Rochet to be worn by an Archbishop, or Bishop, and Surplice only by Priests and Deacons;) the wearing of Sandals or Slippers, when men go into Churches or Chappels; the turning Communion Tables, and setting them Altar-wise (at the East end of the Chan [...]l, or set­ting up Altars of stone in that place, whether the Congregation can hear or not:) womens wearing of Vails, and offering of Chrisomes at Churchings, and that at the high Altar; the reading of the Lessons in one place, and the second Service, at the Altar; which second Service [Page 34]was never appointed by the Common-prayer-book to be used but onely at the celebration of the Lords Supper: the setting up of Tapers of wax, Candlesticks, Basons and Ewres, upon the high Altar, and ducking to them every time a man comes into the Church or goes out, or stirs, while he is in it: (Whereas Cups, Pots and Basons for Alms, were never since 5. Edw. 6. to be set there, but at the Commu­nion; nor then, to be bowed unto, though the Bread and Wine were on the Table;) The wearing of Hoods of degrees, and many other such like devices, all which were laid aside in 5.6. Edw. 6. as appears by the Rubricks, and the Act for Uniformity in 1. Eliz. 2. compared together, which allows nothing but what was in the Book of 5.6. Edw. 6. save onely the alterations mentioned in the said Act, as hath been before shewed. And, however the Rubrick before the Book printed in 1. Eliz. directeth to use such Ornaments as were in use in 2. Edw. 6. yet that is no part of the Book established: because the Book of 5.6. Edw. 6. hath no such Rubrick; and the Act enjoyns all to be done according to that Book, and none other, or otherwise. How­ever, afterwards, another Statute of Q. Eliz. did so appoint.

Now, the same Preface before the Common-prayer, touching Cere­monies, giveth all men to understand, that the most weighty cause of the abolishing of certain Ceremonies, was, that they were so far abused partly by the Superstitious blindness of the rude and unlearned, and partly by the unsatiable avarice of such as sought more their own luere, then the glory of God, that the abuses could not well be taken away, the thing remaining still. Upon which grounds, there was a removal of them in 5.6. Edw. 6. For then, was that Preface of Ceremonies first prefixed to the Book of Common-prayer.

But so great is the itch of mans corrupt nature after Humane inven­tions in Divine Worship, and so natural are Popish Gue-gaws and outward pompous toyes that please the senses, that many of these (who had been laid aside, as abovesaid, in 5.6. Edw. 6.) and that, at the Conference at Hampton-court, it was desired that those Ceremo­nies and Rites of the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Communion, the Surplice, &c. might be put away; yet such was the violence of the prevailing party at that time; that, having obtained Li­cense under the Great Seal, they in Convocation, An. 1603. recalled sundry of those rejected Ceremonies again; and enjoyned all Students in Colleges to wear Surplices in time of Divine service, Can. 17. Copes by him that Ministreth the Sacrament; Epistolers and Gospelers, ac­cording to 7. Eliz. (there being no such Statute, nor Parliament in 7. Eliz.) and sundry other things: under colour whereof, by degrees, most of those things before cast out, viz. bowing to the East, and to the Altar, with the rest before named, were retroduced; and now devoutly (or rather superstitiously) observed, without any shew or [Page 35]colour of warrant, but ancient custom, which being, duly examined, will appear to all to be first used in the Popish Churches, as too pal­pably appeareth by the Preface touching Ceremonies before al­ledged.

Yea, those very men who are so much for these; and not onely urge the 18th Canon of 1603. but the Queens Injunctions 52 Injunct for bow­ing at the Name of Jesus, which no Common-prayer-book, or Statute hath enjoyned; yet, in other things, regard not those Injunctions, nor the Book of Homilies; no, nor the Act for Ʋniformity it self touch­ing such Ceremonies as they have a mind to recal and advance: wit­ness their setting up Candles in Candlesticks on the High Altar (as they call it) and such like superstitions which the third Injunction of Eliz. reckons among those things which tend to Idolatry and Superstition, which of all other offences God doth most detest and abhor. They must have their Antiphonies, Responds, &c. which the Preface to the Com­mon-prayer-book, tells us are laid aside, &c. Not content with this, they must have all (except Candles lighted) that are upon the Popish Altars where Mass is used, upon their high Altars; yea, piping on di­vers Instruments, singing (so as none can understand the matter, but onely be tickled with the musick) playing upon Organs, &c. all which were laid aside in Edw. 6. and even by the 2 Hom. of the Place and time of Prayer, (which is by vertue of Art. 35. subscribed unto by every Minister in England that ever was admitted to any Ecclesiastical Pro­motion, according to the Act of 13. Eliz. 12.) are censured and de­clared openly to all, to be displeasing unto God, and sore and filthily to de­file his holy House and Place of Prayer. All which are here mentioned, to shew how far they deviate, and whither they are tending and post­ing amain, who under colour of upholding, and practising of the lau­dable Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, do recal and retroduce many Popish Rites cast out of this Church, and despise all Laws and Constitutions made against them; and are thereby lyable to Inditements every time they use them, upon the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2. We shall forbear to insist longer upon this, but leave it to others to judge what sad and dangerous effects, these things (if they be suffered and countenanced) are likely to produce.

That which we chiefly aim at, is, to shew a necessity of reforming those Rites and Ceremonies contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, or en­joyned by the Canons of 1603. Such are, the Surplice, Copes, &c. en­joyned to be used by Ministers; the Cross in Baptism, Kneeling at the Communion, Marriage with the Ring, Bowing at the Name of Jesus, and such like, imposed upon all, as established by Law. But, such E­stablishment, we do, and must deny, until we see a Record produced, by which that Book now in use, or printed in 1 Eliz. is by Act of Par­liament, ratified and confirmed. For if either there be no Record, of that, to which an Act referreth, or that there be more alterations in [Page 36]the Book said to be established, than the Act mentioneth; can that Book be properly said to be established by Law, and not rather made void thereby? In all other things, nothing is admitted for Law, or as being of force by Law, but what is expresly contained in verbis, in the Act it self; especially, if the Act refer to any thing to be confirmed by it, of which no Record can be produced, and which differs from ought else that is said to be ratified by it. And this is the case of the present Liturgy, which neither is Recorded, nor agreeth with, but hath sundry alterations from, and additions to that of 5.6. Edw. 6. besides those hinted in the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. And if any Deed or Bond be rased, or altered after sealing; or, if rased, or altered before sealing, and that not witnessed; will such a Deed or Bond be admitted as good e­vidence at Law, or in Equity, if produced and pleaded? We there­fore cannot understand how the present Service-Book can be establish­ed by Law, it being no where Recorded; and, in sundry things, (be­side those mentioned in the Statute of 1 Eliz. 2.) varying from that which was once Recorded, as hath been before demonstrated. To say, the Book, in what remaineth, still bindeth, in tanto at least, is but a mistake: for, any Record, or Deed, vitiated in any one part, makes void the whole, in Law.

And as for those Rites enjoyned in the Book of Canons, we shall for­bear to speak of the Legality of them, till we come to shew the necessity of Reformation in Discipline, a great part whereof is contained in that Book.

Nor is it our purpose to insist upon the unlawfulness of those Cere­monies, so as to make any dispute thereupon, nor to justifie or con­demn those who hold them simply unlawful in themselves. But we, taking it for granted that they are in themselves [...], or things indifferent, do humbly pray that these things may be duely considered, in the general:

1. That being such, they ought not to be imposed on those, who cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds and Consciences that they are lawful, and therefore must sin, if they use them. This is St. Paul's own Doctrine and Practise touching things of this nature, notwith­standing his own judgement of the lawfulness of them. In his days, many godly Christians, both in Rome, Corinth, and elsewhere, made scruple of sundry meats forbidden in the Levitical Law, and of omit­ting days enjoyned by it. Others, satisfied of the lawfulness of both, did eat those meats, and omit those days; at which others were scan­dalized: some, by adventuring through other mens example, to do the like, albeit they were not fully satisfied of the lawfulness thereof, and thereby sinned: others took offence, and were grieved, and there­upon censured all that used their Christian Liberty in those things of which they that used it, were fully satisfied: and hereupon, the weak, for [Page 37]censuring, sinned also: and, by both these, the weak were in danger to be destroyed, Rom. 14.15.

Now, what was our Apostles Doctrine, and Practise herein? His Do­ctrine was this: I know, and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of it self: but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean, Rom. 14.15. And, All things indeed are pure; but, it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is made weak, vers. 20, 21. His Practise was this: 1. Touching himself; If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend, 1 Cor. 8.13. And, as toward others, he straitly chargeth on all, these two things: 1. To take heed lest by a­ny means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak, ibid. vers. 9. that is, by using that Liberty before others not sa­tisfied in the lawfulness of it. 2. If the one will yet use this liberty, and the other will take offence, then, his charge is, Let not him that eat­eth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, Rom. 14.3. But, as for enjoyning the eating of what him­self held to be lawful, on those that doubted the lawfulness of it, (al­though he had more Authority then all our Bishops and Clergy in Convocation, to make Canons) we never find that he did it; but, war­ned and forbade all the very use of it, before any that, through weak­ness, took offence at it. If then, Authority will follow the Apostles rule, they will find a necessity, not onely of taking off all Impositions already made, but the taking away of all the things so imposed, at which so many able and godly peaceable Ministers and People do take offence; and, for which, so many thousands have deeply suffered, to avoid sinning against God by conforming to them. For, whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.

2. If it be said, The instances last given concern onely private things, and private practises; what is this to Publick Order in the House of God, where the Service and Worship of Almighty God, by the Hedge of Ceremonies is preserved from lying open to all profaneness; as a confident stickler for Ceremonies, groundlesly pretendeth? To this, it is answered, That Ceremonies are no such Hedge; unless to keep out such as have as good right to the Ordinances as they who do impose them, (for which they must one day give a sad account;) and, that it is much more dangerous and sinful to enjoyn things of this nature for Publick use in the Administration of Publick Ordinances. Because, those private meats, &c. may be avoided by such as take offence at them; for, what necessity, to be present at the use of them? But, there is a necessity of being present at the other: which he that negle­cteth, is lyable to punishment by the Law. The Law tyeth all to come to the Common Service, every Sunday, and Holy-day; to receive the [Page 38]Holy Communion thrice at least in every year: and, imposeth a sharp penalty for neglect hereof. So that, while these are imposed, or used, (where weak Christians take offence at them) many godly men are forced to offend, either against God, by submitting to that they are not satisfied in the lawfulness of it; or, against the Laws of the Land, by not conforming to them, which they cannot do without sin. So that the imposing of them upon all, or the using of them before all, who cannot, without sin, submit to them, is the abusing of Authority, and the making it to sin against Christ, by putting it upon the forcing those for whom Christ died, to sin against their own Consciences, and to drive them on to destruction in Hell, as a man would force a Beast into the water, or fire that will surely devour him. It is then a groundless put off, to say, that such things being commanded by just Authority, the in­difference by that command determineth, and they become necessary: which is quite contrary to the Apostles rule.

3. If these be retained in some places where no offence is taken at them: yet there is no reason to impose, or use them in other places where any are offended at them. For, 1. to plead Imposition for order and unity in the Church of England, is to no purpose; because there is no necessity of the same, in all places, no more then of all the same Orders and Practises in all Corporations in England; and, of every Company within those Corporations (who all have different Orders and Rules) to preserve Order and Unity in the Civil Government of the Kingdom. 2. Our very Articles of Religion, (as hath been shew­ed) say, Art. 34. That it is not necessary that Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed, according to the diversities of Countries, times, and mens manners. 3. If it be said, These refer to different Countries; not 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 [Page 39]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.

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, Advertis [...]o [...] 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 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, [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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.

[Page 44]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, [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 Order) to have the sole power of Ordination, which hath been proved not to be so; It is requisite that herein also some De­claration be made to the contrary, that we may not give offence to the Protestant Churches with whom we hold Communion; nor ad­mit of such an untruth among our selves, to which all must sub­scribe.

4. As for Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, (in which the same Scripture, 1 Tim. 3. is read again, that was used in Ordaining of Priests; which sheweth, that the Compilers of that Book never dreamt of a distinction of Orders between Bishops and Presbyters) we onely say thus much, That there being no warrant in Scripture for Arch­bishops; but onely from the practice of after-times, whereby they were, by men onely, called to that height, we see no necessity of their Consecration; no more doth our Church; for that it makes the same Consecration which is for Bishops, to serve for Archbishops. Upon this account, we see no reason why a solemn Oath of Canonical Obedi­ence to the Archbishop, should then be administred to every person that is to be Bishop. The Exception against that Expression of the Archbishop in the act of Consecration of a Bishop, Take the Holy Ghost, being spoken to before; here we onely make the same profession a­gainst it, which there we did, and so leave it, and proceed to the next Head of Ecclesiastical Government, which is Jurisdiction.

II. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

IT hath been of late the claim of our Bishops to have in them the sole power of Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical: which is now pleaded for so boldly and openly by their Advocates, and such as as­spire to the same Office and Dignity, that it is now made (though ve­ry groundlesly) an Essential part of Episcopacy, by Divine Right; wit­ness among other, the Author of an Answer to a Letter sent to Doctor Turner, to Oxford, who alledgeth several Scriptures, viz. 1 Tim. 5.19. [Page 47] Tit. 1.5. to prove that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is in Bishops onely. To the same effect, the Author of another Book, intituled, Church-Lands not to be sold. So others.

But, seeing Bishops can exercise no Jurisdiction in England, but what is allowed by the Laws of the Land, as we shall after make it manifest to every eye; we shall not much trouble our selves, at this time, with their claim by Divine Right. Howbeit, lest they should think there is nothing to be said against it, we desire it may be considered, (which is known to all that have seriously consulted Antiquity) that in the Primitive Ages of the Church, there was no Ecclesiastical Jurisdicti­on exercised, but by the Bishops, and their Consistory of Presbyters together. Even, in Rome it self, there was, even in Cyprians time, a number of the Clergy, who acted with the Bishop, as well as else­where. Thence grew (by Corruption) their Conclave of Cardinals. And, from the same Original, here in England, first, Monks; after­wards, Deans and Chapters, were joyned with the Bishops, to assist both in Ordination and Jurisdiction: although of late times they joyned with them in neither: Such was the Pride of the one, and the Idleness of the other. Which last, his late Majesty was content to part withal. They being of no use, but onely to confirm Grants of the Bishop; as he, confirmed theirs: keeping sundry Benefices of Cure in their hands, and seldome or never residing on them; under pretence of re­sidence near the Bishop; whereas the Canons of 1603. require them to reside on their Benefices with Cure, all but the space of one moneth in the year Can. 44., unless he be a Dean, Master, Warden, or chief Governour of a Cathedral, or Church, who, by Can. 42. is to reside there, ninety days, Conjunctim or Divisim. This is spoken not to justifie the Continuati­on of Deans and Chapters; or, to move for reducing them to the an­cient course of corrupt times, in making them alone to be the Adju­tors of Bishops: for Jurisdiction is as proper to all the Presbytery, as to those Cathedral Presbyters. But we urge it, meerly and onely to demonstrate the falshood of that upstart Assertion, that Bishops have sole power of Jurisdiction.

And that we may contract our selves within necessary brevity (con­sidering to whom we make our Address) we shall give but one in­stance more; and that shall be out of the Book of Ordination, in the Ordering of Priests. Where, among other Questions propounded by the Bishop to him that is to be ordained Priest, this is one; Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief Ministers, unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you; following with a glad mind and will their godly Admonition, and submitting your self to their godly Judgements? To this each of them that are to be ordained, an­swereth, I will so do, the Lord being my helper. By this it is evident, that more, beside Bishops, have power of Jurisdiction. If it be said, [Page 48]this may be meant of ARchdeacons, Deans, &c. that have it under the Bishop: what is this to the intituling of all Ministers thereunto? It is answered out of the Rubrick before the Communion, whereby eve­ry Curate is authorized to keep off from that Sacrament, every open and notorious Liver, by whom the Congregation is offended, until he have openly declared himself to have truely repented, and amended his former wicked life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied. Yea, where he finds hatred and variance, he is to suspend from the Sacrament, the party refusing to be reconciled to the other, and be content to for­give from the bottom of his heart, all that the other hath transgressed against him, and to make amends for that he himself hath offended. What is this, but as much and as high Jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular?

If this suffice not, take one passage more. In the same Book of Or­dination, in the Ordering of Priests. The Bishop asketh every person whom he ordaineth a Priest, this Question; Will you give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the DI­SCIPLINE of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same? &c. To which, each Priest is to answer, I will so do, by the help of the Lord. What can be a more clear evidence of the intention of our Church in the first Reformation, then to admit all Presbyters to have a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and in the Ad­ministration of it?

How long Bishops and others under them, have had Ecclesiastical Consistories to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, to us is not certain. Yet it appeareth by Sir Edw. Cook, [...] Instit. ca. 53. p. 2259. that William the Conqueror was the first that, by his Charter to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, did prohibit Sheriffs, in their Tourne Courts (wherein, before-time, all Ecclesiastical matters were heard, and determined) to intermedle any more with Ecclesiastical Causes, but leave them to the Bishops. Thence, some conclude, that Bishops have held Courts ever since William 1. Others, finding no 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: [Page 50]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 Ʋnity of this Realm. And that such person or persons so to be named, as­signed, authorized, and appointed by your Highness, your Heirs or Suc­cessours, [Page 51]after 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 [Page 52]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 Th [...]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 B [...]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 [Page 53] 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 Ʋsher 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 Vis [...]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 [Page 54]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 [Page 55]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 [Page 56] 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; [Page 56] [...] [Page 57] [...] [Page 58]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 License from the Bishop, under his hand and seal, appoint or keep fasts, or be present at them, either publiquely, or in any private Houses, other then such as by Law, are, or by publique Authority shall be appointed, he shall for the first offence be suspended; for the second, excommunicated; and, for the third, deposed from the Ministry. Lastly, the 73. Canon, excommunicateth ipso facto, all Ministers and others meeting in any private house, or elsewhere What, if in Parliament; or, in Con­vocation?, to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of the Doctrine of the Church of England, or of the Book of Common-prayer, or of any part of the discipline now established. What is that?

Now, this sentence of Excommunication, being to be pronounced by a Minister onely, and, after to be publiquely denounced by other Ministers; and the persons excommunicated upon the 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11th Canons, not to be restored but by the Archbishop; and e­very such person (not restored) is liable to the Writ De excommuni­cato capiendo; (or else the excommunication signifies nothing) we appeal to all whether these Canons (if executed) be not against the Stat. of 5. Eliz. 23. which Enacteth, that if, in the Significavit (of the Ordinary) for obtaining a Writ de excom. capiend. it be not contained, that the excommunication doth proceed upon some cause or contempt of some original matter of Heresie, or refusing to have his or their child ba­ptized, or to receive the holy Communion as it is now commonly used to be received in the Church of England, or to come to Divine-service now commonly used in the said Church of England, or Errour in matters of Re­ligion, or Doctrine now received or allowed in the Church of England, In­continency, Ʋsury, Simony, Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court, or Idola­try; Then all such Writs, and Significavits to be void in Law. And whether such Ministers as in Court, or in Churches, pronounce, or pub­lish such excommunications; or, for non-appearance, non-payment of Fees, &c. (too too commonly practiced in those late Courts,) be not lia­ble to be punished, by an Action at Law, for doing such illegal Acts, as are not justifiable by the Laws of the Land: Or, if such a Writ will lye against any man for Heresie, (not declared such by Parliament ac­cording to 1. Eliz. 1.) for not receiving the Communion, kneeling; or, for not coming to the Common-prayer; as now used (it being already made out that it is not established by Law;) or, for dissenting from any of the Articles of Religion of An. 1562. (when it hath been shewed [Page 59]that some of them are doubtful, some defective, and disagreeing from one another, &c.) is it not high time to Reform these things; especi­ally, when by the Canons, not kneeling, not coming to Common-pray­er, are declared to be Schism; and any dissent from those Articles, be­ing adjudged errour in doctrine, the party shall be punished with excom­munication; yea, with imprisonment, by Writ out of Chancery; and not be absolved, but by the Archbishop, (Can. 5.) nor, by him, till he shall have repented, and openly revoked that his dissent, as a wicked er­rour; how just, and necessary soever such dissent was?

Again, the 14th Canon appoints Divine service to be said, not only on the Holy-days appointed by the Book of Common-prayer, but on their Eves. Which observation of Eves, is taken away by the Books of Common-prayer; and so this Canon is herein contrary to the Act of 1. Eliz. 2. Moreover, the same Canon enjoyneth Ministers to ob­serve the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Com­mon-prayer, which by referring to these in 2. Edw. 6. admits of a Sur­plice only, so doth that of 5.6. Edw. 6. yet this enterferes with the 58. Canon; of which, before. And whereas that 14th Canon forbids diminishing any part of Common-prayer, in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof; the Book of Common-prayer it self, doth warrant us to diminish, that is, to omit all that men now call the second Service; when there is no Com­munion, as hath been also shewed.

The 17th Canon enjoyneth all Fellows, Scholars, and Students (though Boys) as well as Masters of Colleges and Halls, upon Sundays, Holy-days and their Eves, to wear Surplices at Divine service, preten­ding for it, the Order of the Church of England: and Graduates to wear the Hoods of their degrees. Whereas the Order in the Liturgy en­joyns Surplices only to Ministers in the times of their Ministration: not to others. And this of Boys wearing Surplices, doth countenance that fond conceit so much cryed up in Popery, that all once entred into Colleges, ought to receive primam tonsuram, and therefore to wear Surplices Ham. le Strange in Affin. of Div. Serv..

The 24 Canon enjoyneth Copes: which are forbidden in the Rubrick before Common-prayer, in 5.6. Edw. 6. of which, before. The 27th Canon, requireth Ministers not to administer the Communion to any but such as kneel, under pain of Suspension; whereas, we have before demonstrated out of 2. Edw. 6. that kneeling is left arbitrary. And, if any person not kneeling, be refused the Communion, with what ju­stice can he be punished with Excommunication (which may end in imprisonment upon a Writ De excom. cap. by vertue of the forementi­oned Statute of 5. Eliz. 23.) even when he desireth to communicate with that Liberty in gesture which the Law alloweth him? Yet, both Minister, Church-Wardens and Quest-men (the Office and duty [Page 60]of which last, in Ecclesiasticals, we know not) must take notice whether every Parishioner come so often to the Communion as the Law requireth, Can. 28. which if he do not, he is to be presented, &c. which makes way to Excommunication, and imprisonment, as aforesaid, albeit it be not his fault that he received not: unless it be an of­fence, to claim, and make use of the liberty which the Law affordeth him.

The Explanation of the lawful use of the Cross in Baptism, undertaken in Can. 30. is very defective: for, whereas it undertakes to remove all scruples of Conscience therein, it produceth not one Scripture, nor Father to that end: but only indefinitely talks of both; which, without better arguments and more distinct proofs, can never, in common rea­son, quiet (much less satisfie) any mans Conscience that maketh scru­ple thereof. Nor can we submit thereto, till we see it proved, as well as affirmed.

The 31. Canon forbiddeth the making of any Deacons, or Ministers, save only on the four Sundays after the Ember-Weeks, appointed for prayer and fasting, and so continued in England (by what Law, when the Stat. of 5.6. Edw. 6.3. declares the contrary?) and this to be done in the Cathedral, or Parish-church where the Bishop resideth, in pre­sence not onely of the Archdeacon, but of the Dean and two Preben­daries at least (if not by any lawful cause let, or hindred) or, of 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, [Page 61]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 [Page 62]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 [Page 63]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.