The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as commissioners for the review and alteration of the Book of common prayer, &c. : being an exact account of their whole proceedings : the most perfect copy.

About this Item

Title
The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as commissioners for the review and alteration of the Book of common prayer, &c. : being an exact account of their whole proceedings : the most perfect copy.
Author
Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.
Publication
London printed :: [s.n.],
1661.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Commission for the Review and Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer.
Church of England. -- Book of common prayer.
Church of England -- Liturgy.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69535.0001.001
Cite this Item
"The grand debate between the most reverend bishops and the Presbyterian divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as commissioners for the review and alteration of the Book of common prayer, &c. : being an exact account of their whole proceedings : the most perfect copy." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69535.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 17, 2024.

Pages

Reply. If when the expresse words of a Statute are cited, you can so easily put it off, by saying (it does not forbid it,) and you dare not think that a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Christ his Church hath commanded,) and (you must not interpret it as con∣tradicting that Act which confirms the Liturgy,) we must think that indeed we are no lesse regardful of the Laws of the Governours than you; But first, we understand not what Authority this is that you set against the King and Parliament, as supposing they will not for∣bid what it commands? You call it Christs Church, we suppose you mean not Christ himself, by his Apostles infallibly directed and inspired: If it be the National Church of England, they are the Kings Subjects; and why may he not forbid a Ceremony which they command; or why should they command it if he forbid it? If it be any Foreign Church, ther's none hath power over us. If it be any pretended head of the Church universal, whether Pope or general Council, having power to make Laws that bind the whole Church, it is a thing so copiously disproved by Protestants against both the Italian and French Papists, that we think it needlesse to con∣fute it, nor indeed dare imagine that you intend it. We know not the refore what you mean; But whatever you mean you seem to contradict the forecited Article of the Church of England, that makes all humane Laws about Rites and Ceremonies of the Church to be unchangeable, by each particular National Church; And that it is not necessary that Ceremonies or Traditions be in all places one, or utterly like▪ we most earnestly beseech you be cautious how you obtrude upon us a Foreign Power, under the name of Christs Church, that may command Ceremonies which King and Parliament may not forbid, whether it be one man or a thousand, we fear it is against our Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy, for us

Page 70

do own any such Power. And (not presuming upon any immo∣dest challenge) we are ready in the defence of those Oathes, and the Protestant Religion, to prove against any in an equal conference, that there is no such Power, and for the Statute, let the words them∣selves decide the Controversy, which are these [Be it Enacted that who soever shall by Preaching, Teaching, Writing, or open speech, notifie that any eating of Fish, or forbearing of Flesh, mentioned in this Statuie, is of any necessity for the saving of the Soul of man, or that it is the Service of God, otherwise than as other Politick Laws are, and be, that than such persons are and shall be punished, as the spreaders of false news are, and ought to be.] And whereas you say the Act deter∣mines not any thing about Lent Fast, it speaks against eating Flesh, (on any days now usually observed as Fish days: and Lent is such, and the senfe of the Act for the Lituigy may better be tryed by this, which is plain, than thus reduced to that which is more obscure.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.