CHAP. I.

SInce the time that I could understand the Dispute aboutIf the Church of Rome bee a true Church, Reformation is the restoring of that which hath been. Religion, when it was demanded, on the behalf of the Church of Rome; Where was your Church before Lu­thers time? The Answer hath always been; Even where it is now. The answer was; That it is the same Church that it was; [Page 2] A Church which was sick, and is now cured; Which was cor­rupted, and now is cleared of her Corruptions. This answer supposeth, that the Church of Rome was a true Church, when that Change, which wee call Reformation, was made. And therefore granteth, (as it hath always been granted) that so it is at present. For it cannot bee questioned, that it is the same Church now which then it was; Though the Council of Trent may have encreased the corruption of it. And upon these terms, all dispute of choice in Religion comes to trial upon this issue; Whether the change that is made hath restored that which was in the beginning, or not. An issue not to be tried, but by go­ing to trial, upon the particulars in which the change consisteth.

But are wee all content to goe to tryal upon this issue? ItIf the Pope bee Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, the Church of Rome no true Church. were good that wee did understand one another, whether wee bee agreed upon it or not. For if wee bee, then may wee ex­pect to build Solomons Temple, without any noise If not, wee shall bee the Builders of Babel; Wee shall never understand one anothers Language. For, of a truth, there is another rea­son alleged for the breach between us and the Church of Rome; to wit, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters. If this pretense bee true, wee need not seek farther for the rea­son of the distance. Wee are to owne the Separation for our own Act, and to glorie in it. For it is done by Gods expresse Command; Come out of her my People; As to the Jewes, in the Captivity of Babylon, so to the Christians, in the Apocalypse; If it bee the Church of Rome that Babylon there signifieth. But if this plea bee good, it may bee inconsistent with that which the former plea supposeth. And though wee cannot goe to tri­al upon the truth of it, without going to trial upon the particu­lars in difference; Yet it is necessary to provide, that wee con­tradict not our selves. It is necessary also to consider the im­portance and consequence of it; Whether the reason of the distance amount to so heavy a charge or not. It is necessary, that wee understand our selves, whether wee admit the conse­quence of our own supposition or not.

And indeed it concernes us to the purpose. Wee all beleeveIf [...]o [...]isible Church, th [...]n no sinne of Schism [...] one Catholicke Church, for an Article of our Creed, upon which the hope of our Common Salvation hangeth. If any man be allowed to say, I beleeve it not; I must be allowed to [Page 3] say; I must not bee of that Church in which hee is allowed [...]o say it. It were good to understand, Whether the Unity of the Church, (out of which no man is saved) bee the Visible Uni­ty of those that communicate in the Offices of Gods Service; Or whether it be enough, that, being invisibly United to Christ, they are invisibly United to one another by Christ. For if the Visible Unity of the Church be not founded by God, then is there no crime of Schisme in breaking that Unity; But onely of Heresy, in breaking it upon an errour in the Faith. If there bee such an Unity; And therefore such a crime in break­ing it; Care would bee had, that wee ground not our selves, in this state of Separation, upon that which will render us ac­cessory to it.

Now, I do not doubt, that whosoever hath gone about, orAntichrist may bee an Ido­later, but can­not bee the Head of a Church. shall goe about to perswade the Jewes, that hee is the Christ whom they expect, must needs, ipso facto, bee Antichrist. For the word signifies no more than one that pretends to bee Christ, in opposition to the true Christ. And therefore to Christians, who beleeve in the true Christ, a false Christ and an Antichrist are both one. And S. John, 1 John II. 18, 22. IV. 3. II John 7. signifies nothing else by that name, but those whom our Savi­our calls false Christs Mat. XXIV. 24. Mark XIII. 22. And there­fore, hee that pretendeth to bee such a Prophet and a Prince, as the Jewes expected that their Christ should bee, in opposition to the true Christ in whom Christians beleeve; As hee is a false Christ, so is hee Antichrist. For, there is no other mention of Antichrist in all the Scriptures, but this. Other Scriptures are onely supposed to speak of Antichrist. But presumption, with­out evidence, must not bee taken for truth. I do not doubt then, that Mahomet is really Antichrist; Though the Mahume­tans expected no Christ. Because hee is the author of a Law, which they take for Gods Law: And of a power founded up­on that Imposture; As the Jewes expect that their Christ shall restore Moses Law, and the power which God first founded upon it. But neither can the Jewes Antichrist, nor the Mahumetans Antichrist bee Idolaters, without rooting up the Alcoran, or the Law of Moses; which was not the way to win, either the Jewes, or those whom Mahomet had to do with. Notwith­standing, I believe Manicheus was Antichrist and an Idolater [Page 4] both. I believe he taught the Idolatry of the Persians, in his two Gods; the principles, one of good, the other of evil. He pretended, indeed, to come from Christ, as having his Spirit; And therefore sent out his twelve Apostles, as our Lord Christ had sent his. But yet, that he brought in his own new Law in­stead of Christianity, no man that knows his positions can doubt. And is not hee Antichrist, that pretends to do what Christ indeed hath done? Therefore, I deny not, that the Pope may bee Antichrist, though the Papists bee Idolaters. But I do not grant, that the Pope can bee Antichrist, granting the Church of Rome to bee a true Church. For, to bee a ttue Church presupposes the profession of so much Christianity, as is necessary to the salvation of all Christians. But the salvation of no Christian can stand with the profession of a false Christ. And therefore, granting the Pope to be Antichrist, they that own him can bee no Church. So, this plea will bee inconsistent with the former, which supposeth the Church of Rome a true Church, when the Separation fell out.

As for the charge of Idolatry, it is at present alleged in BarThough it were Idolatry to worship the Host, yet, to kneel at the Communion would be Holy. to the Law of this Kingdom, and the effect of it, that the Wor­ship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry; Therefore wee must not receive the Communion kneeling, if wee would bee com­mended for breaking the Brazen Serpent, with Hezekiah. I say nothing to the consequence, though it were easie enough to say; That the people committed Idolatry to the brazen Ser­pent till that very day, 2 Kings XVIII. 4. And to allege the Practice of the Catholick Church; Who, while there was ap­pearance of offense, did not make use of Idol Temples for Churches: But, when the offense began to cease; As in the time of Honorius; common reason obliged them to do it. Let them pursue the consequence of their own reason; That is, let them mete by their own Standard; and then they must pull down all the Churches in the Kingdom. I shall prefer the wis­dom of St. Gregory of Rome, by whom this Nation received Christianity; Ordering the Pagan Festivals of our Ancestors, to bee converted to the Assemblies of Christians. For, if Chri­stianity sanctifie not all times, places, and gestures, that may pretend, in common reason, to advance the service of God; Wherein differeth it from Judaisine? For in Judaisme, the [Page 5] day, the place, the circumstance prescribed by the Law, sancti­fied that action to bee the service of God, which, it had been abominable to tender God for his service, at another time, or in another place, or otherwise. As rest on the seventh day of the Week, dwelling in a Booth at the Feast of Tabernacles, was the service of God, according to the Law of Moses. But to pretend to serve God thereby at another time, had been to usurpe upon God, and his power which gave the Law. On the contrary, the service of God according to Christianity, san­ctifieth all times, all places, all gestures, all circumstances, that can pretend to express, to procure, to advance that attention of mind, that devotion of spirit, wherewith Christians profess to worship God, in spirit and truth. Otherwise, the King­dom of God must consist in making a difference of meats and drinks, in despite of St. Paul, (And, for the same reason, of times, and places, and gestures) not for unity in the service of God, or increase of devotion, as all reason requireth; But as the Subject matter, wherein, the service of God, according to Christianity, consisteth.

But I set aside this consequence; though I could not let itThat which the Church of Rome profes­seth is not Ido­latry, if it bee a true Church. pass without setting this mark upon it. The assumption who will undertake to prove? Who will take upon him to shew us, that the worship of the Host in the Papacy is Idolatry? They who grant the Church of Rome to bee a true Church, and sal­vation to bee had in it, and by it, may, if they see cause, spare contradicting those that take it for granted before it bee pro­ved; But they cannot take it for granted themselves. A Church is a company of Christians; And all Christians profess the true Christ: And all that profess the true Christ profess the true God; And, professing the true God, if they believe that which they profess, they cannot honour any creature as they honour God: For they profess that there is only one true God: And that there is infinite distance between him and all crea­tures; so that they cannot esteem any creature to bee God; And therefore they cannot so honour any creature, as if it were God. Christianity supposeth the belief of one true God, and the being of the Church supposeth Christianity. It took away Idolatry, in point of Fact, which Judaisme could not do, though it shewed reason enough to take it away. And there­fore, [Page 6] let no man think it easie for a Church, to build up that, (either by express Law, or by silent Custom) which, the profes­sion upon which it is built destroyeth. Let us bee as careful as you please, that Idolatry, which is put out at the great gate of the Church, get in at no back-door of it. The true God of Israel, and our Lord Christ, might bee Idols to them that professed not one true God. If they who profess the true Christ can bee bred in such ignorance, as not to acknowledg the difference be­tween God and his creature, all their Religion may come to bee Idolatry in Gods sight, however the Church bee obliged to esteem it. For certainly, some Witches commit Idolatry to the Devil, though there bee Witches of all Religions. And so there may bee Idolaters of all Religions, supposing that men may act contrary to that which they profess. But that is not the question which wee have in hand, when wee Dispute; Whether wee are to forsake the Church of Rome as Idolaters, or not. For it is the publique profession thereof, that wee are to forsake: Wee are not to forsake it, for the actions of pri­vate persons, contrary to that which they publiquely profess. Now, they which profess the only true Christ, and therefore, the only true God, do necessarily profess to detest all Idolatry; which, the profession of Christianity effectively rooted out of the World, wheresoever it prevailed. And so doth the Church of Rome still as seriously profess, as they who charge them to bee Idolaters. And therefore, cannot easily bee convinced to pro­fess Idolatry. For, without expressly renouncing this professi­on, they cannot expressly bee Idolaters: without renouncing it by such consequence, as may convince common reason that they contradict themselves, and renounce all of them, that which all of them profess, they cannot bee Idolaters by consequence. And therefore, it is not easie to make it appear to common reason that they are Idolaters; (And so, that wee are to forsake them as Idolaters) because then it must appear to common rea­son, that so great a part of Christendom doth, by their profes­sion, contradict that which themselves profess.They that sepa­rate from the Church of Rome as Idola­ters are thereby Schismatickes before God.

And what will they that stand upon this plea say to me, who pretend to have proved, that the nature of Idolatry consisteth in that which I have said; And therefore, that the Papists are not, by their Common profession, Idolaters? Can they pretend [Page 7] so much charity to me, as to have attempted the answering of my Reasons, and the rectifying of my mistakes. Or will they shew me who hath answered them; and so, that they need not be troubled for me? If they will not bee tied to this, would they have the Law of the Land changed, upon a supposition which I have destroyed, and they cannot pretend to have re­stored? Nay, would they have it changed to no better effect, then to make me, and all that are satisfied with the Reasons which I have advanced, Schismaticks in the sight of God, al­lowing and consenting to the change that shall be made for their sake? This were indeed an incomparable piece of charity, to purchase peace and unity with them, at the charge of answering for all the mischiefes which our Schisme with the Church of Rome produceth. For in plain terms, we make our selves Schis­maticks by grounding our Reformation upon this pretense. For on the one side, wee profess the Separation to have been our in­tent, not a consequence of the Reformation, by the fault of the Church of Rome, in not complying with it. Because wee give such a Reason for it, as if be true, wee cannot, without renouncing our Christianity, hold communion with those whom wee charge with it. Whereas Reformation is indeed, and alwayes was the thing intended. Division in the Church, which it hath occasioned, is the crime of those that refuse to come in to it, upon such terms as the common Christianity requireth. On the other side, this cause; which would bee more then suffici­ent to justifie Separation, did it appear to be true; Charges the mischiefes of the Schisme upon those that proceed upon it, before it be as evident as the mischiefes are, which they run into upon it. So that, should this Church declare, that the change which wee call Reformation is grounded upon this supposition; I must then acknowledg that wee are the Schismaticks. For, the cause not appearing to me, (as hitherto it hath not, and I think, will never be made to appear to me) the separation, and the mischiefes of it, must be imputed to them that make the change. And as they who justifie the Reformation by charging the Pope to bee Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters; So, on the other side, they who overcharge the Reformation to bee Hae­retickes, make themselves thereby Schismatickes before God.

CHAP. II.

FUrther, as I began to say before, supposing for DisputesThe supposition of Antichrist and Idolatry prejudicial to the truth. sake, but not granting for truth, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters; And that, thereupon, wee are to have no communion with the Church of Rome; are not the particu­lars to bee decided by the same Reasons, (and therefore upon the same termes) as if neither the Pope were Antichrist, nor the Papists Idolaters? For, this being clear beyond Dispute, what do wee gain by a supposition, so impossible to bee set in the light of competent evidence? Even that which wee see is come to pass; An unchristian, rather then an unreasonable apprehension; That, the further wee run from them, the neerer wee shall come to the truth of Christianity. Whereas, wee are to take no less heed, that wee run not beyond the Church of God; The Unity [Page 9] whereof, if it bee indeed ordained by God, is ordained to no other purpose, then to render the true bounds of Christianity (that is, the means of salvation) visible to all Christians. For, the truth of the particulars in difference stands where it would stand, whether the Pope bee Antichrist, and the Papists Idola­ters, or not. But, they that believe them so, must needs thereupon incline to believe them further from the truth, then indeed they will appear to bee, if it bee not true. And there­fore must needs have a hand in the Schisme, in departing further from them then they ought to do. He that takes the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, can never weigh by his own Weights, and mete by his own Measures, till he hate Pa­pists worse then Jewes or Mahumetans, who cannot be Idola­ters; which some, but few of them, profess to do. Is not he, that runs from Rome with this Opinion, in danger to forget the Proverb; Ita fugias ne praeter casam; and run by the door of Gods Church?

Now, suppose wee can have no Communion with the ChurchThe supposition of one Visible Church the ground of Com­munion, as well within the Re­formation, as in the whole Church. of Rome, because it appeareth that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters; Yet ought wee to hold Communion with all Christendom besides, that own not Antichrist, nor his Ido­latries. I say, if the Visible Unity of the Church appear to bee the Ordinance of God; in the next place to holding the truth of Christianity, we shall stand obliged to hold Communion with the rest of the Church. But this Communion cannot bee maintained, without an express profession, that the Visible U­nity of the Church is the express will of God, and his Ordinance; though the will of man render it frustrate. This profession it is, that obligeth all, to stand to those grounds, and those term [...], upon which it is to bee maintained; Whatsoever differences may arise, to render it questionable. And it is the not acknowledg­ing of th [...]se grounds, that hath made way for those Divisions, which have succeeded within the Reformation, in several parts of it. For, as they have all proved incurable, for want of this Principle of Unity; So it is not possible that ours, which have come to pass in the last place, should be cured upon any other principle of Christianity, to the salvation of souls; however the benefit of publique peace may prevail, to keep them from doing that mischief in the World, which they have done.

The truth is, they of the Church of Rome have overchargedWhat the Ro­mish Missiona­ries get by the charge of H [...] ­re [...]ie, and the pretense of In­fallibility. us, in calling us Haereticks; Taking that charge to signifie divi­sion upon matter of Faith. But they that would have the Pope Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters, have revyed it upon them, and taken their Revenge beyond the bounds of blameless de­fense. For, the profession of Idolatry necessarily signifies utter Apostasie from Christianity to Paganisme. There is nothing else known by the name of Idolatry in the Scriptures; By which they must prove, if they do prove them Idolaters. For, the Idolatry of the Gnostickes (which, I am confident, is mention­ed in divers Texts of the New Testament) may well bee ac­compted the Idolatry of the Pagans, though pretending to bee Christians. Because they did not stick to exercise the same Idola­tries with the Pagans, when occasion was offered; though they had their own Idolatries besides; whether peculiar to their several Re­ligions, or as Magicians. This is the reason of that which I said be­fore, that wee need not Dispute, which side is the true Church, if wee can prove them Idolaters. But it is to be feared, that the Ro­mish Missionaries do advantage themselves more by the pretense of Haeresie, then they by the pretense of Idolatry, or Antichrist. For, having obtained this great truth, that there is no salvation out of Gods Church: and then, that the Church of Rome is Gods Church; (which, as I said in the beginning, hath always been granted) how easie is it to infer; That there is no salvati­on, but in Communion with the Church of Rome? For, how many of them whom they deal with can distinguish a Church from the Church; or give a Reason how; God having founded one Church; it may nevertheless stand so divided, that salva­tion may be had on both sides? Which Reason being once over­seen, the Infallibility of the present Church is swallowed ipso facto, and all the Decrees of the Council▪ of Trent must down, with the same assurance as the H. Trinity. Nor need you di­stinguish between Haeresie and Schisme, when once the Church shall have pronounced. Thus save they the labour of proving Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Prayers to Saints, Latine Service, the half Communion, and other points of difference; all of them too tough to bee overcome. All of them are clearly gained, by the prejudice which men have imposed upon themselves, that the Church which enjoyns them cannot erre. Whereas nothing [Page 11] can bee more evident then that which I proposed at the begin­ning; That it cannot be tryed which side is the true Church, but by going to tryal upon the particulars in difference.

But they who charge the Pope to be Antichrist, and the PapistsWhat wee get by the charge of Idolatry and Antichrist. Idolaters, the higher their charge, the more to do must they have to perswade common reason, that so great a part of man­kind should expect to besaved, by professing to contradict that which themselves profess. And, suppose that a prejudicate zeal can transport a man, to think the wisest people upon earth (those that Govern the See of Rome) and all those whom their wisdom carries along, so far out of their wits, as to contradict, by their profession, that which themselves profess. When all this is done, every Text of the Scripture, that cannot bee expounded to this supposition, will bee a peremptory bar to their pretense. And, how much is there of the Apocalypse it self, that is acknow­ledged not to bee fulfilled, as yet, in that sense? how much of the rest of the Scripture, that cannot, without violence, be re­conciled to it? And when a Novice, grounded upon this sup­position, is forced from his ground, upon Remonstrance of such Reasons; How ready is he to fall into the snare of the Missiona­ries? Whether or not this be the reason of that which wise men have observed; that the passage from the one extream to the other is more easie and frequent amongst us, then from the mean to the extream; let men of discretion judge. Let not them lead the people by the Nose, to believe that they can prove their supposition when they cannot; and then expect that it be main­tained, by them that own the Church of Rome for a true Church; And therefore must contradict themselves if they maintain it.

It is then Achitophels Counsail that hath prevailed on bothImmoderate charges vaine on both sides. sides. For make the quarrel irreconcileable, and nothing but Conquest must end it. But what joy have they of their expecta­tion, on either side? In all troubles of Christendom since Lu­thers time, what gaping hath there been for the sack of Rome, and the downfall of the Pope, upon a Prophesie, ten for one more probably fullfilled, in the sack of Rome by the Gothes and Van­dals, many hundred years ago? And all the Civil blood, all that abominable desolation in Religion which wee have seen, our late Usurper seemeth to have accompted meer godliness, in or­der to that work, which God had designed him for; as he [Page 12] thought himself inspired to believe. Nay, did not some of the Reformation prick up their ears, and begin to think well of his Christianity, for that works sake? And yet this expectation hath not been more vain, then the deep designes of the See of Rome, to reduce the Reformation to the obedience thereof by conquest, do now, after a long tryal, appear desperate for the future. Now, if the parties be willing to abate of their charges, as they have reason to do, there is a way for both to come off with credit. For the charge of Haeresie naturally shrinks into the Measure of Schisme, whensoever they shall be pleased to ex­plain themselves. And they seem to do it; at least as many of them, as now insist upon the charge of Schisme. Let our peo­ple follow their example, and extend the Idolatry they charge them with to all Superstition; And I will undertake to find them Idolaters in all professions; Namely, all those that com­mit Idolatry to their own imaginations.

As for the mutual imputation of Schisme, it is a civil and aThe charge of Schisme on both sides, moderate, as to the Church. moderate challenge, in comparison of those. For, Schisme is nothing but civil War in the Church. And in civil Wars, as in all Wars, though it be rather impossible then difficult, to name a War that shall be just on both sides; yet it is easie to find a War that is unjust on both sides. St. Augustine com­mends the saying of one in his time, that declaimed upon the Rape of Lucrece; Mira res, said he, duo fuerunt & Adulterium [...]us commisit; A strange thing, that a man lying with a woman, only the one should commit Adultery. I will not compare War with Adultery; which carries sin in the name of it. For I will not say that all War is sin. But he that can look upon the mis­chiefes, either of civil War in the World, or of Schisme in the Church, with the heart of a Christian, will not think strange that both sides should bee Schismaticks to God, though only one part can bee Schismaticks to the Church. For when the cause may bee visibly decided (as in the Schisme of the Dona­tists) then the one side are Schismaticks, the other is the Church. But when it cannot, (as perhaps it will prove, between the Re­formation and the Church of Rome) then if the blame of the Schisme fall on both sides, both sides shall bee Schismaticks to God, neither to the Church.

But, though I make it a moderate charge, as to the Church,The sinne of Schisme, as to God, horrible. when one side challenges the other to bee Schismaticks; Yet, as to God, the sin of Schisme is of an horrible tincture. For an Haeretick, or an Apostate, in the sight of God, destroys only his own soul. But he that causeth division in the Church, either peremptorily destroys, or probably hinders the salvation of all that are parties to it. So the Authors of Schisme must answer for all the souls that perish by it. How the means of salvation depend upon the Unity of the Church; is a thing that must ap­pear, by proving that God hath ordained it for that purpose. But if so it prove, then may every man see, how heavy a charge the crime of Schisme will prove in Gods sight. The mischief of Haeresie will lye in the Schisme which it involveth, when Divisi­on falls out upon a point of Faith. Now, breach of charity, in hindring the salvation of all that divide, is abundantly enough to destroy salvation; though more then enough, if upon a point of Faith, which is Haeresie to the Church.

But he that would consider first, how much the excessiveThe Schisme of the Donatists in charging the Catholickes to bee Apostates. charges on both sides contribute to the Division of the Church; then, how much the Division of the Church to the ruine of Christianity; Let him compare our present divisions with the Schisme of the Donatists; the case whereof is thus to bee stated. It was pretended, that Caecilianus was made Bishop of Carthage, by Traytors and Apostates. For, those that were called Tradi­tores for delivering the Scriptures, and other Utensils of Gods service, to their persecutors for present safety, they accompted no less then Apostates, for betraying the common Christianity. And that upon this Accompt. If Eleazar, and the Maccabees had redeemed their lives, by eating Swines Flesh, their crime had not been the bare breach of that Precept; It had been Apo­st [...]ie; because done at the instance of him that pressed them to forsake the Law. So, the Crime of those that delivered such goods to Persecutors, they justly took to bee the Crime of A­postafie, as done at the instance of Persecutors, that pressed all to depart from Christianity. And, when the rest of the Church did acknowledg Caecilianus, and communicate with him as Bi­shop of Carthage, then did they openly forsake the whole Church, as guilty of the same Apostasie, for communicating with Apostates, and rejecting them, because they rejected Apostates. And had [Page 14] they not reason on their side, if the Church of Africk, under Caecilianus, had been really Apostates? Admitting the Visible Unity of the Church, it is not to bee avoided. For, this Uni­ty must bee founded upon supposition of Christianity. If Chri­stianity bee evidently renounced, they who acknowledg mani­fest Apostates members of Gods one Church, must bee accompt­ed Apostates themselves, by them that would indeed bee mem­bers of it. But there was great difference between professed A­postasie, and the crime of those, who, dissembling their Chri­stianity to save their lives, had been permitted to hold their de­grees in the Church; professing it as well as the best when the danger was past. For, though the Rule of the Church allowed not that they should hold their degrees in the Church; yet it was found necessary to abate of the Rule, that Unity (for which the Rule was provided) might bee preserved. And, being al­lowed to hold their degrees in the Church for that reason, there was difference enough between them and Apostates. All this supposing the matter of Fact; That those who ordained Caecili­anus were indeed such as had given up such goods; Which, if it were true, never appeared to the Church to bee true. Whereas they who began the Schisme, by ordaining another Bishop of Carthage against him; were divers ways convicted to bee such themselves.

But it is strange to consider, how the Donatists abhorred theThe sad conse­quences of this Schisme. Catholicks, meerly upon this supposition, without any other oc­casion of difference, either in Faith, or in the Rites and Customs of the Church. For, it is the ground why they rebaptized all those whom they seduced from the Catholique Church; as bap­tized by Apostates. Whereas the Catholiques, taking them for Schismaticks as they were, sought only to win them upon such terms, as the reconciling of Schismaticks to the Church requires. But it is hard to relate the slanders, the murthers, the violences, the mischiefes, which this Division brought forth; And that, so far as I can understand, till Christianity was utterly destroyed in Africk by the Mahumetans.

CHAP. III.

ALL this while, you see, I take it not for granted, thatThey that hold by One Visible Church are to own the conse­quences of i [...]. it is one Visible Church which our Creed professeth. But I say, those who take it for granted, and admit not the due consequence of it, are they that weigh not by their own Weights, nor mete by their own Measures; but keep a Weight and a Weight; a Measure and a Measure; which must needs bee a thing accursed, because they cannot both bee the Weights [Page 16] and Measures of the Sanctuary. The order of Bishops, and the right of the Church goods have both recovered their possessions, by the Law of this Land. In both these points, the Law of this Land acknowledgeth the authority of the whole Church of Christ; the evidence whereof is indisputable in both Titles. They that are not content to go by the same Weight and Mea­sure, both with Papists and Puritans, in all other matters, they must answer God, for weighing and measuring by their own Weights and Measures in other things, weighing and measuring by his Weights and Measures in these.

The rest of our differences seem to consist in two points; theNothing to bee changed, but up­on that ground. one; concerning the Covenant of Grace, and the dependences of it; seems to be of great consequence to the substance of Chri­stianity. The other must comprehend all the noise that is made, of Ceremonies, and Formes of Praying, and Power of Disci­pline, and in fine, all that is questioned concerning the Lawes of this Church. These are Punctillios indeed, one by one, but all together they make a great sum. And, take them one by one, it is considerable, that the changing of any one is the changing of a Law of this Kingdom. But if the change should bee made, without providing for the substance of our Christianity, in that which is notoriously questionable amongst us; then must wee think of a new Answer to the Papists demand, where was your Church before Luthers time? And in all cases, if the Lawes of our Church bee changed for peace sake, without regard to that truth, which made it Reformation to change the Lawes of the Church of Rome; may it not become questionable, whether the Church of England remain the Church of England or not? For I am well assured, that there is so much in question amongst us, as if it were decided for the Puritans, would cast the ad­vantage on the Papists side. And therefore, they who believe no salvation out of Gods Church are to change nothing for other reasons, then such as the Visible Unity of it may justifie, in case it appear to bee founded by God.

For that Principle, as it is evidence in maters of Faith questi­onableWee cannot bee the same Church with that which was, o­therwise. amongst us; so it is the Standard in mater of Church Law, to measure the distance between the true point of Refor­mation, and the present Church of Rome, by that which is vi­sible in the Catholique Church; allowing for that difference, [Page 17] which the change of time may have brought forth. They that find themselves bound by this principle, to bee visibly one and the same Church with the Catholick, will find it easie, to impe, and to ingraffe the Faith and Lawes of this Church, into the Original and Catholick Faith and Lawes of Gods whole Church, by this Rule; But impossible, to make us visibly the same Church with it upon other Terms.

I do no ways doubt, that, though a change should bee madeThough that which shall bee s [...]tled will find advocates. for the worse, (which God forbid) there would bee found men to maintain it. For, the Lawes of Kingdoms and Common­wealths are of great force to frame the opinions and manners of particular persons: And that in mater of Religion, in this E­state, where Christianity is setled by the Lawes of Sove­reignties. And the Church goods, which are now recovered out of the hands of Usurpers, must then bee the reward of those, that shall have most to say for the Lawes that shall bee made. And therefore, while wee are upon this plea for our selves, a­gainst the Church of Rome; I find it no unreasonable freedome that I take, to set forth the consequence of it, in the change that is or may bee pretended.

I know it is a Maxime necessary to the quiet of all States,Civil Lawes of Religion to bee changed, till this Rule bee attained. that Lawes are not to bee changed, for hope of amendment. But it is no less necessary to enter an Exception to it, for those Lawes, by which the Reformation is to bee setled, in several Sovereignties of Christendom. For, if the Visible Unity of the Church bee Gods Ordinance, then they ought all to have been made, of necessity, ambulatory, as provisions only for the time; and not to bee taken for setled, till all had been agreed upon a Rule, whereby Communion might bee maintained a­mongst them all, whatsoever differences might fall out any where. And I am well assured, that they could never have at­tained any such Provision, without supposing the Visible Unity of the whole Church; the grounds and consequences of which Supposition, being taken for Gods Ordinance, first brought it to pass. And having attained it, I am well perswaded, that the breach between the Reformation and the Church of Rome could not have subsisted. Now, that several Sovereignties have made their several changes, without communicating with one another; (that is, as not tyed to the Visible Unity of the [Page 18] Whole) it is become infinitely more difficult to unite them, with­out expressely agreeing in this principle; then it would bee to unite all, agreeing in it. For the grounds and conse­quences of it would bee, necessarily, the Scale to balance, and the Standard to measure all differences.

They who, for the present, are not divided about ReligionThe beginning and rise of our differences. as wee are, may perhaps think these considerations too far fetch­ed to trouble themselves with. Wee that cannot make up the present breaches without new provisions, are onely to advise, whether wee will trust God, and our Lord Christ, with the suc­cess, weighing by our own Weights, and meting by our own Measures. For our case is evidently this. The Reformation under Edward VI. raised a party against it, not as preferring Luther before Calvin, but as preferring Unity with the Catho­lick Church, before difference from the present Church of Rome. The Relation of the troubles at Francford, published by the Puri­tans, shews, that they were as much divided about obedience to their Sovereign, persecuting the Reformation which they pro­fessed, as about obedience to their Bishops, and the power of erecting Churches of themselves. When the Bull of Pius V. a­gainst Queen Elizabeth came forth, the Papists, who, from the beginning of her Reign, had outwardly conformed to the exer­cise of Religion established by her Lawes, withdrawing them­selves, in obedience to the Bull, got thereby the name of Recu­sants. About the same time, they that rested not content with the Reformation established, appearing in a party, got them­selves the name of Puritans. Whereby it appeareth, that the Jealousie of the State upon the other party, together with the hatred of the people against it, for the persecutions under Queen Mary, gave them boldness and opportunity to shew themselves, and success to make them considerable. That abatement of the Forme setled under Edward VI. which, to content them, had been made under Queen Elizabeth, gave them appetite to de­mand more. The Recusants in the mean time, as consenting to the attempts that were made against the person of the Sovereign, and the State, by virtue of that Bull; (because, in mater of Religion, they all gave obedience to it) were involved in such penalties, as the severity of the Lawes, occasioned by the hai­nousness of those attempts, provided.

Thus passed the time on, till the same appetite, animatedThe present state of them. by the Credit of the late Parliament, helped the pretenses thereof for reforming the Government, to set three Kingdomes, upon pretense of Religion also, on the Fire of one Civil Warre. For the Irish Rebellion, which the example of the Scottish Commotion had brought forth, falling in with the one party, (though not so heartily, as the new Insurrection of Scotland with the other) made the breach wider, by uniting all into two parties. The quarrel being decided, they who pretended no more for the Warre, but Episcopacy, Liturgy, and the Ce­remonies, brought in a new Confession of Faith, and new Ca­techismes, as well as a Directory, and an Ordinance for Church-Government. The sword, that had decided the quarrel, it seems, was to make good the difference, without pleading the Word for the trial of it. In the mean time, I will not say that those damnable Doctrines, preached by the Sects which the Warre had brought forth, are the necessary consequences of the Doctrine brought in of new: And of the difference between it, and that which was before. But this I will say, that there is no Visible difference between the Presbyterians and the Phana­tickes; These sheltring themselves under the quality of those, whensoever the Law forbids their peculiar Assemblies. And I say farther, that, if there bee such a thing as a Catholick Church, all the Phrensies of the Phanaticks are justly imputable to those that distinguish not themselves from Phanaticks; But admit them to their Communion as Phanaticks. Upon this account I use the name of Puritans, though seeming a term of disgrace, to comprise all the Sects, into which, that once common name hath since been divided. For I use also the name of Papists, not intending any disgrace by it, though first taken up in that sense; Because it seemeth, that use hath rendred that sense in­sensible.

Hence it may appear, why it is not to be said, that; TheWhat terms of agreement, with the Pres­byterians, wee ought to allow. Papists standing stiffe in maintaining all the abuses, which, wee are called Protestants for protesting against, it will not bee for the honour of the Reformation, to owne any imperfection in it: It will occasion weak Souls to fall away to the Church of Rome. For, supposing him a Christian that objects this, I would ask him, in the first place; Whether it bee not more for [Page 20] the purpose of a Christian, to have a plea that will bear him out at the great day of Judgment, than to have a Plea that may advantage his party here? Whether hee and I can agree upon any better Plea, for the Change which wee call Reforma­tion, and our adhering to it, then their evident rigour, in maintaining their evident abuses; That they admit no terms of peace and reconcilement, but those upon which they united their own party against us, at the Council of Trent? And would hee have u [...] to imitate them here, in that which wee mean to plead against them, at the day of Judgment? For, if there bee such a thing as a Visible Church, then ought the Church of Rome to condescend to such terms as may restore Unity; Pre­serving and improving, as much as may bee, the Common Christianity. It is the best Plea that wee shall have for our selves at the Day of Judgment, why wee continue divided from them; That they give us no appearance of hope, that they will condescend to any such terms. And therefore wee ought to condescend to terms of Agreement, in such matters as wee have in dispute, with our Brethren the Presbyterians. But not such terms as Faction and Prejudice imagineth, but such as the Common Christianity, and the Original Unity of Gods Church determineth. For, if wee use that Rigour which wee charge the Church of Rome with, wee weigh not by our own Weights, nor mete by our own Measures. But i [...] wee stand not upon that with them, upon which wee de­fend our selves against the Church of Rome; Again wee weigh not by our own W [...]ights, nor mete by our own Measures.

And indeed, supposing that the reconciling of them to thisThe Lawes of the Primitive Church th [...] Standard of all change. Church will require a Law of the Kingdom, that may autho­rize them in their Ministeries; What appearance is there of hope, that the Lawes which they have broken from by the Schisme, will serve to bring them back? What appearance is there of despair, that the Lawes of the Primitive Church will not serve; With that allowance, which the change of times, and the difference of the case may require? Such a change would reconcile them, and not as Presbyterians. Such a change would clear us from all Imputation of Schisme, with the Church of Rome. Such a change would produce that Improvement in Christianity, which the name of Reformati­on [Page 21] pretendeth. The Church of Rome would have no cause to laugh at such a Change; Unless they would laugh for joy, at that Improvement of the common Christianity, which they themselves would presently stand obliged to imitate. They themselves, who would be accounted Infallible, were glad to provide for Unity among themselves, by new Decrees, at the Council of Trent. Those that think they may fail, and know, that all positive Lawes, saving the Gospel, which our Lord Christ came in person to preach, (for that also, may, in some respect, be accounted Positive) are subject to that Imperfecti­on, which the change of time either produceth or discover­eth, are to think it no reproach to change for the better, when the necessity of reconciling a Schisme requireth it. Let Papists glean up here and there a weak Proselyte; (such for the most part, as, little troubled in Conscience with the mat­ter of difference, seek onely what to palliate their Interest with) Who can propose a general good, without danger of particular offense? It was a divine saying of an Heathen; That the good cause passes from that side that refuses reason, to that side that proffers it.

Again, shall wee charge them at the day of Judgment, forOur present Case is not the Case of our Forefathers. adhering to Custome against Truth; To their Forefathers, against that which was from the beginning; And adhere our selves to that, wherein, wee cannot say that our Forefathers have restored it? Certainly, if wee will weigh by our own Weights, and mete by our own Measures, wee are not to en­gage with our Forefathers against the Catholick Church, if wee suppose it Gods Ordinance. For their Case is not our Case, now the Case is put, that Unity in Religion cannot bee had, without a new Law of the Kingdom. The Council of Trent hath succeeded since the Reformation which they made. If it bee the second blow that makes the quarrel, it is not the Refor­mation, but the [...]ouncil of Trent, that hath formed the Schisme between us and the Church of Rome. The publishing of it is the declaring of a Law, upon admitting whereof, wee may communicate with the Church of Rome; otherwise not. And so on our side, the setling of Religion by a new Law of the Kingdom will bee a Declaration, that wee will have no peace, without so much more, then our Reformation hitherto hath [Page 22] demanded. For if the Unity of the Church be Gods Ordi­nance, it is not in the power of any part of it, to unite them­selves upon those Conditions, which they ought not to stand upon, with the rest of the Church, if they could not bee re­united to it, without such conditions. So, they may bee no Schismaticks in Gods sight, for changing without the Church of Rome, which they knew would not consent to the change; And yet wee may bee Schismaticks, in defying it upon new terms of distance.

When I speak of our forefathers, I accompt not the Acts ofThe Acts of Henry VIII. no Acts of our Forefathers Religion. Henry the eight the Acts of our forefathers, in mater of Religion. For it is manifest, that he left not the See of Rome, upon any pretense of reforming Religion; Further then the removing of that power, which indeed hindred it; nor as hindring it, but as burthensome in his own case. If any beginnings of the Reforma­tion were brought in upon this occasion, during his time, wee have reason to own the things done, without disputing the reason for which they were done. Otherwise, wee are not engaged to his proceedings, because they made way for the Reformation to succeed. They who declaim against the persecutions raised by the Church of Rome, as they deserve; (while the bloody Law of the six Articles, and the persecuting of the Popes authority at the same time, is buried in silence;) do not weigh by their own Weights, nor mete by their own Measures. The pretense of Refor­mation under Edward VI. excuses much defect in the forme of proceeding, by the mater which it introduced. They might make use of that which had been done to another intent. Wee are not to measure their Actions, by the Actions of them which were guided by other reasons.

In fine, to maintain other mens Actions, is to make our selvesImperfection of Lawes in Reli­gion, no impu­tation to our Forefathers. accessory to their sins in doing them. The Church of Rome, standing to that which they received from their Forefathers, stand but to that corruption, to which, that State of Religion, which the Apostles brought in, hath degenerated by tract of time. That our Forefathers should not at once see, or seeing should not at once be able to restore all that was decayed, is no Imputation to men not pretending infallibility. Why they have not since proceeded to restore the rest; I have shewed evident rea­son, in the contrary Factions of Papists and Puritans, and the [Page 23] effects of them, which our times have seen. They themselves profess an imperfection, in not restoring of Penance; a mater of such consequence, that all the judgements of God, which wee have suffered, may justly bee imputed to it. And therefore, the necessity of this time requiring a change, the introducing of that which never was, for the contenting of men, instead of re­storing that which was, and therefore ought to bee, will bee the sin of the Nation; the declaring of this, will bee the discharge of him that is so perswaded.

As for the Plea of tender Consciences, to him that considersThe pretense of tender Consci­ences is no Rule. our Case, in which it is made, it will easily appear to bee a Sad­dle for all horses; A pair of Stirrups, to bee lengthned or short­ned to all statures. For wee are tyed to this supposition; The Law is to bee re-established, according to which God must bee served by the Church of England, for the future. And, to pre­tend tenderness of Conscience against the Law of the Church and Kingdom, is to proclaim disobedience to all Lawes, that are not made by them who allege it. For, why may not any Law meet with tender consciences, if some do? And, tenderness of con­science is a thing invisible, which no Law can take for granted on any side. But, supposing the Unity of the Church ordained by God; to forbear those Lawes which it requireth, because tenderness of conscience may bee alleged against them, is to of­fend the whole rather then a part. For, the same might have been alleged against any Law of Gods Church. So, there could have been no such thing as a Visible Church, if that plea could have served mens turns.

And why should not a Papist have a tender conscience, as wellIt serves Pa­pists, as well as Puritans. as a Puritan? Why should not the one expect to bee free from the penalties, which the Lawes assign to those that refuse them: as well as the other, to have right to the rewards, which they as­sign to those that imbrace them; both professing the same reason, though the one only makes a noise with pleading it? If it bee said, that English Papists are not considerable, in comparison with English Puritans; It is to bee considered, how great a part of Christendom is engaged in the cause of English Papists; How small a part of the Reformation is engaged in the cause of English Puritans. In the mean time, it is the Papists that are under the penalties of the Lawes; Which, Puritans are scandalized, that [Page 24] they may not make. And certainly, no man can truely have a tender conscience in this case, but he who, for his part, labours, that neither Papists may have cause to continue Papists, nor Pu­ritans to continue Puritans. But the conscience of the Kingdom, that is, our hope of Gods blessing, or our fear of his vengeance, will bee concerned to the life in it.

CHAP. IV.

THat which hath been said of Henry the VIII. and his Acts,Erastians can acknowledg no Visible Church founded by God. sheweth; That Acts of Parliament cannot bee the Measure of Religion, though they should bee the Fense and the Bulwark of it. Let me now, upon this occasion, conjure our Brethren the Presbyterians, to lay to heart the unknown danger which this time threatneth, the evident mischiefe which it produceth. It was a complaint visibly just in the late Usurpers time; that, while one side was for this Religion, another for that, they that were for no Religion would prove the strongest side. Presbyterians contest with their Prelates, who shall give Law to the Church; [Page 25] that is, who shall bee the Church. They are desirous to have authority in point of Fact, without and against their Prelates, which they will never make out any title to in point of right, but from their Prelates. They beleeve, all the while, that the Church is founded by God: and, all the rights upon which it is founded, of Right; And yet can find in their hearts to stand wrangling out the time, while they grow the greatest par­ty, that would have no Church at all, and by consequence, no Christianity. Wee call them Erastians, because the disputes of our times have made it evident; that, if no Excommunicati­on, as he pretended, then no Church. Yet it is not to bee gran­ted, that he ever saw through the consequences of his own Posi­tion; or would have held no Excommunication, had he thought it would infer no Church. I will not say the learned Selden saw not the consequence. For, why should I speak of the opinion of a man, that was too wise to declare it? I am sure he mistook the state of the Question, when, beginning to declare his opini­on, in the point of Excommunication, (for, hee never argued for any part of his opinion, till hee published his Books de Syne­driis) hee defined Excommunication to bee a censure inferring a civil penalty. For it was evident, that all his Adversaries, de­riving the power of Excommunication from the Apostles, must deny any civil effect of Excommunication; which they knew it could not have before Constantine.

This opinion is liable to an objection visible enough. For ifTheir opinion inableth Sove­reigns to perse­cute Gods truth by Gods Law. it were true, then all Subjects, all private Christians, would stand bound in conscience, to profess that Religion which the Sovereign power enacteth, by the Lawes which it giveth. Which if it were so, in vain do wee Dispute, whether the Papists, the Prelatick, or the Puritans bee in the right. Whatsoever Reli­gion the Law of the Land shall establish, shall bee that which God enjoyneth. And, the Sovereign shall bee able in point of conscience to punish those that refuse it, whether right or wrong; though it cannot be denyed, that, as Christendom is at present divided, some Subjects must needs bee punished for the right. I know but one that hath looked this objection in the face. His first Answer was; that they that are punished for the right Religion shall bee gainers by their sufferings; they shall have their share in the reward of Martyrs. This is the Answer that Julian the Apostate made the [Page 26] Christians, complaining of their sufferings under him. There­fore it is evident, that a Christian must not allege it. For, if he that suffers shall have a Martyrs reward, what reward shall he that punisheth have, but a Persecutors? So, a Christian So­vereign, for using the power that God gives him, shall have a Persecutors reward.

If it bee said; No marvel. Because he uses it amiss, not be­causePersecuting the truth is the use of a Power, which no Sove­reign can have. he goes beyond the bounds of it; Either God hath enacted the contrary of that which the Sovereign enjoyneth, or not. If not, then is that which the Sovereign enjoyneth contrary to no Law of God. And therefore it obligeth the Subject. If so; then cannot the Sovereign Power enjoyn it. And therefore it is extended beyond the bounds of it, in that case. Again, either, abu­sing his power, by enacting that Religion which he ought not, he obligeth his Subject in conscience to God, to profess and to exercise the Religion, which he enacteth, or not, If not, then must the Subject, for the security of his conscience, bee Judge whether the Sovereign abuse his power or not. If so, then, as before, wee Dispute about Religion to no purpose; For every man is bound to that which the Law of his Country enacteth. Nay there will be no reason why Christians, under the Turk, shall not live as Mahumetans. For the quality of a Christian is one and the same, in the Subject, as in the Sovereign. And there­fore there can appear no reason, why it should give the one the right, by the Act of his Will to oblige the will of the other; which an undoubted Sovereign, a Pagan, or a Mahumetan hath not. And indeed he hath answered otherwise since. Namely; That a man is bound to renounce Christ with his mouth, if the Sovereign command it; For hee shall bee saved by beleeving in him with the heart the same time, which is all that his Christia­nity requireth. This Answer is plain English. But it comes to this point; That a Christian is saved by the inward act of Faith,If any Sove­reign may pu­nish for the Re­ligion which hee professeth, then are Sub­jects bound to renounce Christ, if the Sovereign com­mand it. without the outward; By beleeving, without professing.

There is another that intended, it seems, to shew the late U­surper, by what right hee might protect both Presbyteries and Congregations, dealing with others according to his Interest. He supposeth that a Christian, being justified by his Faith, is at his choise to make himself the member, either of an Indepen­dent Congregation, or of one that shall associate it self into a [Page 27] Presbytery with others. Whereupon the Sovereign, supposing both of them to bee the Godly party, must needs finde himself bound to protect them both. He saith not by what right he could punish those for their Religion, whom hee took not for the Godly party; By what right hee could hinder them in the free profession and exercise of their Religion; which indeed is a greater punish­ment then a Christian, neither Haeretick nor Schismatick, can bee bound to endure. But hee need not tell him, by what right hee could exclude them from belonging to the Godly party. Those whose Religion cannot stand with Usurpation cannot seem Godly to Usurpers. In the mean time, as you see, this Author stands upon the same ground with his fellow; that a Christian is justifi­ed by the inward act of Faith without the outward, by beleev­ing without professing. Only hee saith; by beleeving before hee profess; the other, though hee profess the contrary of that which he beleeveth. But neither of both hath offered to say; either that the Will of the Sovereign is, by Gods Law, the Rule of Religion to the will of the Subject, which hee is to answer God by at the day of Judgement; Or, that Gods Law can al­low the Sovereign to punish the Subject for that Religion, which it enableth not the Sovereign to oblige his Subject to profess. All must come to this point; that a Christian is bound to renounce Christ, if his Sovereign command it. For if a Christian bee bound in conscience, to obey whatsoever his Sovereign com­mandeth, in point of Religion; then, if the Great Turke com­mand his Subjects to renounce Christ, they are bound to obey it. Which whether it bee not a position for Macchiavellian Atheists; that make no more of Christianity, then of an expedient to Go­vern people in peace; I leave to all that are capable to judge. Thus much for certain, he that thinks himself tyed to renounce his Christianity, if his Sovereign command him, is no longer a Christian; As having recalled the Vow of his Baptisme, to pro­fess Christ until death. And this is that which I conjure our Brethren the Presbyterians to lay to heart; That the visible growth of this opinion, by their continuing this distance upon trifles, threatens to render them that would have no Religion atNo offense, but charity, in de­claring the true ground of re­concilement, or punishment. all the strongest side.

In this open and stiff opposition of four Religions, though not distinguished into four Communions; Recusants, Prelatickes, [Page 28] Puritans, and Erastians; (For I oversee the Fanatiques, as swal­lowed back into the belly of the Presbyterians) shall it bee a crime, shall it bee an offense for me to say, what point of Chri­stianity, in my poor opinion, reconciles all to unity, that ad­mit Gods truth? That, beleeving two Articles of our Creed; One Catholick and Apostolick Church; and one Baptism for remissi­on of sins; if wee beleeve that they signifie any thing, wee are all bound to submit all partialities, to that which they signifie. Not as if Recusants, depending upon a Forain communion, and the head of it, that shows no inclination to Unity, upon terms of Gods truth, were likely to take notice of one mans poor opi­nion, concerning the consequences of common principles. But because wee are our selves so far chargeable to God, for our Schisme with the Church of Rome, and the mischiefes of it, as wee neglect those consequences: And, because the Justice of the Kingdom, in the penalties of all Recusancy, may easily bee rendred visible, if wee keep close to them; but not possibly o­therwise. As for those that make the Pope Antichrist, and the Papists Idolaters; can they bee allowed to forejudge my opini­on, because it makes our Reconcilement with the Church of Rome easier then they would have it? For, if division in the Church, without evident and valuable cause, bee a sin to God, it will certainly bee the sin of the Kingdom, to bear them out in it, by stating our Reformation upon undue grounds. For the terms of it must needs bee according to the grounds of it; which, be­ing either invisible, or inconsiderable in comparison of the be­nefits of Unity, must needs translate some part of the blame to rest upon that side which exceeds.

And therefore, to excuse my freedom, in publishing thatWhy it ought to bee declared. which follows; Let no man grudge me this Plea for my self at the day of Judgement; that being convicted, that our agree­ment cannot bee acceptable to God, but upon the consequence of those two suppositions, according to that which follows; I am not at rest till I have said it. Could there bee peace had, by compounding the Interest of two parties, without providing for the Interest of our common Christianity, in those two Articles; what joy could a Christian expect, of that which should bee pur­chased at so unconscionable a Rate? Here is nothing said, but that which hath been said, when Arbitrary power might have [Page 29] made it a pretense for Persecution, had the Interest of Usurpers allowed it. It is a short view of that which I have published heretofore, presented to those that may desire to see, in one pro­spect, what is the true consequence of it, in the composing of those differences, that remain still on foot. And, the danger of being involved in the Crime of Schisme before God, obligeth me to declare that opinion, which being not declared, may ren­der me lyable to that charge in Gods sight.

Therefore there is no offense to Superiors in declaring it. TheThe declaring of it no offense to Superiors. Lawes of Kingdoms go by a Rule, that is made of such metal as may bend, and be fitted to the body which they are to rule. Only they are to aim at an inflexible Rule of Gods truth; which is the Inheritance of every Christian. And therefore, he that sees it made crooked, is bound to set it straight. This is not to say, what publique Authority should do; but what it should in­tend to do. A thing necessary, to bee said, when there bee those, who would have it intend that which it ought not to do. In fine, the difficulty and danger of our case seems to supersede, for the present, the Rule of Obedience in the Church.

CHAP. V.

I Say then, that the Unity of the Church signifies nothing, unless it signifie the Visible Unity of Communion, in the [Page 30] outward offices of Gods Service; Not onely the Invsible Uni­ty of the heart, in Faith and Charity: Unless the Church bee founded by God for an outward Society, Visible to the common reason of man; Not onely for an Invisible Number, the Unity whereof, onely his own Invisible Wisdom inwardly designeth. And I say it, because I conceive I have proved it by the same evidence, upon which wee accept the Scriptures for the Word of God: Upon which wee hold our common Christianity. For I have shewed, that wee believe the Scrip­tures for the Scriptures; the matter of Faith for the Motives of Faith, there related. That is, wee hold those things which the Scriptures relate, sufficient to oblige all the people of God afore Christ to bee Jewes; All the people of the world after Christ to bee Christians. This, in the nature of a reason ob­liging a man to bee a Christian. For, in the nature and kind of an effective cause, I do not suppose, much less grant, that any thing is sufficient, much less effectual, without Gods Spirit. [...]ut if an Unbeliever should ask mee, why I believe that to bee true, which, being true, I grant sufficient to oblige mee to be­lieve; It will not serve my turn to say, that I find it written in the Scripture; So long as the question is, why I believe the Scripture. My answer must bee, that the consent of all Chri­stians, in submitting to the Gospel, (which they would not have done, had they not known the motives to bee true, for which they did it) assures mee as much, that they are true, as if I had seen the things done, which moved them to believe. Especially, being as much convicted by the light of Reason and Nature, that Christianity goes beyond Judaisme, for advancing the Service of God and goodness; as that Judaisme goes beyond the Religion, either of Pagans, or Mahumetans.

For, this being the reason why wee believe, that must beeThe Church founded upon the Power of the Key [...]s. alleged, by all that will allege any reason to Unbelievers; It must needs have the same force in evidencing the sense, that wee allow it in evidencing the credit of the Scriptures. If the con­sent of all Christians, in submitting to Christianity upon Mo­tives recorded in the Scriptures, assure mee that they are true; And therefore the Scriptures the Word of God, and Christia­nity the onely Religion by which wee can bee saved; Then the consent of all Christians, in owning the obligation of holding [Page 31] Visible Communion with the Church, is to assure mee that it is Gods Ordinance. For the act, or the acts of our Lord, upon which the Church is founded, I allege the Power of the Keyes, described by the effect of binding and loosing; and to that effect granted to St. Peter Mat. XVI. 18, 19; To the Disciples assem­bled after the Resurrection John XX. 19-23. in the terms of remitting and retaining sinne; To the Church Mat. XVIII. 15-18. in the same terms as to St. Peter; to the effect of rendring him that obeys not, a Heathen man or a Publican, to him that would bee a Christian. Here you have a certain Power, deposited with certain Persons, the effect whereof is Visible, in the suc­cession of Person, deriving the authority which they claim, from the visible act of those Persons which are here trusted with it: And in the maintenance of Visible Communion amongst true Christians, by excluding the false. It is true; Haereticks and Schismaticks exclude themselves out of the Church. For, they would bee the Church themselves, if they could tell how. But it is the authority of the Church that obligeth Christians to avoid them, as the Jewes, to whom our Lord spake, did then avoid Heathen men and Publicans. And it obligeth, by decla­ring them Haereticks and Schismaticks. I know there bee those, that would have the imputation of Haeresie and Schisme to bee now meer Bug-bears, to fright children with. But would any of them owne any of the Sects, which were shut out of the Church for Haereticks or Schismaticks, from the time of our Lord till the time of Constantine, for true Christians? Whe­ther they would or they would not, is not considerable. For if all good Christians then did, then did all good Christians owne the Visible Unity of the Church. And there is as great a consent of Christians in the Visible Unity of the Church, as in the truth of Christianity, saving this difference; That all Christians, good and bad, true and false, agree in the truth of Christianity; Onely those that are neither Haereticks nor Schismaticks in the Unity of the Church.

Let no man mistake this evidence, as if so great a truthThe Unity of the Church Vi­sible by the Lawes of it. were read onely in two or three Texts of Scripture. They who take upon them to argue of such matters as these, ought to know, that the Lawes of all Commonwealths, when first they are founded, are the wills of their Rulers; according to [Page 32] that measure of Power whereby they Rule. Therefore, if our Lord trust his Disciples, and their Successours, with the Rule of his Church, hee trusts them also to make Lawes for the Ruling of it; Provided that they tend to inforce, not to a­void those Lawes, which hee in person hath left them as Chri­stians. For Disciples, that is, Christians, hee left them actu­ally; Not actually Members of his Church, as not yet actual­ly formed, though virtually founded, in the Power of the Keyes which hee left his Disciples. These Lawes are as Visi­ble, as the Lawes of any Kingdom or Commonwealth that is or ever was, are Visible. I do not owne the Popes Canon Law to have the force of obliging us. For I maintain a great deal of Usurpation in the Power by which it was made; as well as a great deal of abuse, in making the Law given by our Lord of no effect, by the matter of it. But I maintain the Popes Canon Law (and the same is to bee said of that Canon Law, whereby the Patriarch of Constantinople now governs in the Eastern Church) to bee derived from those Rules, where­by the Disciples of our Lord and their Successours governed the Primitive Church in Unity. And this no less evident, then the Christianity of this time is to bee derived from the Chri­stianity of that time. For, as the present Law of the Church is but the corruption of the Primitive, no more is the present Christianity, (whether of the Reformation, or of the Church of Rome) but the corruption of the Primitive. For why shall I make nice to say it, pretending all Reformation to be no­thing, but the restoring of Primitive Christianity; And, to that end, of such Lawes in the Church, as may bee the means to restore it?

Among those Lawes there is one, which, obliging those whoThe Law which endoweth the Church with Consecrated goods. have given up themselves to God for Christians, to give up their goods to maintain the Assemblies of the Church, for the Service of God; (wherein the Communion of the Church consisteth) estateth the Power of dispensing the maintenance thereof upon the Rulers of the Church. This provision, how little soever notice many take of it, who pretend to understand the Scriptures; began first in our Lord, and the Disciples that attended upon him continually. For, it is evident by the Gospels, that those Disciples which did not attend upon him [Page 33] continually furnished, by their contributions, a stock where­upon they subsisted. Judas you know was trusted with it, and was the first that committed Sacrilege, in robbing the poor of Church goods. For the poor could not have attended upon the Doctrine of our Lord, had they not been provided for, by the richer of his Disciples. And the goods of the Church are still the patrimony of the poor, for the same reason; that being provided for, they may attend upon Gods service. Therefore the reason was the same, when the Christians at Jerusalem gave up their lands and their goods, to maintain the Church, in conti­tinual attendance upon the Service of God: When the Corinthi­ans maintained their Feasts of Love: When the Christians af­terwards built those Churches, and laid those lands to them, which, Eusebius saith, being pulled down and confiscated by Diocletian, were restored by Constantine: When Christian King­doms and States, by a civil Law, indowed the Church with Tithes, and Glebes, and Mansions. A thing as general as Christianity; no People, no Country being known, where the Church was ever setled, without maintenance estated upon it; by the Church it self at the least, if not by the Law of the Country, over and above.

The form of Government, in every Commonwealth, is statedHow the Unity of the Church is signified by the Scriptures. upon certain powers, wherein Sovereignty consisteth; which Lawyers and Philosophers call sometimes Jura majestatis. Here you have, in the Governors of the Church, the power of ad­mitting into and excluding out of the Church: The power of giving Lawes to the Church: The power of dispensing the Ex­chequer which God hath provided for the Church: And in fine, the power of propagating these rights to their successours. Whereby it pretendeth not to bee a Commonwealth; Because Christianity pretendeth to maintain Civil power, and the right of this World, in the same hands, and upon the same terms which it findeth. But it appeareth to bee a Visible Society, founded by God, under the name of the Catholick Church, upon the command of holding communion therewith; to which hee obligeth all Christians. And all those Scriptures of the New Testament, that mention any of these rights, signifie no less, when the meaning of them is measured by that Rule, with­out which there is no means to determine the sense of any Scri­pture, [Page 34] that is questionable. And the same is signified by those Scriptures, which mention sometimes several Churches, some­times one Church containing all Christians, and all Churches. For the parts; that is, particular Churches; being Visible B [...] ­dies, the Whole must needs bee understood to bee a Visible Church. The practice of all Christians; owning an obligation in point of Right, to maintain the powers, which the Scriptures for the most part, only mention as mater of Fact; determines them to signifie more then they express.

As for the Scriptures of the Old Testament; the calling of theHow in the Old Testament. Gentiles, to bee one new people of God with the Jewes that should beleeve, is but foretold in them by Prophesie. And there­fore the Visible Unity of the Church, consisting of them, can­not bee otherwise declared in them, then by that correspon­dence, in which the Church answereth the antient people of God. The Unity thereof was the Unity of a Commonwealth, maintaining it self by force of Armes, in the possession of the Land of promise; in which God had placed them, upon con­dition to live by his Law. The Unity of the Church, consi­sting of all Nations, and maintaining all S [...]ates in their rights of this World, pretendeth not to any power of this World, to maintain it self by. It becometh Visible by the free will of Christians, beleeving it a piece of their Christianity, to live & die members of one Visible Church. The Unity of the Jews State, tending to a temporal end, of enjoying the Land of promise, answereth not the invisible unity of Christian souls, but the Vi­sible Unity of a Catholick Church; according to that rate, in which the Law answers the Gospel. And so is this point of Christianity no less clearly delivered, by the Old Testament, then other points of the Christian Faith are.

CHAP. VI.

FOr, though all that is necessary to bee known, for the sal­vationHow far the Scriptures are clear to bee un­derstood, of themselves. of all Christians, bee not onely sufficiently, but a­bundantly contained in the Scriptures; yet, how clearly there laid down, depends upon the purpose, for which, God declares that hee gave the several parts of it. It is manifest, that God intended to vaile the New Testament in the Old, and to reveal the Old Testament by the New. Therefore Christianity cannot bee clearly delivered in the Old Testament. Till our Lord was to leave the world, hee declared not the condition of Christianity, by which wee are saved. Hee declared not that which hee de­clared when hee was to leave the world; to wit, that it was thenceforth to consist in undertaking to profess the Faith of the Holy Trinity, and to live by Christs precepts, though ones life [Page 36] lye upon it. For he declared not the promise of sending the Holy Ghost, till hee was ready to leave the world. And there­fore the Baptisme of Christ, by which Christians do make that prosession, which saveth us, was not instituted till his departure. And though our Lord had clearly preached the precepts of Chri­stian life, from the beginning; yet is the Visible estate of his My­stical Body the Church, as well as the invisible estate of particu­lar members, darkly figured and typified, not only by the pa­rables of the Gospel, but, as well by that which befell him, as by that which he did, during the time of his preaching. There­fore, neither is Christianity clearly delivered by the Gospels. To them, to whom the Apostles writ their Epistles, the substance of Christianity must needs bee known; for they had been made Christians upon the professing of it. But their Epistles, there­fore, suppose it, and therefore cannot pretend to deliver it. Be­sides, the greatest part of them is spent in proving that wee are saved by Christianity, out of the Old Testament: And there­fore, by that correspondence, in which the Law answers the Gospel, the Church, the Synagogue, and the Kingdom of Hea­ven, the Land of promise. And though our Lord opened his Disciples hearts, thus to understand the Scriptures; yet are not all that shall bee saved able to make out this correspondence; the professing and performing of that Christianity, whereby they are saved, not requiring it. Therefore, neither are the Apostles writings clear in things necessary to salvation, but supposing the knowledg of that Christianity, whereby wee are saved; nor absolutely clear, but to those that are able to make out that cor­respondence. Without this limitation, it is not to bee granted, that all things necessary to salvation are clear to all that seek sal­vation, by the Scriptures alone. For, what mark is there ex­tant in the Scripture, to distinguish that which is necessary to salvation, from that which is not?

Nor is there any inconvenience in all this, to them that areTradition li­miteth the sense of the Scripture. content to lay prejudice aside, and to see that which they can­not but see. For it will appear by the writings of the Apostles, that they committed the Doctrine of Christianity to them whom they trusted with the founding and governing of the Church; for the instructing of them that were to bee baptized, and formed into Churches, whereof the whole Church was to [Page 37] consist. So that, as they to whom the Apostles writ, having received their Christianity from those that were so trusted, were to limit the meaning of their writings within that Faith which they had received; So is all interpretation of Scripture still to bee confined within that, which the Church, from the begin­ning, hath received by their hands. Which is not to make any man lord of any mans Faith. For this Tradition of the Faith is before the very being of the Church; Because, whosoever be­came a Christian; and so a member of the Church; it is sup­posed that hee undertaketh the same. And therefore, being in force before there bee any Church, it cannot depend upon any authority to bee claimed by the Church. And the evi­dence for it is the same ground, into which, the reason of be­leeving resolveth; The consent of all Christians. Which, as it could not have been preserved and obtained, had it not been required to make a man a member of that Church, which, by professing it, stood visibly distinct from all that profess i [...] not; So, since as much as is necessary to salvation hath been already declared, by the consent of the Church; to confine all inter­pretation of Scripture within that which all the Church, every where, at all times hath received, can make no man lord over the Faith of the Church.

But there is a vast distance between this Tradition of Faith,Difference be­tween the Tra­dition of Faith and Ritual Traditions. and other Traditions, which may have proceeded from that authority, and trust for founding the Church, which our Lord left with his Apostles, and they with the Church. For that, being the condition upon which all Christians are saved, re­mains alwaies the same, neither to bee encreased nor dimini­shed till the Worlds end. But the productions of Ecclesiastical power vested in the Apostles and their successours, can bee no more then the limiting of circumstances, according to which, the publick Service of God is to bee performed: and those powers exercised, which God hath granted the Church, for the maintaining of Unity, in serving God according to that Christianity which our Lord teacheth. Christianity is concer­ned in them but two waies. The first; when they are so far from advancing the service of God, which Christianity requir­eth, that it is impaired and destroyed by corruption in them. The second; when a part of the Church proceedeth to a [Page 38] change in them, upon pretense that so it is, though indeed it bee otherwise. The first is the plea of the Reformation against the Church of Rome; The second, the plea of the Church of Rome against them, as to this point of Traditions. And the issue is the same, that is to bee tried, between the Church of England, and those that stand at this distance from it. For, the Unity of the Church being a part of the common Christi­anity; the breach of it will bee chargeable upon that side, which makes such a change, as the rest have not reason to em­brace. If the pretense thereof bee either not evident, or not sufficient, the fault is in them; If both, in those who refuse to joyn in i [...]. The Rules, and Customs, and Rites of the Church which are called Traditions, are not commanded because good, but are good because commanded. And therefore, even the Traditions of the Apostles, being of this kind, may cease to oblige, by the change that may-succeed in the state of the Church, for which they are provided. Instances hereof, re­corded in the Scriptures, have been produced.

They therefore that break from the Church, upon any pointThe difference between Haere­sic and Schisme. of the Tradition of Faith; which is before the Church, as being requisite to make a man a member of the Church; are properly called Haereticks. For, if they only disbeleeve in the heart, they may bee counted Haereticks to God; but that is nothing to the Church, of which wee now speak. But they that will not stand to the authority of the Church, in maters subject to it, are Schismaticks. For those things, to which the authority of the Church extendeth, are the mater of Schisme. Not that this difference is alwaies observed. For many times, the name of Haeresie extendeth to all Sects, which mans choise, not the will of God createth. But because there is that difference visi­ble in the mater of Christianity, which many times appropri­ateth the common name of Haeresie to the most eminent; that Separate upon mater of Faith. These things are here premised, to make way for the evidence which I tender, for the Visible Unity of the Church, from the consent of all Christians. Hee that sticketh at any point of it, may have recourse to the proofe which I have made in due place; taking all, therefore, here, for granted.

But I will advance another assumption, tending [...]o set theThe dependence of Churches e­vid [...]n [...]eth the Unity of the Whole Church. same evidence in better light, by stating the form, in which, the whole Church, from the Apostles, hath alwaies been governed, without repeating the proofes whereby it appeareth. A Church then, in the sense of all Christians before the Reformation, is the Body of Christians contained in a City, and the Territory of it. For the Government of such a one, the respective Authority of the Apostles, conveyed by the overt act of their Ordination, was visibly vested in a Bishop; in a number of Presbyters, for his advice and assistance; and in Deacons, attending upon them, and upon the executing of their Orders. I say, the respective authority of the Apostles; because, as less Cities are subject to greater, in Civil Government; so have the Churches of less Cities, alwaies depended upon Churches of greater Cities, throughout Christendom. Rome, Alex [...]ndria, Antiochia, were, from the beginning of Christianity, visible heads of these great resorts, in Church Government, which the Council of N [...]c [...] made subject to them by Canon Law, for the future. The eminence of other Cities, over their inferiour Churches, ap­pears in the Records of the Church, as soon as there is any mention of them to make it appea [...]. In these Churches, and in the Governors of them, the whole Authority of the Apostles was vested; For they constituted the Church.

In process of time, the Government of the Roman EmpireThe form of this dependence throughout the Roman Empire. was moulded anew under Constantine, otherwise then it had been by Augustus. But this new model was designed by Adrian. It made the chief Cities of the chief quarters of the Empire the Residences of the chief Commanders of the Armies, with civil Jurisdictions respective; Which civil Jurisdictions Constan [...]ine left them, when hee took from them their commands over the Armies. Carthage for Africk, Milane for Italy, (that part which was not under Rome) Triers for Gaule, Thessalonica for Illyricum, Ephesus for Asia,: Caesarea Cappadociae for Pontus; the pre-eminence of the Churches is as visible over the Churches of their inferiour Cities, in the records of the Church, as the pre-eminence of the Cities in the records of the Empire. And, according the course of all humane affairs, must not this, pre- [...]minence, of necessity, bee further limited, enlarged, or abated, in process of time, whether by written Law, or by si­lent▪ [Page 40] custom? For the effect hereof, I present to your consideration the Canons of the Council of Sardica; whick I take to bee the greatest advantage, that ever lawfully, and by regular means, accrewed to the Church of Rome, toward that greatness, which since it hath irregularly obtained. For it is visible, that they were the means to extend the superiority thereof over Illyricum; which continued, till the Eastern Empire, having the Church of Rome in jealousie, laid that whole Jurisdiction under the Church of Constantinople. The encrease of which Church, up­on the seating of the Empire at that City, (the ground which I allege for the superiority of all Churches) as it hath been unjustly opposed by the Church of Rome, so it is justly owned, by those who protest against the Usurpation of it.

They that would except Britaine out of this Rule, upon theNo exception to bee made to it, for the Bri­tish Church. act of the Welsh Bishops, refusing Austine the Monke for their head; should consider, that St. Gregory, setting him over the Saxon Church, which hee had founded, according to Rule, transgressed the Rule, in setting him over the Welsh Church. For the Canon of the Apostles maintains every Nation to bee governed by their own Bishop. Which the Welsh had reason then to insist upon, because of the jealousie which appeared from the Saxons, of their incroaching upon the Nation, if their Bishop should bee owned for the head of the Welsh Church. Setting this case aside, the rest of that little remembrance that remains, concerning the British Church, testifies the like respect from it to the Church of Rome, as appears from the Churches of Gaule, Spain, and Africk; of which there is no cause to doubt, that they first received their Christianity from the Church of Rome. And if so they did, then is there reason to conclude, that they owed it the respect which was due to their Mother Church; But, that they either owed it, or shew­ed it the respect of a Subject to the Sovereign, which none is challenged, none at all. As for Illyricum, which shew­ed the same respect after the Council of Sardica; it cannot bee thought to have owed it before, because it received not Chri­stianityEpiscopacy, by this form [...] in­violable in all opinions; And the Church a standing [...]y­nod. from Rome.

Hereby it may appear, that the Visible Unity of the Church must stand or fall with Episcopacy; And, therefore no marvel that it should not bee acknowledged, by them who acknowledg [Page 41] not Episcopacy. For, the soul of this unity consisting in the resort of inferiour Churches to superiours, and in the correspon­dence of parallel Churches; neither can this resort, nor this correspondence ever appear to have been had and exercised, but between Bishops, as heads, in behalf of their Churches. Whe­ther by a treaty of Bishops, personally assembled in Council, or by correspondence between Bishops, by means of their Presby­ters, Deacons or inferiour Clergy, good intelligence were pre­served between Churches, towards the maintaining of commu­nion in the whole; it maters not. The Church, in the form which I state, is a standing Synod, able, by consent of the chief Churches, containing the consent of their resorts, to conclude the whole. In all the records of the Church, let them shew me one Presbyter that ever answered for his Church, to the rest of the Church, at least in his own name; (for, if in the name of, and by Commission from his Bishop, it is for my turn) and let them take all. And therefore, though Episcopacy must needs bee declared for part of Gods Law, by the Scriptures, understood as the consent of the Church directeth; (against which, no Scripture can bee rightly understood) yet, supposing the Church Visible by Gods Law, I have enough to make them Schismatickes that oppose it; though I should make Episcopacy no part of Gods Law, but introduced by consent of the whole Church. For, that part which submitteth not to the consent of the Whole, in maters which Gods Law referreth to the Whole, for the preservation of that unity which it enacteth, are justly to bee taken for those that violate the Unity which Gods Law enacteth; Epecially, in a Law of that consequence, as one of those Rights, wherein the chief power of the Church con­sisteth. It is strange to see how fondly men argue; that Pres­byters have the power of the Keys, which made the Apostles Apostles; Therefore much more are they equal to Bishops. As if they could not have that power in private maters, between God and the conscience of particular Christians; Reserving the same power for the Bishops peculiar, in things, which, being publick, concern the Body of each Church. For, in the cause of Arius, this power was in the Council of Nicaea, and in no less. Had Athanasius of Alexandria, or Alexander of Constan­tinople loosed him, whom the Synod had bound; though at [Page 42] the instance of Constantine; they had been sinners to God and to his Church, in violating the Unity thereof; which hee hath made more inviolable then any temporal endowment of it.

How far are wee now, from having evidenced the Visible Unity of Gods Church to bee a part of the common Christiani­ty;The Church Vi­sible by disown­ing Haeretickes and Schisma­tickes. supposing these things proved, the proofes whereof have no way been insringed? Haeretickes are condemned by themselves, saith Paul; because they know they forsake that profession, up­on which they were baptized members of the Church. But it is Titus that is to refuse them. The Church avoids them be­cause the Bishop finds them incorrigible. If other Bishops, and their Churches, duely informed from Titus, do the like, then is the Visible Unity of the Church visible in their proceedings. If they do not the like, then must they break communion with Titus and his Church; by a perpetual Rule of the Church, holding all Excommunicate, that shall acknowledge an Excom­municate person to bee a member of the Church. But wee read of no breach in the Church, for any of those whom the Church hath declared Haeretickes; Except what shall by and by bee excepted. Thus far all the Church owneth the Visible Unity of the Church. As for Schisme, how many occasions of it have been prevented? The difference about keeping Ea­ster; the difference about rebaptizing Haeretickes; Many other differences have threatned breaches in the Church, which have been prevented, through the conduct of Christian Prelates. Other divisions that have come to pass, have been re-united sometimes, sometimes not. The communion of the Church of Sardinia with the rest of the Western Churches stood inter­rupted, by the discontents of Lucifer Archbishop there; And therefore, I conceive, for his time and no more. The Church of Antiochia stood divided within it self, under two Bishops, for a mater of threescore years; till, by the intercession of the West as well as of the East, it was re-united. The East, under Constantinople, stood divided from the West, under Rome, upon the cause of Acacius, for some seventy years; till the Church of Rome was satisfied. How long the Schism of Montanus lasted, (for at the first it was but a Schisme, if wee judge by Tertullian; who is the best record that remains of it) I say not. [Page 43] It seems to have turned into an Haeresie first, and then to no­thing, as other Haeresies have done. The Schisme of the No­vatians (for it was no more) seems to have returned to the Church by pieces. And so that of the Meletians. The Do­natists seem to have continued, till Africk was overrun by the Mahumetans. In all these breaches, what signifies the attribute of one Catholick Church, but a Visible Unity opposite to so many visible Apostasies? St. Austine saith, that if a stranger asked an Haeretick or Schismatick the way to the Catholick Church, hee durst not shew him the way to his own Church; because the title was not questionable. Not meerly because the Catholick had more belonging to it; (as some would have us judge of Religion by counting Noses) but as Optatus saith, quia rationalis, & ubique diffusa; because the due reason, why men are Christians, swayed men to stand to the unity of the Church all over; The undue reason, that moved men to break with it, prevailed but here and there. At all hands, discounting Hae­retickes and Schismatickes; whom they that follow do seldom approve; so many Christians, so many witnesses of one Ca­tholick Church, which, by being Catholick, was alwaies, and must needs bee Visible. And thus far wee have the same evi­dence for one Visible Church, as for the rest of Christia­nity.

After the Council of Ephesus, the reputation of Nestorius heldThe breaches that have come to pass evidence the same. entire in the East, notwithstanding the Decree of the Council. The Records of the Church have preserved us no intelligence, how, or by what means. Those that write of the Wars of the holy Land afterwards, represeut us the Nestorians in the East so numerous, as might well stumble those that pretend to decide the Controversie of Religion by the Poll, in our Western parts. But, whether the breach stood upon the opinion, or upon the person of Nestorius; is more then I am able to decide. For in Aegypt likewise, after many troubles about the Council of Chal­cedon, and the condemning of their Bishop Dioscorus by it; at length these Churches are counted Jacobites, from the name of one Jacobus Zanzalus, or little Jacob, of Syria, who is said to have taught them the position of Eutyches, condemned by that Council. Whether so, or whether a fond zeal for the reputation of Dioscorus hath served to divide that people from the Church, [Page 44] upon a meer difference in terms; the breach still continues, and the Abyssines, depending alwaies upon the Church of Alexan­dria, are said to continue in it. Since that, what breach of intercourse and communion hath fallen out between the Greek and Latine Church, or upon what cause, and how far it con­tinues, I need not relate. But there can bee no question, that it disposed these Western parts to that breach, which the Re­formation hath made. Within the Reformation, I need not speak of the Division between the Calvinists on the one side; and the Lutherans in the Empire, the Arminians in the Law Countries, on the other side. I am only this to demadn; did ever any of these parties declare that the Visible Unity, which these breaches interrupt, is not Gods Ordinance? That one of the Parties is not always guilty to God, for the mischief of Schisme? That Christian charity is not highly concerned, in vio­lating that Communion which Christianity enacteth? Until the dregs of our times, I do not know that it was ever Di­sputed, that Christians are not bound to bee members of one and the same Visible Church. I have already said, that the Reformation was not made by common consent. I must now acknowledg futher, that it proceeded not expresly upon the pro­fession of one Visible Church; though neither denying nor questioning the same. No marvel then, if in all things it bee not confined to the consequences of it. And therefore, no marvel, that dissentions have fallen out in it. No marvel that they, who dare not look so clear a principle in the face, can wrangle out the salvation of souls upon pety scruples, which the admitting of it must needs presently disperse.

CHAP. VII.

AS for the Church of England, where Episcopacy standsReformation to bee bounded by that wherein the Visible Church agre­eth. setled by the Law of the Land, as well as by the Law of God: and the right of goods consecrated to the Service of God, by investing them upon his Church, is maintained by the same; Are we not to fear the curse of God, if in all things of Religion wee mete not by the same Standard, if wee weigh not by the same Weights? Can wee pretend to weigh by the same Weights, unless wee admit the whole Faith, and all the Lawes of the Catholick Church? Unless wee confine the Re­formation to the restoring of that which hath been, without introducing that which cannot appear to have been? Men see new fanfies every day in the Scriptures, which the same man sees not to morrow, another man never sees. The Prof [...]ssion of Faith, the Rules of Government, the Rites of Gods service are the things, that must make a Church a part or no part of the Whole Church. For if the Church bee a Visible Body, it must bee visible by the Lawes which it useth. And, if it bee to con­tinue one and the same Body from the first to the second com­ing of our Lord, the Lawes of it will necessarily change, as the Lawes of all Bodies do; but the authority whence they proceed must needs continue the same. If corruption and abuse [Page 46] bee to bee Reformed, and those in whom the authority visibly resteth, agree not; Restoring that which was, you have the Authority of the Apostles and their successours, for the revi­ving of their acts; Introducing that which was not, you go by the spirit of the Fanatickes, the dictate whereof appears not in the Scriptures, by the consent of the Church. In fine, mater of Faith is, to the worlds end, the same that the whole Church hath always, from the beginning professed. If you impose more, the Church of Rome will have a better pretense then you can have; namely, a better claim to the authority of the Church. For it is an imposture to induce any man to think, that, professing Christianity, they can renounce the Scriptures. The issue is, and will bee, whether you or the Church shall be judge; Untill you distinguish between the present Church and the Whole Church; not contesting the Faith of the present Church, so far as it holds with the Whole. But, in mater of Church Law, which, for the reason that hath been said, is necessarily changeable; though the difference of times, and the estate of things, will not indure the restoring of Primitive Discipline; yet shall it bee easie thereby to discern, what is abated for Unities sake, what is rejected, because the Catholick Church and the Lawes of it are not owned.

And upon these terms, it will bee easie to answer all demands,No change, without regard to the Rules of the Catholick Church. not only here, but at the great day of Judgement; at which, otherwise, the account cannot bee clear. They that would have it thought, that the mischiefs which wee have seen have not been acted for nothing, would have the Law of the Kingdom, in mater of Religion, changed to give them content; without considering what cause wee give the Church of Rome, to take us for Schismatickes, balking the Whole Church, that wee may bee reconciled to those that have broken from us. For, sup­posing for the present, though not granting, that all Papists are Idolaters, and the Pope Antichrist; The Unity of the Church, is nevertheless, as it hath been proved, a part of Christian truth. Nor can Papists bee Idolaters, or the Pope Antichrist, for beleev­ing any thing which the Whole Church beleeveth; for command­ing, or for practicing that, which the Whole Church hath com­manded or practiced. Nay, not for that, which the Whole Church of any age hath allowed part of the Church to practice. [Page 47] For, God forbid it should bee said, (which it were senseless to imagine) that part of the Christian World should own part of it for Christians, being indeed Idolaters, and Partizans of Anti­christ. The Church must have been utterly lost in that case; and the Reforming of it must not bee the mending of the old Church, but the making of a new Church. Yet is it not enough for these men, to allege the antient Church in any particular. They must weigh by their own Weights, and mete by their own Standard, if they will not fall under Gods curse. They that stand not to the consent of the Church in all things, answer them­selves when they allege it. Nay, they may invite us to bee Schis­matickes for their sakes, in that, for which they truly allege the antient Church. A justifiable, nay a commendable custom of the antient Church may come out of use, without any violence, any fraud, any purpose, to defeat that pious intent, to which such a custom was instrumental. They who had rather break with the Church of Rome, then comply with a change, which the change of time, and the state of things by time, hath brought to pass, should bee, in my opinion, Schismatickes. But, what if our Fanatickes should bee content, silently to return into the communion of this Church, as Presbyterians? What if it appear, that they are Bullion Haeretickes, for the positions they profess; though not stamped by conviction, and contumacy succeeding, and the Declaration of the Church upon that? It will not then bee clear how wee shall wipe off that imputation, to which wee shall bee liable by the perpetual Rule of Gods Church; for re­ceiving and communicating with those that have stamped them­selves Schismatickes as Schismatickes, those that have declared themselves Bullion Haeretickes, as Bullion Haeretickes; without any ground to presume that they are changed. Certainly, wee cannot allege the Catholick Church for our selves, but it will rise in judgementagainst us, when wee stick not to it.

What condition wee fall into, if wee submit to the ChurchRegular autho­rity in the Church of Rome the means of unity; absolute, of Schisme. of Rome, upon terms of conquest, it is manifest enough. For, wherein the Pope hath not limited his own authority, by the Council of Trent, wee render our selves to the mercy of it. Missionaries shall have done a great effect, if they perswade us that wee are Schismatickes, unless wee return to those abuses, which wee see with our eyes, which wee handle with our hands, they [Page 48] are so evident and so gross. Well may they perswade simple Christians, that they must first resolve which is the true Church, and then, what is true and what is false in Religion, by that which the Church, so resolved, teaches. This is a great deal the shorter way, then to justifie the particulars, which by this means, they impose upon them. And if wee render our selves upon these terms, what remains, but that wee admit whatsoever the Pope shall impose for the future; though wee know, that the Power of the Whole Church extends not to it? Which, how shall wee answer at the Day of Judgement, either for our selves, or those that depend upon us? And yet I have shewed, that the Church of Rome hath, and ought to have, when it shall please to hear reason, a regular pre-eminence over the rest of Christen­dom, in these Western parts. And, hee that is able to judge, and willing to consider, shall find that pre-eminence the only reasonable means, to preserve so great a Body in Unity. And therefore, I count not my self tied to justifie Henry the VIII. in disclaiming all such pre-eminence; when it was enough for his purpose, to disown it, as not extending to his case. For, by the regular constitution of the Church, which I have de­scribed, if the Pope excommunicate any man injustly, he does it in his own wrong; hee excommunicates himself thereby, from all that shall adhere to him whom hee excommunicates. His advantage is only this; If more adhere to the chief Church then to the less. For which, though there bee regularly a pre­sumption; yet, if Usurpation appear, either in sentencing, or in the mater, or in the effect of the sentence, hee that exceeds his authority breaks it upon him that exceeds not; like the waves of the sea against a rock.

But, of the Usurpations of that Church, wherein they con­sist,How wee are visibly one with the only Church of God, Refor­ming without the Church of Rome. and by what means effected, in due place; that the diffe­rence may bee Visible, between the infinite and the regular pow­er of the Pope. In the mean time, what I have said of this point, I must say of all maters in difference; That, as the Church of Rome cannot hinder us of restoring our selves to the Primitive Right of the Church, by which a Christian King­dom, duely may maintain the Service of God; (neither con­senting to the abuses which other Churches maintain, nor breaking with them in other maters) so are wee to go no further, [Page 49] then the consent of the Church will bear us out. For if we make new and private conceits, of the Scripture, and the sense of it, Law to the Church, which wee Reform, wee found a new Church, upon that Christianity, which the only Church of God never owned. But if wee only restore that, which, by abuse of time, may appear to have come to decay; wee impe and ingraffe the Church which wee Reform, into that only Church, which they that Reformed not succeed. For how should wee depart from Unity with that Church, the authority whereof wee follow in the change which wee make? If there­fore wee are to bee without offense to Jewes and Gentiles, and to the Churches of God; as St. Paul commands; then are wee to bee without offense also to the Church of Rome. Now it is no offense to the Church of Rome, that wee build Unity among our selves upon an opposition to the abuses of it. But, if upon an opposition to that which it holdeth from the Whole Church, wee give them cause to take us for Schismatickes, as not re­verencing in her, the Whole Church, which wee are bound to hold with.

CHAP. VIII.

UPon these terms, the choice of Religion would becomeWhat means God hath pro­vided private Christians to discern the true Church. more clear (which otherwise must become far more doubtful) by the setling of our present differences. For, I grant it a thing too difficult for every Christian, that is con­cerned [Page 50] to chuse his Communion, to try the particulars in con­troversie by the consent of the Church. But I maintain the same difficulty in trying which Church it is, that preacheth the true Word of God, and rightly and duly administreth the Sa­craments; which others would have the marks of the true Church. For, without trying the particulars in Controversie, how shall it appear where the Word is preached, where the Sacraments are ministred as they should bee? And how shall they bee tryed, but by the Scriptures, expounded according to the consent of the Church? As for them that would have us take the decree of the present Church to bee Infallible; they are first to tell us, upon whose credit wee take that Infallibility. For, you see, wee believe not the present Church that it is the Church; to wit, founded by God. Wee accept it upon the con­sent of the whole Church. Neither is any thing Infallible in Christianity, but upon the same ground. It is not the decree of the present Church, but the witness and agreement of the Whole Church, that renders any thing Infallible. Now, it is true, every Christian hath the Judgment of discretion, in the choice of Religion, in point of fact; That is to say; supposing the division, or rather the divisions that are on foot in the Church. But in point of Right, it ought to bee otherwise; God having provided the Unity of the Church, on purpose, that simple Christians might not bee put to so hard a choice. For, when the Catholick Church was so Visibly distinct from all Sects, that a Sectary would have been laughed at, had hee called his own Church the Catholick Church of that City; Willfully must hee perish, that should forsake that Church, which hee could not mistake. But in our case, what avails it to allege the Title of Catholick, while the ground of the Title remains disputable? Especially, the division between the Greek and Latine Church having rendred it almost insignificant afore: And the number of Protestants, as I said of Nestorians, rendring it questionable, where the signification will light.

Seeing therefore, that the malice of man, by dividing theThe duty of all estates, for the re-uniting of Schisme. Church, rendreth it Invisible, as hard to bee seen; though not Invisible, as not possible to bee seen; What remaineth, but that all publick persons, and whosoever is interessed in the divisions of the Church, understand and consider what account they owe, [Page 51] for the Souls that must needs miscarry, by the divisions, which they maintain wheu they need not? For how shall hee bee clear, that professes not a desire of condescending to all that which truth will allow, on either side, for the advantage of peace on both sides? And seeing neither side can make peace without the consent of both, but either may have truth alone; What re­maineth, but that all Reformation bee confined within those bounds, which the Faith and the Law of the Catholick Church fixeth? For, though they that profess and intend to Reforme by that Rule may fail, in applying their Rule to some matters; Though, seeing what the Rule requires, they may bee fain to abate of it, because the Body which they intend to regulate is not capable of the strict Rule; Yet it is a reasonable ground of confidence, for a single heart, that the right Rule is expresly professed to bee intended. For, though in all divisions, the par­ties, acknowledging One Visible Church, must needs hold the one the other Schismaticks, unless they will bear the blame of the division themselves; Yet is there no appearance in reason, that God will take them for Schismaticks, that follow so fair a profession in general, though it may not come to effect in some particular.

And this is the only way, to provide a clear discharge for theThe ground and extent of Se­cular Power in Church maters. Secular Power, that is Sovereign; in establishing such a Refor­mation by Law, to the people of it, and enacting the same with such priviledges and penalties, as Christianity either al­loweth or requireth. For it is manifest, from the premises, that the Church, by Gods Law, is Judge in the matter of all Lawes, according to which, Religion is to be enacted by any So­vereign. Yet is the Sovereign Power Judge also of their Judg­ment, as not only it self, a Member of the Whole Church, and Heir to all right, which the Unity thereof intitleth any Christian to; but as Protector of the Church, and of the Faith, and Lawes of it; That is, as Protector of all Subjects within the Church of the respective Dominions, in all right, which the Law of the Church in the Dominion thereof setleth. And therefore bound to judge, whether that which the Church, ei­ther of the respective Dominion, or united with the same, shall determine, bee such, as the Uuity of the Whole Church either alloweth, or requireth; or not. For, it is onely the Sovereign [Page 52] Power, that can enact it for a Law upon all the Subjects there­of, to the effect of Secular priviledges or penalties. And, see­ing the Faith and Communion of the Church is the inheritance of the Secular Power, that is Christian; It is manifest that hee is trusted for his Subjects, in matter of Religion, to no pur­pose, if hee bee to trust the Church at large, in the matter of his Office. And yet, Gods Law having provided the Church, to limit all matters questionable upon the constitution of the Church; It is also manifest, that all Secular Power is to sup­pose the Faith of the Church, as always the same from the be­ginning: And the Lawes in being, as acts of the same authori­ty which was founded by God in the Whole Church from the beginning, before any Secular Power was Christian; Which if it protect not, why is it Christian? I say it is bound to ac­ce [...]t them for such, in case it appear not, by the Faith and the Lawes of the Whole Church, that they are otherwise. And in that case, though the Secular Power be Judge for it self; yet the Church, and the Law of the Church, is the Rule by which it is to judge. As for that which present necessity requireth [...]o be restored, or setled a new for the Church respective to every Sovereignty; It is also mani [...]est, that the Secular Power both may, and ought to see the Church under it to do their Office; Knowing that it is their Of­fice, as to preserve the Faith, which is always the same; So, to maintain Unity, by suiting the Laws which are to be, with those which have been from the beginning; Whereof common rea­son, in all publick Powers, is a competent Judge. I need say nothing, that Secular Powers may, and are to see, that, under pretense of Ecclesiastical Power, or Jurisdiction, their own rights bee not invaded; having said; That the power of the Church produceth no Secular effect. But, as the enacting of the Church Lawes, with Secular priviledges and penalties, is onely the effect of Secular Power: So is it accountable to God alone for the use of it.

And as the Unity of the whole Church must needs bee con­cerned,How the Con­science of So­v [...]reign Power [...] ▪ in the Lawes of the Church, respective to this or that Sovereignty; So is it not possible, that any Sovereign should bee Judge, in the concernments of those that are not his Sub­jects. The divisions of Christendome, which I alleged afore, make full evidence for this. For what need further dispute [Page 53] about Religion, were Subjects, as Subjects, by Gods Law, bound to stand to the will of their Sovereigns, in that which concerns them as Christians? This shews, how much Sove­reigns are concerned, for their discharge to God, to seek the peace of Christendome. For, if, as at present, it cannot bee had upon just terms, it is not the opinion of this or that Divine; It is not the opinion of any person whatsoever, not acting in a quality capable, by the constitution of the Church, to oblige the Church respective to the Sovereign; Much less is it his per­sonal skill in matters of Religion, (though as great as any mans) that can serve for his discharge to God. Hee is answerable to God, notwithstanding any such advise, for any wrong, that the priviledges and penalties otherwise enacted may do. But maintaining, first the express profession of the Rule hither­to established; bounding all Reformation of the present Church, by that which the consent of the Whole Church ei­ther alloweth, or requireth; Then, maintaining them in their Office, whose Office it is, to forme that, which his act must make Law to his Subjects; There will need no more for his discharge to God, then the use of that Judgment which God hath endowed him with, to discern, whether the Rule which hee protecteth bee duly applyed to that which hee enacteth, or not. For as no reason can bee excused to God, transgressing that which it seeth; So, in things doubtful, to preferre any rea­son before that which God trusteth, in the matter of such trust, is to render a mans self accountable to God, for that wrong which may bee done; for which, otherwise, those that are tru­sted by God should bee accountable.

CHAP. IX.

BUt I must now profess, that the weightiest point, in re-uni­tingDifficulty in receiving the Fanaticks into this Church. the breaches of Religion in this Church, is the Con­dition, upon which, the Fanaticks may bee, either reconciled to it, or shut out of it; whether with free exercise of their several Sects, or under certain penalties, as Recusants. I see that they are not afraid to pretend a further liberty, of Publick Preachers, even since the Lawes of this Land were in force. For I find that such of them, as are not Ministers of Congregations, do, notwithstanding, stile themselves Publick Preachers. Which is nothing else, then to pretend that authority, from the Secu­lar Power, which they had by the late Usurpation; to seduce as many of his Majesties Subjects as they can to their Conven­ticles. But that I will say nothing of, because I make certain account, that, whensoever wee come to any settlement in Reli­gion, they will find that their pretense to bee vain. That which I insist upon is that, which, I conceive, I have proved; that the positions which they notoriously challenge are down-right Hae­resie; wanting only conviction, to produce, either conversion or contumacy: and the declaration of the Church upon the [Page 55] same. For it is notorious, that they challenge the present en­dowment of Gods Spirit, and the certainty of Salvation for the future, upon no further consideration, then of their per­sons; As not depending upon the Christianity which they either profess or perform. So far they are from acknowledging, that it dependeth upon their being Members of Gods Church, by living according to that Christianity which it professeth. For, because they think themselves Members of Christ, before they bee Members of Gods Church; Therefore they think themselves enabled by God, to divide the Church in infinitum: And, that the Conventicles of their Congregations are Churches to the same effect, with those which were founded by the Apostles; Though they profess not the Faith, though they renounce the Unity of one Visible Church. Therefore they openly allow those who maintain, that God can see no sin in his Elect; That their sins are pardoned from everlasting, before they bee done; That God shall not judge by our works, but by his own de­crees; That there are Inspirations of the Holy Ghost without the Word, though not against it; for dear Members of Christ, and the cream of Christians. And hence comes the everlasting divisions which they maintain. For, to renounce those bounds, which the Faith of the Church, and the Unity thereof fixeth, is enough to commend them to all parties that do so, for the Godly. In fine, the whole fry of this errour resolves it self in two Positions; That God praedestinateth to Salvation, meerly in consideration of mens persons, and not of any Christianity, which they shall bee found to have professed and performed: And, that the knowledge of this Praedestination, revealed by the Word, and sealed by the Spirit, immediately, not suppo­sing the Christianity which they profess and perform, is that Faith which only justifieth.

I cannot say that the Presbyterians do expresly profess theseHow their Po­sitions destroy the Faith. Positions. For they have an express Confession of their Faith, which expresseth them not. But seeing them, in all occasions of publick confusion, render themselves considerable by these Fanaticks, as being of one and the same party; I must take it for granted, that they think their Profession reconcileable with these Positions. Especially knowing how many particular Di­vines, and Preachers of that party, have maintained the same; [Page 56] Namely, all that maintain justifying Faith, and the Knowledge and Assurance of a mans Salvation, without and before Re­pentance. I do not then say, that the belief of absolute Prae­destination is Haeresie in the sight of God. Because it may bee held with other positions, which are an antidote to the venime of it, as being really contradictory to it; Which contradicti­on, did those that hold it perceive, they could not hold it. For, this contradiction suffers not the consequence of Haeresie to take effect. But, both positions together, I have maintained to bee down-right Haeresie. Neither have I been shewed, or of my self discovered any reason, sufficient to think otherwise. And therefore, I must continue to weigh by my own Weights, and to mete by my own Measures.

For, that the ground and substance of Christianity is utterlyAbsolute Prae­destination to Glory destru­ctive to Chri­stianity. inconsistent with the Decree which they imagine, is manifest, if any thing can bee manifest in Christianity. Because, if there were any such Decree, then could not men be judged at the last day; as judged they shall bee; by their works. There is no Decree of God that shall not bee executed. If God decree from everlasting, to give glory and torment for everlast­ing, without consideration of mens works, then must hee, with­out such consideration, give it in time. For otherwise, hee should not execute that which hee decrees. And indeed, such a Decree can no way bee undefeasible; as all Gods Decrees must bee; Unless God determine and move every man, to every thing that hee doth, every moment of his life, upon the account whereof hee shall bee saved or damned; And that before his own will determine or move it self. But if God should so determine and move mans will, then would the tender of the Gospel bee a meer abuse, and a mockery; Inviting mankind to Salvation upon a Condition, which, unless God determine and move him to perform, hee cannot; If hee do, hee cannot but perform. The justice of Gods proceedings, at the last day, stands upon this; That a man might have transgressed that, for which hee is re­warded or punished: And the obligation of Christianity in this; That, by the help which it tendreth, a man is able to do that which it requireth. Again, if wee may bee assured of the ef­fect of our Christianity, (the endowment of Gods Spirit here, and everlasting Salvation in the world to come) before wee bee [Page 57] assured that wee have performed it; How can wee bee obliged, either to profess or to perform that, which, it is to no effect, either to profess or to perform, if the effect bee had, without either professing or performing it? For, I challenge the common reason of men, to question this; That no effect can depend up­on any condition, which a man can bee sure of, before hee bee sure, whether hee have the condition or not. So that, hee that is sure of his Salvation, before hee bee sure, whether hee bee a good Christian or not, cannot think it a condition necessary to Salvation, that hee bee a good Christian. And therefore must needs think, that hee may bee saved, without being a good Christian. Nor will it serve the turn to say, that hee is not therefore saved without being a good Christian; Because, if hee bee so assured, hee is also assured, that God will make him a good Christian. For in that case, Christianity would not bee the condition upon which Salvation; and therefore the assu­rance of Salvation; should depend. But a mean, by which God would save him, whom hee should decree to save; upon no condition of being a Christian. Whereas, if Christianity bee true, and if God shall judge us by our works, wee must bee saved by performing that Christianity which wee are to pro­fess, and not otherwise.

For I must here begin, where I left afore; when I said, thatJustifying Faith includeth the profession of Christiani­ty. they who define justifying faith, without including the professi­on of Christianity in it, do mistake the very ground of the Christian Faith. No man can bee a Disciple of Christ, (that is, a Christian; For they who were called Disciples of Christ afore, were called Christians at Antiochia) without taking up Christs Cross; That is, professing to dye for Christianity, if it bee re­quisite; If not, to forgo any advantage of this world, which a man cannot hold, doing the duty of a good Christian. It is manifest, that it is not the inward belief of the heart, but the outward profession of the mouth, that rendereth a Christian liable to Christs Cross. For, could a man bee saved denying Christ, there were no cause why hee should suffer for Christ. Seeing therefore that Christ manifestly requires a Christian to take up his Cross; it is manifest, that Justification, which Chri­stianity promiseth, is not to bee had without professing Christi­anity. Who ever beleeved it, but the disciples of Simon Ma­gus, [Page 58] the Gnostickes; that would needs go for Christians with Christians, but do as Jews or Gentiles did, to avoid persecu­tion from Jews or Gentiles. With the heart a man beleeveth to righteousness, saith St. Paul. Good reason. For, hee that be­leeveth, that God sent our Lord to preach that righteousness which Christianity professeth, must bee a strange creature, if hee find not himself obliged to the righteousness, which God sent him to preach. But it is inherent righteousness, to which, the belief of Christs message and commission induceth. That righteousness to which salvation belongeth, by that positive will of God which his Gospel declareth, is an attribute which the said gracious will of God alloweth, when the worth of inherent righteousness cannot challenge it. Therefore, with the mouth a man professeth to salvation, saith St. Paul. The positive Will of God hath tied the promise of salvation for the future, and justification, (the title to salvation) for the present, to the po­sitive act of professing Christianity; not to the perpetual obliga­tion of all righteousness. And therefore this profession was not necessary, till our Saviour commanded to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, at his going out of the world. Not that, before that time, the Disciples of Christ could be saved, denying Jesus to bee the Christ. But because, the profession of Christianity was not properly the condition of salvation, till the Baptism of Christ was instituted; till the A­postles were commanded to make men Christians, (teaching them to observe all that Christ had given them in charge;) by baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So that, by this precept; wherein, the sum and substance of Christianity consisteth; the profession of Christianity, which our Lord had required, for the condition of his Gospel, before, was limited to the Faith of the Holy Trinity, for mater of belief; though extending to all that our Lord had taught afore, concerning the life of a Christian. And herewith agreeth the doctrine of St. Peter, 1 Pet. III. 20. ascribing salvation to baptism, not in re­gard of cleansing the flesh, which is the outward ceremony, but of the profession of Christianity, when it is made with a good conscience; whereby a man solemnly undertakes that righteousness which Christianity requires. And hereupon, the belief of one Catholick Church becomes a part of the common [Page 59] Christianity: as the founding of it becomes a necessary conse­quence, of making salvation to consist in professing Christianity. For, as it were ridiculous to think, that any man can attain salvation, by making that profession, which, out of a good conscience, hee intendeth not to perform: so were it ridiculous to think, that a man should attain the state of salvation, by pre­fessing that for Christianity, which the profession of one Catholick Church of God doth not allow.

Adde hereunto the consideration of the name and nature ofThe Nature of Faith, accor­ding▪ to the Scriptures, sheweth the same. Faith, and the attributes and effects that are ascribed unto it, in holy Scripture. It is certain, that Faith signifieth, commonly, the belief of Christs Gospel. It signifies also, oft enough, trust and confidence in God; and that through our Lord Christ, when the Faith of Christians is meant. But the one of these goes before justification, the other comes after, and presupposes it. For, who will undertake that all those who believe that Christs Gospel is true are justified, though they live not as it requireth? And yet it is plain, that no man is justified but he that so beleev­eth. Now, trust in God is either confidence that God will bee, or that he is reconciled. The Gospel is sufficient ground of as­surance, that God will be reconciled with whosoever will un­dertake the condition which it requireth. But he that hath this confidence is not justified by it, but by undertaking the conditi­on which it requireth. Therefore hee hath this confidence be­fore hee bee justified. For, being once justified, hee hath ground to trust in God as reconciled. But hee must bee justified before this confidence can bee well grounded. For otherwise, it will bee so far from justifying, that hee will bee condemned for it. There is therefore a third signification of Faith in holy Scripture▪ comprizing the outward act of professing, as well as the inward act of beleeving: And supposing this outward act of profession limited, by the positive Law of the Gospel, to the Sacrament of Baptism. According to which signification, the antient Church counted not Christians Fideles, faithful or beleevers, till they were baptized. This is in the middle between the other two. For, as belief goes before it, so, it is the ground of the trust and confidence of a Christian. And this, therefore, is that, which all those Scriptures, that ascribe the promises of the Gospel to Faith, make properly justifying Faith. For, accor­ding [Page 60] to the use and custom of all Languages, they are ascribed to belief, bya Metonymy of the cause going before; to trust and confidence, by a Metonymy of the effect following upon it. But this will not hold, till we pitch upon that which comes be­tween both, as that which qualifieth a Christian for those pre­mises. When therefore, the belief of Christs Gospel causes a man to take up Christs Cross, in Baptisme, then hath he that Faith which justifieth; though that which prepares to it, and that which insues upon it, are honoured with the same attribute, for being so neer of kindred to it.

But the consideration of the question which St. Paul disputeth,So doth the State of that question, which St. Paul dis­puteth. visible in the writings of the Apostles, suffereth no doubt of his meaning, when hee argueth; that Faith alone justifieth. It is as clear as the Sun at noon, that all his Dispute is with those Christians, who, having submitted to the Gospel, could not conceive, that the Law had no hand in justifying them, whom they saw live according to the Law: And that, by the direction of that Apostles themselves, for the gaining of the Jews. A thing which they dispensed with for a long time, till St. Paul was constrained to declare against it, as rooting up the necessity of Christianity, and salvation by it alone. That this is the state of the Question; all the New Testament, after the Gospels, is witness. And therefore, to be justified by Faith alone, is with St. Paul, to bee justified by Christianity alone. And whereas they were all assured, that salvation was to bee had under the Law; he shews every where, that the Fathers, who were ju­stified before, or under the Law, were not justified by the Law, but by the Gospel, that was vailed under it; notas Jews but as Christians. And therefore, that the Gentiles which turned Christians were saved by the same Grace, as beleeving Jews. For as no works, which they were able to do by the light and strength of Nature, were able to bring those that were without the Law, to the state of Gods Grace; no more could the out­ward observation of Moses Law, by those works which meer nature was able to produce, (as tending no further, then the temporal reward of the Laws of Canaan, expresly promised by Moses Law) render men acceptable to God, for the reward which Christians expect in the world to come. But, by Heg [...] ­sippus in Eusebius, wee understand; that the Gnosticks, teaching [Page 61] that the bare profession of Christianity, without bearing the Cross for the performing of it, was enough to save those, that should attain to the secrets which they taught; debauched and deflowred the Church of Jerusalem, as soon as St. James was dead. And therefore, seeing that could not bee done in a mo­ment; wee have cause to think that they went to work in his life time. The consideration whereof shews, that St. James; in arguing that a Christian is justified by works, and not by Faith alone; intended to teach, that the profession of Christianity ju­stifieth not when it is not performed. And therefore St. Paul inten­ded the same, in arguing, that a Christian is justified by Faith alone, without the works of the Law. To wit, that hee is ju­stified by professing Christianity so cordially, and with so good a conscience, as to perform it.

And for this sense of the Scriptures, there is as current and asThe consent of the Church herein, with the ground of it. general a consent of all the whole Church, as for Christianity it self; the life and soul whereof standeth in it. Shew me any Au­thor approved in the Church, that ever allowed salvation without Baptisme, when it could bee had; (when it could not, the profession of him that desiveth it is as clear, as if his flesh were cleansed) that compriseth not the taking up of Christs Cross, by professing Christianity, in the nature and virtue of justifying Faith; that opposeth that Faith which alone justifieth to any other works, then those of Moses Law. But there is no such thing to bee shewed. This is every where to bee shewed, in all writings any way allowed by the Church; that the justification of a Christian dependeth upon the performance of that which hee professeth: And the Promises of the Gospel, which hee attain­eth by undertaking to live as a Christian, upon the good works whereby hee performeth the same. And the honour of Christi­anity cannot stand otherwise. There is no sin which it cleanseth not. The reason is, because there is no righteousness to which it obligeth not. Hee who beleeveth, that our Lord Christ tender­eth salvation, upon condition of beleeving and living as a Chri­stian, cannot expect that which hee tendereth, without retur­ning that which hee requireth. But hee that is overtaken in sin, by this Faith, can do no more for the present, then undertake so to beleeve, and so to live for the future. Thereby hee under­takes all righteousness for the future. And by undertaking [...] ▪ [Page 62] is translated, from the state of damnation for sin, to the state of salvation by grace. Which if hee attain without undertaking, if hee retain without performing, then doth not Gods glory ap­pea [...] by his Gospel. But there is no thing so particular to this purpose, as those sayings, whereby the Fathers declare, that a Christian is justified by Faith alone, in case he dye upon his Baptisme; If he survive, then, that hee is justified by the works, whereby his profession is performed. Of which sayings, having produced a considerable number, I am by them to measure the meaning of all the rest of their writings.

The Articles of this Church, setting forth justification byThe sense of this Church. Faith alone, for a most wholsome Doctrine, and full of comfort; for the sense of it, refer us to the Homily upon that subject. I will not say that my Position is laid down in that Homily. For there are many Passages of it, which shew them that penned it, no way clear in that point. Yet there are divers sentences of the Fathers alleged in it, which cannot bee understood to other purpose; and other passages well agreeing with it. But in the Church Catechisme, and in the Office of Baptisme, it is so clear­ly laid down, as will serve for ever to silence any other sense. And though that which the Clergy subscribeth bee, as it ought to bee, a wholsome Doctrine; to wit, if soundly understood; yet, that by which Christian people are saved, ought to bee that, which the Offices of the Church, and the instruction which it proposeth contain.

CHAP. X.

NOw I confess, there is another opinion of justifying Faith,Why justifying Faith is not trust in God through Christ. in which I find nothing of any consequence, that is de­structive of Christianity; Namely, that which placeth justifying faith in trust and confidence of Gods mercy through Christ. For this opinion necessarily supposeth Repentance to go before justi­fying Faith. And Repentance, understanding it to bee the Re­pentance of one that turns from all sin to all Righteousness; such as is the Repentance of him that first turneth Christian; signifies as much as the undertaking of Christianity. Only it signifies this resolution in the way not in the end, not made but in making, in fieri not in facto esse. But, understanding the Repentence of a Christian, turning from some particular sin to God, according to the obligation of his Christianity; his being justified of that [Page 64] sin, or from that sin, will, of necessity, require and presuppose his Repentance of that sin. Notwithstanding, because this opi­nion expresseth onely the inward act of Faith to bee the conditi­on, that qualifieth a Christian for the promises of the Gospel; though it doth not exclude the profession of the outward man; I have laid it aside, not only as not true, for the reasons that I have gsven already, but as not sufficiently expressing the conditi­on of the Covenant of Grace. For it is, therefore, the means to continue those everlasting Disputes, about Justification by Faith alone, which, the very mention of the outward act of pro­fession, limited, for the manner of it, to the Sacrament of Bap­tisme, utterly extinguisheth.

As for the Decree of the Council of Trent, seeming to confineOf Justificati­on according to the Council of Trent. the justification of a Christian to the infusion of habitual righte­ousness into that soul, which, being truly contrite for the sense of sin, and the offense of God by it, resolves, for the love of God above all, to live as a Christian for the future, professing so much by being baptized; It is liable to a two-fold challenge. First, for excluding the positive act of Gods Law, which the Gospel enacteth; by accepting the righteousness of a Christian, as a condition sufficiently qualifying for the Promises of the Gospel, by Gods original justice. Secondly, for excluding the impu­tation of Christs obedience from the consideration, in which a Christian is justified, and saved, and in a word, intitled to the Promises of the Gospel. A thing which that Council need not have done. For it is manifest, that Pighius, Gropper, Car­dinal Contarine, Cassander, and many others, the best studied in Luthers controversies of all that communion, had owned and embraced it for the Doctrine of St. Bernard, and divers other highly approved Authors. Besides that, including the Sacra­ment of Baptisme; that is, the outward act of professing Chri­stianity; in the condition upon which a Christian is justified, it is not possible to exclude, either the act of Gods positive will, to which the Gospel engageth him, or the consideration of Christs obedience, from the same. And including the con­sideration of them, the justification of a Christian will of ne­cessity consist in the gracious account of God, accepting of him that is chargeable with sin, for righteous; though it pre­supposes in him that habituall righteousness, whereby he re­solves [Page 65] to live and dye a good Christian. And therefore they also, not excluding expresly that which they do not expresly include, the worse Divines they would bee, as to this opinion, the better Christians they are; that is, the less they depart from the right Rule of Faith.

And indeed the Haeresie of Socinus, which hath appearedOf justification according to Socinus. since that Council, gives cause to believe, that the imputation of Christs righteousness to the justifying of a Christian (which the Reformation, for good reasons, insisted upon) was not di­stinctly understood between the parties, as it ought to have been. Hee maketh the belief of Christianity to bee that Faith which alone justifieth, in this regard; because hee that be­leeves it to bee true, must needs find himself obliged, for his salvation, to live and dye a good Christian. Which had been a very good reason, why justification should not be ascribed to Faith alone. For, if a man bee saved by living and dying a good Christian indeed, not by finding himself obliged so to do; then is hee justified by undertaking to profess Christsanity, and not by beleeving it; though by beleeving it, hee is oblig­ed so to do. But, as for the profession of Christianity; I do not marvel, that hee who intended to bring in a new Christia­nity should make no reckoning of it, in the condition upon which a Christian is saved. For it is the Christianity of the Catholick Church, which he that will be saved must profess, if hee mean to bee saved by professing true Christianity. And therefore, the profession of one Catholick Church is a part of it. And therefore, hee hath found the true consequence of his own position; when hee makes no more of Baptisme, then of an in­different ceremony, which the Church may use or not, at plea­sure. For, how should any man make any more of Baptisme, that allows salvation before it; and therefore without it? Other­wise Socinus is free enough, in ascribing the effect of justifying, not to the worth of that Faith which beleeveth, or of that Chri­stianity, to which it resolveth; But to the meer grace of God, of his own free goodness, sending, by Christ, salvation to mankind overtaken in sin, upon the condition of their Christia­nity for the future.

The venim of his Haeresie lies in excluding the considerati­onWherein his Haeresic con­sisteth. of the obedience and sufferings of Christ, either from the [Page 66] reason, for which God Grants the grace that makes men good Christians, or for which hee rewards their Christianity, with the life of the world to come. The Decree of the Council of Trent fully acknowledgeth the consideration of Christs merits, in the helps of grace, without which wee are not good Christi­ans. But, in as much as it maketh Christians righteous before God by their habitual righteousness; insomuch, and so far, must it needs exclude the consideration thereof, from the con­dition qualifying for everlasting life. That is, as they expresly include it not, so, they may bee said to exclude it; Though on the other side, as they expresly exclude it not, so, they may bee said to include it. But Socinus hath plainly taken up diverse Articles of the Haeresie of Pelagius; affirming that A­dam must have dyed, though hee had not sinned: and that Christ came not to cure any sin, that by his fall is become Ori­ginal to his Posterity: Or to procure any Grace, which Original sin rendreth necessary to make us good Christians; But only to assure the World, by his Doctrine, and by his example, that God will make good his Message, if wee fail not on our side. And having thus excluded the consideration of his merit, either in declaring the Gospel, or in performing it; what necessity re­mained, why he should bee God? This is the Pedigree of this Haeresie, complicated of the Haeresies of Pelagius and Pau­lus S [...]mosatenus; as this later, of the Haeresies of Ebion and Artemas, and of Sabellius. For, as Liberatus, Arch-deacon of Carthage, hath well observed, in his Abridgement of the Troubles of Nestorius and Eutyches; Samosatenus, denying the God-head of Christ, with Ebion and Artemas, as concerning the Holy Ghost, must of necessity say with Sabellius, as Socinus doth; that hee is the virtue and efficacy; that is to say, a meer notional attribute, of the Fathers God-head.

In the mean time Socinus, excluding satisfaction by ChristsHow the mis­understanding of Satisfaction and Imputation occasioned it. Obedience, hath expresly excluded all imputation of it; be­ing the immediate consequence of satisfaction: and the effect of it, in order of reason; but, in nature and being, the same thing with it. Now, it appears by the body of his Doctrine, that hee had conceived a deep dislike of the opinion which I count Haeresie; that placeth justifying Faith in beleeving a mans self to bee predestinated to life from everlasting. And therefore [Page 67] understood the imputation of Christs righteousness, as that opi­nion must needs understand it; Namely, that men are reconciled to God by the death of Christ, (their sins being pardoned be­fore they bee done, and they adopted to the glory they shall one day have) without consideration of any condition qualify­ing for it; Which uo man of common reason will take to bee the sense of St. Bernard, or other learned Divines of the Church of Rome, that have allowed imputation to righteousness. And therefore, it will bee necessary to distinguish a two-fold sense in the imputation of Christs obedience, and the satisfaction which it followeth; to wit, according to the effect, to which it is thought that satisfaction is made, and imputed, or put to ac­count. For, in the opinion which I call Haeresie, the merits of Christ are immediately imputed to them, for whom they were intended for righteousness and life everlasting. But, in the Faith of Gods Church, Christs sufferings are immediately im­puted to mankind: because, in consideration of them, God declares himself ready to bee reconciled with all that turn good Christians; and accordingly, makes good the promises of his Gospel to them, performing their Christianity. So that, in the sense which Socinus rejecteth; which is the sense of our Fanatickes; imputation, as well as satisfaction, is immediate and personal; in the sense of the Church, mediate, and real, or causal; because it is, immediately, to no further effect, then of procuring the Gospel, to the effect of salvation, by the means of that Christianity which it requireth.

Had Socinus considered the consequence of this distinction,Upon what grounds bee is to bee refuted. hee would never have put himself upon the task, of confining all that is said in the New Testament, of Redemption, Recon­ciliation, and Propitiation by Christ, and by his bloud, to the effect of assuring us, that God will stand to the Gospel which hee publisheth. Hee would never have wrested the signification of all sacrifices, and types, figuring our Lord Christ and his death in the Old Testament, to intend no more, then the inducing of us to that Christianity which hee preached, in confidence of that Grace, which hee, for his obedience, is advanced to be­stow. Hee would never have declared against the Faith of the Holy Trinity, out of a presumption, that the salvation of Christians is provided for, setting aside the God-head of our [Page 68] Lord Christ, and the satisfaction, at which his obedience is va­luable, in consideration of it. In fine, hee would not have transgressed the Faith of the Church, had hee understood it. But, having before condemned the Pope for Antichrist, and the Papists for Idolaters, and derived this Apostacy of the Whole Church from the very death of the Apostles; no marvel that hee would not bee confined to the Faith of the Church, that hee could not see the ground of it. No marvel that hee over­saw the prosession of the Faith of the Church, by being baptiz­ed, in the condition of our salvation; knowing that hee trans­gressed the Rule of that Faith. No marvel, that they who see him in the wrong, in refuting him and his followers, are sometimes worsted in a true cause; because they consider not, that the punishment of Christ for our sins may so bee under­stood, as to make the reward of Christianity due, before, and therefore without the performing of it. Whereas, understand­ing his sufferings to concern immediately no particular mans per­son, but the common cause of mankind; The immediate effect thereof is the procuring of a new Law, for God to proceed with us by. Which Law, being set on foot upon the fall of Adam, was first fully revealed, by the Gospel of Christ; The Origi­nal Law, which man in his original uprightness was subject to, remaining still the Rule of Righteousness, according to those terms which the Gospel declareth; Though, for the effect of taking vengeance on us, abrogated, or dispensed with, in con­sideration of Christs obedience.

Now, those helps of Grace which the Gospel tendreth, forThe helps of Grace granted in consideration of Christs obe­dience. the undertaking, and performing of that Christianity, which it requireth, are also granted in consideration of Christs merits, and sufferings, put to our account, That is, the helps of pre­venting Grace, or the actual motions of Gods Spirit, without which the Gospel were a meer abuse, supposing original sin; upon the common account of mankind; The helps of following Grace, or the habitual endowment of Gods Spirit, upon the personal account of him that is saved by Baptisme. But both kinds presuppose, that the coming of the second Adam was to repair the breach, which the first Adam had made. Both con­demn the Haeresie of Pelagius, which Socinus, in some Articles of it, reviveth. And indeed, to deny bodily death to bee [Page 69] the effect of Adams sin, what is it else, but to deny the Resur­rection of the flesh to bee the effect of Christs righteousness? For, though it is the power of his God-head that shall raise them again who shall rise to shame; Yet, if it bee the Spirit of holi­ness, which raised Christ from the dead, that shall raise the mortal bodies in which it dwelt here, up to life; is it not the sin which the fall of Adam brought into the world, that first brought in death after it? The same Spirit of holiness it is, that our Lord, according to promise, sent his Disciples in his own stead; and sent it with visible signs of his presence, to make his word effectual in them first, and by them, to the conversion of the Nations. And this means, as no Christian can deny to bee sufficient, to oblige all the world to bee Christians; So, there can bee nothing wanting on Gods part, to render it effectual with those that embrace it. For it is manifest, that the Grace of God works the conversion of all, by shewing the world suf­ficient reason to bee Christians. A thing which can by no means bee done, but by shewing them, that they are the causes of their own damnation if they bee not. They that are con­victed hereof, it is sure, would bee perswaded by concupis­cence, not to act according to that conviction; were there no more then conviction of reason to turn the ballance. But, when Gods Spirit manageth the motives of Christianity which it self provideth, (for, this conviction consisteth in the works, where­by God hath made good the preaching of our Lord and his Apostles) what can bee wanting to the efficacy of it? And this is signified in the Old Testament, by ascribing the conquest of the promised Land to God, and not to the strength or valour of his people. So that, wheresoever wee find, that they are deli­vered out of their enemies hands by Gods assistance, there wee are assured, that the powers of darkness are not to bee over­come by Christians, but by Gods Grace.

And the inclinations of mans heart to evil from the MothersAnd therefore they inferre Original Sin, by the Fall of Adam. womb, the frailty of humane flesh, and the mortality thereof, are so expresly delivered in the Old Testament, that the Jewes themselves do acknowledge the effect of Adams transgression in them. Neither is it possible to give any account, of any ne­cessity, for the coming of our Saviour, otherwise. For, what­soever can bee required to convict the world, that the tender [Page 70] of the Gospel shall bee made good to all that embrace or pre­serve it, might have been, as well without the death of the Son of God, as by it. Therefore the consent of the Church in this point hath been evidenced against Pelagius, not only by the custome of baptizing Infants, but by the Ceremonies which they were baptized with; signifying the ejecting of the evil Spirit, to make way for Gods Spirit. Not that it was a Law from the beginning, that all children of Christian Parents should be baptized Infants. For it is evident, that they thought it better to bee baptized at mans age. Because then, they are more able to understand what they undertake. But because they never did presume of the Salvation of any that dyed un­baptized. And therefore, since the world came to profess Christianity, and that the care and zeal, either of Parents, or Ministers, could not so well bee trusted for the preventing of death, by procuring Baptisme for Infants; especially with that reverence which the Sacrament requireth; it hath been agreed upon, by the silent practise of Christendome, to baptize all while they are Infants. And this consent whoso infringeth, in the overt act of Schisme which hee committeth, hee involveth a presumption of Haeresie against himself. For, what could move a man to such an outrage, who did believe, that profes­sion which saveth a Christian to include in it the Sacrament of Baptisme?

And thus it remaineth evident, that it is a Covenant of un­speakableWherein the Covenant of Grace consist­eth. Grace on Gods part, which his Gospel bringeth; not­withstanding that it requireth, upon the condition of our Sal­vation, that wee live and dye Christians. First, as tendring the assistance of Gods Spirit, as well to undertake as to per­form: And then, having performed, as tendring a reward which our performance cannot challenge. And both in consideration of Christ, whose merits and sufferings are free, pure, meer Grace, before all helps of Grace which they have purchased for us.

It is a thing prodigious and deplorable to consider, that theyThat the state of Grace is for­feited by hei­nous sin. who would bee Reformers of the Church should, notwithstand­ing all this, think it no state of Grace that can become forfeit by sin. As if, because, without daily sin, Christians do not live; therefore, that reconcilement with God were no recon­cilement, [Page 71] that can become void, by gross and heinous sin. But, till that which hath been said of Justification, and that Faith which alone justifieth, bee destroyed, there can bee no pretense for so dangerous a doctrine. That which is granted upon a con­dition faileth with it. And it must bee a secret which the Old and New Testament hath not revealed, that shall make good our title to Heaven, though wee make not good that Christia­nity which intitleth us to it. And therefore, when S. Paul is perswaded, that nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ, Rom. VIII. 28. hee supposeth us to bee such as hee de­scribeth all along the Chapter afore. Such as hee found himself resolved to bee: Such as live not according to the flesh, but accord­ing to the Spirit. Of such hee might well bee perswaded, that nothing should separate them from the love of God in Christ; Knowing the helps of Gods All-sufficient Grace to bee promi­sed all that so live; not to fail, till they receive them in vain. Whence S. John saith, that hee who is born of God sinneth not, because the Ʋnction which hee hath from God abideth in bim, and teacheth him all things, 1 John II. 20. 27. III. 9. hee supposeth him that is born of God to bee the Son of God; who shall bee no Son of God, if hee sinne such sins as hee means. And there­fore hee supposeth this Ʋnction to abide in him; which abideth not in them that sinne. When our Lord saith to the Samari­tane, John IV. 14. that whoso drinketh of the water which hee shall give, shall never thirst any more; hee supposeth, that the water which hee giveth is not vomited up again; hee opposeth this water, so drunk, to the water of Jacobs Well, which did make room for thirst in time. Whereas this water, so drunk, shall spring up to life everlasting. All Haeresies have the super­ficial sound of some Texts of Scripture, to set against the whole stream of Scripture, and the current Doctrine of it. Hee that considers, how much of the Old and New Testament, that which I have said of Justification involveth, will think it rea­son to measure the meaning of two or three Texts by that; not to rack all the rest to the length of these. As for the sense of the Church, seeing the consent thereof is evident, in the condi­tion upon which wee are justified; It is a part of madness, for any man that believes the Unity thereof, to imagine, that any Doctor that held with that Unity can bee found to teach other­wise. [Page 72] S. Augustine is remarkable. The stress lyes upon him: and upon those Books, the occasion whereof is to enquire; how it comes to pass, that so many, that had attained to the state of Gods grace, do not dye in it.

But, though I admire at the wilfulness with which this mi­stakeThe danger of the contrary Position ac­cording to the ground of it. is maintained, against all Christendom, Old and New, but those who follow Calvin; Yet I value the dange [...] of it, to the Salvation of him that hath it, according to the opinion of Ju­stification which it is joyned with. For, if it come from an assurance of a mans Praedestination; As if such a one, being once justified, cannot incurre the state of damnation by any sin; Taking that opinion for an Haeresie, I must needs take this for a Position destructive to Salvation. It is otherwise with those that make Repentance to go before justifying Faith. For it is true, that, if a man have no ground that hee is reconciled to God, till his first conversion; hee can have no ground that hee is reconciled to God of any sin, that hee falls into after­wards, till hee have performed his Repentance. And there­fore they contradict themselves, if they imagine; that, being actually in the state of damnation, a man may have that trust in God which justifying Faith signifies, before hee turn from his sin by Repentance. But the worse Divines the better Chri­stians. And the truth which they hold suffereth not the ve­nim of that opinion, which is indeed inconsistent with the same, to operate.

CHAP. XI.

BUt this Resolution perfectly reconcileth two of those Con­troversies,What Law of God i [...] is, that may bee fulfil­led by a Chri­stian. which wee have with the Church of Rome, about Justification and the points annexed to it: That of the possibi­lity of fulfilling Gods Law, for a Christian: And that of satis­fying for sin, and of meriting Grace or Glory, by the good works of a Christian. For it is certain, that the Law which God gave Adam in Paradise, as having created him in his Ori­ginal Uprightness, can never bee fulfilled, by the Grace which the death of Christ tendreth, in this bondage under Original Sin. But, if wee speak of the New Law, which the Gospel of Christ enacteth, (S. James calleth it the Law of liberty, S. Paul, the Law of the Spirit of life) it is evident by the pre­mises, that, if it bee not fulfilled, then is Christ dead in vain: then do wee receive his Grace in vain; and cannot bee saved, but are still in our sins. For every Covenant, every contract, is a Law to the parties. And, though God need not contract with his creature, which hee may give Law to at pleasure; Yet, if hee condescend to treat and to contract with man, hee [Page 74] intends not to abuse him, by contracting for that which cannot come to effect. Therefore hee doth not contract with him, upon condition that hee shall not sinne; who, born in Original Sin, sinneth daily. But, upon condition, that, if hee fall into sin hee return by repentance: and, blotting out his former sin, by works meet for repentance, proceed in newness of life for the future. And upon these terms, the Original Law of Righ­teousness in Paradise doth not become void; but continueth in force, for the regulating of the righteousness which Christians are to live by, and to aim at. Whether or no, inhaunsed, in consideration of that great Grace of God, bringing Salvation to all, which hath appeared by the Gospel; above that measure, which the Original Righteousness of Paradise required; I dis­pute not yet. But the Law of Moses, upon these terms, will be the reviving of the Original Law of Paradise, as to the effect of attaining and holding the Land of Canaan, (a figure corre­spondent, as well to the earthly, as to the heavenly Paradise) by that outward obedience, which the letter of the Ceremonial and Judicial Law required: And upon these terms, the Thief upon the Cross, dying in the state of Grace, fulfilled Gods Law; Fulfilling all that, which the Covenant of Grace requi­red of him for his Salvation, in that estate. And, if there bee such a thing, as Repentance effectual to Salvation, upon the bed of death; which, the Rules of the Church do not warrant us to presume of, though they oblige us not to despair of it; Then, hee who is effectually converted to God, upon his last bed of death, hath fulfilled Gods Law.

As for going beyond the Law, by works of Supererogation;O [...] doing more then Gods Law requireth. It is easie to see, that, according to the premises, hee that can­not do what Gods Original Law requires, cannot do more. But it is as easie to see, that some circumstances may conduce to the performance of our Christianity, that are no part of it; And therefore the Vow of Baptisme binds not to them. If Marriage stand with Christianity, what Christian is forbidden Marriage? Yet single life is the safer way to perfection in Christianity. So is the profession of the Clergy, and all the means, of further retirement from the world, then the taking up of Christs Cross signifies. And the Grace which our Lord, and S. Paul after him ownes, in them that do this, is not a peculiar temper of [Page 75] the body, obliging him that hath it to live single, and him that hath it not, to marry; But a singular zeal, to wave that which God makes lawful for us, that wee may the better come to his Kingdom. Which, when it proceeds with a single eye, propo­sing to it self nothing of this world, but the means of attaining to the world to come; Well may wee bee assured of Gods help to perform it, by virtue of that promise which the Common Christianity challengeth, intending nothing but the effect of it.

I do believe further, that wee, who live under the Gospel,Whether our Law give a New Law, or n [...]t. are tyed to a higher degree of goodness, then those who lived under the Law were; as for the condition of continuing in the state of Gods Grace. And that this is the best reason for many actions of holy persons, sometimes not condemned, sometimes commended in the Old Testament; which, notwithstanding, agree not with that perfection which our Lord, by his Sermon in the mountain, preacheth; To wit, that either they were ac­cepted by God, in that estate, or at least, might stand with the state of his Grace. But this is not to say, that our Lord, by those Precepts which hee there delivers, introduces a New Law, which obliged not under the Old Testament. For I have shew­ed, that under it, the Fathers were saved as Christians; that is, by worshipping God in Spirit and truth. But, that there was a two-fold sense in Moses Law: And that, by keeping it according to the Letter, they held the Land of Promise; according to the Spirit, though in a less measure then the Gospel requires, they attained the world to come.

The Satisfaction and Merit of good works done by Christi­ansOf the Satis­faction and Merit of Chri­stian works. may bee understood to bee grounded, either upon their in­trinsick value, or upon that mark which the Gospel of Christ stampes them with, in consideration of Christs merits and suf­ferings. But that intrinsick value, at which they are valued, by those who make them worth life everlasting, upon terms of commutative justice, rises upon the account of Gods Spirit, by the Grace whereof they are done. And the Grace of Gods Spi­rit is not granted, but in consideration of our Lord Christ, and his obedience. And therefore this intrinsick value is meerly imaginary, even in the opinion of them that advance it; unless they will needs contradict themselves. For, the value of our Lords obedience is necessarily extrinsick to us; to whose ac­count [Page 76] it redoundeth, only by imputation of Grace. And there­fore, there is no intrinsick value of Christian works; supposing the Gospel to bee that which I have said. For, being perfor­med by virtue of Gods Grace, they cannot bee acceptable to the effect of salvation, but by the same Grace. But the merit, or the satisfaction which is ascribed unto them, being grounded upon that Grace, bringing salvation to all, which hath appeared by the Gospel; it is not possible to imagine, what it can dero­gate from the merits and satisfaction of our Lord Christ. It is true, men may forget their own grounds: as I have said that they do, who would have the works of Christians to merit heaven upon terms of commutative justice. And forgetting themselves, they may contradict themselves; ascribing that for debt, to them that do them, which is not due, but upon the account of Christs obedience. But still, the worse Divines the better Christians. For, the truth which they profess, if they profess it not in vain, shall bee an Antidote against that pride, destructive to the humility of a Christian, which the opinion of a mans own merit produceth. Whereas, they who exclude all consideration of our works from the great trial of the Day of Judgement, do thereby exclude Christianity out of the heart, as they do the Creed out of the Church. Whereas, they who suppose gross and hainous sins to bee pardoned, before they see the fruits of Repentance in works of mortification, by extraor­dinary exercises of devotion, with fasting and almes; do con­tribute as much as their allowance signifies, to the murther of that soul, which might have been cured, had not their autho­rity made men believe that there needs no such cure. There is an opinion crept into the Church of Rome on the other side; that imperfect sorrow for that sin, which, by Confession, is submitted to the Keys of the Church, serves to cure such sin, how great soever: And that Penance is enjoyned, to redeem the debt of temporal punishment, to bee paid in Purgatory, if not here; as remaining due when the guilt is done away. Where­as the works of mortification are but the exercise, and the per­formance of that contrition, which the Gospel requires, to qua­lifie a man for pardon of his sin. And therefore the authority of the Church cannot supply the want of that condition, which the Gospel requireth in him that seeks forgiveness: But only pro­cure [Page 77] it, by excluding him from the Communion, that shall re­fuse the cure which the Church prescribeth. Now, this is an opinion which that Church allows, but enjoyns not. And therefore, whether there bee more danger there, by this opini­on; or by the other extreme, where all works of mortification are cried down for superstitious; I leave to the conscience of discreet Christians. The Catholique Church hath used the terms of satisfaction and Merit in a true sense, and to a good purpose: and it were easie to shew, that the same sense is al­lowed, though not enjoyned, by the Church of Rome, even since the Council of Trent; were this the place.

I have said, that the obedience of the second Adam is not im­mediatelyOriginal Sin is not Adams sin imputed to his posterity. imputed to any particular mans account; but, first to the common account of mankind; and to the account of parti­cular persons, as they are qualified for it, by being good Chri­stians. And now I must say accordingly; that the disobedience of the first Adam is not imputed immediately to the damnation of any particular; but, to the bondage of all [...]is posterity. For, no man shall bee condemned at the last day, but for the works which hee shall bee found to have done in the body. And, for what hee shall then bee condemned, for the same God decreed that hee should bee condemned from everlasting. So, being become slaves to sin we are ransomed by Christ. But, as this ransome intitleth us not to life, till wee embrace the terms of it: neither doth this bondage damn us, till wee beome parties to it by our sins. If this bee true, then doth not Original sin consist in the Imputation of Adams sin to his po­sterity; as Catharinus held at the Council of Trent, with great applause. And indeed, I need not dispute; that God cannot, in justice, punish one man for another mans sin; because you see, the posterity of the first Adam, according to the flesh, is punished for his sin, no otherwise, then it is rewarded for the second Adam, and for his righteousness. The interest of our common Christianity is safe, so long as the necessity of Christs coming, and the reason of it, for the cure of the breach which Adam made, remains evident and unmoveable.

Nor is there any difficulty in resolving the nature of OriginalWherein Ori­ginal Sin con­sisteth. Sin; That should drive us to this novelty. All sin is an act, or an habit, that faileth of that measure which Gods Law re­quires. [Page 78] Original Sin hath only this peculiar; that, giving the like inclination as other habits do, it is not contracted by cu­stom, but by birth. Call this inclination to that which Gods Law forbiddeth Concupiscence, and you have expressed the whole nature of Original Sin. For, calling it concupiscence; you make it to bee the want of Original Righteousness; But you express over and above, what it is that succeedeth, in man­kind, born in Original Sin, instead of Original Righteousness; to wit, that disorder in our inclinations, which concupiscence signifieth.

The Question only remains; whether Original uprightnessWhat Original Righteousness signifieth. shall signifie only Innocence; or supernatural Grace over and a­bove. For it may bee supposed, that man was created, at the first, only to the happiness of this life, upon condition of living according to the Innocence in which hee was created. And there are that have maintained this; though not denying, that God intended to reward this exercise of his innocence, with a call to an higher estate. The Fathers indeed are of another mind; Moved, perhaps, by the mystery of Christ and his Church, which hee discovereth in his mariage with his own flesh, Gen. I. 24. Eph. V. 31. For this seems to make Adam a Prophet, endowed with Gods Spirit. But, hee that should not think it necessary, that Adam should understand the my­stical sense of his own words, would not bee tied to that conse­quence. In the mean time, the common Christianity, and the ground of salvation, seems to remain unmoveable, granting; That, by advancing the Covenant of Grace; which was set on foot in Paradise, so soon as God promised the seed of the woman, to dissolve the works of the Serpent; God calleth mankind to an estate of supernatural Grace. And though it may bee disput­ed, whether it could stand with the holiness of God, and the purity of his work, to have made man in an estate of meer na­ture; that is, subject to concupiscence, without supernatural Grace to restrain the effect of it; yet could it not stand with his justice, creating man to supernatural happiness (and therefore liable to Damnation, transgressing the supernatural Righteous­ness which it must require) to create him without supernatural Grace, necessary to the performing of the said righteous­nesse.

To fortifie that which hath been said, I am not to omit thatWhat good the unregenerate are able to do by the Law of Na­ture. which St. Paul seemeth expresly to teach, Rom. II. 12-16. That they, who are not under Gods positive Law, shall bee judged, at the last day, by the Law of Nature. Which if it bee so, then shall they not bee condemned for Original Sin. It is not necessary, that Christianity should give account; why God thought good to suffer Adam to bee seduced by the Apostate Angels: and mankind to bee born in bondage to sin; why hee suffered the greatest part of it to bee overcome with Idolatry, after hee had set the Covenant of Grace on foot. It is enough, that hee found it for his glory, to give sin this entrance into the World, which hee meant to encounter with that Grace which his Gospel revealeth; Leaving that which it revealeth not, to bee unfolded at the Day of the Judgement. In the mean time, if they who know not Gods Law are judged by the Law of Nature; They are not judged by the Covenant of Grace, though given all mankind in Paradise; because, by corruption of sin, they were grown strangers to it. Much less, therefore, by the Original Righteousness of Paradise, supplied by the Covenant of Grace. Now, the corrupt inclination of concu­piscence extinguisheth not the light of nature; which, by dis­covering the difference between that which is good because it is honest, and that which is only pleasant or profitable, condem­neth the neglect of that, for either of these. Man is sensible of his own worth, and the wrong that hee doth it, when hee preferreth profit or pleasure before the obligation which it in­ferreth. And therefore, there can no question remain, that hee is able, notwithstanding Original Sin, to do that which is good for a right reason, and a good intent. For, the reason of profit or pleasure doth not always drown, and swallow up the reason of that which is just and honourable. Therefore, hee who makes not the world to come his end, may do that which is truly good for honesties sake, and the satisfaction of loving it as it deserveth. But because concupiscence, which the world is infected with, procureth daily occasions of opposition be­tween right and interest; and those such as call in question the worldly estate of him, that should resolve to prefer the right in all things; therefore is not the natural man able to resolve upon God, for the end of all his doings. His corrupt inclinations [Page 80] betray the judgement, whereby hee alloweth that which is best, to the interest of his profit or pleasure. Now, whether those actions which are done upon good grounds, and for a good pur­pose, but, by a man that maketh not God the end of all his doings, are to bee counted sins or not; I will not Dispute. Thus much appeareth, that they who are to bee judged by the Law of Nature do not always transgress the Law of Nature. For, how should they bee judged by that Law, which they cannot chuse but transgress?

CHAP. XII.

THis being the estate in which the Gospel overtaketh man­kind;Upon what terms, that which is possible may become fu­ture. the Question, concerning the concurrence of mans free will to the works of Gods free Grace, is that which re­mains: And the resolving of it lies in resolving, by what means, and upon what account, that which is of it self only possible be­comes future: How it becomes certain, that such a thing shall bee, which, of it self, only may bee. For that which is possi­ble [Page 81] and no more, is of it self a meer nothing: That which only may bee is not. Only it signifies withall, that there is some­thing, that is able to reduce it to effect, or being. But, that which is future signifieth here, not only [...] but [...]: not only that which as yet is not, but that which hereaf­ter shall bee: And that imports a certain being for that time. Seeing then, that nothing cannot reduce it self to being; The Question is, what it is that renders it certain to bee, for the time when it shall bee. For, all that God can do is absolutely possible. And God can do whatsoever can bee done. God cannot deny himself: And that hee should do, if contradicto­ries should bee true; or things that destroy one another subsist both at once. Accordingly, whatsoever God sees is certain, and God sees whatsoever shall bee; so, whatsoever shall bee is certain, though wee know not what it is. Now I have said, that it becomes not certain, by any decree or motion of God, whereby hee determines the will of man, and moves it to do whatsoever it doth, before it move or determine it self; at least in order of nature. Priority in order of nature signifieth this; that the motion of free will doth necessarily depend, and shall necessarily follow, upon the precedent determination and motion of God.

But, things are said to bee necessary two ways; some areThe difference between necessi­ty antecedent and consequent. absolutely necessary; The necessity whereof lies in their cause, and the efficacy of it, which cannot bee defeated. And, in as much as every cause is before the effect; Therefore this necessi­ty is called Antecedent. Some are necessary only upon suppositi­on; not of that which goes before, (for the cause which createth absolute necessity may bee supposed) but of something that fol­lows upon the being of any thing. As, that which a man knows, or sees to bee, of necessity is; because hee could not see it if it were not. And so, whatsoever is in the world, of neces­sity is, because wee suppose that it is. But this necessity is not in the thing, (speaking of contingencies) but in that consequence which the mind frameth, upon supposing it. And therefore it is called necessity Consequent, as the other Antecedent. It is not this consequent necessity that destroyeth freedom in the will, or contingence in the effects of it; but the antecedent. For no­thing is absolutely necessary but God: and that which God [Page 82] will have come to pass. And this necessity is the necessity of a cause that cannot bee defeated; not implying any supposition of the effect which it produceth, but inferring the conse­quence of it. Therefore natural, and antecedent, and destructive to freedom in the will, and contingence in the effects of it. And this is no more then I said afore, why there can bee no absolute predestination to glory or to shame, according to the Gospel, and Christianity; because it must come to effect by Gods de­termining and moving the will, to every step that it maketh toward life or death everlasting. And that will not stand with that free will which the Gospel supposeth.

For, you may have observed a twofold freedom, by the pre­mises.The difference between free­dom from neces­sity and from bondage. The Gospel supposeth mankind born in bondage to sin; And therefore, supposeth not his will free from bondage. But supposing this, tenders him life everlasting, upon condition that hee accept of the ransome, which Christ hath paid for him: and, renouncing the bondage of sin, become free to God and his service. And this is an act which his free will must do, be­cause it is the condition of that which God does in consideration of it. The consideration is the freedom with which it is done; which if it were done of necessity, there could bee no reason why God should either require or reward it. So, there is a free­dom from necessity, whereby mankind, though slave to sin by birth, embraceth that freedom from sin to righteousness which the Gospel tendereth; though not by the original motion of the will, (which is not in slavery unless it love the slavery which it is in;) yet, by the free motion of it, being first moved by the Gospel to make use of the ransome. For I have shewed, that this motion bringeth with it sufficient help of Gods Grace, to do that which it requireth.

This freedom then, from necessity, doth not always requireFreedom from necessity always requireth i [...]de­termination, not always in­difference. indifference in the will that useth it. For that is properly, on­ly when the will is balanced, not inclining any more to do then not to do, this rather then that. But it requireth, that, it bee never determined till it determine it self. For it availeth not to say, that that freedom which God gave man when hee made him was, to do freely whatsoever God should determine him to do freely; as other things necessarily do that which God deter­mineth them to do necessarily. Freedom, and the use of free­dom [Page 83] is Gods gift. But God cannot give freedom by taking it away: Nor maintain freedom by destroying it. No more can hee cause the will to do that freely, which hee determineth it to do necessarily, before it determine it self. Nor is there any fear of making the creature God, if wee make it able to doe that which God enableth it to doe, without other helps then the ability which hee giveth it. For, what is that ability, that enableth not to doe that which it maketh a man able to do? It is a riddle when it is not understood. It is a contradiction when it is understood. The ability which God giveth issueth from him, as from the Fountain of all ability, every moment of time, which, one and the same standing mo­ment of eternity answereth. So, the creature cannot act but by the ability which God issueth; And therefore continueth Gods creature, as depending upon God, in that which it doth, no less then in that which it is. If therefore the will of man cannot act freely by virtue of any motion of Gods, determining it to act, before it determine it self; then must it act freely, by vir­tue of that power which God giveth it every moment to deter­mine it self.

True it is, that, being the will of a reasonable creature, itThe Object de­termineth the Will, saving the freedom of it. cannot determine it self, till it bee determined, in the nature of an object, by a reason, carrying an appearance of that which is best for the present. But because that appearance changeth from moment to moment; therefore, the determination of the ob­ject is never peremptory, till you suppose the will to act accor­ding to it. And therefore, though it bee necessary, that the will act according to the last dictate of the understanding; yet is this necessity, but upon supposition, that it is the last: And that, because you suppose that the will proceedeth to act, with­out imploying further consideration upon the object. So, the appearance of good in the object, and the ability of imbracing it in the will, serve to make good the freedom of choise in humane actions. But, the certainty of it from everlasting must bee ascribed to the incomprehensible wisdom of God, comprehending all ap­pearance of good, which all men may be moved with, at all times; and the effect, which the present disposition of every will shall al­low every motion, at every moment. Now providence must needs appoint, from everlasting, what appearance of good every will [Page 84] shall bee moved with every moment; by resolving, what oc­currence of objects every reason shall bee presented with, in that estate, which it setleth every man in, for every moment. And upon these terms, the foreknowledg of humane actions in God must needs bee infallibly certain; saving, as well the freedom of the will, as the contingence of the things which it doth. For comprehending, first the present disposition of every will: and the effect of every motion that is possible, upon it; then, not only how it shall bee actually moved, but also, that it shall not bee moved otherwise; how should hee fail to comprehend what it will determine, while it might determine other­wise?

And, that this is the true and due way that wee are to hold,Whence, the certainty of fu­ture contingen­cies ariseth. in reasoning of Gods Counsels, appears by the whole tenor of the Scriptures, speaking of God in the language of the children of men; as the Jews Doctors speak. It pleaseth God, not only to deal with man about his salvation, but to treat with him in his own Language; because hee is not able to understand God otherwise. It is not possible for us to understand the wisdom of God otherwise, then, according to the wisdom of man; as pro­ceeding, by deliberation to resolution; though wee know very well all the while, that the simple and indivisible essence of the Godhead is that, into which, all variety of his Decrees, which the Scripture obligeth men to order, must resolve. Now the Scripture representeth God to us, every where, as taking the rise and the ground of his Counsels, and Proceedings, from that which hee seeth in the thoughts and dispositions of the men, whom hee ordereth. The instance is remarkable, and unavoidable, which you have in the whole course of his bringing the people of Israel out of Aegypt, and the destroying of Pharaoh and his people, for the hardness of their hearts, which hee foresaw, would not let them obey his message, and release his people. The like you have in the raising up of enemies to Solomon, for his sin: and the divi­ding of the ten Tribes from his posterity. So, in the destruction of Ahab, and the representation of Gods Counsel, and Pro­ceeding in it, which the Prophet Micaiah declares before hand to his face. So in the Crucifying of our Lord, and the means whereby it was brought to pass, according to the Counsel of God, which the Scripture declareth.

True it is, there bee divers passages in Scripture, which seemHow this ap­pears in the Scriptures. to signifie a will in God, that such men should sin, as hee hath determined to destroy; the sons of Eli for example, neglecting their fathers advice, because God had resolved their ruine. But, seeing it is so plentifully expressed, in other Book cases of the Scriptures, that such mens resolutions came not from the immediate motion of God, determining them to that which they do; but from the considerations, which their own prece­dent wickedness was ensnared with; all reason of Religion re­quires, that the like considerations bee supposed, in those cases wherein they are not expressed. As, that the sons of Eli were not determined by God to sin, because hee had resolved to de­stroy them; but that, for their sins which went afore, hee ten­dered them the advice of their Father, which hee foresaw they would sin by neglecting; that is, hee suffered them to sin fur­ther, to their own ruine. A thing so manifest in the cases of Pharaoh, and Judas, that, whoso shall stumble at the hardning of Pharaohs heart, must thank himself for the fall which hee takes by that offense.

The Scripture expresseth further, that, if Saul had come toGod no cause of sin, according to the Scri­ptures. Keilah, the men of the City would have delivered David into his hands. And that, if our Lord had done those miracles in Tyre and Sidon, which hee did in Corazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented, in sackcloth and ashes. Not as if the preaching of the Gospel, or the miracles which assure the truth of it, were Grace sufficient. But because the Spirit by which our Lord spoke, and wrought miracles, was present with the words and with the works, which hee used, as means and in­struments, to convert his hearers. And therefore are to bee sup­posed, by virtue of Gods promise, when they are not expressed. The Book of Wisdome affirmeth, in like manner, that God foresaw the impenitence of the Aegyptians, notwithstanding all Moses his miracles. These passages affirm expresly, that God foreknows what man would do, if hee were in any estate possi­ble; though indeed hee never come into that estate. But this is to bee understood according to the incomprehensible wisdom of God; comprehending all appearances which a man should bee moved with, in that estate: Not according to that which man can understand, or express, of any mans case, in any estate. [Page 86] For, all that wee can comprehend, is never able to render the event certain, that is but contingent: and to translate the effect from possible to future; which, the wisdom of God, compre­hending all things, can do. And this is that which some call the middle knowledge of God: to wit; between the knowledge of all that is possible, and all that is future; whereby God, know­ing what man would do in this or that estate, resolves, in what estate his providence shall set him, every moment of his life: And thereby foresees what hee will do, in every case. And be­tween this opinion, and the other of predetermination, I have always found this difference; that this, perhaps, is subject to more difficulty, then the understanding of man can comprehend, or his words declare: that, only subject to one inconvenience; that it rooteth up all Religion and Civility both at once, by destroying freedom in mans will, and contingence in the effects of it.

CHAP. XIII.

THere remains no more but to conclude; that, though GodsNo absolute Predestination to Glory. Predestination to Glory or to shame cannot be absolute, yet his Predestination to effectual Grace, or to that which is only Sufficient, is and must bee absolute. If Gods predestination to Glory and to Shame were absolute, without consideration of that for which it is executed in time; there could bee no ground for any exhortation, any advice, any perswasion, moving any man to perform any part of that Christianity which hee pro­fesseth. There would bee always a peremptory bar to all such applications; That, what God hath appointed shall come to [Page 87] pass, whatsoever a man shall do or endeavour to do. For it would not serve the turn to say; That, if God have appointed the end, hee hath appointed the means to effect it: And that this means is mans endeavours. Because, if God have appoint­ed the end to come by the means of that which a man is mov­ed to do, then shall hee do it, whether hee endeavour to do it or not. For, if it bee said, that hee hath appointed it to come to pass by mans endeavours; then is not Gods decree absolute: be­cause it must suppose mans endeavours. And indeed, an abso­lute decree of predestination cannot come to effect, but by de­crees, determining and moving mans will to that, which the bringing of it to effect requireth, before the will determine or move it self. And that is destructive to freedom in the will, and contingence in the effects of it.

On the other side, if the certainty of Gods foreknowledge,Predestination to Grace, abso­lute. and the Infallibility, or indefeasibleness of his providence stand upon a decree, of placing every man, at every moment of his life, in such an occurrence of objects, inward and outward, with his disposition, who is moved by them, to do, or not to do this or that, as hee sees will bee effectual to resolve him up­on that which hee doth; then are the helps of Grace effectual, and the effect of them certain, upon the like decree. Which there is nothing in man to oblige God to make: And therefore, it is his absolute will that maketh it. For, the intent of send­ing Christ, for the redemption of mankind, inferreth no de­claration, that God will do all that is in his power to do, that it may bee to effect, if man refuse it not. It is enough, that hee accompanieth the Gospel with his Spirit, when it cometh; In the mean time, that he trusteth his Church with the bringing of it. This justifieth his will, that all men should bee saved; though they who never hear of it, for reasons which the Gospel declareth not, have not the refusing of it. Whereby it appears, that the Authors of divisions in the Church are to answer for the souls that perish, for want of knowing the Gospel; which, the divisions of the Church are the greatest means that hinders them to know. Now this decree proceedeth upon a supposition of freedom in the will, and the maintenance of it, by Gods continual Government of all things; And therefore allows ground for all applications, moving to perform the Christianity [Page 88] which wee profess. For, though all that comes to pass is cer­tain by Gods decree, that cannot fail; yet that decree is not immediate, but supposeth mans will to move of it self; when his reason is moved by appearance of good in the object. And therefore it cannot bee alleged, in bar, to any wholsome exhor­tation or advice. And although all that is thus decreed must needs come to pass; yet the necessity thereof is only cons [...]quent, upon a supposition, that the will determines it self freely; which being supposed, the consequence is certain, that it shall come to pass. Whereas the necessity of that which God de­termineth the will to act; lying in the determination and moti­on of the cause, which is God, that cannot fail; is antecedent to the effect, and destroys the freedom of the will, and the con­tingence of that which it doth.

If it bee said, that the end is intended before the means: and therefore, hee that is absolutely predestinated to effectual GraceHow Glory is the end of Grace. (which includes perseverance until death) must needs bee abso­lutely predestinated to Glory, which is the end of Grace; the answer is. The Glory of him that is saved is not the end of Gods Grace; that is, of his Gracious purpose, to give those helps which shall bring a man to Glory. Gods Grace is God, and Gods Glory is God; And God can have no end but God: and the glorifying of him that is saved is not the means to glo­rifie God, till you suppose him qualified as the Gospel requireth. And therefore it is not absolutely the end of that Grace which effecteth it, till you suppose that it rendreth him so qualified. The means by which a man comes to Glory, if you take them as granted in such consideration, and rewarded in such measure as the Gospel alloweth, are the means of Gods Glory; otherwise they make not his Glory to appear, and therefore are not intend­ed by him to that purpose. Indeed, God hath made salva­tion the end of mankind, by the work of Redemption, as well as of Creation. But hee hath not made it his own end, nor the means to it, but upon those terms which the Gospel de­clareth. All this is manifest by the damnation of those that are not saved. For, though it bee their final estate, yet it is not their end, because salvation is the end of all manking; Which were it Gods end, as it is mans end by Gods appointment, then should they also bee saved. For God cannot fail of his end. [Page 89] Therefore is not the damnation of him that is not saved the end why God appoints him those means, by which hee shall come to that final estate. For it is not the means to Gods end, that is his Glory, till you suppose the man qualified as the Gospel alloweth: and so consider'd by God, when hee appoints him the means that bring him to his last estate. In fine, mans Glo­ry is not Gods end in giving Grace; Though it bee the end of the Grace which hee giveth. Gods Glory is the only end as well of the Grace as of the Glory which God giveth. Gods Glory is the end of effectual Grace. For God intendeth the effect which his Grace attaineth. And effectual Grace is a fit mean to glorifie God; implying mans compliance with Gods help. As for the helps of Grace in general, whether effectual or only sufficient; though mans glory bee the end of them, and that by Gods appointment, yet is it none of Gods [...]nd; be­cause it is not the mean to Gods Glory, till it bee supposed, that they are used as they should bee. And therefore God doth not appoint any man to Glory, till hee see that hee hath used his Grace as hee should do. But hee appointeth Grace without such respect; because there is no condition on mans part, to render it due.

And herewith agreeth the Faith of Gods Church. It is wellIn what terms the Faith of the Church stand­eth, as concern­ing this point. known, that St. Austines writings against Pelagius were excepted against, (as introducing fatal necessity, and excluding the Will of God for the salvation of mankind,) in the parts of Gaule; namely, by the Monastery of Lerins, the Clergy of Marseilles, and Genua, and div [...]rse notable persons in Provence. But not generally. For St. Austine, being advertised hereof, by the Letters of Prosper and Hillary yet extant, defended himself by his Books de Praedestinatione & gratiâ, and, de Perseverantia san­ctorum. The Book which Sirmondus the Jesuite lately publish­ed, under the name of Praedestinatus, is of the same date; pre­mising a Catalogue of Haeresies unto Nestinus, and making the last to bee this of Predestination, which he [...] refuteth. And in­deed, in a Council or two under Patiens Bishop of Lions, one Lucidus a Priest was forced to recant certain Articles of that sense. But Faustus, Bishop of Reys in Provence, being trusted by those Councils to draw up a defense of their decree; seem'd to fall within the consequence of some of Pelagius his Positions. [Page 90] And thereupon followed a Rescript of Pope Caelestine, to the Bishops of Gaule, yet extant; asserting the Doctrine of St. Au­stine in divers Articles, though without condemning any persons of the other side. The II. Council of Orange, afterwards, with the authority of the See of Rome, decreed against the said Articles. But no less against Predestination to death, or to sin: And, without condemning either Faustus, or Gennadius, or Vincentius, or their writings. And therefore, they can no more bee counted Semi-pelagians, for a Sect, then the other side Prae­destinarians. For this new decree, superseding the former, united the parties, and hath been ever since in force in the West, The stirs that were afterwards under Carolus Calvus, upon the same ground, in the cause of the Monke Gadschalcus, cannot bee thought to have made any alteration in it; because there were Prelates against Prelates, Churches against Churches, and Synods against Synods in the cause. Always, that Coun­cil decreed nothing for St. Austine, against the redemption of all mankind, and the will of God that all bee saved. And Prosper his Apologist, (and the Author de Vocatione Gentium much more) writing about the same time, have asserted both. Con­demning thereby the late zele of Jonseinus for St. Austine, (if not his hatred of the Jesuites) who, thinking to overbear all Dispute in the point, by his authority and reasons, hath not been afraid to maintain him in those Articles. And therefore hath given the Dominicans, whom his opinion seems to comply so much with, just occasion to joyn themselves against him, with the Jesuites. But his opinion will prove a nihil dicit. That of Arminius, as it necessarily opposes absolute Predesti­nation to Glory, so it stands very well with absolute Predesti­nation to Grace; Because it derives the Efficacy of Grace from that Congruity, which, as Gods foresight discovers, so his Pro­vidence uses. And therefore the discreetest of his adversaries, at the Synod of Dort; the English, and those of Breme; own­ed the redemption of mankind, and the will of God that all bee saved. Those that will not do the same must resolve upon Predetermination. And that, I grant, is not destructive to Christianity in the Dominicans; though of it self it bee destru­ctive: Because, holding free will, they contradict themselves in it, and so have an Antidote against it. But in our Fana­tickes, [Page 91] that take justifying Faith to bee the assurance of Prede­stination, and the Covenant of Grace a meer Promise of God, to those that have that assurance; it is down-right Haerefie. And, though the Presbyterians do not profess to hold it, yet, so long as they distinguish not themselves from the Fanatickes, but Communieate with them, they will bee Haeretickes them­selves, by the perpetual Rule of the Church; which makes them Haeretickes to the Church, that Communicate with Hae­retickes; and Schismatickes, that Communicate with Schis­matickes.

CHAP. XIV.

IF it bee part of a mans Christianity to bee a Member of GodsDuty of a Chri­stian as a Chri­stian, and as a Member of the Church. Church, then is a Christian sometimes concerned as a Chri­stian, sometimes as a Member of the Church. For, that which [Page 92] concerns him as a Member of the Church arises from the Con­stitution of the Church; as the effect of that power, which God hath endowed his Church with. Whereas, that which con­cerns him as a Christian concerns him before the being of the Church; Though the consent of the Church in it bee the means to bring it into evidence. Whatsoever is necessary to bee known for the salvation of all Christians is of this kind. And whatsoever proceedeth from the power of the Church, as the effect of it, is not necessary to bee known, for the salvation of all Christians. It is necessary for all Christians to know, that they are to live and dye Members of Gods Church; And there­fore, to conform themselves to the order of it. But, that this order is for the best, it neither concerneth them to know, nor to enquire; provided it bee sufficient for the salvation of all, and enjoyn nothing destructive to the salvation of any. This is the next obligation to that which concerneth a Christian as a Christian.

The Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Eucharist were in­stitutedHow Anab [...]p­tists deny the Faith▪ how they are to bee reconciled with the Church. by our Lord in person, before hee left the World. So was also the Power of the Keys, consisting in admitting to them, and excluding from them. Upon this Power hee found­ed his Church; leaving the forming of it to his Apostles, whom he trusted it with, by virtue of the same. It seems therefore, that these Sacraments concern Christians as Christi­ans, and not only as Members of the Church. I have shewed how Baptisme concerns the salvation of all Christians. Where­by it appears, ▪what presumption of Haeresie there is, in the Sect of the Anabaptists. For, did they think the profession of Chri­stianity to bee the condition, in consideration whereof, all that are baptized are saved; they could not take that Baptisme of the Church for void, whereby, there can bee no doubt, that a Christian is obliged, to the profession of a Christian. Because they believe not the condition of salvation to bee the Covenant of Baptisme, therefore they make it void, being received be­fore knowledg. Whereas the greater question is, whether the Church bee obliged to take their Baptisme for Baptisme, or not. For, though the School make good all Baptisme mini­stred in due mater and form of words; yet the Church never de­clared this general reason, why it alloweth the Baptisme of those [Page 93] Haeretickes, whom it did not rebaptize; Because they were baptized with the due form of words. But only appointed such and such Haeretickes to bee baptized, (as voiding the Baptisme which they received from Haeretickes) others to bee received with imposition of hands. Now, of those Haeresies, whose Baptisme the Church alloweth to bee valid, though unlawful, none did ever question the Article of one Baptisme for remission of fin; which, they that own not Christianity for the condition of salvation, do destroy. So did the Gnostickes; and their Baptisme ought to bee void. They who agree in their opinion, (though not in the grounds of it) how is the Church tyed to allow their Baptisme? But because the Church is not tyed to make it void, and to baptize them again, returning to the Profession of the true Faith; Let it suffice, that it appeareth hereby, how ne­cessary this found profession is, for the restoring, not only of Anabaptists, but of all other Sects, that distinguish not them­selves from them, to the Church.

They have, indeed, another pretense for rebaptizing. For,Their Errour, in re-bapti­zing for [...]a [...] of dipping. that they may dip the whole body, they will leave the Church to Baptize in Rivers. Would they do this, did they think the profession which is made with a good Conscience, to bee that which saveth, in Baptism, as the Apostle teacheth? The order of this Church requireth dipping, so it bee warily done; And certainly, if it bee not the cleansing of the flesh, it is not the indanger­ing of life that saveth. Now, when sprinkling is used instead of dipping, without regard to the danger of the Child; in regard to a wrong opinion in the point, or to the causeless ten­dernerness of Mothers and Friends, especially of the woman­kind; though the Sacrament bee not void, not being ministred as it ought to bee, the offense is given by him that so mini­streth it.

As the performance of Christianity is necessary for the Salva­tionWhat c [...]n [...]r [...] Salvation, in the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist. of him, that first attained the state of Salvation, by un­dertaking Christianity; So is the Sacrament of the Eucharist necessary for the Salvation of him, that is come to the state of Salvation by the Sacrament of Baptisme. Which if it bee true, then is it necessary for the Church to profess, and for all Chri­stians to know and believe; that the benefit of the Eucharist depends upon the sincerity of that resolution, wherewith hee [Page 94] that receiveth it stands to his Christianity: And on the other side, that so doing, hee fails not of the Body and Blood of Christ in that Sacrament; and by consequence, of his Spirit which it conveyeth. If therefore the Unity of the Church bee a part of the Common Christianity; Then is it necessary, to this ef­fect, that it bee celebrated in the Unity of Gods Church. For otherwise, no man need to argue that it is void; that it is cele­brated and received to no effect; seeing it is celebrated and re­ceived to so bad effect, as to make all that come to it guilty of Christs Body and Blood.

I claim further, that, seeing it can bee no sound part of GodsHow the Ele­ments are con­secrated into the body and blood of Christ, ac­cording to Gre­gory N [...]ssene. Church, that observeth not all the Lawes of Gods Whole Church; If the Eucharist bee not consecrated by that means, by which the Church from the beginning, hath always conse­crated the Eucharist, then it is not celebrated in the Unity of Gods Church. Now I conceive, I have shewed, that the Church, from the beginning, did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words; This is my Body, this is my Blood; as Operatory, in chang­ing the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ; But by that Word of God, whereby hee hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament, and commanded the use of it: And by the execution of this command. Now it is executed, and hath al­ways been executed, by the Act of the Church, upon Gods Word of Institution, praying, that the Holy Ghost, coming down upon the present Elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ. Not by changing them into the nature of flesh and blood; As the bread and wine, that nourished our Lord Christ on earth, became the flesh and blood of the Son of God, by becoming the flesh and blood of his Manhood, hypostatically united to his Godhead; saith S. Gregory Nyssene; But immedi­ately and ipso facto, by being united to the Spirit of Christ, that is, his Godhead. For, the flesh and blood of Christ by Incarnation, the Elements by Consecration, being united to the Spi [...]it, that is, the Godhead of Christ, become both one Sa­cramentally, by being both one with the Spirit, or Godhead of Christ, to the conveying of Gods Spirit to a Christian.

This Doctrine of S. Gregory Nyssene, grounded upon the formThe consequence hereof, in the Errours con­cerning the Eucharist. of Consecrating used by the Whole Church, seems to mee, to make good all that the Ancient Fathers have taught concern­ing [Page 95] this Sacrament; Whereas, no other terms are able to do the same. And that, without entring into any dispute con­cerning the substance of the Elements; But, securing first that which the common Salvation requireth in the Sacrament; to wit, the receiving of the flesh and blood of Christ by it; by imputing the presence of them to the Consecration, not to the Faith of him that receives; It condemns the Errour of Tran­substantiation, making the change mystical, and immediate, upon the coming of Gods Spirit to the Elements; the nature of them remaining: But it condemns Consubstantiation for no less. For, what needs the flesh and blood of Christ fill the same dimensions, which the substance of the Elements posses­seth, both being united with his Spirit? And truly, they that invite the Lutherans to their Communion, professing Consub­stantiation, must not make Transubstantiation an Errour in the foundation of Faith, if they will weigh by their own Weights, and mete by their own Measures. But, if the Errour of the Fa­naticks, when they make the assurance of a mans Praedestinati­on to bee justifying Faith, bee an Errour in the Foundation of Faith; as I have shewed that it is; Then it is an Errour in the Foundation of Faith, to take the Eucharist to bee a meer sign to confirm that Faith: And the flesh and blood of Christ to bee present in the Eucharist, not by the Faith of the Church, whereby the Consecration is made and done, but by this Faith, in him that receives. And therefore, this Errour being enough to render the Sacraments no Sacraments, which are celebrated professing it; the Word no Word of God, that teacheth to cele­brate such Sacraments; the Churches no Churches that profess it, or communicate with them that profess it; My Inference is unavoidable; That, to justifie this Church a Member of Gods onely true Church, they ought not to bee re-admitted into it, without expresly acknowledging; The Christianity which wee undertake by the Sacrament of Baptisme, to bee the condition of the Covenant of Grace.

If the consecrated Elements bee the flesh and blood of Christ,How the Eu­charist a Sacri­fice, and yet no ground for pri­vate Masses. then are they the sacrifice of Christ crucified upon the Cross. For, they are not the flesh and blood of Christ as in his body, while it was whole; but as separated, by the passion of his Cross. Not that Christ can bee sacrificed again. For a Sacri­fice, [Page 96] being an Action done in succession of time, cannot bee done the second time being once done; because then it should not have been done before; But, because the Sacrifice of Christ crucified is represented, commemorated, and applyed, by celebra­ting and receiving the Sacrament, which is that Sacrifice. They of the Church of Rome, that would make the breach wider then it is, do but justifie the Reformation, by forcing any other reason of a Sacrifice out of the Scripture, expounded by the consent of Gods Church. And they which stumble at the Al­tar, and the Priesthood, which this Sacrifice inferreth, plainly they invite us to renounce the Whole Church of God, with the Church of Rome, for their sakes. And how much Christianity they will leave us, when that is done, who will undertake? Thus much for certain, upon these terms, the virtue of this Sa­crifice is not to bee applyed, by the secret and private intent of the Priest, directing his action to the benefit of living or dead; whether present or absent; whether concurring to the celebra­ting and receiving of it, or not so much as thinking themselves concerned so to do. It is not applyed, but by the devotion of them, who, either receive it when they are bound to receive, or concurre to the celebrating of it when they are not; whether Priests or People. And therefore, there is no ground for pri­vate Masses, by granting the Eucharist to bee in this nature a Sacrifice.

But can any man say, that it is not the principal Office ofThe Eucharist, not the Sermon, the Chief Office of Gods Ser­vice. Christian Assemblies? That it ought not to bee frequented, upon all the chief occasions for the Assemblies of Gods Church? That the ordinary work for which wee meet, all Lords days, and other days, (if on other days wee ought ordinarily and solemn­ly to meet) is a Sermon, with an arbitrary Prayer before or af­ter it? That they who take the pains to minister the same, are to bee excused of celebrating the Eucharist, or ministring the prayers of the Church, which it is to bee celebrated with: (un­less it bee three or four times a year) and much more of read­ing the Scriptures, or praising God upon Davids Psalter, and the Hymns of the Church? I confess Calvins Reformation is much after that form. And, all the ar [...] of the Blessed Refor­mation here pretended, hath been, to impose it for a Law upon this Kingdom, without once pleading that it is for the best. But [Page 97] so grosly prejudicial to the Service of God, and the Common Christianity, that it were injurious to fear, that a Christian Kingdom can suffer such an Imposture; derogating far more from the perpetual Custome of Gods Whole Church, then it can from the present Law of this Kingdom. That therefore I may make way to the determining of that which remains most questionable amongst us; What is the best form of Service, which the Church of this Kingdom can worship God with; I must, in the first place, lay down that Rule, by which all Re­formation of Lawes Ecclesiastical is to bee directed; together with the ground of it.

CHAP. XV.

THat ground, upon which the form of our Service is to beeThe ground that determines the Form of ou [...] Service. determined, is to determine all that remains to bee deter­mined [Page 98] in matter of Religion, by Law of this Kingdom. The true sense of the Scripture is not to bee had, but out of the Re­cords of Antiquity; especially, of Gods ancient people f [...]st, and then, of the Christian Church. The obligation of that sense, upon the Church at this time, is not to bee measured a­gainst the primitive practice of the Whole Church. The Re­formation of the Church is nothing but the restoring of that which may appear to have been in force, especially, since Chri­stianity hath been protected by the Lawes of the Empire; Be­cause, the greatest difference, between the primitive time of Christianity and this, is the difference between the state of Per­secution, and of Protection by the Law of this Kingdom. It is therefore necessary that both sides, professing the Reformati­on, should agree upon the true ground of Reformation; and so, upon the Rule which that ground will maintain and evi­dence; that is, to submit all that is in question, to the visible practise of the primitive times, before those abuses were brought in, which the Reformation pretendeth to restore. For, if God have founded a Visible Church; which all this supposes; then cannot the Pope bee Antichrist, nor the Church of Rome▪ Ido­laters, for any thing which the practise of the Primitive Church justifieth. And, seeing the Church is Visible by the Lawes of it; there can no Church bee visibly one with that which was from the beginning, but by ruling it self by the same Lawes, so far as the state of the Bodies for which they are made is the same. That which shall bee said, concerning the form of our Service, is an instance hereof. The sense of the Scriptures, which have been alleged, shall appear to agree with the primitive order of Gods Church. The reviving of the or­der is the point of Reformation in this particular; allowing, for avoiding just offense, in altering the Law of the Kingdom, without necessary cause; as the wisdom of Superiours shall find requisite.

I must now suppose, that the Offices of Gods Service, forThe Offices, of which the Ser­vice is to con­sist. which the Church of God assembleth ordinarily, and solemn­ly, are the praises of God, the instruction of the people in the duties of their Christianity, (whether by reading the Scriptures, or by handling the same)▪ And lastly, the Common Prayers of the Church; especially those which the Eucharist is to bee cele­brated [Page 99] with. And this Order, which I put them in here, is that which the Church, from the beginning, hath always ob­served.

The Psalter of David, in the first place, hath been so gene­rallyO [...] the use of the Psalms. frequented, by the Whole Church, for the Instrument to make the Praises of God sound forth, that it ought not now to bee questioned, (as questioned it is visibly enough) by any that would pretend to bee of Gods Church. The order of reading the Psalms, which the Law of this Kingdom requires, is ad­mitted, because they are part of the Scripture. But all endea­vours used, that no devotion of the people bee exercised by it. The Psalms in Rhime must engross that. Wee have seen a Ci­vil War, in the time whereof, these Psalms in Rhime, being crowded into the Church by meer sufferance, and so used with­out order of Law; have been employed on both sides, to brand the adverse party, with the marks, which the Psalms set upon the enemies of David, and of Gods People; that is, of Christ and of Christians. More freely by them, who sang them at the head of their Armies, to that purpose. I hope those ways do not please at present; And therefore say freely, that the disor­der ought not to continue. Some of our Fanaticks, I know, have torn them out of their Bibles. They thought themselves not concerned in them, though David were. The Jewes, though they allow many of them to belong to the Messias, would not have them belong to our Lord Christ. But the Church uses them, supposing them all fulfilled in Christ and Christians; whether particular souls, or the body of his Church. Upon this Account they are the exercise of Christian Devotions. But not the Psalms in Rhime. The musick of them hath proved too hard for the people to learn, in an hundred years. And yet, no way more commendable then the Rhimes themselves are: And, repeating a little in much time. The tunes used in Cathe­dral and Collegiate Churches are easie to learn, and serve that Order which Law setleth, for Devotion, not for reading them as Scripture.

The order for reading the Scripture appears necessary, by theOf reading the Scriptures com­monly called Apocryph [...]. jealousies of this time. For were it arbitrary, how obvious would it bee, to deprave publick or private proceedings, by Lessons chosen on purpose? That the Books called Apocrypha [Page 100] are not the Writings of Prophets inspired, is agreed. Though those Writings are properly called Apocrypha, which the Church authorizeth not to bee read. Whereas these, being always read in the Church, are therefore properly called Ecclesiastical by Rufinus. The chief objections against them resolve into some passages, that seem not to agree with the Doctrine of the New Testament. But so, that the like are found in the Old. The Fact of Razias, the Proceeding of Judith, the Lye of Tobits Angel are the greatest blocks of offense; Not considering the Fact of Jael, or that of Sampson, or the Lyes that seem to bee rewarded under the Law. If offense bee taken at them, why not at these? But it is no offense to good Christians; because good Christians do not presume the Law and the Gospel to bee both one. And therefore, are content to know their duty un­der the Gospel; letting that which agreeth not therewith, in the Old Testament, pass without offense. In the mean time, it is evident, that the Doctrine of Christianity beginneth to bee discovered in them more clearly, then it stands discovered in the Law and the Prophets. Hereupon the Wisdom of the Pri­mitive Church imployed them for the instruction of the Cat [...] ­c [...]umeni, that were yet but learners of Christianiny. And therefore, wee are to insist upon the use of them, for edificati­on of the Church, in the better understanding of the manners and good works of Christians; much abased by those, who would put these Books to silence. But, the whole Church ha­ving always used them; to lay them aside now, were not to re­store the Church, but to build a new one.

As concerning the necessity of preaching, so effectually setWhat Preach­ing it is that the Scripture c [...]mmendeth. forth by the Scriptures; there is utterly a mistake in the mean­ing of them. That preaching, which the Scripture maketh ab­solutely necessary to salvation, is the publishing of the Gospel, to those that know it not. The instruction of Christians in their duty is called teaching in the Scripture. I have made evi­dence of this difference. The Apostles Commission is to teach them whom they have baptized, all that the Lord had com­manded them. The Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. But if wee call the teaching of Christians preaching, then it must bee such, for mater and for manner both, as may indeed convict Christians, of the duty of Christians; and that, [Page 101] not in the opinion of him that preacheth, but according to the Doctrine of the Church. Whosoever thinketh himself t [...]ed to Preach that, which the Church tyes him not to Preach; not tyed to Preach that which it tyeth him to preach; is in a fair way to edifie the people to ruine, by improving an undue zeal, to the dividing of the Church.

In the mean time, the Church preacheth without Sermons, byThere may bee Preaching without Ser­mons, and Ser­mons without Preaching. the Psalms, and the Scriptures, and by that order, in which it provideth that they bee read; Besides all those Forms, in which it prescribeth the Offices of Gods Service to bee performed. Which, if they contain all that is necessary, generally, and probably, to the salvation of all Christians; supposing them duly Catechized in those things which the salvation of all, and which their particular estate requires; they that never heard many Sermons may have heard more and better preaching, then hundreds and thousands of Sermons, dangerous, if not de­structive to salvation, (a thing which experience proves more then possible) can furnish them, who shall do nothing but run from Sermons to Sermons. I grant it was a just complaint, at the Reformation, that the people were not taught their duty. But I do not grant, either that they cannot bee taught their du­ty, without two Sermons every Lords day: Or, that they are like to bee taught their duty, by two Sermons every Lords day. It is not possible to have men for all Churches, fit to preach twice a day, to the edifying of the people. It will not bee possible to maintain their preaching such, as may bee accompted an Of­fice of Gods service.

In the antient Church, for divers hundred years, all thatThe difference between the se­cond Service in the antient Church, and our Communi­on Service. were admitted to stay all this while; that is, till the Sermon were done; were not to bee present at the Eucharist, were not to communicate. As Converts not baptized, as the relapsed, as the possessed by unclean spirits; in which ranck the Lunaticke, the Epilepticke, the Frantick were accounted. And reason good; for they were not to communicate, at least till death. And yet they were not to bee dismissed without the prayers of the Church; Prayers fitting their several estates, for their profici­ence, or for their recovery, that they might come to communi­cate. I will not here undertake, that all which remained did always communicate; though I doubt not, I may undertake, [Page 102] that the rule of the Church required them always to communi­cate. For, when the world was come in to the Church, the Rule that prevailed in time of persecution, there is no marvel, that it could not then prevail. By St. Chrysostome alone it ap­pears sufficiently, that the Rule was well enough known; but not in force, even in his time. So, when they that might not communicate were dismissed, they that would not communicate remained nevertheless. For, the Eucharist was not to bee set aside for their negligence. This is the difference between the first and second Service; which is not the same with our Communi­on Service. For, the first Service ended when the prayers of the Church began. Our Communion Service is that which is properly called the Liturgy in Greek: Namely, the Office which the Eucharist is to bee celebrated with. That which goes be­fore the Offertory belongs not properly to the second Service, ac­cording to the Primitive Form; For, the presenting of the Ele­ments was always, every where, the beginning of it.

The prayers of the Church began with Thanksgiving to God,The General Preface, and the Prayers of the Church at the Eucharist. for making man, and setting him over the creatures; for taking care of him after his Fall, teaching the Patriarches, giving the Law, sending the Prophets; and, when all this did not the effect required, for sending our Lord Christ. From this Thanks­giving, both the Action of the Sacrament, and the consecrated E­lements are still called the Eucharist. And it is called a Preface, in a very antient African Canon; to wit, to the consecration of the Elements which followed; Which, as I said before, is nothing else but a prayer, that God would send the Holy Ghost upon the present Elements; and make them the Body and Blood of Christ; that they who should receive them worthily might bee filled with his Grace. The common prayers of the Church; that is, of those who were admitted to Communion with the Church; were always made at the Altar, or Communion-Table, in the action of the Sacrament▪ Reason good. How can Chri­stians think their prayers so effectual with God, as when they are presented at the Commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ crucified; the Representation whereof to God, in heaven, makes his Intercession there so acceptable? Especially by those who maintain the Covenant of their Christianity, contracted at their Baptisme, by communicating in the Eucharist.

Here then, that is, at the celebrating of the Eucharist, prayers, The prayer of Oblation insti­tuted by St. Paul, and the [...]ater of it. supplications, and intercessions, were made for all estates in the Church, and for their respective necessities; For the averting of all Gods Judgements, for the obtaining of all his blessings: For publique Powers and their Ministers; for the Governors and Ministers of the Church, high and low: for publique Peace and prosperity; for the Seasons and Fruits of the Year; for the Sick and Distressed; for the helps of Gods Grace, in all parts of that Christianity which wee profess, passing by daily offense [...]: for particular occasions of interceding with God, which each particular Congregation may have. And there bee good and sufficient witnesses; the Author of the Commentary upon St. Paul to Timothy, under St. Ambrose his name, the Author de Vocatione G [...]ntium, St. Augustine, and Pope Caelestine in his Epi­stle ad Gallos; that this was the practice of the whole Church, and that, in obedience to St. Pauls instructions to Timothy: 1 Tim. II. 1-6. And this confirmes my opinion; that St. Paul, ordering prayers, supplications, intercessions and thanksgi [...]ings for Kings, and all in authority; means, that prayers, supplications and intercessions, bee made for Kings, and the rest, at Thanks­giving; that is, when the Eucharist is celebrated. For, that the word [...], in the sense of antient Christians, signifies the celebrating of the Eucharist, I have produced plentiful evidence. However, the antient Chuch manifestly signifieth, that they did offer their Oblations, out of which the Eucharist was conse­crated, with an▪ intent to intercede with God, for publique or private necessities; And that, out of an opinion, that they would bee effectual; alleging the Sacrifice of Christ crucified then present, which renders Christs intercession effectual for us. And this is the true ground, why they attributed so much to this Commemoration of the Sacrifice; which makes nothing for the effect of it in private Masses; but more then will bee valued, for the frequenting of the Holy Eucharist.

The Consecration ended always with the Lords Prayer.The Lords Prayer at the [...] Eucharist. Which confirms my opinion, that St. Paul, when he saith, How shall the unlearned say Amen to thy thanksgiving? 1 Cor. XIV. 16. means that Amen, which came after the Lords Pray­er; taking Thanksgiving there, for celebrating the Eucharist. For there is nothing so generally evident in Antiquity, as the [Page 104] beginning of the Consecration, at Sursum corda; or lift up your hearts; And the ending of it with the Lords Prayer, and the Doxology; which, in my opinion, being so frequented upon this occasion; by the licentiousness of Copyists, in time, came to bee crouded into the Text of the Scripture. For, it is ma­nifest enough, that the most considerable Copies do not own it.

But, the Common Prayers for all estates, as it seems, some­timesThe Place for the Common Prayers. went before the Consecration, sometimes came after it. For, I am to seek for evidence in the Records of the Latine Church, importing that they came after the Consecration. And yet I have made it evident, that they were used of old by the Latine Church, at celebrating of the Eucharist; though now not found in the present Latine Mass. And the Liturgy of the Church of Alexandria, and the Aethiopick, depending upon that Church, have them before the Consecration. But the best and most Greekish Forms, and Authorities agreeing therewith, make them come after it.

CHAP. XVI.

ONe point of these prayers I must speak to here in particular.Difference in the state of Souls departed in Grace, before Judgment. To wit, the Commemoration of the dead, for which the Mass is now pretended, by the Church of Rome, a Sacrifice for quick and dead, to what effect the Scripture, expounded by the practice of the whole Church, may bee thought to allow it. I have shewed out of the Revelation, that the souls of M [...]rtyrs, ap­pearing before the Throne of God, in the Court of the Tab [...]r­nacle; (to wit; in the Jerusalem which is above) The Throne appears to St. John indeed; but is to bee understood, in the Holy of Holies; and therefore is not seen in the Cou [...]t of the [Page 106] Tabernacle. But those 144000 that were sealed, and pre­served from the destruction of Jerusalem, appear not in the Court of the Tabernacle, but on Mount Sion, a place of inferior holiness: And sing not the Martyrs song, but are only able to learn it, which no body else could do. Sufficient Arguments of difference, in the State of blessed souls; though all beneath that which the Resurrection promiseth; which all of them ear­nestly desire. Suppose the place bee the third Heavens; suppose that it is called Paradise; (because, of necessity, it answers the Figure of the earthly Paradise,) suppose that in respect of the Saints that dyed under the Law, it is called Abrahams bosome; There may bee inferior Mansions, in the mean time before the Rusurrection, for souls of inferior holiness; though they depart in the State of Grace. For how oft do the Apostles signifie a sollicitous expectation of the Day of Judgement, in those whom they suppose to dye Christians? A thing which can by no means stand with the estate of those that are before the Throne of God, praising him day and night, in the Court of the Taber­nacle. And therefore St. Ambrose and St. Augustine had great reason to follow the fourth Book of Esdras, (written, without doubt, by a very antient Christian, though not authorized by the Church) placing the generality of souls departed in the state of Grace in certain secret receptacles; signifying no more, then the unknown Condition of their estate. For, the practice of the Church, in interceding for them at the Celebration of the Eucharist, is so general, and so antient, that it cannot bee thought to have come in upon imposture, but that the same aspersion will seem to take hold of the Common Christi­anity.

But, to what effect this Intercession was made; that is, in­deed,The antient Church never Prayed to re­move them out of Purgatory. the due point of difference. For, they who think that the antient Church prayed, and do themselves pray for the removing of them from a place of Purgatory pains, into perfect happiness, by the clear sight of God, offend against the Antient Church, as well as against the Scripture, both ways. For Justine Martyr makes it a part of the Gnosticks Haeresie, that the soul without the body is in perfect happiness. They indeed held it, because they denyed the Resurrection. But the Church therefore, believing the Resurrection, believes no per­fect [Page 107] happiness of the Soul before it. And the great consent of the Antient Church in this point, is acknowledged by divers learned Writers in the Church of Rome. Neither is the consent of it less evident in this; That there is no translating of Souls into a new estate, before the great Tryal of the general Judge­ment.

In the mean time then, what hinders them to receive com­fort To what pur­pose they were remembred at the Eucharist. and refreshment, rest, and peace, and light, (by the visi­tation of God, by the consolation of his Spirit, by his good Angels) to sustain them in the expectation of their tryal, and the anxieties they are to pass through, during the time of it? And though there bee hope, for those that are most sollicitous to live and dye good Christians, that they are in no such suspense, but within the bounds of the heavenly Jerusalem; yet, be­cause their Condition is uncertain; and, where there is hope of the better, there is fear of the worse; therefore the Church hath always assisted them with the prayers of the living, both for their speedy tryal, (which all blessed souls desire) and for their easie absolution, and discharge with glory before God, together with the accomplishment of their happiness in the re­ceiving of their bodies.

Now, all Members of the Church Triumphant in Heaven,The Saints de­parted pray for the Militant Church. according to the degree of their favour with God, abound also with love to his Church Militant on earth. And, though they know not the necessities of particular persons, without parti­cular Revelation from God; yet they know there are such ne­cessities, so long as the Church is Militant on earth. Therefore it is certain, both that they offer continual prayers to God for those necessities; and, that their prayers must needs bee of great force and effect with God, for the assistance of the Church Mi­litant in this warfare. Which if it bee true, the Communion of Saints will necessarily require, that all, who remain sollici­tous of their tryal, bee assisted by the prayers of the living, for present comfort, and future rest. That the living beg of God, a part and Interest, in the benefit of those Prayers, which, they who are so neer to God in his Kingdom, tender him with­out ceasing, for the Church upon earth. As for prayers for the translating of Souls out of Purgatory; the beginning of their coming into the Church is visible.

And so is the coming in of those prayers, which call upon theOf Prayers to the Saints de­parted. Saints departed by name, in any publique Office of Devotion in the Church. The voluntary devotions of private persons, most of them ignorant and carnal, are no Argument of the O­riginal and general practice of the Church. And there is no mark of these invocations, till Processions were frequented with Litanies, which consisted most an end of them: and, could not bee in use before the time of Constantine, but were not in use till a good while after it. The abuse hath encreased so far, (especially in addresses to the blessed Virgin) that the same things are desired of them, and in the same terms, in which they are desired of God, even in the holy Scripture. That the appearance of Devotion, to the Mother, is visibly, and outwardly, no less then to the Son. So that, were there not a profession of that Church extant, contradicting the proper sense of such prayers, and forcing them that address them, unless they will contradict themselves, to abate their own mean­ing, and to expound them to signifie no more, then obtaining that of God which they are desired to grant of themselves; they could not bee excused of Idolatry. But can by no means be excused, for leading simple Christians upon a Praecipice of such horrible danger; by encouraging both them, and those that teach them such devotions. For, did not carnal Superstition hope for temporal blessings, from such voluntary applications, wi [...]hout that promise of God, which the condition of our Christianity engageth; how should a Christian bee induced to go about by a Saint, that hath immediate access to God, to the same effect?

That which hath been said of the Primitive Liturgy, barrethNo Common Prayer in the Pulpit by Gift; but in a set form, at the Communion Table. the pretense of this time, requiring the Liturgy setled by Law of this Kingdom to bee changed, upon a ground never heard of in the Church, for 1600 years. That every Minister (whether mean­ing Bishop; Priest and Deacon or Priest only) is to have a gift in praying: and that his people ought to pray that which his gift furnisheth, and not that which the Church prescribeth. And, to the end that such gifts may be used; that no Minister be tied to celebrate the Eucharist above thrice a year: and that, in case hee have convenient company. But, that they, whose age and infirmity enables them not to preach and pray thus in the Pulpit, [Page 109] reading the Service over and above, bee not tied to minister the Service prescribed. Now would I have those that demand this to shew me, that ever the prayers, for which the Church meet­eth, were made in the Pulpit, for 1500 years after Christ. I know I have alleged a prayer of St. Ambrose before his Sermon; I know there is a passage of St. Augustine alleged to the same purpose. But neither of them signifies any more, then a prayer to God, to bless them in their preaching. The Common Prayers of the Church are another thing; even that which I have said. The common prayers of the Church, on all ordi­nary and solemn Assemblies, were made at the Altar; because the Eucharist was held always, and ought to bee held always, the principal Office of Gods service, for which Christians ought to assemble, more frequently, then there can bee either ability, or opportunity for preaching. And that which I have said of the Primitive Liturgy is full evidence hereof. For I have shew­ed a set form of it; (which these men return a non inventus of to his Majesties Commission) but, that ever there was any Prayer of the people used in the Pulpit, will never ap­pear.

I grant that there were miraculous Graces under the Apostles,Apostolical Graces subject to Order. which St. Paul directs the use of, in ministring the prayers of the Church. But, that all Ministers had them, they who require an ordinary Gift, in all Ministers, to that purpose, cannot prove. Much less, that this ordinary Gift is to succeed those miraculous graces, in all Ministers. For even then, St. Paul saith, that the Spirits of the Prophets were to bee subject to the Pre­phets; because God is not the God of confusion, but of order. And therefore charges all that pretended to such graces, to ac­knowledg the Grace of an Apostle in him: and to bee subject to the Orders which there hee gives out. If the immediate in­spirations of Gods Spirit were so dispensed, that inferiors could presume nothing to the prejudice of Order, against Superiors, upon that pretense; Much more, now that Christianity is setled, and the Unity of the Church a part of it, are the Gifts of in­feriors to bee ruled by the gifts of Superiors; that Order, in which Unity consisteth, may bee preserved.Of the Graces of the Spirit in St. Paul, and the Original of Litanies.

St. Paul saith, that the Spirit maketh intercession for the Saints with groans unutterable. And St. Chrysostome saith thereupon, [Page 110] that they who had these Miraculous Graces, being imployed to minister the prayers of the Church, did offer them to God with those deep sighs, and groans, which could hardly express what the Spirit suggested. But addeth, that the Deacon did the same in his time. And this is visibly true, by all that remains of the Liturgy, in the Records of the Church. It is evident, that though the Bishop or Priest, celebrating the Eucharist, did offer the Common Prayers which I have described; yet the Deacon also indited the same to the people, from point to point, as you have it to this day in our English Litanies; the people answer­ing from point to point; Lord have mercy; or some such acclamati­on as our Litanies do direct. So far is the Catholique Church from the Maxime now pretended; that the Priest alone is the mouth of the people in their prayers. And the sighs and groans of that deep devotion, which St. Paul saith the Spirit then mo­ved, and St. Chrysostome, that the people, answering the Dea­con, then expressed, the form of our Litanies now containeth and expresseth. And indeed, those prayers which the Deacon indited, are called Litanies, in divers of the antient Liturgies; Shewing that our Litanies are but a Transcript of them, for the use of other occasions, besides the Celebration of the Eucharist. And Smectymnuus may remember how much they mistook Ju­stine Martyr; thinking hee had said, that the Minister prayed thus according to his Gift; Who saith indeed, that hee prayed with all his might; to wit, with all the Devotion he could use. Which devotion, as it is not to bee found in their Pulpit Pray­ers, pretending to apply the Gift to the present occasion; so it visibly breathes in the Litanies, through all occasions of Gods Church.

When miraculous Graces failed, the prayers of the ChurchThe Prayers of the Eucharist how prescribed by the Apostles. were not to fail. And, the Apostles having delivered that which I have said to the Church; whosoever was authorized to celebrate the Eucharist, both must bee, and easily might bee instructed, how hee should discharge that Office. There is so much agreement, both for mater, and manner, in that which remains of it, in the Records of the Church, as to justifie those, that affirm it to bee received by Tradition from the Apo­postles. Thus was the Forme prescribed from the beginning. In time abuses might come. For what Rule can there bee in [Page 111] humane business, that shall not bee subject to abuse? There­fore the African Canon, which I spake of, Orders, that Bishops should confer the Forms which they used (to wit, through their Dioceses) with their fellow Bishops. Other Canons succeeding; that the same Form should bee used throughout every Province. In time the Church of Rome obtained, that the Form thereof should bee received all over the West.

Wee see in the mean time, what this pretense of Gifts tendsPrayers of the Reformed Churches in the Pulpit, but by a form. to. Even to shut the Eucharist out of doors, or to confine it to thrice a year, in case there bee company; which case may bee so managed, that a man need not bee tied to celebrate the Eu­charist all his life time. This is the satisfaction the Church hath, for their withholding the Eucharist so many years, from those that could not indure the ignorance, malice, and insolence of their Buckram Triers. I grant that Calvins Reformation brings the Common Prayers from the Altar into the Pulpit; And, by that means, confines the Communion to four times a year. But are wee to follow Calvin, in that, wherein the whole Church of God is against Calvin? Wherein, the Rule of this Church, and the Law of the Kingdom, agrees with the whole Church against Calvin? Was it the way to reform the a­buse of private Masses, to shut out the Communion excepting four times a year? It must bee said, that it was not the Reforming, but the Deforming of the Church: And the reforming thereof consists in restoring the Eucharist, into the place that it ought to hold among the Offices of the Church; So that the Communion thereof may bee▪ most generally, and▪ continually frequented, by Christians most prepared. But Calvin dreamed of no Gifts all the while. The Form of Common Prayer is as much prescribed, according to Calvin, as according to the Church of England; though it bee read in the Pulpit.

It is the new Gospel of the Long Parliament, that setup theThe effect of the Long Parlia­ment Prayers by the Spirit. pretense of praying by the Spirit; the Gift whereof is now claim­ed for every Ministers privilege, in bar to Gods Church. Though it bee manifest, that the greatest part have no such gift, so to minister the Offices of the Church, as may bee to the discharge of the people, the honour of God, and of Christianity; yet the Law of the Land must bee changed, as supposing that which wee see is not. The weaknesses and Imperfections, the Fals­hoods, [Page 112] the Blasphemies, the Slanders, the Sedition, the Schisme that wee have known vented in such prayers, oblige us to con­clude, that there is no such Gift in all Ministers; At least not of Gods Spirit. And therefore, that wee must not forsake Gods Church; changing the Form that is ruled by the Patern thereof, and the Eucharist to boot, for the Arbitrary prayers, that every Ministers Gift shall vent in the Pulpit.

CHAP. XVII.

THe determining of times, and places, and persons, byThe Lords Day observed by the authority of the Church. which, and at which, of the Circumstances and Cere­monies, of the Form, and order, according to which, the ser­vice of God is to be celebrated, is the Office, and therefore is within the power of the Church. The substance of Christiani­ty, wherein salvation consisteth, was determined by our Lord in person, to his Apostles. That which hee trusted them with, was the regulating of his Church, supposing the same Christi­anity; that God might bee served by the Assemblies of such, [Page 113] as might appear to profess it. That which he trusted the Apo­stles with, the Church remains, of necessity, trusted with by the Apostles; saving the personal Gift of the Holy Ghost in the Apostles, rendring their Acts blameless, in that estate for which they were made; though not sufficient for all estates of the Church. Otherwise, the power of the whole Church is the power of the Apostles: and obligeth the parts of the Church, not to transgress the Acts of it. Because the Unity of the Church is equally concerned in them; and the substance of Christianity in neither of both. This discovereth the Superstition of that Imposture which is pretended, by deriving the Obligation of the Lords Day from the Jewish. Sabbath. For what reason can endure, that the Church should bee bound to keep the first day of the week, by that Precept, which tyed the Synagogue to keep the last day of the week? Seeing then, the Obligation of it is to bee derived from the Act of the Apostles; (that is, from the power of the Church; For, being once received by the whole Church, it is for ever received to the same effect; if the premises bee true) it is the same Obligation that tyes all, to ob­serve the times appointed, for the service of God, by the Church; whether Fasting days or Festivals. The Example of the Primitive Christians at Jerusalem justifieth St. Hierome, and others of the Fathers, affirming; that the Church should, and would serve God continually, in publick, could the business of the world stand with it. And therefore, that order is to bee accounted most Christian, that provides most opportunity, for frequenting the publick service of God.

If this were considered, it would appear a meer Imposture,Therefore other Festivals, and times of Fast­ing, are to bee observed. to demand, that the Lords day bee celebrated with Sermons morning and evening, and arbitrary prayers to usher them in and out; treading underfeet all other times, set apart by the whole Church, for the service of God, by such Offices as it en­joyneth. If wee weigh by our own Weights, and mete by our own Measures; not only the mysteries of our Lords dispensati [...]n in the Flesh, but the memories of his Apostles and Saints; not only the time of Len [...], and the Wednesdays▪ and Fridays; But the time of Advent, the Evens of Festivals, the Ember and R [...] ­gation dayes, once appointed to that purpose, must still bee solemnized, for the Festivals and Fasts of Gods Church. To [Page 114] set a peculiar mark upon the Lords Day, as if the time of it were more obliging, then other time that is appointed to the same purpose, is to change the day, but to retain the Jews Superstition; as Calvin most truely hath told them, who in other things commit Idolatry to his Opinion; But, wherein he follows the whole Church, (in this point, and in the state of souls before the Resurrection) bid him farewell.

The Case is the same in the qualities of places, as well as ofHow places and persons become qualified for Gods Service. Preaching not convertible with mini­string the Sa­craments. persons. For the exercise of Christianity by the Law of this Kingdom, there must bee places where all must meet; they must bee limitted by the authority of the Church; they must not bee balked, for other places of mens private choise, but by those that are willing to bee charged with Schisme for doing it. They that quarrel the Bishops power in all other things, must call this also in question, when they mean to weigh by their own Weights, and mete by their own Measures. They are very stu­dious to confound the difference between Priests and Deacons, by having all called Ministers; being a Term that may serve all Orders, ministring those Offices which the Church enableth them to minister. But they who would impose this sense upon the stile of Ministers of Gods Word and Sacraments; that all, and no other but they who are ordained to Preach, are ordained also to Baptize and celebrate the Eucharist; must bee told that this is an Imposture, till they shew better reason for it, then hitherto hath been shewed. For I conceive, I have shewed sufficient rea­son, that the power of celebrating the Eucharist is convertible with the power of the Keys, qualifying all Christians for the Eucharist; which, in the Bishop onely, extendeth to publick causes, concerning his whole Church or Diocese; But in all Pres­byters, to private Causes, wherein it may bee questionable, be­tween God and the Conscience, whether a Christian bee quali­fied for the Eucharist, or not. As for the Sacrament of Baptisme; that, as the Bishop only allows it, in any case that may bee questionable; so, the ministring of it may come to a Deacon, in the Priests absence, nay to a Lay-man, rather then that any Child should dye unbaptized. Neither is the Office of preach­ing restrained, either to Priests or Deacons alone, by any other authority, then that of Gods whole Church; Which being once passed in the Case, by the general Custom and Practice of it, it [Page 115] must bee the greatest Sacrilege in the World; that is, the Sacri­lege of Schisme; to transgress it.

The respect due to the memories of the Apostles, and otherTimes, places, persons, and things conse­crated to Gods Service, under the Gospel. Saints and Martyrs of Christ, is a reason sufficient to determine the time and place for the service▪ of God. To question, that they are not just occasions for the consecrating of Festivals and of Churches, to the service of God, in honour of their memo­ries; is a just presumption, that men seek to bee saved by some other Christianity, then that which their Doctrine and their Blood planted. But their names, and the Festivals and the Churches that bear their names, are but circumstances, deter­mining that service to bee acceptable to God, which is perform­ed in the Unity of his Church; the authority whereof assigneth them to that purpose. No more are the Utensils and Orna­ments of Churches, the Vessels in which the Sacraments are ce­lebrated. But they who think it Superstition that these things should bee set apart from Vulgar use, and reserved only for Gods service, plainly commit Idolatry to their own Imaginati­ons in it. For it is manifest, that Consecration was in force, not only by the Law of Moses, but before it, under the Law of nature, as the Fathers call it; under those precepts which God gave Noah after the Flood, as the Jews will have it. And therefore, it tended, not only to figure Christ to come, but to maintain the service of God, and that reverence which it ought to bee performed with. What colour can there bee, that the Consecrations that were in force by the Law were figurative of Christ to come? And the Sacrilege of Judas, as well as of Ananias and Sapphira, remain unquestionable; because the sub­sistence of the Church, upon Oblations consecrated to that pur­pose, from the beginning, is as visible as the Church. As for the sense of the Catholique Church from the beginning, hee that believes the Unity thereof cannot question it. They therefore that have the Impudence to make that Superstition, which the people of God, both before and since Christ, have always used for the service of God, do they not commit Idolatry to their own Ima­ginations; which they prefer so far before all the world besides? Indeed the solemnity of Consecration requires a further questi­on, of Ceremonies in the service of God; whether or no they be for the advantage of Gods service: whether or no it bee in [Page 116] the power of the Church, to determine them for that purpose. For the solemnity of Consecrations passes not without Cere­monies.

Wee have this character of the Presbyterians published forCeremonies fig­nisying by in­stitution neces­sary in Gods service. their advantage; That they allow the natural expressions of Re­verence and devotion, as kneeling, and lifting up of the hands and eyes in prayer: as also, those meer circumstances of decency and order, the omission whereof would make the service of God, either not decent, or less decent; but Ceremonies of in­stituted mystical signification they allow not. But are not the mysteries of Christianity, the Incarnation, Death, Resurrecti­on, and Ascension of Christ, things instituted by God, not de­termined by nature? Is not the signifying of them, whereby they come to Remembrance, the means to procure and to en­crease that Reverence and Devotion, which wee are to attend the service of God with, and the inward affection which it ex­presseth? And why not then Ceremonies, instituted to signifie things, which Gods Grace, not nature determineth? Shall it be Christianity to believe the Institution of things above nature, for our salvation by Gods Grace; and shall it bee prejudicial to Christianity, to institute the means of procuring that Reverence and Devotion, which the Remembrance of them, in the pub­lick service of God requireth? shall the worship of God by Christians be tyed to signifie no more, then nature directeth Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans to signifie by it? Compare this new Gospel with the perpetual practice of Gods people, whether before or after the Law, whether before or after Christ; And you shall easily see, that it cannot bee accounted Superstition, but by those that commit Idolatry to their own Imaginations.

Let the signification bee that which natural reason is able toWhat kind of signification re­quisite. interpret, in all sorts of Christians; and, whether they allow it to bee called Mystical or not, they must allow it, as properly Religious; that is, as tending to advance that Devotion, which the Religion of a Christian signifieth, in the point of Gods ser­vice. And truely I do not, nor doth this Church, to my knowledg, allow the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome, the si [...]nification whereof is not to bee understood, by all sorts of Christians; but require books of learning to interpret their [Page 117] significations. They that serve God in a Language unknown to the people, do accordingly, when they serve him with Ce­remonies which they cannot understand. Allowing it Refor­mation to serve God in English, I allow it Reformation, to cut off the Superfluity of such Ceremonies; as stealing the nourish­ment of Devotion from the heart, wherein God hath placed his service. And therefore, I think it reason to submit to this Issue; whether or no, the Ceremonies in question bee accord­ing to the use of the Primitive Church; which the Reformation pretendeth, or should pretend, to restore. For I find, that, in the Primitive and Good Times of Christianity, the Church was far enough from seeking such abstruse and far fetched signi­fications. And that is a visible Rule, which the common pro­fession of Reformation determines. But I allow no man to al­lege the use of the Primitive Church, grown out of use long be­fore the Reformation, in bar to any Ceremony now setled by Law; not weighing by the same Weights, nor meting by the same Measures, in all other things. It is neither good conscience in them, nor would bee in the Publick, to change a Law of the Land upon a pretense, which they that allege will not stand to, in another Case.

But is it enough for Presbyterians to allow Ceremonies whichNot enough for the Presbyteri­ans to allow Ceremonies. nature teacheth, to allow order and decency in circumstances? Have they debauched this wretched people to such horrible pro­phaness, and irreverence, that they can think fit to pray sitting on their seats; to such barbarous confusion, that they can think every mans own fansie the best order, to exercise the Liberty of Christians in Gods service; and now think to satisfie with al­lowing the contrary? What shall the Church gain by reconciling them, if, having contributed so much to the destruction of or­der, they contribute not more then so to the restoring of it? but that must bee the care of Superiors. I will only mention the sign of the Cross; a Ceremony of so much reverence, and so general use in the whole Church of God, from the begin­ning; that nothing but the difficulty of recalling it, preserving Unity among our selves, can excuse this Church for not restoring it in many other Offices. But, to put it out of the Office of Baptisme would bee to condemn the Whole Church of God, without giving satisfaction to them, who, having obtained the [Page 118] silencing of it in Consecrating the Eucharist, according to the Liturgy, under Edward VI. have thereby been encouraged to demand so much more.

CHAP. XVIII.

BUt, for the justifying of Ceremonies, why should I allegeOffices which the Fathers call Sacramen [...]s, for their Ceremo­nies. any thing, but those Offices of the Church, which the Fa­thers have called Sacraments, as well as Baptism and the Eucha­rist? I conceive, I have alleged so sufficient a reason, for the dif­ference between those two and the rest, that slaunder it self can­not undertake to blast my meaning, in that point. For, things necessary to the Salvation of Christians as Christians are, by that mark, for ever distinguished from things necessary to the Salva­tion of Christians, as Members of the Church. Because the Salvation of private Christians is concerned, in not understand­ing the intent of the former sort; But in the latter sort, cannot [Page 119] bee concerned by not understanding the intent of them; but by violating that Order and Unity of the Church, which the Regu­lar Use of them serveth to maintain. That which I am to say of them here consists of two points. That they are Of [...]ces ne­cessary to bee [...]inistred to all Christians, concerned in them; And, that they are to bee solemnized with those Ceremonies, for which they are, without any cause of offense, called Sacra­ments by the Fathers of the Church.

How necessary i [...] it, that those that are baptized Infants, whenWhy the Bi­shop only Con­firmeth. they come to discretion, and to receive the Eucharist, should give account of the hope that is in them; and undertake their Christianity upon which it is grounded? For, hee hath not this hope to God, hee appeareth not to the Church to have it, but upon these terms. And thus far the parties seem content. But why should not Presbyters Confirm, as well as Bishops; that can baptize and celebrate the Eucharist, which is more to the Sal­vation of Christians? By Commission from Bishops, that they may do it, is a point very disputable. The practise of the Greek Church, in the case, is not new; Besides some appear­ance of the like under S. Gregory in the West. But that serves not the turn. They must have the Catechising of them after their mode; and make the grounds of Salvation what they please, and not what the Church appointeth. So the Answer is easie. For neither is Baptism or the Eucharist ministred, but by au­thority from the Bishop; And to Catechize, beside that Form which the Church allowes, is to sow the seed of everlasting dis­sention, in matter of Faith. Hee that thinks there was a Rea­son, why S. Peter and S. John should come to Confirm those, whom the Deacon S. Philip had baptized, can never want a rea­son, why the Bishop alone should do it. For hee cannot mini­ster the means of Salvation alone. But the Faith, and the Unity of his Church with the rest, is not to bee preserved without him. Therefore the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which Baptism promi­seth, dependeth upon the Bishops blessing; because it depend­eth upon the Unity of the Church. Therefore Haereticks and Schismaticks; who, by departing from the Unity of the Church, barre themselves of the effect of their Baptism; being received with the Bishops blessing, in the Primitive Church, were justly thought to recover their Title to it.

If Ordination were taken for the conveying of publick Au­thority,The effect of Ordination re­quireth Cere­mony in giv­ing it. to minister the Offices of Gods Church, by the act of those that have received, by their Ordination, authority to pro­pagate the same; there would bee no mervail, that S. Paul should suppose a Grace received by Timothy, through the laying on of his hands, or the hands of the Presbytery. For, if the pro­fession of Christianity inferre the Grace of Baptism; shall not the profession of that Christianity, which the state of the Cler­gy in general, or that particular degree to which every man is ordained, importeth, inferre the Grace which the discharge of it requireth? What is there to hinder it, but the want of since­rity in undertaking that, which the Order that a man undertakes, requires him to undertake? This is that which renders those Prayers of the Church of no effect, as to God, whereby the power is effectually conveyed, as to the Church.

In the mean time, shall not those Prayers bee solemnized withWhy the Ordi­nations of our Presbyters are void. due Ceremony, by which so great a Power in the Church is conveyed? Now, seeing Presbyters never received, by their Or­dination, authority to ordain others; seeing no Word of God gives it them; seeing all the Rules of the Whole Church take it from them; The Attempt of our Presbyters, in Ordaining without and against their Bishops, must needs bee void, and to no effect, but that of Schisme; in dividing of the Church up­on so unjust a Cause. They could not receive the Power of the Keyes, from them that had nothing to do to give it. And there­fore, in celebrating the Eucharist, they do nothing but profane Gods Ordinance. Therefore, the lawful Ordaining of them is not re-ordaining; but Ordination indeed, instead of that which was only so called.

If a Christian, after Baptism, fall into any grievous sin, void­ingThe necessity of Penance. the effect of Baptism, can it fall within the sense of a Chri­stian to imagine; That hee can bee restored by a Lord have mer­cy upon mee? No, it must cost him hot tears, and sighs, and groans, and extraordinary prayers, with fasting and almes; to take Revenge upon himself, to appease Gods Wrath, and to mortifie his Concupiscence; If hee mean not to leave an en­trance for the same sin again. If his sin bee notorious, so much the more; Because hee must then satisfie the Church, that hee doth what is requisite to satisfie God; that is, to appease his [Page 121] wrath, and to recover his Grace. The Church may bee many ways hindred, to take account of notorious sin. But the pow­er of the Keyes, which God hath trusted it with, is exercised only in keeping such sinners from the Communion, till the Church bee so satisfied.

And for this Exercise, the time of Lent hath always been de­putedThe observati­on of Le [...], and the use of it. by the Church. The Fast before the Feast of the Resur­rection stands by the same Law, by which that stands. For, the Feast was, from the beginning, the end of the Fast. So, the Lent-Fast, and the keeping of the Lords day, stand both upon the same authority. For, the Lords day is but the Remembrance of the Resurrection once a week. It doth not appear that the Fast was kept forty days, from the beginning. That it was kept before Easter, whensoever Easter was kept; that is, from the time of the Apostles; it doth appear. The baptizing of Con­verts, the restoring of the Relapsed, and the preparing of all, by extraordinary Devotion, to solemnize the Resurrection; was the work of it. Did this Church desire the restoring of this Order, and yet disowne Lent? Daniel abstained from pleasant meat when hee fasted; The Jewes forbad all that comes of the Vine, on the day of Attonement; The Whole Church of God always forbore Flesh and Wine when they fasted. And shall our Licentiousness make the difference of meats superstitious? Then let the late Parliament Fasts bee Reformation, that provided a good break-fast to fast with, and heard a Sermon as well after Dinner as before.

If Sin bee not notorious, there is no cause why it should notThe necessity of private Pe­nance, for the cure of secret sins. bee pardoned without help from the Church; supposing that the sinner exact of himself that Penance, which the Church would or ought to impose. But, whether all sinners can bee brought to know what that is; or knowing, to impose it upon themselves; let the common reason of Christians judge. They that assure them of pardon, and the favour of God without it; whether it bee themselves, or their false teachers; plainly they murther their souls. The Church of Rome, in making the Keys of the Church, the necessary means for pardon of all sin that voids the Grace of Baptisme, goes beyond the bounds of truth: In procuring a Law, that all submit to it once a year, goes not be­yond the bounds of Justice. It were to bee wished, that the [Page 122] abuses of that Law might be cured, without taking it away. For, if it bee the power of the Keys that makes the Church the Church; It will bee hard to shew the face of a Church, where the bles­sing of the Church, and the Communion of the Eucharist is granted, and yet no power of the Keys at all exercised? Nay, it will appear a lamentable case, to consider, how simple innocent Christians are led on till death, in an opinion, that they want nothing requisite for the obtaining and assuring of the pardon of their sins; when it is as manifest, that they want the Keys of the Church, as it is manifest, that the Keys of the Church are not in use for that purpose.

St. James ordaineth, that the Presbyters of every ChurchOf anointing the sick, accord­ing to S. James. pray for the sick, with a promise of pardon for their sins. This supposeth them qualified, by submitting their sins to the Keys of the Church, which the Presbyters do manage. The promise belongs not to the Office of Presbyters upon other terms. Hee requireth them also to anoint the sick with oyl; promising Reco­very upon it. Not to all that should bee anointed. For Chri­stians then should not dye, if true Christians. But, as the Dis­ciples of our Lord had used it; to evidence their Commission to the World: So was the manifestation of Gods Spirit, residing in the Church, granted for the benefit of his Church. Neither is there any cause, why the same benefit should not bee expected; but the decay of Christianity in the Church. In the mean time, the forgiveness of sin, according to St. James, comes by the Keys of the Church; Recovery of health, from the prayers of it. So, the Unction of the sick is to recover health, not to prepare for death; as the Church of Rome now useth it. But, supposing the health of the soul restored by the Keys of the Church.

All the pretenses for Divorce of lawful Mariages, all the in­cestuousMariage of Christia [...] not to bee Ruled by Moses Law. Contracts, all the unchristian solemnizing of Christian Wedlock, which the blessed Reformation hath authorized, are to bee attributed to one mistake; that the Mariage of Christians stands by the Law of Moses, not by the Gospel of Christ. Our Presbyterians, in their Confession of Faith, duely prohibit Mari­age in those degrees of alliance, which are prohibited in blood. But out of Leviticus, if they will prove it, their word must serve for our warrant, that this is the sense. If Man and Wife [Page 123] bee one flesh, then is a Man as neer his Wifes Kin as his own. But man and wife are not one flesh by Moses Law; licensing plurality of wives, and divorce; though by the Law of Para­dise. It was dispensed with after the Flood, and not revived but by our Lord. That Divorce, and plurality of wives, was not restrained, but by the Gospel; it is impudence to Dispute, much more to deny. The Mariage of the Niece, with the Uncle of the half blood, hath puzzled all them that would make it unlawful by Moses Law. The Mariage of a Christian with two Sisters successive, will bee as hard to condemn by the same. Granting the premises, all these Disputes cease. Mariage is the Bond of one with one, not to bee dissolved till death; by the Law of Christ, not by the Law of Moses. Whether Adultery dissolve the Bond or not, I leave it disputable for the present, as I find it. Mariage with a Pagan was void by Moses Law. St. Paul enables Christians to hold to it. Therefore hee refers them not to the Law. Christianity improves Moses Law in all things. Therefore Christians cannot be regulated by Moses Law, in Matrimonial causes. Therefore, in the prohibiting of degrees, as well as of divorce. For Moses Law prohibits more then that Law, which the Children of Noah received after Flood, had done. It were better to restrain all that which the present Canon Law restrains; then that the incests of the late licentious times should bee tolerated. For, the present Canon Law restrains▪ not much more, then the Greek Church restrains. But, if the Authority thereof bee not binding, by reason of the Usurpations of the Church of Rome; yet, to depart from the Canons of the Whole Church, and of those times which wee acknowledg, would bee a departure from the whole Church.

Hee that would bar the Cross, in Baptisme, for fear it shouldInstituted Ce­remonies are Sacraments with the Fa­thers. bee taken for a Sacrament; what would hee say to St. Ambrose, that cals it down right a Sacrament? I know not what hee would say, I know what hee should do; Hee should understand St. Ambrose by St. Ambrose, when hee makes a Kiss to bee a Sa­crament; as a Religious sign of that Religious Affection, which Kinsfolk professed to their neer Kinsfolk; whom, in his time, they saluted with a Kiss, to signifie that; as St. Ambrose declar­eth. At this rate St. Pauls holy kiss must needs bee a Sacra­ment. For it was a Religious signe of that charity, which [Page 124] Christians professed to Christians, when they were to receive the Communion with them. At this rate, it is no marvel that there are found seven Sacraments in the Fathers; For there are more then seven to bee found, if there bee as many Sacraments, as Ceremonies instituted by the Church.

If this bee true; the discharging of instituted CeremoniesThe Ceremo­nies of these Offices justifie instituted Ce­remonies. will bee a Defection from Gods Church. If Confirmation, Ordination, and Penance, bee Offices, in which the Church is indebted to God, and to his Church; If the effect of them bee of such consequence, that they have been always solemnized with the Imposition of hands; that Ceremony shall bee enough to make them Sacraments at this rate; and yet no neerer to Baptisme, and to the Eucharist, then that reason of the differ­ence which I have setled will allow. Nay, let the prayers of the Church, for the recovery of the sick, who submit to the Keys of the Church, bee solemnized with anointing; (a thing fit enou [...]h to bee done, may but the ground upon which, and the intent to which it is done, appear) and that shall bee a Sa­crament; and yet the want of it no more prejudice to salvation, then the disusing of the Kiss of peace, which comes (without peradventure) from the Apostle [...]. As for Mariage, the solem­nity of the blessing, the Ring, the Sacrament of the Eucharist; which, according to the custom of the whole Church, it ought to bee ministred with; will easily make it a Sacrament; though Imposition of hands, which is said still to bee used in some Eastern Churches, bee not used at all in the West. So, the effect and consequence of these Offices will oblige the Church, always to keep them in use; though the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments. But that sense, in which the antient Church makes them Sacraments, serves only to justifie the power of in­stituting Ceremonies in the Church.

CHAP. XIX.

THey who give the honour proper to God to his creature areThe worship of the Host, in the Papacy, is not Idolatry. Idolaters. They that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his creature. This is taken for a Demonstrati­on, that the worship of the Host is Idolatry. But will any Papist acknowledg that hee honours the Elements of the Eucha­rist, or as hee thinks, the Accidents of them, for God? Will common reason charge him to honour that, which hee believeth not to bee there? A Pagan, that honours the Sun for God, be­lieves him to bee God. And therefore another Pagan may as well believe another creature to bee God. Both Idolaters, for thinking the Godhead to bee in one or more creatures. But those greater Idolaters, who thought that the Godhead; to which, they took men, (whether living or dead) or other crea­tures, to bee advanced; was inclosed in their Images consecrat­ed to the worship of them. Hee that worships the Host be­lieves our Lord Christ to bee the only true God, hypostatically united to our flesh and blood. Which being present in the Eu­charist, in such a manner, as it is not present every where; [Page 126] there is due occasion to give it that Worship in the Eucharist, which the Godhead, in our manhood, is to bee worshipped with, upon all due occasions. Thus, wee say, hee was wor­shipped in the Antient Church, that believed the Elements to bee present. And they were no Idolaters. They that worship the Host do not believe that they remain. Nay, they say, they must bee flat Idolaters, if they bee there. Zeal to their opi­nion makes them say more then they should say. But, if they were there, they would not take them for God; and therefore they would not honour them for God: And that is it, (not saying that they should bee Idolaters if the Elements did remain) that must make them Idolaters.

They that believe not Transubstantiation have cause to for­bearChristianity would sanctifie kneeling at the Euch [...]rist, though it were. the Ceremony. But, forbear kneeling at receiving the Eucharist, in an Age that is taught already to sit at their prayers; and who w [...]ll warrant, that all the prayers of the Church shall not come, in a short time, to hearing the Minister exercise his Gift, and censuring him for it? Were worshipping the Host Idolatry; Christianity, using the gesture of kneeling, to signifie the worship of Christ, were enough to sanctifie it to Gods service. And this they must grant who serve God in Churches, which the Mass hath been used in; taking the Mass for Idolatry, as they do. In fine, Jews and Mahumetans are bound to take the Worship o [...] the Host for Idolatry. For they will needs take the worship of the Holy Trinity for no less. But they who know, that the Godhead of Christ is the reason, for which his flesh and blood is worshipped in the Eucharist, cannot take that Worship for Idolatry, because his flesh and blood is not present in the Eucharist as they who worship it there think it is. For they know, that the flesh and blood of Christ is no Idol to Christians, wheresoever it is worshipped.

Whether or no, having Images in Churches bee a breach ofWhat Images the second Com­mandment for­biddeth. the second Commandment; can bee no more question, then, whether or no, to have any Images bee a breach of it. For it must forbid Images in Churches, because it forbids all Images▪ If it bee interpreted to forbid onely Idols; that is, Images of false Gods; it must bee proved, that all Images in Churches are Idols, before it bee proved, that they are forbidden by it. It is far more reasonable to say; that the Cherubims, the Brazen [Page 127] Serpent, the Bulls, and other Images in Solomons Temple, were no breaches of it; Then to say, that God did dispense with his own Precept in those cases; having no appearance of any Dis­pensation in the Scripture, in which the Precept, and the seem­ing breach are both recorded. But it is manifest, that the Jews allow some kind of Imagery; and I doubt not, but the Mahu­metans do the like. And it is manifest, that the publique au­thority of that Nation, or Religion, could never dispense in that which Gods Law had prohibited. But it is manifest on the contrary, that it did and might restrain that, which Gods Law had licensed; to set an hedge about the Law, and keep the people further from breaking it. Now their restraints tye not Christians, but Jews. And therefore it is manifest, that the Church is tyed no further, then there can appear danger of Ido­latry; Which if it bee so heightned, beyond appearance, as to involve the Church in the crime of it, chargeth the Schisme that may come by that means, upon those that so inhanse it.

Now, granting that Epiphanius and the Council of Elvira did hold all Images in Churches dangerous for Idolatry; (ofReverencing of Images in Churches is not▪ Idolatry. which there is appearance) it is manifest, that they were after­wards admitted all over. And there might bee jealousie of of­fense, in having Images in Churches, before Idolatry was quite rooted out; of which afterwards, there might bee no appear­ance. But no manner of appearance, that Images in History should occasion Idolatry to those Images, in them that hold them the Images of Gods creatures; such as are those Images, which represent Histories of the Saints, out of the Scriptures, or other relations of unquestionable credit. The second Council of Nicaea seems to have brought in, or authorized addresses to solitary Images of Saints, placed upon Pillars to that purpose; whereof there is much mention in the Records of it. But, to the Images of Saints, there can bee no Idolatry, so long as men take them for Saints; that is, Gods creatures. Much less to the Images of our Lord. For it is the honour of our Lord, and not of his Image. Whereas they who thought their false Gods to dwell in their Images, (which thought made them Idols) must needs honour them with the honour pro­per to God; though, in so doing, they honoured indeed the Devil, that brought in Idols. Nay the Council it self, though [Page 128] it acknowledg, that the Image it self is honoured, by the ho­nour given to that which it signifieth, before the Image; yet it distinguisheth this honour from the honour of our Lord. And therefore teacheth not Idolatry, by teaching to honour Images; though it acknowledg, that the Image it self is honoured, when it need not.

For indeed, and in truth, it is not the Image, but the Princi­pal, Of honouring Images, and of having them in Churches. that is honoured, by the honour that is said to be done to the Image, because it is done before the Image. The Furni­ture and Utensils of the Church were honoured, in the Spotless times of the Church, as consecrated to Gods service; though the honour of them, being uncapable of honour for themselves, was manifestly, and without any scruple, the honour of God. But Images, so long as they were used to no further intent, then the Ornament of Churches, the remembrance of holy Histo­ries, and the raising of devotion thereby; (as, at the first, they were used by the Church) came in the number of things conse­crated to Gods service. And that Council was never of force in the West, till the usurped power of the Pope brought it in by force. Nor did the Western Church, when it refused the Coun­cil, discharge the having of Images in Churches, upon those reasons, and to those purposes which I have declared. So far they remain still justifiable. For, hee that sees the Whole Church on the one side, and only Calvin on the other side, hath hee not cause to fear, that they who make them Idolaters without cause, will themselves appear Schismaticks in the sight of God for it? For, what are they else, who please themselves in a strange kind of negative superstition, that they cannot serve God, if they serve him with visible signes of reverence? who hate the Images, because they hate the Saints themselves, and their Christianity? And therefore, that it bee not thought, that we are tyed to those terms of distance, which ignorant Preachers drive their Factions with; It is necessary to declare the grounds of truth, though it displease.

St. Paul, writing to the Romans, that were partly Jews,Mutual for­bearance which S. Paul enjoyn­eth the Ro­mans, not en­joyned else­where. partly Gentiles, converted to Christianity, (as appears by the whole Epistle) forbids them to condemn or despise one another, for making conscience of things (meats, and times hee expres­s [...]th) forbidden by the Law; or for using them without differ­ence. [Page 129] Hence it is now argued; that nothing can bee imposed up­on any Christian, which, out of tenderness of conscience, hee may think it against Gods Law for him to do. The Answer is, by denying the consequence. And the reason, because it is a particular order of St. Paul to that Church, for the present estate of it at that time; And therefore it doth not follow, that the Church can make no Law. For it could make no Law, if it were enough to discharge any man; that it is against his conscience to obey. The evidence for this reason is this; be­cause it appears, that the Apostles did order otherwise in the same cause, when the case was not the same. For it is mani­fest, that the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem had made an Act in Council, commanding the Gentiles that were converted to Christianity, to abstain from Fornication, and things offered in sacrifice to Idols, from things strangled and from blood; In fine, from those things, from which, strangers, that were licensed by the Law to live in the Land of promise, were hound to ab­stain. And might not those converted Gentiles have scrupled, whether or no it were lawful for them, to bee so far Jews; had not the authority of the Apostles been sufficient to put an end to their scruples? But it is manifest likewise, that, when St. Paul differed with St. Peter at Antiochia, about the necessity of compliance with the Jews, for Gentiles turned Christians, hee did forbid, and must needs forbid his followers to shew this compliance; lest by that means, hee might hold them in an opinion of the necessity of the Law, for the salvation of Chri­stians. Here were contrary Provisions, with force of Law, in that very case, wherein St. Paul commands only mutual for­bearance at Rome, in that estate wherein he writ his Epistle. And if St. Paul were in the right; which, they who take his writings for Scripture do not doubt; then were St. Peters fol­lowers bound to obey him, notwithstanding any tenderness in their consciences. And hee commands Tit. I. 10-15. to stop the mouths of those Deceivers of the Circumcision, that would not have all things pure to the pure, because their own consciences were defiled; Notwithstanding that they must needs have fol­lowers, that were touched in conscience, to think those things unlawful, which the Law allowed not. And their teachers mouths being stopped, were the hearers at their choise, whether they would follow them or not?

Whereby it appears, that Inferiors are to follow the Judg­mentTe [...]der co [...]sci­ences are to sub­mit to Superi­ [...]urs. of Superiors, in matters subject to the power of Superiors; notwithstanding the scruples of their own consciences to the contrary. And that the reason, why the Romans are forbid­den to condemn, commanded to forbear one another is; be­cause St. Paul thought it not meet to order any thing else in the business, during that estate; Seeing that hee ordereth other­wise in it, for other estates. So that all that remains is, whe­ther the matter in question [...]ee within the power of Superiors or not. In which there can bee no doubt amongst us, the mat­ters in question being acknowledged indifferent in themselves; And therefore, capable to signifie that, which Christianity not only alloweth, but requireth. And certainly there is no Law, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, that errour may not scruple at, as inconsistent with a good conscience. Why should not I be­leeve, that a Quaker is really touched in conscience, that hee ought not to pay his Tithes, though in obedience to the Law of the Land; as well as a Presbyterian, that hee ought not to receive the Communion kneeling? For I see many of the Church of Rome suffer, for denying the Right of a Prince excommuni­cate by the Pope; though it bee matter of Civil Law. There­fore, if hee that graspes too much is in the way to gripe nothing; then, an exception that lies against all Law, will do no effect against a few Ceremonies of this Church.

CHAP. XX.

THe Usurpation of temporal power by the Pope, upon theThe Declarati­on of V. Eliz. enableth Recu­sants to take the Oath of Supremacy. pretense of the pre-eminence of his Church in Ecclesiasti­cal matters, hath given this Crown just occasion, to declare it self Supreme Head, or Supreme Governour, (for, the kingdom of heaven is not in word but in power; as St. Paul saith) in all Causes, and over all Persons, as well Ecclesiastical as Civil. But, the ca­pacity of several senses, in words that signifie humane matters, (capable of so great a Latitude, by their nature) seemeth to have Produced out of this Act, a Sect of Erastians, very dangerous to Christianity; As immediately denying any Ordinance of God, for the Visible Unity of his Church, which is an Article of our Creed; but by consequence, shewing all, how they may enjoy the benefit of Civil Law, in a State that professes Christi­anity, without beleeving any more of Christianity then they please. This capacity was restrained, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign, by her Injunctions; by the Articles of Religion; by an Act of Parliament; not to signisie the abo­lishing, or the disclaiming of Ecclesiastical power, in part or in whole. And to such effect, that it is acknowledged now, in books written on purpose, by one party of Recusants, that they may freely take the Oath of Supremacy; saving the scruple [Page 132] that may remain, of offending those Recusants, who think that they may not take it. And I can by no means marvel at it. For, they who do openly profess that unlimited obedience to the Pope, in Ecclesiastical maters, which hee requireth; how can they, swearing the Oath of Supremacy, bee thought to abj [...]e his Ecclesiastical power in England; the words of the Oath being restrained by Law, to disclaim only the Temporal effect of it?

But it is manifest, that not only the unlimited power of the Pope,What further ambiguity that Oath involveth. but all authority of a General Council of the Western Churches, (whereof the Pope is and ought to bee the chief member, accord­ing to the premises) may justly seem to bee disclaimed, by other words of the same Oath. And that; Whereas the Pope usurped not only upon the Crown, but upon the Clergy of this King­dom; all those Usurpations are, by the Act of Resumption un­der H [...]nry the VIII. invested in the Crown. So that, when the Oath declares, to maintain all Rights and Pre-eminences an­nexed to the Crown; you may understand that maintenance, which a Subject owes his Sovereign, against those that pretend to force his claims from him. But you may also understand that maintenance, which a Divine owes the Truth, in asserting the Title of the Crown, to all rights vested in it. Which, hee that believes, that some rights of the Church are invested in the Crown, ought not to undertake; Though as a Subject, for preserv­ing the State of his King and Country, hee bee tyed to maintain all the claims of the Crown, against all the enemies of it.

Now, if an Oath required by the Sovereign Power bear twoWhat scan [...]al, the taki [...]g of it in the true sense ministreth. senses, in the proper signification of the Words; (which is more ordinary, then it is believed) the Subject may undergo it in that sense, which truth and right warranteth. And so, in regard the Pope, not content with his Regular authority in the Church, pretends Temporal power in disposing of the Domini­ [...]n [...] which hee disclaims Communion with, besides absolute power in mater [...] of Religion; it is lawful to swear, that hee ought to have no manner of power in this Kingdom, as things stand, ti [...]l hee depart from claims so unjust. But there is ap­pearance, that the misunderstanding of it hath produced an Opinion destructive to one Article of the Creed; to the being of any Visible Church, as founded by God. And besides, it is [Page 133] not possible, that all they, who are called to this Oath by Law, can ever bee able to distinguish that sense, wherein they ought, from that wherein they ought not to take it. And therefore, of necessity, the Law gives great offense; and that offense is the sin of the Kingdom, and calls for Gods vengeance upon it. Which though all are involved in; yet, in the other world, the ac­count will lye upon them that may change it and do not.

Now it is manifest, that all Recusants believe not the PopesThat this Oat [...] ought to bee in­larged, to all pretenses in Religi [...]n, that abridge Alle­giance. Temporal Power, nor think themselves bound to execute such Acts, as the Bull of Pius quintus against Queen Elizabeth. Those that do not, how should they bee liable to capital punish­ment; which the Law, in some cases, inflicts? For, how should they bee taken for the enemies of their Country otherwise? On the contrary, I have shewed, by the Troubles of Franckford, in the beginning of the Reformation, that there was then the same difference of opinion, amongst them that held with the Refor­mation, about obedience to Sovereigns, obeying the Church of Rome. And, that the same difference of opinion was the cause of the late Troubles, appeareth by the aspersion of Pope­ry upon his late Majesty, alleged to justifie the War against him. Whereby it appeareth, that they of that opinion do undergo the Oathes of Supremacy, and Allegiance, as provided only against the See of Rome, and the claims of it; Thinking them­selves enabled, notwithstanding the same, to limit their Alle­giance, to that which their Religion shall allow. And there­fore there is great Reason, why the Kingdom should enact a new Oath, extending the Original Allegiance of all Subjects to all cases, in which, experience hath shewed, or reason may foresee, that Religion may bee pretended, to abridge the Ob­ligation of Allegiance. This I am encouraged here to declare, by the late Act of the Kingdom of Scotland, establishing for the future the form of an Oath, whereby the obligation of Allegi­ance i [...] extended to the renouncing, not only of any claim for the See of Rome; but of all pretenses whatsoever, (whether upon the account of Religion, or of civil Right) of abridging the ob­ligation of it. For, though I neither maintain nor find fault with the terms which it useth; yet, the agreement and the difference between the case of both Kingdoms, as it evidenceth to all the necessity, so it determineth to them that are to understand the [Page 134] State of both, the agreement and the difference of that which ought to bee provided. And seeing it is the true consequence of the common Christianity, that enables the Kingdom to do this; because supposing, as it doth, the State of this World, it can­not extend to the altering of it; there is great reason, why a Divine should bee allowed to say it, not entring upon other con­siderations, wherein Religion is not concerned. For, in the next place to the bringing in of a new Provision, the conscience of the Kingdom is best discharged, the Scandals that may bee oc­casioned removed, the wrath of God prevented or appeased, by the secular Powers allowing these interpretations to pass with­out contradiction, that may enable all estates to depose it with judgement, as well as with truth and righteousness. Wee have this evidence for that which I say; that the authorities of those Divines of this Church, that have declared the sense of the Oath of Supremacy with publick allowance, are now al­leged by the Papists themselves, to infer, that the mater of it is lawful, as capable of the sense which they declare.

Now, the bounds of Reformation being visible, by the FaithThe extent of Secular Power in Reforming the Church. and the Laws of the Catholique Church; the extent of Secular power in Ecclesiastical maters, and over Ecclesiastical persons; (and therefore, in the reforming of them) preserving Ecclesia­stical power in persons that have it, by the founding of the Church, from God; cannot remain invisible. For, in the first place, there can bee no question; That the Sovereign as a So­vereign, is to maintain his own Rights, by such means as hee finds meet, against all Usurpations, under pretense of the Church, and the authority of it. For, the common Christi­anity assureth him, that all such Usurpations are contrary to it. And besides, as a Christian Sovereign, it is his Inheritance to bee a Member of the Church, and a Protector of all his Sub­jects in the same right. Therefore all Christian Sovereigns are born Advocates and Patrons of the Faith, and of the Rights of the Whole Church. And if, by lapse of time, they bee gone to decay; if by any express Act they have been infringed; it lyes in them, to restore their Subjects, and themselves, to those Rights; being brought into evidence by the authority and cr [...] ­dit of the whole Church. But, seeing the determining of the mater of Ecclesiastical Law, as well as of Controversies of [Page 135] Faith, belongs to those that have authority in the Church, by the foundation of it; Of necessity, the fitting of the present Laws of every Church, to those which the whole Church hath been ruled by from the beginning; as the difference, which may ap­pear in the State of those bodies to which they were given, shall require; will, by vertue of Gods Law, belong to those that have such authority, by the Foundation of the Church. And upon these terms, the right of Secular power in Church ma­ters, is accumulative, and not destructive to the Rights of the Church. And upon these terms only, the Sovereign is justifia­ble at the great Day of Judgment, in things that may bee done amiss, in reforming the Church.

CHAP. XXI.

ANd upon Supposition of the premises, for which, I con­ceive,The pretense of Infallibility makes the breach unrecon­cileable. I have produced competent evidence; I proceed to take the Balance in hand, and to put the Extreams into the Scales, that I may put it to the conscience of all, that are [Page 137] resolved to prefer truth before Faction or prejudice, where the point of Reformation lyes upon terms of right: And how neer the publique Powers of this Kingdom are bound to come to it, in this Case; when an Uniformity in Religion is to bee setled by Law, for the Church of England. In the first place then, the Infallibility of the present Church is to bee held [...]or an Er­rour of pernicious consequence, in the Church of Rome. For it submits all the parts of Christianity, to the passion and interest of persons, that shall bee for the present, in power to sway those maters, wherein the whole Church is concerned. It is a thing manifest in the world, that, though that which concerns all, in point of Religion, is to bee treated by all; yet, that which is treated by all, is concluded always, by the authority of a few. So things passed, when Councils were frequented. The Free­dom of Councils being interrupted; and the present Church accepted for Infallible; the See of Rome will of necessity bee the present Church: And the passions and interests thereof will have as much power, in maters of Religion, as those passions and interests can allow, and stand with. What the effect thereof may bee, I need not argue to those that profess the Re­formation, upon that account. Only thus far they may seem excusable, that there is no Act, with force of Law, tying all of that profession to maintain it. Infallibility may bee claimed for the whole Church; And that is true. And it may bee claimed for the present Church, which is false. They that pretend to reduce us to the Church of Rome would spoil their own market, if they should distinguish thus. Therefore they plead Infallibility, without distinguishing.

On the other side, there is as much difference, between theSo doth the pre­tense of perspi­cuity in the Scripture. sufficiency of the Scripture, for the salvation of all, and the clear evidence of all that is necessary to bee known, for the salvation of all, to all, in the Scriptures. The one is as true, and the other as false, as the Infallibility of the present Church is false, and the Infallibility of the whole Church is true. And, to appeal to the Scriptures alone, when the sense of them only is questionable, is to declare, that wee will submit to no other trial but our own sense: As they, who declare the present Church infallible, can never depart from any thing which once it hath declared.

For it is manifest, that they who appeal to the ScripturesThe Trial must suppose the Ca­tholick Church. alone, having before this appeal declared themselves in the points of difference between the Reformation and the Church of Rome; do declare themselves tyed in conscience, to stand to that sense of the Scripture, upon which they ground their opinion, in the maters of difference. What means then can remain, to bring that to a Trial, which causes division upon these terms, but to acknowledge one Catholick Church, which our Creed professeth? And by consequence, to submit our sense of all Scripture, that remains in question, all difference in Doctrine, all Laws of the Church, to bee determined according to the sense and practice of the whole Church; that is, within the bounds of it? For, to proceed to divide the Church still into more and more parties, and Communions; till wee have lost the sense of any obligation, to hold communion with the whole Church; is more destructive to the substance of Christianity, then all that corruption, which the Reformation pretendeth to cure. But, to confining our sense of the Scripture, our opinions in ma­ter of Doctrine, and the Laws which wee demand, within that which the Faith and the Laws of the whole Church may ap­pear to require; wee are half the way onward to the point of Reformation, having the ground and the reason, and therefore the measure and the terms of it.

The mistake of the Schools, and of the Council of Trent af­terThe Fanaticks further from the truth of Christianity▪ then the Church of Rome. the Schools, in the nature of Justification, and the effect of infused righteousness, to which they ascribe it, is no way de­structive to Christianity. No more is the opinion of satisfaction and merit, in the good works of Christians, so long as it is grounded upon Gods promise; which, they that inflame that opinion to the highest, in the Church of Rome, must acknow­ledg to come into consideration, whether they will or not. As for the merit of Grace, by the works which a natural man is able to do; commonly called meritum congrui, as that which is fit for God to give, though not for the worth of the works; It is indeed an Errour of greater danger; but never was general in the School, and now generally disallowed; so far it was always from being enjoyned by the Church. But what is this in com­parison of that furious Doctrine, that the assurance of a mans Predestination is justifying Faith? In which, the opinion of ab­solute [Page 139] Predestination to Glory, and of Gods predetermining a man to do all that hee doth, is twisted together with an Enthu­siasme; that wee are justified, and made the children of God, by being assured hereof by his Spirit; Not supposing any con­dition of Christianity, in consideration of which it is had; and by the knowledg whereof it is assured us. For they that be­lieve, that Gods predetermination is the reason and the ground of freedom in mans Will, and of contingence in the effects of it, supposing freedom and contingence, do thereby bar the ill con­sequence of their own mistake. But hee that can think himself assured of that which the Gospel promiseth, not being assured that hee performeth the Christianity, which by his Baptisme hee undertaketh; why should hee hold himself tied, why should hee study and endeavour himself to perform it?

Nay, holding his Christianity, and the Scriptures whichThe consequence of their princi­ple worse then that of Infalli­bility. teach it, by the same dictate of the Spirit, which assures his salvation upon those terms; why should hee not hold that which Christianity and the Scriptures teach not, with the same devo­tion and assurance, which he accepteth the Scriptures and his Christianity with? Why should hee not, with the Gnostickes, and Mahomet, and the Mannichees, place his salvation in that which the Spirit teacheth him beside and above the Scriptures; allowing Christianity for proficients? The same consequence takes hold, in some measure, of those who believe the Infallibi­lity of the present Church. For making the sentence thereof the only reason of believing, they tye themselves to accept whatso­ever it shall decree, for mater of Faith; and therefore, con­cerning their salvation as much, as it concerns their salvation to believe the holy Trinity. Indeed there is not so much danger for them. For, the persons on whom they repose themselves, for the Church, being persons of that interest in the World, which cannot stand, with the open corrupting of Christianity; The fear is, that they may authorize those corruptions, which the coming of the World into the Church shall make popular; Not, that they shall think it for their interest, to change that, which it is not popular to change.

In the mean time, having shewed the point of Reformation,The point of Truth in the middle between both. by shewing the point of truth; whereby, all that the Refor­mation disputes with the Church of Rome is cleared; namely, [Page 140] that that Faith which moveth to undertake Baptism is the Faith which alone justifieth; I have shewed withal, that the express profession hereof is that which must clear us from all impu [...]ation of the Schism with the Church of Rome; and of compliance with any Fanaticks, that have taught the opposite Haeresie; being, by such profession, excluded from all liberty of teaching it for the future. They who take justifying Faith to bee Confidence in God through our Lord Christ, do commit the mistake which I have shewed. And, if they go farther, to think, that, by being assured of Gods Grace, they can never dye cut of that estate; they may indeed think themselves tyed to return to God by Repentance; But, may they not easily bee deluded to neglect it, thinking themselves certain before hand that they shall do it? Which if it bee considered, the danger of the mistake will appear no less, then that which the Do­ctrine of the Council of Trent threatneth.

As for the Question between mans free Will and Gods Prae­destinationHow Salvation is concerned in the matter of Free Will and Grace. and Grace; taking it by it self, as not complicated and twisted with the other, concerning justifying Faith; the difficulty of it being so great as it is, the true resolution of it, which is the reconcilement of Grace with free Will, can by no means seem to concern the substance of Faith, necessary to bee held for the Salvation of all Christians. But, the denying, either of mans free Will, or Gods free Grace, may, and cer­tainly doth concern it. And therefore, the second Council of Orange having determined; as well that no man is appointed by God to death; (and therefore to sin) as, that whosoever perseveres until Death is appointed by God unto effectual Grace; there appears no necessity, why the Church should run any hazard of division, by decree [...]ng farther in the Point; (which wee see come to pass in the United Provinces) having that decree, received of old by the Western Church, to settle the bounds of necessary Truth.

Nor is there any other means of settle the necessity of Bap­tism,Salvation con­cerned in the Sacrament [...], [...]p­on the same terms. and of the Holy Eucharist, but the profession of this truth, for the sense of our Creed, in the Article of one Bap­tism for the remission of s [...]ns; the neglect whereof hath occasi­oned, not only the Sects of our Anabaptists, Q [...]akers, and other Enthusiasts and Fanaticks; but hath given S [...]cinus ground e­nough [Page 141] to count Baptism indifferent: And some of our Fana­ticks, to think it a meer mistake, that any man was ever bapti­zed with water to make him a Christian, since the ceasing of Moses Law and Johns Baptism. As for the Sacrament of the Eucharist; that which concerneth Salvation in it is manifest, admitting the Premises. Namely, that they who make good, or revive the Covenant of their Baptism, in receiving it, shall re­ceive the body and blood of Christ; and by consequence his Spirit, hypostatically united to the same; to enable them to perform it. To which purpose, it must needs bee requisite, that this tender bee attributed, not to the Faith of him that receives; (though the tender must needs become frustrate with­out it) but to the Faith of the Church, and the act of that Faith, in executing the order of our Lord, and deputing the Elements to bee the body and blood of Christ by Consecration, before the receiving of them. This, who so holds, shall nei­ther bee engaged, either to Transubstantiation or Consubstan­tiation; nor yet to hold either of both destructive to the Salva­tion of them that are bred in them; holding that which is ne­cessary to Salvation; Namely, the renewing of the Covenant of Baptism, in and by Communion in the holy Eucharist. As for them who, abhorring Transubstantiation, communicate with Consubstantiation; It is enough that I say as afore; that they weigh not by their own weights, nor mete by their own measures. For how is it more destructive to the Grace of the Sacrament, that the body and blood of Christ is thought, from the Conse­cration, the subject of the accidents of those Elements that once were; then, that they should possess the same dimensions, which the substance of the Elements filleth: And that, not by virtue of the Consecration, but, of the Hypostatical Union of the flesh and blood of Christ with his God-head? But, the errour of the Sacramentaries, taking this Sacrament for a mee [...] sign, to con­firm a mans Faith; leaving it indifferent whether consecrated or not, leaves it also indifferent whether used or not; though the Socinians only owne the consequence. But, if the Faith which it confirmeth bee thought to bee the assurance of a mans Praedestination, then involveth in the Haeresie of the Fanaticks.The abuses of the Church of Rome in Con­firmation.

As for the rest of those Ordinances, which the Church of Rome counteth Sacraments, as well as Baptism and the Eucha­rist, [Page 142] though not to the like effect; It is manifest, that they tend all of them, to a wholesome Communion in the Holy Eucharist. Confirmation was, for many hundred years, given after Bap­tism, before receiving the Eucharist; which was to bee received by those that were baptized, upon their Baptism. If the Bishop himself baptized them, (as usually hee did baptize those that were baptized in the Mother-Church, at the usual times of Ea­ster and Whitsontide) then did hee Confirm them immediately. If they were baptized in their Parishes; which fetched Chrisme from the Mother-Church, on Maundy Thursday, in token of the license to baptize, which they had from the Bishop; they were brought to the Mother-Church to bee Confirmed. A ma­nifest sign of that which I said; That Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop, because his authority it is, that must allow the baptized to bee of the number of the Church. For, whereas the Gift of the Holy Ghost, promised in Baptism, depends, never the less, upon the continuing of the Baptized Members of Gods Church: Is it strange, that the Holy Ghost, which Baptism pro­miseth a Christian as a Christian, should bee given him again by Confirmation, as a Member of Gods Church; when, hee that believes and lives as a Christian otherwise, cannot have the Holy Ghost, unless hee continue in the Church, over and above? Now that all are baptized Infants, how necessary it is, that Con­firmation should pass upon them, before they come to receive the Eucharist, I need not dispute; Bo [...]h sides acknowledging, that, as well the tryal of their knowledge, as the exacting of their profession, in Christianity, is a thing due unto them from the Church. And therefore, in the Church of Rome, where this substance of the Office is not provided for, it is little more then a shadow; Professing Unity with the Church, by seeking the Bishops blessing, but neglecting the reason for which, the Unity of the Church is provided by God, for the Salvation of a Christian; to wit, the exacting and allowing of his Christia­nity.

All Ordination tends to the Celebration and Communion ofIn the other f [...]ur Offices. the Eucharist; As well that of Bishops, to the intent that they may Ordain the other Orders; And that of Deacons, that they may wait upon the Celebration of it: As that of Priests, that, receiving the Power of the Keyes, to warrant the effect of it, [Page 143] they may therefore have power to celebrate it. Whereby it may appear, how great an abuse it is to this Ordinance, in the Church of Rome, that a Priest is Ordained to sacrifice for quick and dead; Understanding, for the dead; to deliver their Souls from Purgatory pains to the sight of Gods face; But, for the l [...] ­ving; That all that assist, (or assist not, so the Priest intend them) though they mind not what is done, much less understand or assist it with their devotions, by virtue of the work done, have the Sacrifice of Christs Cross applyed to them, to such effect as the Priest shall intend. Whereas, the celebrating of Ordination with the Communion of the Eucharist signifieth plain enough; That the Grace of ministring aright the Office which they re­ceive depends upon the Christianity, which they profess to re­ceive it with, by communicating in the Eucharist; As well as the effect of it, upon the Christianity of those to whom they shall minister the same. As for the ministring of the Keyes of the Church in Penance, whether publick, in notorious sins, or private, for the assuring of those which are not notorious, that they have right to the Eucharist; you see it tends still to Com­munion in it. And you may as easily see, how great is the a­buse of this Ordinance in the Church of Rome, when it is taught; That, submitting to the Keyes of the Church by Con­fession turneth imperfect sorrow for sin, (or, as some say, sorrow for the guilt of punishment, not for the offense of God, which they call attrition) into contri [...]i [...]n; which is that sorrow which intitleth to forgiveness. Whereas the power of the Keyes is or­dained to procure this sorrow, by barring a sinner from the Communion, till it appears that hee hath it; not that, submit­ting to the Keyes, ipso facto hee hath it. And upon this abuse there hangs a second; that when the sinner, undertaking the Pe­nance enjoyned to make his conversion appear, is thereupon ad­mitted to the Communion, before the performing of it; (for which there may bee many reasonable occasions, though not according to the Primitive Rule) the performing of it is thought, and said, not to pretend the qualifying of him for pardon, but the redeeming of temporal pains, remaining due after [...]in is par­doned; and therefore to be paid in Purgatory, if not satisfied here. Things, whereof there is no mark in the Faith and Pra­ctise of the Catholick Church. The Unction of the sick, I have [Page 144] shewed, to bee only an appendage of the Ministry of the Keyes, in that estate, tending to the recovery of bodily health. And therefore called extream Ʋnction by abuse, in the Church of Rome, as if the intent of it were to prepare against the conflict of Death, with the spiritual enemies of the Soul. For, though the Church, ordaining Prayer for bodily health, can by no means forget the health of the Soul, if it mean to remember the Common Christianity; Yet appeareth it, nevertheless, what ground and occasion the Institution of S. James pretendeth. And so it appeareth, what dependence the Unction of the Sick, holdeth upon the Communion of the Eucharist. As for the Marriage of Christians, if it bee under a peculiar rule, by vir­tue of the Common Christianity; and, that the interest of the Church, in allowing of Marriages, is grounded upon the same; It is far from any imputation of abuse, that the Church of Rome celebrateth the same at the Eucharist. For seeing our Christianity is particularly concerned in the duties of Marriage; How should the Grace of God, enabling to discharge the said duties, bee expected, but by reviving the obligation of our Common Christianity; which the receiving of the Eucharist signifieth? I will not undertake to clear the See of Rome from all abuse of Ecclesiastical Power, in multiplying the Impedi­ments of Marriage, as beyond necessity, so beyond the Interest of Christianity; and in dispensing in them again, for favour or for reward; as having been prohibited for no better reason then this; That Power appears most, in that which there is least reason for. On the other side, dispensing in those degrees, which the Law of Moses prohibiteth; and therefore Christiani­ty ought to bee farther from allowing; It seemeth to stretch the Power of the Church beyond the bounds of it. And thus it appeareth, first, what relation these Offices hold with the Eu­charist, and the Communion of it; and then, what is the point of Reformation, in which the voiding of those abuses standeth.

On the other side, they that now are content with Confir­mation,The Reforma­tion pretended, no l [...]ss abuse, on the other side. so they may have the giving of it themselves, and the Catechizing of them that receive it, after their mode; not di­stinguishing themselves from the Fanaticks, cannot bee presum­ed to Catechise according to the Christianity of Gods Church. But, in as much as they Usurpe unto themselves authority with­out [Page 145] their Bishops, and against them; they cannot make Mem­bers of Gods Church, by the Confirmation which so they may give. So, they bar the gift of Gods Spirit, which Baptisme promiseth a Christian as a Christian, by barring the Unity of Gods Church. Again, Ordaining all whom they Ordain to one and the [...] same Office, of Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments; First, they usurpe the power of Ordaining, which they never received any authority by their Ordination to exercise; And that in despite of their Bishops, as seducing the people from the way of salvation, which, by their Ordi­nations, they pretend to teach. So, receiving no Power of the Keys, by their Usurpation, they receive no power to celebrate the Eucharist; but only to commit sacrilege, by profaning so high an Ordinance. And then, they tread under foot the Hie­rachy of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in despite of the whole Church; dividing the authority of their Bishops among them­selves, but abolishing the Order of Deacons, by confounding the title of Ministers; common to all three Orders, for mini­string their several Offices; with that sense in which the lowest Order are called Deacons, for ministring to Bishops and Priests in their Offices. As for the power of the Keys, which is not that which God left his Church, unless the effect of it bee the binding and loosing of sin; It is plain enough, that, under pretense of taking away the scandal of notorious sin, they would have power to shame and domineer over their neighbours, overtaken with sin; but without pretense of curing their sin, for the con­dition upon which they are restored. Such Discipline goes no further then the outward man, and the restraining of him from sin for shame of the world. The presumption of a voluntary change in the inward man, for hope of Gods Grace, by the Sa­crament of the Eucharist, must bee the effect of the Keys of Gods Church. As for this power, in sin that is not notorious, what do they pretend more then their Preaching? Which whe­ther it bee such as shows the cure of sin; let their diligence in Preaching mortification witness. And yet, whether every Chri­stian can learn, or will bee induced, meerly by Preaching, to use that mortification which is requisite; let them that are able judge. But what visiting of the sick do they pretend, but to pray by them, or comfort them; without ever entring into the [Page 146] ground of their comfort, upon examination of the conscience? The blessing of Mariage they have reserved to the Church; but upon an ungrounded presumption, that the Mariage of Christians is to bee ruled by the Law of Moses. The insufficience whereof being discerned by the people, when they were loose from the Law of the Land, hath occasioned all the incests, and other dis­orders of the late times. In the mean time, whereas all these Offices are either provided to bring Christians to the Eucharist, or to bee celebrated with the Eucharist: It is demanded, that godly Ministers bee not tied to celebrate the Eucharist above thrice a year. It should rather bee demanded, how they come to bee counted godly Ministers that demand this.

I shall not need to say, how the point of Reformation isThe point of Reformation in the mean be­tween both. found, through which the line of it is to pass, in these particu­lars. Confirmation fitteth for the Eucharist, by the profession of Christianity, and by being a Member of Gods Church. Or­dination giveth some degree in the Clergy, above the people; and therefore supposeth the profession of retiring from the world, more then other Christians undertake to do. The Eucharist conveyeth Gods Spirit, for the performing of this profession, sincerely and resolutely made. Both requiring the Unity of the Church, both are to bee ministred by that authority, without which, nothing is to bee done in each Church. The reconcil­ing of notorious sin is the Bishops peculiar. The Priest hath authority to cure that which is made known to him. But this authority is not arbitrary, in either of both. The rigor of an­tient Discipline, by the Canons of the Church, is quite out of force. But in these lees and dregs of Christianity, which now wee draw, there is some reasonable ground to presume upon, that a sinner is resolved to live a good Christian for the future. Let that bee limited, and the power of the Keys will have effect, in barring the sinner from the Communion, till the presumption bee visible in him. But to what shall the Keys of the Church reconcile him, when the Eucharist is celebrated but thrice a year? To what purpose is the visiting of the sick, but that, upon such presumption, they may have the Eucharist, to main­tain them in the great journey which they are going? The duty of Mariage, among Christians, depends wholly upon this suppo­sition; that God gives the maried an interest in one anothers body, [Page 147] which cannot bee dissolved but by death. Therefore it is cele­brated with the Eucharist, that they who mary with the reso­lution of Christians may bee enabled, by the Spirit of God, which the Sacrament promiseth, to perform the same.

The charge of Superstition upon the Church of Rome is toThe Superstiti­ons of the Church of Rome. bee justified, by many particulars, in tendring those things to God for his service, wherein his service consisteth not. In the first place, the multiplying of Masses for the quick and for the dead; without any pretense, of the concurrence of a Congre­gation to the action, much less of any Communion. At this rate, it matters not much in what language it is performed; see­ing there is no mans devotion required, to assist the Priest in it. The like is seen in the Vows of Pilgrimages, and in the visit­ing of divers Churches, for the gaining of Indulgences. For, had men nothing else in mind then that Service, which is ac­ceptable to God in all places, why should they think themselves more acceptable to God, for the travel which they undergo, that they may perform it far from home? whereby they forgo that opportunity for it, which they know, without bettering the mind; which, were it as it might bee, would find means to better it self every where. But there appears in it a carnal af­fection to the Memories of Saints, out of a carnal affection to the things of thi [...] world; wherein carnal men hope to bee as­sisted by the Saints, in recompense of their voluntary devotions; though Christianity allows them not the confidence to seek them at Gods hands. The same is to bee said of an innumerable number of things, that Monastical Orders observe; nay, of the overvaluing of the estate it self of continence, or retirement from the world; Which, being no part of Christianity, but a help, and an opportunity, for that wherein it consisteth, satisfi­eth outside Christians, with that which Pagans can do; the out­ward work; without that inward disposition which only Chri­stianity formeth. All these, and many more observations, which they set innocent Christians on work about, must needs speak them superstitious; notwithstanding that there is always in them a pretense of serving God, according to Christianity. For, the more straw and chaff, the less grain; and, where the intention of the mind is spent upon the shell of Christianity, there can it not have strength to bring the kernel of it to ripe­ness. [Page 148] The Ceremonies wherewith they overcharge the publick service of the Church are of the same nature. For, they that under­stand not the meaning of them; and therefore, distinguish them not from the Office which God accepteth; must needs put that to the account of his service, which is but the means to pro­cure it.

But what shall wee say to them, who think they oblige us,The Superstiti­ons of the Pu­ritans. when they allow the people to kneel, to lift up their eyes, and to hold up their hands at their Prayers? Do they not think they oblige Almighty God, in serving him without any other sign of reverence? It is not possible, that they should stand upon it to the disquiet of the Church, if they did not. Did they not take it for the service of God, that the same Houses should bee Common and Holy, Stables and Churches, the same Vessels Chalices and drinking Cups, the same Tables Altars and dining Bords, it is not possible that they should trouble the Church about it as they do. But it is plain enough, that they serve him without reverence or devotion, because they think so. To these men, all set times of fasting, all the estate of continence, all obedience to Superiors, all works of Mortification and Penance, stand suspected for Superstitious. They would not think them­selves far enough from the Papists, if they should do the good works of Christians. For fear of private Masses, the Eucharist must bee celebrated thrice a year. And wee must have the Opus ope­ratum of a Sermon, in exchange for the Opus operatum of a Mass. But this is not reforming of Religion: It is stocking up the Vineyard of the Church, instead of Pruning it. I need not say what is Reformation, and at what point it stands. The di­stance from the extreams makes the mean visible. The truth is, there will bee, necessarily, superstition in all Religions, so long as the Church hath chaff and corn in it. For, they that are sen­sible of that obligation to God, which they are not willing to discharge, will always discharge themselves to God, upon that which they are content to do for his service; but which hee is not content with, because it signifieth not the obedience of the inward man, which hee requireth. Not that there must needs bee Superstition in using things indifferent of themselves; much less in using such, as in reason may serve to advance attention and devotion in Gods Service. But because, as there may bee Super­stition [Page 149] in using them; So there is Superstition in thinking, that by forbearing them, a man does God service. But to think Schisme acceptable to God, rather then use them, is with­out doubt as great superstition, as any the Church of Rome teacheth.

Having shewed, why the Church of Rome cannot bee chargedWhy the Pope cannot bee An­tichrist. with Idolatry, I may from thence infer that the Pope cannot bee Antichrist. I do not grant, that either St. Paul, in the second Chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, or St. John in the Apocalypse speaks any thing of Antichrist. But hee that exalts himself above all that is called God, as St. Paul speaketh there, must bee one that should make himself God according to the Idolatry of the Pagans. And the fornication which the Whore of Babylon, in the Apocalypse, makes the Nations drunk with, is, necessarily, the same Idolatry. Therefore, if the Pope teach no such Idolatry, hee cannot prove Antichrist either by St. John, or St. Paul. The Fathers have thought, that both of them prophesie of such a one as shall indeed bee a false Christ, if ever there shall bee such a one; Because hee shall im­pose a new Religion, as from God, upon all whom hee shall se­duce. But St. Johns Catholick Epistles, where Antichrist is mentioned, do not signifie that any such is to come. And therefore, wee are not tied to their opinion in the interpretation of a Prophesie, which is no mater of Faith.

But though the Pope bee not Antichrist, nor the Papists Ido­laters,How it is just to Reforme without the See of Rome. yet I conceive, I have shewed sufficient reason, why this Kingdom and Church of England might and ought to Reform Religion, without and against the consent of the Church of Rome; supposing that which seems to bee manifest by all that hath fol­lowed; that the Church of Rome would never have condescended to any such change. And, the Unity of the Church determining the measure and the bounds of Reformation; they must needs be the same indeed, as they would bee, were the Pope Antichrist and the Papist [...] Idolaters; Though, to those that believe them so, be­cause they believe them so, the measure and the bounds of Re­formation will never appear to stand where indeed they do. But let them look to the consequence of their own imaginations. This one must needs render them Schismaticks to God; abhor­ring communion upon imaginary reasons. But will render us with [Page 150] them Schismaticks, both to God and to his Church, if wee make all that to bee Reformation, which their imaginations, tainted with such a prejudice, would have to bee Law to this Church and Kingdom.

CHAP. XXII.

I conceive I have, by this time, shewed a reason for thatThe present state of the Question con­cerning our Service. which I said in the beginning; that there is so much in que­stion between us and the Puritans, (comprising in that name all the parties, into which it stands now divided) as, if it were de­cided for them, would give the Papists the advantage against the Protestants. Now, as for the great question amongst us, con­cerning [Page 151] our Service; if it were truly stated, it would soon be at an end. If it may bee once considered, that the question is, indeed and in truth, whether Sermons shall drive the Commu­nion out of the Church or not; whether or no, arbitrary Pray­ers in the Pulpit, shall chase out of the Church, those which St. Paul commanded to bee made, and the Church by his com­mand hath frequented ever since; I conceive, the Dispute would bee easily decided. And that is the thing in question in­deed, and in effect, how little soever it appear. Certainly, if there were never any common Prayers made in the Pulpit; if there were always common Prayers made at the Altar; they who had no common Prayers but at the Eucharist, had the Eucharist as oft as they had common Prayers. Not as if the Church did never assemble, but when the Eucharist was celebrated. But because their desire and endeavour was, to celebrate the Eu­charist once every day; and that in the morning, unless it were a Fast; and always at dismissing the Assembly, as the principal Office of it. For hence the Eucharist came, in time, to bee called the Mass (which had formerly been the name of the As­sembly it self) from the dismissing of it. And, they who en­deavoured to celebrate the Eucharist every day, were not like to let Lords days and Festivals pass; or think them solemnized, as they should bee by Christians, without it.

Since therefore I claim, that this came by Tradition of theThe Reforma­tion pretended▪ abominable. Church, from St. Pauls order; I will infer no less then I have proved; That, to change the Communion every Lords day and Festival, together with Morning and Evening Prayer every day in the Church, and that with the Litanies upon Wednes­days and Fridays; which the Law of the Land hitherto requir­eth; for two Sermons every Sabbath, with arbitrary Prayers afore or after them, would not bee Reformation but Apostasie. For it is manifest, that at the Reformation, the Eucharist was in possession in all Churches, though the Communion had been surceased. Nor was it ever excepted, that the frequenting hereof had in it any colour of abuse; or abatement to that very Christiani [...]y, which wee receive from our Lord and his Apostles. The abuse was in private Masses. It was also a just complaint, that the people were not taught their duty out of the Holy Scri­ptures: and, that the instructing of them by preaching was [Page 152] neglected, beyond all reason and conscience. But was it ever pre­tended, that the reforming of the abuse in private Masses consist­eth in two Sermons a Sabbath; (for wee must speak like Jews, if wee will not offend tender consciences) with the Prayers of the people, such as the Minister shall please, before or after it; which is the Reformation now pretended? Had it been said that this is Reformation, when abuses were so visible, that the name of Reformation was popular; it had been easily answered, that this were to bring the chief Office of Christianity to little or nothing. And therefore, if this bee the form that was called Reformation in some places, it must bee said, that it was easie [...] to see what ought not to bee, then to settle what should bee. But for a Christian Kingdom; having, upon deliberation, set­led an order, whereby the Eucharist is to bee celebrated all Lords days and Festivals; for Reformations sake, to leave Mi­nisters of tender consciences free, not to celebrate it above thrice a year; (and that, having a competent number to commu­nicate; which may bee not once in seven years) as now is de­manded; I hope it shall never bee said in the streets of Gath, that it past undetested.

It is necessary for him that is come to the state of salvation,Such Preach­ing and Pray­ing as is usual, a hindrance of salvation, ra­ther then the means to it. as a Christian, to learn how hee is to live as a Christian; and to grow every day in the knowledg of his duty, that hee may discharge it. But shall hee bee able to do this, by hearing two Sermons every Sabbath, and as many more, as if hee did no­thing else? Or, may hee not bee able without it? Certainly, that which their Preachers now do is so far from being necessary, that it is no fit means to the salvation of the generality of Gods people. They may easily make it a trade never to fail, to while out an hour or two in the Pulpit, in discoursing the mean­ing of their text, in framing Doctrines out of it, and proofs of those Doctrines, (more plentiful a great deal, when they are so manifest, that they need not, then when they are so obscure that they cannot bee proved to the generality of Christians) and upon these Doctrines and Proofs, Exhortations, Invectives, In­structions, Reproofs, such as the driving of Faction shall re­quire; and ye [...], hee that would learn his duty shall bee as far to seek, after many thousands of such Sermons, as afore. And yet it shall bee an act of no less charity, to Preach a Sermon of [Page 153] Christian instruction, and exhortation, in and to the known duties of all, or the generality of Christians; then it hath al­ways been reputed by Gods Church. But let not a man there­fore think, if hee have any doubt in some difficult point of Do­ctrine, in some nice case of Conscience, in the meaning of some leading text of Scripture, that hee is to depend upon the Pulpit for resolution in it; where it is easie (as St. Gregory Nazianzene answered St. Jerome, about the [...] in St. Luke) to make you believe, by the pleasing delivery of Lan­guage, that you have satisfaction; and yet, when you come to seek where it lies, remain in as much doubt as before. And if you hackney out Ministers to two Sermons a Sabbath; the people must not expect that from them in private, which they cannot expect from the Pulpit. But if it bee thought part of the instruction due to Gods people, to make the Laws of the Church, and of the State, and the proceedings of publick Go­vernment, a subject for the Pulpit; In which, as I said, it is not possible for particular Christians to bee satisfied, by all the Inquiry they can make in private; then, what may come to pass, I need say to no man, that hath seen what hath come to pass amongst us. I let pass less abuses of vain-glory, priding it self in the volubility rather then Eloquence of Language, and ren­dring more able Curates, not so ready speakers, contemptible to their people; and the like. In which regard, it may many times bee questioned, whether the gifts of praying and preach­ing, which wee hear so much of, bee Gifts of Gods Spirit, which ordinarily suppose Christianity; or of the evil spirit, which always put it to flight. For, all that I have said, of the bad effects of Preaching, is to bee understood much more of those prayers, whereby evil doctrine is repeated to God, for a blessing of his Spirit upon it. For Christian people, being weakly superstitious; as the generality of all people are; are apt to place the bond of that Religion, wherein they think themselves tied to God, in that which they see and hear alleged to God in so reverend postures.

That Form of Service which wee hitherto use hath well de­servedWhat Order of Service, the continual Com­munion will require. all that hath been said, in defense of it; being assaulted by violent hands, even in those parts, in which it ought to bee inviolable. Nevertheless, professing, as I do, that the restoring [Page 154] of the continual Communion, is such a point of Reformation, that the Church is not to bee at rest, till it bee brought to effect; I must not stick to declare what will bee requisite, to render our Communion Service useful to that purpose. I have said, that the word Litu [...]gy is proper to signifie nothing else, but that form of Service, which the Communion is celebrated with. But I have shewed als [...], that those prayers for all states and conditions of men in Christs Church, which are contained in our Litanies, are to bee offered up to God, at the celebrating of it. And seeing it was at the Reformation, and is at present, a Law in the Church of Rome, that all Christians should bee present at Mass all Sundays and Festivals; And that Reformation consists in restoring the Communion; It seemeth to me that the pre­tense of Reformation is not made good, till the present provi­sion bee brought to effect; that the Eucharist bee celebrated, all Sundays and Festivals, in all Churches and Chappels. And so, that all Christians may bee tied to bee present; that they may bee brought as neer, as the Church ought to bring them, to communicate. Supposing this the intent of the Church; How should it bee attained, without two Assemblies, every Sunday and Holy-day-morning, in all Churches? For, let never Sab­batarians hope to make us so perfect Jewes, as to bring us to dress no meat on Sundays. If they could, a Parish can never bee all at Church at once. The order of the Church never be­comes the Church, till it demonstrate a care of all Christian souls a like. Between the hours of eight and twelve, there is time enough for two Assemblies. For who would wish that either of them should last above an hour? The Liturgy is an Office consisting of Psalm [...], and Lessons, intermixed with Hymns: and of the Eucharist; which, the common Prayers for all states, conditions, and necessities in the Church, are to bee offered up to God with. Now, though that which wee call the first Ser­vice bee compleat for the intent of it, yet I must needs find it too long for this purpose; to allow time, both for the Eucharist, and for the i [...]struction of the people; which I do not intend to exclude out of those Assemblies, which I confine to an hour. And how easie were it, to frame for this purpose an Order of Psalms and Lessons, according to the order of the whole Church; Which requires, that the Epistles bee read after the Old Testament, [Page 155] and the Gospels after them: as in our Communion Service, the Gospel comes next afore the Creed? For, there would bee room for brief Lessons out of the Law and Historical Books, out of the Sapiential Books and Prophets: And after, for the Epistles and Gospels, (which not onely wee, but the Lutherans, as well as the Church of Rome, do now use) with Hymns be­tween each, according to the Canon of Laodicea, received by the Whole Church.

This is the place for the instruction of the people, accordingWhat form of Instruction this Order will re­quire. to the order of the whole Church. And truly the greater and more solemn Assemblies may bee capable of edifying, by learn­ed and eloquent Sermons, which the generality of Parish Churches (the edification whereof the Church i [...] to study) are very little the better for. And the endless number of strifes, that arise about the Scripture, and variety of judgments, fan­sies, and interests, in what is fit to bee preached, make the design of Homilies necessary; rather to restrain the abilities of Indiscreet Preachers, then to help the inabilities of unlearned Preachers. Only that they bee so framed, as to contain a course of familiar instruction, in the whole body of Christian Do­ctrine; not concerning Faith alone, but all the chief duties of Christians; which these that wee have do not satisfie, though not unfit for the time when they were set forth. And being so framed; Though it bee all one to the edification of the Church, whether the mater of them bee delivered by word of mouth, as every Minister can best insinuate it into the minds of his hear­ers; or as it may bee couched, word for word, in writing; yet will it bee absolutely necessary, for the instruction of all, pre­serving the Unity of the Whole, that the Ordinary have ac­count, not only negatively, that nothing bee taught the people contrary to the form; But positively, that the whole mater of it bee taught the people, in such time as the Law shall determine; to bee repeated again and again, for the certain proficience of all. For it must not avail to say; that the people will not come to Church, unless they may bee entertained there with variety. Unless the people bee content to bee conducted by that which is best to save their souls, though it please not their fansies, it shall bee but a Church in name, that shall bee Ruled by the fansies of those whom it is to Rule. And, when the [Page 156] interest of publick peace so visibly concurreth with the interest of saving souls; it will hardly become the profession of a Chri­stian Kingdom, not to trust God, for the success of that which is designed upon so Christian considerations.

This is the place where the first Service ended, and the se­condOf that which goes before the Preface, in our Communion Service. began, in the antient Church. The Creed follows after the Sermon, in Dionysius; who, writing a little before the Council at Chalcedon, is the first that mentions it in the Service. Hee calls it an Hymn: and wee may call it the Catholick Hymn; glorifying God for the substance of Christianity, with his whole Church. That which wee call the second Service, fol­lowing immediately hereupon, was nothing but the Eucharist, and the prayers of the Church which it is to bee celebrated with. And that is the reason, why I do not think our Com­munion Service sufficient for those Assemblies, in which the first is too long to hee used. For, the Office ought to consist of Psalmes, and Lessons, with Hymnes interposed; of an in­struction, and of the Eucharist; with the prayers which it is celebrated with. Now it hath been always the use of Christs Whole Church, even from the Apostles, to offer, at the Eu­charist, both the Bread and Wine which it is to bee consecrated of: and also, what their hearts moved them to contribute, for the maintenance of Gods Service. And therefore, the Prayer for the whole state of Christs Church is here proper, in regard of those that offer to that purpose; the rest that offer not con­curring with their prayers, to that effect for which they offer. The confession of sins afore the Eucharist is seen in some of the antient Liturgies; nor do I find it questioned on any hand, as either unseasonable, or not requisite in this Action. The De­calogue and Answers; which, since Q. Elizabeths time, wee be­gin the Communion Service with; seem more proper to be placed here, to branch forth the particulars of those sins which wee confess. For the Commandments are certain heads, to which men may refer the sins, for which they ask pardon, and grace to avoid them. But there is great reason, why they are not found in the Service of the antient Church. The reason is, because the Decalogue is proper to the Law, and unproper to Christi­anity; and it is a sad effect hereof which wee see. For it is certain, and manifest, that the Sabbatarian error hath had the [Page 157] rise, or increase, from the construction, which ignorant Preach­ers have made, of the prayer for remission of sins against this fourth Commandment, which the Church prescribeth. Nor have I ever found any authority of the Church, for using the De­calogue, for the Rule by which the sins of Christians are to bee ranked; but only in some late Offices, of those ages, which wee, who profess the Reformation, are not to own?

After the confession of sins, the General Preface, which fol­lowsOf the Pre­faces, and the Prayers of Con­secration. after Sursum corda, would bee inlarged, with thanksgiv­ing to God, for making the World and man, for not forsaking man having forsaken him, when hee was made Lord of his Creatures; but first sending the Fathers, to reclaim their several Ages, then giving the Law and the Prophets, to instruct his own people in his service; And, when these means took not the effect which hee sought, for sending his Son to redeem and reconcile us to him, by the death of his Cross. After this the Proper Prefaces, and the Seraphims Hymn, are of too antient and general use in the Catholick Church, to bee omitted, with­out a mark of Apostasie from the devotion of it, which they express. The Prayer which wee consecrate with seemeth a­greeable to the intent of Gods Church; but more agreeable, in that form which the first Book of Edward the VI. revived by the Scotish Liturgy, prescribeth. And that Memorial, or Prayer of Oblation, which is there prescribled, to follow, im­mediately after the Consecration, is certainly more proper there, then after the Communion, ending with the Lords Pray­er, and the Peace, after that. For, this is the form of the whole Church, so constant, and so uniform, that I am thereby perswaded, that the close of it; For thine is the Kingdom, the the Power and the Glory, for ever and ever; being alwaies frequent­ed by the Church, either in terms, or in substance, in this place; upon that occasion, afterwards, came to bee put into the Copies of St. Matthews Gospel. For it is well enough known, how many antient Copies, and Commentaries, have it not. But there is not any of the antient Liturgies, that hath not some form of Doxology in this place, either in the same terms, or to the same purpose. And seeing it is manifest, that the Kiss of Peace is an Apostolical custom; and used in the Western Church before the Communion; (though before the [Page 158] Consecration, in other places) though the Ceremony bee set aside, in regard of the change of times and customs, it should not seem burthensome, that the Christianity is remembred, which it expresseth.

But if my Opinion might pass, I would not rest contentedOf the Prayer of Oblation, and the place of it. herewith. I would enlarge this Memoral, with all the Princi­pal heads of our Litanies, which might seem to comprize the ne­cessities of all estates, and conditions in the Church; according to that measure which the Time would allow. For this would bee the offering of Christs sacrifice upon the Crosse, for the ne­cessities of all Christian people; which the whole Church of Christ hath alwaies frequented, from the beginning, without any pretense of sacrificing him again; no reason requiring any more, then to commemorate that sacrifice. And here would there bee room for all private and publick necessities, as well of the Church and Kingdom, of the Diocese, Province, and Country, and the respective Governours thereof; as of the Congregration, and of any particular member of it: and that according to such Order, as the Ordinary may find cause to give, in cases that do indeed require a provision for the Time. The antients, celebrating the Eucharist every day, had, by that means, daily opportunity of interceding for particular necessi­ties, according to St. Pauls order; for, such intercessions the word [...] signifieth. They that consider not the defect which follows upon the decay of this order, are ready to impute the defect that is found, of forms of intercession for particular oc­currences, to the prescribing of set forms, by the Church; not allowing the arbitrary fansies of Curates. But hee that hath known the manifold folly, & malice, that our London Pulpits have vented; taking upon them to intercede for what occasions they think fit, in what form they please; will find it absolutely ne­cessary, to redeem the scorne that our profession suffers from such disorders, by banishing those Prayers out of the Pulpit. And because the Communion will not bee renewed so frequent, as to meet with all those occasions, which, in the Antient Church, it did serve for; It must needs bee a Christian design, to enlarge the first and daily Service with such forms, as may serve for most of such occasions; preventing the offenses which have been. For, the hope of prevailing with God, for that which [Page 159] presseth particular persons, is the charity of the Congregation, in equally desiring the necessities of all Christians. When the Eucharist was celebrated upon some particular occasion, accord­ing to the custom of the antient Church; it appears, that the general form was throughly observed, the particular occasion only mentioned. The Eloquence, whereby the Church hoped to prevail which God, was the devotion, and unity, which it celebrated the Sacrament with.

But, I must by no means leave this place, till I have paidOf the Comme­moration of the dead, in parti­cular. the debt which I owe to the opinion which I have premised; and openly profess, again and again, that wee weigh not by our own Weights, nor mete by our own Measures, if, believing one Catholick Church, and enjoying Episcopacy and the Church Lands, upon that account, wee recal not the memorial of the Dead, as well as of the living, into this Service. There is the same ground to believe the communion of Saints, in the pray­ers, which, those that depart in the highest favour with God make for us; in the prayers, which wee make for those, tha [...] depart in the lowest degree of favour with God; that there i [...] for the common Christianity; namely, the Scriptures inter­preted by the perpetual practise of Gods Church. Therefore there is ground enough, for the faith of all Christians, that those Prayers are accepted, which desire God to hear the Saints for us; to send the deceased in Christ rest, and peace, and light, and refreshment, and a good trial at the day of Judgement, and accomplishment of happiness after the same. And, seeing the abating of the first form, under Edward VI, hath wrought no effect, but to give them that desired it an appetite, to root up the Whole; what thanks can wee render to God, for escap­ing so great a danger, but by sticking firm to a Rule, that will stick firm to us, and carry us through any dispute in Religion: and land us in the haven of a quiet conscience; what troubles soever wee may pass through, in maintaining, that the Refor­mation of the Church will never bee according to the Rule which it ought to follow, till it cleave to the Catholick Church of Christ in this particular.Why the Com­munion Service at the Commu­nion Table, when no Eu­charist.

I am not to expect, that this Proposition will take effect, be­cause some points of it will seem to bee only one mans opinion; though it shall never bee that one mans opinion, further then it [Page 160] appears to be the visible Order of the whole Church, from the be­ginning; or the necessary consequence thereof, in this estate. For, the Church of Rome obliging all to hear Mass; all Sunday and Holy­day-mornings; and, the Reformation of the Abuses, which wee protest against in the Mass, consisting in restoring the Eucharist; the Reformation will not bee able to justifie it self in this point, till there bee a provision, that all may communicate, as they ought to do. And, for the commemoration of the dead, in the Oblation; though the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth do silence it, yet under Edward the VI. it was retained. And they who were gratified afterwards by silencing it, do now demand, as for Reformation, that the Eucharist bee not im­posed upon tender consciences, for fear they should not have room enough, for their arbitary Sermons and Prayers; which, they can never secure the Church, that they shall agree with the Profession of it. What they will demand next, for Re­formation, how shall it appear? For the standard of tender consciences is as invisible, as that of Venners spirit, that made the rising for King Jesus: And, having a visible Rule in the consent of the Whole Church; it will bee either want of skill, or want of charity, not to distinguish the remembrance of the dead, which the Whole Church hath alwaies frequented, from the opinion of Purgatory, and the custom of praying to the Saints, which succeeding Ages have added. But, in the mean time, the reason is visible why the Communion Service is to bee said at the Communion Table, notwithstand­ing tender consciences; which, perhaps, many that mean well do not perceive. If Christian people, being seduced by per­verse Teachers, cannot bee made sensible of their duty, in fre­quenting the Communion; the Church is not to forbear calling them to it, and putting them in mind of it. Weesee there are those, who will needs bee Ministers of the Word and Sacra­ments, that have ministred no Communion to their Churches, in so many years. Instead of taking shame upon them, for such abominable contempt of Christianity; this mischief is now imagined for a Law; when a Law is demanded, by which, ten­der consciences may not bee tied to celebrate the Eucharist once in many years. Take away the Communion Service from the Communion Table, and what mark shall remain of the duty [Page 161] that lies upon the publick, to reduce the Law of the Catholick Church, which is Gods Law, into force? What hope of redu­cing it, if the mark bee once blotted out? So much it concerns, to hold up a daily Protestation, of the Right and Duty of the Church; and a Contestation, with all publick persons in the Church and State, to bend the utmost of their endeavours, to redeem such an inconsequence and indecorum in Gods Service, as the silencing of the principal Office in it. And wee are alive, at this day, by Gods goodness, to call God and man to witness; that, if Order bee not taken in so great a concernment, the fault will bee chargeable on those that do not their parts to­wards it, at the great day of Judgement.

But, if my Proposition may not hope for effect; in the nextA secondary Prop [...]sition. according to present Law. place, I shall wish, that all Curates would agree, in that which by Law they may do, so far as I know the Law; Or rather, that all Ordinaries would agree, to impose it upon them. That is, to divide the Service of God, on Sunday and Holiday Morn­ings, into two Assemblies, as it stands divided into two Servi­ces; That all Housholders may stand accountable for their whole Families, to see that they serve God in the Church, all Sun­day and Holiday Mornings; as before the Reformation, all peo­ple were obliged to do. For though, by the present Law, there is not provision for all Christians to communicate; Yet is there Order for the Service of God, by Psalms, and Lessons, mixed with Hymns, and by the Common Prayers of the Church, per­fectly summed up in the Litanies. And they, who shall have performed it, shall have celebrated the Lords day, or Festival, with it; though not so like a Christian, as, had hee been at the celebrating of the Eucharist. The Communion Service might serve as it is, for the second Assembly; provided that it bee, for the reasons premised, at the Communion Table. The Homily or Sermon after the Gospel; comprising that Instruction, or Ex­hortation, which is necessary for all Christians; would easily come within one quarter of an hour; were Curates, by the wisdom and diligence of their Ordinaries, restrained from im­pertinencies, and held to their duties. The Common Prayers of the Church; which are perfectly summed up in the Lita­nies; if they were used at this Assembly also, they would make the Service of God as compleat, as the absence of the Eucha­rist [Page 162] would allow; being the principal Office of it. And this is no more then is required by the eighteenth of Queen Eliza­beths Injunctions. For as the Litanies, being used after the Con­secration, as that Injunction requireth, would bee the compleat Prayer of Oblation, according to that which hath been said; So when the Eucharist is not celebrated, the Common Prayers of the Church, for all necessities of all estates of Christs Church, would bee as compleatly offered to God, by the Litanies, as they ought to bee offered when the Eucharist is not celebrated. And this course would take away some appearances of inconve­nience, arising from the change of time, and the difference which it hath produced, in the use of those Services of which our Office consisteth; which, because common reason under­stands not, therefore the people may check at; And yet Superi­ours may not, perhaps, find sufficient cause to make any change, for the removing of them. The extream length of the Office, as now it is used, is to bee counted in the number of these. Be­sides, in that case, there would bee no necessity of a Prayer be­fore the Sermon; which now bringeth this visible inconveni­ence; that the Prayer for all states of Christs Church, which is to follow next after the Sermon, goeth before the Sermon also. For that Prayer, which the LV. Canon enjoyneth, is to the ve­ry same effect with that which is to follow after the Sermon, for the whole state of Christs Church. As for other arbitrary prayers, before or after Sermons, wee are all witnesses, what a Trumpet they were of the late Civil War; what a means to prepare the minds of people to it. And therefore if, after so fresh experience, the State shall suffer the Church to leave any room for them, in the Order of Gods Service; the State as well as the Church must bee felo de se in doing it: And they that shall insist upon such demands, do neither more nor less, then ask leave to do the same again.

Indeed it is easie to foresee an appearance of inconvenience, thatAn Objection in it, answered. might be objected, if this course should bee put in practise. For, when the Eucharist is not celebrated, the Litanies then must fol­low next after the Prayer for the whole state of Christs Church; The substance whereof is the same that is repeated again in the Lita­nies, as containing more briefly the sum of that, which, in them, is branched out into more particulars. The practise of the anci­ent [Page 163] Church furnishes the answer. The XIX. Canon of Laodi­cea; ancienter, without doubt, then any form of Liturgy ex­tant; prescribes two Prayers to bee made just before the Conse­cration, [...]; That is to say; The Deacon bidding the people pray for the necessities of the Church, which hee did name to them from point to point. That this is the meaning of the Canon, wee understand by all the Eastern Liturgies. For there is none of them in which the same Prayer is not repeated, again and again; the Deacon inditing to the people the particu­lars which they are to pray for, sometimes more briefly, some­times more at large. And in one of them, namely, the Latine Copy of S. Basils Liturgy, they are expresly called the first, the second, and the third Litanees. Thus ancient is the Custome of bidding Prayer in the Church. For S. Austine also, for the La­tine Church, remembers it, when hee says; Cum Communis Ora­tio v [...]ce Diaconi indicitur; When Common Prayer is bidden by the Deacons voice. Epist. CVI. And hereby it appeareth, that it was then thought no inconvenience, that those Common Prayers of the Church should bee repeated more then once. For, being the chief act of their Assemblies, and the end for which the Eucha­rist was celebrated; To wit, that, by the memory of Christs Sa­crifice upon the Cross, all the necessities of his Church might be rendred recommendable to God; It is no marvel that they in­sisted upon them more then once. And therefore, if, in this de­cay of Christianity, the continual Celebration of the Eucharist cannot bee revived; in the next place it remains, that these Common Prayers bee maintained and frequented with as much devotion, as, in so wretched times as wee see, can bee obtained. I have said nothing of that which is commonly called Preach­ing, or of any provision for it; Because I say nothing of the First Service, and of the use of it at other times, besides Sun­day and Holiday Mornings. But it is easie for mee to say, that there will bee as much opportunity for it in the afternoons, as the abilities of the generality of Preachers can bee thought com­petent to imploy, with that which shall bee fit to entertain the people. I know the general opinion inclines, to imploy that time with the Exposition of the Catechisme. But the Doctrine of the Catechisme is the work of that time, when mens wits are at the best. And, if the Exposition bee not prescribed, [Page 164] as well as the Catechisme, more inconvenience may soone bee found in that course, then in the Pulpit.

CHAP. XXIII.

NOw, since this secondary Proposition leaves the Decalogue,H [...]w the Law distinguishes Moral Prec [...]pts from Positive. and Prayers of it, in the place which now it holds in our Service; I will not leave this point, without expounding the Decalogue, in that sense, which the Principle, upon which I maintain the agreement of the Old Testament with the New, requires. For, upon that Exposition depends the true meaning and intent of that Prayer, whereby the Church enjoyns the people, to ask pardon of God, for their transgressing of the several Precepts; the mis-understanding whereof hath occasi­oned the Errour of the Sabbath, which only England, of all [...]ristendome, is disquieted with. Most Divines do so reason of the Decalogue, (because the most of the Precepts thereof are Moral) as if the difference between Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral, (and much more, between Moral and Positive) were expresly delivered by the letter of Moses Law. Whereas indeed, and in truth, the Moral Precepts of Gods Natural Law, though of greatest consequence to the everlasting estate of immortal [Page 165] Souls, (which the Law supposeth, rather then expresseth) are onely the matter of the Carnal Covenant, which contracteth not for the doing of them, out of that reason, and with that intent, which God requireth: because it contracteth not for the world to come, wherewith that intent is rewardable. For, as the keeping of the precepts materially, qualified that people for the Land of Promise; so, the keeping of them in obedi­ence to God, and for his Service, qualified them then for Heaven, as Christians; always supposing the expectation of Christs coming, for the redemption of Gods people. There­fore, though it bee necessary for Divines, under Christianity, to distinguish between moral and positive in Moses Law; yet they will confound the ground of that distinction, as it took place under the Law, to Gods people, if they expect, that the letter of the Law should express it.

The not considering of this is that, which suffers not men toHow the Spiri­tual sense of the Decalogue con­cerns Christi­ans. see that sense, which the plain letter of the Decalogue signifieth; being transported with a prejudice, that the Moral Law signified as much to the Jews, and required as great duty of them, as the exposition of them preached by our Lord Christ, requireth of Christians. Whereas, by that which I have said, it may appear, that the mistake which our Lord corrects, in the meaning of Moses Law; is [...]he Haeresie of the Scribes and Pharisees, promising ever­lasting life, in recompense of the outward observing of it. Whereas the Law, indeed, rewardeth it with the Land of Promise; inti­mating onely the reward of the world to come, to those that should serve the searcher of hearts from the heart, in expectati­on of the Messias his coming. So the Decalogue, being the brief of those conditions, upon which God contracted with the Generality of that people, for the Land of Promise; carries not with it the least presumption in reason, that, whatsoever it containeth is either moral, or perpetually positive: to wit; ac­cording to the carnal sense, which the letter of the Law first pre­senteth. Indeed, according to the spiritual intent of it; by which true Israelites were conducted, even then, to the world to come; it signified and required the same spiritual obedience, which the Gospel obliges us to, though in a measure proporti­onable to those helps of grace, which God then gave; compar­ed with those, which the Coming of Christ hath brought forth. [Page 166] So that, in one word; admitting the literal sense [...]f the De­calogue to bee that which obliged the Jews; the spiritual sense, which it is to carry with Christians, is to bee valued, by the correspondence of the New Testament with the Old, in the mater of every particular precept.

What can bee more manifest then this, in the Preface to it?The meaning of the first Commandment, in this sense. Can Christians say truly, that God ever delivered them out of the Land of Aegypt, and the bondage of it? must they not all say, that God hath delivered them from the bondage of sin and Satan, correspondent to it? might not all true Israelites, in whom was no guile, say the same, in regard of that wor­ship of Idols, which all other Nations were enslaved with, and the sin to which it engaged? therefore a Jew understands this first precept to bee the chief point of his Law; that hee ac­knowledg but one God, but that one whom his Fathers knew. And if the Mater bee examined, it will appear, that both Jews and Mahumetans stand at distance with Christians, upon this false pretense; that the Faith of the holy Trinity agreeth not herewith. For the Alcoran insinuateth this poyson every where. But the Christian goes farther in the meaning of this precept; And, believing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, to bee that one God which gave them this precept; believes himself re­deemed from the bondage of sin, by the blood of the Son, and by the Grace of the Spirit: And therefore, making the will of God the ground, and his glory and service the intent of all his doings, renounces all respect to the pleasure, or profit, or ho­nour and greatness of this World, so far as it is not the means to serve God; Acknowledging, that, when hee declines from this resolution, hee makes his Belly his God, or his riches his Idol, as St. Paul saith; or rather the Devil; that offers him some little part of that, which our Lord refused in gross; the God whom hee worships.

The second Commandment, setting forth God for a GodThe extent of the s [...]coud Com­mandment. that is jealous of his people, whether they worship him or not; manifestly supposeth their Covenant, to forsake all other Gods beside him, a contract of Mariage between him and his people. Which if it bee so, it is no less manifest, that the Images which the precept supposeth, are the representations of other Gods, which his people were went to commit adultery with, by wor­shipping [Page 167] them for God. For, seeing it is manifest, how much Idolatry was advanced by Imagery, (though it may bee with­out it) there can bee no marvel, that there should bee a peculi­ar precept against it. Wherefore, it is manifest, that Jews, by the letter of this precept, are tied from all Images, which their Elders, who had the power of limiting what is lawful, and what is not, by the Law, should declare to bee unlawful. But to think that their declarations ought to bind Christians, were to imagine that Christians ought to bee Jews. And, the letter of the Law forbidding all Images, at all times and in all places, as well as some; it is not possible to show, how Christians can bee tied from any kind of Image, at any time, or in any place, more then others, by the letter of this precept. But, by the po­sitive part of the precept, implied in the negative which it ex­presseth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them; Christians must needs find themselves bound to that worship of God, in spirit and truth, which, it is not possible for Jews to think themselves tied to, in consideration of the Land of Pro­mise. And therefore, having the Word of God for the rule of their worship, must needs condemn the worshipping of God, by any imagination of their own devising, for superstition and will-worship; In standing upon that, which God declareth not that hee regardeth, for the discharge of their duty to him: and in tendring him things of their own chusing, for the worship which they acknowledge to bee due. For, as I said afore, it is not possible, that they who lay such a weight of their dili­gence, upon things of their own choise, should discharge the duty of worshipping him in spirit and truth, in that measure, which the comparison of Gods will with our own choise re­quireth. And by this rule wee condemn all excesses of the Church of Rome, in honouring the Saints, and their Reliques, or Images; without making our selves obnoxious to the Jews, for any reason to do it with. For, Christianity having put Idolatry to flight, which the Law never pretended to do; It is not to bee imagined, that the having of Images can make a man take those things for God, which they represent, so long as the belief of Christianity is alive at the heart. For neither was it Idolatry, though it were a breach of this Commandment, for a Jew to have such Images, as were forbidden by their El­ders; [Page 168] not taking that for God which they represented. But, what honour of Saints departed, or what signs of that honour, Christianity may require; what furniture or ceremonies the Churches of Christians, and the publique worship of God in them may require, now all the World professes Christianity, and must honour the Religion which they profess; this the Church is at freedom to determine, by the word of God, ex­pounded according to the best agreement of Christians. For neither is it obliged by the second Council of Nicaea, or the violent proceedings of the Church of Rome, which have brought it into force in these Western parts; nor to the excesses of the adverse parties in the East, which made the setting up and reve­rencing of Images in Churches to bee Idolatry, without suffici­ent ground in the Scriptures for it.

Confining the literal intent of the Decalogue, to those grossOf the third Commandment. sins, by which, all Jews were to understand, that the interest of the Nation in the Land of Promise must become forfeited, as all reason requireth; the taking of Gods name in vain, in the third Commandment, is, in plain terms, to swear that which is false, as the Chaldee Paraphrase renders it. But a Christian takes up Gods name in professing Christianity. And, when the World sees him do any thing that agreeth not with his pro­fession, without doubt, hee takes it up in vain: For there never was any true Israelite, in whom was no guile, that worshipped God in spirit and truth, but hee might then understand that hee took Gods name in vain; if, professing the worship of the only true God, hee should live like those that worshipped Idols. Much more a Christian, knowing that hee is bound to direct all his actions to the end of Gods glory and service, out of obedience to his declared will; must needs know, that he shall not bee guiltless to God, if they bee not suitable to the professi­on which hee weareth.

It is questioned, how God blessed and sanctified the seventhWhat the san­ctifying [...]f the Sabbath signi­fieth. day, at the creation of all things; the keeping of the Sabbath being first commanded, after the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt? For some would have it understood by a Prolepsis, or figure of anticipation; that God, in consideration of his resting from all his Works on the seventh day; when hee gave the Law, made that day the Sabbath. Others think, that hee san­ctified [Page 169] it from the beginning, for a day of his Service; though the rest which the Jews were commanded, sitting still all the Sabbath, came in force from the giving of the Law. And tru­ly, the memory of the seven days of the week, which hath been preserved among all nations; who cannot bee thought to have learned any matter of Religion from the Jews; seems to intimate a Tradition of the creation, remaining among them. But it is to bee considered▪ that, when Idolatry prevailed, the worship of the seven Planets was a prime part of it: and Astro­logy, which appropriates the seven days of the week to them, a▪ great means of propagating the same. And therefore, the memory of the creation being obliterated, by the superstition which the Devil had graffed upon it; the observations of Hea­then people are rather to bee imputed to this, then to that. And otherwise, there is nothing in the Scripture to answer Tertullian with; demanding of the Jews, which of the Fa­thers, before the Law, kept the Sabbath. But howsoever, if wee bee Christians, wee must not question, that the blessing which God hallowed the seventh day with, is the rest of Christs body in the grave on that day; by which, that rest from the travel of sin, and the punishment of it, which Christianity professeth and promiseth, was purchased for Christians. For, upon this ground, all the time of the Gospel is that Sabbath, which the Jewish Sabbath signified. And the fulfilling of the fourth Commandment, is the rest of a Christian from all his own works, all the days of his life. Not that I doubt, that, un­der the Law, the day was to bee set apart for the Offices of Gods Service; but because there are other precepts of the Law, Num. XXVIII. Levit. XXIII. by which that is provided for. By virtue of which precepts, according to the correspondence between the Law and Gospel, not only the first day of the week is set aside by the Apostles, for the service of God, instead of the seventh day, which the Jews observe; but also other days of Assemblies, being appointed by the Church, are to bee ob­served by Gods people, for the same reason as the seventh. For even the seventh day it self was observed, and was to bee ob­served by Christians, for the same reason, so long as the custom of the Church required them to observe it for that purpose. Besides, the letter of the Law having forbidden any work up­on [Page 170] the seventh day; common reason would serve, without any precept of the Law, to infer, that they ought to meet for the service of God, which his people had always professed, when they had nothing else to do. Otherwise it is true, which Ori­gen so often chargeth, that they could not assemble, without some breach upon the strict sense of that command; not to stir out of their place on that day. And this sitting still is as properly sanctifying the day; as the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a h [...]ifer sprinkling the pollut [...]d sanctifieth to the purity of the flesh; according to the Epistle to the Hebrews, IX. 13. So, the keep­ing of this Commandment, under the Gospel, is the serving of God all the days of a mans life; as our Catechisme ex­poundeth it.

When the fifth Commandment promiseth long life, to themThe meaning of the fifth, as to Christians. that honour Father and Mother; will any man say, that this promise is made to Christians; that profess to take up Christs Cross, and to lay down their lives for Christ? If hee do, let him say, what Land it is which Christians are promised; If it bee not the Land of the living; which the Land of Canaan figureth? Wherefore it is manifest, that the honours due to the King, and all Civil Powers under him, are due by the letter of this precept, as properly comprized in the name of Father, according to the use of that language. The obedience also, due to the Elders of the Synagogue, is, by the Metaphorical signi­fication of the word Mother; standing for the Synagogue; derived from the terms of this precept. But, according to the corre­spondence between Christianity and Judaism; God is our Fa­ther, and our Mother is the Church. And therefore, as in temporal and civil things, hee is a rebell that honours not the King; so, in matters of Religion, hee is an Apostate from the Church, that honours not the commands of it, within those bounds, which the command of God limiteth. And thus, the sive first Commandments; according to the method of Christi­anity, abridging an infinite number of Jewish Observations into one very weighty precept; enjoyn every one of them the whole duty of a Christian to God; the acknowledging and worshipping of the only true God extending it self to living as a Christian, to resting from the works of the old Adam, and to the honour of God, by keeping his Commandments, as they are delivered to us by his Church.

The four Precepts that follow are under one and the same con­sideration,The meaning of the five last, ac­cording to Christianity. in this place. Murther, Adultery, Theft, and false Witness, are things, that either take away, or abridge the interest of particular Jews, in the Land of Promise. And, if the publique were accessory to the multiplying of them, ac­cordingly, the publique interest thereof in Gods promises must needs become questionable. Among Christians, seeing these are crimes which cannot consist with any interest in the world to come; the very first motions of them are commanded to bee suppressed and mortified. And certainly, whosoever was in­wardly a Jew in spirit did understand himself bound to abstain from them, not for fear of punishment, but for love of good­ness; which love, the love which Christ hath prevented us with advanceth to that height, which Christianity professeth. But this obligeth us to assign the last Commandment a meaning by it self, distinct from all that which is prohibited by the former precepts. And truly, hee that finds not the peculiar Law of the Jews, in the prohibition of coveting another mans wife, must bee strangely transported with prejudice. For, A­dultery being prohibited afore; coveting another mans wife can­not bee understood, but by sowing seeds of dissentions, and other ways of inticing, whereby a man may seek to make ano­ther mans wife his own, by the Law of the Jews; which al­lowed a man, to put away a wife that pleased him not. And therefore, the rest of the precept must bee weighed in the same Balance; to forbid any way of fraud, or force, whereby a man may make his neighbours goods his own. Therefore the mater of this precept is expressed by [...] Mark X. 13. And the Jews reduce the precepts of not coveting, or lusting, under the title of rapine and oppression, as you may see in Maimoni. And therefore, whether you restrain St. Pauls thou shalt not co­vet, Rom. VII. 7. to that which this precept forbiddeth; or enlarge it to that which is forbidden by the other four; Chri­stians are, by this precept, forbidden to entertain any motion of lust towards that which is another mans. And St. Austines obser­vation; that the sum of the Law is comprized in the first precept, commanding the love of God, and the last, forbidding concu­piscence; is fully verified, understanding the love of God to bee commanded by all the five precepts; comprising, all of [Page 172] them, the whole duty of a Christian to God; But the Love of a mans Neighbour, by the other five; forbidding any lust toward a mans own advantage, by another mans disadvantage. And so you see, what a Christian prays for, in praying to God to have mercy upon him, for any thing, wherein hee hath offended against any precept of his Law, for the past: and to give him Grace to keep it for the future. In particular, for the fourth Commandment; that, if hee will pray as a Christian should pray, hee must pray to God to have mercy upon him, in whatsoever hee hath not rested from the works of the first Adam; begging Grace to do it for the future.

CHAP. XXIV.

I Have yet two particulars to mention, both, much to bee de­sired,That no Clergy man ought to bee of more D [...] ­o [...]eses then one. for the justifying of that Reformation which wee profess. The one is an▪ express Canon of the Whole Church, [Page 173] concerning the discipline of the Clergy: The other is an evi­dent consequence of the like Canon; in this estate, when Reli­gion is setled by the Law of the Kingdom; concerning the dis­cipline of the People. The former is the Restoring of that Ca­non of the Whole Church, which confineth all Orders of the Clergy to their respective Churches. In the Language of this time, it signifieth the voiding of all Privileges to hold Church preferment in more Dioceses then one. It is the evident conse­quence of that Order which the Whole Church hath derived from the Act of the Apostles themselves; constituting several Cities, and the Territories thereof, the seats of several Churches and their Dioceses. It is manifest that this Order was in force, (though in a diverse measure in divers Countries) from the be­ginning, all over Christendom: And that with the like respect to the Churches of Mother Cities, in all Provinces. It is also manifest, that the Canon grounded upon this Order was in force, till the Usurpation of the See of Rome, seeking Benefices for their creatures all over Christendom, authorized the dis­solving of it, by privileges, the greatest benefit whereof them­selves enjoyed. So that, the surceasing of it being an abuse of the Papacy, our professing of Reformation requires the restoring of it.

But, the restoring of it will signifie more, then the terms ofOf inferior Orders in the Clergy, and their Offices. it express. It will infer the restoring of some part of that anti­ent Discipline of the Clergy, upon which, the credit and au­thority thereof, with and over the People, from the beginning of Christianity, was grounded. It is well enough known, how very antiently, how very generally, inferior Orders of Clergy were instituted by the Church, under the Hierarchy founded by the Apostles, for a sense to St. Pauls Rule; that no Novice should bee Ordained. For, when Christianity was propagated all over; then, those that had lived meer Lay-men all their lives might as well bee counted Novices in Christianity, compared with them that were grown up from their youth in these inferior Orders, as those that were newly converted to Christianity in St. Pauls time. The imployment of these Or­der; in Reading the Lessons, in singing the Psalms, in attend­ing on the person of the Bishop, and the Orders of their Su­perior [...], in the ministry of Ecclesiastical Offices, was most com­monly [Page 174] but an exercise for the time. The exercise of their hu­mility, their meekness and patience, their sobriety, and con­tent in a mean condition; living upon some small pittance, which the stock of the Church was able to allow, without pre­judice to the poor; was that which made them fit to bee ad­vanced to higher degrees. The study of the Scriptures was the imployment of the time that remained to spare, from their at­tendance upon these Ministeries. For, as for other studies, while Idolatry continued in credit in the World, it was gener­ally suspected for scandalous, to study the learning which Ido­laters had brought forth.

True it is, many of them, not being book-learned, or other­wise content with so Religious a poverty: and living sometimes byThe conversa­tion of the Clergy, and the use of Church goods. their hand-work, (that they might charge the Church the less) as well as upon their pittances, looked not after higher degrees. Others, imbracing a Religious life, and having means for their support, thought it a scandal to their profession, to receive any thing from the Church; knowing that what they spared must come to the poor. And generally, innumerable of all Orders, especially Bishops and Priests, taking upon them their Orders, gave up their estates to charitable uses. For it was scandalous for those that gave them not up, to live otherwise, then those, that had nothing to maintain them but the allowance of the Church, did live. But, to increase their estates out of Church goods was a thing which the Canons not only prohibited, but made void. For all Canons, from the Canon of the Apostles, to those at this day, in force in the Church of Rome, disable the Clergy to dispose of Church goods by last Will and Testament. The au­thorizing of the Clergy to Marry, brought in upon consideration of very great necessity, must needs derogate from the obligation of this Rule, in point of Conscience. For, it must needs infer a Right to provide for Wives and Children, which the Church alloweth, out of Church goods. But it can by no means abrogate the same, without altering the State of the Clergy; (professing re­tirement from the World beyond other Christians,) without ex­tinguishing the Interest of the poor in the goods of the Church; both of them subsisting by Gods Law, and therefore by no means to bee extinguished. And therefore, it is requisite that the Maried Clergy content themselves, with a sober mainte­nance, [Page 175] and provision, for themselves, and the disposing of their Children in the World, without converting the goods of the Church to raise them estates. For it is utterly a mistake to think, that Church goods were provided, to the end that the Clergy might equal the port of their parallel Rankes in the Laity, in expense. It is much against the intent of the Canons, that the Clergy should maintain familiarity with the Laity, by correspondences in entertainments, or other occasions of pro­miscuous conversation; such as their Office bringeth not forth. For, that Hospitality which Parsonages, and other Benefices are chargeable with, is not the entertainment of their equals among the Laity; but the providing for the distressed wayfar­ers, or those that are from home upon such occasions, as chari­ty requireth▪ to support: besides the casual necessities of the poor, either at home; that would attend upon the service of God, but that their honest labour will not bear them out in it; or abroad, that appear to bee in present distress, whatsoever the occasion may bee, that puts them to try the charity of Christians. In fine, there is nothing more contrary to the pro­fession of the Clergy, then too great indifference in conversing with the Laity, of what rank soever. For, the authority which ought to bee in them, for the advising, exhorting, in­structing, and reproving of all sorts of People; whom their ranks may call them to converse with, upon occasions which their Office either breedeth, or alloweth; stands upon this ground; that voluntary familiarity engages them not any way to ap­prove those actions, which they should rather discountenance.

And this was the▪ ground for the Rule of promoting theThe ground for promotions to higher degrees. Clergy to higher degrees: and in fine, to the Bishopricks of their respective Churches. For it is true, by the leave of the Bishop, being dismissed, they might hold their degree in ano­ther Church. But the expectation of being promoted lay in the trial that they gave of themselves; and in their merit from their own Church. No man could pretend any thing to it, in any other Church, Regularly. How much, the translating of Bishops is against the Rule of the Primitive Church, appears by Constantines commending Eus [...]bius of Caesarea, for refusing the See of Antiocbia; by the reproaches extant, of the other Eusebi­us, the supporter of▪ Arius, for removing from Berytus to Ni­comedia. [Page 176] True it is, it was dispensed in upon great occasions. But every privilege is an exception to a Law. Always, the ser­vice which every one did his Church was that which intitled him to the nomination of the Clergy, to the suffrage or approbation of the people, to the consent of the Suffragant Bishops; and espe­cially of the Metropolitane. This was, and will bee always, the Catholick form of electing Bishops. The interest of the Crown is well enough consistent with it; providing a Negative for it; that any man may bee refused, whom the Crown shall not ap­prove. The dependence of the People upon their Bishops, which the interest of Christianity necessarily requires, cannot bee maintained otherwise.

The means to bring this education of the Clergy, and by consequence, the discipline grounded upon it, out of use, isThe Universi­ties may be ser­viceable to some part of this Dis­cipline. said to bee the erecting of Universities in these Western parts of Christendom. For this was, without question, a far shor­ter way to the knowledge of the Scriptures, the Canons, and the Rites and Customs of the Church. But it was the way also to loose that gravity, that sobriety, that abstinence and meek­ness, upon which the credit of the Clergy with the people had been raised. And by that time, or rather long before, corrup­tion in the chief Guides of the Church must needs have rendred inferior degrees conformable. It is not my meaning, to insist upon the restoring of the antient Discipline; which nothing but the wisdom of▪ Gods Spirit, and Tradition from the Apostles, could have furnished the simplicity of the Primitive Christians with. The Discipline of the Universities may bee ser­viceable to the Church, may it be recovered from that licentious­ness, and disobedience, which Anarchy hath privileged in youth. I insist upon that which I have proposed already, though no heed is given to it. The general Rule of the Church, to found Bishop­ricks in Cities, was not every where observed in England. Some Dioceses are so large, that the Cathedral Churches cannot bee made serviceable, under the Bishop, to the Government of the Whole Diocese. If Colleges of Presbyters were erected in all the Head Towns of Counties, the youth of the Counties that pre­tend to the Clergy, restoring this Canon, must bee under the inspection of the same. If, before their going to the Universi­ty, they were listed under them, as expecting imployment and [Page 177] maintenance under them; that is, within the County; then must they make account to approve their conversations and stu­dies to them, as having no other way to live, in that estate to which they addict themselves. As for the course of finding imployment and maintenance for them, I will go no further to particulars, then I have done. It is enough, that the intenti­on should bee, the restoring of the Primitive Canons, as the estate of this time will require, or allow.

It would bee no small gain, that, by restoring this Canon,Reasons for it. the complaint of pluralities would bee silenced. For, that persons, whose abilities and trust are approved to the Bishop, by information of the said Presbyters, should have the care of more then one Church; would bee no more inconvenience, then that those Presbyters have a care of the County, the Bi­shop of the Diocese. Always supposing, that the incumbent upon the Cure, and the rate of his maintenance, bee allowed, or rather constituted by the Bishop, to whom that right origi­nally belongs. I will say no more to justifie this Proposition, but this; That hee who is obnoxious to several Churches; that is, to several Dioceses; either as to the duty of Governing, or of being Governed, can by no means bee accountable to both; according to that account, which the constitution of the Ca­tholick Church requireth, of every Order and Degree of the Clergy. And again, that, seeing all exemptions, privileging against the Ordinary Rule and Government of the Church, are the effects and consequences of the Papacy, and the Usur­pations thereof; that the Reformation which wee profess can­not bee justified in it self, (though, in comparison, it may abate of the abuse which went afore) without restoring a Rule of such consequence. Bu [...] all this while, it is no part of my intent, that those who are presently possessed, by the Law of the Land, should bee presently destituted. But that a course bee prouided, for the future, to which the world may bee dis­posed by degrees.

In the second place, for the justifying of our Reformation,Publick fame of sin to bee purged by Ec­clesiastical pro­cess. and towards restoring the Discipline of Penance; it is requi­site, that all Malefactors, convicted by Law, of capital or in­famous crimes; or others of as great malice to God, though not so destructive to Civil Society; should stand Excommuni­cate, [Page 178] when their lives and liberties are saved, till they satisfie the Church, of their conversion to God. The Law of this Land, providing no other trial for sins of uncleanness, but that of the Ecclesiastical Courts, hath hitherto enabled them to proceed to the trial of publick scandals, by deposing witnesses ex officio. Which, according to the rest of the ignorance and malice of the blessed Reformation; hath been construed for an Usurpation upon the liberties of Christian people. For it is manifest, that, under the Old Testament, the Rulers of Gods antient people were able, every one within the Sphere of his authority, to oblige all men to answer upon Oath, in any thing, wherein, they should adjure them to answer. For upon this account, our Lord himself, beeing subject to the Law, answered the adjuration of the High Priest. And the Levitical Law prescribeth a trespass Offering for him, who, being adju­red to speak his knowledge, in any business, should conceal it. This, the Jews extend to the adjurations of private persons, if made in open Court. But there is no question, that the Princes and Judges of that People, each in the mater of his Office, ob­liged their Inferiors to answer their knowledg; So that they were perjured ipso facto, concealing that which they knew of any mans cause. Under the Gospel, it is evident, that the Bishop, in Consistory with his Presbyters, did try all scandals in the Church, by summoning all persons within the Diocese, to wit­ness their knowledge. And that to this effect; That if any man were detected to have concealed his knowledge, hee be­came thereby liable to Penance, as for a heinous sin. And Constantine the Great, authorizing by an Act of the Empire, yet extant, the Sentences of Bishops, in all causes, that should bee brought to them by consent of parties; gives this reason for it; Because their authority was able presently to discover that, which Civil Courts could not bring to light by tedious suits. Whereby it appeareth, that all Christians found themselves tied to answer the truth, which their Pastors summoned them to declare, for discharge of their conscience. Christianity being corrupted, by the coming of the World into the Church; it might become requisite, that the generality of this authority should bee restrained within such bounds, as emergent abuses might oblige the Law to provide. But, when a Power so neer­ly [Page 179] concerning Christianity, is cried down for an Usurpation up­on the Church; it appeareth that Christianity is at a low ebbe, if they who understand so little in the Scriptures, or in maters concerning the Church, dare undertake to Reform it. Adul­tery is one of the sins, which the antient Church, in some places, durst not warrant forgiveness; And therefore, did not restore Aulterers to the Communion, no not at the point of death. If the Law therefore provide no other trial for it, but by the Christian Court; to take away that means of trial which the Church inheriteth of Gods antient people, is, in some mea­sure, to authorize adultery in a Christian Kingdom; That is, to call down Gods vengeance upon it. Rather, it should bee provided, that inquisition after all scandals, upon publick fame, might bee authorized, upon terms fit to prevent abuses; though not for civil punishment; which the Christian Court should have nothing to do with; yet for the bringing of sin un­der Penance.

And therefore much more, that sinners which are become [...] ­toriousSinners con­vict [...]y [...]w n [...] [...] Commu­nicate b [...]fore Penance. by conviction in Court, according to the Civil Law of the Land, ought not to bee admitted to the Communion; wi [...]ho [...] satisfying the Church, by performing fit Penance, that God is satisfied. And the Curate indeed seemeth to bee enabled by the present Law, to refuse all such the Communion, much more; If hee bee able to refuse those that seem scandalous, till they bee tried. And, if hee do not what he is able to do, must answer God for the soul which hee poysoneth, by giving him the Eucharist, who barres himself the effect of it; His Repent­ance not being manifest, as his sin is. But if the Law will not leave out the Curate, in refusing him till hee have satisfied; The choice is hard for him that hath a family, to forfeit his Benefice, by doing that, which, the Law that places him in it bears him not out in; though the power of the Keys, which hee hath by Gods Law, oblige him to it. And therefore, there may bee hope of mercy for him that is seduced, in so hard a choice. But then the vengeance must remain upon the King­dom, and upon those that have Power to right our common Christianity, and do not. The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Law, intended under Henry the VIII, and Edward the VI, hath provided in this case. And, hee that considers with con­science, [Page 180] shall have much ado to justifie the Title of a Christian Kingdom, where this right is not maintained.

I go no further at present, then this step to the restoring ofThe Cure of no­torio [...] sin the Bish [...]ps Office. Penance, whether Publick or Private. I see there is very good hope, that an end will bee put to all that abominable merchan­dize of Publick Penance, which hath been so just a scandal in this Church. Such abuses must bee taken, by those that value their Superiours as they ought, for Reformed, so soon as they are r [...]s [...]med into the Bishops own hands. For, no man ought to bee scandalized, that all such sins shall not bee put to publick Penance; seeing it will bee in the Bishop, either in his own person, or, by committing any difficult case to the most skillful and most faithful of his Clergy; to attain satisfaction of a mans conversi­on in private, before hee restore him to the Communion, by loosing him from his sin. And, the conscience of his Inferiors shall stand discharged, ministring the same upon his Order. In the mean time, the Bishops conscience stands answerable to God, both for the soul that shall perish, by being reconciled, before qualified therefore; and for the infection of the Church, by the sin which is re-admitted before it bee mortified. The case is the very same in all sins, taking all for convict of them, which the Law convicteth. And therefore, in all those which the Law convicteth not; whensoever it shall enable the Church, (as the Law of a Christian Kingdom should do) to convict them by inquisition ex Off [...]cio, to the effect of curing them, by redu­ing them under Penance.The Church not Reformed without restor­ing Penance, Publick or Pri­v [...]te.

Now it is true; Publick Penance is, and was at the Refor­mation, utterly surceased in the Church of Rome. But private Penance was in use, as still it continues, (though under those great abuses which I have taxed) as the prime institution of our Lord and his Apostles; though seldom mentioned in the Re­cords of the Church, in comparison of Publick Penance, so fa­mous in all the primitive Fathers. For, the Christian Court being afterwards divided, into the outward Court of the Church, and the inward Court of the Conscience; (the one concerning all Jurisdiction, to any effect of Excommunication; the other concerning sin that is not Excommunicated, because not notorious, but voluntarily made known) the sentence of Ex­communication being released, a man comes not to the Com­munion, [Page 181] in any case of sin, till hee voluntarily undergo the Keys of the Church, by opening that sin in this inward Court, which hee puts the outward Court to bring to light. And thus were the Keys of the Church in force, before the Reformation, under the See of Rome. Now, were publick Penance restor­ed, then might it clearly bee said, that a Reformation were effected in this point. For, Penance absolutely so called, in the antient Church, is Publick Penance. Some sins of less con­sequence were referred to some one of the Pre [...]byters, to bee cured in private; by the antientest Customs and Canons of the Church. But there is but little mention of them, in com­parison of the greater that were restored by publick Penance. So, the restoring of publick Penance would bee effectively Re­formation; that is, the restoring of that which was; though private Penance were not enjoyned by Law. And of necessity, there would bee great hope, that Christians, understanding, by the use of Publick Penance, the need they have of the Keys of the Church, to assure them the cure of their sins; would bee moved in conscience, voluntarily to seek that help, for the cure of their secret sins. For, by that means first came private Pe­nance into so general use, that it was possible for the Church of Rome, to procure secret Confession once a year, to bee setled for a Law of all Christian States under it. And, did the Law here maintain publick Penance, then were the Haeresie of the Fanaticks, and all imaginations tending to any degree of it, quite put to flight; the people receiving this impression from the Law, that their sins which no man knows, but only God, cannot bee cured at an easier rate, then those which the world knows. But as the mater is, so long as the Keys of the Church are not in force, that is, in use, for the restoring of sinners to the Communion, upon presumption that they are restored to Grace, grounded upon the works of Repentance which they shew; it is a hard task to maintain the claime of Reformation, in the Church. For the Church is founded upon the Power of the Keys. And therefore, where that Power is not in force; as, during this time of our blessed Reformation; there it is a Church in hope, and right, rather then in deed, and in being. Wee publickly profess to seek the restoring of Penance. And, be­cause wee have not effectively sought that which wee profess to [Page 182] seek; God hath brought upon us that heavy vengeance which wee have felt. The marvellous work that hee hath shewed in restoring us, obligeth all to lay it to heart; and never to give over the thought of it, till, by degrees, it bee restored in some measure. Christian souls perish, because they know not what help they want. The blessing of the Church, and the Com­munion of the Eucharist, being ministred to all without differ­ence; give no man any ground of salvation, by being allowed it. And yet the Church is provided by God, that all may have ground for that hope, by being of the Church. All that Mi­nister the Office, by Ministring the same, maintain simple souls in a confidence, that they want nothing requisite. Whereas, it is not enough for our discharge, that any man may, unless there bee probable means, whereby all may bee saved. But that can by no means bee maintained, where the Power of the Keys is not in force.What means there is left, for the restoring of it.

The difficulty, indeed, of the business appears as much, by the scandals which the Scottish Presbyteries, and our Triers here, for the very little time they had, have given; as by those which served to bring Auricular Confession out of date. And no marvel. For, all the cries for Discipline, which our Presbyte­rians make, seem to demand; that their Power in it bee as ar­bitrary as their Prayers. No Rule, no bounds, no limits pro­posed, within which it shall bee ministred; which is the diffi­culty. Nor is it possible to reduce the severity of the antient Canons; which the Church of Rome it self hath abated to se­cret Penance. And yet, supposing the premises, it will bee ne­cessary to follow them, in such a form, as the World at present may bear; Not referring the measure of trial, to bee required for the verifying of a mans conversion, to the discretion of a Cu­rate, or a Parish; but referring it to the Bishop, and to those whom hee shall discharge his burthen upon, in the Cathedral Church, in those Colleges which I have proposed, or in the Diocese. And yet, it seems necessary to refer the witnessing of the effect to the Curate, and to the Parish. For, what can bee more reasonable, then to presume of a good effect, when they that see a mans daily conversation attest it? As for the measure; it will bee a great work, for the Synods of the Pro­vinces, to agree upon such a form, as the Legislative Power of [Page 183] the Kingdom may find cause to authorize, and put in force. Which were it effected, it would not seem unreasonable, to trust particular Ministers with the cure of secret sins; having a Rule before their eyes, to direct their proceeding. I say it would seem reasonable, supposing the premises; supposing the Clergy lived in that respect to their Superiors, in that exercise of their Deacons degree, in that sobriety, (furnishing discreti­on in valuing mens actions,) which their people may have ground to trust their souls with. For at the present, the blessed Reform­ation having so far perswaded the People, that the Minister hath nothing to do but to preach, till they bee sure of their salvation; who will marvel, that they regard not those who detest such impostures? Nor would this bee less benefit to the publick Peace, and the quiet of Superiors, even the Sovereign; Who must bee content to have their actions scanned in the Pul­pit, till there bee a course, whereby their people may bee con­ducted, in those things which the Pulpit cannot, nor ought to decide. The Scottish Presbyters have made us understand, how well they understand the bounds of Ecclesiastical Power; how much they desire to attempt upon the Secular, as well in the Pulpit, as in the Consistory. And where this great Ordi­nance, for the cure of sin, and the salvation of souls, is not duly maintained, just is it with God, to make the neglect of it the seed of publick troubles; The maintenance whereof would contribute as much to the publick Peace, as to the salvation of souls.

CHAP. XXV.

IT will not become a good Christian to think much, that these things are called upon at this time, before this Church bee restored to the benefit of the Laws, which the Order thereof is [Page 185] to bee established and inforced. It will not become any such to say; That the same complaint might have been made, while the Church of England was the Church of England: and before the late breaches in it; And therefore might bee spared, when all ought to thanke God, that wee may bee as wee were. For, the incomparable mercy that God hath shewed, in restoring the Laws with the Crown, and the Church with both, would leave a mark of ingratitude upon him, whosoever, having nothing to say against the truth, nothing against the great weight and high consequence of the premises; should not think it worth the pains, for all Estates of the Church and Kingdom, to en­deavour the redressing of them. Especially, the profession of Reformation obliging all, that think Christians bound to stand to that which they profess, not to rest in that which our prede­cessors had obtained, by the first attempt of it. For, notwith­standing the great difficulties, which the extream factions of Papists and Puritans, in Church and State, had cast in the way of all right endeavours, to perfect the Reformation begun, ac­cording to the true ground and measure of it; Wee see what a severe account it hath pleased God to take, of all Estates in the Kingdom, for laying aside the thought of perfecting that, which, in so high a point as that of Penance, they had acknowledged to bee defective. I do not intend to say, that the Sacrileges committed under Henry VIII. had no hand in this account. For, there is no such mark to glorifie Gods providence with, as when it is visible, that the punishment springs out of the sin. Nor is there any mean more visible towards the advancing of that confusion which wee have seen, then the applying of the endowment of Churches to common uses; being found, at the dissolution, by the irregular Power of the Papacy, in the hands of Monasteries. But of that guilt, the Crown and Kingdom seems to stand in a good measure discharged, by restoring that part, which the Church stood invested of, by the same title, (as wee see they have done) to the due property; in such a rate as the publick peace might indure. As for private persons, that stand invested of the like goods by the like Title, there is reason to hope, that their account redoundeth not to the account of the Kingdom, in the sight of God; notwithstanding that the Law alloweth them to use their own conscience, in owning or dis­owning [Page 186] their Title. For, where the Unity of the Church seemeth to bee concerned, it hath been always the practice of the Church, to forbear the use of the Keys, and to admit those to the Communion, whose actions it intendeth not to war­rant; leaving them to answer God for the same, knowing that the Church warranteth them not. The Church of Rome, in Q. Maries days, followed this patern; reconciling this King­dom to the Communion thereof, without restitution of that wrong, which it claimed to bee done under Henry VIII. But, if the Kingdom bee liable to an account, for the sin of parti­cular persons; in detaining Church goods, and▪ by that means, hindring the salvation of Christian people; Shall wee not think, that the neglect of perfecting the Reformation begun, though obstructed by the difficulty which I have alleged, is, and ought to bee taken for the ground of that reckoning, which God hath made with us? And therefore, that wee are not to lay aside the thought of it, so long as there appears any means of proceeding to it. Now, it seemeth manifest to com­mon reason, that there can bee no such opportunity, for im­proving the Laws of the Kingdom, by which Religion is to bee established; as while the minds of men, after the breaches which wee have seen, remain unsetled to any Order in Church ma­ters. For, before the breach, there is appearance enough, that all means of doing this were studiously obstructed, by the Pu­ritan party in Parliament. And it will appear, if it bee well considered, that this is it that made it popular; having always just cause of complaint; (which can never bee wanting in any Civil Laws; And therefore, not in those Civil Laws, whereby Religion is setled) but always pretending an unjust way of redres­sing the same.

But there is a greater reason for us to think, that the ChurchThe restoring of the Ecclesia­stical Laws of the Land is not the restoring of the Church. of England will not bee restored, by the restoring of those Ci­vil Laws of the Land, which gave force to the Order of it; Af­ter those manifest and notorious breaches, which wee have seen in it. For it is visible, that it is the Secular power only that is acknowledged, by those that return from their Schisme, and conform themselves to the Ecclesiastical Laws which it inforceth, in consideration of the temporal reward or punishment, which they are inacted with. It is now found to bee the sin of Supe­riors, [Page 187] when such things are imposed upon tender consciences, as they are offended at; Not the sin of them who conform themselves to that which is enjoyned. And, all that hath been pretended, for a change in the Laws, seems now to bee made a meer Office of Charity to the Kingdom; That it might not sin, in imposing upon tender consciences, that which they were offended at; who are safe enough from sinning, all the while that they submit to it. In like manner, they who, to bee capable of Benefices, get to bee Ordained anew; because the Ordination was void, which they had from those who had nothing to do to give it; do profess openly enough, that they do it, not, because they thought their void Orders defective; but to obtain the privileges, which the Law of the Land annexeth to that Ordination which it protecteth. At which rate, the Oath of Canonical Obedience it self will tye them in conscience, only to themselves; That is, to avoid those tempo­ral penalties, which the Law punisheth disobeying the Ordina­ry with. In the mean time, the Fanaticks are owned by them upon all occasions: And, not only the Schisme of the Congre­gations is passed over, for a weakness of tender consciences; but, that damnable error, of assurance of salvation without as­surance of Christianity; the fry that hath spawned all the Con­gregations of Enthusiasts and Fanaticks; must go for a frailty of the Godly, in professing the true consequence of common Principles. And, seeing all severity of Penalties, which may restrain the License of such Conventicles, must needs insinuate an invitation, of returning to Communion with the Church, for those who would avoid them; It is much to bee considered, that they who shall return, without disowning their Schisme; which is of it self always notorious; Or the perverse doctrines, which have been notoriously owned for the ground of it; do manifestly bring with them their profession into the Church. For, returning, only that they may avoid the temporal Penal­ties which it inferreth, they are at liberty, in point of reputa­tion, as well as of conscience, to practice the Maxime which Michiavel teacheth; to make themselves of that party which they intend to overthrow; as not having engaged with the Church, upon profession of conscience. It is not for nothing, that the Rules of the Church, from the beginning, have made [Page 188] them Haereticks and Schismaticks, as to the Church, that com­municate with Haereticks and Schismaticks. It is not for no­thing, that they admit them not to return, without disowning their Schismes, or their Haeresies. It is not for nothing, that they admit not the Clergy, that have been involved in them, in their own Orders; But render them incapable of that trust for the future. The reason for all is the same. The profession of the mouth intitleth to the visible privilege of the Church, in communion with it; the sincerity thereof in the heart, to the invisible privilege of Christianity, with God. And, though there bee great reason to hope; that communion with the Church, and the daily use of it may bee a mean to restore the heart into a right relish of that, which, the distance that hath been causeth men to distaste beyond measure; yet is there no­thing but the solemnity of profession, to render such a change visible. And therefore, it will not serve to justifie the common cause, till time render the effect notorious.

In the mean time, the reason of the distance, which wee holdYet are wee not, therefore, chargeable with Schism, by the Church of Rome. with the Church of Rome, remains the same; and therefore the measure of it. The abuses which created the necessity, for parts of the Church to Reforme themselves, without the Whole, re­main the same. Only wee are left without hope of amendment; seeing the Council of Trent received without it. So, no terms of reconcilement, but those of conquest; which, how should this Church and Kingdom bee obliged to accept of; to the be­traying of all the souls, which must needs perish by those a­buses? And therefore, allowing the due value of that sin which Schisme signifieth, in the party that causeth it; wee shall not need to fear the charge of it, though both parties are visibly in the state of it. For, the Unity of the Church being next, in consideration and weight, to the substance of Christianity, which the being of the Church presupposeth; The Faith which only justifieth, is seen, in making good that profession, which intitleth us to bee members of the Church. But that Charity, whereby that Faith is brought into effect, is seen, in the first place, in maintaining the Unity thereof; Which, a private Christian maintaineth, onely by continuing a member of it. So, a Christian, as a Christian, fails of his salvation, by fail­ing of that which a Christian professeth as a Christian. But a [Page 189] Christian as a member of the Church, fails of his salvation, by failing of that which a Christian professeth, as a member of the Church; namely, by forsaking the Unity of the Church. But, a man cannot seem to forsake the Unity of the Church, by pur­suing the integrity of that Christianity, upon which it is found­ed. If the corruption thereof bee so great, as may seem to ren­der the communion thereof ineffectual, to the salvation of them that use it; it will bee Charity to joyn for the restoring of it, to so good an effect; though a breach succeed, by the misunder­standing of those who refuse to joyn for that purpose. Though divers mistakes bee committed, in a work of so great weight and consequence; the want of Charity will lye on that side, which shall refuse that reason, which, had it condescended to, those mistakes might have been redressed. How much more, when there is no other choice left, but, either to continue at the distance under which wee were borne; or, to give our selves up to the will of those, who, not having given sati [...]faction in the trust which they undertake, condescend to no terms of bet­ter assurance for the future?

And truly, though the sin of Schisme hinder salvation moreWhat Schisme destroyeth the salvation of what persons, by instances, of the most notable Schismes. then any other sin; because it involveth the body of the Church, and so hindreth the salvation of more; yet is there no cause to think, that all who are involved in the state of Schisme, are involved in the sin of it. The less cause there is for it, the greater breach of charity by it. Therefore, the greater, the more visible the causes are, of that change which occasions it, the less is to bee imputed to them that follow such causes; Espe­cially to private Christians, when such causes are as visible on the one side, as the interest of each mans salvation is visible to the contrary on the other side. Besides, I said afore, that Schisme in the Church is the same which Civil War, in the state of the World. Now, though War cannot bee just on both sides, for the heads and causes of it; yet, for those that follow their heads, in causes too difficult for private persons to judge, it will bee no guilt of bloud, to follow that authority which ap­pears to them Visible. Which if it bee true, as it is evidently reasonable, there will no question remain, that there may bee salvation on both sides of a Schisme. The Schismes of the No­vatians, Montanists, Donatists, Meletians, and perhaps divers [Page 190] others, were grounded upon such causes, as, the Unity of the Church did no less visibly outweigh, then the consent thereof to the contrary was visible. Notwithstanding, so long as the Faith remained intire: (as, it doth not appear, that they dis­believed, from their beginning, any thing necessary for the salvation of all, to bee believed) and the Offices of Gods Service were ministred by them, according to the Order of the Church; as not differing about any of them; I should bee as loth to condemn all the partizans, as to excuse the causes of them, to or from eternal death. How much more in the Schismes of the Luciferians, of that at Antiochia, between Meletius and Paulinus, of that between Rome and Constantinople, in the cause of Acacius, and▪ perhaps in others; in which there was onely breach of Communion, upon some discontent, in the governing of maters in the Church; without either difference of Faith, or in the Offices of Gods service. I confess, Pope Gelasius de vinculo an [...]thematis, in the cause of Acacius, takes it for grant­ed all along, that the want of Communion with the Church of Rome rendred all liable to that curse, which Christians, by failing of the duty of Christians; either as Christians, or as members of the Church; do incurre, upon the sentence of the Church. But, hee who admitteth that constitution of the Church which I maintain, will not easily admit the sentence of a part, (suppose all the West engaged in the Act of the Church of Rome) able to damn all the Christians of the East, that ad­hered only to the successors of Acacius; not being able to re­dress his miscarriage, which his successors themselves owned not. Rather is the Church of Rome to answer God, for the souls that miscarried, by maintaining the breach open, beyond that which the good of Christendom required. Nay, I cannot condemn the opinion of those, who allow a possibility of salvati­on▪ in the Sects of the Nestorians in the East, and the Ja­cobites in the South; notwithstanding that they stand divided from the Church, upon occasion of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which it imbraceth. For, it is possible, that they may understand the terms of their distance in such a sense, as may very well stand with the Decrees of those Councils: So that, the difference being occasioned by personal discon­tents; though it were mortal to those who brought it to pass, yet [Page 191] may it not bee so to those that know not how to help it; if it occa­sion not the want of means necessary▪ to salvation otherwise. But this is not to say, that these parties are not bound to con­cur to the visible Unity of Gods Church, by communion in the Offices of his service. Should they profess themselves free from an obligation concerning all Christians, as members of the Church; I would not excuse those that take upon them to con­tinue such breaches, because they know not that which they should know. But those that are only sufferers in such breaches, I should not exclude from the hope of salvation upon that ac­count; not wanting otherwise, that which is necessary to the salvation of all Christians; which, the divisions of the Church must needs render very difficult for the greatest part to obtain. This I would say much more, of the Schisme between the Greek and Latine Church; being well assured, that there is no such defect in the Faith of the Greek Church, as may warrant the Latine Church to sentence them for Haereticks. And, as for Schisme, that the Latine Church; by undertaking more then one part of the Church can undertake, without the consent of the other, in maters of common concernment; hath the great­er hand in it; whatsoever the truth bee, of the Disputes that occasion it. And therefore, it is much to bee lamented, that the See of Rome should pursue no other terms, of reuniting those distressed and persecuted Churches unto it self, but those of ab­solute submission to the dictates thereof, without why or where­fore: Not being afraid to raise them persecution by unbelievers, that they may bee necessitated to that submission, which will in­crease their persecution from their Sovereigns. Seeing then, that we have so many instances of Schismes, which exclude not the hope of salvation; especially for those that are sufferers in them; that is, for private Christians; How far ought wee to bee, from yielding to the unreasonable demands of the Missiona­ries; charging the Schisme upon the Reformation, whereof, the abuses which they maintain are the onely true cause? For, though it was always, and still is a very difficult thing, to see the true point of Resormation, so as to bring those, that feel the abuses, to consent in it; yet, the abuses being both visible and palpable, the faults committed by the mistaking of it will bee imputable to those, that will condescend to no reason; as [Page 192] well as to those, who proceed to a change, without due infor­mation in the ground and measure of it. And therefore, up [...]n that account, there can bee no bar to the salvation of private Christians, that are no actors, but sufferers in such breaches; though, the misunderstanding of the due ground and measure of the difference must needs occasion the Ioss of infinite souls, by hindring them of the means that is truly necessary for the salvation of Christian.

This is that which I said afore, that Schisme, as War, mayDifficulty of salvation on both sides, the Reformation remaining un­persect. bee unjust on both sides; The charge of which injustice, as it will lye upon those which are actors in it, and causes of it, ha­ving power to abate it, and not imploying the same to so good a purpose; so, it leaves a possibility of salvation for both sides. And that is no more then hath been said, from the beginning of our Reformation, by all that allow the Church of Rome a true Church. But that difficulty of attaining salvation on both sides, which the Schisme inflameth, will bee imputable to those that maintain the extreams, taking offense at the due ground and termes of composing it. And this, I confess, c [...]eates a question upon that which remains, for our Ecclesiasti­cal Laws to redress. For, if they inforce not the due use of the Power of the Keys; so great a part of the conduct of Chri­stian souls to salvation; and that it is not to bee inforced, with­out restoring Discipline in the Clergy; How shall it bee visible, that a simple Papist sins in being a Recusant? How shall hee, that invites him to bee no Recusant, assure him of means of salvation visibly sufficient? How shall the State bee enabled, to inflict upon him the legal penalties of his Recusancy, upon other crimes? For it is manifest, that, from those whom the Civil Law of the Land qualifies for the Cure of souls, without any ground of pretense, that they do concur to the true intent of the Church, in ministring the power of the Keys; there is not the least appearance, for any hope of that help, which the Of­fice professeth. Indeed, alleging on the other side, those abuses in private Penance, that neglect of publick Penance, which the Church of Rome alloweth, wee allege a sufficient reason for a change, without the authority of it: And a possibility of sal­vation, notwithstanding a defect in redressing the same. But this possibility will consist in the more then ordinary diligence [Page 193] of private Christians; considering the snares, which division multiplieth: and labouring to supply themselves in that, where­in the publick Order of the Church, provided by God to sup­ply them of it, saileth of the effect which God intendeth. A consideration which, though the late distraction made it more visible, yet will always remain in force, till the due ground and measure of Reformation take effect.

It will bee worth the while to instance this, in the Cure ofAn instance her [...]of, in the Cure of s [...]ul [...] departing ac­cording to the Order in force. souls departing this life, according to the Order in force. In the beginning of Christianity, some sins were questionable, in some parts of the Church, whether curable by the Keys of the Church, or not. The Schisme of Novatianus, pretended, for the ground of it, the re-admitting of Apostates: As that of Montanus, in part, the re-admitting of Adulterers. But, before all were come to agreement in it, the same severity had been practised in the Church, without Schisme. They lest such per­sons to Gods mercy: They engaged not the Church in warrant­ing them pardon. The Council of Nicaea seems to have put an end to all difformity in the case. There is no mention of deny­ing the Eucharist, upon the bed of death, after that. But, supposing publick sinners admitted to publick Penance; thereby to give proof of the sincerity of their repentance: And binding them over to the remainder of their Penance, escaping death. Some Canons go so low, as to release sin, without revealing it, upon condition of undergoing the Penance it shall require, being revealed, in case hee survive. The Church of Rome chargeth all Priests of absolve all at the point of death, which it alloweth not all to do otherwise. As for the Reservation of Penance; they who require Penance, not to qualifie for pardon, but to satisfie the debt of temporal pain, that remains after pardon, I suppose doe, upon that account, turn it over to Purgatory. But they, from whom, as I said afore, there is no appearance for any hope of that help, which the Keys of the Church, mini­stred according to the Order of the Church, do hold forth; what can wee expect of them, towards the preparing of him that lies on the bed of sickness, for his passage? For, the com­fort which all pretend to give in that estate, may bee imagined to consist in assuring salvation, to all that once were assured of it; to all that think themselves sure of it, by believing it, not [Page 194] by their Christianity; without which there is no assurance of it. If men bee not [...]o much Fanaticks; perhaps hee assureth them of pardon trusting in the merits of Christ, for it. Let him see his sin, let him renounce his own merits, let him trust in the m [...]rit [...] of Christ; which, hee is sure are of more virtue and value then his sin; and the business is done. Not considering what the Gospel requireth, to give a man interest in the merits of Christ: What it requireth of him, who shall have forfeited that interest, by grievous sin: What hee hath done; for the mortisying of that concupiscence, for the appeasing of that wrath of God, for the preventing of that sin for the future, whereby hee may formerly have committed that forfeiture. Certainly, it is no good sign in this Case, that our people are so willing to have the Minister pray by them; but so unwilling to hear of the Communion, because they know it requires them to take account of themselves. Nay it is oddes, that it is condescended to, at the warning of the Curate; who must needs let slip the anthority of his Office; in requiring account of him that expects comfort from him; by offering all that hee is able to give, before the account is tendered. In the mean time, how shall hee, who prays onely by the sick, and leaves him so, as prepared for his passage; who absolves him of all sin, with­out being satisfied, that hee hath mortified, that hee will mor­tifie any, in case he survive; rest satisfied, that hee hath done his Office; and not dismissed his patient, insufficiently prepar­ed for so terrible a voyage? Especially, being satisfied; that there are two Keys in the Church, as to Christians: That it is to loose no sin, but that which it bound afore; loosing him that appears to bee alive, because it bound him, when hee appeared to bee dead afore: That the Blessing of the Church, the Com­munion of the Eucharist, and the Burial of Christians, ought to si [...]nifie some reasonable presumption in the Church, that they depart in Gods peace, to whom it alloweth the same. But where is that presumption, when hee that is convicted of a capital crime, shall bee able to demand the Communion of his Curate, without further satisfaction; And perhaps have his action of the Case against him, if hee refuse it? The Curate, indeed, stands excused by the Law; as to his Superiours, and to the Church. But what will the Law, what will the Church, what [Page 195] will the Curate say for themselves, at the great judgement of God; if it appear, that a soul perishes, by this defect in the Law, according to the which hee ministers his Office? And a Recusant, in this case, may say, with truth; that those abuses, which I have taxed the Church of Rome for allowing, it commandeth not: That hee may possibly meet with one, that is not tainted with those novelties of Doctrine; But will deal faithfully with his soul in that exigent. And therefore may hope that he sinneth not, in continuing a Recusant, out of hope for that help, in this point, which hee cannot expect by con­forming. And therefore, that his sin not being visible to him, in this point, the penalties of Recusancy, at least in this regard, are inflicted without cause.A Supplication for a full debate of all maters in difference.

Had I not proceeded thus far, in setting forth, what the ju­stifying of the Reformation which wee profess will require, I had not set forth the ground of that most humble supplication, which I advance upon it; together with a most earnest adjura­tion (if it bee lawful for Inferiors, in any case possible, to adjure their Superiors) to and of all Estates, whom the forming of the Laws of Religion in this Kingdom may any way concern; by the bowels of Gods mercies in Christ, by the bitter passion of his Cross, by the merit of his sufferings, by that [...]hope of salvation which they furnish all Christians with; And, if the good of this World bee of any consideration, after so high con­cernments; by the hope of his Majesties long and prosperous Reign over us, by the blessing of his return, by the peace which wee enjoy through the same; not to think the restoring of Re­ligion, by the Laws of this Kingdom, the work of one sitting of Parliament or Synod: Not to think, that a work of that consequence, and difficulty, can bee concluded and made up, by any Laws, that may presently bee provided, by any humane wisdom: Not to think the Laws presently provided, so fixed for eternity, that further endeavours, for the perfecting of so great a work, should bee thought derogatory to the authority of Law: In fine, according to that which I said in the beginning; to think the Laws, that may presently bee provided, ambula­tory, and provisional, till all possible means shall have been tried, to put so great a work, beyond all imputation of any visible offense; Not thinking any pains a burthen, that may [Page 196] shew reasonable hope of a good issue, to so high a purpose. For, as there is just cause to think, that there remains very much means to bee imployed, with such a hope; So the time now seems proper; now that there is appearance of the restor­ing of the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Land; for imploying the same. For, the means to bee imployed will consist in a just and full debate of reason, upon principles agreed upon between the parties, tending to reduce them unto agreement, in such things as remain in difference. This debate may well seem dangerous to peace, not supposing any authority to govern it, within the due bounds, and to direct it unto the due purpose. But supposing, as wee must needs suppose, all parties liable to that authority, which the Law of the Land authorizes; because that is acknowledged, by all parties; neither can the Secular Power allow thsoe, whom it owns for Governors of the Church, less, then to govern and direct all dispute, tending to satisfie all that question the Ecclesiastical Law of the Kingdom: Nor need they desire more, for a reasonable ground of hope for good success. There can bee no ground to expect, that they who openly profess, the Laws of Religion to bee the sins of them that make them, can think their duties discharged to God, by being instrumental, in the executing of them, to the intent to them that make them. They must needs think them­selves bound in conscience, to deprave, and to pervert the effect of them, to their own intent, in an infinity of particu­lars, which no diligence of Government can prevent or meet with. But when, upon full and just debate it shall appear, that a change is refused them, meerly because they can shew no suf­ficient reason for it, upon those grounds, which the common Christianity obliges the parties to acknowledge; condescend­ing to all that they can shew such reason for; how can it bee imagined, that any prejudice or engagement, that may bee so honourably quitted, will prevail above God and their Country, to a defiance of them that carry not the Sword in vain?

I consess, I can hope for no good end of any such Dispute,The ground of resolution, the being of the Catholick Church, the first and chief point of the debate. without supposing that sense of the Article, concerning one Catholick Church, which hath carried me through this discourse, for the Principle, upon which, all mater in debate is to bee tri­ed. Nor can I take it for a supposition, which they do admit [Page 197] of themselves. But I suppose first, that, the misunderstanding of that which it demandeth being once cleared, the truth of it will bee so evident; by that reason which must satisfie for the truth of the common Christianity; that all shall bee convinced of it, by that which they allege for themselves; as being the conse­quence of their own allegations. Then I suppose further, that it is the first point to bee tried, as that which, in effect, con­tains more then half the trial of all the rest; Which, had it been agreed upon, might have prevented all breaches: And without agreeing upon it, leaves all Dispute in Religion end­less, and without hope of conviction, or satisfaction, on this side or on that. It is not, indeed, to bee expected, that Re­cusants will ever become a party to such an action; though no way concerned in conscience, not to own those whom their So­vereign appointeth, for Governors of such a debate. Not be­cause there would bee any appearance, that thereby they should own them for their Superiors: But because wee find them not disposed to own the obligation of their Christianity; requiring them to concur to it, upon those terms; to bee more antient, then any obligation of their spiritual Superiors to the contrary. For, if the Unity of the Church take place before the authority of any Superiors; provided for the maintenance of it; then is every Christian obliged to the due ground and terms of it, before the authority of Superiors. And therefore cannot refuse them, tendered by a part; though refused by a greater part. And therefore cannot refuse that trial; which is the due means to bring them to light; though his Superiors refuse it. And therefore, their refusal can bee no bar to the effect of the action, once grounded upon a supposition, inforcing the trial, by the Scriptures, expounded by the consent of the Church; That is, within those bounds, wherein, the agreement thereof may ap­pear. For, the setling of those terms, upon which, the Fa­naticks are either to bee disowned by the Presbyterians, or own­ed by this Church; As it must proceed upon that supposition, so it will render their Recusancy, as concerning all the conse­quence of that issue, visibly punishable, in those that refuse to give or take satisfaction upon so just terms. And the consequence of the same supposition, in bounding that which is questionable in the Laws of this Church, to the justifying of the Reforma­tion [Page 198] which it pretendeth, will leave it without excuse in other maters. For, the bounds of that distance which wee are to hold with the Church of Rome being the subject of distance among our selves; As it is not possible to determine them, but upon that supposition: So, they will oblige all Christians to that penalty, which the Laws of a Christian Kingdom are able to inflict upon those that disobey them, being made by virtue of the common Christianity. As for my self, it shall bee a great pleasure to me, to compromise all that I have said, either of the Faith or Laws of the Church, to the issue of such a tri­al. For, there is no reason, why I should think it a disparag­ment to my age, not to have seen the due consequence of such a principle, in so many maters of so doubtful dispute, better then, such a number of Divines or either side, as must bee imployed in such a debate, can make it to appear, to those, whose autho­rity must conduct and govern it. That one principle remaining firme; (which this Church can never disown, if it weigh al­ways by the same W [...]ights, and me [...]e by the same Measures) it shall bee much pleasure to me, to see any mistake of mine, in the consequence of it, brought to light; having a good hope to God, that so innocent an inquiry, upon so just a principle, in a cause so difficult, and so concerning, will serve to excuse any such mistake in his presence. The same will serve to difference the liberty which I use, in publishing this, from the licentious­ness of those who band themselves against the Lawes of their Country; they are sure; without those terms for submission to them, upon which, themselves cannot deny, that they shall bee the Laws of Gods Church in it. Especially, seeing I compromise as many hours of study, as much follicitude of thought, as due a course of inquiry, into the grounds of the mater in question, as the most of my quality can have imployed to the like purpose, since the beginning of our troubles. And, seeing this liberty must bee my plea at the great judgment of God, for any thing, wherein I may have ministred mine Office, according to that measure, which those Laws will inforce, in which, the best of my own private judgement requires an amendment.The consequence of the same, in Uniting the Reformed Churches.

And the acknowledgement of this Principle puts an end to another motion, concerning the uniting of all Reformed Churches, of all that are called Protestants, against the Church of Rome; [Page 199] whether this trial proposed come to an issue or not. For it is manifest, that, before the issue of such a trial; with them, as among our selves; all union with them, upon account of Reli­gion, is but mutual toleration, providing that no breach suc­ceed; or, that none bee made wider then presently it is, by the disclaiming of Communion between the parties. And that is to bee referred to the wisdom of Superiors; the terms which wee our selves ought to insist upon being secured, by the ex­press profession of that Principle, whereof they are all but the consequences. Wee are to stand to Luthers appeal to a Coun­cil, that should judge by the Scriptures alone; limiting the in­terpretation of the Scriptures, as the Rule to judge by, to the consent of the Church, as the evidence for the bounds of it. Had this limitation been expressed in their proceedings at home; (as it cannot bee said, ever to have been disclaimed) in their pro­ceedings abroad with Calvinists; there had been sufficient ground for preventing, not only the particular breach between them, but the general breach with the Church of Rome. There had been no cause, why both parties, of Reformed and Catholick, might not have continued one Church, both Reformed and Catholick. Since so great distances are come to pass; As it is in vain to ex­pect an union, without agreeing first upon the Principle of it: So it will not bee safe to maintain Communion, upon toleration of differences on foot, without protestation for that Principle, which must maintain our own Christianity; leaving them to themselves and to God, in all maters of difference. If this U­nion bee demanded, upon the account of common defense, against the Powers which own the Church of Rome; which seems to bee the in [...]ent of those, that would try the cause of Religion by the sword; The same protestation will bear out all Christian Powers in point of conscience; The interest of their good, and the good of their Subjects, being provided for by their wise­dom. For, the maters in difference being acknowledged, by securing the principle upon which they are to bee decided; It will always be in their power, to joyn for the maintenance of those Laws, whereby the Reformation is setled in their re­spective Sovereignties; Without undertaking for the justice of any Laws, but those, which each Sovereignty is to answer for, because it makes them. And the effect of this reservation will [Page 200] bee of great consequence, to the retaining of that Christianity which is left us. For this limitation will exclude all Power of joyning, for the maintenance of Subjects in attempting the Re­formation of Religion, or the maintenance of the same, by force, against the Will of their Sovereigns. The oversight of which provision, in actions of State; imputed to the suppositi­on of Religion, when they might as well have been intitled to causes of Civil Right; hath had a very visible hand in the trou­bles which we have seen: And is the more carefully to bee a­voided for the future, because the pretense is, upon all occasions, so studiously advanced, by those that have been active in the same.

I have maintained the lawfulness of having Images inAn instance in the having of Images in Churches. Churches. Now, considering the distance between lawful and necessary; I find it not amiss to declare, by this instance, upon what terms, the Rule which I have proposed; of reducing all customs of this Church to that estate, in which wee find them practised, during the primitive times of the Catholick Church; may bee serviceable to the purpose of Unity amongst our selves. For, there is so little mention of Images in Churches, during neer four hundred years after Christ; for increase of devotion, for instruction of the unlearned, or for the ornament of Churches; that it may well bee demanded, as for the consequence of that Rule, that the use of them, though lawful, may bee surceased in Churches. And accordingly, I do acknowledge, that, com­paring the benefit reasonably to bee expected from the use of them, with the abuse, to which, experience hath discovered them to bee subject; I see no cause why, the use of them might not bee forborn; upon such a reason, as might bee effectual to unite us in a Rule bounding the Reformation which wee profess, upon the ground of the common Christianity, in all particulars. The reason is, because the having of them is not a necessary mean to that instruction or devotion, which is pro­posed for the end of them; and on the other side, is acknow­ledged by all the Reformation, to have been the occasion of abuse; the preventing whereof will require that care and dili­gence, which the forbearing of them will spare. But, seeing it hath appeared no breach upon Christianity, to have them in Churches: and, that the abuse which may reasonably bee appre­hended, by having them to the purposes specified, is of no conse­quence, [Page 201] in comparison with that benefit, which the▪ Unity of the Church procureth; It will never bee lawful to enjoyn this for­bearance, without declaring, that it signifieth not, that they are held unlawful: Or, that wee hold our selves bound to de­part from Unity with the Church, rather then indure them. For, seeing the Lutherans do use them in a great measure, for the reasons specified; If the uniting of us with the rest of the Reformation, upon the due ground and terms hitherto requir­ed, should depend upon a reasonable compliance, in that par­ticular; it is manifest, that it would bee a sufficient reason, to oblige us to the same. And therefore much more, if a general re-union with the Church of Rome should come to depend up­on such a compliance. The consequence of this instance may bee the means, to inform those that are capable, what the rea­son of Unity may oblige us to abate, of that which wee take to bee for the best, in maters of less consequence; that the un­valuable benefit of it may bee obtained, in this estate, when the protection of Sovereign Powers renders the Unity of the Church so necessary, so effectual, to the salvation of all. For, on the other side, the interruption of it is that which renders that same salvation questionable; by the difficulty which it createth, of observing the duty of a Christian as a Christian; by the impossibility rather then the difficulty, which it procur­eth of observing the duty of a Christian as a Member of the Church, which, the breach of Unity alloweth not due conduct to understand.

To fortifie the necessity of the proposition that IAn Objection▪ for the Church of Rome an­swered. make, I will here propose an objection, in behalf of the Church of Rome, against the validity of our Ordinations; which I have always taken to have weight and difficulty in it, though others do not seem to value it. For, the answering of this Objection will help to justifie the Offense to bee taken, and not given, that may come by the liberty which here I use. The succession of our Bishops deriveth it self, by Ordination of three Bishops; which the Canon of the Apostles authorizeth; but the Canon of Nic [...]a requireth farther, the consent of the Bishops of each Province. Whereby it appeareth, that Ordi­nation by two or three Bishops is allowed by the Canon of the Apostles, upon presumption, that the Suffragants of each Pro­vince [Page 202] concur in allowing the Act of their fellows. Which pre­sumption ceaseth in our case; Because it is manifest, that the greatest part of the Suffragants did not consent to the Conse­cration of our Bishops, but declared against it; being therefore displaced by the Power of the Sword, deciding for the lesser part against the greater; which the Rule of the Church ina­bleth not to do. Whereupon it is argued, that the Secular Power was not able to authorize our Reformation, as Patron of the Church, and the Canons of it. To fortifie the Objection, I allege the case of Novatianus, who was consecrated Bishop of Rome by three Bishops; and yet his Consecration was Schisma­tical, because against Cornelius, Consecrated by sixteen. So the Ordination of Majorinus; that was first consecrated Bishop of Carthage against Caecilianus, for a head to the Schisme of the Donatists; was justly counted Schismatical; though it was made by a number more then sufficient, of Bishops duely Ordained. Which, I doubt not, may bee found in other Schismes. I an­swer, that the Novatians had nothing to charge the Church with, but the readmitting of those that had fallen away in time of persecution; upon Penance. The Donatists nothing, but, that they who had ordained Caecilianus were Apostates; Though they were proved to bee otherwise, by several trials, which they would never rest satisfied with. As for all the rest; though both Sects followed the Faith and the Orders of the Catholick Church, yet they both rebaptized all those whom they reduced to themselves, from the Communion of it; as counting all the Church Apostates, for communicating with those whom they counted Apostates. Is this our case? do wee find no fault with the Doctrine, or with the Laws of the Church of Rome; wherein Sovereigns might find themselves bound to right both themselves, and their Subjects, notwith­standing the dissent of the Church of Rome? For, though the Rule of succession, by Ordination of Bishops, bear them not out in it; though the Unity of the Church regularly depend upon the force of that Rule; yet, seeing the Unity of the Church fails of the end for which God ordaineth it, unless it preserve the Christianity which it supposeth, intire, as well in the publick service of God, as in the profession and conversati­on of Christians; it ought not to bee taken for a departure from [Page 203] that Unity, that it is restored without that authority, which regularly is provided to preserve it. For, the consent of all other Estates of the Kingdom, in that ground, and upon those terms, which are to take place, before the authority of those that dissent, will abundantly justifie the validity of those Ordinations which declare an intent of ministring the Office, according to the due ground and terms which they suppose. And therefore, it will not bee so visible, when that ground, and those terms are not so visible. And upon these terms are the Christian people of this Kingdom bound to own and to authorize them in their Or­ders; notwithstanding that the greater part of the Suffragants refused them their concurrence to the same. And, if the change that is made bee such, in maters of greatest weight; the case will bee the same, though it fail of the Rule, in some ma­ters of less consequence.

And upon these terms, I admit the plea of the Reformation;That which ex­cuseth the Re­formed Churches extendeth not to our Schism [...] ­tick [...]. that succession of Doctrine is of more consequence, then succession of persons. Not allowing their mistake; in thinking the Order of Bishops the supporters of Antichrist. For it is evident, to him that will use his five senses, that the greatness of the Pope; for which they will have him to bee Antichrist; stands as well by Usurping upon the Bishops, as upon the Crown. And therefore, it was a spice of madness in our Puritans, to proceed, upon their example, to Ordination, without and against their Bishops, either by Presbyters, or by Congregations. Whereas, they who could not obtain Ordination from Bishops, because they professed the Reformation, might more justly think themselves tied to proceed; neglecting that which they could not have: But trust­ing in the mercy of God, that, seeing the abuses of the Church were gross, and visible, and palpable; the zeal of Gods House, which carried men to Reforme them, before they were agreed upon all that was to bee restored instead of them, renders the Reformation, imperfect as it is, effectual to salvation, not­withstanding that they may have failed in maters of less con­sequence. Especially, considering that particular Christians; who are not able to judge of the publick concernments of the Church; may bee able to see the abuses thereof, and to reform their own lives and conversations, by that conduct which an imperfect Reformation may furnish. Not doubting in the [Page 204] mean time, that this imperfection is the loss of an innumerable number of souls, as well as the abuses of the Church of Rome are. And therefore, thinking my self tyed to say so, that all publick persons, of what quality soever, in Church or Com­monwealth, in all the several quarters of Christendom, may bee stirred up to consider, how much it concerns their discharge at the day of judgement, that the Reformation bee reduced to that Rule, and that measure, in every point, which the ground and reason of Reformation evidenceth. For then shall wee not need to apprehend any nullity, upon unavoidable neglect of Canonical proceeding; when the restoring of Christianity; which all Canons presuppose, and tend to maintain; justifieth the defect of it in one, for obtaining the end of it in all acts of the Church. And this would bee the best ground for hope, if ye [...] there bee any hope le [...]t, to propagate it through all Chri­stendome, by the consent of the See of Rome, to the re­uniting of the Church, upon such terms as that ground and rea­son requireth.