Reasons shewing the necessity of reformation of the publick [brace]1. doctrine, 2. worship, [double brace] 3. rites and ceremonies, 4. church-government, and discipline, reputed to be (but indeed, not) established by law. Humbly offered to the serious consideration of this present Parliament. By divers ministers of sundry counties in England.

III. Of DISCIPLINE.

HAving spoken of the Subject, or Persons in whom the Power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, by the Laws of the Realm, resided; we proceed to offer somewhat touching the Rules or Laws for execu∣tion thereof, under this Head of Discipline, which containeth the Ca∣nons, or Rules, to wit, the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws, by which alone all persons trusted with Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, have been enabled to exercise that Government.

How that Discipline is bounded, appeareth in and by the Acts of Par∣liament still in force, in 25. H. 8.19. and 1. Eliz. 1. which bounds, a great Sciolist is pleased to call sad restrictions and limitations . The bounds in the former Act are these. 1. That none of the Clergy should from thence forth, presume to attempt, alledge, claim, or put in ure any Constitu∣tions, or Ordinances Provincial, or Synodals, or any other Canons; Nor, shall enact, promulge, or execute any such Canons, Constitutions, or Ordi∣nances Provincial, by whatsoever name, or names they may be called in their Convocations, in time coming (which always shall be assembled by Authority of the Kings Writ) unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal Assent, and License, to make, promulge, and execute such Ca∣nons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Provincial, or Synodal, upon pain of every one of the said Clergy, doing contrary to this Act; and being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment, and make Fine at the Kings Will. It is true, that, at the suit of the then Clergy, divers Constitutions, Ordi∣nances, and Canons Provincial, or Synodal, which heretofore had been Enacted, and then thought to be not only much prejudicial to the Kings Prerogative royal, and repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, but also over-much onerous to his Highness Subjects: by that Act, the King was to chuse thirty two Persons, to review, approve, or reject the same; which being begun, but not perfected by the time limited, so as to get the Royal Assent thereunto, that Act revived in 3.4. Edw. 6. authorizing him to chuse thirty two Persons, to perfect that work. The persons were chosen, they did the work, compiled a Book intitu∣led Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, yet extant: but for lack of

the Royal Assent thereunto, within the time prefixed, that Act expi∣red, and, their Book of Reformation, with it: which was never since renewed.

In the Act of 25. H. 8.19. it is provided, that such Canons, Constitu∣tions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provincial being already made, which be not contrariant, nor repugnant to the Laws, Statutes and Customes of this Realm; nor to the damage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative-Royal, shall now still be used and executed as they were before the making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed, searched, or otherwise ordered & determined by the said thirty two persons, or the more part of them, according to the tenor, form and effect of this present Act.

By occasion hereof, Dr. Heylin affirmeth, that so much of the Popes Canon-Law, (first intended for the Church in general) as is not contrary to the Laws, Customs, &c. of the Land, is still in force, in our Courts Ecclesiastical, as the Civil or Imperial Laws are, in our Courts of Admiralty, and Prerogative, for probate of Wills. But we humbly conceive this cannot be so, because however the Civil Law is still in use in maritine, and Testamentary Affairs, in regard that Forrai∣ners, as well as Natives, are, or may be therein concerned; and so those Civil Laws are permitted; not, in relation to the Emperour, but as the Law of Nations, which never was by any Act of Parliament, in those eases, prohibited in England. The Popes Canon-Law, on the contra∣ry, is ever since disabled by the Statute of 24. H. 8.12. and by that Act before-mentioned, is wholly abrogated, and null. For, if his power be renounced, can his Laws (which are the chief part of a Law-givers power) be still in force; especially, where no Canons, but such as have the Royal Assent, may be used in England? And if that might be admitted, yet that very Proviso, in the Statute of 25. H. 8.19. puts a period to it, after the time the thirty two persons, or major part of them, did view and search them, and drew up a Body of Ec∣clesiastical Laws to be used here, (which the same Doctor confesseth they did) although the want of the Kings Assent, made it not valid in Law. For, the Proviso doth not say, the old Canons shall be used till the King Assent; but, onely till such time as they be viewed, searched; or, otherwise ordered and determined by them, or the more part of them. Nor doth that Act in any Clause, mention any other Canons or Consti∣tutions, but such as are Provincial, or called by other names, always pre∣sumed, and mentioned to be made in Convocations in England; not in the Popes Conclave.

And to the end it may yet further appear, that he who so confi∣dently taketh upon him to improve his knowledge to whom he wrote that Epistle, hath mis-informed him, and wrested the Laws also; take notice, that the Canon-Laws of England, are onely such as are, or have been made in England. These are of two sorts; legatine, or

Provincial. The Legatine were, 77 Canons and Constitutions; where∣of, 26 were made by Otho the Popes Legate, President of a Synod here in England; the other, 51. in another Synod, after holden under Othobone, Legate of the Pope in 32. Hen. 3. An. 1248. The Provin∣cial Constitutions were such as, in several places of England, were made under the Archbishops of Canterbury: in all, 212. whereof the first 48. were made under Stephen Langhton, in the reign of King John; and the last three, were made under Henry Chichley, in the reign of Hen. 5. These Provincial Constitutions, about the year 1422. were digested into a Body by William Lindwood, who also wrote a Com∣mentary upon them; the other, by Johannes de Aton, Canon of Lin∣coln, who likewise Commented upon them: all which, are yet ex∣tant.

Now, we must understand, the Act of 25. H. 8.19. speaks onely of Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances Provincial, or other, or by whatsoever name they be called in their CONVOCATION. These, and no other, were to be reviewed; and, out of these, such as by the thirty two persons chosen by Hen. 8. or Edw. 6. should be viewed, order∣ed, and determined to stand, were onely to be in force, as is evi∣dent to every impartial eye that shall consult the Statute. And these, having been in 4. Edw. 6. viewed; and, thereupon, by Gualter Haddon, under Archbishop Cranmer, and four Classes into which the said thirty two persons were divided, that Book, called, Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, (saith the Preface thereunto) were compiled. And these being so composed, and published, that all might object what they could (if they had ought) against them, before Confirma∣tion; the King died before his Royal Assent was given; and so, they never were confirmed. But yet, the very viewing, ordering, and deter∣mining of those old Constitutions, (be they what they could) were, by the closing Proviso forementioned, in 25. H. 8. all void, and of none effect.

And, albeit divers Canons, or Constitutions, were made in Q. Eli∣zabeths reign, (beside those Injunctions, and Articles for Visitations, in her first year) yet none of them being (for ought we know) confirmed by the Royal Assent, under the Great Seal, are now, by any, reputed Obligatory. It be then onely the Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasti∣cal, treated upon by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, and the rest of the Bishops and Clergy of the said Province; and, agreed upon with the Kings Majesties licence in that Synod begun at London, An. Dom. 1603. in the first year of King James his reign over England; and, after published by his said Maje∣sties Authority, under the Great Seal of England: which can now be so much as pretended to be of any force.

And here, we shall not dispute their validity, after that Kings death' they being not after re-established by King Charles the first: but, we shall onely speak to the Legality of them, as they were once ratified; and as they are any of them contrariant and repugnant to the Laws or Customes of the Land. As for Customes, (which the Statute of 25. H. 8.19. referreth to, as well as to the Laws) we shall say little, because this is more proper for Lawyers, upon Prohibitions, granted out of his Majesties Civil Courts, to confider, and debate. We therefore consi∣der of the Canons, or such of them onely as are repugnant to any of the Laws in force.

This is a large Field: Those Canons being no less than 141. in num∣ber, which are more then heretofore were ever made in any three Sy∣nods (by whomsoever held) in England. We shall therefore keep one∣ly to such as we find most contrariant to those Laws, which we are in duty bound chiefly to take notice of. As for instance.

Of those twelve Canons, under the first Head or Title, viz. Of the Church of England, there be eleven of them, the breach of any of which, is to be punished with Excommunication ipso facto, not to be revoked till such as breake them, after repent, and publickly revoke their wicked errours. The persons to be excommunicated, are, I. Impugners of the Kings Su∣premacy: Can. 2. II. All that affirm the Church of England is not a true and Apostolical Church, teaching and maintaining the Doctrine of the Apo∣stles: Can. 3. where, it is not defined what the Church of England is. III. Impugners of the publick Worship of God, established: Can. 4. which few know to be established. IV. Impugners of the Articles of Religion, agreed upon, 1562. Can. 5. the establishment whereof, is doubtful. V. Impugners of the Rites and Ceremonies established, Can. 6. of which there is no certainty. VI. Impugners of the Government of the Church of England, by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. Can. 7. there being none such. VII. Impugners of the form of consecrating and ordering Archbi∣shops, Bishops, &c. or that any thing in it is repugnant to the Word of God, Can. 8. there being in the form no such Words as ordering of Archbi∣shops and Bishops: and it having been made out that there be contra∣dictions in it; one of which, is repugnant to the Word. VIII. Au∣thors of Schism: Can. 9. IX. Maintainers of (such as the Canons call) Schismaticks: that is, who affirm such Ministers as refuse to sub∣scribe to the Book of Common-prayer, &c. Can. 10. which is hard to prove. X. Maintainers of Conventicles: Can. 11. that is, of such as maintain that there are in England, other Meetings, Assemblies, or Congregations of the Kings born Subjects, then such as by the Laws are allowed, which may rightly claim the name of true and lawful Churches. XI. Maintainers of Constitutions made in Conventicles, without the Kings Authority; and, submit to them: Can. 12. So all the Rules confirmed by Parliament, for Church-Government, make the Parliament lyable to Excommuni∣cation;

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

and the Assemby too, and all the Presbyterians in England.

Besides these, there is, Can. 59. for excommunicating Ministers re∣fusing to Catechise every Sunday, after a third offence herein complai∣ned of. So, Can. 68. decreeth Ministers refusing to Christen, or Bury, to be excommunicated Majori Excommunicatione. And Canon 72. ordaineth that if a Minister, without License from the Bishop, under his hand and seal, appoint or keep fasts, or be present at them, either publiquely, or in any private Houses, other then such as by Law, are, or by publique Authority shall be appointed, he shall for the first offence be suspended; for the second, excommunicated; and, for the third, deposed from the Ministry. Lastly, the 73. Canon, excommunicateth ipso facto, all Ministers and others meeting in any private house, or elsewhere , to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them, or upon their motion or direction by any other, which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of the Doctrine of the Church of England, or of the Book of Common-prayer, or of any part of the discipline now established. What is that?

Now, this sentence of Excommunication, being to be pronounced by a Minister onely, and, after to be publiquely denounced by other Ministers; and the persons excommunicated upon the 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11th Canons, not to be restored but by the Archbishop; and e∣very such person (not restored) is liable to the Writ De excommuni∣cato capiendo; (or else the excommunication signifies nothing) we appeal to all whether these Canons (if executed) be not against the Stat. of 5. Eliz. 23. which Enacteth, that if, in the Significavit (of the Ordinary) for obtaining a Writ de excom. capiend. it be not contained, that the excommunication doth proceed upon some cause or contempt of some original matter of Heresie, or refusing to have his or their child ba∣ptized, or to receive the holy Communion as it is now commonly used to be received in the Church of England, or to come to Divine-service now commonly used in the said Church of England, or Errour in matters of Re∣ligion, or Doctrine now received or allowed in the Church of England, In∣continency, Ʋsury, Simony, Perjury in the Ecclesiastical Court, or Idola∣try; Then all such Writs, and Significavits to be void in Law. And whether such Ministers as in Court, or in Churches, pronounce, or pub∣lish such excommunications; or, for non-appearance, non-payment of Fees, &c. (too too commonly practiced in those late Courts,) be not lia∣ble to be punished, by an Action at Law, for doing such illegal Acts, as are not justifiable by the Laws of the Land: Or, if such a Writ will lye against any man for Heresie, (not declared such by Parliament ac∣cording to 1. Eliz. 1.) for not receiving the Communion, kneeling; or, for not coming to the Common-prayer; as now used (it being already made out that it is not established by Law;) or, for dissenting from any of the Articles of Religion of An. 1562. (when it hath been shewed

that some of them are doubtful, some defective, and disagreeing from one another, &c.) is it not high time to Reform these things; especi∣ally, when by the Canons, not kneeling, not coming to Common-pray∣er, are declared to be Schism; and any dissent from those Articles, be∣ing adjudged errour in doctrine, the party shall be punished with excom∣munication; yea, with imprisonment, by Writ out of Chancery; and not be absolved, but by the Archbishop, (Can. 5.) nor, by him, till he shall have repented, and openly revoked that his dissent, as a wicked er∣rour; how just, and necessary soever such dissent was?

Again, the 14th Canon appoints Divine service to be said, not only on the Holy-days appointed by the Book of Common-prayer, but on their Eves. Which observation of Eves, is taken away by the Books of Common-prayer; and so this Canon is herein contrary to the Act of 1. Eliz. 2. Moreover, the same Canon enjoyneth Ministers to ob∣serve the Orders, Rites, and Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Com∣mon-prayer, which by referring to these in 2. Edw. 6. admits of a Sur∣plice only, so doth that of 5.6. Edw. 6. yet this enterferes with the 58. Canon; of which, before. And whereas that 14th Canon forbids diminishing any part of Common-prayer, in regard of preaching, or in any other respect, or adding any thing in the matter or form thereof; the Book of Common-prayer it self, doth warrant us to diminish, that is, to omit all that men now call the second Service; when there is no Com∣munion, as hath been also shewed.

The 17th Canon enjoyneth all Fellows, Scholars, and Students (though Boys) as well as Masters of Colleges and Halls, upon Sundays, Holy-days and their Eves, to wear Surplices at Divine service, preten∣ding for it, the Order of the Church of England: and Graduates to wear the Hoods of their degrees. Whereas the Order in the Liturgy en∣joyns Surplices only to Ministers in the times of their Ministration: not to others. And this of Boys wearing Surplices, doth countenance that fond conceit so much cryed up in Popery, that all once entred into Colleges, ought to receive primam tonsuram, and therefore to wear Surplices .

The 24 Canon enjoyneth Copes: which are forbidden in the Rubrick before Common-prayer, in 5.6. Edw. 6. of which, before. The 27th Canon, requireth Ministers not to administer the Communion to any but such as kneel, under pain of Suspension; whereas, we have before demonstrated out of 2. Edw. 6. that kneeling is left arbitrary. And, if any person not kneeling, be refused the Communion, with what ju∣stice can he be punished with Excommunication (which may end in imprisonment upon a Writ De excom. cap. by vertue of the forementi∣oned Statute of 5. Eliz. 23.) even when he desireth to communicate with that Liberty in gesture which the Law alloweth him? Yet, both Minister, Church-Wardens and Quest-men (the Office and duty

of which last, in Ecclesiasticals, we know not) must take notice whether every Parishioner come so often to the Communion as the Law requireth, Can. 28. which if he do not, he is to be presented, &c. which makes way to Excommunication, and imprisonment, as aforesaid, albeit it be not his fault that he received not: unless it be an of∣fence, to claim, and make use of the liberty which the Law affordeth him.

The Explanation of the lawful use of the Cross in Baptism, undertaken in Can. 30. is very defective: for, whereas it undertakes to remove all scruples of Conscience therein, it produceth not one Scripture, nor Father to that end: but only indefinitely talks of both; which, without better arguments and more distinct proofs, can never, in common rea∣son, quiet (much less satisfie) any mans Conscience that maketh scru∣ple thereof. Nor can we submit thereto, till we see it proved, as well as affirmed.

The 31. Canon forbiddeth the making of any Deacons, or Ministers, save only on the four Sundays after the Ember-Weeks, appointed for prayer and fasting, and so continued in England (by what Law, when the Stat. of 5.6. Edw. 6.3. declares the contrary?) and this to be done in the Cathedral, or Parish-church where the Bishop resideth, in pre∣sence not onely of the Archdeacon, but of the Dean and two Preben∣daries at least (if not by any lawful cause let, or hindred) or, of four other learned and grave Persons, Masters of Art at the least, and al∣lowed for publique Preachers. What Law, for confining Ordination to four times a year? If there be a Law, do Bishops now observe it? Is it not usual to ordain in other mens Diocesses: which they can no more legally do, then a Sheriff execute his Office, when he is out of his County? How often do Deans and Prebendaries assist at Ordinations? And why must all other Assistants be Masters of Arts at least? What Law, or Rule for any of these things; unless, for being Assistants to, and Co-ordainers with the Bishop; which, this Canon doth tacitely deny, when it saith, such and such shall be present: but, not a word of their Laying on of Hands, according to the Book of Ordination?

And whereas by the 36th Canon, Subscription is enjoyned to the Books of Common-prayer, and of Ordination, not only upon all Ordi∣nations, and Institutions to Benefices, &c. which, by Can. 37. is re∣quired also of all Lecturers, Catechists, Readers; yea, (by Can. 77.) of all School-masters too, (unless to the last clause of Art. 2. touching using the book of Common-prayer) whereas the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. requires no subscription but to the 39. Articles: nor that, save only of such as are to be instituted to a Benefice: not at Ordination, or at taking Licenses to Preach only. The 38th Canon touching Revolters after Subscription, hath been spoken to before.

The 40th Canon enjoyning an Oath against Simony, is necessary; yet,

against Law; and particularly, against the Petition of Right. This therefore we say no more of, but humbly pray, such an Oath may be imposed by Law. But, whereas the 49th Canon prohibiteth Ministers not to expound Scripture, &c. if not Licensed by the Bishop; this is expresly contrary to Law (8. Eliz. 1.) which confirmeth the Book of Ordination, in and by which every one ordained a Presbyter, hath the Bible delivered into his hand by the Bishop, with these Words, Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, &c. Yet, must every such ordained Minister be compelled to be at the charge of taking out a further License from the same Bishop, at the same time, to preach in the same place; or else, not to perform that duty, which he promised solemnly to the Bishop, and by him was authorized to perform, at his Ordination. Nor may any Ministers be suffered (by the 51. Canon) to preach in any other Church, without shewing such License, although otherwise well known to be sufficiently authorized thereunto. And whereas the 62. Canon alloweth Ministers to celebrate Matrimony be∣tween other persons, without asking the Bannes in Churches, if he have a License for doing of it from the Bishop, Archdeacon, or their Offici∣cals; this is expresly contradictory to the Book of Common-prayer, Rubrick 1. before the form of Matrimony: and so, contrary to Law, of 1. Eliz. 2. if that Book be confirmed thereby.

There be sundry other Exceptions justly to be taken to the Book of Canons, (as namely, to such Ecclesiastical Offices, besides Bishops and Presbyters, as be admitted to bear a share in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; albeit they be Lay-men; while yet they abominate Lay-Elders in the Presbyterian Government, beside many other) all which, we at present, forbear; not, as approving of them, but, as hoping for a Reformation of that as well as of other things. We therefore shall now only with all humility, propound a few Queries, very necessary, as we conceive, to be seriously considered.

1 Quere: Whether, if there be any thing of substance altered in, or added to the Articles of Religion, or Books of Common-Prayer, or Or∣dination; and, those Alterations, or Additions not expresly mentioned, and confirmed by Parliament: this doth not make those Books to be void in Law, if pleaded at Law? The Grounds of this Quere, are, the Acts of 13. Eliz. 12. as touching the Articles: that, of 1. Eliz. 2. as to the Book of Common-prayer: and, the Statute of Eliz. 8.1. and of 5.6. Edw. 6.1. as to Ordination. Which last named Act, saith, that the Books therein mentioned were annexed to the said Statute; yet are they not to be found inrolled therewith: no more is the other Book of Articles, in 13. Eliz. inrolled with that Act.

2 Quere: Whether the Statutes which are said to confirm any of the things named in the former Quere, mentioning only the Titles, but not reciting the matter of the Books themselves, do make those Books, or

the things contained in them, (which have been several times altered) although never so much as said to be inrolled, nor found so to be; do make those things to be established and good in Law, because now commonly reputed, received, and generally used as ratified by Law? The Ground of this Quere, is, that clause in 1. Eliz. 2. which after men∣tioning some Alterations (but not particularly naming them) in the Common-prayer-book, prohibiteth all other Alterations, saying, [And none other, or otherwise.]

3 Quere: If any man be indited, or sued at Law, upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. for not reading of, or coming to hear the Book of Com∣mon-prayer; or, upon the Stat. of 13. Eliz. 12. for not reading the Articles of 1562: and, the Defendant plead Not guilty, and deny these Books to be those confirmed by those Laws, till the Plaintiff prove them to be of Record; whether is not the Plaintiff bound to prove that, and in the mean time, the Defendant not punishable by those Sta∣tutes? The Grounds of this Quere, are, first, that there are no Re∣cords, of these to be found: secondly, the Books have been several times altered since those Acts: and thirdly, many punished upon the said Acts, because those Books have been generally received and used as established by Law.

4 Quere: Whether, notwithstanding the Royal Licence before, and Assent after; any Canons made in Convocation, be valid in Law, before they be ratified by Act of Parliament, as the Service-book, and Arti∣cles of Religion were said to be? and, whether, by consequent, the Canons of 1603. be now binding? The grounds hereof, are, first, that all other Constitutions, are, or are reputed to be, ratified in Parliament. Secondly, the Statute of 1. Eliz. 2. which gives power to the Queen, her Heirs and Successours, to grant Licence to Commissio∣ners, Bishops, and others, to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, when it speaks of withdrawing, or altering any Rites and Ceremonies; or, ad∣ding new; the power is there given to the Queen alone, without men∣tion of Heirs and Successours. And when any thing is ordered, or au∣thorized by the King, although under the Great Seal: yet the enforcing thereof (before ratification by Parliament) is held to be contrary to the Petition of Right.

We shall now close up all with this humble Advertisement; that, whereas it is pleaded by some, that Liturgies (and, among them, the sub∣stance of ours) are ancienter then the Popish Mass-Books by many hun∣dreds of years (whence they infer the weakness and folly of their Ob∣jections, who say, that all, or most, or any of the things contained in our Service-Book, are taken out of the Mass-Book, and so are Popish, and upon that account would have them abolished:) and, for that pur∣pose, produce some passages out of Ignatius, Clem: Alexandrinus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostome, &c. wherein sundry things in

use among us, are found mentioned in them; and, by some, the Litur∣gy of St. James, Peter, &c. are also urged, although by many Learned men, censured as supposititious. Yet none of these Authors do men∣tion any Publick Form, (the same for substance with ours;) although they speak of Publick Prayers made in the Congregation, which none ever denyed. Publick Prayer is one thing; a Publick Form, another. Nor are we against all Liturgies, but onely against that which is liable to such material Exceptions as necessitate us to desire a new Form. And albeit some of the Rites and Ceremonies now in use may be mentioned in sundry of the Fathers within the first 600 years after Christ; yet, the mentioning of them, is no evidence of the lawfulness of them; or, that they are not Popish, (although of latter times, espoused by that Syna∣gogue of Rome) for as much as Popery was in the Egge, and the mystery of iniquity began to work, (although under disguises, and other names) even in the time of St. Paul himself, 2 Thes. 2.7. Yea, some of those very Fathers have sundry passages in them, which condemn those very things which are now cryed up upon the very authority of their vene∣rable names. We shall, for brevity, give but one instance, which every Reader may find in the Preface touching Ceremonies, before the Book of Common-Prayer; which, albeit it hath been before alledged, we here briefly touch upon again, for better satisfaction of such as cannot con∣sult the Author himself. The particular mentioned in that Preface, is a passage out of St. Augustine; who was so far from approving such a number of Ceremonies, (yet, not to be compared with the multitude, in after-times) that he complained that hereby, Christians were in worse case then were the Jews, and therefore counselled to take off that yoke and burden, so soon as it might quietly be done. And this was one of the Grounds and Reasons there alledged, of the cutting off of so many superstitious Ceremonies, in the first Reformation, under that blessed King, Edward the sixth: which, of late, our Arminians and Grotian Di∣vines and Prelates have sought to recal under the colour and guise of Antiquity: for which they produce onely some bits and scraps of Fa∣thers, to prove their Antiquity; but, no solid Arguments to make out their lawfulness and conveniency; and yet seek to impose them on those who hold themselves bound to hate the garments spotted with the flesh, as well as the flesh, that is, the corruption it self. We therefore conclude, That it is not bare Antiquity, but Divine Verity that must be the onely Rule and Standard of all Doctrine, Worship, Rites and Ceremonies, Ordi∣nation, Jurisdiction and Discipline, among all that intend Conformity to the Mind of Christ.

Notes

• D. Heylin, Certam. E∣pistol. pag. 89. which sheweth how they like the Laws, and how far, they would go, in ma∣king Laws, if they durst.
• 3.4. Edw. 6. cap. 11.
• 1 El. 1.
• Ubi supra.
• What, if in Parliament; or, in Con∣vocation?
• Ham. le Strange in Affin. of Div. Serv.