On Speaking in Unknown Tongues

This will be a “first” for this blog, venturing beyond perhaps what could be called my “comfort zone” in topics that I feel prepared to discuss. However, the issue of speaking in unknown languages (or tongues as the Authorized Version would say) is somewhat of an issue in my personal sphere of interaction. We know that speaking in tongues is Scriptural for it is mentioned in many places (for a brief example: Mark xvi, 17; Acts xix, 6; x, 44-46), however, there are many issues in determining what that means and if it is still to be practiced today. I intend to do two things with this piece. First, I would like to offer my opinion on the matter of speaking in tongues, what I understand that to mean, and the nature of its practice today. Secondly, I wish to critique the manner in which I have seen what is often termed “glossolalia” practiced today. The issue of understanding the language of prayer is a crucial one for us as Anglicans. I will presume many things to be true, which I personally do not believe to be the case.

I don’t intend to discuss the issue of glossolalia versus xenoglossia in this post, although, I will offer my opinion briefly. I think the issue of the precise nature of “speaking in tongues” as contained in Scripture is defined in Acts ii, 4-11. I will post the text for ease of discussion:

Acts ii, 4-11

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The portion that I have underlined is the central idea of the text. In it, we see the multitudes of nations, represented by the Jews assembled in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. The disciples were speaking either Aramaic or Greek (whichever was more natural to them, obviously) and the crowd heard the Gospel presented each in his own language. For some reason, modern proponents of glossolalia do not see this as more extraordinary than babbling strange syllables. I think xenoglossia is more miraculous an occurrence than glossolalia. However, this is really besides the point and only a brief description of my point of view on the matter.

While on the matter, I would fall probably within the “moderate cessationist” category on the subject. The extraordinary gifts were given to the apostles to proclaim the Gospel before the Scriptures were completed. This is how I would interpret this part of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians:

I Corinthians xiii, 8-108 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

These gifts were to help spread the Gospel by demonstrating the work of the Spirit in the early Church. I think that the Spirit demonstrates these gifts in places today where the Gospel has not been heard before in the same manner (perhaps before the Scriptures can be translated into the native language of those people). I personally think glossolalia distracts people from the Word of God and I’m not truly convinced that it is even an acceptable interpretation of what “speaking in tongues” is. The Book of Homilies offers an interesting perspective on the matter:

“For, if prayer be that devotion of the mind which enforceth the heart to lift up itself to God, how should it be said that that person prayeth that understandeth not the words that his tongue speaketh in prayer? Yea, how can it be said that he speaketh?” (“Of Common Prayer and Sacraments”).

It must be stated that the immediate context for that period would have been the issue of praying in Latin instead of a language understood by the pray-er. However, I think the underlying principles are equally applicable. Prayer is the lifting up of our minds unto God. If we do not understand the words which we utter, how can we truly be said to be praying?

I found that Irenaeus tends to agree with xenoglossia:

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God. (Irenaeus, c. 180)

And that glossolalia was condemned by Eusebius:

He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times. (Eusebius, d.c. 339)

Augustine also agrees with xenoglossia:

In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues", which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance". These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when he laid the hand on infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so strong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother, the Spirit of God dwelleth in him. (Augustine of Hippo, 354–430)

I did not research thoroughly the interpretation of tongues in the early Church, perhaps a reader can point to more sources.

Whatever the exact meaning of speaking in tongues is and if that is even a possibility today is beyond the question for this post. I am going to presume that cessationism is not true (although I do not actually believe this as stated above). The second issue that I intend to discuss in this piece is the practice of glossolalia, which I believe to be abused frequently at the sake of Common Prayer and against the teachings of Scripture.

Firstly, the Articles of Religion must be consulted, for Article XXIV has some important remarks on this subject:

 XXIV. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the people understandeth.

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church to have public Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments, in a tongue not understanded of the people.

This can be proved from God’s Word. Firstly, speaking in tongues is mentioned in conjunction with the interpretation of tongues in Scripture, for example:

I Corinthians xii, 3-4, 10-11
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

The only portion of Scripture that could be used to support glossolalia (in my opinion) is Paul’s treatment of tongues and prophecy in I Corinthians xiv. The context of this passage is immediately after Paul’s famous “love chapter” that has been referenced earlier in this piece. In fact, the first verse of the chapter exhorts readers to “Follow after charity” in addition to desiring the spiritual gifts. Paul seems to value prophecy of more importance than tongues because those who prophesy build up the entire body of the church, while the one who speaks in tongues only exhorts himself and speaks only to God, unless there is an interpretation of his tongues. Paul relates this to the principle of Common Prayer by referencing a battle trumpet, if it plays sounds that no one recognizes, what purpose is it? In our public life together, the language of prayer must be one that everyone can understand. It must be an exhortation to all to turn to God in Christ alone for salvation. “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me” (v.11). The purpose of Common Prayer is that we all give a common assent, “Amen”, but, how can we do this if we do not understand that which is said? As Paul says, “Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (v. 16).

Luckily, Paul gives us some suggestions on how to proceed forward with the speaking of tongues in public worship. First, the person who speaks in tongues should pray for interpretation (v. 13). However, if there is no interpretation given, then the person should only speak in tongues privately and silently. This falls back on the purpose of the giving of the gifts, as Paul states:

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

This brings us back to the main point that we were given gifts, that is to proclaim the Gospel. The gift of tongues was not given as some sort of private ecstasy for Christian believers but as a means of preaching the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. To misuse the gift is to be a bad steward of God’s good blessings. I doubt anyone would want to misuse God’s blessings given to his Bride.

Go to Rehab: A Response to "Young Evangelicals Are Getting High"

You have probably read the article floating around the Internet, titled, "Young Evangelicals Are Getting High" (which can be read here). I have some serious criticisms to offer against this piece. Perhaps this results from my somewhat cantankerous nature or perhaps because I was one of these "high" evangelicals, at one point. This article does do a good job of pointing out that there is an underlying problem with "mainstream" evangelicalism but, unfortunately, the article doesn't really address that issue. Following suit with the author of the original piece, I don't recommend young evangelicals get high, but if they have, they should go to rehab.

First, considering the underlying problem of contemporary evangelicalism, which I referenced above, the author offers a thought on what this problem is:

The kids who leave evangelical Protestantism are looking for something the world can’t give them. The world can give them hotter jeans, better coffee, bands, speakers, and book clubs than a congregation can. What it can’t give them is theology; membership in a group that transcends time, place and race; a historic rootedness; something greater than themselves; ordained men who will be spiritual leaders and not merely listeners and buddies and story-tellers. What the kids leaving generic evangelicalism seem to want is something the world can never give them–a holy Father who demands reverence, a Saviour who requires careful worship, and a Spirit who must be obeyed. They are looking for true, deep, intellectually robust spirituality in their parents’ churches and not finding it.

Now, drinking coffee in church is most assuredly a problem, of sorts, and the things the author lists as positive to the "liturgical" tradition(s) are certainly good things. For instance, who can argue against a church that offers a sense of "historic rootedness"? In our postmodern world, it's nice to connect with something that's older than you are. I think these things are all good reasons for reconsidering the nature of contemporary evangelicalism. And if these folks are finding some sort of fulfillment in Anglicanism or Lutheranism, good for them.

However, I don't think the author really comes anywhere close to the actual problem plaguing contemporary evangelicalism (and Protestantism in general). The real problem, in my view (and based off personal experience), is the complete lack of any ecclesiology in most of contemporary evangelicalism. When you go about asking contemporary evangelicals, what is the Church? They might say the "stage" where the pastor talks or something ridiculous like that. The lack of a coherent ecclesiology (and perhaps a misunderstanding of traditional, Protestant doctrines, such as sola scriptura), send young evangelicals on a quest to find something which will answer these sorts of questions. After all, you have to have a reason to listen to your minister other than he has really cool jeans. The question isn't really one of liturgics but one of ecclesiological substance. Most evangelicals have no idea what the Church is. Luckily for us Anglicans, it's spelled out, quite clearly, in Article XIX what the Church is. In my own summary, the (visible) Church is the congregation of faithful men where the Gospel is preached and the Sacraments administered rightly. The word "congregation" causes some confusion as it seems to imply congregationalism. However, the word was used in a broader context in the sixteenth century than now. The word implies the whole gathering of Christians, universally, as the "congregation of Christ". Evangelicals are never taught this definition of the Church in such precision, sometimes they are exposed to some watered down version but the full substance of the matter needs to be presented. Likewise, it needs to be reinforced that the Reformation was not an exercise of relinquishing the Church's authority. The Church has authority in matters of faith and ceremony but it is limited by the Word of God (contrary to the Roman system), meaning it cannot declare something contrary to the Scriptures to be truth or necessary for salvation. This limited authority of the Church is important, a concept which is equally not taught in evangelical circles. These are the issues which need to be dealt with in my mind not how much our worship lines up with scholars' conjectures about early church worship (why does our worship need to look like the early church anyway? It was a different context then...).

Other than missing the mark on the underlying problem, the author also makes some common, yet not inexcusable mistakes. The first is the lumping together of disparate theological systems. Roman Catholicism and "Anglicanism/Lutheranism" (as referred to in the article) are different religions. They teach different things regarding how man is saved. This might be more of a comment on the simplemindedness of the common man but the failure to grasp these essential differences is crucial. Secondly, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are historically very different theological systems, albeit related in some ways. This is really preaching to the choir but Lutheranism teaches that Christ is present in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine while Anglicanism does not, teaching instead that Christ is received by faith. Although these are not monumental differences, they are important. The author then juxtaposes Anglicanism and Lutheranism with those congregations that teach "robust, historic Protestant theology" as if the former didn't (well, most Anglicans don't believe Anglicanism anyway, so they might be on to something there...). The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches are liturgical too (at least historically), but I suppose they aren't flashy enough for the author of "Young Evangelicals Are Getting High", I guess Presbyterianism is comparable to tobacco in this "high" analogy, not quite illegal, less appealing to youngsters.

Anyway, it's good we're seeing an influx of evangelicals in our pews but I really question their motivation for being here and likewise that the gap in their theology has sufficiently been addressed.

Three Years Of Blogging and a Repost

Two events somewhat naturally coalesced in the life of this blog, that being the anniversary of three years of writing and the arrival at two hundred posts. I delayed the commemoration of the former till the latter came closer. Now that we have come to that point, I wanted to thank all of the readers of this blog for three years of conversation. Many amazing things have happened due to the presence of this blog on the wild and wacky pages of the Internet. 

When I started this blog the essential questions I was asking were the same as the ones that I ask now. The manner in which I address them has changed slightly and perhaps some of the conclusions I have reached are slightly different, yet, the essential problem remains the same as it was three years ago. In honor of the spirit of continuity, I post below one of the first pieces I released on The Hackney Hub.

A bit of background information, for those who cherish such, I had registered this blog under another name ("Soli Deo Gloria", hence the old URL) before changing the name. I was curious about the nature of the pre-Tractarian Church of England at that time, which led to the research that created this blog. One of the early pieces that defined the scope of the blog was "The Curious Case of the Old High Churchmen" (which has since been revised to "The English High Church Tradition", lamentably still not ready for public consumption, in my opinion). It was around that time that I became aware of a group of churchmen writing just prior to and contemporaneously with the Oxford Movement, known as the Hackney Phalanx, from which the name of this blog is derived.

Here's to three more years...


IDENTITY PROBLEM

The eternal question for Anglicans seems to be a question of identity. Who are we as Anglicans? It seems as if this question is not going away anytime soon, due to competing varieties of Anglicanism on the North American continent, in particular. There are four distinct Anglican identities available for the religious consumer on the American religious market. There is the "official" Episcopal Church, aka Affirming Catholicism with Broad to High Ceremonial, Conservatives not welcome. There is the Continuum, or those Anglicans who left the Episcopal Church in 1976 due to the ordination of women to all three of the historic orders and the publication of the new Prayer Book, which they felt was not authentic to Anglicanism. Next there is the Anglican Church in North America, which is the conservative version of the Episcopal Church. Anglo-Catholicism + Broad to High Ceremonial, a few charismatics and convergentists to make it diverse. Lastly, there is the Anglican Mission in the Americas, which is mostly like the ACNA but has more (what the British would call) open evangelicals, i.e. Arminians. 

In my last post, I looked at the idea of churchmanship throughout the centuries. However, modern Anglicanism does not reflect historic churchmanship because of one crucial event in the life of Anglicanism. That movement? The Oxford Movement forever changed the landscape of Anglicanism because it widened the possibilites for Anglican identity. How so? Well, before the Movement, Anglicans were firmly convinced that they were Protestant Christians. Sure, in the beginning there were Catholic dissenters who did not agree with the Henrician and Edwardinian reforms but by the time of the Restoration in 1660, Anglicanism was thoroughly Protestant, albeit, in a different manner than Continental Protestantism. Anglicanism was a Protestantism defined by the Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion. The classifications of "high church" and "low church" have changed meanings over time, in different contexts, but overall they have to do with the level of ceremony that a person or parish desires in the celebration of the liturgy. The Protestant concept of adiaphora comes into play here, because according to the Reformers, ceremonial was a matter of adiaphora or "indifferent matters" which did not affect one's salvation. What did the Oxford Movement do to nullify this common identity that Anglicans had before? I would argue that the infamous Tract 90 destroyed the confidence in the Articles, although it was not received by the English at the time of its publication. It gave Anglo-Catholics a plausible interpretation of the Articles and some talking points which over time were used to convert others to their line of thinking. It had more disasterous effects in the United States, where there was no Evangelical party to counterract the staunch Anglo-Catholicism of the Tracts. The Reformed Episcopal Church was the Evangelical party in the Episcopal Church, but when it departed in 1873, all that was left in the PECUSA was the Anglo-Catholics and Broad Churchmen, which led to the chaos we experience today in TEC. 

What do we need then? We need a renewal of classical and confessional Anglicanism in North America. We need High and Low Churchmen, united by the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, and the Articles of Religion to stand up and proclaim the Gospel. We need a revival of true Anglicanism in America. Transubstantiation, Benediction, Rosaries, and Requiem Masses are not part of historic or Classical Anglicanism. We are a Gospel people, united by a Gospel Prayer Book. Let us join in prayer together for the revival of biblical, confessional Anglicanism in America.

Anglicans and the "Validity" of other Protestant Ministers

"Anglicans and Apostolic Succession" has sparked some interesting discussions in various arenas for me. I thought it decent and proper to offer further clarifications regarding my thoughts on these subjects, for interested parties, it could be thought of as "somewhat of a sequel". This entry continues discussing similar topics as found in the previous post, perhaps from different angles than the first one.

In the first piece, I spoke of tactile apostolic succession and how that differs from doctrinal apostolic succession and subsequently distinguished between historical succession (= lists of consecrations) and apostolic succession (maintaining catholic faith). First, to speak to some of the implications of this line of thinking, it tends to open up the question of the validity of ministers in a way that subscribers to the tactile theory do not consider.

Firstly, the language of "valid" or "invalid" ministers is really alien language from classical Anglicanism. The reason is that it is tied too closely with Romanism (and the East), meaning it lacks certain biblical warrant off which we base our theology. The validity of our sacraments is not tied to the actions of our ministers but to the faith of the recipients of the sacraments. We have valid sacraments if we receive them worthily, that is in faith. This is all taken from the Articles of Religion, for instance, see Article XXVIII "Of the Lord's Supper", wherein is stated, "And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith." In other Articles, for instance, XXVI, "Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament," we learn that the Sacraments are "valid" of Christ's ordinance and institution and not tied to the minister. Christ ministers to his people in the sacraments and he is never invalid.

Secondly, there is a classification of ministers which we find in the formularies, that being one of "lawfulness". This is found in Article XXIII "Of Ministering in the Congregation". This relates to the Reformational understanding of authority as vested in the national church. Hence, in this article, congregationalism is condemned because it does not allow for those in proper authority to determine the lawfulness of the ordination of a minister, i.e. his qualifications. The lawful authority spoken of in the article is the Crown in England, noting that the bishops are Crown ministers in England. This ties into the Reformation distinction of national churches. Many people (wrongly) assume that the Protestant Reformation produced denominations, they were a product of the Act of Toleration in 1689, which causes problems for many of these questions when we arrive in New World settings where denominationalism is the norm. This is most assuredly not the case. The Protestant Reformation resulted from the reform of national churches by their own mechanisms. These national churches were reformed by their own means, taking into account the contexts in which they found themselves, often leading to some different realities after reformation. The remarkable thing is the doctrinal consensus achieved among them (apostolic succession) with one substantial difference between the Magisterial Reformers (Lutherans and Reformed, the Anabaptists were equally condemned by both), that being the nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament, Lutherans holding to consubstantiation (or whatever they're calling it nowadays) and the Reformed "suprasubstantiation" (to use Horton's term, most commonly called receptionism). This wasn't a minor issue for the Lutheran and Reformed communities, albeit there were several attempts to reconcile these differences (Council of Tonneins, for instance), however, it is important to note that the Lutherans hold to the "highest" of all Reformation theologies of eucharistic presence, believing Christ's body and blood to actually be present in the elements, a point denied by the other Reformed Churches and the British Isles.

Another key difference which arose was that of the regulative vs. normative principle. This in itself is a huge topic but it played out mostly between England and the other Reformed Churches. (I must admit that I am not well-versed in this aspect of Reformation studies so one will need to consult other materials to verify these statements.) The language of "lawfulness" stems from the normative principle, which states that ecclesiastical norms and practices can be maintained, unless they contradict the teaching of Scripture. Hence the maintenance of bishops and the church calendar in England. The regulative principle essentially states that only practices which are in line with Scripture can be continued within the Church. This is seen in the various Continental approaches to the reforms of the liturgy (and granted, there is an American extremism seen in a lot of Reformed circles this side of the pond).

Church polity was a matter of adiaphora or things non-essential, to the Magisterial Reformers (divine right episcopalianism and presbyterianism would come later). Most of the Continent tended to abandon episcopacy, out of necessity, with a few exceptions, that being the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches, as well as the Polish and Hungarian Reformed Churches. And we know that the context in England allowed for the continuation of the episcopacy there. It is important to note that the Established Church of Scotland (not the Non-juring body) was both episcopalian and presbyterian at various points in its history.

To return to the question of validity, the only sense in which I would talk of validity of ministers is in relation to their teaching but this in itself does not affect the validity of the sacraments, which are of Christ, not of the minister. In the Anglican Churches, we have required that our ministers accept episcopal ordination since the 1662 Prayer Book, which is a good custom, but it is only the custom for our churches, not necessarily for those of others and we have no right going about telling them that it should be so. The requirement of episcopal ordination ties back to Article XXIII and the lawfulness of our ministry. The bishops are ministers of the Crown in England, and thus lawful judges of the qualifications of ministers and capability of serving the Church. In other realms, the lawful judge is likely some other individual or body.

Anglicans and Apostolic Succession

There exists a weird notion out there that (tactile) apostolic succession is part of the normative experience of Anglicanism. I must say that apostolic succession is a vital part of the historic faith of Anglicanism, but it is not typically understood in the fashion that many of these neo-evangelicals understand it today. I added in parentheses in the previous sentence the word "tactile" which is key to understand the complaint I am expressing. The "tactile succession" refers to the practice of having previously consecrated bishops consecrate new bishops, typically three bishops in number will consecrate a new bishop. This is often associated with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine because it is in this succession that they believe bishops to derive their authority and sacerdotal powers. However, the tactile succession does not have to be tied to Romanist or Byzantine doctrine, as it is practiced in Anglicanism innocently without such association. However, it is not a necessary part of what it means to be an Anglican (for those doubters, one should consult with Archbishop Laud who deemed Lutheran [appointed] superintendents as valid bishops as well as royally "consecrated" [=appointed] Scottish bishops as valid). To distinguish non-Romanist tactile succession from a sacerdotalist understanding, I tend to employ the term historical succession, rather than "apostolic" for the former term conveys that which we wish to express in this act. The historical succession is a visible reminder that we are passing down the apostolic faith through the teaching and preaching of the bishop (the real apostolic succession). It gives us a sense of heritage and continuity to see bishops consecrated by their elders in the faith. In this sense, the historical succession is important to our experience as Anglicans. Yet, it is not equally emphasized in Anglican church parties, it was emphasized more by the Caroline Divines than the typical Church of England man at the time. As I had mentioned earlier, even the Caroline Divines did not regard the historical succession as integral to the faith, considering it was not absolutely necessary. 

The Reformers noted many disparities between the (then) contemporary practice of episcopacy and the nature of the apostles in the New Testament. They had many criticisms directed at the pope (which will be mentioned briefly later). First, they noted (as later scholars would) that the polity of the church in the New Testament was fluid and that it was impossible to identify a pattern of church governance which matched completely with the practice of the NT Church. For this reason Anglicans have typically espoused the bene esse position, or that no form of church governance is absolutely necessary for the existence of the church, because of this "problem" in scholarship. If one cannot identify with relative certainty the polity of the NT, it becomes rather difficult to enforce a particular option among many. Consequently, many Reformers attacked the prelacy of the Church at the time. This refers to the practice of monarchical episcopacy or the practice of assigning a bishop a diocese with a see. They noted the itinerant nature of the apostles' ministry in comparison with the princely rule of the contemporary bishops. Of course, this is not to say in condemnation of prelacy, for the Church of England maintained prelacy. However, one daughter Church attempted to disavow it (unsuccessfully, considering modern results), that being the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. PECUSA did not have dioceses until the 1830s and did not have cathedrals until the 1880s.

To get to the heart of the matter, apostolic succession doesn't refer to the consecration of bishops but the preaching of the Gospel. We can know that we are Catholic because we "profess sound, solid, and pure doctrine" (Whitaker), not because we maintain a neat list of consecrated bishops. As Whitaker explains in other places, "[W]e regard not the external succession of places or persons, but the internal one of faith and doctrine" (Whitaker to Bellarmine). The Reformers were concerned with a maintenance of Catholic doctrine, which had been abandoned by Rome, not the lists of consecrations, which Rome had dutifully kept. It is in this pure preaching of the Gospel that we can avoid false doctrine, as John Jewel stated, "'Succession,' you say, 'is the chief way for any Christian man to avoid antichrist.' I grant you, if you mean the succession of doctrine" (John Jewel to Thomas Harding). Dean Philpot of Winchester states in his answer to a question related to the (perceived) lack of succession in the English Church:

I deny, my lord, that succession of bishops is an infallible point to know the church by; for there may be a succession of bishops known in a place, and yet there be no church, as at Antioch and Jerusalem, and in other places where the apostles abode as well as at Rome. But if you put to the succession of bishops succession of doctrine withal (as St. Augustine doth), I will grant it to be a good proof for the catholic church; but a local succession is nothing available. (Philpot)

The guarantee of the church is not rested upon lists of successors, which is principally bound up in faith of men. Rather, the apostolic succession which we profess is the holy and pure Gospel of Christ, that catholic faith which we profess in the Athanasian Creed, that faith which saves us from eternal damnation and separation from Christ. This is the apostolic succession which is crucial for the existence of the church and the foundation of Anglicanism.



I mentioned the pope earlier, while I did not intend this to revolve around the papacy, the Reformers did have criticisms of the papacy, especially in relation to its assertion that it was the successor of Peter. Here follows an excerpt from Jewel's Apology, treating on the pretended nature of the papacy as the successor of the Apostle Peter:

"[W]hereas some use to make so great a vaunt that the pope only is Peter's successor, as though thereby he carried the Holy Ghost in his bosom and cannot err; this is but a matter of nothing and a very trifling tale. God's grace is promised to a good mind and to one that feareth God, not unto sees and successions
"Yet notwithstanding, because we will grant somewhat to succession, tell us: Hath the pope alone succeeded Peter? and wherein, I pray you? In what religion? in what office? in what piece of his life hath he succeeded him? What one thing (tell me) had Peter ever like unto the pope, or the pope like unto Peter?
"Except peradventure they will say thus: That Peter when he was at Rome never taught the gospel, never fed the flock, took away the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hid the treasures of his Lord, sat him down only in his castle in St. John Lateran, and pointed out with his finger all the places of purgatory and kinds of punishments, committing some poor souls to be tormented and some others again suddenly releasing thence at his own pleasure, taking money for so doing; or that he gave order to say private masses in every corner; or that he mumbled up the holy service with a low voice and in an unknown language; or that he hanged up the sacrament in every temple and on every altar and carried the same about before him, whitersoever he went, upon an ambling jennet, with lights and bells; or chalices, churches, and altars; or that he sold jubilees, graces, liberties, advowsons, preventions, first fruits, palls, the wearing of palls, bulls, indulgences, and pardons; or that he called himself by the name of the head of the church, the highest bishop, bishop of bishops, alone most holy; or that by usurping he took upon himself the right and authority over other folks' churches; or that he exempted himself from the power of any civil government; or that he maintained wars and set princes together at variance; or that he, sitting in his chair; with his triple crown full of labels, with sumptuous and Persian-like gorgeousness, with his royal scepter, with his diadem of gold, and glittering with stones, was carried about, not upon a palfrey, but upon the shoulders of noblemen.
"These things, no doubt, Peter did at Rome in times past and left them in charge to his successors, as you would say, from hand to hand; for these things be nowadays done at Rome by the popes, and be so done as though nothing else out to be done.
"Or contrawise, peradventure they had rather say thus: That the pope doth now all the same things which we know Peter did many a day ago; that is, that he runneth up and down unto every country to preach the gospel, not only openly abroad but also privately from house to house; that he is diligent and applieth that business in season and out of season, in due time and out of due time, that he doth the part of an evangelist;...that he doth not feed his own self but his flock; that he doth not entangle sovereignty over the Lord's people; that he seeketh not to have other men minister to him, but himself rather to minister unto others; that he taketh all bishops as his fellows and equals.
"...Unless therefore the popes do the like nowadays as Peter did the things aforesaid, there is no cause at all why they should glory so of Peter's name of his succession." (Jewel)

Anglicanism and the Roman Catholic Church: The Case of Protestant Historicism

The reader is most certainly accustomed to hearing discussions of the Roman Catholic Church in their parish church, perhaps by learned priests or vestrymen. The author was privy to a discussion once of a parish church that was sadly dissolving, due to inadequate funding and attendance. After divine service, the author overheard discussions from various members of the congregation as to what they planned to do, in regards to the nurturing of their piety, and one of the most common responses was to join the Roman Church. Yet, these discussions were not the first instance of equating the English Church, and her daughter Churches, with the Church of Rome, it is an often heard thing. This eventually leads to a discussion on the nature of the Roman Catholic Church and its relation to the Anglican communion.

First, we must compare the teachings of each respective Church, using our own Formularies as a base for our own teaching and what they say of Romanism.

In relation to our salvation, the Articles could not be clearer. The total depravity of man is affirmed in Art. IX, his lack of free will in Art. X, his justification by faith alone in Art. XI, the denial of good works as having any relation to our salvation in Art. XII, and subsequently the condemnation of the doctrine of the "School authors" of the nature of good works before justification and the (so-called) works of supererogation.

Art. IX declares, "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith."

A host of Roman doctrines are condemned in Art. XXII, "THE Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God."

"IT is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people." (Art. XXIV)

The five rites, "commonly called sacraments" are not to be counted as sacraments, " Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." (Art. XXV)

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." (Art. XXVIII)

The doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass is condemned in Art. XXXI, "THE offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."

The denial of the cup to the laity is condemned in Art. XXX as well as clerical celibacy in Art. XXXII.

"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." Art. XXXVII

This goes to show the anti-Romanist teaching of our Formularies (with little mention of the Homilies, which add further fuel to the fire in condemning Romanism). We can quite clearly see that the teaching of Romanism is condemned by our Formularies. The question remains, is that the only manner in which our Reformers condemned Romanism?

It is often said that the Reformation was about finding Christ and subsequently Antichrist. The rediscovery of the true gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone was a sweet discovery after over a thousand years of corrupted teaching. The teaching of Scripture about salvation was directly contradictory to the teaching of Rome. The Reformers noted this and headed back to their Bibles. They saw their own work being foretold of in the chapters of the Bible dealing with prophecy and also of the Roman Church. Let's see what our Reformers had to say about the matter:

"I know how the Antichrist hath obscured the glory of God, and the true knowledge of His Word, overcasting the same with mists and clouds of error and ignorance through false glosses and interpretation...The Antichrist of Rome... hath extolled himself above his fellow bishops, as God's vicar, yea, rather as God Himself; and taketh upon him authority over kings and emperors, and sitteth in the temple of God, that is, in the consciences of men, and causeth his decrees to be more regarded than God's laws; yea, and for money he dispenseth with God's laws, and all other, giving men license to break them." 

"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of the Antichrist, and the Pope to be the very Antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers and strong reasons."Thomas Cranmer

Many of the Reformers were burnt at the stake for their condemnation of Romanism, for example, John Bradford was condemned "for not acknowledging the Antichrist of Rome to be Christ's vicar - general and supreme head of the Catholic and universal church" and in admitting that, ""undoubtedly that great Antichrist, of whom the apostles do so much admonish us." John Hooper was condemned because he would not accept the "wicked papistical religion of the bishop of Rome."

The overtness of the Formularies is striking. All of these references come from the Books of Homilies (1547 and 1571), which are equally binding for us Anglicans as theological and liturgical formularies, which can be ascertained from Article 35.

"The Bishop of Rome teaches, that they that are under him are free from all burdens and charges of the commonwealth, and obedience towards their prince; most clearly against Christ's doctrine and St. Peter's. He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist, and the successor of the scribes and pharisees, than Christ's vicar, or St. Peter's successor; seeing that, not only on this point, but also in other weighty matters of Christian religion, in matters of remission and forgiveness of sins, and of salvation, he teacheth so directly against both St. Peter, and against our Saviour Christ" (Homily on Obedience, Part III). 

"The scriptures have for a warning hereof shewed, that the Kingdom of Antichrist shall be mighty in miracles and wonders to the strong illusion of all the reprobates" (Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, Part III). 

"Such sumptuous decking of images with gold, silver, and precious stones, be a token of Antichrist's kingdom, who, as the prophet foreshows, shall worship God with such gorgeous things" (Ibid.). 

"After this ambition, [to be head of all the church, and lord of all kingdoms,] the Bishop of Rome became at once the spoiler and destroyer both of the Church, which is the kingdom of our Saviour Christ, and of the Christian empire, and all Christian kingdoms, as an universal tyrant over all" (Sermon Against Willful Rebellion, Part V).  

"In king John's time, the Bishop of Rome, understanding the brute blindness, ignorance of God's word, and superstition of Englishmen, and how much they were inclined to worship the Babylonian Beast of Rome, and to fear all his threatenings and causeless cursings, he abused them thus, and by their rebellion brought this noble realm of England under his most cruel tyranny" (Ibid.).

This identification of Rome even made its way into other confessional documents, for instance, the Irish Articles of Religion of 1615 say:

79. The power which the Bishop of Rome now challengeth to be supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, and to be above all emperors, kings, and princes, is a usurped power, contrary to the Scriptures and Word of God, and contrary to the example of the Primitive Church; and therefore is for most just causes taken away and abolished within the King's Majesty's realms and dominions.
80. The Bishop of Rome is so far from being the supreme head of the universal Church of Christ, that his works and doctrine do plainly discover him to be that man of sin, foretold in the holy Scriptures, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and abolish with the brightness of his coming.

Other Reformers note the same teaching. For instance, Nicholas Ridley notes that, "the head, under satan, of all mischief is the Antichrist and his brood." and subsequently notes where this is to be found, "the seat of satan; and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is the Antichrist himself indeed." Nicholas Ridley

"We desire of our heavenly Father, that the Antichrist with his kingdom, which hath seduced, and daily doth seduce... may shortly be slain and brought unto confusion'with the breath of the Lord's mouth'...that 'that sinful man, the son of perdition, which is an adversary, and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped' may no longer 'sit in the temple of god, boasting himself to be God'." Thomas Becon

The primary thought which should be gathered from these assertions is the idea that the Christian faith is an eschatological one and the Reformation was not any different. The identification of the Pope as Antichrist is part of a system of prophetic interpretation known as historicism, which sees fulfillment of prophecy occurring through out the Church's history. It has a long history in the Church, notably attributed to Joachim of Fiore. It is also associated with the Protestant Reformation and subsequent Protestant eschatology until the publication of the Schofield Reference Bible, which popularized Rev. Darby's fanciful system of dispensationalism. Historicism is contrasted with preterism, which sees most of the Bible's prophecies as being fulfilled around 70 AD and futurism, which sees most of the prophecies of Revelation (and elsewhere) as future events. 

What follows is a brief discussion of the places in the Bible which deal with this subject.

The word "antichrist" is actually not used regularly in the Bible, only by the Apostle John in his letters. He notes that at the time of writing antichrist was still to come, yet there had already been many antichrists (1 Jn 2:18; 4:3, 2 Thess 2:7). The antichrist is to rise up from within the Christian community (19). Paul also references the antichrist, under the terminology, "man of sin". There will be a falling away and the rise of the antichrist (2 Thess 2:3), this must happen before the return of Christ, "The Lord will not come till 'the swerving from faith cometh': which thing is already done and past...The Antichrist is known throughout all the world" (Hugh Latimer). He will sit in the "temple of God" (2 Thess 2:4), which is identified as the Church (1 Cor 3:16). The man of sin will not be revealed until the "restraint" is removed, which is identified as the Roman Empire, "Paul saith, the Antichrist shall not come yet; for the emperor letteth him: the emperor shall be removed; and then shall the Antichrist come." "He meaneth not, therefore, that the Antichrist shall be any one man only, but one estate or kingdom of men, and a continuance of some one power and tyranny in the church" (John Jewel).

Daniel 7:3-8 speaks of four beasts which are to rise up. These have variously been identified with the four great empires of the ancient world: Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The last beast has ten horns, which have been identified as the ten kingdoms which derive from the fall of Rome. The fourth beast also had a "little horn" which had "eyes like the eyes of man" and a "mouth speaking great things" (verse 8). Later in the chapter, a "beast" is identified with a kingdom (v 18, 23). The little horn will arise from the fourth beast and its ten horns but it will be "different from the former ones" and it shall put away "three kings" (v 24). Lastly, Daniel reveals that the little horn will make war with the "saints of the Most High" and prevail against them for a time (later identified as 1,260 years). 

The two beasts of Revelation 13, one of the sea, and one of the earth, which are described in this chapter, are variously identified with papal Rome (or pagan Rome with the beast of the sea and papal Rome with the beast of the earth) by various interpreters.

[Other characteristics of historicism include the "year-day" principle (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6) which states that each prophetic "day" is equal to a "regular" year. This is useful in understanding some nuances of an historicist interpretation of prophecy, such as the 1,260 days (=years), which are usually interpreted as the elevation of the Papacy by Emperor Justinian in 538 AD to the end of the Papal States in 1798 AD by the attack of Napoleon. Most historicists see the material in Revelation 9 as referring to the Islamic conquest of the 7th and 8th centuries. It is also to be noted that historicism was the only and definitive system of prophetic interpretation in Protestantism until the publication of the Schofield Reference Bible which popularized John Nelson Darby's system of dispensationalism.]

The point of this is not to provide a systematic, historicist interpretation of the Book of Daniel or Revelation, neither to convince you to become historicists (nor even to convince you that historicism was the "norm"). Rather, the point I wish to make is to point out the attitude towards Rome as found in our Formularies and in the works of the Reformers, in contrast with the attitude towards Rome, as found in modern documents, such as ARCIC. Sure the disparity between these documents should cause a "red flag" to appear in the mind of the reader. Our Reformers noted the bad theology associated with the Roman Church and rightfully rejected it. That theology has not changed since that time and we must examine the Scriptures to condemn them in our own age.

Doctrinal and Liturgical Uniformity in Classical Anglicanism

This subject is one which could take up several volumes in discussion, however, in this brief article, I hope to establish the principle of uniformity as central to classical Anglicanism. Moreover, I hope to establish the disastrous effect of the so-called local option in modern expressions of Anglicanism which have served not to its benefit, but, rather, to its demise.

If one looks at the legislation accompanying the publication of the Prayer Book (both the 1559 and 1662 forms), it is accompanied by an Act of Uniformity, requiring its use by all clergymen (yes, men) in the Realm. It was illegal to depart from the authorized services in the Prayer Book of 1662 in England because this set of services, known to us as the Book of Common Prayer, contained the approved services which express liturgically the doctrine of the Church of England. Occasionally supplemental services were published, such as orders for the consecration of churches, the state services, among other supplemental services used for special occasions. However, these are used in conjunction, not replacing, the orders of service provided in the Prayer Book. This means that there is only one order of Morning Prayer, one order for Holy Communion, albeit with some choices within that order, such as the Scriptural sentences or canticles at daily Morning Prayer or the choice of offertory sentences at Communion. However, the use of these services was required by law. 

Even as the various Provinces of the Anglican Communion (as we now know it) were being formed, they drew up their own respective Prayer Books. For instance, if we consider two examples, of Ireland, and of the United States. The Irish Church was disestablished in 1871 and developed its own book by 1878. In this context, Irish churchmen were required to use the 1878 Prayer Book and not allowed to develop their own liturgies or alternative forms of service. The same occurred in the United States when the Protestant Episcopal Church was formed in the 1780's and 90's. The first official prayer book was authorized for use in 1789. American churchmen were required to use this text in worship and none other. 

The principle of uniformity established commonality between all of the parishes, cathedrals, and collegiate chapels of England as well as in other parts of the world. The liturgy, as approved by Parliament, or later on in Conventions and Synods, were regarded of as representing the Church's doctrine faithfully, and for that reason were authorized for use. To deviate from the standard liturgy was to deviate from the standard doctrine or waver into puritanism or church papism, both aberrations from Anglican doctrine, discipline, and worship. 

Likewise, there was uniformity in doctrine as established by the Articles of Religion, which were drawn up explicitly for that purpose, for the avoiding of "diversities of opinions," as is proclaimed in the title of them. This is why English clergy were required to subscribe to them to agree that they were the doctrine of the English Church. Likewise, American clergy were required to uphold their teaching in the oath of conformity to uphold the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church." The principle of uniformity establishes that all Anglican clergymen will be of one single profession and not wavering into unscriptural doctrine.

Now, anyone with common sense will realize that this is not the case presently. There is certainly no uniformity of doctrine or worship in any Anglican church in the world at this point. Sadly, the loss of uniformity has brought about chaos in the Anglican Communion. The loss of uniformity happened in two stages, first, the loss of uniformity of doctrine and secondly in the loss of uniformity in worship. 

The loss of doctrinal uniformity has taken some time and was principally brought about by the Oxford Movement (although there was some precedence in the Calvinist-Arminian controversy of the 1630's and 40's and the Latitudinarian movement which gained substantially around 1689 and has never really lost sway since), which sought to reintroduce unreformed doctrine to the Church of England (the subsequent Ritualist movement introduced unreformed worship into the English Church). This was brought about first by reinterpretation of the formularies in a non-naturalistic manner and against their purposes. Subsequently, the formularies were denied altogether. This has eventually led to the rejection of core Christian doctrines by Western Provinces, such as The Episcopal Church. 

The loss of liturgical uniformity occurred first in the 1950's and thereabouts when Provinces began to "experiment" with liturgical revision. In this experimentation, the idea was proposed that trial services be issued and "test" congregations use the liturgy before authorization and publication of the final work. This resulted in the proliferation of liturgical texts, such as the "Green book" "Zebra book" and many, many more. The resulting product was the modern liturgy as we have all known it and experienced it. Based upon Dix's Shape of the Liturgy, the modern liturgy (which is found in nearly every "Prayer Book" or liturgy from Common Worship to the 1979 Prayer Book) is based upon the notion that "common prayer" really means "common structure". What needs to be uniform in the modern liturgy is the "shape of the liturgy" not the words themselves. The problem with the proliferation of liturgical options is the lost of the guarantee of doctrinal orthodoxy with one authorized text. 

The local option fever has nearly destroyed Anglicanism. I believe there is going to be a major Anglican meltdown in the next 10-30 years, depending on the pace of certain movements. The current foundations of all Anglican entities are built on sand and heading for implosion. The only way to begin to prepare for this and counter it is to uphold the principle of uniformity.

THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY OF 1662

WHEREAS in the first year of the late Queen Elizabeth there was one Uniform Order of Common Service and Prayer, and of the Administration of Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England (agreeable to the Word of God, and usage of the Primitive Church) compiled by the Reverend Bishops and Clergy, set forth in one Book, Entituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of England, and enjoyned to be used by Act of Parliament, holden in the said first year of the said late Queen, Entituled, An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and Service in the Church, and Administration of the Sacraments, very comfortable to all good people desirous to live in Christian conversation, and most profitable to the Estate of this Realm, upon the which the Mercy, Favour and Blessing of Almight God is in no wise so readily and plentifully poured, as by Common Prayers, due using of the Sacraments, and often Preaching of the Gospel, with devotion of the hearers: And yet this notwithstanding, a great number of people in divers parts of this Realm, following their own sensuality, and living without knowledge and due fear of God, do willfully and Schismatically abstain, and refuse to come to their Parish Churches and other Publick places where Common Prayer, Administration of the Sacraments, and Preaching of the Word of God is used upon the Sundays and other days ordained and appointed to be kept and observed as Holy days: And whereas by the great and scandalous neglect of Ministers in using the said Order, or Liturgy so set forth and enjoyned as aforesaid, great mischiefs and inconveniences, during the times of the late unhappy troubles, have arisen and grown; and many people have been led into Factions and Schisms, to the great decay and scandal of the Reformed Religion of the Church of England, and to the hazard of many souls: for prevention whereof in time to come, for settling the Peace of the Church, and for allaying the present distempers, which the indisposition of the time hath contracted, The Kings Majesty (according to His Declaration of the Five and twentieth of October, One thousand six hundred and sixty) granted His Commission under the great Seal of England to several Bishops and other Divines to review the Book of Common Prayer, and to prepare such Alterations and Additions, as they thought fit to offer; And afterwards the Convocations of both the Provinces ofCanterbury and York, being by his Majesty called and assembled (and now sitting) His Majesty hath been pleased to Authorize and require the Presidents of the said Convocations, and other Bishops and Clergy of the same, to review the said Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of the Form and manner of the Making and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; And that after mature consideration, they should make such Additions and Alterations in the said Books respectively, as to them should seem meet and convenient; And should exhibit and present the same to His Majesty in writing, for his further allowance or confirmation; since which time, upon full and mature deliberation, they the said Presidents, Bishops, and Clergy of both Provinces have accordingly reviewed the said Books, and have made some Alterations which they think fit to be inserted to the same; and some Additional Prayers to the said Book of Common-Prayer, to be used upon proper and emergent occasions; and have exhibited and presented the same unto his Majesty in writing, in one Book, Entituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Scaraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England, together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons: All which His Majesty having duely considered hath fully approved and allowed the same, and recommended to this present Parliament, that the said Book of Common Prayer, and of the Form of Ordination and Concecration of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, with the Alterations and Additions, which have been so made and presented to His Majesty by the said Convocations, be the Book, which shall be appointed to be used by all that Officiate in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chappels, and in all Chappels of Colleges and Halls in both the Universities, and the Colledges of Eaton and Winchester, and in all Parish-Churches and Chappels within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and by all that Make, or Consecrate Bishops, Priests or Deacons in any of the said Places, under such Sanctions and Penalties as the Houses of Parliament shall think fit: Now in regard that nothing conduceth more to the feeling of the Peace of this Nation (which is desired of all good men) nor to the honour of our Religion, and the propagation thereof, than an Universal agreement in the Publick Worship of Almighty God; and to the intent that every person within this Realm, may certainly know the rule, to which be is to conform in Publick Worship, and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and the manner how, and by whom Bishops Priests and Deacons are, and ought to be Made, Ordained and Consecrated;
    Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty, by the advice, and with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That all and singular Ministers, in any Cathedral, Collegiate, or Parish-Church or Chappel, or other Place of Publick Worship within this Realm of England, Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall be bound to say and use the Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, Celebration and Administration of both the Sacraments, and all other the Publick, and Common Prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said Book, annexed and joined to this present Act, and Entituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England: together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the form or manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; and That the Morning and Evening Prayers, therein contained, shall upon every Lords day, and upon all other days and occasions, and at the times therein appointed, be openly and solemnly read by all and every Minister or Curate in every Church, Chappel, or other place of Publick Worship within this Realm ofEngland, and places aforesaid.
    And to the end that Uniformity in the Publick Worship of God (which is so much desired) may be speedily effected, Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that every Parson, Vicar, or other Minister whatsoever, who now hath, and enjoyeth any Ecclesiastical Benefice, or Promotion, within this Realm of England, or places aforesaid, shall in the Church, Chappel, or place of Publick Worship belonging to his said Benefice or Promotion, upon some Lords day before the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord God, One thousand six hundred sixty and two, openly; publickly, and solemnly read the Morning and Evening Prayer appointed to be read by, and according to the said Book of Common Prayer at the times thereby appointed, and after such reading thereof shall openly and publickly, before the Congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent, and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words, and no other;

A. B. Do here declare my unfeigned assent, and consent to all, and every thing contained, and prescribed in, and by the Book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to be sung, or said in Churches, and the form, or manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;

    And, That all and every such person, who shall (without some lawful Impediment, to be allowed and approved of by the Ordinary of the place) neglect or refuse to do the same within the time aforesaid, or (in case of such Impediment) within one Moneth after such Impediment removed, shall ipso facto be deprived of all his Spiritual Promotions; And that from thenceforth it shall be lawful to, and for all Patrons, and Donors of all and singular the said Spiritual Promotions, or of any of them, according to their respective Rights, and Titles, to present, or collate to the same; as though the person, or persons, so offending or neglected were dead.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every person, who shall hereafter be presented, or collated, or put into any Ecclesiastical Benefice, or Promotion within this Realm ofEngland and places aforesaid, shall in the Church, Chappel, or Place of Publick Worship, belonging to his said Benefice or Promotion, within two Moneths next after that he shall be in the actual possession of the said Eccelsiastical Benefice or Promotion, upon some Lords day openly, publickly, and solemnly Read the Morning and Evening Prayers, appointed to be Read by, and according to the said Book of Common Prayer, at the times thereby appointed, and after such reading thereof, shall openly, and publickly before the Congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent, and consent to the use of all things therein contained and prescribed, according to the form before appointed: and That all and every such person, who shall (without some lawful Impediment, to be allowed and approved by the Ordinary of the place) neglect or refuse to do the same within the time aforesaid, or (in case of such Impediment) within one month after such Impediment removed shall ipso factobe deprived of all his said Ecclesiastical Benefices and Promotions; and That from thenceforth, it shall and may be lawful to, and for all Patrons, and Donors of all and singular the said Ecclesiastical Benfices and Promotions, or any of them (according to their respective Rights and Titles) to present, or collate to the same, as though the person or persons so offending, or neglecting, were dead.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That in all places, where the proper Incumbent of any Parsonage, or Vicarage, or Benefice with Cure doth reside on his Living, and keep a Curate, the Incumbent himself in person (not having some lawful impediment, to be allowed by the Ordinary of the place) shall once (at the least) in every month openly and publickly Read the Common prayers and Service, in, and by the said Book prescribed, and (if there be occasion) Administer each of the Sacraments and other Rites of the Church, in the Parish Church or Chappel, of, or belonging to the same Parsonage, Vicarage, or Benefice, in such order, manner and form, as in, and by the said Book is appointed, upon pain to forfeit the sum of Five poiunds to the use of the poor of the Parish for every offence, upon conviction by confession, or proof of two credible Witnesses upon Oath, before two Justices of the Peace of the County, City, or Town-Corporate where the offence shall be committed, (which Oath the said Justices are hereby Impowred to Administer) and in default of payment within ten days, to be levied by distress, and sale of the goods and chattels of the Offender, by the Warrant of the said Justices, by the Churchwardens, or Over-seers of the Poor of the said Parish, rendring the surplusage to the party.
    And be it further Eacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every Dean, Canon, and Prebendary of every Cathedral, or Collegiate Church, and all Masters, and other Heads, Fellows, Chaplains, and Tutors of, or in any Colledge, Hall, House of Learning, or Hospital, and every Publick Professor, and Reader in either of the Universities, and in every Colledge elsewhere, and every Parson, Vicar, Curate, Lecturer, and every other person in holy Orders, and every School-master keeping any publick, or private School, and every person Instructing, or Teaching any Youth in any House or private Family as a Tutor, or School-master, who upon the first day of May, which shall be in the year of our Lord God, One thousand six hundred sixty two, or at any time thereafter shall be Incumbent, or have possession of any Deanry, Canonry, Prebend, Mastership, Headship, Fellow-ship, Professors-place, or Readers place, Parsonage, Vicarage, or any other Ecclesiastical Dignity or Promotion, or of any Curates place, Lecture, or School; or shall instruct or teach any Youth as Tutor, or School-master, shall before the Feast-day of Saint Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred sixty two, or at or before his, or their respective admission to be Incumbent, or have possession aforesaid, subscribe the Declaration or Acknowledgement following, Scilicet,

A. B. Do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms agains the King; and that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him; and that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law established. And I do declare that I do hold, there lies no Obligation upon me, or on any other person from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavor any change, or alteration of Government, either in Church, or State; and that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom.

    Which said Declaration and Acknowledgement shall be subscribed by every of the said Masters and other Heads, Fellows, Chaplains, and Tutors of, or in any Colledge, Hall, or House of Learning, and by every publick Professor and Reader in either of the Universities, before the Vice-Chancellor of the respective Universities for the time being, or his Deputy; And the said Declaration or Acknowledgement shall be subscribed before the respective Arch-bishop, Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocess, by every other person hereby injoyned to subscribe the same, upon pain, that all and every of the persons aforesaid, failing in such subscription, shall lose and forfeit such respective Deanry, Canonry, Prebend, Mastership, Headship, Fellowship, Professors place, Readers place, Parsonage, Vicarage, Ecclesiastical Dignity, or Promotion, Curates place, Lecture, and School and shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same; and that every such respective Deanry, Canonry, Prebend, Mastership, Headship, Fellowship, Professors place, Readers place, Parsonage, Vicarage, Ecclesiastical Dignity, or Promotion, Curates place, Lecture and School shall be void, as if such person so failing were naturally dead.
    And if any Schoolmaster or other person, Instructing or teaching Youth in any private House or Family, as a Tutor or Schoolmaster, shall Instruct or Teach any Youth as a Tutor or Schoolmaster, before License obtained from his respective Archbiship, Bishop, or Ordinary of the Diocess, according to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm, (for which he shall pay twelve-pence onely) and before such subscription and acknowledgement made as aforesaid; Then every such School-master and other, Instructing and Teaching as aforesaid, shall for the first offence suffer three months Imprisonment without bail or mainprize; and for every second and other such offense shall suffer three months Imprisonment without bail or mainprize, and also forfeit to His Majesty the sum of five pounds.
    And after such subscription made, every such Parson, Vicar, Curate, and Lecturer shall procure a certificate under the Hand and Seal of the respective Archbishop, Bishop, or Ordinary of the Diocess, (who are hereby enjoyned and required upon demand to make and deliver the same) and shall publickly and openly Read the same, together with the Declaration, or Acknowledgement aforesaid, upon some Lords day within three months next following, in his Parish Church where he is to officiate, in the presence of the Congregation there assembled, in the time of Divine Service; upon pain that every person failing therein shall lose such Parsonage, Vicarage, or Benefice, Curates place, or Lecturers place respectively, and shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same; And that the said Parsonage, Vicarage, or Benefice, Curates place, or Lecturers place shall be void, as if he was naturally dead.
    Provided always that from and after the Twenty fifth day of March, which shall be in the year of our Lord God, One thousand six hundred eighty two, there shall be omitted in the said Declaration, or Acknowledgement so to be Subscribed and Read, these words following, Scilicet,

ND I do declare that I do hold, there lies no obligation on me, or on any other person from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavor any change, or alteration of Government either in Church, or State; And that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom;

    So as none of the persons aforesaid shall from thenceforth be at all obliged to Subscribe or Read that part of the said Declaration or Acknowledgement.
    Provided always, and be it Enacted, That from and after the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord, One thousand six hundred sixty and two, no person, who now is Incumbent, and in possession of any Parsonage, Vicarage, or Benefice, and who is not already in holy Orders by Episcopal Ordination, or shall not before the said Feast-day of Saint Bartholomew be Ordained Priest, or Deacon, according to the form of Episcopal Ordination, shall have, hold, or enjoy the said Parsonage, Vicarage Benefice with Cure or other Ecclesiastical Promotion within this Kingdom of England, or the Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed; But shall be utterly disabled, and ipso facto deprived of the same; And all his Ecclesiastical Promotions shall be void, as if he was naturally dead.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no person whatsoever shall thenceforth be capable to be admitted to any Parsonage, Vicarage, Benefice, or other Ecclesiastical Promotion or Dignity whatsoever, nor shall presume to Consecrate and Administer the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper, before such time as he shall be Ordained Priest, according to the form, and manner in, and by the said Book prescribed, unless he have formerly been made Priest by Episcopal Ordination, upon pain to forfeit for every offence the sum of One hundred pounds; (one moiety thereof to the Kings Majesty, the other moiety thereof to be equally divided between the poor of the Parish where the offence shall be committed, and such person, or personas as shall sue for the same by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information in any of his Majesties Courts of Record, wherein no Essoign, Protection, or Wager of Law shall be allowed) And to be disabled from taking, or being admitted into the Order of Priest, by the space of one whole year next following.
    Provided that the Penalties of this Act shall not extend to the Foreigners or Aliens of the Forein Reformed Churches allowed, or to be allowed by the Kings Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, inEngland.
    Provided always, That no title to confer, or present by lapse shall accrue by any avoidance, or deprivation ipso facto by vertue of this Statute, but after six months after notice of such voidance, or deprivation given by the Ordinary to the Patron, or such sentence of deprivation openly and publickly read in the Parish Church of the Benefice, Parsonage, or Vicarage becoming void, or whereof the Incumbent shall be deprived by vertue of this Act.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Form, or Order of Common Prayers, Administration of Sacraments, Rites or Ceremonies, shall be openly used in any Church, Chappel, or other Publick place of [Worship] or in any Colledge, or Hall in either of the Universities, the Colledges of Westminster, Winchester, or Eaton, or any of them, other than what is prescribed and appointed to be used in and by the said Book; and That the present Governour, or Head of every Colledge and Hall in the said Universities, and of the said Colleges of Westminster, Winchester, andEaton, within one month after the Feast of Saint Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord, One thousand six hundred sixty and two: And every Governour or Head of any of the said Colledges, or Halls, hereafter to be elected, or appointed, within one month next after his Election, or Collation, and Admission into the same Government, or Headship, shall openly and publickly in the Church, Chappel, or other Publick place of the same Colledge, or Hall, and in the presence of the Fellows and Scholars of the same, or the greater part of them then resident, Subscribe unto the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion, mentioned in the Statute made in the thirteenth year of the Reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, and unto the said Book, and declare his unfeigned assent and consent unto, and approbation of the said Articles, and of the same Book, and to the use of all the Prayers, Rites, and Ceremonies, Forms, and Orders in the said Book prescribed, and contained according to the form aforesaid; and that all such Governours, or Heads of the said Colledges and Halls, or any of them as are, or shall be in holy Orders, shall once at least in every Quarter of the year (not having a lawful Impediment) openly and publickly Read the Morning Prayer, and Service in and by the said Book appointed to be Read in the Church, Chappel, or other Publick place of the same Colledge or Hall, upon pain to lose, and be suspended of, and from all the Benefits and Profits belonging to the same Government or Headship, by the space of Six months, by the Visitor or Visitors of the same Colledge or Hall; And if any Governour or Head of any Colledge or Hall, Suspended for not Subscribing unto the said Articles and Book, or for not Reading of the Morning Prayer and Service as aforesaid, shall not at, or before the end of Six months next after such suspension, Subscribe unto the said Articles and Book, and declare his consent thereunto as aforesaid, or Read the Morning Prayer and Service as aforesaid, then such Government or Headship shall be ipso facto void.
    Provided always, That it shall and may be lawful to use the Morning and Evening Prayer, and all other Prayers and Service prescribed in and by the said Book, in the Chappels and other Publick places of the respective Colledges and Halls in both the Universities, in the Colledges of Westminster, Winchester, and Eaton, and in the Convocations of the Clergies of either Province in Latine; Any thing in this Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no person shall be, or be received as a Lecturer, or permitted, suffered, or allowed to Preach as a Lecturer, or to Preach, or Read any Sermon or Lecture in any Church, Chappel, or other place of Publick worship, within this Realm of England, or the Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, unless he be first approved and thereunto Licensed by the Archbishop of the Province, or Bishop of the Diocess, or (in case the See be void) by the Guardian of the Spiritualities, under his Seal, and shall in the presence of the same Archbishop, or Bishop, or Guardian Read the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion, mentioned in the Statute of the Thirteenth year of the late Queen Elizabeth, with Declaration of his unfeigned assent to the same; and That every person, and persons who now is, or hereafter shall be Licensed, Assigned, Appointed, or Received as a Lecturer, to preach upon any day of the week in any Church, Chappel, or place of Publick worship within this Realm of England, or places aforesaid, the first time he Preacheth (before his Sermon) shall openly, publickly, and solemnly Read the Common Prayers and Service in and by the said Book appointed to be Read for that time of the day, and then and there publickly and openly declare his assent unto, and approbation of the said Book, and to the use of all the Prayers, Rites and Ceremonies, Forms and Orders therein contained and prescribed, according to the Form before appointed in this Act; And also shall upon the first Lecture-day of every month afterwards, so long as he continues Lecturer, or Preacher there, at the place appointed for his said Lecture or Sermon, before his said Lecture or Sermon, openly, publickly, and solemnly Read the Common Prayers and Service in and by the said Book appointed to be read for that time of the day, at which the said Lecture or Sermon is to be Preached, and after such Reading thereof, shall openly and publickly, before the Congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent unto, and approbation of the said Book, and to the use of all the Prayers, Rites and Ceremonies, Forms and Orders therein contained and prescribed, according to the form aforesaid; and, That all and every such person and persons who shall neglect or refuse to do the same, shall from thenceforth be disabled to Preach the sad, or any other Lecture or Sermon in the said, or any other Church, Chappel, or place of Publick worship, until such time as he and they shall openly, publickly, and solemnly Read the Common-Prayers and Service appointed by the said Book, and Conform in all points to the things therein appointed and prescribed, according to the purport, tru intent, and meaning of this Act.
    Provided always, that if the said Sermon or Lecture be to be Preached or Read in any Cathedral, or Collegiate Church or Chappel, it shall be sufficient for the said Lecturer openly at the time aforesaid, to declare his assent and consent to all things contained in the said Book, according to the form aforesaid.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any person who is by this Act disabled to Preach any Lecture or Sermon, shall during the time that he shall continue and remain so disabled, Preach any Sermon or Lecture; That then for every such offence the person and persons so offending shall suffer Three months Imprisonment in the Common Gaol without Bail or mainprise, and that any two Justices of the Peace of any County of this Kingdom and places aforesaid, and the Mayor or other chief Magistrate of any City, or Town-Corporate, within the same, upon Certificate from the Ordinary of the place made to him or them of the offence committed, shall, and are hereby required to commit the person or persons so offending to the Gaol of the Same County, City, or Town Corporate accordingly.
    Provided always, and be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That at all and every time and times, when any Sermon or Lecture is to be Preached, the Common Prayers and Service in and by the said Book appointed to be Read for that time of the day, shall be openly, publickly, and solemnly Read by some Priest, or Deacon, in the Church, Chappel, or place of Publick worship, where the said Sermon or Lecture be Preached, before such Sermon or Lecture is to be Preached; And that the Lecturer then to Preach shall be present at the Reading thereof.
    Provided nevertheless, That this Act shall not extend to the University-Churches in the Universities of this Realm, or either of them, when or at such times as any Sermon or Lecture is Preached or Read in the same Churches, or any of them, for, or as the publick University-Sermon or Lectures but that the same Sermons and Lectures may be Preached or Read in such sort and manner as the same have been heretofore Preached or Read; This Act, or any thing herein contained to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.
    And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the several good Laws, and Statutes of this Realm, which have been formerly made, and are now in force for the Uniformity of Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, within this Realm of England, and places aforesaid, shall stand in full force and strength to all intents and purposes whatsoever, for the establishing and confirming of the said Book; Entituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the form or manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons; herein before mentioned to be joined and annexed to this Act; and shall be applied, practiced, and put in use for the punishing of all offences contrary to the said Laws, with relation to the Book aforesaid, and no other.
    Provided alwaies, and be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That in all those Prayers, Litanies, and Collects, which do any way relate to the King, Queen, or Royal Progeny, the Names be altered and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occasion, according to the direction of lawful Authority.
    Provided also, and be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That a true Printed Copy of the said Book, Entituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England; together with the Psalter or Psalms of David, Pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches; and the form or manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, shall at the costs and charges of the Parishoners of every Parish-Church, and Chappelry, Cathedral Church, Colledge, and Hall, be attained and gotten before the Feast-day of Saint Bartholomew, in the year of our Lord, One thousand six hundred sixty and two, upon pain of forfeiture of Three pounds by the months for so long time as they shall then after be unprovided thereof, by every Parish, or Chappelry, Cathedral Church, Colledge, and Hall, making default therein.
    Provided alwaies, and be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Bishops of Hereford, Saint Davids, Asaph, Bangor, and Landaff, and their Successors shall take such order among themselves, for the souls health of the Flocks committed to their Charge within Wales, That the Book hereunto annexed be truly and exactly Translated into the Brittish or Welsh Tongue, and that the same so Translated and being by them, or any three of them at the least viewed, perused, and allowed, be Imprinted to such number at least, so that one of the said Books so Translated and Imprinted may be had for every Cathedral, Collegiate, and Parish-Church; and Chappel of Ease in the said respective Diocesses, and places in Wales, where the Welsh is commonly spoken or used before the First day of May, One thousand six hundred sixty five; and, That from and after the Imprinting and publishingof the said Book so Translated, the whole Divine Service shall be used and said by the Ministers and Curates thoughout all Wales within the said Diocesses where the Welsh Tongue is commonly used, in the Brittish, or Welsh Tongue, in such manner and form as is prescribed according to the Book hereunto annexed to be used in the English Tongue, differing nothing in any Order or Form from the said English Book; for which Book, so Translated and Imprinted, the Church-wardens of every of the said Parishes shall pay out of the Parish-money in their hands for the use of the respective Churches, and be allowed the same on their Accompt; and, That the said Bishops and their Successors, or any Three of them, at the least, shall set and appoint the price, for which the said Book shall be sold; And one other Book of Common Prayer in the English Tongue shall be bought and had in every Church throughout Wales, in which the Book of Common Prayer in Welsh is to be had, by force of this Act, before the First day of May, One thousand six hundred sixty and four, and the same Book to remain in such convenient places, within the said Churches, that such as understand them may resort at all convenient times to read and peruse the same, and also such as do not understand the said Language, may by conferring both Tongues together, the sooner attain to the knowledge of the English Tongue; Any thing in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding; And until Printed Copies of the said Book so to be Translated may be had and provided, the Form of Common Prayer, established by Parliament before the making of this Act, shall be used as formerly in such parts of Wales, where the English Tongue is not commonly understood.
    And to the end that the true and perfect Copies of this Act, and the said Book hereunto annexed may be safely kept, and perpetually preserved, and for the avoiding of all disputes for the time to come; Be it therefore Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the respective Deans and Chapters of every Cathedral, or Collegiate Church, within England and Wales shall at their proper costs and charges, before the twenty fifth day of December, One thousand six hundred sixty and two, obtain under the Great Seal of England a true and perfect Printed Copy of this Act, and of the said Book annexed hereunto, to be by the said Deans and Chapters, and their Successors kept and preserved in safety for ever, and to be also produced, and shewed forth in any Court of Record, as often as they shall be thereunto lawfully required; And also there shall be delivered true and perfect Copies of this Act, and of the same Book into the respective Courts at Westminster, and into the Tower ofLondon, to be kept and preserved for ever among the Records of the said Courts, and the Records of the Tower, to be also produced and shewed forth in any Court as need shall require; which said Books so to be exemplified under the Great Seal of England, shall be examined by such persons as the Kings Majesty shall appoint under the Great Seal of England for that purpose, and shall be compared with the Original Book hereunto annexed, and shall have power to correct, and amend in writing any Error committed by the Printer in the printing of the same Book, or of any thing therein contained, and shall certifie in writing under their Hands and Seals, or the Hands and Seals of any Three of them at the end of the same Book, that they have examined and compared the same Book, and find it to be a true and perfect Copy; which said Books, and every one of them so exemplified under the Great Seal of England, as aforesaid, shall be deemed, taken, and adjudged, and expounded to be good, and available in the Law to all intents and purposes whatsoever, and shall be accounted as good Records as this Book it self hereunto annexed; Any Law or Custom to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.
    Provided also, That this Act or any thing therein contained shall not be prejudicial or hurtful unto the Kings Professor of the Law within the University of Oxford, for, or concerning the Prebend ofShipton, within the Cathedral Church of Sarum, united and annexed unto the place of the same Kings Professor for the time being, by the late King James of blessed memory.
    Provided always, That whereas the Six and thirtieth Article of the Nine and thirty Articles agreed upon by the Arch-bishops, and Bishops of both Provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord, One thousand five hundred sixty two, for the avoiding of diversities of Opinions, and for establishing of consent, touching true Religion, is in these words following, viz.
    That the Book of Consecration of Archbishops, and Bishops, and Ordaining of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of King Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the saem time by Authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordaining, neither hath it any thing that of it self is superstitious, and ungodly; And therefore whosoever are Consecrated or Ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the aforenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be Consecrated or Ordered according to the same Rites; We decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully Consecrated and Ordered;
    It be Enacted, and be it therefore Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the Subscriptions hereafter to be had or made unto the said Articles, by any Deacon, Priest, or Ecclesiastical person, or other person whatsoever, who by this Act or any other Law now in force is required to Subscribe unto the said Articles, shall be construed and taken to extend, and shall be applied (for and touching the said Six and thirtieth Article) unto the Book containing the form and manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in this Act mentioned, in such sort and manner as the same did heretofore extend unto the Books set forth in the time of King Edward the Sixth, mentioned in the said Six and thirtieth Article; Any thing in the said Article, or in any Statute, Act, or Canon heretofore had or made, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.
    Provided also, That the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of this Church of England, together with the form and manner of Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons heretofore in use, and respectively established by Act of Parliament in the First and Eighth years of Queen Elizabeth, shall be still used and observed in the Church of England, untilt he Feast of Saint Bartholomew, which shall be in the year of our Lord God, One thousand six hundred sixty and two.

HIS MAJESTY'S DECLARATION (PREFIXED TO THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION)

Being by God's ordinance, according to our just title, Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church, within these our dominions, we hold it most agreeable to this our kingly office, and our own religious zeal, to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge, in the unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the Church and Commonwealth. We have, therefore, upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following: 

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which our clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God's word: which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that end we command to be new printed, and this our declaration to be published therewith: 

That we are Supreme Governor of the Church of England; and that if any difference arise about the external policy, concerning injunctions, canons or other constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do: and we approving their said ordinances and constitutions, providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land. 

That out of our princely care that the churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them, the bishops and clergy, from time to time in convocation, upon their humble desire, shall have licence under our broad seal to deliberate of, and to do all such things as, being made plain by them, and assented unto by us, shall concern the settled continuance of the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England now established; from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree. 

That for the present, though some differences have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in this, that all clergymen within our realm have always most willingly subscribed to the Articles established, which is an argument to us, that they all agree in the true, usual literal meaning of the said Articles; and that even in those curious points, in which the present differences lie, men of all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them; which is an argument again, that none of them intend any desertion of the Articles established. 

That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them. And that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense. 

That if any public reader in either our Universities, or any head or master of a College, or any other person respectively in either of them, shall affix any new sense to any Article, or shall publicly read, determine, or hold any public disputation, or suffer any such to be held either way, in either the Universities or Colleges respectively; or if any divine in the Universities shall preach or print any thing either way, other than is already established in convocation with our royal assent; he, or they the offenders, shall be liable to our displeasure, and the Church's censure in our commission ecclesiastical, as well as any other: and we will see there shall be due execution upon them.