IT is the happiness and birth-right of the People of this Nation, that if they lie under any grievance, they may have recourse to the Parliament. There is no burden whereof we ought to be more sensible of than that which lies upon our Con­sciences: We do humbly hope there­fore that it will not be ill taken if we crave the 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 out of some late papers (though several) of one person alone, will serve this triple oc­casion.

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 Parochial Churches, who are sa­tisfied with their constitution, and if they might have freedom would 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 a grievous dis­pleasure it may 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 [Page 3]out of affectation, pride, vanity, osten­tation, faction, or self-advantage that we do it, we could not answer such a charge against us, if we did so.

Two things therefore we will acknow­ledge, that our Parish-churhes are true Churches: And that it is our duty con­sequently to desire and endeavour their union and prosperity. And what would any Conformist have of us more, unless it be also to joyn with them there in the participation of the Ordinances, which some of us refuse not neither, upon con­venient occasion. Well, upon what ground then shall we offer our apology for the cause we undertake? why we will give it impartially. As we grant those two things to be our duty, so must we assume that which will not, and can not be denyed us, that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the offiice of the Ministry (supposing them every way to be sit & called) to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of the office. We have the Apostles express [Page 4]authority and example for this, who when they were threatned, and com­manded to speak no more in Christ's 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 Emperors: Now we must down this rule, that when two duties lay 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 apears 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 to preach the Gospel. If we keep our Pa­rish-Churches, [Page 5]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 one 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 [Page 6]buryed? How! when there is 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 mens souls depend upon it? What is Pa­rochial Ʋnion in comparison? we will appeal to the Consciences of every upright equal person, (whether Con­formist or Non-conformist) that fears God, to give Judgement. The preach­ing of the Gospel, and particular Assem­blies are of Divine: Parochial Churches are of Humane institution. That which is Divine, is undeniably to be preferr'd before that which is of humane apoint­ment. For the great charge then against us of Schisme, we answer. Schism is a causeless separation of the Churches union, a causeless separation from her Communion, the Communion of a Church whereof we are Members, or should be. Let any learned Man that hath read any thing about Schism, tell us, if we do not de­fine it right, by a separation that is cause­less; [Page 7]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 Non-conformist 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 do we need more, but this only, Is there not a Cause? they are the words of David to his surly El­der Brethren, who are offended only 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 some one or [Page 8]other of the Learned and Conscientious among them to contribute but this one thing towards it: A little thing we may think, if they could do it. It is only to answer the Sheet which was tender­ed to the Parliament about two or three Sessions ago, for taking away the Sub­scription and Oxford Oath, and which shall be in order therefore by and by repeated. We would give all the Mo­ney in our Purses, with a Tax, or with­out any, upon condition that the Par­liament would either have such Argu­ments of ours answered, or else repeal their Impositions.

There are Three things enjoyned in the Act of Uniformity. Re-ordination. The Declaration. The Subscription. As we have borrowed thus much already from a late Paper of the Author now intimated: So shall we make use of o­thers of the same person, in the which follows.

We begin with the Threshold, Re-ordination. It must be acknowledg'd [Page 9]by both Parties, That Re-ordinvtion is an uncouth thing, quite against the Hair of the literate World, whether Fathers, Councels, 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 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 Examples of the Apo­stles, and of Paul and Barnabas more particularly for it, with what else by some is urged, against the stream bare­ly of humane 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 believed the validity of that Ordination, they would have our for­mer [Page 10]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 intollerably vile, as no mortal flesh is able to bear. It is true, there is one Instance from Antiquity out of Athanasius, of some persons with Ischy­ras among them whom they would not allow (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, 2. Concil. Hispal. 3. Can. 5. circa An. 656. But we answer with Dr. Field on the Church in his Fifth Book, It is one thing what they judged according to their Ecclesiastical Canons; and another what they ought to judg 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 [Page 11]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 do 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, 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 [Page 12]only in the wrong, but our Lord and Master, whose cause it is, 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 it 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 contain-and pr [...]scribed 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, [Page 13]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 Gratious and Blessed Issue as was expected, loe 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 they (we say) make so short a turn as this, without the ha­zard of some sprain to their Conscience, if they do it? We cannot tell you per­haps, nor are willing to declare the Im­pressions we have upon our Spirits a­gainst a going back from that more Spi­ritual Plain, and simply zealous Ser­vice [Page 14]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 thereof, 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 moves us so much from with­in, whether fear of Popery returning on us, or aliquid [...]: But we will produce Two or Three Instances apiece, 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 [Page 15]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 Conformists) do be­lieve it not impossible, but that some Heathen, and professed Socinian 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, not conceiving but both alike (for ought they see) were ignorant of [Page 16]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 Men, or the whole stock of Mankind do partake; and whosoever lives according to reason, are Christians, though they be ac­counted Heathen, and without God, such as Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like, Ju­stine Martyr in his second Apology for the Christians: We do not say we re­ceive this, nor deny it: But we are 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 Candour it self be used, if we must be forced to declare, that whosoever believes not the Athanasian Creed, must undoubtedly perish. Not that other [Page 17]Non conformists 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 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 among 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 shift which will not satisfie all persons, and many desire to use no shifts. If these words [to the use] had been [Page 18]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 Ingenious of his par­ticuler 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 Assem­bled. 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 Lords-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 Bishops were turned out [Page 19]of the House by an Act. We cannot tell therefore of what Consequence it is to the fundimental liberty, constitution, and state of the Kingdom, to yield unto the insinuation of such a thing as this 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 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 [Page 20]have us declare 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 Non-conformists 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 [Page 21]it self of things not necessary, the oc­casion of stumbling to many good Men, and cause of our divisions. If we give our unfained consent to all and every thing prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and the 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, we are past doubt in the last, that to impose things that are inductive to others to sin, and yet not necessary, is 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 the purpose, in his Epistle to his Irani­cum? 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 the Submission to the things imposed may perhaps be main­tained; the Imposition of them is not to be so, neither by that Dr. nor by us; [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22] 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 Non-conformists, 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 the 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 [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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 ramm'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 (as to any Copies we have yet seen of it) we must, for ought we see, still stick out. It is said in the Kings, That Ahazia was two and twenty years old when he began to Reign, and in the Chronicles, that he was two and forty: Both these cannot be true: 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 both these places in the English, nor Consent to the errour of the Tran­scription or Translation, when we know not otherwise how to reconcile the con­tradiction in them. In Psal. 105. v. 28. [Page 25]our Psalter reads the words thus, And they were not obedient to his Word; our Bible reads them, And they rebelled not against his Word. We argue here. One Particular contained in the Book of Common Prayer is the Translation of the 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 to the Aegyptians: 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 [Page 26]that both these Translations should be used, when the false may be amended by the right? We mention this little thing among many others that have been objected by Non-conformists here­tofore, to shew the insuperable incum­brance of these continued Injunctions. There is one such a little thing more, which perhaps hath not yet been pub­lickly offered. It is the Rule prescrib­ed us for the finding out the moveable Feasts and Holy-days. Easter-day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the first Full Moon, which happens next after the one and twentieth day of March. Now examine this Rule for the last Year 1674. and you will find the first Full Moon after the 21th. of March was upon the 10th. of April, and consequently if this Rule hold good, the next Sunday, which was April the 12th. should have been Easter-day: But Ea­ster-day was upon the 19th. of April, as the Table for 40 years in the Common-Prayer does tell you, as well as our [Page 27]Almanacks did. Well! And how then shall we declare our Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in this Book? The Table 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 Liv­ing, because we cannot give our Assent and Consent to Both.

Having mentioned these lesser things in the way, we shall perhaps be blamed, if we neglect some other, that are of more notice and moment with our Brethren.

In the Office of Baptism, the Parents are not admitted to covenant for their Children, and how shall the Infant an­swer Credo, Abrenuntio, out of the mouth of the Godfather? 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, [Page 28]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-excommunicate 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 Service for the Holy-days, there ale the most of us not agreed upon the Lawfulness of such days, Six days shall thou labour: But above all the rest, there is one thing in S Clements day prescrib'd by the New Common-Prayer Book, that we wonder how those themselves that put it in can give their consent to it, which is, the change of a profitable Chapter in Esay for the Story (God defend us!) or Bell, and the Dragon?

There is lastly the use of the Cross, a compleat Institution of it self, brought in or added to the Ordinance of Christ, appearing to be of the same nature and end. This, we doubt, does entrench upon his Kingly Office, and must hum­bly therefore offer one reason for the removal, which we sollicite whatsoever be done in other matters. The Ceremo­nies 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 (says the Com­mon Prayer Book) as be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to remembrance of his duty, by some edifying signification. But the Cross being a Ceremony ap­plied to Children who are uncapable of having their minds stirred up by any 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 [Page 30]are left may be readmitted. As we use the Cross to signifie that the Child must fight manfully under Christs Banner, we may use the Chrism wherein the Cross was used to be made, to signifie the Christians anointing to the Combate, and so forward. There is nothing can be replyed 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 Cross also, that is only if it please so to vote in a need­ful Convocation. 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 Conformists 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 Rite, which is no Circumstance of the Ordinance unto which it is appended, [Page 31]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 this Sea shall go, and no farther than so.

We will heap no more matters of this kind, for they are infinite: And it is some relief to our thoughts, that the Parliament (we thank God) did come to be a little sensible of it, in so much as they were near content one Session to Cashier this Declaration quite. There does remain now therefore the Subscrip­tion, and this question which will arise upon it. Whether there be not as good rea­son, in regard to the most sober Conscien­ces, to take away this subscripttion in the Act of uniformity, and the Oath in the Ox­ford Ast, as well as the Declaration of Assent and Consent? and here making first our humble Protestation, that we in­tend nothing hereby but loyally to the Government, we must present the Sheet before mentioned to their renewed con­sideration.

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 abhor that Trai­terous Position of taking Arms by his Au­thority or those Commissionated by him: And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law establish'd. And I do declare, That I do hold 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 an unlawfull 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. [Page 33]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 Composure. The one whereof, and the other in both are lya­ble to the ensuing Exceptions. 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 Go­verment. There is no Government on Earth so perfect that it hath need of [Page 34]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 doth concur 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 Eng­lishman [Page 35] is inte [...]d to be there present, ei­ther in person, or by procuration, and the con­sent of the people is taken to be every mans 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, says Sir Henry Spelman. This is so true, that in this sens [...] is, that the Laws that pass are said to [...] Quas vulgus elegerit, Which the people s [...]ll choose. Now then if every free Subj [...]t hath a fundamental liberty to choose K [...]ights and Burgesses, and accordingly to inform them of their Grievances, and petition them for Re­dress, and in them, as their Represen­tatives, do consent to the alteration of Government and Laws (if there be [Page 36]any) as profitable to the Nation. How can such an Oath be imposed on him, That he will not endeavour any alteration, as this is? Is not choosing Burgesses, in­forming them, petitioning them, acting and legal [...]y consenting in them to that end an endeavour? and that as much as can be in their Place and Calling? And no more than an Endeavour in their Place and Calling was challenged by any. It is true, the 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 that we think it is not alterable by the King him­self and Parliament; because that Su­pream Power for the Administration [Page 37]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 Independent 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 Consitution 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? Judg ye that are wise. And what an anoint­ed Plot have we had here on the Nation, [Page 38]that Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops, as well as to the King?

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 must it 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, and we be in as great 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 [Page 39]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 you to consider in the first place, whether this last part be according to Righteousness.

For the middle part 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 abhord 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, or in the Name of the King according to Law. And when he can act so against any for all their Com­mission, [Page 40]and the Law will bear him out, how is this position in this Case traiterus, and to be abhord? for our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath, or 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 indefinitely (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 inferiour Magistrates, or the Sheriff for the County, withstand such violence? May not the Constable [Page 41]alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace, raise the Neighbour­hood, 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 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 Surprize, 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 [Page 42]Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband His Majesties Life Guard, deliver up the Navy or Sea-port Towns, seize the Tower or places of 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 amazed at the horrour of those sad Con­sequences 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, says Judg Jenkins 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 [Page 43]word, as I disown or disallow, might have served. Some of the more 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 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 very good Sons of the Church, as well as our Brethren, would be found 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) what so­ever. 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 emment 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 sew or none to be valued above these Three, Bareley, Gro­tius, Arnisaeus. And we shall und, 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 sound only because he hath read more then some others that yield their sub­mission. [Page 45]We begin with Barcley, that is William Barcley, a Scot and Councel­ler 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 himself. Quid ergo? nulli ne Casus incidere possunt, quibus populo in Rigem arma capere jure suo liceat? nulli certe quanidiu Rex manet. What then? Can there no Cafes 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 overthrew [Page 46]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 Pope Excommunicate him, he shall be no King with them. Let us come to Grotius, and first quote him in his Judgment of Barcley, lest you may think else we mistake him. Barclaius (says he) Regii impariilicet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit, ut populo & insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam. Barcley, though the most assertor of Kingly Government, does come to this, that he grants a Right to the People, or the most eminent part of them, of defending themselves against intollerable oppression. For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet, Sum­mum impurium tenentibus jure resisti non posse; That the higher Powers 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 [Page 47]does Lectorem monere, ne putet in bane legem delinquere eos qui revera non delin­quunt; Warn his Reader, 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 Inviolabile, seu, quod nulla ex causa 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 state whereof he comes in the issue to dinguish between Rex and Ty­rannus, a King and a Tyrant, Tyrannus in Titulo, & Tyrannus in Exercitio; A Tyrant in Title, and in Practise: 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 praesit in salutem omnium, a quo si prorsus [Page 48]desciverit, etiam de potestate cadit, quum non alto fine sibi commissum habebat. The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince, that he should rule over it for the common 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, not 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 sworn, 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 [Page 49]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 Doctrinal Proposition, is not accor­ding to Judgment, being a thing impossi­ble, because no Man is insellible. Now then Sirs! When here is such an Erratum in the Composure, as the want of the words I believe, or the like, I swear that I held 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 gods down ordinarily with­out chewing; we humbly oder 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 [Page 50](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 adde 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 & Loge, The King is under God and the Law, says Hooker and Brecton:) So that it requires the skill [...]f the greatest Judges, Serje­ants and: ages of the Law to deter­mine the Cases included in it, 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 Cath, or give his Hand to the certainty of it. the other part of the Subscription concer [...]s the Covenant, where the words [Page 51] [nor any other] are such a Ford (that as to the Consciences 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, and 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 in what capacity he will, the least [Page 52]afteration 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 not, is not altogether so well, but that something may be alter'd for: [...]e better: We wo [...] [...] [...]in be infor­med 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 sins. They say not there lyes an obligation upon any other to do as they have sworn, for fear it be dangerous; and they dare not say there lyes none, for fear of their Consetences. As [...]o our selves this we may say, that we desire to be instructed, and this we will say, that it is an hard [Page 53]thing to 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 only, which is re­quired to Conformity, 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 these Differences: And here also we are ac­commodated with our Plough and Heifer from the same Author. Secundae cogi­tationes prudentius & moderatius consu­lunt, & prudentius quia moderatius.

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, [Page 54]that of Religion it self, and that of the Nation. The advance of Religion does consist much in [...] unity of its Profes­sors both in Opinion and Practise to be of one [...], and one, heart, and one Way (in [...] Worship) so far as may be [...] [...]o the Scriptures. The acknow [...] of the Nation, doth lye in the Free [...] F [...]ou [...] thing of Trade; and uni [...]ing the whole Body in the Com­mon Bene [...] and [...]pendance on the Go­vernment. The one of these bespeaks an establish'd order and accommodation; the others [...] speaks Indulgeare Liberty of Conseience, or [...]lleration: for while peo­ple are in danger about Religion, we dare not launch out into Trade, (say they) but keep our Monnys, seeing we know not into what stre [...]ghts we shall be driven, and when in reference to their party, they are held under seve­rity, in is [...]a [...]ie to those who are design­ing. H [...]ads, to mould thein into Wrath and [...]a [...]ion: which without occasion will melt and dissolve it self into bare [Page 55]diffent of Opinion, peaceably rejoycing under the enjoyment of Profection.

The King we know is concerned as Supream Governour, and as a Christian Protestant Governour. As he is King he is to seek the wellfare of the Nation; as he is a Christian, the flourishing of Religion, and the Protestan Religion particularly is his Interest, as [...] [...]ing­dom doth lye in Balance (he being [...]he 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 Chaur­ches, 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 separalists 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 [Page 56]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 Chur­ches, and enjoy a Living to be willing to have his Brethren the Independants given up to persecution: And it be­comes not the Sepanatisis, if he may but enjoy his Conscience, to repine or envy at the Presbyterian for reaping any fur­ther Emohiment, 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, provi­viding both Comprehension, and Indul­gence for the different Parties, must serve our purpose.

And to this end (as we may humbly hope) was there a Bill in the House, 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 yet, under a little further Explication.

There are Two sorts (we all know) of these Protestant Dissentors: One that own the establish [...]d Ministry, and our Parish Congregations, and are in capa­city of union upon that account, desi­ring it heartily upon condescention to them in some smaller matters: The other that own nor our Churches, and so are uncapable of a Conjunction, who do not, and cannot desue 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 [Page 58]first ordained (and so Episcopally 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 if some [...]itt [...]e omission here and there to salve a scrupulous Conscience (so long as 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 meerly for their Consciences, and that we call Indulgence or Tolleration. If the Presbyterian now may be compre­hended, he will be satisfyed to act in his Ministry without endeavouring any Alte­ration, [Page 59]otherwise of Episcopacy: If the Congregationalist be indulged, he will be satisfied, though he be not compre­hended, for that he cannot submit unto; and so shall there no dis-obligation put on any, but all be 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 to come on't, without persecution to inflame them, or perferment to encourage them, (especially if one Expedient be used which 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 s [...]si [...]ies are hang­ing on the F [...]es of the Parli [...]ment [...] at this motion. What Prejudices and Impressions we mean have been laid on the Members by former A [...]s. [...] a Speech delivered by the [...] cellor in Chrisis-Church- [...] [...] to the Parliament there [...] [...] ­lars assembled, wherein [...] of contriving the Oxford Oath, an [...] [...] quently of like former Impositions, [...] most Magni [...], as well a [...] Sp [...]sili [...]y enough arroga [...] [...] It was, it see [...], [...] of that Great Man, to root those, Prime [...]ples out of Mens minds, upon which the late Wars (as he sup [...] [...]) 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 chose Principles. We do [...]emember now the Sentence of Es­dras to the Apologue of the Angel, where the Wo [...]ds and Seas would encounter [Page 61]one another. Terily (says he) it was a foolish purpose: For the Trees could not come down from the Hills, nor the Waves get up from the Shoares. We must say the same of this Policy. It was re­ally a great vanity to think that Folks should be made to swear away the [...] 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 likelyest to put [...]o any villa­nous practise. On the con [...]rary there is nothing could be advised more certain, to keep the Covenant, and such Princi­ples alive in Mens Hearts and Memories, than this perpetual enjoying the Renun­tiation of it. Nor may you wonder, if that Lesson sink deep into Mans flesh, which you will teach them with Briars and Thorns, as Gideon taught the Men of [Page 62]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 was the wisdom of the antient Church instead of contention about the Jewish Ceremonies to take care they might have an Honou­rable Buriall: 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 river them more into us) to endeavour rather to root out the [Page 63] 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 Common­wealth, 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, our ease, if it be made to serve the turn. The one is, that Bishop Land 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 [Page 64]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, Subs [...]riptions and De­clarations, together with the Canonical Oath, and the Subscription in the C [...]n [...]ns be suspended for [...]e time to co [...]. If that be too mu [...] we shall content our selves with a mo [...]r motion that what­soever these Declarations be that are re­quired to be ma [...]le, s [...]bs [...]ibed▪ or s [...]orn. they may be impos [...] 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 es the Subscription set down in the C [...]nons, ratis [...] by King James, was not expressed in the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. Inst. part. 4. c. 74. And consequently, if the Clergy enjoyed this freedom until then, in re­ference to the Particular therein con­tained, [Page 65]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 the Parliament; to undo any thing themselves have done: 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 Non-conformist 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 comprehended, may yet enjoy that Case as to be indulged in some equal measure answerable to His Majesties late Decla­ration, 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 [Page 66]can honestly agree to the whole sense the Parliament intends in such Imposi­tionr, 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 continued for Engines of Battery to destroy the Non­conformists, and not as Instruments of unity to edifie the Church of God.

We will not leave our Congregational Brethren neither, so long that we have something more as 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 uni­versal, [Page 67]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, and 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 Farth 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 Profess that, as such Assemblies by this means must be constituted immediate­ly in [...]egral parts of the Church as na­tional, no less than our Parish Congre­gations: So would the Congregate [Page 68]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 Coer­cive 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: 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 [Page 69]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 Schisme, 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 worshiping 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 Circumstances) 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 Communion, there is no man could refuse his atten­dance [Page 70]on these Parochial Assemblies, without the sin of disobedience: And consequently his separation thereby be­coming sinful, proves Schism: But if the Scene be alter'd, and those sepa­rate Assemblies made legal; the Schism in reference to the national 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 iniquity, (we say upon this account) is not to be found, and the Schism gone. Loe here, a way [...]p [...]ned 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. Especially when such a Tolleration only [Page 71]is desired, as is consistant with the Ar­ticles of Faith, 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 moderation? 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 in our account is but one sort of Recu­sants, and the conscientions and peace­able among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among our selves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer. It is true, we have Laws very severe against the Je­suite, and Seminary Priest: But this we suppose to be upon the ground of State Interest. The Supremacy of the Pope, [Page 72]and the Authority of the King are in­consistent in this Land: The Priest and Jesuite 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 as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Tolleration. That is, he is not to expect to have power or trust, being not of the Religion of 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, nor we. If he desires more, he stirs us 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 [Page 73]that to go to bring in a Religion upon a people that are no more prepared for theirs then we are in this Nation, were the committing of a Rape upon the publick Conscience, and possession be­ing got without our good wills would not likly be long retained: So are we to remember the common rule of Chri­stianity towards them, and to all Men, that we must do as we would be done by, and that, with what measure we mete to others, if 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 you: But you saw not the Co­vert Art, secret Machination, and pur­posely contrived Snares against one [Page 74]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, some of you 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?) bereft of their ac­customed Spiritual Food, to the hazard of their Eternal 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, an 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 [Page 75] Parsons, Rectors, Vicars: Who have Be­nefices and Honours by Heaps, and by the Bushel. If it shall please you there­fore in this Bill on the Anvil, or in ano­ther 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 stock, or to a general distribution, you shall do the Church right, 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 this Bill, of sig­nification. In the Name of God Sirs, let us move you to this; if it were on­ly hae vice, for a present needful con­junction of us at this season. We see the Jaws of the Jesuite, 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 [Page 76] 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. it is therefore this hard Objection at the bottom, the Priests covetousness, and corruption, rather than their dispute about this 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 [Page 77]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, nor 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 Chalices, 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-denal, and mortification, should be lead so much as they are into the temp­tation [Page 78]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 repairs, as an errour 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, be huffed up to that pompous height and vanity, of his Coach and Liveries, as makes him to become the very envy of of his Patron, and scandal to his pro­fession.

It is true, that the Nobility Spiritual and Temporal have the Prerogative to [Page 79]capacitate a Minister according to Law for divers Livings: But when Jesus Christ the great Master of the Vineyard does command their labour, and that they feed 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 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, [Page 80]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 sit to be a Minister of Christ, or ad­mitted into His Vineyard at all, that does not look more to his Word, than to his Penny, and seeks not the wellfare 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 an universal emi­nens dominium in the Supream legisla­tive Authority that puts an end to all Cavil (if there arise any) de jure privatorum: And we will conclude with this, that whatsoever things, are therefore substantially profitable for [Page 81]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 favourable regard had to tender Consciences, there will be nei­ther Truth nor Peace in the Land, nor [Page 82]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. [...].