WHereas it hath pleased the Worthy and Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to Preach, and Print a Sermon, wherein he hath laid a universal charge of Schism upon the Meetings of the whole body of Nonconformists throughout the Nation: we cannot but think it necessary, in regard to him­self, and to the City (before whom he preached), and in regard to the Parliament against they sit, to present to him, and all men, our Apology, though we revive it to that end; especially seeing an humble state alone of our Defence (which seems really to be yet quite unknown to this otherwise candid Doctor) may perhaps give satisfaction, when all dispute and retortion of words does but ordinarily blow the coals, and raise up greater division among Brethren.

It is, we know, the happiness and birth-right of the People of this Nation, that if they lye under any grievance, they may have recourse to the Higher Powers when assembled: And there is no burden where­of we ought to be more sensible, than that which lies upon our Consciences. We do humbly deprecate therefore all displeasure, and hope that it will not be ill taken at this Time, if we assume so much liberty, To shew at least what ails us: To make our Apology for that wherein we seem to offend; and, To offer something for a general re­dress: Especially seeing a little collection only out of several Papers of one Person alone (whom we name not) will serve this triple occasion.

It is these three things are designed in this Discourse. A modest ac­count of the Nonconformists Meetings: With some taste of their Rea­sons for Nonconformity; And the way of Accommodation in the matter of Religion.

There are divers sorts of Nonconformists, and they have their Meetings we know, not all on the same reasons. There are some who have been, and are for our Parochial Churches, who are satis­fi'd with their constitution, and if they might have freedom, would [Page 4]still choose them: And there are others that are in their Inclinations for the Congregational way only.

For our parts, who have put this Paper together, we profess our selves of the former sort, and do here declare in the behalf of our selves, and others of our Brethren, that we do not go from the Pa­rish-Church in opposition to it, as if such Congregations were no Churches, being very deeply sensible, when our Lord hath comman­ded that the Tares should not be plucked up for fear of endangering even but some of the Wheat, what an unaccountable thing it is like to be to him, if we should go to root up all the Wheat for fear of the Tares; which, to Un-church whole Parishes, were to do: Nor is it out of affectation, pride, vanity, ostentation, faction, or self-ad­vantage, that we do it. We could not answer such a charge as lies against us, if we did so.

Two things therefore we will acknowledg, that our Parish-Churches are true Churches: And that it is our duty consequent­ly to desire and endeavour their Union and Prosperity. And what would the Doctor, or any Conformist have of us more, unless it be also to join with them there in the participation of the Ordinan­ces which some of us refuse not neither, upon convenient occasion.

The ground then upon which we offer our Plea for the cause we undertake, we will give here impartially. As we grant those two things to be our duty, so must we assume that, which will not, and cannot be deny'd us, that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the Office of the Ministry (supposing them every way to be fit and called) to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of that Office. We have the Apostles express authority and example for this, who when they were threatned, and commanded to speak no more in Christs Name, have left us their answer on Record, We ought to obey God rather than Man. We have the precedent also of the first three hundred years after these Apostles, when the Gospel was never preached but contrary to the will of the Magistrate, that is, against the Laws and Edicts of the Emperours.

Which observation by the way, may alone suffice for the redressing a slip of the Pen which hath fell from another the like eminent person, that is Dr. Tillotson, in a late Sermon of his likewise, where he is offering a Position to this effect. That no man (in his apprehension) hath warrant from Conscience, for preaching even the true Religion, so as to make proselites to it, in a Country where a contrary Religion (though false) is established, unless he either hath an extraordinary commission, or the [Page 5]providence of God makes way for it, by the Magistrates permission. It is true, that the Protestants do not use to preach under the Inquisition, nor the Jesuits in the Mahometan Court, but this is no Demonstration: Affirmative precepts the Doctor knows, bind semper, but not ad semper. There is prudence therefore to be used, and Pearls need not be cast where they will be certainly trampled upon: Nevertheless let a man have but an ordinary call, and be deliberately convinced in his conscience that by his Preaching even in such a place, he shall convert a Nation, or really bring any such glory to God, as that by it, there is no doubt I hope about the obligation, but that he should be always ready not only to be bound, but to die at Jerusalem for the name of Christ Jesus.

Now (to go on) we must lay down this Rule, that when two duties come together, so that we cannot perform the one, but we must omit the other, the greater duty must take place of the less. The rule appears in its own light, and also from Scripture; I will have mercy (saith God) and not sacrifice. What is the meaning, but that when acts of Righteousness and Mercy fall in, such duties as that of Sacrifice, which are less, must give way. Here then is our case plainly, which of these is the greater duty? We are to seek Unity: and ro preach the Gospel. If we keep our Parish-Churches, we must not preach the Gospel: If we preach the Gospel, we must go to these private Meetings. Which of these is indeed of greatest moment to the glory of God, and the Peoples salvation? In general, which is the greatest matter, that the Gospel of Christ Jesus be preached, or the Union of our Parish Churches be promoted? In particular, whether shall any of us, who have a call on occasion to Preach at such a time, place, or company, do more service to God by going and doing it, or by re­fusing and going to our Parish-Church for the sake of unity, for which we have still other seasons? And which is the greater evil, to have the people of a Parish only divided into several places, to hear the Ministers of both perswasions preach to them (when this too shall not hinder them being parts still or Members of the same Parochial Society): or that all the Preachers and Ministers in the Nation, but those only who Conform, should have their mouths stopt, and Talents buryed?

How! when there are so many of them? So many of them truly serious, and painful Labourers? So many of them that actually do so much good, and the everlasting welfare of thousands of mens souls depend upon it? What is Parochial Ʋnion in comparison? We will [Page 6]appeal to the Consciences of every upright equal person, (whether Conformist or Nonconformist) that fears God, to give Judgment. The preaching of the Gospel, and particular Assemblies, are of Divine, Parochial Churches are of Human Institution. That which is of Di­vine, is undeniably to be prefer'd before that which is of Human ap­pointment.

For the great Charge then against us of Schism, we answer: Schism is a Causeless breach of the Churches Ʋnion, a causeless separation from her Communion, the Communion of a Church whereof we are members, or should be Let either of these learned men or any that hath read any thing about Schism, tell us, if we do not define it right, by a separa­tion that is causeless; for if there be a cause, the separation will be justi­fied, as it is between us, and the Church of Rome. Now when the case between the Conformists, and us, is so open, and in the face of the Sun, that unless we set, and keep up these honest Conventicles, the whole Generation of these Nonconformist Ministers must be laid aside from the Exercise of their Office, for ought we see, as long as these men do hold, whatsoever in the mean while becomes of the Souls of so many multitudes: What Apology, Defence, or Account shall we here need more, than this only, Is there not a cause?

But stay! Do we Ministers go about here to justifie our selves in our Preaching, and leave the People in Schism? God forbid! We do apprehend that Hearing and Preaching are Relata, which do mutually put and destroy one another. That consequently the Peoples meeting is Authorized by our Commission. We suppose them not indeed to come out of any Principles of Separation, we do not need to do so: We suppose them rather to stand only on the Plea we offer them, Oc­casional Greater Edification. That is the same Plea still with ours, the Plea of Greater Duty. It is not in contempt to the Government that they come, nor out of neglect of their own Minister, with scandal to their Neighbours. They come not to any end inconsistent with the Rule of Charity, and Concord. But they are convinced in their Con­sciences that they do Edifie more by Hearing the plain Nonconformist, and so seek entirely only the Greater Profit of their Souls, by these means. In London now, it is manifest, that the Churches will not there hold their People; and the Assemblies of Presbyterians are (there) up­on this account nothing else but so many Additions, Helps, or Supplies to the Parish defect: And what hurt can there be more in it, than for one man to have under him two or three Curates? In some places there are Nonconformists, who have been Ministers formerly in the place, or [Page 7]thereabouts, where they live; and when both the People, and they do own themselves in some measure still under the same Relation, here is something more to be said, as to them, for their Justification. However, if nothing of this be, there is yet some Universal impres­sion on the hearts of most honest people, which makes them ten­derly sensible of the wrong that we have suffered, in being turn'd out of the Vineyard for our consciences. And what if any do think themselves bound hereupon in the sight of God, for the delivering their own souls from the participation of their sins that have ejected us, to come sometimes to hear us, by the way of acknowledging our Ministry, and to give respect to those they think worthy, that by this countenance of theirs toward us, they may both bear their Testimo­ny against the iniquity, and offer so much as lies in their Sphere to­ward our Restitution; who can say, but they have Reason? Who shall hinder them from taking into their mouths what we have said before, and are ready to say again, Is there not a Cause? They are words of David to his surly Elder Brethren, who are offended for his being about the Business he was sent. And Da­vid said, what have I done? is there not a Cause?

To this Apology, we know, it will be said by the Episcopal Party (for nothing else that we know can be said to any purpose), But you may conform. If so, we must then desire of one, or both, of these learn­ed, moderate, and judicious Doctors, to contribute but this one thing toward it, that is to answer our ensuing Objections, and those especi­ally which concern the Political part of Conformity, about the Oxford Oath, and Subscription. If there be but one Particular imposed on us as a condition of Conformity, which we prove to be sinful, and they cannot refel it, there is no man; this Doctor knows well, hath been more forward than himself to let us know out of Hales, That it is not the Refuser, but the Imposer is guilty of the Schism. Let us proceed therefore to the second part of our Task, though since our first Impres­sion (which was Anno 1675.) this is done more fully by another.

There are Three things enjoyned in the Act of Uniformity. Re-ordination. The Declaration. The Subscription.

We begin with the Threshold, Re-ordination. It must be acknow­ledg'd by both Parties, That Re-ordination is an uncouth thing, quite against the hair of the literate World, whether Fathers, Counsels, Schoolmen, or Modern Divines, Protestants and Papists; and put usually into the same predicament (and more especially by Austin) with Re-baptization. If the present Bishops therefore [Page 8]in the imposing of it, would have stood by it, and maintained the Lawfulness of it, as being neither against the Law of Nature nor Positive Institution: but as having rather the Example of the Apostles, and of Paul and Barnabas more particularly for it, with what else by some is urged, against the stream barely of human Authority: This would perhaps have looked handsome, and the ingenuity of it would have been notable: But when they would generally have it imposed, and yet disown it, and be ashamed of it, in so much as (though there be few or none ordained by Presbyters, but believe the validity of that Ordina­tion) they would have our former Ministry to be null, and make us contented in effect to be held but Usurpers of holy things, Sacrilegious persons, and all our Ministerial Acts void, as the Acts of meer Laicks before, it is really so intollerable, we cannot bear them. It is true, there is one instance from Antiquity out of Athanasius, of some persons with Ischryas among them, whom they would not allow (according as these hold) to be Ministers, because one Coluthus that ordained them, was only a Presbyter. Unto which may be added, the Story of the purblind Bishop, in the Hispaline Council, Circa An. 656! But we answer (in the sense as we remember) of Dr. Field on the Church; It is one thing what they judged according to their Ecclesiastical Canons; and another what we ought to judge according to the Word of God. The Scripture makes no difference between Bishop and Presbyter, the Superiority and Inferiority arising after in the Church: And when we are made Christs Ministers, and put in office by him, according to his Word, how shall that Authority be vacated for something wanting only in the Constitutions of Men? Here is a matter of Infinite wrong, which the opinion of these Men does us. It takes away the Office Christ hath given us, and holds it null. If it was a grievous thing in the late times to put one of these Ministers out of his Place only, what is it to put so many of us out of our Office? There is no Person almost of Spirit, but will be ready to part with his life as soon as the Honour he holds from the King; and shall not the Ordained Minister maintain the Right which he holds from Christ? When so many eminent Predecessors to these Bishops, and other defenders of this Church have main­tained Presbyterian Ordination: When the Reformed Churches abroad have no other: When the Case was such, as that there was no other to be had here in the late times: When not we alone then are concerned only in the wrong, but our Lord and [Page 9] Master, whose cause is it, and whose business we are to do, and the Souls of so many people: We cannot but appeal to the Higher Powers in a matter of so great right and wrong as this is. For we are contented to have revised, and judged, whether the Diocesan Bishop be distinguishedly named in Christs Charter for Ordination, as he is in the Canons of Men: Or when we have been ordained already, as Timothy, by the laying on of the hands of Presbytery, whether the Lawn be de Essentia to the Ceremony, and the Hands avail nothing without the Sleeves on?

The next thing is the Declaration. I A. B. do here declare my unfained assent and consent, to all and every thing, contained and prescribed, in and by the Book Entituled, The Book of Common Pray­er, and the Form of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons. That is, Assent to all and every thing contained in, and Consent to e­very thing prescribed by, these Books. Sirs, There was a time, when that the Nation had the hopeful Overture of a Concord between the Sober of two parties, and the Hearts of Most men were in pre­paration to receive it. But alas! Instead of such a Gracious and Blessed Issue as was expected, we have here the streight Injunction of an Assent and Consent to all Conformity, and every thing of it, new and old, to be approved and obeyed, or else one part of the Mi­nistry must be immediately turn'd out. How can those now, whose Judgments are, and have been still for Moderation between both O­pinions in times before, as now, be able to come over to one side altogether, on such Terms as these? How can these (we say) make so short a turn as this, without the Hazard of some sprain to their Consciences, if they do it? We cannot tell you perhaps, nor are willing to declare the impression, which we have upon our Spi­rits against a going back from that more Spiritual, Plain, and Sim­ply zealous Service of Almighty God, in the way we were in, and Reformation we sought, unto that Something we are not used to, and fear; To wit, unto a form of worship and Discipline, that carrying a countenance of both, but being rather only a kind of Idols of them, doth seem to us, by the shew, pomp, and com­plement of the things it contains not, to undermine the Life, Power, and Efficacy of one and the other. We cannot tell you perhaps what hath moved us so much from within, against an in­gulphing with this Generation, whether fear of Popery returning on us, or aliquid [...]. But we will produce Two or Three [Page 10]Instances a piece, against Assent, and against Consent to that which is injoyned, that we may approve our selves to the Consciences of all, as well as our own, in refusing this Declaration.

For our Assent. In the Athanasian Creed we find this passage, Which Faith, except every one does keep whole, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. One of the Articles of this Creed is this, The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son. In this Article we know the Greek Church hath differed from the Latin, and held, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only. If we give our Assent then to every thing or passage contained in this Book, we must believe the Greek Church undoubtedly Damned. And what if some of the Non-conformists (as well as of Connformists) do believe it not impossible, but that some Heathen may be sa­ved? What if they cannot think otherwise in regard to the Goodness of God, but that whosoever he was, or is, that walk'd or walks up to his Light in sincerity, with a general Repentance for his unseen Errors, must by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam faln, and Noah, no less than the Jews were by the same confirmed with Abraham, be in a state of acceptation with God, conceiving but both alike (for ought they see) were ignorant of their Redemption by the Blood of Christ, or the means how their Peace was made with him? [...]. We have shewn before that Christ is the first begotten of God, the Divine Reason, Wisdom, or Word whereof the whole kind of Mentor the whole stock of Mankind do partake; and whosoever lives according to Reason, are Christians, though they be accounted Heathen, or with­out God, such as Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like. Justin Martyr in his second Apology for the Christians. We do not day we re­ceive this, nor deny it: We are, though ready to say what was Luthers saying, We hope God will be merciful to such a one as Cicero, but our duty is to abide by the Word. And yet, cannot this little Candor it self be used, if we must be forced to declare, that whosoever believes not the Athanasian Creed, must undoubtedly perish.

Not that other Nonconformists generally make any scruple in this: But what do those sober and learned Doctors of the Church think of it, who have a name given them upon this ac­count, that though they hold some things that agree not with her [Page 11]Articles or Homilies, yet they can conform to them, or have a Latitude to do it? I A. B. do declare my unfained Assent and Con­sent to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer: and yet I A. B. do declare, that I Assent not to that passage in the Athanasian Creed. Again, I A. B. do profess, that a Heathen may be saved: and yet I do libenter & ex animo subscribe to the Article amongst the Thirty-nine, that does pronounce him Accur­sed, who dares hold such an opinion. We are not ignorant in­deed, how some would blend the two terms Assent and Consent, and then interpret them by the words [to the use] in the Act: But this is a shist which will not satisfie all persons, and many desire to use no shifts. If these words [to the use] had been put into the Declaration it self, it had been better: Yet if they had, Assent is proper to the Truth, and Consent to the Ʋse. And yet moreover, how can a man unfainedly consent to the use of any such Particular which is false, and which perhaps he even abhors, that the Wise and Ingenuous of his particular perswasion should think he believed?

Another Instance shall be this: In the Service on the Gun­powder Treason, we thank God for preserving the King, and the Three Estates of the Realm Assambled. It is a difficult Point now in the Politicks of England, Whether the Three Estates be, The King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: Or the Lord-Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons. The late King made no Scruple in his Answer to the Nineteen Propositions, to reckon himself one of the Three Estates: Neither was there any we know that durst account the Three Estates of the Land to be dissolved, when the Dishops were turned out of House by an Act. We cannot tell therefore of what Consequence it is to the fundamental liberty, constitution and state of this Kingdom, to yield unto the insinuation of such a thing as this in in our Pray­ers. No man can give his unfained Assent to any thing he knows not, and understands not. This is a thing we do not know that the Bishops are indeed one of the Three Estates of this Realm. Whether they be or no, we Dispute not; but till we are better satisfied with them and their station, we are afraid that any snare should be laid for the people in the Exercise of their Devotions un­to God.

We must mention one Particular more, which is our general Exception. In the new Book, there is inserted several passages [Page 12]that make the Bishops a distinct Office and Order from the Pres­byter. We need not name the Words, for they are put in more than once de industria. They would not be content with a differ­ence in Degree and Eminency, but they would have us decalare to a Jure Divino distinction, disproved by Learned Doctors among the Papists, and among the Episcopal men, as well as the Reformed Churches. Now we humbly beseech the Parliament to consider, Whether the Bishops have dealt candidly with us, to get such a Condition imposed on the Presbyterian, to the keeping of his Mini­stry, as not only Bishop Davenant and Ʋsher, but such as Dr. Field and Francis Mason, must have been turned out for Nonconformists upon the same. There are Two Orders Ecclesiastical, Presbyteri & Diaconi. When we say Bishops, Priests and Deacons, we name but two Orders, yet three Degrees, Mr.Joseph Mede. Disc. V.

For our Consent. We will name three things likewise (and but name them) more indefinitely. There is the Hierarchy, or Bishop, invested with sole power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction. There are the Ceremonies in general so often disputed. There is the Imposition it self of things not necessary; the occasion of stum­bling to many good men, and cause of our Divisions. Two of these things are matters of most Notorious concernment, which would require each of them a Book it self to peruse; but we have no such liberty, and must be content therefore only with the bare Notification. If we give our unfained consent To all, and every thing prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and Form of Or­dering Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, then must we give our ap­probation (we suppose) to these things amongst others. But if the Two first are disputable (which we must desire therefore, to be weighed according to the engagement of mens minds and con­sciences about these Subjects, and not after our passing short men­tion of them,) we are past doubt in the last, that to Impose things that are inductive to others to sin, and yet not necessary, in unlawful. What Charter hath Christ given to the Church, to bind men up to more than himself hath done, says Stillingfleet, with much more to that purpose, in his Epistle to his Irenicum? We will not speak so laxly altogether as he does there: but when we distin­guish the Imposition and Submission, this we are fully perswaded of in Conscience, that though a Submission to the things Imposed, may perhaps be maintained, the Imposition of them in not to be so, [Page 13]neither by that Doctor, nor by us. For if we build again the things we have destroyed, we make our selves transgressors.

It is not (Sirs!) the serving God by a Liturgy, or the rea­ding Common-Prayer in the ordinary daily Service that makes us Nonconformists, though it be this only lyes in the view of the inconsiderate Many; and though there are some things we ex­cept against the occasional Offices, which by and by may be na­med. We are sorry if any have given cause for such a scandal, which tends to the breaking of Concord and Charity, which ought to be maintained equally between the brethren of our Pri­vate, and of the Parochial Congregations. We should be ready to do any thing we could to the healing this scandal. But there are matters of another moment, which if we had liberty to open to the World at large as our cause requires, we doubt not but that it might come to see, whether we have reason to stick at Con­formity, or no. There are few of us who are not sensible in some measure of the Corruption which hath crept into the Church in re­gard to the Discipline or Government of it by the Hierarchy and Di­ocesan Bishop, so much degenerated since Cyprians time from the primitive simplicity: And there hath passed a solemn Oath over the Nation, engaging the main Body of it to the endeavour of a Reformation. Now when the same Government is returned upon the Land with all its former Corruptions, and more heavy Injuncti­ons, if we should generally submit again to it without obtaining any amendment, composition, or abatement, we dread to think on it, with what faces they shall be able to stand before God, who have lift up their hands to him for things quite contrary in the late Revolutions.

But to proceed: At last, besides the matter of this Declaration, The strict prescription as to the form of words is more especially to be noted, That this Declaration be made in these words and no other. And what if a Minister would read the Book of Common-Prayer without this Declaration? Or what if he would declare to the Contents of the Book in other Expressions? Why should these crooked SS's be ram'd down the Throat to Choak any? If we were put to declare in this form of words to any Book we know of this bulk, even to the Bible it self, there are some might stick out.

It is said in the Kings, That Ahaziah was Two and Twenty years old when he began to Reign, and in the Chronicles, that he was Two and Forty. Let us suppose these two places reconcilea­ble [Page 14]in the Hebrew, for our Assemblies Annotations hath reconciled them: but both these cannot be true at least in the English Tran­slation. If we were put therefore to declare in these words, and no other. I A. B. Do declare my Assent to every thing contained in our Bible, we should be gravel'd: For we cannot Assent to the Truth of them both in the English, nor Consent to the Error of the Tran­scription or Translation, if we think there is no other way (as Mr. Diodate says) to reconcile them. In Psal. 150. v. 28. our Psalter reads the words thus, And they were not obedient to his Word; our Bible reads them, And they rebelled against his Word. We argue here, One Particular contained in the Book of Common-Prayer, is the Translation of this Text. But if the Translation be true in the Psalter, it is false in the Bible; and if it be true in the Bible, it is false in the Psalter. That they rebelled, and rebelled not, no man can give his Assent. We know indeed how the words may be true in both Translations, as to the minds of the Translators, the one re­ferring them to Moses and Aaron, and the other the Egyptians: But we urge this more strictly. The mind of the Text it self, of the Holy Ghost, or Davids mind whose Psalm it is, was but one: While the Translators then are contrary in their minds, both of them can­not have Davids mind; and so one of the Translations must have that meaning which is false. And why must we be made then to give our Consent, that both these Translations should be used, when the false may be amended by the right?

We mention these little things, among several others, that have bin objected by Noncomformists heretofore, to shew the insuperable incumbrance of such continued Injunctions: and there is one like thing more, which none perhaps before us have publickly of­fered. It is the Rule prescribed us for the finding out the move­able Feasts and Holy day. Easter-day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the first Full Moon, which happens next after the One and Twentyeth day of March. Now examine this Rule for the late year 1674, and you will find the first Full Moon after the One and Twentyeth of March was upon the Tenth of April; and consequently if this Rule hold good, the next Sunday, which was April the Twelsth, should have been Easter-day: But Easter-day was upon the Nineteenth of April, as the Table for Forty years in the Common-Prayer Book does tell you, as well as our Almanacks did. Well! and how then shall we declare our Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in this Book? The Ta­ble [Page 15]is in the Book, and the Rule is in the Book. If the Rule be true, the Table is false: If the Table be true, the Rule is false. It is a grievous Case, that we must be turned out of our Livings be­cause we cannot give our Assent and Consent to Both.

Having mentioned these lesser things then in the way, we shall perhaps be blamed, if we neglect some other, that are of more notice with our brethren, or Moment with us.

In the Preface before the Prayers, we have this injunction: And all Priests and Deacons are to say dayly the Morning and Eve­ning prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by Sickness, or some other Ʋrgent Cause. We dare not here give our Consent to the use of any thing which we never intend to perform: We do, and shall use at home our own Prayers.

In the other Preface before Ordination, there is this passage with larger words. And to this intent that these Orders be reverendly e­steemed, no man shall be accounte, or taken for a Lawful Priest, or be suffered to execute the Functon, except he be called according to this form, or hath had formerly Episcopial Ordination. Let the Rea­der here who hath any tenderness at his heart,☞ consider whether he can consent to this! Whether he is so assur'd that the Nation lies under no Guilt, in turning out so many Ministers who were Ordain'd only by the Presbyters, as that he dares partake in the deed, by his Consent? Our hearts we are sure, will not serve us to do it. We give no Assent or Consent unto this. God give those repentance that do.

In the Office of Baptism, The Parents are not admitted to Co­venant for their Children, and how shall the Infant answer Crede, Abrenuntie, out of the mouth of the God-father? It is the Parents being in Covenant that gives Title to the Childs Baptism, and unless the Father or Mother make such a profession, as that we can probably judge the one or the other thereby to be in Covenant, we cannot (some of us) admit the Children to Baptism, nor Them­selves to the Lords Supper.

In the Burial, How shall we be able for our lives to say of every one that dies Un-excommumcate in the Parish, that God of his great Mercy hath taken his Soul unto himself, with such like Ex­pressions? Or that it is certain by Gods Word that every Child Bap­tized before Actual Sin, is in a state of Salvation? Let our Learned Gataker be consulted, De Baptismatis Infantilis vi & Efficacia, and then judge of it who will.

In the Rubrick to these Offices before mentioned, and to the Communion, if we Consent to every thing prescribed, or to the use of every thing there prescribed, we must not deliver the Bread and Wine to a man if he Scruple to Kneel at the Sacrament:☞ We must turn away his Child from Baptisme, if he Scruples God-Fa­thers: And if the Child dyes before it is Christned (though the Pa­rents be our dear Friends) we must not allow it Christian Burial. We do not Consent to these things, and the shift before of these words [To the use] will not help us.

In the Service for the Holy days, There are the most of us not agreed upon the Lawfulness of such days. Six days shalt thou la­bour. But above all the rest, there is one things in S. Clements day prescrib'd by the new Common-Prayer Book, that we wonder how those themselves that put is in can give their Consent to it, which is, the Change of a profitable Chapter in Esay, for the Story (God defend us!) of Bell and the Dragon?

There is lastly the use of the Cross, a compleat Institution of is self, brought in or added to the Ordinance of Christ, and ap­pearing to be of the same nature and end. This, we doubt, does entrench upon his Kingly Office, and must humbly therefore offer on reason for the removal, which we sollicite, whatsoever be done in other matters. The Ceremouies in use amongst us (says Mr. Hooker) are retained in no other respect saving only for that to re­tain them is to our seeming good and profitable. To which purpose, We are content with these only (say the Common Prayer Book) as be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to remembrance of his duty, by some edifying sinification. But the Cross being a Ceremony applied to Children who are uncapable of having their minds stirred up by and thing signified thereby, it is manifestly retained without their profit. We will enforce the Argument. By the same reason as we retain the Cross in Baptism, the other Cere­monies in Popery which are lest may be readmitted. As we use the Cross to signifie that the Child must fight manfully under Christ's Banner, we may use the Chrism wherein that Cross was used to be made, to signifie the Christians anointing to the Combat, and so forward. There is nothing can be replied hereto in good ear­nest, but that it is true if the Church pleased to enjoyn it, so we might. We urge consequently, By the same reason as the Church hath relinquisht the Chrism in Baptism, it may leave the Gross also, that is only if it please so to vote in a needful Con­vocation. [Page 17]And that it should do so, there is cause enough, if there were nothing else, to be said but this only, that as for all other Ce­remonies enjoyned, the Conformist may plead, that they are but Circumstances of Worship, wherein the Church hath proper Authori­ty to appoint what is decent and orderly: But for any solemn intire Right, which in no Circustance of the Ordinance unto which it is appended; or any ways in genere necessary thereunto, if this also be enjoyned, we shall have no bottom or banks set to the Appointment of Ceremonies, how far the Sea shall go, and no farther than so.

We will heap up no more Matters of this kind, for they are infinite; and it is some Relief to our Thoughts, that the last Long Parliament it self (we thank God) did come to be a little sensible of it, in so much as they were near content on Session, to Cashire this Declaration quite. There does remain now therefore the Subscription in the Act, and this Question which does arise upon it: whether there be not as good reason, in regard to the most sober Consciences, to take away this Subscription in the Act of Uniformity, and the Oath in the Oxford-Act, as well as the Declaration of Assent and Consent?

The Subscription is this: I A. B. do declare, That it is not Lawful upon any Pretence Whatsoever, to take Arms against the King. And that I do abbor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authori­ty, against his Person, or those Commissionated by him: And that I will confrom to the Liturgy of the Church of Endland, as it is now by Law establish'd. And I do declare, That I do hole there lyes no Obli­gation upon me, or any other Person, from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government either in Church or State: and that the same was in it self and Unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of the Realm, against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. The Oath this: I A. B. do swear, That it is not Lawful upon any Pretence what­soever, to take Arms against the King. And that I abhor that Traite­rous Position of taking Arms by his Authority, against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him, in pursuance of such Com­missions. And that I will not at any time, endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State.

In this Oath and Subscription, we have the Matter, and the Form of Words; that is, the Substance, and the Commposure. The one whereof, are the other in both, and lyable to the ensuing Exceptions. [Page 18]Which we desire may be taken with Candor, in respect on­ly to our Design, that is as Argumentative for the Removal of these Injunctions: not as peremptorily Definitive of our own Judgments, and much less of others above our Sphear, in all the Cases contained in them.

To begin with the Oath. Here are three parts of it. The first part appears not (for we speak it humbly only, and argumentative­ly) consistent with Judgment; the second with Truth; nor the third with Righteousness.

We will take up the last part first: And I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government. There is no Government on Earth so perfect, that it hath need of Laws like the Medes and Persians. Go­vernment may be considered in the Administration: or the Consti­tution. The word Government here, is set down indefinitely, with­out Distinction. Alteration of Laws, and so Government in the Ad­ministration, is as necessary many times upon emergent Occasions to the Body Politick, as the fresh Air is to the Natural. This Oath was brought into the House, to have been made Common. It were not a thing righteous, to have had that Engagement laid on Per­sons in such a Capacity: It is not righteous, to have it laid on any that are Free-Holders, and Free-Subjects, as we are. The Consti­tution of our Nation, as Parliamentary, is such, that no Law can be Establish'd or Repealed, but it must pass the House of Commons; and so the whole Body concurr in their Representatives to every Al­teration of Government, (or in the Government) that is made, if it be Legal: And no House of Commons are Chosen, but by the People. Every English-man is intended to be here present, either in Person, or by Procuration; and the Consent of the Parliament is taken to be every Man's Consent, says Sir Thomas Smith, De Rep. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Nay, while the King, consilio & assensu Baronum leges olim imposuit universo Regno, by the Counsel and Assent of his Ba­rons, did give Laws to his whole Realm, consentire inferior quis (que) vi­sus est in persona Domini sui Capitalis prout hodie per procurato­res Comitatus, every Inferior seemed to consent in the Person of his Chief Lord, as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires, sayes Sir Henry Spelman. This is so true, that in this Sense it is, that the Laws are said to be, Quas vulgus elegerit, Which the People shall choose. Now then, if every Subject hath a Fundamen­tal Liberty to choose Knights and Burgesses, and accordingly to in­form them of their Grievances, and petition them for Redress; and [Page 19]in them, as their Representatives, do consent to the Alteration of Government and Laws (if there be any pass) as profitable to the Nation: how can such an Oath be imposed on him, That be will not endeavour any Alteration, as this? Is not choosing Burgesses, in­forming them, petitioning them, acting and legally consenting in them to that end, An endeavour? and that as much as can be in their Place and Calling? And no more than Endeavour in their Place and Calling, was Challenged by any. It is true, that new Laws may be made, and Old repealed, without alteration of the Constitution: but not without Alteration of Government; because Government takes in both the Administration, and the Constitution. Let us suppose therefore the word Government confined only to the Constitution. There is the Constitution of the Government in the State, which is a Legal Monarchy; and this indeed we are so far bound from en­deavouring to alter, as we think it is not alterable by the King himself, and Parliament; because the Supream Power for the Admi­nistration must be supposed in all Communities, to be derived from, and held by the Constitution. But as for Government in the Church, we are to know and acknowledge, that the Constitution hereof it self, is but a Law of the Administration, in reference to the State. And consequently, when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulation of Parliaments, the great Question will remain, How those Men who are Presbyterian or In dependent in their Judg­ment, and think Episcopacy against the Scripture, can be abridged the Endeavour only afore-mentioned, (which consists but in choosing Re­presentatives, and doing no more than the Constitution allows) in or­der to the Prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience, both by Oath, and the word of God? Is not the foun­dation Liberty of the whole People, and our selves with them here in danger? Judge ye that are Wise. And what an Anointed Plot have we had here on the Nation, that an Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops, as well as to the King, by such Impositi­ons?

For the Words then, (or Form) we wonder at this Rigour in the Compiler, That a Man must swear, not to endeavour any Alteration. Had it not been enough to be engaged, not to endeavour the Alte­ration of the Substance of our Government, Episcopacy in the Church, and Monarchy in the State, but it must be not any Alteration? It were well we were so absolutely Perfect. And again, must they not at any time endeavour any Alteration? What if Times should turn, [Page 20]and we be in a Confusion as we were, or any the like Chance or Change come? Must these Men be bound up, that they cannot en­deavour to reduce back this Government that we have? No, not the King and Bishops, if the Iniquity of the Times should put them out; for they have sworn, they will not at any time endeavour any Alteration in Church or State. Sirs! The Matter of this Obligati­on being against the Fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Par­liament, and the Words you see so ensnaring, and that against the Duty all owe to the Publick Good: we offer it to you to consider in the first place, whether this last part be according to Righteous­ness.

For the middle of the Oath. Here is a Position of taking Arms by the Kings authority against any Commissionated by him, which must be sworn to, as abhor'd and traiterous. There is now a Case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath and Sub­scription. Suppose some Writ sued out, and comes to the Sheriffs hands, and suppose some to oppose the Execution by the Kings Personal Command or Commission, and he thereupon raises the posse Comitatus upon them. We will ask here, whether the She­riff acts not herein by the Kings Authority? We think it cannot be denyed. By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Law. And when he can act so against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out, how is this position in this case traiterous, and to be ahor'd? For our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath, the Sub­scription (as to the Major part we may be bold) to advance the perso­nal will or Commission of the King above Law, which were to make his power Despotical, and not Royal. Non est Rex (says Bracton) ubi dominatur voluntas, non Lex He is no King that Governs by his will, and not by the Law. And how this position indefinitly (without ex­ception of this Case at least) must be sworn to as altogether Traiterous,☞ we are to learn. What if any should come with a Commission under the Seal, to raise Money without an Act of Par­liament and by vertue of such Commission shall seize our Goods, rifle our Houses' and Ravish our Wives? May not the People, or our inferior Magistrates, or the Sheriff for the County, with­stand such violence? May not the Constable alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace, raise the Neighbour-hood, and do it? If he may, or the Sheriff may, it must be in the Name of the King, or by Authority of the Law; and then is there some [Page 21]Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Autho­rity of the King against such as are Commissionated by him, though never against his own Sacred Person. Suppose again, that Papists or Fanaticks, should either by Power or Suprise, at any time get the King into their hands, (as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King) and prevail with him for fear of his life to grant Commissions under his Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State, must the Nation be remediless in this Case, and so the King and Kingdom ruin'd by these Commissions? Nay, what se­curity hath the Nation, that a Lord Keeper may not prove Tray­tor to his King, and Countrey; If we may suppose such a thing possible, what if such a Lord Keeper should under the Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband his Majesties Life-Guard, deliver up the Navy or Sea Port Towns seize the Tower or places or strength; in what a condition were the King and Kingdom brought, if the Subjects hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms, against the Execution of such Commissions: Suppose but so long as till they understand his design, for by that time, the whole Nation may be past recovery? We are offended at the sense, and stand amaze at the Horror of those sad Comsequences, into which the Imposition of such like Tests, or Injunctions as these, (if not timely retrenched) may lead our Posterity. The Courts of Law can avoid the Kings Charters or Commissions, which are passed against Law. For the King is subject to the Law, and sworn to maintain it. Judge Jenkens in his Works, p. 48.

As for the Form then of the Words, I abhor this Traiterous Posi­tion, They are harsh. The word Abhor especially, is a word of In­terest and Passion, A cooler word, as I disown or disallow, might have served. Some of the most Grave (as Calamy particularly) were much offended at that word. A man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience, when he cannot say according to the Truth, I Abhor it. There is never a Gentleman in the Land, but may swear truly, That he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife: but if each one was put to swear, he Abhors it, we suppose, some Sons of the Church would be willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath. Well Sirs! when these words Abhor, and Traiterous, are so harsh in the Composure, and when such Cases as above-mentioned, may be put as to the Position in the Matter of it, wherein it seems justifiable, and without offence: We offer it in the next place to consideration, whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth.

For the first part, We have a large Assertion roundly sworn. The Oath and Subscription runs not only, that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King, or that it is not lawful on any pretence, but on any pretence (or cause) whatsoever. The Grammatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less, than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation. Amongst the most eminent of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes, and establish'd it against Resistance in their wri­tings on this Subject, we suppose there are few or none to be va­lued above these Three, Barclay, Grotius, Arnisaeus, And we shall find, that they have all their restrictions or cases of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet. And how shall any be over earnest here in punishing the Refuser, when if the matter be well scan'd, the reason perhaps, why he refuses, will be found only because he hath read more than some others that yield their submission. We be­gin with Barclay, that is William Barclay, a Scot and Councellor to the French King, who writes against Buchanan, Boucher, and other Monarchomachists, as he calls them. This learned man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People, that consequent­ly no Arms can be taken against him: Nevertheless, when he comes to put some pressing Cases, he thus limits him. Quid ergo? nulli ne Casus incidere possunt, quibus populo in Regem arma capere jure suo liceat? nulli certe quamdiu Rex manet. What then? Can there no Cases happen, wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms a­gainst the King by Right? None certainly so long as he remains a King. There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere personam Regis, or Dominatu se exuere, Put off the Person of a King. And particularly (l. 3. c. 16.) he mentions two. Si regnum alienet: si Rempublicam evertere conatur. If he go to alienate his Kingdom: if he go to overthrow the Common-wealth. We can­not tell how to approve this Doctrine, the Papists use the same we know in another Case. We may not fight against our King; but if the People Excommunicate him, he shall be no King with them. Let us come to Grotius, and first quote him in his Judgment of Barclay, lest you may think else we mistake him. Barclaius (says he) Regii imperii licet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit, ut popu­lo & insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevi­tiam. Barelay, though the most strong assertor of Kingly Government, does come to this, that he grants a Right to the People, or the most ems­nent part of them, of defending themselves against intolerable oppres­sion. [Page 23]For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet, Summum imperium tenentibus jure resists non posse, That the higher Power may not lawfully be resisted, from Scripture, Antiquity, Authority, and Example, to as much purpose perhaps as any, he descends to put seven Cases, wherein he does Lectorem monere, Warn his Reader, ne putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt, lest he mistake some for delinquents that are not. For Arnisaeus, he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politicks. De Jure Majestatis De Doctrina Politica. De Authoritate principum in populum semper Invio­labili, seu, quod nulla ex cause subditis fas sit contra legitimum prin­cipem arma sumere. That the Authority of Princes over the People, ought to be inviolable, or that it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince. Here then we have our Tenet, in the stated whereof he comes in the issus to distinguish between Rex and Tyrannus, a King and a Tyrant; Tyrannus in Titulo, & Tyran­nus in Exercitio, A Tyrant in Title, and in Practice: And Tyrannus in Exercitio. A Tyrant in Practise, he accounts does Excidere de Jure, etsi Haereditario, Fall from his Right, though Hereditary, Tra­ditur Respublica Principi in eum finem (says he) ut illi praesitin sa­lutem omnium, a quo si prorsus desciverit, etiam de potestate cadit, quam non alio fine sibi commissam habebat. The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince, that he should rule over it for the eommon safe­ty; from which if he depart altogether, he falls even from the Power it self, which was committed to him only for this end. We do not give our consent to, nor pass our censure upon the words we cite: But by such Testimonies as these, without naming others, we would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed, or swon, with some resentment and shame, that when the Temperate sense and meaning of them is such as we were not like to boggle at, they should be yet composed so in terminis, as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception.

For the form then yet of the Words. I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful, &c. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition questioned, to the determination of a Point of Conscience, and that diversly decided. An Oath should be to a matter of Fact, and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain. To re­quire of Men therefore to swear to the verity of a Doctrine, is not according to Judgment, being a thing impossible, because no Man is infallible. Now then Sirs! When here is such an Erra­tum in the Composure, as the want of the words I believe, or the [Page 24]like, I swear that I hold, or believe, that it is not lawful, &c. and so material an Exception, as the Judgment of the most learned in general comes to, against the Substance in Terminis, of the first part of this Oath, which yet goes down ordinarily without Chew­ing: we humbly offer it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken either in Truth or Judgment.

An Oath must be taken in Judgment, in Truth, and in Righte­ousness. The first part (we argue) is not according to Judgment; The second not according to Truth; The third not according to Righteousness. We speak it humbly by way only of Argumentati­on (as we have said) craving pardon if it offend, for the manner of the Expression.

We proceed to the Subscription conjoyned, which hath we count Two Parts. The one is the purport wholly of the Oath; where­of therefore we shall add no more but this, That when the mat­ter of the one, and the other in the former part, is such as enters the foundation of Politicks in general, and the Laws and State of the Land in particular (which is [...], a Kingdom regula­ted by Laws, as Sir Thomas Smith hath it; Rex sub Deo & Lege, The King is under God and the Law, says Hooker and Bracton) so that it requires the skill of the greatest Judges, Serjeants and Sages of the Law to determine the Cases included in it, it is a very hard thing we think, that every poor silly Minister is put to de­cide the same for himself, and to have that evidence therein, as to be able to take his Oath, or give his Hand to the certainty of it. The other part of the Subscription concerns the Covenant, and here the words [nor any other] to name none else, are such a Ford, that (as to the Conscience of all not throughly Episcopal) so far as we see, is unpassable. It is nothing to some of our selves to subscribe, there lyes no obligation on me from the Covenant to endeavour any alteration of Government, because we never took it, it was against our Conscien­ces, and we can conceive for others in a Private capacity, what have they to do with Government? NO Oath can bind to sedition and disobedience. But as for such as are in a Publick capacity, and can act lawfully towards Reformation in their place, what shall we say to those? One way there is indeed, will strike off all quite, and that is to hold the present Government establish'd to be Jure Divino altogether, so that any alteration is sin. He that holds thus, may affirm clearly, that though a Man swore he would en­deavour to alter the Government, it binds him nothing, let him be [Page 25]in what capacity he will, the least alteration is unlawful, and he must therefore repent of his Oath, and not perform it. But if a Man hold, that the Presbyterian Government is rather Jure Divino, or that neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian is Jure Divino or that Epis­copal Government is well, yet that ours as it is now, is not alto­gether so well, but that someting may be alter'd for the better: We would fain be infromed how such a Man can absolve him who is in a publick capacity (as a Parliament Man) from his endeavouring so much according to time and prudence, if he hath sworn before that he will. It is in vain to hide where the water sticks. There are some cannot tell how to absolve One other for their lives. They say not there lyes an Obligation upon any to do as they have sworn, for fear it be dangerous; and they dare not say there lyes none, for fear of their Consciences, or for fear of God. As to our selves, This we may say, that we desire to be instructed, and this we will say, that it is an hard thing to be put on it to say, that there lyes no Obligation upon any other but our selves, whether there does or no. We will therefore close up our Reasons for Non-conformity, with this one Note only. If there be so many difficulties in One of the things alone, which is required to Confromity, what a River hath he to wade, that must pass through All together that belongs to it?

We descend to some Proposals for concord or mutual quiet to the Nation, under the Differences which is the last part of our under­taking. Secundae Cogitationes prudentius & moder atius consulunt, & pru­dentius quia moder atius.

It hath pleased His Majesty by several gratious overtures to com­mend an Union of his Protestant Subjects to the consideration of Par­liament. A Design full of all Princely Wisdom, Honesty, and Good­ness. In this Atchievement there is a double Interest (we apprehend) to be distinguish'd and weighed, that of Religion it self, and that of the Nation. The Advance of Religion does consist much in the Unity of its Professors both in Opinion and Prctise to be of one Mind, and one Heart, and one Way (in Discipline and Worship) so far as may be according to the Scriptures. The Ad­vance of the Nation, doth lye in the Freedom and Flourishing of Trade; and uniting the whole Body in the Common Benefit and dependance on the Government. The one of these bespeaks an Establish'd order and Accommodation; the other bespeaks Indulgence, [Page 26]Liberty of Conscience, or Tolleration: for while people are in dan­ger about Religion, we dare not launch out into Trade, (say they) but keep our Moneys, seeing we know not into what streights we shall be driven; and when in reference to their party, they are held under severity, it is easie to those who are designing Heads, to mould them into Wrath and Faction; which without occasion will melt and dissolve it self into bare dissent of Opinion, peaceably rejoycing under the enjoyment of Protection.

The King we know is concerned as Supream Governour, and as a Christian Protestant Governour. As he is King, he is to seek the welfare of the Nation: as he is a Christian, the flourishing of Re­ligion, and the Protstant Religion, particularly is his Interest, as this Kingdom doth lye in Ballance (he being the chief Party) with its Neighbour Nations.

The Judgment now of some is for a Comprehending Act, which may take in those who are for our Parochial Churches, that seve­rity then might be used for reclaiming all whosoever separate from them: The Judgment of some others is for a free and equal Act of Grace to all indifferently, (the Papists with most excepted) whether separatists or others abhorring Comprehension, as more dangerous to them on that account mentioned, than all the Acts that have passed. Neither of these Judge up to the full Interest of the King and Kingdom as is proposed. It becomes not the Presbyterian, if his Principles will admit him to own our Parochial Church, and enjoy a Living, to be willing to have his Brethren the Independants given up to persecution: And it becomes not the Separatist, if he may but enjoy his Conscience, to repine or envy at the Presbyterian for reaping any further Emolument, seeing both of them (supposing the latter may do so) have as much at bottom as can be, in their capacities, desired of either. It is an Act therefore of a mixt Complexion, providing both Comprehen­sion and Indulgence for the different Parties, must serve our pur­pose.

And to this end (as we may humbly hope) was there once a Bill in Parliament, A Bill for the ease of the Protestant Dissenters in the Business of Religion. Which that it may (some time or other) be cast in­to this model, we must present the same desires, under a little fur­ther Explication.

There two sorts (we all know) of these Protestant Dissen­ter: One that own the established Ministry, and our Parish Con­gregations, [Page 27]and are in capacity of Union upon that account, desiring it heartily upon condescention to them in some smaller matters. The other that own not our Churches, and so are uncapable of a Conjunction, who do not, and cannot desire it, or seek it.

For the one. That which we propose is a further latitude in the present constituted order, that such may be received; and this we call Comprehension or Accommodation. Let us suppose that nothing else were required of a Man to be a Minister of a Parish, than there is to the Parishioner, to be a Member of the Parish-Church, as part of the National. If a person Baptized will come to Church, and hear Common-Prayer, and receive the Sacrament, and does nothing worthy of Excommunication, he is, he may, he must be received for a Parochial Member: In like manner if a Minister first Ordained (and so Episcapally or Classically approved in his Abilities for that Function) will but read the Book of Liturgy, and Administer the Sacraments according to it, and does nothing which deserves suspension (we appeal to all indifferently sober) why should not this suffice a Man for the enjoying his Living, and ex­ercising the Office unto which he is called? And what it some lit­tle omission here and thereto salve a Scrupulous Conscience (so long s the main Body of the Service be still read) were tollerated, would it do hurt to any?

For the other, there is indeed nothing that can be done to bring those in, and joyn them with us in Parochial Union. Yet is there this to be proposed, that you bear with them, and let not any be persecuted meetly for their Consciences, and that we call Indul­gence or Tolleration. If the Presbyterian now may be Comprehend­ed, he will be satisfied to act in his Ministry without endeavou­ring any Alteration, of Episcopacy otherwise. If the Congregation­alist be Indulged, he will be satisfied, though he be not Comprehend­ed, for that he cannot submit unto; and so shall there be no dis­obligation put on any, but all pleased, and enjoy the ease of such a Bill. Let but the Grounds of Comprehension be laid wide enough to take in all who can own and come unto the publick Liturgy, (the Conformist then we may suppose well the greater weight of the Nation) and when the Countenance of Authority, and all State Emoluments are cast into one Scale, and others let alone till their mind serves them, without Persecution to inflame them, or Prefer­ment to encourage them, (especially if one Expedient be used which [Page 28]shall not pass unmentioned in the close, that such as come in, may find it really better to them to be a Priest to a Tribe, than a Le­vite to a Family) we need not doubt but Time, the Mistress of the wise and unwise, will discover the peaceable issue of such Coun­sels.

And here let us pause a little, for we imagine we see what Ice­sicles are hanging on the Eves of the Parliament House at this mo­tion: What Prejudices and Impressions we mean have been laid on some Members by former Act. There was a Speech delivered by the then Chancellor in Christs-Church-Hall in Oxford, to the Parliament there, and the Schollars, assembled, wherein the Glory of contriving the Oxford Oath, and consequently of the like former Impositions was most Magnificently, as well as Spitefully enough Arrogated to its proper Author. It was, it seems, the designed Policy of that Great Man, to root those Principles out of Mens minds, upon which the late Wars (as he supposed) were built; and he would do it by this Invention, to wit, the imposing upon them new Declarations, Oaths, Subscriptions, of a Strain framed contrary to those Principles. We do remember now the Sentence of Esdras to Apologue of the Angel, where the Woods and Seas would encounter one another. Verily (says he) it was a foolish pur­pose: For the Trees could not come down from the Hills, nor the Waves get up from the Shoars. We must say the same of this Policy. It was really a great vanity to think that Folks should be made to swear away their thoughts and beliefs: Whatsoever it is we think, or believe, we do think it, we do believe it, we must believe it, notwithstand­ing any of these outward Impositions. The Honest Man indeed will refuse an Injunction against his Conscience, the Knave will swal­low it, but each retain their Principles, which the last will be like­liest to put into any villanous practise. On the contrary, there is nothing could be advised more certain, to keep the Covenant, and such Principles alive in Mens Hearts and Memories, than this perpetual enjoyning the Renuntiation of it. Nor may you wonder, if that Lesson sink deep into Mens flesh, which you will teach them with Briars and Thorns, as Gideon taught the Men of Succoth. Be­sides, it is the most unpolitick thing that ever could have been, for such Contents as are of that dangerous Consequence to Ma­jesty and the Government, to have them once disputed or brought into question, to be put into these Declarations, Oaths, and Subscrip­tions, which necessitates the Examination of them to so many. It [Page 29]was the wisdom of the antient Church instead of contention about the Jewish Ceremonies, to take care they might have an Honou­rable Burial: And we dare say, if that Great Lord Chancellour had but put off his Cap to the Covenant, and bidden it a fair adieu only, he should have done more towards its Extirpation, than by all this iterated trouble to Mens Consciences. And if it shall there­fore please the succeeding Ministers of State instead of going to root out the Principles of Innovation which are got into people, by this means (which is no means to do it, but the means to rivet them more into us,) to endeavour rather to root out the Causes from us, which make Men willing to entertain such Principles, and desire change: we suppose their Policy will prove the sounder. The way to establish the Throne of the King is this, to make it appear, that all those Grievances, and all those Good things which the people in the late times expected to be removed, or to be obtained by a Com­mon-wealth, or a change of the Government, may be more effe­ctually accomplish'd by a King in the Acts of His Parlia­ment.

We are sensible how our Theam rises upon us, and that we begin to shoot wide. We take our Aim therefore again, and two things in earnest we would expect from such a Bill, as the sum of what is necessary to the end of it proposed, our Ease, if it be made to serve the turn. The one is, that Bishop Laud be confined to his Cathedral; and the other, that Chancellor Hyde be totally ex­pelled our Acts of Parliament. By the first we mean, that the Ceremonies in the ordinary Parish Churches be left to the liberty of the Minister, to use, or use them not according to his Conscience and Prudence towards his own Congregation: And by the latter; that all these new devised Oaths, Subscriptions and Declarations, together with the Canonical Oath, and the Subscription in the Canons, be suspended for the time to come. If that be too much, we shall content our selves with a modester motion, that whatsoever these De­clarations be that are required to be made, subscribed, or sworn, they may be imposed only as to the Matter and End, leaving the tak­er but free to the use of their own Expressions. And this expe­dient we gather from the Lord Coke, who hath providently as it were against such a season laid in this Observation. The Form of the Subscription set down in the Canons, ratified by King James, was not expressed in the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. Inst. purt. 4. c. 74. And consequently, if the Clergy enjoyed this freedom until [Page 30]then, in reference to the Particulars therein contained, what hinders why they might not have the same restored in reference also to others?

It is true, that it may seem hard to many in this Parliament; to undo any thing themselves have done in a former: But though this be no rule for Christians, who are sometimes to repent as well as to believe, if they be loath to Repeal any thing, what if they shall only Interpret or Explain? Let us suppose then some clause in this Bill, or some new Act, for Explanations. If any Non­conformist cannot come up to the full meaning and intent of these injunctions rightly explained, let him remain in statu quo, under the state only of Indulgence, without benefit of Comprehension; for so long as those who are not Comprehended, may yet enjoy that case as to be Indulged in some equal measure answerable to His Majesties Decloration that was, whether Comprehension be large or narrow, such terms as we obtain are pure advantage, and such as we obtain not, are no loss. But if any does, and can honest­ly agree to that whole sense which the Parliament intends in such Impositions, why should there be any obstruction for such a Man, though he deliver himself in his own words, to be received into the Establish'd order with others, unless Men will look on these Injunctions only to be contriv'd for Engines of Battery to destroy the Non-conformists, and not as Instruments of Ʋnity to edifie the Church of God?

We will not leave our Congregational Brethren neither, so long as we have something more that may be said for them, not ordi­narily considered by any. It is this, That though indeed, they are not, and cannot seek to be of our Churches as they are Pa­rochial under the Diocess or Super-intendency of the Bishops: Yet do they not refuse, but seek to be comprehended within the Church, as National under His Majesty. We will explain our selves. The Church may be considered as Ʋniversal, and so Christ alone is the Head of it, and we receive our Laws from him: Or as Particular, and so the Pastors are Heads, Guides, or Bi­shops over their respective Flocks, who are commanded there­fore to obey them in the Lord: Or as National, which is an acci­dental and external respect to the Church of God, wherein the King is to be acknowledged the Supream Head of it, ansd as we judge no otherwise; For thus also runs the Statute, That our So­vereign Lord shall be taken and reputed the only Supream Head in [Page 31]Earth of the Church of England; called Ecclesia Anglicana. Now if it should please the King and Parliament to allow and approve those separate Meetings, and stated places for Worship by a Law, as His Ma­jesty did by His Declaration, we must porfess that, as such Assem­blies by this means must be constituted immediately Integral parts of the Church as National, no less than our Parish Congregations: So would the Congregate Churches (at least those that understand themselves) own the King for Head over them, in the same sence as we own him Head over ours, that is as much as to say, for the Supreme Goercive Governour of all, (in this accidental regard) both to keep every several Congregation to that Gospel-order them­selves profess; and to supervise their Constitutions in things indiffe­rent, that nothing be done but in subordination to the Peace of the Kingdom.

Well, let us suppose then a liberty for these separate Assem­blies under the visitation of His Majesty and His Justices, and not the Bishops, or under them as his substitutes (that is exercising an Authority, formerly secular, and objectively only Ecclesiastical) and no otherwise. We would fain know what were the evil you can find in them. If it lie in any thing, it must be in that you call Schisme. Separation then let us know in it self simply considered is nothing, neither good nor evil. There may be reason to di­vide or separate some Christians from others out of prudence, as the Catechumeni of old from the fully instructed, for their greater edification; and as a Chappel or two is added to a parish Church, When the people else were too big a Congregation. It is not all division then or separation is Schism, but sinful division. Now the Supream Authority as National Head having appointed the Parochial Meetings, and required all the Subjects of the Land to frequent them, and them alone, for the acknowledging, glorify­ing, or National serving and worshipping the one only true God, and His Son, whom we have generally received, and this Wor­ship or Service in the nature of it being intrinsically good, and the External order (such as that of Time and Place, and the like-Cirumstances) being properly under his Jurisdiction, it hath see­med to us hitherto, that unless there was something in that or­der and way prescribed, which is sinful, and that required too as a Condition of that Commonion, there is no man could refuse his attendance universally on these Pariotchial Assemblies, without the sin of disobedience: And consequently his separation there­by [Page 32]becoming sinful, proves Schism: But if the Scene be alter'd, and those separate Assembles made legal, the Schism in reference to the National Church upon the same account does vanish. Schism is a se­paration from that Church, whereof we ought, or are bound to be Members: If the Supream Authority then loose our obligation to the Parish Meeting, so that we are bound no longer; the iniqu­ty, (we say upon this account) is not to be found, and the Schism gone. Lo here, a way opened for the Parliament (if they please) to rid the trouble and scruple of Schism (at once) out of the Land. If they please not, yet is there something to be thought on for the Separatist in a way of Forbearance; that the innocent Christian, at least, as it was in the time of Trajan, may not be sought out unto punishment. Especiallly when such a Tolleration on­ly is desired, as is consistent with the Articles of Faith (i. e. the Creed) a Good life, and the Government of the Nation.

But what shall we say then to the Papists, which is the Ob­jection hit still in their Teeth that plead for Mederation? Why, we will not baulk the delivery of our opinion. There are Two parts we profess of that favour or condescension we seek from the Higher Powers: The one consisting of a Composition with those whose Principles are fit and capable of it: And the other consi­sting of Forbearance towards those whose Principles will allow them no more. The Papist is one whose worship to us is Idola­try, and we cannot therefore allow them the liberty of publick Assembling themselves, as others of the Separation. It is true, we have moreover Laws very severe against the Jesuit, and Se­minary Priest: which we may suppose to be upon the ground of State Interest. The Supremacy of the Pope, and the Authority of the King are inconsistent in this Land: The Priest and Jesuit are taken by Law as Factors for the Pope; and an undermining the Government in all States is a Capital Crime. But as for the common Papist, who lives innocently in his way, he is to us in regard to what he does in private, in the Matter of his God, as o­thers who refuse likewise to come to Common Prayer. He may not expect to have power or trust, being of a Religion so dange­rous to the State, but he may hope for the enjoyment of his Con­science as we, without wrong or oppression. And indeed if it be only Liberty of Conscience that he seeks, this will be sufficient, that he is not troubled, not we. If he desires more, he stirs us [Page 33]all presently into Jealousie, and no wonder if we be very sollicitous to have Popery kept out of Dominion, or our selves from Fire and Faggot, how gentle and equal soever we be to it, and to all parties alike under a safe Subjugation. For as the Roman Catholick we suppose will consider from hence-forward, that to go to bring in a Religion upon a people that are no more prepared for theirs than we are in this Nation, is the committing of a Rape upon the pub­lick Conscience, and Possession being got without our good wills, would not likely be long retained: So are we to remember the common rule of Christianity towards them, that we must do as we would be done by to all Men: and that, With what measure we mete to others, it shall be met to us again.

And now we turn us to the Houses. My Lords and Gentle­men! We suppose you honest Persons that would not depart from this Catholick Rule, that would not wrong any; and if you did, would make them recompence. There have been very hard Acts passed, which when the Bills were brought in, might haply look smooth and fair, to some of you who were Mem­bers: But you saw not the Covert Art, secret Machination, and purposely contrived Snares against one whole Party. If such a form of words would not, another should do their business: By this means, you in the first place your selves were overstript: Multitudes dispossess'd of their Livings: The Vineyard let out to others: The Lord Jesus the Master of it deprived of many of his Faithful Labourers: And the poor sheep (what had they done?) berest of their accustomed spiritual food, to the hazard of their Immortal Souls. Among many arguments therefore for Liberty in other Papers, from Policy, Convenience Reason of State, and Reason of Religion, we have this one to offer you of a more bind­ing Nature, and Argument from Justice, Righteousness, and Resti­tution to the wronged. It is true, that the Places they once had, are filled and disposed of: But there are others enough. There are many of those who possess theirs, do also keep their own, and keep more. There are many who are Canons, Deans, Prebenda­ries, that are also Parsons, Rectors, Vicars: Who have Benefices and Honours by Heaps, and by the Bushel. If it shall please you therefore in some Bill on the Anvil, to take cognizance of Pluralists, that for the preventing an idle, scandalous, covetously overgrown, unprofitable Ministry, every man who hath more than one cure of Souls, or one Dignity, shall give them up into a pub­lick [Page 34]stock, or to a general distribution, you shall do the Church­right, and the Ejected right; you shall give such Drones their due, and God his due, and strew the way by this means, for making your Grace intended in such a Bill of signification. In the Name of God, Sirs, let us move you to this; if it were on­ly hac vice, for a present needful conjunction of us at this season. We see the Jaws of the Jesuit, and the Sectary opening upon us; If the sober Protestant Interest be not united, we perish. We know who will be ready to stamp here, and throw dust in the Air; for it is these Sons of the Horsleech, whose voice is give, give, that will never be contented with a single portion. A Dignity therefore with a Living, let them be allowed: But one Dignity, and one cure of Souls should be all, though they cut themselves with Lances. It is this vile hard Objection at the bottom, the Priests covetousness, and corruption, rather than their dispute a­bout things indifferent, that really hinders the Churches Peace and Prosperity.

We shall therefore for the gentle enforcement of this, humbly offer you some Reasons.

It is manifest, that Pluralists were allowed in the Church at first upon the account only of necessity; because they had not Mini­sters enough that could Preach to the people. They could get some to Read, but none to give them a Sermon: And upon this account, they admitted one to be Pastor to several Congregations. But now the Land does abound with so many Ministers, who have never a cure, and such as are no less learned, and more painful in Preaching than those that have three or four, we will plead with these men before Heaven, and before you who are the Heads of our Tribes assembled, that it is not pious, not fit, not politi­cal, (that is, not for the common good) that this Custom should continue, when the Reason is ceased; especially when so many of those that are put out, have Families, and scarce Bread to sub­sist.

It is a saying since the times of Constantine. That when the Church had but Wooden Chalic [...]s, it had Golden Priests; but when they had Golden Chalices, and rich Benefices, they had Wooden Ministers. That Religion brought forth Riches, and the Daughter hath devoured the Mother. It is pity that men who are called to this Function, which requires them to be Examples to others of humility, low­liness of mind, self-denial, and mortification, should be led so [Page 35]much as they are into the temptation of Pride, Idleness, and Excess by their Preferments. For as it hath been reflected upon by some of the House, and other Gentlemen who served the King without reparation, as an error of the State in the late Restauration of Episcopacy, that the profits of the Church-Lands for Twenty years together should be bestowed at once on a few single persons, which would have leisurely requited a great many: so are they really as little pleased to have the Priest, who was perhaps a while ago, their Servitor at the University, or Tenants Son, or something meaner than they will say, should by the sudden accumulation of so many places as he hath had Simonically or Gratuitously conferred upon him, he huffed up to that pompous height and vanity, of his Coach and Liveries, as makes him to become the very envy of his Patron, and scandal to his profession.

It is true, that the Nobility, Spiritual and Temporal, have the Pre­rogative to capacitate a Minister according to Law for divers Li­vings: But when Jesus Christ the great Master or the Vineyard does command their labour, and that they fe [...]d the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers, there is no such priviledge to be urged, but in the nature of the thing it is void. There is no Custom, no Right, no Law, if the King, Lords, and Commons, if the whole World should agree to make it, that can be of force against the Gospel. Nulla datur potestas ad malum.

There are few of you who are Protestants in either Houses, without jealousie, that the Romanists were borrowing an Helve for their Hatchet out of the Wood of the Fanaticks; and that if they came to obtain their purpose, it is not hard to conjecture, which Trees were like to go down, one after another. As those men of the Church therefore are so willing you should do something for the security of your Religion and them, it is meet that they should be ready to contribute to it. That they who preach the Gospel to others, should be perswaded to put the great duty of it, which is self-abrenuntiation into practise themselves. For that man is not fit to be a Minister of Christ, or admitted into his Vineyard at all, that does not look more to his Work, than to his Penny, and seeks not the welfare of Jerusalem above his advancement; and had not rather convert one Soul, than get two Livings, and have a Prebend to spare. According to what every mans mind is most upon in his Sphear (the publick Interest, or his own) such is his value more or less.

However this be, whether they are willing or not, there is a universale eminens dominium in the Supreme Legislative Authority, that puts an end to all Cavll (if there arise any) de jure privatorum: And we will conclude with this, That whatsoever things are therefore substantially profitable for the Community, and are retarded only by the interest of private persons, these are things most truly worthy the Consultation of Parliament. God Almigh­ty keep alive the true English, publick Spirit. God preserve the Protestant Religion, and the Person of the King. God prosper an accommodation.

We of the Kings Party (says Judge Jenkins) did, and do detest all Grievances of the People, as much as any men living: In his Lex Terrae. It is a certain truth, This Kingdom without an Act of Oblivion, and a meet regard had to tender consciences, will un­avoidably be ruined: In the Armies Indempnity. I say again, That without a Gracious general Pardon from His Majesty, and a favour a­ble regard had to tender Consciences, there will be neither Truth nor Peace in the Land, nor any man secure of any thing that he hath: In his Cordial for the good People of London. And again in His Declaration for Tryals of Treasons, and all Capital Crimes to be by a Jury, They that love this Common-wealth, will use all means to procure an Act of Oblivion, and tender Consciences, a just and reason­able satisfaction, else we must all perish first or last.