An Humble PETITION unto the High and most Honourable Courts of Parliament, that they would be pleased to condescend to the perusing of these short Notes, tending to the refining of the Book of Common-Prayer, in a few Things.  
I Do not mislike the holy Prayers of our Church, because some things in or about them may be amended: but I desire an amendment of such things, as do either give scandal, or from which weak conscientious persons do take scandal: that so love, peace, and unity may be preserved in our Church, from which will follow Uniformity and Conformity. For this end, I shall give Instances of something to be Added to the Book of Common-prayer; of some things to be Altered, and of some things to be Removed.  

1. Of some things to be added.  
I read in the Common-prayer Book of Edward the sixth, printed 1552. In the 10th. Petition of the holy Litany, this prayer: From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities, etc. O good Lord deliver us. But in our Common-prayer Books in these days, this Protestant prayer is quite left out: as if it were unlawful for us to pray against Romish tyranny, and Popish detestable Doctrines. It is meet therefore that this Prayer should be added, and restored to our Books of Common-Prayer, as it was in Edward the sixths' time.   

2. Of some things to be altered: As  
1. As you may see in the Calendar for the first and second Lessons, many Chapters of the Apocrypha Scriptures are appointed to be read, as well as the Canonical Scriptures. Now it is not meet that Apocrypha Scriptures, which are of a doubtful verity, should be made of equal authority with the Canonical Scriptures: wherefore it is meet, that there be an alteration, by putting away the Apocrypha Chapters, and putting in their rooms so many Canonical Chapters.  
2. After the first and second Lessons for Morning-Prayer, it is ordered, that these Lessons or Chapters shall be sung in a plain Tune. Now is this decent, when a man reads a Chapter, to sing it? Or is it so edifying, to sing it, as it is to read it in a sober and grave tone of voice? Like as a Judge on the Bench speaks his Charge, or as the Sheriff reads the King's Proclamation, or as a Schoolmaster reads a Lecture to his Scholars. In the Chapters sometimes God threateneth us for our sins, and sometimes that glorious and fearful name of the Lord our God is read, which we ought to fear, Deut. 28.58. And is it decent for a Minister to read these things merrily, and with a singing voice? Is it not meet then, that this singing should be altered?  
Besides in Cathedral Churches, they sing their Prayers, and is it not meet that this also be altered?  
3. The Book of Common-Prayer lacks a good Method: for the Minister is forced in reading of Service, to turn some leaves backward, and then some leaves forward, and cannot read on to the next thing following, as he might, if things were methodically disposed; now this would be altered.  
4. The last thing in the Book of Common-Prayer, is the form for Consecration of Bishops to their office, which gives them their being, & makes them Bishops. Now as I conceive, this Consecration ought to be in the King's name: For the King is supreme head of the Church, and next under Christ in authority. And therefore Bishops ought to derive their office and authority therein from the King, as next under the King: but they are consecrated, not in the name of the King, but in the name of another and higher power, as from Christ, the holy Ghost, and the Metropolitan, and so they make themselves to be next under Christ, and so shoulder out of place the King, and deny his supremacy: Now ought not this Consecration therefore be altered?  
5. The Prayers of the Church ought to be without Tautologies, and unnecessary repetitions: For Christ said, that his Disciples should not be like the heathen in prayer, using vain repetitions, Mat. 6.7. But our Common-Prayer Book is full of unnecessary Repetitions. For 1. the Lords Prayer is used in an hours time over and over again, as twice in Morning-prayer, and once in the Pulpit in the Ministers former Prayer. 2. Gloria Patri, or Glory be to the Father, is in one hours' time appointed to be said and repeated over and over again six or seven times. I could add other prayers also of like kind: Now is it not meet to alter this?  
6. In our Cathedral Churches they say their second Service in the Chancel or on the High Altar, not in the body of the Church, where the other set Service is said. Now the high Altar is no more holy than the body of the Church; nor is it so convenient for the people's edification, because they being afar off in the body of the Church, they can hardly hear what is read: And what reason can be rendered, why one part of the Service should be read in the body of the Church, and another part on the High Altar? And why should it be so in a Cathedral Church, more than in all other Churches? Is it not meet that this be altered? 2. It is appointed in the order for the Communion, that the Table shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancel, where Morning and Evening-Prayers are said: but now in the Cathedral Church, and in many others, the Table is hoist up, and stands on the High Altar: But this is not the place where Morning and Evening prayers are usually said, but the place for these is the body of the Church, and there used in all common on Churches, and why then should it be otherwise in Cathedrals.  
7. As touching Baptism, the Priest is appointed to take the child in his arms, and to dip it into the water, unless the child be weak: so then strong children must all of them be dipped into the water, as Anabaptists do: but this dipping is out of use in our Church; Is it not meet then to alter this dipping unto sprinkling of water?   

3. Of some things to be removed out of the Church: As  
1. As touching the Epistles and Gospels, these are appointed to be read on Sundays, in Morning and Evening-Prayers, but I see no reason for it; for on Sundays we have an whole Chapter read for the second Lesson, out of the Epistles, and another out of the Gospels: what necessity is there to read a part of a Chapter out of them? For we heard the Gospel out of the four Evangelists before, in the second Lesson, and also the Epistle out of the Epistles of St. Paul and others: Is it necessary to read the same matter twice in one hour? 2. After the whole Chap. of the Gospel and Epistle is read, what need is there to read also a piece, or a part of a Chapter out of the Gospel and the Epistles? and both the whole Chapter and a piece of one to be read the same day, viz. on Sunday, I see no reason for it. The Epistle and Gospel therefore consisting but of a piece of the chapters read before, to me seems superfluous, and therefore meet to be removed out of the Church.  
2. As touching Baptism, 1. of Godfathers & Godmothers, who promise (what they perform not) that the child shall be virtuously brought up and learn the Creed, Lords Prayer, and the ten Commandments. I see no need for these Godfathers, etc. Time was, in days of persecution, when the Christian parents were slaughtered, and martyred, then there was need that other Christians should take care for the Christian education of their Infants left behind: But we have no such persecution, our parents live with their children, & aught to give them godly education, and so there is no need of Godfathers to do it. 2. Of the Cross in Baptism, it is confessed by the Bishops, that the Infant is fully baptised before it be crossed: what ●●●d then is there of the cross? May not persons of years have a cross on their foreheads made after the Lord's Supper, as well as Infants after Baptism? These things being needless, may safely be removed out of the Church.  
3. Touching Matrimony, it is appointed, that 1. the man shall say to the woman, With my body I thee worship. I leave it to consideration, whether these words be fitting or not; and whether it be meet, that the more honourable person should worship his inferior. 2. It is ordered that the man shall say, With all my worldly goods I thee endow. Now the Law doth not allow the woman but her Thirds, but the Priest allows her all. 3. The man must say, With this Ring I thee wed. Now what need of a Ring to testify the Marriage, when they are fully married before, by their solemn and mutual promises each to other, made before God and the Congregation?  
4. Of our Ceremonies, note, that 1. whilst we labour to preserve in honour, the prayers of our Church, these Ceremonies cast dirt on them, and render them odious: for many do mislike the Common-Prayer Book, because they see where this comes in, it draws after it the Romish Ceremonies. 2. Note, they are Innovations, being not in use in the Primitive Church. 3. Some of them are Jewish, as the Surplice, Cope, high Altar, Organ-pipes, etc. Now the Temple where they were used being down, and the Priesthood who used them, changed; why should we revive them? But others are Romish, invented at Rome, or came thence, as the Cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Sacrament, holy or Saints days, with others. Now being these had no good Original, why should we follow Papists in them? 4. They have been the cause of silencing many godly and painful Ministers, and a bone of contention in the Church for many years, and one cause of the late War. But many say, St. Paul commanded Order and Decency, 1 Cor. 14.40. Answer 1. St. Paul meant it not of our English Ceremonies, for the Primitive Church used none of them; they worshipped God in their Churches both orderly and decently, without our Ceremonies. 2. Christ forbade them, as Traditions of men, Mar. 7.2, etc. And St. Paul forewarned us against them, as Traditions which are not according to Christ, Col. 2.8. Now Christ never appointed any of them: and shall such Ceremonies be called indifferent things? and matters of Order and Decency? I wish these may be all removed, the which would tend to an everlasting and well grounded Peace. But I leave all to the wisdom of our most Honourable Parliament.  
By THEOPHILUS BRABOURN