Reasons Showing the Necessity of Reformation of the Public, Part 4 – Errata

Reasons Showing the Necessity of Reformation of the Public · Part 4 – Errata

p. 40IIII. Of CHURCH-GOVERNMENT.

BY Church-Government is meant the Eccleſiaſtcal Government of the Church of England, ſaid, and commonly reputed to be eſtabliſhed by the Laws of the Realm. For, however ſome have of late pretended to a Jus Divinum, or Divine Inſtitution of Epiſcopacy, of late years uſed in England; yet the Laws of the Kingdom would never own any ſuch thing, nor ſuffer them to exerciſe any power, but what the Municipal Laws Authorize them unto. Yea, the Statute of Proviſors, 25th of Edw. 3. An. 1350. Declareth plainly that Prelacy it ſelf was erected in England by the Kings of England, and not by any other Authority. For that Statute begins thus: Whereas late in the Parliament of good memory of Edward King of England, Grandfather to our Lord the King that now is, the five and twentieth year of his Reign, holden at Carlile, the Petition heard, put before the ſaid Grandfather and his Counſel in his ſaid Parliament by the Comminalty of the ſaid Realm, containing; That whereas the Holy Church of England was FOUNDED IN THE ESTATE OF PRELACIE within the Realm of England by the ſaid Grandfather, and his Progenitors, and the Earls, and other Nobles of his ſaid Realm, and their Anceſtors, to inform them and the people of the Law of God, &c. Therefore, we cannot look upon ſuch Biſhops in any other Capacity, in England. And, according hereunto, take notice, under this Head of Church-government, 1. Of their Conſtitution by Conſecration; 2. Of their Juriſdiction, by Delegation of his Majeſty according to his Laws. 3. Of their Execution of Diſcipline accordingly. By their Conſecration, they have a power of Ordination. By their Juriſdiction, they have a power to Govern. And, by their Execution of that Office, they have a power of Diſcipline. But, all theſe, according to the Laws of the Land; and none other, or otherwiſe. We ſhall therefore ſpeak ſomewhat to each of theſe, and humbly offer Reaſons of the neceſſity of reforming Epiſcopacy and Church-government, in every one of theſe.

p. 41I. 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 onelyonly, 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, p. 42and 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, onelyonly, 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 p. 43degree, 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 444. 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 onelyonly 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 foreign, 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, p. 45and 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 p. 46of 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 onelyonly ſay thus much, That there being no warrant in Scripture for Archbiſhops; but onelyonly from the practice of after-times, whereby they were, by men onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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. p. 47Tit. 1.5. to prove that Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction is in Biſhops onelyonly. 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 onelyonly 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 monethmonth 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 onelyonly 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, p. 48this 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.

p. 49But, 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 onelyonly 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. 338It 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: p. 501. 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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, p. 51after 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 52apprehended 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 p. 53for 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 p. 54much 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 p. 55the 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly ſuch as are, or have been made in England. Theſe are of two ſorts; legatine, or p. 56Provincial. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 57And 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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; p. 56duplicate page p. 57duplicate page p. 58and 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 onelyonly, 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 p. 59that 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 p. 60of 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 onelyonly 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, p. 61againſt 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 p. 62the 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 p. 63uſe 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly Rule and Standard of all Doctrine, Worſhip, Rites and Ceremonies, Ordination, Juriſdiction and Diſcipline, among all that intend Conformity to the Mind of Chriſt.

FINIS.

Page 2. line 7. read 4 Car. p. 7. l. 4. r. them in print) p. 34. l. 18. r. that, and another. p. 43. l. 26. r. Presbyteris. l. 30. r. qui.

End of the text · Cornelius Burges, Reasons Showing the Necessity of Reformation of the Public (1660)