POSITIONS concerning the Differences between the True English Liturgy, and the deformed disordered Cranmerian Changeling, by which it was Supplanted.  
1. THAT THE FIRST BOOK of Ed. 6. which was Composed by [known Persons] The Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain of the most Learned and Discreet Bishops and other Learned Men of this Realm, appointed by the King to draw up the same, with respect as well to the most sincere and pure Christian Religion taught in the Scripture, as to the usages in the Primitive Church, as by the St. 2. & 3. Ed. 6. c. 1. is declared, and by the said Sta. is Enacted to be used, is moreover by the Sta. declared to have been by the Aid of the Holy Ghost with one uniform Agreement of them concluded and set forth: and again by Sta. 3. & 4. Ed. 6. c. 10. A Godly Order agreeable to the Order of the Primitive Church, and in it nothing to be Read, but the very pure Word of God, or what is evidently grounded upon the same: And again by Sta. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. A very Godly Order, agreeable to the Order of the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good People desiring to live in Christian conversation; and most profitable to the State of this Realm: And that the Doubts risen in the Use and Exercise of it were rather by the Curiosity of the Ministers and Mistakers, than of any other worthy Cause.  
2. That THE SECOND BOOK of Ed. 6. (by which the former was supplanted) in the Principal part, that is, the Office of the Faithful, Intiled, The Order for Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion, is directly contrary to the former in all or most of the particulars aforesaid, viz.  
3. That it is not such a Godly Order, but the former Godly Order disordered, absurdly Inverted, interrupted with Impertinencies, maimed and dismembered in some of the Principal and Essential parts of that Office.  
4. That it is not agreeable to the Order of the Primitive Church, but disordered and dismembered contrary to the Order of the Primitive and whole Catholic Church.  
5. That it was not concluded by any unanimous Agreement of any certain known discreet Bishops or other Learned Men of this Church or Realm; but corrupted and disordered by the Counsels and Assistance of Foreigners, and by the Practice and Contrivance of Cranmer promoted in Parliament, and by Parliament Authority Schismatically imposed upon the Church and Nation, without the Consent of the Clergy of this Nation, or of any one of them, who is certainly known to have had any hand in it.  
6. That it was not concluded by the Aid of the Holy Ghost, but disordered and dismembered by the subtle Instigation of the Spirit of Antichrist; to do despite to the Holy Ghost; to abrogate the Honour of our Saviour; abolish the Solemnity of the peculiar Christian Worship; to stifle even the true Notion of it; to bring it into Disuse; deprive us of the Benefit of it; and bring the Judgements of God upon this Church and Nation.  
7. That it hath not been Profitable to the State of the Nation, but brought, 1. Severe Judgements of God upon the first Authors of it, and Corrupters of his Worship; and 2. All the Evils before mentioned designed by that Wicked Spirit of Antichrist, upon this Church and Nation to this day.  
8. That as the unhappy Differences of Religion have been a Principal Cause or Occasion of much of the Wars, which in these last Ages have Infested Europe; so the Corruption of this Liturgy is one Principal Cause of these Differences, Indefensable on the part of this Church by Law Established, and which makes it no glorious Church, but a Schismatical Faction.  
9 That these things have been long since perceived, at least in a great measure, by many Learned and Judicious Men of these Nations, who have all desired, and some endeavoured to have them rectified.  
10. That if these things be so, there is great Danger that a Wilful Neglect, (after a plain Admonition thereof by any Person whatever) in such as are in place of Authority, to Reform and Rectify these Disorders, Corruptions and Abuses in the Solemn Worship of God and our Saviour, may now produee the like Judgements of God upon themselves, if not also upon the Nation, as the first abused Corrupters thereof did upon themselves and the Nation heretofore.  
11. That the setting up of the Kings Arms in the place of our most Solemn Worship, and over the Commandments and the most holy Name of God, was an Insolent, Profane and Impious thing: And though it was first done by Factious inconsiderate People without Authority; yet if after notice it be Connived at, or Tolerated by those who are in Authority, and may and aught to Reform it, it will become their Sin, and may provoke the Judgements of God upon them.  
12. That as the King's Arms so placed is a proper Ensign for this Church, as an Emblem of the Subjection of their Religion to the Suprimacy of the Civil Power; so the Flying Dragon (in stead of the Sign of the Son of Man) upon the Spire of Bow-Church, the Peculiar of the Archbishop in the chief City of this Nation, is as proper an Ensign and Emblem of that invisible Power, by whose Operation and Energy the Corruption of the Solemn Worship of God, of the Discipline, and of other matters of Religion have been effectually accomplished and settled, under pretence of Reformation, and these Ensigns  
13. That it is manifest that the Superstition of former Ages is in this turned into great Profaneness; and that People, not only the Laity, but the Clergy also, are grown cold and senseless of the Dishonour done to God in these and other matters, so that divers things, which in former ages have been reputed great and provokeing Sins, are commonly now thought to be no Sins at all, or but mere Peccadillos'  
14. That the principal Cause of the Contempt of the Clergy is the just Judgement of God upon them for their Insensibility and little Concern for the Dishonour done to his Divine Majesty in these things and the Scandal of that and their temparizing compliances and Greediness of Preferments and that there is great Probability that the time is at hand, that they will all be cast out, if they do not speedily awake and mend their Manners.  

QUESTIONS concerning Prayers for the Dead.  
1. WHether Prayers for the Dead be any part of Popery, or a true Catholic Practice of the Church of Christ in the first, purest, and most flourishing Ages of it?  
2. Whether S. Paulinus and S. Augustin for the Latin Church, and S. John chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyril of Jerusalem for the Greek Church, be not competent and positive Witnesses for their Age, that Prayers for the Dead was then the Practice of the whole Catholic Church, and believed to be an Apostolical Tradition?  
3. Whether S. Arnobius and S. Cyprian, etc. be not such competent Witnesses for the Age precedent; and Tertullian, who lived in the same Age wherein S. John writ his Revelation, for that Age, that it was then the Practice of the Church, and believed to have been received by Tradition from the Apostles?  
4. Whether divers learned Protestants, both of the Church of England, and of foreign Reformed Churches, have not confessed and asserted this to be so, and desired to have the Catholic Practice restored?  
5. Whether any of the late Writers of Controversy against the Papists have denied this, or asserted any thing more against it, than that the Prayers for the Dead, used by the ancient Christians, do no● prove Popish Purgatory? and who are they?  
6. Whether there be any clear and express Scripture to prove that the State of all Souls, immediately after their departure out of the Body, is so determined, that they are incapable of any Augmentation of Glory, or Mitigation of Pain, or Benefit by Prayers, or any thing that can be done by the Living?  
7. Whether it be not imprudent, and inconsistent with the Profession of Belief of the Holy Catholick-Church, to reject the Authority of such a truly Catholic Practice, and become Sectaries, after the opition of one or two particular persons?  
8. Whether it be consistent with Charity, with due respect to the Body of Christ, which is his Church, and with Profession of the Believe of the Communion of Saints, to Reject such a Practice of Communion of Saints?  
9 Whether the Calvinists, by opposing of this, have not greatly over-shot themselves, given great Advantage to the Cause of the Papists, and made their own worse, and indefensible in this particular?  
10. Whether it be not the truest Wisdom, and a Duty of manifold Obligation, to desist from all Contention in this case, and return to true ancient Catholic Practice.   

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS concerning Prayers for the Dead.  
1. WHether the Evidence produced, in the late Tr. OF PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD dedicated to the Judges, for the Apostolical Authority of that Practice, be not as great as can be produced for Baptism of Infants, for Episcopacy, and for several of the Writings of the New Testament?  
2. Whether there be any plain Evidence of any one Church upon the Face of the Earth since the time of the Apostles in Cathoic Communion, where the most solemn part of the Christian Worship was ever performed without Commemorations for the Dead?  
3. Whether Refusal of Communion with any Church, or Person, for that Practice, be not an implicit forsaking the Communion of the whole Catholic Church in all former Ages, and Actual Sin of Schism?  
4. Whether to put all such Commemorations out of the public Offices of any Church, be not a Contempt of the Authority of the whole Catholic Church, and a Formal act of Schism, involuing all in the Gild thereof, who consent to it?  
5. Whether it was put out of the true English Liturgy by any proper Ecclesiacal Authority, or only by indirect Practice by Cranmer, and mere Lay Authority?  
6. Whether the People of this Nation have not been grossly abused by the Prejudice they have been led into against such a Catholic and Apostolic Practice?  
7. Whether Such as Deny, or Dissemble their Practice, or Belief of the Lawfulness of Prayers for the Dead, and do not honestly declare the same to undeceive the People, may be trusted as Faithful Ministers of Christ, or are rather to be avoided, as temporizinig Men pleasers, Deceitful Workers, and actually guilty of Hypocrcy, of abuse of the People, Contempt of the Authority of the Catholic Church, and of Schism?  
8, Whether the Clergy of the Church of England by Law Established, having from the beginning pretended much Reverence for Antiquity; and especially for the Times of the four first General Counsels; and appleaed thereunto for Determination of Controversies; they who now oppose that Practice, and yet cannot deny it to have been the Catholic Practice of those times, as received from the Apostles, do not plainly signify their Belief, that either the Principles or the Pretences of the sad Clergy from the beginning have been false?  
9, Whether the Prejudice, which the People have conceived upon that Abuse, be not really mere Superstistion, in such as are sincere; and the Opposition of others for fear of Reproach or Tomporal Respests, much worse?  
10. Whether this of Prayers for the Dead be not one of the unhappy Differences in Religion, indefensable on the part of the pretended Reformation, which have been the Occasion of so much