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 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 II. Of WORSHIP THe Form of Publick Worship in England except Preaching is set down in the Liturgy or Book of Common-Prayer established by Law in 1 Eliz. 2. intituled An Act for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer and Service in the Church and the Administration of the Sacraments This Act repealeth another made in 1 Mar. 2. which had repealed a former Statute made in 5.6 Edw. 6. for the Vniformity of Common-Prayer c. and re-established that Common-Prayer-Book which the said last mentioned Act of Edw. 6. had ratified and confirmed But yet the Act of 1 Eliz. which authorizeth and enjoyneth the use of that Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. doth it with allowance of one alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year and the form of the Letany altered and corrected and two sentences onely added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicants but none other or otherwise Now it is here to be observed that in the Act of 5.6 Edw. 6. for confirming that Book it is said that The Kings most Excellent Majesty with th' assent of the Lords and Commons in that Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same had caused the aforesaid Order of common service intituled The Book of Common-Prayer to be faithfully and godly perused explained and made fully perfect and by the foresaid Authority annexed and enjoyned it so explained and perfected to that present Statute So that the same was enrolled together with the Act it self Which being repealed by Queen Mary the Original Book was taken off from the Parliament-Roll and so lost But in the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. there is no mention at all of joyning the Book then revived and re-confirmed to the said Act nor doth it appear that ever it was again enrolled whereby by having recourse to any Record or Parliament-Roll it may be proved that that Book of Common-Prayer printed in the year 1559. the first of Qâ—een Eliz. is confirmed by Law or that any man is bound to use it as the onely form now established by Parliament or to be punished for not using it at all And albeit the Act of 1 Eliz. Quere therefore whether he that either useth them not or useth other be punishaable taketh notice of some alterations above mentioned to be made in the Book then ratified yet it doth not name nor express what those alterations were So that all men are lest in a blind touching the same if put to prove that those
alterations now found in the printed Common-Prayer Books are the very same which the last mentioned Act intended to allow and confirm Howbeit that we may go so far as we can herein take notice that by-comparing the Book printed in 5 6 Edw. 6. with that which was printed in 1 Eliz. the alterations therein found which are onely hinted in the Stat. of 1 Eliz. 2. are these 1. As touching Proper Lessons The Kalendar of 5.6 Edw. 6. appointed no Proper Lessons for Sundays except for Easter-day Whitsunday and Trinity Sunday but onely for Holy-Days The Lessons for all other Sundays were onely set down in the Kalendar in ordinary course of reading the rest of the Bible upon that and other days of the week in a continued way of reading all But the Book in 1 Eliz. in the Kalendar of Proper Lessons hath it thus Proper Lessons to be read for the first Lessons both at morning Prayer and evening Prayer on the Sundays throughout the year and for some also the second Lessons Then it after adds Lessons proper for Holy Days All which proper Lessons were appointed in 1 Eliz. to take place of all Chapters which in ordinary course of reading according to the day of each moneth had been before ordered in the Kalendar to be read without respect to either Sunday or Holy-Day but onely to the day of the moneth in course What alterations have been made either in that Book printed An. 1559. 1 Eliz. of other proper Lessons not warranted by the Act of 1 Eliz. 2. namely of such as were before appointed for Holy-days c. or that have been made since shall be afterwards shewed 2. As touching the Letany there is no material alteration in that save onely this that whereas both the Books of 2 Edw. 6. ran thus From all sedition and privy conspiracy from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities from all false Doctrine and Heresie c. those words touching the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities are lest out in 1 Eliz. 2. and ever sithence 3. In the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the words used at the delivery of the bread and wine ran thus Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving but in the Book of 1 Eliz. and in all since the words are these The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life take and eat this in remembrance that Christ dyed for thee and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving The words at giving the Cup in 5.6 Edw. 6. were these Drink this in remembrance Christs blood was shed for thee and be thankful But in 1 Eliz. and since the words are The Blood of our Jesus Christ which was shed for thee preserve thy Body and Soul into everlasting life drink this in remembrance Christs Blood was shed for thee and be thankful Now it is to be noted that whereas onely the two former Clauses which run in the forms of Prayers were in the Book of 2. Edw. 6. and the two latter Clauses onely are in the Book of 5.6 Edw. 6. as here above shewed that Book of 1. Eliz. takes in and joyns them both together If these be not the alterations to which the Act of 1 Eliz. referreth it will be very difficult if not impossible to find what they were Now having thus prepared the way to speak to the necessity of Reformation in Worship it is desired that all Readers of this Piece will take notice that there was lately printed in one sheet of Paper some of the Differences and alterations in the present Common-Prayer-Book from that which was established by Law in 5.6 Edw. 6. and in 1 Eliz. or at least supposed so to be which is but a Specimen or short hint of what is here intended to be set forth more largely and fully and that in the same Order and Method which is there propounded none of those printed Papers being now left it is thought fit to reprint and insert that sheet with some few Revisals in this larger Tract which shall now follow in the next place And then after that we shall add what shall be necessary for making out more fully the necessity of reforming the whole Liturgy not by way of reducing so much as of new moulding the whole Some of the DIFFERENCES and ALTERATIONS In the present Common-Prayer-Book FROM The Book established by Law in quinto sexto Edw. 6. and 1 Eliz. The KALENDAR THere are sundry Saints days although in black Letters not found in the Books of 5.6 Edw. 6. or 1. Eliz. to the number of 50. and moe Which however it may seem a small matter yet Time may turn them into Red Letters and so claim observance of them For Dr. Cousens in his Kalendar which he calls the Kalendar of the Church in his Book of Devotion hath put one of them already viz. St. Barnabies Day into Red. But however the Epistle and Gospel for that day and for the Conversion of St. Paul be extant in the Service-Book and in the Liturgy printed for Scotland An. 1637. both these are put into Red and enjoyned to be observed yet in 2. Edw. 6. and in 5.6 Edw. 6. those days were expunged out of the Catalogue of Holy Days On Aug. 7. The Name of Jesus is put in for an old Holy-day which however used in times of Popery but under a more gentle Title a a Fest Jesu yet even in 2. as well as in 5.6 Edw. 6. and 1 Eliz. it was expelled Howbeit Dr. Cousens in his forementioned Devotions hath already set down proper Lessons for that day viz. Mat. 1. and Philip. 2. which shews how desirous some are to keep an Holy-day to a Name The Order for Proper Lessons On Whitsunday 1. Eliz. the first Lesson at Even Prayer was Deut. 18. now that is thrust out and Wisd 1. crept into the room And if we look into the Lessons for Holy-days we shall find many Chapters of the Canonical Scripture laid aside and Apochyphal Chapters ordered to be read See some instances in the Margent at the Letter c c Old Kalendar The New Jan. 25. Gen. 46. Wisd 5. Jan. 25. Gen. 47. Wisd 6. Feb. 2. Exod. 12. Wisd 9. Feb. 2. Exod 13. Wisd 12. Feb. 2â— Numb 33. Wisd 19. Jun. 29. Job 31. Ecclus. 15. Jun. 29. Job 32. Ecclus 19. Jul. 25. Eccles 10. Ecclus. 21. Jul. 25. Eccles 11. Ecclus. 23. Aug. 24. Ezek 3. Ecclus. 25. Aug. 24. Ezek 6. Ecclus. 29. Sep. 21. Mic. 7. Ecclus 35. Sep. 21. Naum. 1. Ecclus 38. Sept. 29. Zach 7. Ecclus. 39. Sept. 29. Zach 8. Ecclus. 44. Octob. 18. Judg. 14. Ecclus. â—1 Dec. 28. Isa 60. Wisd 1. There are sundry other Lessons altered which I here omit It is true the Stat. of 1. Eliz. alloweth one alteration or addition
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 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 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
de se quem industrium noverint Archidiaconum vocent Constat ergo APOSTOLICA INSTITUTIONE omnes Presbyteros esse Episcopos licet nunc illi majores hoc nomen obtineant Episcopus enim Superintendens dicitur omnis Presbyter debet intendere curam super oves sibi commissas For brevity sake we forbear to English this long allegation The sum of it is that in the Primitive Church Bishops and Presbyters were one in respect of Order however a Bishop chosen by the Presbytery were over them in respect of place and degree 4. Bishops being Consecrated have power by the Stat. of 5.6 Edw. 6. and 8. Eliz. 1. to Ordain both Deacons and Presbyters which the Book incongruously calleth Priests But whereas the Episcopal Party claimeth sole Ordination as if no Minister can be rightly Ordained who is not ordained by a Bishop and under this pretence many of the present Prelatical Party stick not to degrade and unordain such Ministers as are Ordained by Presbyters alone even where no Bishops are allowed to execute that Office and Schismatically to advise and perswade all to withdraw from all Assemblies and Ordinances as being no Ordinances of Christ where such Ministers as are ordained onely by the Presbytery without a Bishop do administer We must give this Answer 1. That there is no Scripture that appropriateth this to Bishops alone 2. There are several warrants in the New Testament to justifie the laying on of hands without a Bishop in their sense When Barnabas and Saul after called Paul were to be sent out to preach the Holy Ghost commanded to separate them for that Work whereupon Simeon sur-named Niger Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen not one of them a Bishop in our Prelatical Advocates sense laid hands on them and sent them forth Acts 13. Thus Timothee was ordained by the laying on of hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 4.14 This made him a preaching Presbyter and Bishop although the laying on of Pauls hands made him an Evangelist 2 Tim. 1.6 3. The Book of Ordination it self though it appoint the Bishop to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the president and chief Actor yet it allows him not to act as in Confirmation of Children alone in the Ordaining of Presbyters or Priests But the Bishop with the Priests present shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders So the Rubrick therefore no Bishop hath sole power of Ordination nor may he Ordain alone 4. That very Statute of 8. Eliz. 1. which ratifieth the Book of Ordination doth not tye all to that one Form as appears by the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. which saith thus Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That every person under the degree of a Bishop which doth or shall pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy Word and Sacraments by reason of any other form of Institution Consecration or Ordering then the form set forth by Parliament in the time of the late King of most worthy memory King Edward the sixth or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Soveraign Lady before the Feast of the Nativity next coming shall in the presence of the Bishop Subscribe to all the Articles of Religion c. Therefore the Law intended not to tye all to the form of Ordination by Bishops but tyeth Bishops to give them Institution if they subscribe the Articles and be otherwise qualified as that Act prescribeth 5. This is to un-Church all the Protestant Churches in Christendom where there are no Bishops and to deny them Communion with the Church of England which hitherto hath owned them and held Communion with them as true Churches of Christ Now in sew words we must a little take notice of the necessity of Reforming that Book it self 1. In the Preface For where that saith It is evident unto all men diligently reading the holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons it hath been shewed before that however we read of Bishops Presbyters or Elders and Deacons these are not three distinct Orders of the Ministry for that Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order Nor are Presbyters Priests there being no such name in the New Testament nor any such Office in the Ministry of the Gospel Now seeing this Preface is so much made use of and wrested to prove an untruth touching the distinction of Orders and gives such a name to Ministers as argues them to be Sacerdotes Sacrificuli sacrificing Priests which is not so but repugnant to their Office it ought to be reformed 2. In the Ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands whereas it is not so to be done in the Ordering of Priests as they are nick-named or Consecration of Bishops And this also is contrary to the practice of the Apostles themselves expressed in that very Scripture Act. 6. appointed to be one of the Epistles to be read at that time where after choosing the seven Deacons it is said These they set before the Apostles and when they bad prayed THEY not one of them laid their hands on them Now seeing this was so and that at every Ordination of Deacons other Ministers beside the Bishop are present and seeing further it is said in the third Prayer then used after the Letany that God did inspire his Apostles to chuse to this Order St. Stephen with other which directly crosseth the Text which saith The whole multitude chose them and that by order from the Apostles Why should such a practice be continued by a single Bishop so contrary to that of the Apostles themselves and every other Ordination in our own Church 3. In the Ordering of Priests We say as before that Title or name of Priest ought to be changed for the Reasons abovesaid But that which most offendeth is that in the very act of Ordaining the Bishop takes upon him to give that which none but God himself hath power to bestow where it saith Receive the Holy Ghost c. which be the words of Christ himself to his Apostles without any warrant from him to be used by Bishops or any others For however Ordination be necessary yet there can be no reason that a Bishop or other persons should in this assume more in officiating then in all other Ministrations where the words of Institution in Baptisin in the administring the Lords Supper c. are first rehearsed and then at the act of ministring a Prayer is used not a Magisterial use of the very words of Christ himself in the first institution as is obvious to all This therefore savors of presumption not to be admitted in so holy an action especially where a Bishop shall as by report some now do take upon him to breathe upon the person he ordaineth as Christ did upon his Apostles Moreover it being now claimed as peculiar to Episcopacy as a distinct
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 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 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 â— 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
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 Vsury 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 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 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