106 The Reafonablenefr here fay it again, that fent andConfent refer to nothing but theofe of thefe Forms in publick minif}rations : and that fub- fcription cannot reafonably be ex+ .;ded to this Bookof Common Prayer, & in any other fenfe, than as it is a Bejk directing him who officiates, as to his behaviour, and thePrayers he is to ufe ; andBothnot J. ear tohave been intended for any thing farther. Befides, if it were defign'd to ex- tend to every particular fentence ofno re- lation to ufe, it affeas not the matter now beforeus ; for the effe t of it is this, that this Book containeth nothing contrary to the word ofGod. Now I hardly think that any thing can be produced out of the word of God, to which this fentence is cmtrary. For there is no Text of Scri- pure which Pays this is not evident, &c. nor is there any thing in Scripture from whence itmay be plainly proved, that this is a falfe propofìtion, Bifhops, Priefis and Deacons have been in the Church from the Apofiles days. There is no paffage in the New Teffament that either forbids that there fhould be filch Qrders, or Pays that . there were not. But, 2. Supp^f?.1g this Aff nt, Confont, and S;bfcription, did extend to every fuch fen, tend
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=