REASONS showing That there is no need of such a Reformation of the public 1. Doctrine. 2. Worship. 3. Rites & Ceremonies. 4. Church-government. 5. Discipline. As is pretended by Reasons offered to the serious consideration of this present PARLIAMENT, by divers Ministers of sundry Counties in ENGLAND: By H. S. D. D. Chaplain to his majesty in Ordinary. PHIL. 4. 5. Let your moderation be known unto all men. The LORD is at hand. LONDON, Printed for Humphrey Robinson at the three Pigeons in St. Paul's churchyard, 1660. C. L. ARca Palaestinis latuit velut exul in oris: Davidis ad reditum, Quam rediisse juvat. Hac bene consultâ; sub quovis, arma movere, Relligio, obtentu Relligionis, erit. Hinc etenim infandae caedes, & facta Tyranni Effera, Praeconum scandala magna fluunt. Undique Doctrinam hanc, tonuerunt Rostra, rebellem, Clavum, Schismatici dum tenuere, Ratis. Remigat hàc Bradshaw, referens sua tincta, cruore, Brachia, Divorum, vix Februanda: Proin Alter ut infaelix; pariter censendus uterque, Quòd sua, maturo tempore, fata tulit. Ergo paeniteat facti, Quicunque superstes Jam sis, ac Hujus criminis actor eras: Sic Parcas venerere tuas; monuere quòd, etsi Damnatum Gyaris, Te; monuere tamen. IN THEIR EPISTLE TO THE RIGHT honourable THE LORDS and COMMONS Assembled in PARLIAMENT. THEY say that its far from their thoughts to oppose or disparage Orthodox Doctrine, a well composed Liturgy, Rites for Decency and Order, Ordination of Ministers, Apostolical Episcopacy, or due rules of Discipline. All this I like well: and that they are for all these, I like much better; especially being accompanied with truth, without violation of liberty allowed by Christ. But this mistaken Liberty hath served as an Engine to pull down Doctrine, Liturgy Rites, Orders. Episcopacy, Discipline and all: Nothing being set up in the room thereof unless an Empusa, that must have but one leg to stand upon, to w●t, men's own imaginations and single apprehensions of things. The thing mainly touched in the said Epistle is Episcopacy, whereof they make representation not of the pretended illegality only, but of the ill effects too; as namely, how the Bishops in all ages since the Conquest have sharply persecuted all that threw off Popery, where Kings have not curbed the violence of them. An argument of that nature as strong for Episcopacy as could have been produced, if we consider what good those men would have done in the Church, had they lived under the Reformation, by reflection▪ had upon St. Paul himself, who having been before his Conversion a grievous Persecutor, became after it a zealous Promoter of the Gospel. And indeed 'tis to b● confessed that the confusions that have ensued upon that episcopal rigour have rendered the objects thereof, (but to the great scandal of themselves and the Gospel) guilty of Rebellion against Kings, a thing often practised, but never professed by any but the Disciples of Junius Brutus. And of this spirit were the furious Zealots in the time of Edw. 6. mentioned in the Epistle, which they pretend to have been fomented and not moderated, but countenanced by that pious King: who was so far from it, that he not only caused one book of commonprayer to be composed and enjoined instead of the several forms secundum usum Sarum, &c. in practice before, whence men took occasion to use what forms they pleased; but also prohibited by Proclamation all preaching whatsoever, till he and his Parliament had taken order for the settlement of Religion; and setting of bounds to all, but especially to the Anabaptistical Spirits, out of which Divine Circle they were not to pass in their praedications. And what I have spoken in defence of former Popish Bishops, the same may be said of those in Queen Mary's days. Lastly, it's pretended that the noble King James was persuaded by the Bishops, by whom he was continually plied, to leave the Liturgy unreformed, to compel all to subscribe to the same, and to enforce the observation of Canons that were illegal: whereby some were suspended, others under Canonical admonition, the next door to deprivation; and all this clean contrary to that influence which the Conference at Hampton-Court would have had upon him. But whosoever looks upon the Proclamation prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer, shall find it de facto to be nothing so: and whosoever considers the deep Learning and profound judgement of that Renowned Prince, will never believe it to be so; He being able to cope with any Prince or Prelate in the world in matters of that nature. And here one thing is not to be omitted before I put a period to my observations upon the Epistle; That they allege the Liturgy to have remained vureformed in greatest part, or most material points; notwithstanding much complained of, in the Conference at Hampton▪ Court. Whence I observe that somethings, even at their own instance, were added or amended in the Liturgy, and with those additions or emendations was it warranted by the Proclamation of King JAMES. If so, why do they, of all men, except against it, as a thing not established by LAW? I intend not to contend with the punctilles of LAW; wherein the more a man flutters, the worse he may be entangled: only thus much I say, that Conscience will not absolve any man who hath subscribed to the observation of the same, and of the other things in Question, so long as they are either necessary or adiaphora, which we are in our ensuing work to defend. REASONS showing That there is no necessity of such a Reformation of the public. I. DOCTRINE. COncerning this; the main thing insisted upon, is the Articles, with the King's Declaration prefixed to them: wherein it is commanded not to affix any other sense to the Articles besides the literal; & this, say they, ties us up from all liberty of interpreting any Article, whereof they give us several instances, and that all this was done by the procurement of the than Bishops. But surely if this be any matter of Record, the K. had some body else to pen it: and if it be reasonable, the Bishops need not be ashamed of being the Authors of it. But so reasonable it is, that there's nothing in it that may enforce those consequences that they would infer upon it: inasmuch as the affixing of no other sense besides the literal, does not, I hope, take away the liberty of explaining the Articles, or showing what is, and what is not their literal sense. The next exception is at the Homilies wherein it is falsely said, say they, that plurality of Wives was permitted to the Fathers, because they every one hoped and begged that Christ might come of their stock and kindred; as if, say they, all did not know out of what Tribe Christ was to issue (the Homily is mistaken, though the Page be right.) Whereunto I answer, that plurality of Wives began before that prophecy, that Christ should come of the Tribe of Judah: and therefore before this time all did not know so much; nor could every man fish so much afterwards out of so mysterious a prophecy. The third is, That the Homilies call the Apocrypha the teaching of the Holy Ghost. Answ. 1. That the book of Homilies speaks according to the common Language of those times; which so spoke of them, because they were reckoned in the Canon (not of Faith) but of Manners. 2. They themselves confess the things there quoted to be true in a charitable construction; & omnis veritas à spiritu sancto est. The 4th. Exception is, That the Articles contain no discovery of Popish doctrines, being the first tenets of Arminius, &c. Answ. That the Doctrine of Arminius is not the Doctrine of Popery: the Articles condemn both; and therefore are no breasts, at which Popery and Arminianism may be sucked in, as is pretended. The 5th. Exception is, That all things necessary to salvation are not comprised in the Articles. Whereunto I answer, that the same Exception may lie against the confessions of any Reformed Church; but these that are, suffice to show their Harmony with those of other Churches: and what is wanting in the Articles, is made out in the rest of the catechism. Hereunto may be added their exception of not enumerating the Books of the New Testament, as well as those of the old. Answ. That the canonical books of the Old Testament are enumerated to distinguish them from the Apocryphal: but in the N. T. (there being no Apocryphals) there needed no enumeration. And if Popery may be grounded upon the Articles (as is pretended) they need not fear any tacit rejection of St. James his Epistle, or calling of it stamineam Epistolam, as Luther does, nor yet of the 2d▪ of Peter, in as much as the compilers of the Articles are adversaries to those that are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 2 Ep. 2. 10. nor of the Revelation neither, in as much as the seven Angels of the 7. Churches, are taken to be a clear proof of Episcopacy. The 6th. Exception is, That the Articles are not proved by places of Scripture. Answ. They are known to be sufficiently proved by others, and therefore they might have done so too: but had they done it; cavils would not have been wanting against the proofs themselves, where none could be found against the things. II. For WORSHIP. THe main exception is, That it doth not appear by any enrolment or otherwise that this is the book of Common Prayer. Answ. That if this be not the book; I pray produce another. If you do, it will be one, which in your own judgement, will be less Orthodox: But it seems, by what follows, that you are displeased with any alterations though for the better. Your design appears to be not a reducing, so much as a new moulding of the whole; a thing which I must confess I like not of, lest we should seem thereby rather to set up a new Religion, then reform the old: between Reformation, and Innovation, there's a great deal of odds. Of Alterations, &c. in the present Book of commonprayer from that established in 5. 6. Edw. 6. & 1 Eliz. 1. Exception is against Saints days put into the calendar; which though in Black letters there; yet in Dr. Cousin's calendar and the Scotish liturgy, some of them are in red. Answ. For our calendar or the Scotish, what ever characters the days are put in, they are not enacted to be kept holy. And as for Dr. Cosens' his calendar; that's intended for private offices, not for public devotion. What ever he hath done concerning the name of Jesus; I cannot think that so great an assertor of the Protestant Religion (as he hath proved himself to be) should intend Popery, or Superstition. The thing itself infers it not; there being no name Jesus in writing tendered to be adored; which was the only thing that Calvin complains the Sorbonick Sophisters to have been guilty of. 2. Exception is, That upon certain holidays some Chapters of Apocryphal Scripture are appointed to be read, the Canonical being left out there. Answ. Whether it was done to please those that hold the days to be Apocryphal, I cannot tell? If so, they need not be displeased at it. However, those canonical Lessons are not left out of the rubric for daily reading. 3d Exception is, That the book established 5. 6. Ed. 6. nameth only the Surplice to be worn: but the book of Canons enjoineth other ornaments. Answ. That nothing, but the Surplice, could be universally enjoined; inasmuch as all Priests were capable of that: but want of degrees made many incapable of others. 4th. Exception is against even useful prayers put into the Liturgy, which happily might be done upon the Conference at Hampton-Court, though the inquiry to me is needless as long as I see the King's Proclamation to it. 5th. Exception is, That in the prayer for the Queen, &c. the word Elect is left out, perhaps because it distasted the favourers of the Popish Arminianism. Answ. That neither the Arminians nor Papists are against the word Elect, and that in a more comprehensive sense then ours. 'Tis not they therefore, that would exclude the royal stem out of the number of God's Elect, but such as fought for the setting up of Christ's kingdom, and of his Elect, against such Reprobates as they esteemed the KING and all his family to be. 6. Exception is against the continuance of the Old Translation of the Psalms, which is not so correct as the new. Answ. That it proves the antiquity of the Translation, no wilful corruption of the same; neither doth it contain any thing contrary to the analogy of Faith. 7. Exception is, That notwithstanding the corruption of Translations, the Preface of the book runs thus: That nothing is enjoined to be read: but that which is the pure word of God, or that which is evidently grounded thereupon; which is false, and a mere cheat put upon the people of God. Answ. That the Preface of the Book runs, that nothing be enjoined to be read but that which is the pure Word of God, or that which is evidently grounded thereupon, in opposition to uncertain stories, legends, and such like vain and superstitious things, neither in Canone fidei, nor morum; which have no ground in the word of God; yet had been, before that time commonly read. And albeit some things now to be read are not, evidently to all, grounded upon the word of God; it follows not that the people of God are cheated thereby; for then St. Paul had cheated the Thessalonians, Acts 17. 11. To whom, before search made, his Doctrine did not appear to be the Word of God. Nay then most Sermons are cheats; in as much as there be very few, wherein every thing delivered is clearly made out to be grounded upon the Word of God. The same may be said of prayers before and after them, wherein horrible absurdities and heterodoxies have fallen from the mouths of Preachers. But one place is alleged out of the Epistle for 16. Sundry after Trinity, which hath no ground in the Word of God, in as much as it implies, that the Father must be Father of himself. Answ. That it does not necessarily follow: For in that he is said to be the Father of all that is called Father in heaven and earth: among this, all; he is to be excepted who is this Father. As when it is said, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted that hath put all things under him, 1 Cor. 15. Further Observations. 1. In the calendar. THe first Exception, besides what hath been answered before, is that 188. Chapters of the Old Testament are left out: and of the Apocrypha which contains 173. there are read 121. Chapters by the calendar of 5. 6. of Edward 6. as well as by that of later date. The answer hereunto is set down in the Order how the rest of the holy Scripture (besides the Psalter) is appointed to be read; which begins thus: The Old Testament is appointed for the first Lesson at Morning and Evening prayer, and shall be read through every year once, except certain Books and Chapters, which be least edifying, and might be spared, and therefore are left unread. 2. That of St. Jerome (Caveat omnia Apocrypha) relates to matters of Faith, not of manners: besides that the ordering of the apocryphal Chapters to be read, is intended chiefly for the benefit of the Clergy (as appears by the Preface) who having not always a competent number to join with them at Church, are enjoined nevertheless to read them at home. Besides this general Exception; there's one or two more against particular apocryphal places: as 1. Against that, Tobit 3. of Asmodeus his killing of seven Husbands of Sarah the daughter of Raguel before they had lain with her. Answ. I have heard of as unlikely a matter as that: but however, it's not impossible. 2. It's excepted against, Tob. 3. 8. where it's said that almsdeeds deliver from death, and purge away all sin. Answ. That they do so, and that one way is in that they declare, at the last day, the Saints to be justified in the sight of God, Mat. 25. Nay they confess themselves, Title 1. of Doctrine, that a charitable construction may be Wyre-drawn out of the words. And is not there as much wire-drawing to be used in▪ making a good construction upon these words [Make ye friends of the unrighteous Mammon, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations?] another way of expounding the words is in the Homily itself, namely that God for the doing of almsdeeds does repute us as clean and pure, not that they have any such strength or merit in themselves. To the other Exceptions against Raphael, vers. 15. and elsewhere, and also against Judith. I answer, that though it were granted that the story were untrue: yet the ill quality or carriage of the persons in it, are not fit Mediums to discredit the truth of it: for then many books of the holy Scripture must be false. 2. Of the rubrics. 1. EXception is, that the Minister is called Priest. I answer, That the word Priest is the best and properest word that can be used even in the sense of the Authors of this Exception themselves, in as much as it is nothing else but an abbreviation of the French word Prestre, which is Presbyter: in all words that are French and that end in E feminine, as Prestre does, the English cannot pronounce the E feminine but by a kind of stifling of it; which in time degenerateth into an E quiescent, which at last gives occasion to the leaving of it quite out of the Orthography of the word as unnecessary. As in alarm, baptism, catechism, & Prestre (with a number of other words) which are now written Alarm, Baptism, Catechism, pressed; and to lengthen the word to the French manner of pronunciation, the letter I is put in, as a Metheg, to bridle the overhasty prolation of the same. And as for the word, Minister, it is taken either generally, & so it comprehends the Apostles and Bishops themselves: (for they and we are all Ministers of the Gospel:) or else specifically (Which is the thing here intended) and so 'tis Diaconus, a Deacon, and contradistinguished from a Presbyter. So that upon the whole, the Authors would have us say Deacon instead of Priest. Now as for the Scotish Liturgy; if it hath hit upon a more unknown name then Priest is, we do well to retain this which is better known. 2. Except. is a mere mistake: For the rubric prefixed to the Epistles and Gospels runs thus. The Collects, Epistles & Gospels, to be used at the celebration of the Lord's Supper and holy Communion throughout the year. Whence they falsely infer, that they were never intended to be read but when there is the celebration of the Lord's Supper: Whereas the rubric at the end of the Communion says, that when there is no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion until the end of the Homily, concluding with the prayer for the whole estate of Christ's Church militant here on earth, with some other Collect: But that the Communion is not celebrated throughout the whole year, is occasioned for want of a competent number of Communicants. 3. Exception is, That the rubric before the general Confession at the Communion runs thus: Then shall this general Confession be made in the name of all those that are to receive the holy Communion either by one of them, or else by one of the Ministers. What is this, say they, but to admit a private person to assist and bear a share in the administering of the Lord's Supper against the 17. Article of Religion? I answ. That the confession to be made by one of them, or by one of the Ministers, presupposeth the Priests speaking first: the which confession made by one of them, is as much as if it were made by the Clerk who does not always communicate, and consequently in that case is to absent himself. Or were it made without the Priests leading them; yet it concludes not a liberty to laymen to administer the Sacrament; in as much as to confess, and to consecrate are two distinct things. 4th. Exception is; That before the proper Prefaces at the Communion, it is said that upon Christmas, and seven days after; upon Easter day and seven days after, &c. the same shall be read. As if every one of the seven were the same with the first, and what was done the first day were done every day following. I answer; That the first of those days is the original, the rest are all Copies thereof: the Feast continuing, the rest are the same in ecclesiastical account, though the first be the principal. 5th. Exception is, That every Parishioner shall communicate three times in a year, of which Easter shall be one: yet the Minister is required every Assembly day to invite them to come to the Lord's Table: Therefore say they, the foresaid rubric seems to dispense with God's invitation: How rightly, say they, let all sober men consider. I answer; That whether that be a Dispensation with God's invitation, let all sober men judge too? and of these three, Easter is to be one; because, though every Lord's day be celebrated in memory of our Lord's Resurrection; yet Easter day, (according to the judgement of the Church,) comes nearest the day of his Resurrection. But 6ly. where it is added in that rubric. He shall receive the Sacraments and other Rites, &c. This, say they, is no other but nonsense or worse: for what other Sacraments are then to be received? or what other Rites? I answ. 1. That by Sacraments are understood the two signs Bread and Wine, which being partes integrales similares, receive the denomination of the whole: as every part of water is water, because 'tis a similar part. So that were there nothing more than this piece of philosophy in it; it were not to be accounted nonsense: But there's Divinity too, to make it good. For first, you must grant the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and the holy Communion to be in substance the same: but now, says the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The bread that we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? Wherein you see that both the integral parts of the Communion receive the denomination of the whole. 2. For other Rites, the party to communicate may need and desire absolution in case of scandalous and Conscience-wasting sins. He may receive confirmation, in case he hath never received that, or the Communion before: And are not these rites? or can these be done without rites? 7. Exception is this: The last rubric before the catechism in order to Confirmation concludeth thus: It is certain that children baptised have all things necessary to salvation, and be undoubtedly saved. Is this a truth, say they? Answ. That it is a great truth, inasmuch as no other ceremony is required on our parts; and the promise of God makes it sure on his part: wherefore, if they cast not themselves into doubtings, charity binds us not to doubt of their salvation. 8. Exception is; That the rubric after Matrimony says that the new married persons the same day of their Marriage, must receive the Communion; and yet no man is bound to receive it above three times a year. Answ. 1. Why may not this day be one? 2. They are not ordinarily to receive above three times a year, but in this extraordinary case they are: and many do desire to do it; but there is not always a sufficient number to communicate; a thing required by the rubric. 9 Exception is, That in the last rubric for the Communion of the sick in the time of Plague or any other contagious disease, when none of the Parish can be gotten to communicate with the sick for fear of infection, the Minister may only communicate with him. By this, say they, the Minister is bound not only to visit him, but to communicate with him, a thing no way agreeable, 1. To Christianity, in as much as the very nature of a Sacrament requires a public administration; besides that other rubrics require a greater number of Communicants, even when the Sacrament is given to a sick person. 2. No way agreeable to common humanity; in as much as a Minister is bound to hazard his health, and life, to gratify an infectious person. I answ. 1. That this is not disagreeable to Christianity: because that God has promised to be in the midst of two or three gathered together in Christ's name. 2ly. The rubrics require greater numbers in other cases where they are more likely to be procured, as in ordinary diseases they may; which cannot be done in this: and that's the reason why the rubric here requires it not. 2. 'Tis not disagreeable to humanity; in as much as it is said that the Minister may communicate only with the infected person: it doth not say that he must do it; and therefore he's not bound hereby to do it, unless he finds himself bound in conscience, or can secure himself from infection. 3. Of the body of the Book. THe first Exception is; That the first words of it are these: At what time soever a sinner doth repent, &c. This, in the rubric before it, is called a sentence of Scripture: but▪ say they, 'tis not only no sentence of Scripture, but it is also dissonant from another [To day if ye will hear his voice, &c.] and besides it implies that a man may repent when he will. I answer; That 'tis a sentence of Scripture rendered according to the sense of the place: for the [If] is indefinitely taken, it is not if to day only, or if to morrow only; if at this time only, or if at that timeonely: but if at all, if at any time: that is to say, at what time soever. God often in mercy calls us to repentance: if at any time, at what time soever we answer his call, he will receive us graciously: yet this does not argue that it is in our power to repent when we will, after our refusal of God's several gracious invitations. But this is not all; for after our regeneration and first conversion unto God, we fall into sin, we go astray, and that every day, yea seven times a day, which makes us every day confess and pray to God to forgive us our trespasses according as we are taught by our Saviour. And therefore the [If] signifies not only At what particular time soever; but as often as a sinner shall repent, &c. so often will God forgive. Now nothing that hath been said is dissonant to that place [To day if ye will hear his voice, &c.] For though it be the surest way to hear God's voice to day, that is at present, lest any should be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin: Yet God was grieved forty years with his people in the wilderness, before he swore in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest. The refusal of the present invitation, may prove a means of hardening of us through the deceitfulness of sin; but it enforceth no present shutting of the door of mercy against us. 2. Exception is against that expression in the Confession [there is no health in us] as if it were not to be understood by the common sort. Answ. That nobody can understand this of bodily health; but of the salvable condition of the soul, which is taken away by sin. 3. Exception is against the reading of Te Deum and the Benedicite, as interrupting the continued reading of the holy Scriptures, which the Preface of that Book, say they, beareth us in hand, is provided against. Ans. That there it is provided against, breaking of one piece of a Chapter from another; and after such interruption reading forward again, like the interposition of a Selah, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, things whereof we have examples in the Psalms, but nowhere else. 4th. Exception is against Te Deum and Benedicite, because they are both Apocrypha and taken out of the mass-book: from whence they would argue the unfitness of Bishops to govern, who, not able to express their thanksgiving to God for extraordinary mercies, do it in this superstitions formal dress usually sung in Popish Churches. I answ. That the best service that any man performs (besides the saying of the Lord's Prayer, and the reading of the holy Scripture) is apocryphal: nor is there a better piece of service in the Church of God (except before excepted) than that piece of Apocrypha, viz. Te Deum, is. Then which, had the mass-book no worse, it would need no Reformation. And many of those that have gone about to make expressions of thanksgiving for God's extraordinary mercies in terms and methods of their own, have performed it so ill, that they had better have contented themselves with a bare Te Deum. If they say, It's but a general and ordinary form of praising, not applicable to the occasion; I answer; That, at such times, we in like manner use to sing psalms in metre; which (quatenus such) are Apocryphal, and general forms; or, at most, not (in all things) applicable to the present occasion. As for the Benedicite, they except not so much against the matter of, as the title given to it in the Bible, not here; as also against some alterations made in it, none whereof are against the Analogy of Faith, I therefore pass it over: for it answers itself. 5th. Exception is, That the many Antiphonies and Responds (except the people's saying Amen) have no pattern nor warrant in the Word. Answ. That they have a pattern, 1 Sam. 18. 7. where it is said that the women answered, &c. that is, says Junius, Hunc amaebaeum versum alternis canebant: they sang interchangeably, Saul hath slain his thousand, and David his ten thonsand, as it is also Exod. 15. 2. Besides divers patterns that there are in the psalms, of such interchangeable singing. 6th. Exception is that (from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities) is left out in the litany, inasmuch as he had never more instruments at work then now. Answ. That the Act for Uniformity gives notice of an alteration in the litany: but whether herein or no, is uncertain. Mean time we may very well pray so; since the Pope had never more instruments, who thinking to do their own work, have done his. 8. Exception (for I omit the seventh here as answered before) is that it's said in the Collect for Christmas, that Christ was this day, viz. Decemb. 25. borne, &c. which is evidently grounded on no place of Scripture. Answ. On what place of Scripture is it evidently grounded, that this day, viz. August 19 is the Lord's day? have you any more than Ecclesiastical tradition for it? as for saying the same seven days after: this hath been spoken to before. 9 Exception is against our saying at the Communion, Therefore with Angels, and Archangels, &c. the Scripture never speaking of more Archangels than one, which is mentioned, 1 Thes. 4. 16. This one was Michael, Jude 9 to wit Christ, the Prince of his people, Dan. 10. 21. Which most (if not all) expound of Christ. For▪ answer whereunto I say; That, that place of 1 Thess. 4. 16. does neither imply that there is but that one Archangel, nor yet, that, that one Archangel is Christ: For 1. It is said that the Lord shall descend from heaven {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the voice of an archangel; not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. In the voice of the archangel; as if there were no more but that. 2. If the Lord shall descend in the voice of an archangel; and this archangel were Christ, than Christ (who is meant by Lord there) must descend in his own voice, and he must be God's Trumpeter, to give summons to his own Tribunal, which cannnt be imagined. Indeed Jude 9 there is mention made of Michael {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the archangel disputing with the devil: but how by that Christ should be understood, is not at all clear, as I suppose they themselves will confess, if they consider the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Text [he durst not.] Sure if it had been Christ, St. Jude would have said (he would not) not (he durst not) for what durst not Christ say or do? Dares not he rebuke his creatures though Devils, who hath rebuked so many unclean spirits in his time, who trembled at his presence in human flesh? the meaning is then, that Michael that good archangel (and he of a great sphere too) would not rail at the devil (though he knew him to be a damned spirit) because he was in great dignity amongst them: yet those men spoke evil of dignities they understood not. And for that Dan. 10. they say most (if not all) expound it of Christ. That (if not all) was well put in: for they know (I believe) that many learned men understand it not of Christ. Now as for the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dyonisius the Areopagite: though the book may be supposititious; yet the thing itself, Gregory the great testifies to be received for Dyonisius his own. Hom. 34. in Evangelia. 10. Exception is that in the second prayer at public baptism we pray that jufants coming to baptism may receive remission of sins by spiritual regèneration; how can this, say they, be; when remission of sins is received, not by or from spiritual regeneration; but by and from the blood of Christ? I answer. That the end of baptism is, that thereby, as an outward means, we may receive remission of sins: this baptism whereby we are baptised into the remission of sins, is likewise rightly called an outward and Elementary regeneration: Now therefore we pray to God that Infants coming to baptism may receive remission of sins, (not in an Elementary way, and signo tenus only, but also) truly and effectually by spiritual regeneration or spiritual baptism; these being the Conduit-pipes whereby, and through which Christ's blood is conveyed unto Infants. 11. Exception is, That children being not able to perform the things promised for them, are said to perform them by their sureties; and therefore they repent and believe, say they, by their Sureties, which is a mere tale. Answ. That here is no such thing employed, as repenting and believing one for another; but a promise of a holding of the Infants baptised to that profession by instruction of, and vigilance over them, and that they shall perform all outward acts of Christianity when they come of age; and this was a very great charge in the primitive times, when either for fear, or favour, or profit apostasy was so frequent. 12. Exception is against the Commination to be used divers times in the year, taken out of Deut. 27. I answer; That that place is a type of the day of Judgement: that as all the People were to say Amen (at their entrance into the earthly Canaan) to the curses denounced against the wicked. So all the Saints at their entrance into the heavenly Canaan, are to say Amen, that is, to approve of the condemnation of them; for the Saints shall thus judge the earth. To avoid which condemnation hereafter, it imports us to condemn ourselves here. Now men are apt to justify, rather than to judge themselves, and so escape the condemnation of the world: For such, therefore is this Commination necessary; that, hereby, they may be brought to acknowledge their sins, to repent of them, and require Absolution from them. That Discipline, in stead whereof this Commination is used, is noted in the beginning hereof. If therefore, they like not this, they may do well to endeavour the restoring of that. But they except further against the denunciation made by Ministers, as unlawful. Whereunto I answer, That the Ministers of the Gospel may and must sometimes press the curses of the Law, and the judgements of God denounced against sinners; to the end, that, thereby they may be moved to fly to Christ as their only Sanctuary, and so escape the judgement to come. And hereof we have an Example given in that very place. For though they are pleased to say, that Levi was none of them that were appointed to curse; yet verse. 14. we find the Levites to be the only men that were appointed to curse. 'Tis true that (at that particular time) Levi was one of those that were set upon Mount Gerezim to bless: yet Levites (and none else) were charged with the ordinary denunciation of curses for the future as a service specially incumbent on them; which is point blank against the Authors, and proves for us the quite contrary to what they endeavour to infer. Of Rites and Ceremonies. THey begin here with Ceremonies taken away 5, 6 Edw. 6. complaining of the restoring them again partly by the Canons of 1603. & partly by corrupt practice. The thing they chiefly aim at (as they profess) is, to show the necessity of reforming those Rites and Ceremonies contained in the book of Common Prayer or enjoined by the Canons of 1603. the consideration of the Canons for the present they defer. The Book of Common Prayer they deny to be established by Law, because no Record can be produced by which that Book now in use, or priuted 1 Eliz. is by Act of Parliament ratified and confirmed. Answ. That all I can say to this is, that this is the book that hath been so long received and used, and this is the book that is warranted by the King's Proclamation printed before it: And I doubt not but the Testimony of the King will in Law (being for the affirmative too) preponderate the testimonies of many other: But since they undertake to show the necessity of reforming the Book, they must show some reason in the things themselves therein contained which require it. And this they endeavour to make good from the nature of them, taking it for granted that they are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, or things indifferent; saying, that those ought not to be imposed on such as cannot be persuaded in their own minds that they are lawful, because to them it will be sin, according to St. Paul's own Doctrine, to his Corinthians, & Rom. 14. Answ. That if they be granted to be indifferent▪ then they are made necessary by the intervention of human authority. As for those that cannot be fully persuaded in their own minds, the Proclamation hath provided that they be born with for a time: and no more is intended by St. Paul, who never dreamed that, that superstitious conceit of the uncleanness of some meats should remain to the end of the World. Since the Conference at Hampton-Court, there hath been time enough to cosinder of the indifferency of Ceremonies, and the learned Authors of this Offer have had time enough to instruct and convince the weak amongst them in and of the indifferency which they grant to be in them. Should Doctrine, Liturgy, Rites, Ordination, Episcopacy, Discipline be laid aside till all men be agreed, we must never expect any whilst the world stands. 4. Of Church-government. HEre they except against Episcopacy as not being Jure Divino, because erected by the Kings of England. Answ. That if Episcopacy be jure Divino in the Catholic Church, it must be so in the Church of England, which is a part of it. The Kings of England are no Fathers of the Church, so as to beget the Church; but they are, as well as other Kings, the nursing Fathers to the Churches in their Dominions. They allow them Nurseries to live in, appennage to live upon, and freedom of exercising their Government: in which sense they are the Erectors of Episcopacy▪ in England: And if this erection be legal, why need it a further confirmation by Law? But they descend to the parts of Government, and therein 1. Of the Consecration of Bishops, and their power of Ordination thereupon. 1. THey except against those that say, that where there is no Dean and Chapter to choose, and no Archbishop to Consecrate, there can be (legally) and (regularly) no succession of Bishops. Answ. The Archbishops, Deans and Chapters, &c. being of ecclesiastical and civil constitution, it must follow of necessity that there can be no legal (which respects the civil power) nor regular or canonical succession (which regards the Ecclesiastical state and condition of them) without Deans and Chapters, and Archbishop. 2. Exception is, That Episcopacy hath been lately insisted upon not only to be an office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers; but also a distinct and specifical order (by Divine right) superior to all other Presbyters, to exercise such things as none else may meddle with. Ans. That this hath been insisted upon, and hath been made good by those that have been put upon it by the Presbyterians their adversaries herein, decrying them as Popish, and having no other bottom to stand upon besides Ecclesiastical constitution and civil Connivance; till they enforced them to leave this hold and fly to one more impregnable, that is to say, the Scripture. Impregnable I say: for if our Saviour did appoint any Regimen Ecclesiae at all, it may be undeniably proved out of the Scripture, that it was to be seated in a single person. The same Text or Texts that prove the one, will make good the other, a thing which hath been done within this nine or ten years at Oxford in the Vespers, but was not then, nor ever since hath been answered. 3. Oh but, say they, Linwood himself our great English Canonist saith expressly, that Episcopatus non est Ordo; and our book of Ordination tacitly implieth as much. Answ. That this (Tacitly) is well put in: yea but it doth more than (Tacitly) do so, say they. Ans. Then it doth (Expressly) say so, which will never be proved. Now as for Linwood, we must know that when it is said by the Canonists, or Schoolmen that Episcopacy is not an Order; by Order they understand, according as they define it, to be a setting of one apart in Ordine ad celebranda Sacramenta: for in this sense a Bishop is not a distinct Order from a Priest or Presbyter: But as we here understand Order h. e. for a superior to the rest of the Presbyters, &c. Episcopacy is an Order: and so much Anselm himself, whom they produce, makes good: who makes not Bishops mere Chair-men of Committees of Presbyters, but persons vested in a superior power, durante vitâ; and such whereof there was an uninterrupted succession at Alexandria from St. Mark the Evangelist to Heracla and Dionysius, who sat there in the 3d. Century. 4th. Exception is, That Dr. Heylen one of the Episcopal party will allow none to be rightly ordained, who have been ordained by Presbyters, even where no Bishops are allowed to execute the office. Answ. That many things may be allowed in a case of necessity, which notwithstanding, are neither Canonical, nor otherwise rightly done. 5. They say that 1. There is no Script. that appropriateth this to a Bishop alone. 2. That there are several warrants in the new Testament to justify the laying on of hands without a Bishop in our sense, as Acts 13. 3. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 3. The book of Ordination allows the Bishop to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but not to act alone. I answer. That those very places which they produce against the appropriating hereof to a Bishop, do prove it. For Acts 13. 3. Though Beza renders it out of the Greek, Imposuerunt eis manus, in the plural: Yet the Syriack Interpreter reads it Imposuerunt eis manum. It was then manum imposuerunt principally and auctoritatively: but manus concurrently with it (though this separating of Paul and Barnabas was an extraordinary thing, which the holy Spirit commanded expressly to be done by mean persons, that the grace might the more evidently appear says Chrysostom.) Wherefore 1 Tim. 4. 14. it is said, Neglect not that gift which was given to thee by prophecy {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. For this was St. Paul's work and prerogative, 2 Tim. 1. 6. which interprets our book of Ordination: wherein is required the concurrence, not the authority of other Presbyters to the giving of holy Orders. 6. But they say that the statute of 13 Eliz. allows of any under the degree of a Bishop that pretend to priesthood, &c. by any other kind of Ordination, so that he subscribes the Articles. Answ. That by any other form of Ordination, for aught I know, may be understood the forms of Ordination used in the Church of Rome, and that was done by Bishops, which neither Prelaticks nor Presbyterians think necessary to be iterated. Or be it an Ordination by Presbyterians, it was in the absence of a Bishop, and an urgent necessity in the thing itself (which the Law presumes) and then factum valet quod fieri non debuit: unless the party himself be not satisfied with his Ordination. 7. And say they, This were to unchurch all Protestant Churches in Christendom which have no Bishops. Answ. That it may be they cannot have them; a thing I have heard that the Low-countries Divines complained of at the Council of Dort, as the cause of all those heresies and differences in opinion that were amongst them, as it hath been with us during this many years suspension of them. Now this does not unchurch them, inasmuch as it's done in a case of necessity, and they desire that which they cannot enjoy; but it leaves them in a confusion, imperfection, and unsettledness of Church-government. God first created Light, and it served the turn for a while before it was collected into one body: but he never intended it should remain so for the constant government of the world. 8. They say that in the ordering of Deacons the Bishop alone is to lay on hands; which is contrary to the practice of the Apostles, Acts 6. where it is said, that They, (not one of them) laid their hands on them. Moreover in the Prayer then used after the litany, it's said, that God did inspire the Apostles to choose to this order St. Stephen with other: Whereas the Text saith, The whole multitude chose them. Answ. That although they all laid hands on them, yet one would have served: It was therefore ex abundanti, not necessario as hath been already showed in the matter of ordaining of Presbyters: And these the whole multitude chose, but they had their congee des●ire from the Apostles first: Nay the Apostles bade them choose, and Causa causae est causa causati. 9 In the Act of Ordination the Bishop takes upon him that which none but God himself hath power to bestow, in saying, Receive the holy Ghost. Answ, That none but God himself hath power to bestow the holy Ghost, principally: but it's bestowed ministerially by men in this Ordinance of his. By holy Ghost is understood here the grace of ministration; which is that holy Depositum committed to Timothy's charge by the imposition of St. Paul's hands, 1 Tim. 1. 6. and with men that have received this holy Depositum hath Christ promised his presence to the end of the world: Behold I am with (you) that is men qualified as you are, (for a supply of your mortality) upon whom a double portion of your spirit descends. 2. Of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction THe thing chiefly to be noted here is, that by the ordaining of Priests it appears that the power of Jurisdiction belongs to other besides Bishops, inasmuch as a Question propounded to the party to be ordained is: Will you reverently obey your Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and charge is committed over you: If it be said, say they, that this may be meant of Arch▪ Deacons, Deans, &c. that have it under the Bishop, what is this to the intituling of all Ministers thereunto. I answ. That all Ministers are not entitled thereunto, but only all chief Ministers; and such as have a power delegated unto them. Yea, but they say further, that every Minister of a Parish hath power given him by the rubric to keep notorious livers from the Sacrament: and what is this but as much & as high a jurisdiction as any Bishop can use in that particular? Answ. That this is but Excommunicatio minor, and confessed to be but a particular case: Neither in this case is it so high as the jurisdiction of a Bishop; inasmuch as herein lieth an appeal from him to the Bishop. 2. Much time here is spent upon Restraints laid upon Bishops by KINGS: and particularly when the Clergy petitioned the Parliament (51 Edw. 3. num. 83.) that of every consultation conditional, the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true understanding thereof, and therein proceed accordingly: The King's answer was, That the King cannot depart with his Right, but to yield to his Subjects according to Law. Answ. All this might have been spared, and it shall be granted upon their bare words without further enquiry, it being great reason that nothing be done to the prejudice of the King or the Laws of the Land: for which reason the French K. hath always a Commissary in the Protestants Conventions, as may appear by the Edicts themselves. Only thus much I must say by the way, that in my cursory observation I find, that for one Act made against, there are 3. for the immunities of Bishops in the time of that renowned King. That which is said concerning the Bishops making his Will: though true, is little to the question. But besides this▪ 3. Many things are alleged to weaken the authority of Bishops: but the last and heaviest thing of all is, that by Act of Parl. all their power and jurisdiction is taken away. 17 Car. 1. Answ. That by that Act of 17 Car. is intended the taking away of the High Commission only, as I humbly conceive: If, as I have heard Lawyers say, preambles to Acts are the best interpreters of the Acts themselves: For the preamble to that Act witnesseth the abuses of the Authority given to the high commissioners by that Act of 1 Eliz. to be the growd of the Act itself of 17 Car. 1. Again, if Episcopal Jurisdiction had been wholly taken away by the repealing of that clanse of 1 Eliz. they would never have added another clause (after that) to restrain the power of Bishops in case of penalties, for this had been to fight with a shadow. But though it were granted that the power of exercising Episcopal jurisdiction be taken away contrary to the intent of the Legislative power: yet all the world cannot take away Episcopacy itself, it being an Ordinance of God as is here confessed. The Reasons given by them why they should not sit in Parliament, are but the killing of a dead man, and so I let them pass. III. Of DISCIPLINE. FIrst, they show how this Discipline is bounded. 2. They will have no Canon Laws to be in force: And why? Because say they, the old Canons were enacted 25 H. 8. 19 to be in force, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered and determined by 32 persons or the more part of them. But Dr. Heylin confesseth that they were viewed, searched, and drawn into a body (but never had the King's Royal assent unto them) therefore the said old Canons, &c. say they, are abrogated. Answ. By what authentic Record doth it, or can it appear, that those 32 persons did view, search, order, or determine any thing therein? Since (well might they be written or printed in a book, but) the King's Royal assent being never had, they were never authentically recorded: & consequently they have neither force in themselves, nor do they abrogate or null any other Canons or Constitutions not contrariant to the Laws of the Land. Inventa meliore Lege, prior est abroganda, and not before. 2. Now passing by the Canons and Injunctions of Qu. Eliz. we come to those made in Convocation 1603. published by authority of King James under the great Seal, and these only can be pretended to be of any force, say they. Answ. That this is more than I can see, if the other had the Queen's Royal assent, and were never expressly called in after, especially if ●hey be not repugnant to after Canons, &c. But, say they. Even those Canons of 1603. are not binding in as much as they were never confirmed by Act of Parl. although the King's Royal assent was to them. For, say they, it seems to be contrary to the Petition of Right that they should. Answ. That I cannot dive into the intrigues of Disputes touching these Canons, the legality whereof hath been the business of Learned men, who have so well justified it in the opinion of all impartial auditors of the long Parliam. where the argument was made, that they deserve an everlasting name for it. 3 In the close of all they say, that albeit it be pleaded by some that Liturgies (and among them the substance of ours) are ancienter than the Popish mass books by many hundred of years: And for that they produce Fathers, and the Liturgies of St. James, Peter, and others, although by many learned men censured as suppositious. Yet none of these Authors do mention any public form (the same for substance with ours) although they speak of public prayers made in the Congregation, which none ever denied. Public prayer is one thing; a public form, another. I answ. That it follows not that those forms are supposititious, because some of the matters therein contained are so. A child is not therefore supposititious, because it has the Rickets, and is either swelled in one part, or pined away in others beyond its just and natural proportion. But what do they think of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom translated out of the Syriack by Masius, and used generally throughout all the Greek Church, as my Lord Primate of Armagh hath noted? Is that no form, or is it only a supposititious form? Or what do they think of other Liturgies as well as this, which have the Lord's Prayer and giving of thanks in them, together with snch improvements as are Explications of the Lord's Prayer and the parts thereof? are not these forms, yea and the same in substance with ours? but that these were the first Liturgies that ever were, is testified by Cassander (out of Dionysius) in Liturgicis. Who says that Eucharistea solâ Oratione Dominicâ cum gratiarum actione primis temporibus celebrabatur. But now they speak out: For whereas in the begiuning they said that they were not against (nay they were for) Liturgies, &c. Yet now they say, that though the Ancients speak of public prayers (which none, say they, ever denied) yet they never spoke of public forms: which is as much as to say, that we have no antiquity to justify public forms; and therefore it were better be without them. But first, they confess that these Ancients mention public prayers: and that these public prayers were public forms, is already proved. Indeed there was a time when some used public prayers in no public forms: but that they used such alone, can never be proved: and what inconveniences ensued upon it, is too evident, by the 12th. Canon of the Milevitan Council made against them, wherein it is provided that no Prayers be used, but such as were approved by the wiser sort in the Synod; lest any thing should be vented against the Faith, either through ignorance, or want of meditation. FINIS. The faults being few, may be amended in reading.