Common Prayer Book No Divine Service

The main Arguments for stinted Liturgies (or Common-Prayer-Books) stated in Objections, and briefly answered.

Object. 1.

THat which is not directly, or consequentially for bidden by God, is lawful; but Liturgies are not forbidden directly or consequentially, therefore lawful.

Ans. 1. In Civil and mere Indifferent things, the Major or first Proposition may hold; but in spiritual things, and matters relating to the worship of God, it will not: for men are not to practice therein upon Negatives, but upon Positive and plain Commands or Examples. For,

• 1. Consider, that under the Old Testament all things relating to the Worship of God, were to be done according to the pattern given by God to Moses, as concerning the Tabernacle, Candlestick, Altar: so like wise David had the Pattern of all that he had (or did) by the spirit, of the Courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about: and as he saith, The Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this Pattern.
• 2. The second and third Temple, have clear and full directions and prescriptions given by God, for every part of them, and in every particular.
• 3. The Prophets directed the people in all things to observe the Word of God, and the People of God obeyed that Word only.
• 4. In the days of the New-Testament, John the Baptist, and our Savior Christ, taught the People to observe nothing, but either what was written in the Scriptures, or what they had received from God.
• 5. Paul also observes, and teaches all the Churches to whom he wrote, to observe (in their Worshipping of God) the same manner that was prescribed, and appointed by the Lord himself.

Secondly, If there be such a latitude granted in things relating to the Worship of God, that anything that is not forbidden may be introduced, what can hinder the Papists to bring in their five new Sacraments, Organs, and a hundred such things, nay the Pope himself? and is it not upon that very ground that they, and the Bishops ushered in all their Popish Innovations, and Superstitions? But the Minor is denied, Liturgies are forbidden (consequentially) I prove thus,

1. That which is not commanded in matters of God's Worship, is forbidden; but stinted imposed Liturgies are not commanded, therefore forbidden; the Major is fully granted in the Assemblies Catechism, in the second Question, on the second Commandment: But imposed, stinted Liturgies cannot be proved by Scriptures, being an Innovetion, and born out of due time, to have the word of God father or own it.

2. That which is a Tradition and Invention of men (in the Worship of God) is forbidden in the Scriptures, but this is a Tradition and Invention of men, in the Worship of God: for who can or dare say, That any of these Liturgies are Oracles from God? If it be said, That there is no Law against it, and therefore it is no sin; There is Law from the mouth of the Law-giver himself, who said (to the Jews ) Why do you transgress the Commandment of God by your Traditions?

Obj. 2. The prudential determination of such Modes and Circumstances as God hath left to Human determination, is lawful. But a stinted form is such, therefore lawful.

Ans. I grant that God hath left some Modes and Circumstances to Human determination; yet consider that these are either,

1. Meerly Civil and Natural, as matters relating to the outward man, as Civil and politick Laws and Government. Or,

2. If there be any such things left to the determination of men (as to consider of the fittest day or hour to meet, or the convenientest place, &c.) yet this is left to the determination of the Churches, and Societies of Christians in their several places, and as occasions fall out, and not to Magistrates or Ministers only.

3. If there were authority left in the hand of the Magistrate, or any other sort of men (which cannot be proved by Scripture) to appoint such Circumstances, yet how doth it appear that they may enjoin and impose this under personal, or pecuniary punishment?

4. Liturgies do determine more than Modes and Circumstances; for they appoint how all, or most of the parts of God's Worship (as Prayer, administering the Sacrament, &c.) shall be done. But lastly,

5. If the Word of God doth direct in all the Circumstances of God's worship, either by command, or example, then is there no need of such Liturgies. But the Word of God doth direct in those Circumstances, as for place, Joh. 4.23. 1 Tim. 2.8. in Synagogues, in Houses, and on Mountains. For time, 2 Tim. 4.2. 2 Thes. 5.17. For gesture, &c. Luk. 22.14. Aob. 20.36. all which, with other Circumstances, may easily be proved.

Obj. 3. There are many express Examples in Scripture for forms of God's service, therefore they are unquestionably lawful, as Psalms, Songs, Praises, Blessings, and Prayers, as Psal. 92. and 102. Exod. 15. Numb. 6. Mat. 6 particularly the Lord's Prayer.

Ans. That there were Psalms, Songs, Praises, Prayers, and Blessings, composed by the Praphats and Servants or God heretofore upon occasions, is acknowledged. But yet,

1. That those holy men of God spake (and wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and had such a spirit of infallibility in such things; which no men since the Apostles days can pretend to.

2. What they then wrote ( viz. their Prayers, Psalms, and Songs, &c.) are now become Scripture, and are written for our learning.

3. To argue from an extraordinary, to an ordinary practice, is not right, you may as well say, because Moses commanded everyone to slay his Brother, therefore other ordinary persons may do so; or because David divided the Priests into four and twenty Courses, other Kings or Rulers may do the like with Gospel-Ministers; or because Moses and David wrote Canonical Scripture, therefore other persons may do the like.

4. For the Lord's Prayer (so called) though it be not denied, but that it may be used by any godly men (though not in the way it is by most, at the end of their own) yet it will be hard to prove it to be a form. Because,

1. It was delivered by our Savior at first as part of his Sermon on the Mount (which seems to be one of his first Sermons) and as a Direction to pray; as he gives in the same place, and at the same time, direction to fast, and give alms.

2. The two Evangelists do differ, in relating the Prayer, in several particulars, and Luke hath not the conclusion, or the words, For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen. If it must be used as a form, which of the two Evangelists must be imitated, seeing they thus differ?

3. If it was given as a Form, and enjoined and imposed, then it was a sin in the Apostles and Primitive Christians, and others since, not to use it constantly: But it doth not appear that the Apostles did use it at all afterwards, though we read of the Apostles joint-prayers, and of many of Panls Prayers, yet therein is no mention thereof.

Obj. But doth not Christ, Luk. 11.2. command his Disciples to say, Our Father? &c.

Ans. The meaning seems to be this, that when one of Christ's Disciples did desire Christ to teach them to pray, as John also taught his Disciples, Christ did send them to the direction which he had given before in his preaching upon the Mount.

Obj. 4. It is lawful to pray to God in set words that we find in Scripture: but so to pray, is to pray in a form. Therefore a Form is lawful.

Ans. For to use the same words in prayer, out of earnestness, vehemency, and Agony (and that by the Spirit) as Christ, and some of the Prophets did, at the same time, is no ground at all for men to form a whole Book of prayer, without any such eminent impulsions of the Spirit.

2. The Repetition of the same words was by the same Persons, and peculiar to them that spake them, and chiefly for that time, and therefore is no ground at all either to form prayers for others, or to impose them upon others.

3. From those instances you may better infer, that no form is to be used till a man is in such an Agony, or Energy of spirit, as Christ and those men were in; but as I said before, to argue from an Extraordinary to an Ordinary is not good, nor from a particular to a general.

Obj. 5. If it be lawful for the people to use a form as they do when they join with the Pastor, then it is lawful for the Pastor.

Ans. How can the extemporary, immediate, unconceived prayer of the Pastor be a form to the People, since they know nothing of it before? but if that be a form, such a form we will yield to, viz. an unwritten, unprinted, unheard of, and Non-imposed form.

Obj. 6. Christ hath left his approbation of such forms, proved, Luk. 20.42. & 24.4.

Answ. There is nothing to that purpose in either of those Scriptures, unless you make the citing of Scripture a proof. But put the case that Christ had left his approbation of Scriptural forms which are Divine, that therefore he gave his approbation of mere human forms. This is like the Papists pleading from written Truths to unwritten Verities. But further, suppose all that the Objection supposes, that Christ did approve of such Forms, yet where do you find that Christ did impose such, or give authority to any sort of men to impose such.

Object. 7. But Christ used the same words thrice in Prayer.

Answ. See the Answer to the fourth Objection.

Obj. 8. But Christ did use a Hymn.

Ans. If by a Hymn, be understood one of the Psalms of Scripture, why might not Christ and his Disciples use it, the Psalms being in Metre, and then in use among the Jews? but others understand by an Hymn, an extempore Song, as divers Interpreters make that distinction between Hymns, and Psaelms, and Spiritual Songs; others understand by a Hymn no more than praising God, as the word is taken; and that may serve for an answer to the other Objection, That the Apostles commanded it.

Obj. 9. If it be lawful to use a form in preaching, then in prayer: but the former is 〈◊〉 . Ergo the latter.

Answ. When it can be proved that it is lawful for any Preacher to write all his Sermon verbatim, & then preach (or rather read) it so, without addition, subtraction, or alteration, and afterwards print it, and impose it upon others, then I shall grant it to be lawful to make such forms, and read them instead of preaching.

Obj. 10. Because it was the practice of the Churches in Scripture-times, and downwards, to have such Liturgies.

Ans. The Bishops said so, and sought to prove it, as Bishop Andrew's pursued in his inquiry, so hard after Lituagies, that he thought he had gotten a Jewish one, which he sent to Cambridge to translate; but it was there soon discovered to be one made long after the Jews ceased to be a Church, and so he himself suppressed it, and had there been any such in our Savior's, or his Apostles time, doubtless we should have found some mention of it in the Scriptures where mention is made of their reading, and preaching in the Synagogues of the Jews, and where we read of giving the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, but not Common-Prayer-Book.

Obj. 11. But a Liturgy or Common-Prayer-Book is good to help those that cannot pray, as Crutches to help a lame man.

Ans. It is rather a Hindrance than Help: for people would, if it were not for such Forms, seek the Spirit of God, which would be given to help them.

2. Either these are to help those that have no grace, or those that have grace; not those that have none: for what good will Crutches do to a dead man? as every graceless and natural man is.

3. If he hath grace, then he wants no Crutches, for he is cured, and should do with those Crutches, as lame Persons when they are cured in the Bath, hang up their Crutches on the Cross, and leave them behind them, to show they are cured.

4. If the lame should use Crutches, yet that is no ground why those that God hath cured of their lameness should be tied to carry Crutches, or walk on them.

Quest. But what Reasons or Objections have you against the English Liturgy, or Common-Prayer-Book, in particular?

Ans. In an English Book called Smectym-uus, published by divers godly and learned Presbyterian Ministers, (as Mr. Marshal, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Young, Mr. Newcombe, and Mr. Sp • rstow ) about the year one thousand six hundred forty two, and this year one thousand six hundred and sixty reprinted, there are several Reasons set down against it, as also against Bishops, some of the former I here insert. As

1. It symboleth (that is, agreeth) so much with the Popish Mass, that the Pope himself was willing to have it used, if he might but confirm it. I shall add this out of the Book of Martyrs, vol. 2 pag. 667. Printed Anno 1631. when there was a rebellion in Devenshire, in King Edward the sixth his days he writes to them thus,

2. It was framed and composed on purpose to bring Papists to Church.

3. Because it is so much Idolized, called Divine Service, as I heard one lately say, that brought a Bible to a Book-binders shop to be new bound: when the Book-binder said he could hardly bind it, and that he would sell a new Bible for a little more money; The owner returned answer. That that Bible was worth twenty new ones, and the only reason was, because the Book of Common-Prayer was in it.

4. Because many distate it.

5. Because it differs much from Liturgies in other Churches, and yet they are not enjoined. I may add,

6. Because it hath tended to maintain a lazy and scandalous Ministry.

7. Because it (together with other Ceremonies) hath been a means to bring many godly Preachers and Professors under great Persecution and Suffering, some (as Penry and Barrow, Greenhood ) to suffer Death; some Bawshment, and many Imprisonment, Indictment, and other troubles, either for speaking, and writing against it, or for not reading and hearing it.

8. Because it hath tended to harden many Papists in their false Religion (by seeing us come so near to them in our way of Worship, as you find in the first Reason) and ignorant scandalous people among ourselves thinking that they are true Christians by conforming thereto.

9. Because it teacheth things that are Heathenish, as to call the Months, January, February, &c. and the days of the Week, Sunday, Monday, &c. from the old Saxon Idols, &c. Jewish, as Priests, and as was added in the Scots Liturgy, Altars, Sacrifice, and Popish, as Christmas, &c.

10. Because it is a very imperfect form, there being many things wanting that men ought to pray for, as assurance, sending forth Laborers into God's vine-yard, and many the like, which cannot be found in it.

11. Because there are so many unwarrantable things and (offenfive to good Christians) therein.

Q. What are those things in the Book of Common-Prayer that are unjustifiable in themselves, and offensive to good Christians?

Answ. 1. Adding to, and diminishing from the Scriptures in the very beginning of it, in the words, At what time soever a sinner doth repent him of his sins, &c. which in the Rubric and direction before it, is called one of the Sentences of the Scripture, and they cite Ezek. 18. compare these words with the Scripture there, verse. 21, 22, and you will find both adding and diminishing, contrary to Deut. 4.2. Prov. 30.6. Rev. 22.18.

2. Leaving some part of Scripture out, as the Book of Canticles, &c. and not to be read throughout the whole year, and many, if not most part of the other Books of Scripture; so that by the Rubric in the Common-Prayer-Book, a great part of the Bible should never be read publicly at all, which is contrary to 2 Tim. 3.16.

3. Gross alterations, and differences are between the Psalms in the Bible, and those appointed to be read in the Book of Common-Prayer, as in Psal. 14. in the Bible there is but seven verses, but in the Book of Common-Prayer there is eleven; so in Psal. 106. & 30 it is in the Bible, Phineas executed Judgment (which is according to the Hebrew and Greek Transsation, and according to Numb. 25.7, & 8.) but in the Book of Common-Prayer, he prayed. So in Psal. 22.31. in the Bible, and according to the Hebrew, a seed shall serve him; but in the Book of Common-Prayer, My seed. So in Psal. 40.9. in the Bible, and so in the Hebrew (and Greek and Latin Translations) it is, I have preached Righteousness; but in the Book of Common-Prayer, thy Righteousness, adding the word thy. So in Psal. 105.25. In the Translation of the Bible it is He, i. e. God, turned their hearts to hate his people: But in the Common-Prayer-Book, whose hearts turned.

4. Some Chapters are appointed to be begun in the middle of them (though but short) destroying the Connection between the words going before, and where they begin. As upon the day called the Nativity of Christ, the third Chapter of Titus is appointed to be read for the second Lesson, beginning at the fourth verse, which depends upon the third verse. So Luke 2.10. which is joined to the ninth verse.

5. Appointing many Chapters to be read out of Apocrypha, as Wisdom, chap. 1.3, 6, 9, 19, 22. Ecclus. 19.29, 38, 44. contrary (as the last Synod observed in their Catechism ) to Luke 24. 27, 44. Rom. 3.2. 2 Pet. 1.21. and yet in the preface before the book, it is said, That there is nothing ordained to be read but the Scriptures, &c.

Obj. But why are not those Apocrypha Books to be read?

Ans. Not only because the Scriptures are sufficient of themselves, 2 Tim. 3.15. but because there are many foolish and fabulous things therein, as in Tob. chap. 6.7. & 11.14. & 12.15. so Jud. 9.2, 10, 13. Ecclesiasticus 1.15. & 12.5. & 48.13. with many the like, compared with the Word of God, will easily appear to be false.

6. In many places to call the Writings of the Prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles, and Revelations, Epistles, as Isa. 7.17. & 40.1. & 50.5. & 63.1. Jerem. 23.5. Joel. 2. Acts 1.1. & 2.1. & 8.14. & 11.17. & 10.24. & 13.26. Apec. 7.2. & 12.7. & 14. as the Epistle for the day of Christ's Nativity, the Epistle for Innocents day. Did any of the Sectaries in citing a Scripture, call the Prophecy of Isaiah or Jeremiah, an Epistle, he should be hissed at.

7. Calling the Lord's Day, and other the days of the week by the names of the old Saxon Idols, as Sunday from the Sun, Monday from the Moon, Tuesday from Tuiseo, Wednesday from Wooden, &c. contrary to Exod. 23.13. Hos. 2.17. and the way used in Scripture, Gen. 1. 5, 8. 13, 19, 23. Mat. 28.1.

8. Dedicating days to the Angel Michael, and to the Apostles and other Saints, contrary to Exod, 31.15. Gal. 4.10. Col. 2.6, 16, 17. and calling those Holy-days. and yet the Sabbath Sunday, likewise dedicating one day to all Saints, answerable to what Heathen Rome did to their Idols, and what Antichristian Rome still doth to Saints. But God may say, Who hath required this at your hand? Isa. 1.12.

9. That the Minister is called so often Priest in it.

Obj. But are they not called God's-Priests, and God's-Clergy, 1 Pet. 2, 9. & 5. 3?

Ans. Not the Ministers distinct from the People, but the believers are called a Royal Priest-hood, and God's Clergy, or Heritage, speaking in an Old Testament-phrase, by way of allusion to the Jews. God's select people: but it is not in that sense that the Minister is called a Priest in this Book, but looking upon him, as one that belongs to a peculiar Tribe, and as they did, and usually do pray for themselves, as being of the Tribe of Levi; which if they be, they are Jews, and by the Law of England, if you believe some Lawyers to be banished.

10. That the people should pray audibly, or with a loud voice, with the Minister, as in the Confession, and other prayers; which is confusion, and contrary to good order, 1 Cor. 14.40. which they blame in other men.

11. That the Lessons, Epistles and Gospels should be sung, as you find in the Rubric immediately before Te Deum laudamus. No such Command from God, nor such practice in the Churches of God.

12. That Te Deum Laudamus, & Benedicite omnia, are appointed to be read throughout the whole year, after the first Lesson. Sure if a good Preacher did preach one and the same Sermon every Lord's day in the year, these men would distate it. And what is meant by retaining still the Latin Titles (and those which are commonly used in Popish Nations) but that we seek uniformity with them? But what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols? 2 Cor. 6.15, 16.

13. In that called Te Deum, there is a difference made between Angels, Cherubims, and Seraphims, making as the Papists do, divers (to wit, nine) degrees of Angels, and likewise in setting days apart for Michael, and all the Angels. Though it be very probable, that by Michael is understood Christ himself, by comparing Rev. 12.9. with Zech. 3.2. and Judge. 8.9. but were there such an Angel, who hath appointed a day, or days to be observed to him or them? This is contrary to Col. 2.18.

14. That in their Canticle, or Benedicite omnia, &c. after the spirits and souls of the Righteous are called upon to bless the Lord; Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, are called upon to bless the Lord, As if they were not included in the spirits and souls of the righteous.

15. After the second Lesson, Benedictus, in English is to be used. And yet that is part of a Chapter (or second Lesson) to wit, of Luke 1.68, &c.

16. In the Creed, they make that part of one Article, That Christ descended into Hell, As if Christ bad descended into the place of the Damned (as the Papists hold) contrary to Mat. 12.40. Ephes. 4.8.

17. The Priest, and the People (whilst they are at their Service) salute and complement one with another; The Lord be with you (saith the Priest) And with thy spirit, say the people.

18. The Minister standing up in the midst of his Prayers, between one Prayer and another. The Prayer is not so long, that be should be so soon tired in kneeling.

19. The chopping and mineing of Prayer between the Priest and the People in many places, which are liker Charmers than Christians Prayers.

20. In that called Quicunque vult, where the Articles of the Catholic Faith are set down, one is, that Christ descended into Hell (some other expressions in it are liable to exception) and yet in the last verse thereof it is said, This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved; and yet many doubtless that never heard, understood, nor could believe several things therein, may be, and will be saved.

21. The Litany is to be read upon Wednesdays and Fridays, and at other times when the Ordinary shall command. And why upon Wednesdays and Fridays, unless to comply with the Papists? and why at the Ordinaries command? Is not every Minister of Christ as fit to judge when 'tis meet to read it, as well as the Ordinary? An ordinary judgment, may discern this to be extraordinary folly.

22. The Minister propounds the matter of Prayer, but the people pray, Good Lord deliver us; We beseech thee to hear us good Lord. It's strange that this liberty is allowed people in public, and yet denied to others in private: nay, that the women are suffered to speak (that is, pray) in the Church, and publicly too, this is contrary to 1 Tim. 2.11, 12.

23. Many Tautolegies therein, the words, Good Lord deliver us used eight times; and the words, We beseech thee to hear us good Lord, used one and twenty times; and using the Lord's Prayer five times, or more, in one Morning Service. This is vain Repetition, forbidden in Mat. 6.6. and that which they much condemn in such as pray conceived prayers.

24. From Fornication, and all other deadly Sins. Herein making a difference (as the Papists do) between Venial and Mortal Sins, though all sins be deadly, or deserve death, Rom. 5.12. & 6.23. yet true it is, that there is an unpardonable sin, 1 John 5.16.

25. Praying against sudden death. This is nowhere commanded in the Scripture, but rather the contrary. See Eccles. 9.12. Mar. 13.33, &c. Luk. 12.29, 40, 45, 46. And what doth this but confirm ignorant Protestants (as well as Papists) in those corrupted Principles; That Repentance is in their own power, and that Repentance must be a man's lost Act, or else he cannot be saved: by which they exclude all those that die suddenly (especially violently) from Salvation; which is contrary to these Scriptures, 1 Sam. 4.18, 19, &c. Job 21.24, 25. Eccles. 9.2.

26. That they desire to be delivered by Christ's Circumcision, Baptism, Fasting, and Temptation; yea Burial: some also take exception at the word By, being used as in an Oath, especially so many times as there it is.

27. There's a Prayer, That God will bring into the way of truth all such as have erred; whereas some are not at all to be prayed for, Joh. 17.9. 1 Jo. 5.16.

28. They pray for a sort of people called Curates (a Name and Office not known in the Bible) distinct from Bishops, and Pastors. Note here the Bishops and Curates are not looked upon as Pastors (that is, Feeders) and indeed they are not, for the one is a Starver, the other a Biter and Slayer of the sheep.

29. The taking of God's Name so many times irreverently in their mouths, in saying, Lord have mercy upon us, Christ have mercy upon us; contrary to Exod. 20.7. Levite. 19.12. which forbid men to take God's name in vain.

30. That the Collect for Christmas Day (as they call it) is to be read till New-years Day; and yet the Collect is thus: Almighty God, which hast given us thy only begotten Son, to take our Nature upon him, and this day to be born of a pure Virgin. What? could he be born that day, and every day of the six following too? The like upon Easter and Ascension-days (so called) is to be read, and six days after. But it is more than all the learned Clerks either in England or Italy can prove, that Christ was born either on that day, or in that Month called December, but rather in the seventh Month, called September, which might be figured and held forth by the Feast of Tabernacles, which was upon the fifteenth day of the Month, Levite. 23.34. and the Jews, and divers learned Christians, held, and still hold, that the first day of that Feast shadowed his birth, as the last or eighth day, his Circumcision: and John seems to allude to that, in John 1.14.

31. At the purification of Mary, the Collect runs, That as thine only Son this day was presented in the Temple. Which is as uncertain as the other: for if the three and thirty days according to the Law, that the woman was to continue in the blood of her purifying, did begin when Christ was born, then they were ended six or seven days before that time of Purification; but if those thirty three days begin after the day of Circumcision, then the day now observed is not probably the very day. But suppose it were that very day, why should that Jewish Ceremony be still retained? it is not with an intent to further the conversion of the Jews; for both Popish, and Prelatical (for the most part) deny that they will at all be converted.

32. That the Priest is appointed to stand at the North-side of the Table; This is done (as many other things) in imitation of the Ceremonial Law, Levite. 1.11.

33. That the people are appointed to kneel, at the reading of the ten Commandments. This is contrary to Neh. 8.2, 3, 5. and yet afterwards when the Minister is to pray, he is appointed to stand up. Unless men were addicted and resolved to walk contrary to God and his Word, they would not be such Fanatics.

Obj. But the people kneel because of their praying, Lord have mercy upon us.

Answ. But who hath appointed them to do that? This is to be wise above what is written.

34. Offerings are appointed to be paid to the Curate, which is to continue still that Ceremonial Law that Christ hath abrogated, Col. 2.14. Heb. 9.10.

35. There is added in the Administration of the Communion, words of their own, to the words of Christ's institution. As, Preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. See Mat. 26.26, 27, 28. Luk. 22.19, 20. 1 Cor. 11.24, 25.

36. The Priest is appointed to kneel at one Prayer, and yet to stand at the very next: and why not kneel or stand at both?

37. In the Rubric before the Communion, it is said, He shall receive the Sacrament, and other Rites. What are those Rites? would they give more than what is appointed, as the Papists do less?

38. The people are to receive the Sacrament kneeling, (an unseemly gesture at Supper.) This is like the Papists, and not like Christ and his Disciples, Mat. 26.21. Mark 14. And what is this but to adore the body of Christ per suum signum, as a Bishop said? which is the next Door, if not the same Inlet to Popery. This brat (Ceremony) was begotten at the same time with their Breaden God, which is (as God called the Idol, Deut. 32.17. Jud. 5.8.) a new God.

39. The Priest gives it to everyone in particular, and saith, Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee: This also is contrary to the way and words of Christ, who said to the Disciples in general, and not to every individual and particular man, This is my Body which is given for you, and divide it among yourselves, 1 Cor. 11.24. Luk. 22.17, 19.

40. That all the people must partake three times a year at least. And why not every Lord's Day, or every Month, as the Primitive Christians did? and yet in Cathedral, or Collegiate Churches, where be many Priests (too many, I sear) and Deacons, they shall receive the Communion with the Minister every Sunday at least, and why should that difference be, unless the Priests would receive it more for their Bellies sake, than their Souls? Have not the common people need to remember Christ as often as they? or would they make a Church of Clerks, distinct from a Church of Christians. Apage!

41. That everyone must reckon at Easter with the Parson, Vicar, or Curate: Where find you that Christ or his Apostles did ever reckon so? or in what Bible do you find the word Parson, Vicar, Curate, or either of them? These names are fitter to be joined in the Apocryphal story with Toby and his Dog.

42. Though they confess, that in the Primitive times Baptism was administered twice a year ( viz. at Easter; and Whitsuntide ) yet it is ordered, that the Pastors and Curates shall often admonish the people, that they defer not the Baptism of Infants longer than till the Sunday, or other Holy-day next after the child be born, &c. Doth not this savor strongly that Baptism is looked upon as necessary to salvation?

43. This is to be done upon Sundays, or other Holy-days; where note, that the Lord's day is called Sunday, and the other days Holy-days; and who appointed or consecrated those Holy-days? Not Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive or Apostolical Church: they err in observing such days as were introduced by men; yea, all Holy-days, or Feasts appointed by God himself (except the Christian Sabbath) are abrogated, Gal. 4.10. Col. 2.16.

44. In one of the Prayers after the Communion, Those things which for our unworthiniss we dare not ask; which is contrary to John 16.23, 24. Ephes. 3.12. 1 John 1.14. which show, that the people of God have liberty to ask anything according to the will of God. But peradventure the Parsons and their Parishioners mean ( by those things ) liberty to game on the Lord's Days, be drunk, swear, &c. which things, though they dare not ask leave (yet will take leave without asking) to do.

45. If necessity require, that children may at all times be baptized at home; Christ and the Apostles mention no such necessity, and Augustine and Ambrose would not have been without Baptism till they came to be about thirty years of age, if in those times they had judged such a necessity of Baptism. And how contrary is this private Baptism, to the Baptism of John, and of Christ; see Mat. 3. 5, 6. John 3.22, 23.

46. That the Red Sea figured Christ's holy Baptism. It rather signified the miserable state of Sinners by Nature, out of which Christ leads them.

47. That God did by the Baptism of Christ sanctify the River Jordan, and all other Waters, for the mystical washing away of all sin. There is no Scripture for this, but on the contrary, 1 Pet. 3.21. If so, I wonder the Bishops and their Clergy are not Anabaptists, and baptize in Rivers, since first Rivers are sanctified.

48. To use God-fathers, and God-mothers, and they answer instead of the child; and thus the children perform them (that is, Faith and Repentance.) No such thing practiced in Christ's, or in the Apostles times, as sureties, neither do the children perform any such thing by them, anymore than they do perform their promise for the children to bring them to hear Sermons, when they come to age. See Matth. 3.6. Mark 1. 8, 9. Luke 7.29, Joh. 1.33. Acts 2.8. & 18.

49. The Cross in Baptism, that hath more warrant from the Pope than from Christ, or his Gospel. And by the English Cross, some of the Papists (as Martial ) justify the Popish Cross: But we in England do not find that virtue in the Cross, which they of Rome say there is, viz. to sanctify those upon whom it is set, to drive away the Devil, to expel diseases, &c. It is wonder that Christ and his Apostles left us without such a Panthamaton, or sovereign salve.

50. The Minister both in his speaking to the People, and in his Prayer saith, That the Children were regenerated, (meaning by Baptism) whereas they should be regenerated before they are baptized, Acts 8.37. & 16. 14, 15, 16, 31, 32, 33, Mat. 3. 8, 9. And I certify you, saith the Minister, that this Child which being born in Original sin, and in the Wrath of God, by the laver of Regeneration in Baptism, is now received into the number of the Children of God, and Heirs of everlasting life, and doubt not that he hath given unto him the blessing of eternal life, and made him partaker of his everlasting kingdom: so in the Catechism, The Child answers, Wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven: and again, We are thereby made the children of grace. What clearer proof can be desired to prove that the Sacrament doth confer grace, than this? See the Catech. If every child be made so in Baptism, then sure everyone that is baptized, must be saved, or else they may fall from a state of grace; but neither of these are true, Act. 8.13, 20, 21. 1 Pet. 3.21. John 4.14. and 10. 27, 28.

51. That the God-fathers and God-mothers give the child his name, whereas the Parents should do it, Gen. 39.33, 34. Luk. 1.60, 63. 1 Sam. 1.20.

52. The child being asked, How many Sacraments? the answer is, Two, as generally necessary to Salvation; wherein is implied, that two are necessary, and more than two may be, though two may suffice.

53. In private communion it is said, First let the lawful Minister call upon God for his grace, and say the Lord's Prayer, if time will suffer. Mark here how the Minister either is in such haste, or the child in such danger, that they may not have time to say the Lord's Prayer.

54. After the confirmation, the Rubric saith, None shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper, but those that are confirmed: There is no such prohibition in Scripture; and if it were, what should the greatest number of people in most Parishes do, who are not visited nor confirmed by the Bishops at all? This is as if a Master should forbid his servants meat till he comes to cut it; and he comes not perhaps in seven years, if at all.

55. The Bishop saith, We have laid our hands, when he himself only hath done it: mark, how ambitious the Bishop is of speaking in a Kingly style.

56. In the Catechism, the Ministers exhortation to the child is called a Question, and the Lord's Prayer an Answer.

57. Matrimony called frequently Holy. Though it be true, that in opposition to Uncleanness and Whoredom, it may be called Holy, yet it may be suspected, lest hereby a compliance with the Papists (who make this one of their seven Sacraments) is intended.

57. It is said further, That as many as be coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is the Matrimony lawful: In what sense the Matrimony is unlawful, or to what end those words are mentioned, is very doubtful. It is true, there may be divers things in Marriage unwarrantable by the Word of God; as for a Believer to marry an Unbeleever, or true Christians to marry Idolaters, or for Children to marry without Parents consent, &c. But yet Marriages are appointed (as Christ saith) by God; and when once made, there is no ground of divorce, except adultery.

58. Tying Marriage to the Minister, and so making it holy: which in itself is bat Civil and Natural, and did belong rather to the Civil Magistrate, than to the Minister to perform; Ruth 4.11, 12.13.

59. The using of the Ring in Marriage; which in itself may be indifferent; yet making it essential to Marriage it ceaseth to be indifferent.

60. The man in Marriage promiseth to the woman, that with his body he will worship her: Though there be civil worship, yet it is due from an Inferior to a Superior and not from a Superior to an Inferior or Equal, as the woman is.

61. There is one Prayer to be omitted by the Minister, where the woman is past child-bearing. Sure they are very skillful Parsons, Vicars, and Curates, that can judge what women are past child-bearing: but no great matter, for they bear neither less nor more, for their praying or not praying for them.

62. The new married persons the same day of their marriage must receive the Communion: They that will understand Rule or Reason for this practice, must go to Rome at least. And how shall those married persons have the Sacrament, that the Curate marries under a Hedge, or in a Wood, or in a blind Ale-house, as 'tis too common in some Countries?

63. It is that the Marriage-Ring is a token and pledge of the Covenant made in Marriage; and that Marriage doth signify the mystical union between Christ and his Church; for the first, it is needless, and for the other it is utterly false, if it be understood of all Marriages. It is true, the union between Adam and Eve did signify the mystical union between Christ and his Church.

64. In the Visitation of the sick, the Minister saith, That Christ hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truly repent and believe; 1. Sure if he hath given power to his Church, yet he hath not given power to any Parson, no nor Pope, to say what he doth adventure there to say, I absolve thee from all thy sins.

2. The power that Christ hath left in his Church to absolve, is to be exercised in restoring and receiving the Members that were before cast out for sin, upon their repentance, 2 Cor. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. Gal. 6.1. Matth. 18.18. 1 Cor. 5.5.

65. To give the Communion when a man is sick at home, and in the time of Plague, and upon special request of the diseased person. The Minister only may communicate with him. Such a Communion is not warranted by the word of God; and to administer it thus, cannot but be Popish, both in the end and manner. By this also the Minister is tied to go to the Houses where the Plague is, and to communicate alone with him. This is contrary to the Scripture, 1 Cor. 10. & 11. and the Nature of a Communion, yea, to the Rule given in the end of public Communion.

66. Appointing singing at Burials. Which is contrary to the Rule prescribed by the Apostle, James 5.13.

67. To say of everyone buried, This our dear brother here departed: They have a large Faith that can believe that all they bury are such: I would advise such to bury none of the Sectaries, or Fanatics, lest at their burial they confess what in their life-time they did deny, ( viz. ) to account them Brethren.

68. Reading and praying over the dead, without any command or example in Scripture.

69. Churching of women, applying Psal. 121. to the Woman, which is meant of the Church of God.

70. The woman must offer an accustomed offering. Is not this to bring them back to the Law of Moses? Lev. 12. And are not these such as lead silly women away? according to that Scripture, 2 Tim. 3.6. For they ( viz. the Parsons, Vicars, and Curates) creep into houses, yea, into women's chambers often to Church them, as they call it. Is not this a private Conventicle?

71. That in the Primitive Church there was a godly Disscipline, that at the beginning of Lent such Persons as were notorious sinners were put to open Penance, &c. Are not these words as Honey and Wine to the Papists, to grant them at once Lent and Penance, and their Church to be the Primitive Church? Sed ab Origin non fuit ita.

72. That Discipline is much to be wished. Is not to wish Penance, to wish Popery? for the Papists in the places where we read repent, they translate do penance; so after denouncing the Judgment, they say, Let us seek to bring forth fruits worthy of penance; which is otherwise, and more truly rendered in Mat. 3.8. Repent, or change your mind, as the word Metanoeite signifies.

73. In the Prayer appointed to be said at the point of death, (mark, not prayed) the Common-Prayer-Book teaches the poor people that are ignorant to pray in Latin, In manus tuas commendo spiritum meum, and again, Domine Jesu accipe spiritum meum; this is not to pray with understanding, as the Apostle speaks: but to assure the Papists, that the person deceased died with their faith in his heart, as well as their language in his mouth?

Many other things might be objected against, as the misapplying of divers Scriptures, as Mat. 4. is applied to the Lenten fasts, and Rev. 14.1, 5. concerning (the 44000 that are sealed) is applied to the children that Herod caused to be slain, &c. so there are Untruths in it, as in the Calender. That nothing is ordained to be read but the very pure Word of God, and that all the Ceremonies pertain to edification, &c. Likewise somewhat that is good in the Book stablished by King Edward the sixth is left out, viz. From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities good Lord deliver us. It is also worthy observation, that above twenty years ago, some godly Preachers (that did refuse to read, and that did also preach against the present Book of Common-Prayer, both in London, and in divers Counties) were acquitted from their Indictments: because the Act that enjoy us the Book of Common-Prayer (under paenalty) commands that very Book, and no other, stablished by Edward the sixth, with one sentence added in the Administration of the Sacrament, and a sentence altered in the Litany; but this is not altered, but quite raz'd out. And by that very act whoever reads this present Book of Common-Prayer, should for the first fault, forfeit half his yearly Ecclesiastical Revenue, which if all the Readers of Common-Prayer were forced to do, their zeal for that Idol would soon cool.

Arguments to prove, that Lord-Bishops, or Diocesan-Bishops, &c. and their Authority, are contrary to the Word of God, and so consequently unlawful. And the chiefest Objections for Diocesan-Bishops, answered.

Also a Discovery of the great Disparity between Scriptural, Apostolical, Congregational ( particularly Timothy and Titus) Bishops, and Diocesan-Bishops.

THat which is absolutely forbidden by Christ and his Apostle (viz. Peter) is unlawful:

But for any Ministers ( extraordinary or ordinary ) to exercise Lorship, or be Lord's over one another, or the Heritage (or Church) of God is absolutely forbidden both by Christ and his Apostle (viz. Peter.)

Therefore for any to be such, or to exercise such power, is utterly unlawful.

The Major, or first Proposition, none can deny, But that which Christ and his Apostle do forbid, is utterly unlawful.

The Minor is clearly and strongly proved out of Mat. 20.25. Luk. 22.25. 1 Pet. 5.1, 3. The words in Matthew are, But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion (or as it is in the Greek there, and in Luke, exercise Lordship ) over them. But it shall not be so among you: or, as Luke saith, But ye shall not be so. Observe here, to whom, of whom, and upon what occasion Christ spoke these words. He spake these words to the ten Apostles or Disciples, v. 24. concerning James and John; and the occasion was the indignation of the other ten against their two Brethren. Where note, 1. That they were all Christians, Brethren, ( Judas excepted) Preachers and Apostles. 2. That those that were offended were ten to two. 3. The ten had some seeming ground to exercise Authority over the two; for the two began to seek pre-eminence over them first, (yea, of Peter and Andrew that were called before them to be Apostles) in desiring that they might sit the one on Christ's right hand, and the other on his left in his Kingdom: and yet mark how Christ allays that evil, proud, and Prelatical Spirit that was beginning to rise in them; he beats it down with both hands, urging three strong Arguments to dissuade them from this Lordliness. First, saith he, The Princes of the Gentiles do exercise dominion over them (not that Christ doth allow Princes and great men to exercise power over his Ministers and people to persecute them) and 'tis as if Christ had said, Princes and not Preachers should exercise Lordship; and the great ones among the Gentiles, to wit, sinners, and not the good ones among the Saints, claim and exercise this Lordly-power: and they and you will have enough, and too much indignation and persecution from these; and therefore be not of a high and Lordly spirit over one another Secondly (saith he) Whosoever would be greatest and chiefest among them, should be their Ministers and Servants, v. 26, 27. Thirdly, He gives them his own example of humility towards them; Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto but to minister. Likewise that place be fore cited in Peter (better known than observed by the Clergy) is most pat, and like David's stone, knocking this Goliath Episcopacy in the fore-head; Neither, saith he, being Lord's over God's Heritage, or not as though ye were Lord's of the Heritages. Thus much for the first Argument.

That which is directly contrary to what the Spirit of God hath appointed, must needs be unlawful:

But for one Bishop to be over divers (or many particular Churches) is directly contrary to what the Spirit of God hath appointed.

Ergo, for one Bishop to be over divers particular Churches, is unlawful. The Major is larior sole, clearer than the Sun, and needs no proof.

The Minor I prove thus: The Holy Ghost hath appointed several Bishops in one particular Church. The words are plain, in Act. 20.28. Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to the whole flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you over-seers. Or more near the Greek, Take heed therefore to yourselves, and feed the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost hath put you Bishops. In that particular Church of Ephesus there were several Bishops, or as they are called in the 17 verse. Elders (which are the same; for Peter, though an Apostle, calls himself an Elder ) so in the Church of Philippi, there were several Bishops, as well as Deacous, Phil. 1.1. Then to appoint or set up one Bishop over divers Congregations, as over three or four hundred, nay some over a hundred Parishes, is to do contrary to what the Spirit of the Lord hath done. Therefore 'tis unlawful.

That order which is contrary to the order which the Apostles set up in the Churches of the Gentiles, is unlawful:

But the order of Lordly or Diocesan-Bishops is contrary to that order which the Apostles set up in the Churches of the Gentiles. _____ Therefore unlawful.

The Proposition will not be denied; for what the Apostles received from Christ, they set up in the Churches, 1 Cor. 11.23. & 14.3.7. Act. 15.29. & 16.4.

The Assumption I prove thus: The order that the Apostles set up in the Churches of the Gentiles, was Bishops or Elders (which were of equal power and authority, as is shown before, and will more fully be afterward) in every Church, Act. 14.23. Tit. 1.5, 7. But Diocesan order is to set up one Bishop over many Churches; which order is contrary to the order set up by the Apostles, and so consequentially unlawful. They that walk contrary to the Rules of the Apostles, walk contrary to the Lord himself, 1 Cor. 11.1. Ephes. 5.1.2 Thes. 3.9. and they that walk contrary to the Lord, the Lord will walk contrary to them, Lev. 26.21, 41.

That Office and Authority which makes a man utterly uncapable of performing the duties belonging properly to his Function, is unlawful:

But Lordly or Diocesan power makes a man utterly uncapable of performing the duties belonging to his Function.

Therefore Lordly or Diocesan Power is unlawful.

The Major none but such as are willing to shun performing their Duties, will deny.

The Minor is proved by considering what the Duties are which belong to the Function of Bishops; to wit, to know their stocks, watch over them, feed, and comfort them; to resolve their doubts, visit them, and administer the Lord's Supper often unto them, &c. Prov. 27.23. 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.7, 17. Act. 20.28. 2 Cor. 1.4. James 5.14. 1 Cor. 11.23, 26. and how any Diocesan-Bishops (whose power extends in some Dioceses over several Counties) can possibly do this, let any judge.

That which doth necessarily introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Christ, is unlawful:

But the office of Lord-Bishops, or Diocesan-Bishops doth necessarily introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Christ.

Therefore the office of Lord-Bishops and Diocesan-Bishops is unlawful.

None but Papists will oppose the first.

The second I prove thus: They that have their Ordination from the Pope (and so consequently their Ministry, for Ordinatio apud Episcopos, est causa sine qua non, &c. for a man, though never so well qualified, is not accounted by them a Minister without it) do introduce the Popes power over the Churches of Christ: But Diocesan or Lord-Bishops have their Ordination from the Pope. Ergo. I prove they have their Ordination from the Pope: They that have their Ordination from the Archbishop, have their Ordination from the Pope, as holy Crunmer confessed they had (and as one lately made Bishop, acknowledged before many witnesses, in a conference with me in Carmarthen, for which some of his own friends blamed him.) For if the Archbishop hath not his Ordination from the Pope, then he hath none at all, and so is no Minister at all; and so hath no power to ordain other Bishops, nor they any other Ministers; for, Nemo dat quod in se non habet. So that it is easy to derive the Pedigree of our Diocesan-Bishops. And the learned Papists who are well versed in this Genealogy, know their descent perfectly, that the Bishops and themselves have but one Grand-father, whoever their Grand-mother or Mother is,

Obj. But if it be objected, That one Bishop hath power to ordain another, and so they need not have dependence upon the Pope for their Ordination.

Ans. I answer, If one Bishop ordain another, either he ordains him as another ordinary Minister (or Priest, as they say) or as a Bishop: If as another ordinary Minister, then a Bishop is not of another or higher Order than the ordinary Minister is of; but they are Equal in degree, and then par in parens non habet imperium. And this will not satisfy the Bishops.

If he ordained him first as a Minister, and afterwards as a Bishop, he hath had two Ordinations, for which there is no Rule in Scripture.

Obj. But the Archbishop doth but consecrate and confirm the Bishop.

Ans. Suppose that were a distinct thing from Ordination (which cannot be proved from the Word of God) yet who shall consecrate the Archbishop? either it must be his Inferior, Equal, or Superior: surely it will not be admitted that his Inferior should do it, for by that Rule and Reason, ordinary Ministers (which they call Priests, and account to be of a lower rank than Bishops) may ordain Bishops. An Equal cannot do it, because that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath no Fellow (unless the Archbishop of York ) then of necessity there must be application to a Superior, and there is no such (that assumes any Authority to administer Ecclesiastical Ordinances) except the Pope himself. So that by close pursuit, you may find where these Foxes are, or will be kennel'd. Let us therefore with the Church pray, Take us (or as it is in the Hebrew, gnalu for us) the little Foxes that spoil the Vines, for our Vines have tender Grapes, Cant. 2.15.

That Order and Office which hath many unscriptural Inferior Officers depending thereon, and are as branches thereof, is unlawful.

But the Order and Office of Diocesan and Lord-Bishops hath many unscriptural Officers depending thereon, and are branches thereof. Therefore it is unlawful.

The former is proved, 2 Chron. 13.9. Ezek. 43.3. Act. 23.3. when Paul said to Ananias the High Priest, Thou whited wall, &c. doubtless he looked upon him to be irregular in the Office (as the corruption was grown among the Jews to have a Sagan; answerable thereto, sure are Suffragans) and when he said, I wist not that he was the High Priest, he spake it Ironically, and 'tis as if he had said, I knew him not to be an High Priest, but I looked upon him as one that doth usurp the place. Surely Paul knew the High Priest, and his power well enough; but he spake to him as Diogenes said to Alexander the Great, I do not know Alexander the King, but I know Alexander the Tyrant.

The Minor or latter, that the Diocesan and Lord-Bishops have many unscriptural inferior Officers, as Deans, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Commissaries, Chancellors, Canons, Residents, Prebendaries, Peticanons, &c. such a rabblerout, that some (who have searched the Nest) affirm, that there are from the bottom to the top, from the Van to the Rear, thirty eight distinct Officers, that is, thirty above what Christ hath put in his Church. So having done with these Syllogistical Arguments, I will now lay down a few more plain Reasons against Diocesan Lord-Bishops, and their Power.

Because there is no difference made in the Scripture between Bishops and other Gospel-Ministers, called Elders. See Act. 20.17. and 28. Mat. 6.37. Col. 1.23. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 6, 7. Note, that where the Church-Officers are mentioned in Scripture, the Bishops are never named as a distinct Order from the Elders, but only from the Deacons, Rom. 12.6, 7, 8. Ephes. 4.11, 12.

Obj. Yea there is mention made of Helps and Governments, 1 Cor. 12.28.

Ans. Though he speaks of Helps and Governments, yet it is in the fifth or sixth place after Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, &c. and not in the first nor second rank. So that if any can spy out Episcopacy here, I am sure they can neither in this place, nor elsewhere in Scripture find Lord-Bishop, neither in name nor power, nor in that Rank and Order they place themselves no though you thus reckon. First the Pope; secondly, the Cardinal; thirdly, the Archbishop; fourthly, the Diocesan-Bishop; there you find them in their proper place, but not in the Scripture.

2. It is said, Aquila and Urbane, (nay, Priscilla a woman) were Helpers (of Paul ) in Christ Jesus, Rom. 16.3, 9. and yet they were no Bishops. It were to be wished that the Bishops were as good Helpers as they were, and as like Timothy (whom they would have to be a Bishop ) be ready to carry a poor painful persecuted Preachers Cloak, Books, &c. as he did Paul's. And thus they would obey the commands of Christ, who said, Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your Minister; and, Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant, Mat. 20.26, 27. I suppose all know who would be greatest and chiefest among the Ministers: but do any know which of them will be content to learn this Lesson of Christ? for such a Bishop would we give our voice: nay, I am contented that the Bishops should have the chiefest care of so many as they have converted, or fed. This granted, it is supposed their power will not be too great.

Because they are created by men, ( viz. by the Kings or Princes, in whose Dominions they are) and I may say to them, as the Boy said to the Doctor, That God made his Fathers Ox a Bull, but his Father made him an Ox: God made them men, but the King made them Bishops. See Cook, De Jure Regis Ecclesiastico.

Because they depend upon man, which the true Ministers of Christ never did. Episcopacy is a Noun Adrective, that cannot stand by itself, but it must be supported by the hand of the chief Magistrate: And they shelter themselves under that Maxim of theirs, No Bishop, no King. And the Bishops say, No Ceremony, no Bishop, whether this be not to lay a weak foundation to Regal Authority, let any judge. The Proverb would be truer, No King, no Bishop; for the King may very well subsist without them, but they like Colewerts close to the Vine, draw the fatness of the earth from it to themselves: Or like the Ivy to the Oak, sheltering itself under its arms and boughs, but in the mean time, keeping much of the virtue of the Sun from the Tree.

A tenth Reason to prove Diocesan Bishops to be unlawful, is, because they do imitate the Priests of the Law so much in respect of their different degrees, order, &c. as Archbishops answering the High Priests, the Presbyters, the other Priests, and the Deacons the Levites, and the Chorister and Cantors the Jewish Singers; so their Organs and other Instrument. They have also their Paul's answerable to the Temple; their Garments, Girdle, Mytre, &c. like those which the Priests did use; also their Tables, Altars, Sacrifices, Oblations, Purifications of Women: and their Holy-days, Feasts, with many such things, answering to the Jewish Feasts: but this is to set up the Legal Priest-hood again, that was weak, and those things which were but shadows, and continued only till the time of Reformation; And is not this to do altogether as bad as the Jewish Teachers did, who endeavored to bring back the Disciples, who had begun in the Spirit, to end in the flesh?

Obj. But how can they be Jewish, and yet Popish?

Ans. Very well; for the Pope and Papists are in a manner Imitators of the Jews; only they borrow some Heathenish Customs, and create some of their own for outward advantage. And doubtless it was the aim and endeavor of some of the late Bishops, as might easily be seen by their Writings and works, that they intended to unite England to Rome: and what some of the present ones may do (being Birds of the same feather) when their wings grow longer; Time (which is the discoverer of things) will show.

Because Lordly and Diocesan power is more than the Apostles of Christ did exercise either jointly or apart. For they imposed no Canons or Decrees (except the pure Scriptures, the true Rule and Standard) upon any of the Churches (no, though a whole Synod of them were gathered together to make such) but delivered, and left them to the Churches with this Recommendation, If you keep yourselves, ye shall do well, Act. 15.29. Likewise Paul an Apostle, and Timothy a Bishop (if you will have him so) would not exercise Dominion over the Faith of the Christians, 2 Cor. 1.1. compared with 24.

Lastly, It will evidently appear that the Lordly Diocesan-Bishops, and their power are unwarrantable and unscriptural, if we compare them with the Bishops mentioned in Scripture; and particularly with Timothy and Titus, who are urged by them for Authority and Example.

Timothy and Titus were
• 1. Begotten again, and converted by the Gospel, 1 Tim. 1.1. Titus 1.4.
• 2. True Disciples and Servants of Jesus Christ, Act. 16. Phil. 1.1.
• 3. Men of good report, Act. 16.2. 2 Cor. 8.6.
• 4. Inwardly and really affected to the people of God, 2 Cor. 7.15. Titus 1.8. as Brethren, Col. 1.1.
• 5. Well acquainted with the Scriptures, and the Word of God, and having a gift to prophecy, 2 Tim. 3.15. and 1 Tim. 4.14.
• 6. Doubtless chosen by the suffrages or voices of Church-members, as the manner was in choosing Officers, Acts. 6.3. and 14.22.
• 7. Ordained solemnly by fasting and prayer, either by the Apostles, Presbyters, or Elders of the same Church or Churches they were of, Act. 6.6. and 13.3. 1 Tim. 4.14.
• 8. Itinerant Preachers, going from Country to Country to preach the Gospel, Act. 17.14. 1 Thes. 1.3.
• 9. Diligent Laborers in the Work of Christ and his Gospel, called, Paul's work-fellows, Rom. 6.21. 1 Cor. 16.10.
• 10. Naturally careful of the things of Christ, and of the welfare of Christians, Phil. 1.19. 2 Cor. 8.16.
• 11. Attendants and Ministers to the Apostles, Act. 18.5. and 19.22. Gal. 2.1. 2 Tim. 4.10. but not their Chaplains.
• 12. Messengers of the Churches of Christ, going from one Church to another, and carrying contribution to the poor Saints, 2 Cor. 8.23. and 2 Cor. 8.6.
• 13. Much refreshed in and among the Saints and Churches of Christ, 2 Cor. 7.14.
• 14. Persecuted, imprisoned, and in bondage, for professing, preaching, and practicing the Doctrine of the Gospel of Christ, Heb. 13.17. Col. 4.10.
• 15. Such as did ordain Bishops or Elders in the Churches of Christ according to the appointment of the Apostles, Tit. 1.5.
• 16. Doubtless blameless, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, &c. 1 Tim. 3.23. Tit. 1.2. 1 Tim. 3.2.

Timothy and Titus (as appears in Scripture)
• 1. Were not chosen to their Office by Dean and Chapter.
• 2. Were not created by any earthly Kings or Princes.
• 3. Were not consecrated and confirmed by any Arch-bishop or Pope.
• 4. Did not call themselves, neither were they called Lord's. Though these men call themselves so, as Dr. Godwyn, &c. whereas Christ forbids his Apostles to be called Masters, Mat. 23.8, 10. See James 3.1.
• 5. Did not swear Canonical Obedience to any Archbishop.
• 6. Did not require any that they did ordain, to swear Canonical obedience to them.
• 7. Did not ask the Ministers they ordained at their Ordination, Will you reverently obey the Ordinary and other chief Ministers unto whom the Government and Charge is committed over you? &c.
• 8. When they did ordain other Ministers, they did not say to them, Recipe Sanctum Spiritum, Receive the Holy Ghost, and, Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God.
• 9. Tendred no Book of Articles, Canons, or Common-Prayer-Books to these they ordained, nor required any to swear to such things.
• 10. Did not lay hands upon any to ordain them before they were elected; much less ordain, or license any to be mere Readers.
• 11. Did not intermeddle with Civil and Secular Affairs: they were neither honorable in Parliaments, nor Councils: nor Worshipful Justices in the Countries.
• 12. Had no Stately Palaces, Bishops Lands, or thousands to maintain them yearly.
• 13. Had no High-Commission-Courts, Court of Audience, Prerogative-Court, Court of Faculties, &c. nor power to convene people at their pleasures before them.
• 14. Had no such Officers under them as Deans, Archdeacons, Prebends, Chancellors, Commissaries, Advocates, Proctors, Pursevants, Apparitors, &c.
• 15. Used no such Oaths, as the Oath ex Officio (to examine a man against himself) or the Etcaetera Oath, to swear to what should, be added and put in afterwards by them.
• 16. Did not impose penance, fines, imprisonment, &c. upon people at their pleasure.
• 17. Did not wear Scarlet Gowns, Mytres, Launsleeves, &c.
• 18. Did not sell Livings for money, nor give them as Dowries or Portions with their Daughters or Kinswomen to Ministers.
• 19. Did not silence any of the Ministers of the Gospel under the notion of Puritans and Factious persons, but if they silenced any, it was by Scriptures, and sound Arguments, as Titus was commanded, Tit. 1.
• 20. They did not present Ministers (as the Bishops used to do) for preaching without license, or in a Coat, or Cloak, or godly people for going out of their own Parishes to hear Sermons; or for meeting in private to read the Scriptures, repeat Sermons, pray, &c. or for not standing at the Creed, not bowing at the Name of Jesus, for wearing ones hat at Sermon-time, for not observing Popish-Holy-days, &c.
• 21. Did not cause any of the Believers to be fined, imprisoned, stigmatized, and to have their ears cut off, &c. or banished under the notion of Sectaries, or Schismatical persons.
• 22. Did not require the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, like Demetrius.
• 23. Did not neglect to preach the Gospel, or think it enough to appoint others under, or for them to do it. Did not make Preachers, Physicians, School-Masters, Clerks, Midwives, &c. buy and often renew their licences, &c.
• 24. Were not given to Wine, or greedy of filthy lucre: not soon angry, brawlers, self-willed, proud, contentious, and ill Examples in their Families or Country.
• 25. Did not remove from one Diocese to another for greater preferment.
• 26. Had not under them dumb, lazy, profane, Popish Priests, and Parsons, that have not only pluralities of Livings, but pluralities of Offices belonging to their Hierarchy.

Having thus laid down the Reasons against Archbishops and Diocesan Lord Bishops, and likewise having shown you the difference between these Worldly Monsters, and true Gospel-Bishops: it will in the last place be necessary to answer some of the main Objections: and they are not many (as I apprehend) that can be made, nor any but may be easily and soon answered; though men's wanton and worldly wit, self-interest, and sinful sophistry would imagine more than are real.

Obj. But were there not Bishops in the days of the Apostles? Was not Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Titus Bishop of Crete?

Ans. There is no Scripture that proves either of them to be Bishops at all, much less Bishops of those places.

Obj. What? Doth not Paul in his superscription or subscription direct his Epistle to them as such? 2 Tim. 4. end Tit. 3. end.

Ans. First, the superscriptions (or subscriptions) in the end of all Paul's Epistles seem, (and are judged by many learned) to be added by men since, and were not written by Paul. And it is evident, that some of those superscriptions are contradictory to the very Epistles to which they are suffixed. As the 1 Epist. to the Corinth. by comparing the subscription with Act. 19 9, 22. with 1 Cor. 16.8.

Secondly, It is very probable that those particular subscriptions to Timothy and Titus were not written by Paul, For,

1. Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, 2 Tim. 4.5. 2 Cor. 8.23. that is, men not tied to one place or Church, but sometimes accompanied the Apostles in their Journies from Country to Country, and assisted them in the work of the Gospel, by preaching, visiting, and helping to settle Officers and good Order in the Churches, as appears, Act. 17.14. & 19.22. 1 Thes. 3.12. 2 Cor. 2.12. Gal. 2.1. 2 Cor. 5.6. 1 Tim. 1.3. Tit. 1 5. and as more fully (and particularly) appears in the positive part of the parallel (to wit, what Timothy and Titus were) between them and Diocesan-Bishops.

2. It is clear, that in Ephesus (which was but one Church in one City, Act. 18.19. Rev. 2.1.) there were divers Bishops, Act. 20 17. compared with verse. 28. Bishops (so it is in the Greek) See Reas. first. And if there were divers Bishops there, how could Timothy be a single Bishop there? And if those Bishops were chosen and ordained in Ephesus, whilst Timothy was attending upon Paul in his Journies and Voyages, how could he be the first Bishop there? as the subscription saith, that he was ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians.

3. If Titus were Bishop of Crete, as the subscription saith, he must be Archbishop: For, 1. Crete had a hundred Cities in it (if we may credit divers Historians and Expositors.) 2. He ordained Bishops (or Elders, which is the same as was shown before) and that was one of the main ends, why Paul left him in Crete, Tit. 1.5. compared with verse. 7. And why Titus should be Bishop of many Cities, and that Timothy who was his equal at least in most or all regards, and that had that commendation from Paul himself, That he had no man like-minded, &c. and Timothy Bishop but of one City or Church, as Ephesus was, let the next Synod of Bishops resolve and determine if they can.

Obj. But in the Epistle directed to the seven Churches of Asia, there is mention only of one Angel.

Ans. 1. It hath been shown already, that in one of those seven Churches, (viz. Ephesus) there were divers Bishops; and so in the Church of Thyatira, The Holy Ghost writes, to you, and the rest in Thyatira, which were more than one, cap. 2.24.

2. Many good Angels termed one, as in Psal. 34.7. & 91.11. 2 King. 6.16, 17. & 19.35. So one Priest or Prophet is put for many, Isa. 3.2. Jer. 6.18, 19. Ezek. 7.26. Hos. 4.6. One Angel is here taken for divers; showing, that all the Officers in the Congregation were entire and one.

3. If there were but one Bishop in those Churches; then the order in those Churches, and in other Churches, would not be the same, as was shown before, Phil. 1.1. Act. 14.23. & 20.28. But,

4. Lastly, suppose it be granted that there was but one Bishop in everyone of those particular Churches, and that their power did extend no further (as there is no ground to believe it did) than in their particular Churches, then they were not Diocesans.

Obj. The Government of Bishops is ancient, of fifteen hundred years standing; therefore lawful.

Ans. 1. The Devil and Antichrist may make that Plea as well as they, John 8.44. 2 Thes. 2.4. 1 John 4.3.

2. They that read the History of the Church (written by Eusebius, Simpson, &c.) will easily discern the differences between the Bishops of the three first Centuries, and our Diocesan-Bishops. The controversy is not about the •• me (as is acknowledged by all) but about the power of Bishops.

3. If the word of God be a perfect Rule (as it is) what need we go any further? Bring your Episcopal Metal to this Touch-stone, and if it will hold here, we will honor it with its Gray hairs, and receive and reverence it as the right Heir; If not, we must say with Gerhard, Antiquity without truth, is but a cypher.