I Have found my ſelf obliged, by that horrible confuſion in Religion, which the late Warre had introduced, to declare the utmoſt of mine opinion, concerning the whole point of Religion, upon which the Weſtern Church ſtands divided into ſo many parties. And now finding no cauſe to repent me of doing it, can find no cauſe why I ſhould not declare the conſequence of it, in ſetling of that which remains of our differences. For, middle waies to ſo good an end, are now acceptable, meerly as middle waies, and tending to drive a bargain, without pretending that they ought to be admitted. How much more an expedient pretending neceſſity, from reaſons extant in publick, and not contradicted?
The chief ground that I ſuppoſe here, becauſe I have proved it at large, is the meaning of that Article of our Creed, which profeſſeth one Catholick Church. For either it ſignifies nothing, or it ſignifies that God hath founded one Viſible Church,
That is, that he hath obliged all Churches, (and all Chriſtians, of whom all Churches conſiſt) to hold viſible communion with the whole Church, in the viſible offices of Gods publick ſervice; and therefore I am ſatisfied, that the differences upon which we are divided, cannot be juſtly ſetled upon any terms, which any part of the whole Church ſhall have juſt cauſe to refuſe, as inconſiſtent with the unity of the whole Church. For, in that caſe we muſt needs become Schiſmaticks, by ſetling our ſelves upon ſuch Laws, under which any Church may refuſe to communicate with us, becauſe it is bound to communicate with the whole Church. True it is, that the foundation of the Church, upon theſe terms, will preſuppoſe the intire profeſſion of Chriſtianity, whether concerning Faith or manners; For otherwiſe, how ſhould thoſe offices, in which all the Church is to communicate, be counted the ſervice of God, according to Chriſtianity? And this profeſſion is the condition, upon the undergoing whereof, all men, by being baptized and made Chriſtians, are alſo admitted to communion with the Church, as members of it.
But nothing can make it viſible to the common
reaſon of all men, what communion they are to reſort unto for their Salvation; but the viſible Communion of all parts of the Church; which, having been maintained for divers ages of the Church, is now viſibly interrupted by the Reformation, and before, by the breach between the Greek and Latin Church; and therefore, though it be viſible to reaſon rightly informed, what communion a man is to imbrace for his Salvation; yet it is not now viſible to the common reaſon of all men that ſeek it. If this be true, then, no power of the Church can extend to farre, as to make any thing a part of the common Chriſtianity, which was not ſo from the beginning; but it muſt needs extend ſo farre, as to limit and determine all matters in difference, ſo as the preſervation of Unity may require. And therefore the Unity of all parts ſuppoſing the profeſſion of Chriſtianity whole, and intire; we ſhall juſtly be chargeable with the crime of Hereſie, if we admit them to our communion, who openly diſclaim the Faith of the whole Church, or any part of it. For, thoſe men have been, and are juſtly counted Hereticks, as to the Church, that communicate with thoſe who profeſs Hereſie; though no Hereticks as to
God, as not believing it themſelves. But the unity of all parts being ſubordinate, and and of inferiour conſideration to the Unity of the whole; we ſhall juſtly be chargeable with the crime of Schiſme, if we ſeek unity within our ſelves, by abrogating the Laws of the whole, as not obliged to hold communion with it.
I confeſs I am convicted, that as things ſtand, we are not to expect any reaſon from the Church of Rome, and thoſe who hold communion with it, in reſtoring the unity of the Church, upon ſuch Laws, as ſhall render the means of Salvation viſible to all that uſe them as they ought. And this, and only this, I hold to be the due ground, upon which we are inabled to provide an eſtabliſhment of Unity in Religion among our ſelves, (as heretofore a Reformation in Religion for our ſelves) without concurrence of the whole. But if we ſhould think our ſelves at large, to conclude our ſelves without reſpect to the Faith and Laws of the whole Church; we may eaſily bring upon our ſelves a juſt imputation of Hereticks, for communicating with Hereticks; but a juſter of Schiſmaticks, if we abrogate the Laws of the whole Church, to obtain Unity among our ſelves; as declaring
thereby, that we are not content to hold unity with the whole, unleſs a part may give Law to the whole. So farre am I from that madneſs, which hath had a hand in all our miſeries; of thinking the right meaſure of Reformation to ſtand in going as far as it is poſſible from the Church of Rome. For, were it evidenced, (as it neither is, nor ever will be evidenced,) that the Pope is Antichriſt, and all Papiſts by their profeſſion Idolaters; yet muſt we either raſe the Article of one Catholick Church out of our Creed, or confeſs that the Pope can neither be Antichriſt, nor the Papiſts Idolaters, for, or by any thing vvhich is common to them vvith the vvhole Church.
I knovv ſome vvill think it ſtrange, that the Pope ſhould excommunicate us on Maundy-Thurſdays; that vve ſhould ſvvear in the Oath of Supremacy, that no forreign Prelate hath, or ought to have any Juriſdiction, or Authority Eccleſiaſtical in this Kingdom; and yet vve be ſubject to do ſuch Acts, for vvhich the Church of Rome may juſtly renounce communion vvith us. But the vvord ought in that Oath is Indicative and not Potential, not deberet, but debet; For it vvere a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholick Church, and the unity thereof,
and yet renounce the Juriſdiction of the whole Church, and the General Councile thereof, over it ſelf. King James of excellent memory, acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the west; that is, Head of the general Council of the Weſtern Churches. And the right R. Father in God, Thomas L. B. of Wincheſter under Q. Elizabeth, in his anſwer to the Seminaries Apology, being demanded why we own him not ſo in effect, anſwereth bluntly, but truely, becauſe he is not content with the right of a Patriarch. For, ſhould he diſclaim the pretence of diſſolving the bond of Allegiance, ſhould he retire to the Priviledge of a Patriarch, in ſeeing the Canons executed, the ſchiſme would lye at our door, if we ſhould refuſe it. Now, if they curſe us, while we pray for the unity of the whole Church, is it not the caſe of the Catholicks with the Donatiſts? For, theſe rebaptized them whom thoſe had baptized, whited over the inſide of their Churches, when they became poſſeſſed of them, ſcraped over their Altars, (being Tables of wood) in deteſtation of them, as Apoſtates & perſecutors; while the Catholicks called them brethren, and acknowledg'd them rightly baptized, and received them that were converted
from that Schiſm in their reſpective Orders. The unity of the Church is of ſuch conſequence to the ſalvation of all Criſtians, that no exceſs on one ſide can cauſe the other to increaſe the diſtance, but they ſhall be anſwerable for the ſouls that periſh by the means of it.
And therefore, not departing from the opinion which I have declared, concerning the termes upon which all parties ought to reconcile themſelves, untill I ſhall have reaſon ſhowed me, why I ſhould do it; I ſhall now go no further, then the matters that are actually queſtioned among us; not extending my diſcourſe to points, that may perhaps more juſtly become queſtionable, then ſome of thoſe which have come into diſpute. Profeſſing in the beginning, that I believe they may and ought to be ſetled by a Law of the Kingdom, obliging all parties beſide Recuſants. But, that the matter of that Law ought to be limited by the conſent and Authority of the Church, reſpective to this Kingdom. And withall, that I think it ought to be held, and ſhall for mine own part hold it an act meerly ambulatory & proviſionall for the time. For, though there is no hope of reconcilement with the Church of Rome, as thinges are; yet is there infinite reaſon for all ſides, to abate of
their particular pretenſions, for the recovering of ſo incomparable a benefit as the unity of the whole; If ever it ſhall pleaſe God to make the parties appear diſpoſed to it.
Now, the errors which we are to ſhut out, if
•
e will recover the unity of a viſible Church, (that is, of Gods whole Church) are two in my judgment. Firſt, though ſome things have been diſputed in other parts, from whence the ſame conſequence may be inferred; yet England is the place, and ours the times, which firſt openly and downright have maintained, that there is no ſuch thing as a Church, in the nature of one viſible Communion, founded by God. But it is maintained by ſeverall parties among us, upon ſeverall grounds. For, ſome do not or will not underſtand, that there can be any Eccleſiaſticall Power founded by that act of God which foundeth Chriſtianity, where there is Secular Power, founded alſo by thoſe acts of God, whereby he authorizeth and inforceth all juſt Soveraignties. Though all times, all parts, all Nations of Chriſtendom ſince Conſtantine profeſs to maintain the Church in that Power, in which they found it acknowledged by Chriſtians, when he firſt undertook to maintain that Chriſtianity which he profeſſed;
all this muſt be taken, either for meer hypocriſy, or meer nonſenſe. Others there are, that do not think themſelves obliged to the unity of Gods Church, upon farre different Principles. There are of our Enthuſiaſts, ſuch as are themſelves every one a Church to themſelves, and by themſelves, as being above Ordinances, and the Communion of the Church provided only for proficients. But all Independent Congregations make the ſame profeſſion, and are manifeſtly grounded upon the ſame. For, how can they imagine themſelves members of one viſible Church, who profeſs that they cannot be obliged to hold communion with any Congregation but their own?
And yet, with favour, the ſame conſequence inſuing upon ſo different pretenſes, there muſt be ſome ſuppoſition common to both, upon which both do ground themſelves. And it is eaſily viſible what that is. Both opinions muſt ſuppoſe, that a man may be heir to Chriſts Kingdom, and indowed with Gods Spirit, without being, or before he be a member of Gods Church. And the Independents indeed do manifeſtly profeſs, that, knowing themſelves and others to be Gods Children, and indowed with his Spirit, they are in a capacity to joyn in Eccleſiaſticall Communion,
with thoſe whom they know to be ſuch. So, they become members of a Church, being Gods Children before, without conſidering how they ſhall be members of the Whole Church. The others are ſatisfied, that, by being members of a State which profeſſeth Chriſtianity, they are alſo members of that one Holy Catholick and Apoſtolick Church, which by our Creed we profeſs to believe. A ground which holdeth accidentally, ſo long as that State conſtituteth a viſible member of the Whole, or the Catholick Church; But not imaginable to ſerve the turn, when States differ in point of Chriſtianity, and may every day appeal to force, whither is the true Church and whither the falſe.
For, is it not manifeſt, that the profeſſions of the Lutheranes, the Calviniſts, the Greekes, the Abyſſines are protected by Soveraign Powers, as well as the profeſſion of the Church of Rome, or the Church of England? Is it not manifeſt, that the Powers that profeſs them, maintain them reſpectively to be Gods truth? Why then do we diſpute any longer, which is the true Religion and which is the falſe, if it be enough for Chriſtians to reſolve all the doubt they can have concerning Religion, into the command
of their Soveraigns, only profeſſing Chriſtianity? Is it not manifeſt that Soveraigns do uſe to puniſh their Subjects, that conform not to their Lawes concerning Religion, but follow that Religion which is in force under other Soveraignties? Is it poſſible to imagine, that Subjects can be obliged, by one and the ſame will of God, to follow contrary Lawes under ſeverall Soveraigns? Or that Soveraigns can be inabled, by one and the ſame Law of God, to puniſh their Subjects, for ſerving God according to contrary profeſſions? True it is, Subjects that ſuffer in a good cauſe ſhall be gainers thereby; gaining Heaven by their loſſes of this world. But what ſhall become of the Soveraigns that perſecute them, being in a good cauſe? Or how ſhall not ſome of them beperſecuted in a good cauſe, who are perſecuted in contrary cauſes? I know not whither this peremtory difficulty was the cauſe; But I am ſure recourſe hath been had to a more deſperate anſwer; that every Subject is bound to profeſs the Religion of his Soveraign; yea, though it injoin him to renounce Chriſt with his mouth; remaining bound all the while to believe in him with his heart; and that by this belief, he ſhall be ſaved as a Chriſtian. Neither is this poſition tenable
but upon this anſwer, nor doth this anſwer import any leſs, than the utter renouncing of Chriſtianity. I know, that in the records of the ancient Church, thoſe who only profeſſed to believe Chriſtianity, (who were called Catechumeni, or Scholars to the Church) are ſometimes called by the name of Chriſtians. But I know withall, that they were never counted in the ſtate of Salvation, till they had taken upon them the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, by being admitted to the Sacrament of Baptiſme. I know alſo, that this Baptiſme, though it was not counted void, when it was Miniſtred in due form; yet it was never counted effectuall to Salvation, but when a man is baptiſed into the true Faith, and that in the Unity of Gods Church. For, though the names of Hereticks and Schiſmaticks, have been made only Bug-bears to fright children with, in this time of our troubles; yet, ſo long as Chriſtianity continues, thoſe that ſeparate themſelves from the Church upon pretenſes concerning the ſubſtance of Faith ſhall be properly called Hereticks; But, if the cauſe concern not the ſubſtance of Chriſtianity, Schiſmaticks. And therefore, Chriſtianity conſiſting not only in believing, or purpoſing with the heart, but alſo in profeſſing with the mouth; (firſt ſincerely,
then the true Faith, & laſtly by being baptiſed) he that profeſſeth himſelf free to renounce his Chriſtianity, as farre as the mouth, hath effectively renounced it; Becauſe he hath effectively drawn back that promiſe, upon condition whereof he was baptized; of profeſſing Chiſtianity to the death.
And truly, if every Chriſtian State be the Church of God within the territories thereof, then cannot all Churches concurr to make up that one viſible Church of God which our Creed profeſſeth. For, there is nothing more evidently true than the ſaying of Plato; that all States are naturally enemies one to another, eſpecially thoſe that are borderers, And this enmity, in our dayes, conſiſteth viſibly in thoſe differences of Religion, upon which the neighbor Soveraignties of Chriſtendome are now at diſtance. It is therefore no way imaginable, how all Chriſtian States ſhould concur to make up that one viſible Church, whereinto by being Baptized, we obtain the ſpirituall and eternall priviledges of Chriſtians. But, that it is the profeſſion of the whole Rule of Chriſtianity, that makes any people or State a part of the viſible Church; being governed by ſuch rules, in the exerciſe of Gods ſervice, as
may make it the ſame Society with that, which was once unqueſtionably Gods Church, or part of it. For otherwiſe, how ſhould the viſible Church continue one and the ſame, from the firſt to the ſecond comming of our Lord?
And here you have the ſecond point of our differences; For, all our Sects, under the title of Gods free grace, do maintain, that the promiſes of the Goſpell, and our right in them, depends not upon the truth of mens Chriſtianity. As if God were not free enough of his Grace, if he ſhould reſerve himſelf a duty of being ſerved, as by Chriſtians, upon thoſe whom he tenders life everlaſting to, upon ſuch termes. It is no new thing in England, to hear of thoſe who profeſſe, that God ſees not, nor can ſee any ſinne in his elect; So that in their opinion there is no mortall ſinne but repentance; becauſe that muſt ſuppoſe, that a man thought himſelf out of the State of grace, by the ſin whereof he repents? I think I am duly informed of a Malefactor dying upon the Gallows, that profeſſed, to the ſtrengthening of his brethren, that he had overcome all temptation to repentance; acknowledging that, ſince his being in Priſon, he had been ſtrongly moved to repent. And,
that one of Hackets three conſpirators, when he was come to himſelf, continued to profeſs, that he thought himſelf in the State of Gods grace all the while. But I will go no further, then the words which I have quoted in another place, out of a Pamphlet written to ſatiſfy the Godly party in Wales, being offended at the late Uſurpers proceedings; which alledgeth, that we are not to be judged at the laſt day, either by our works, or by our faith; but by Gods everlaſting purpoſe concerning each of us; By virtue whereof Chriſt being alive at the heart, the violation of all his ingagements to them, by uſurping over them as over others, made no difference in his eſtate towards God. Whoſoever writ this, I think I am duly informed, that himſelf cauſed it to be publiſhed. But I am certain, that, to the everlaſting infamy of a Chriſtian Nation, if reparation be not made, it is ſuppoſed to be the ſenſe of all the Godly in it. And to the ſame effect, my memory aſſures me to have read in one of his ſpeeches; That there are at this day inſpirations of Gods Spirit beſides the Scriptures, though not againſt the Scriptures. Now certainly, that which a man hath by virtue of the Scriptures; that is of Chriſtianity; can by
no means be underſtood to be beſides the Scriptures. And certainly, he that preſumeth upon any motion of Gods Spirit, not ſuppoſing Chriſtianity; that is, not ſuppoſing the Scriptures; may by the ſame reaſon prefume of his own Salvation, not ſuppoſing that he believes and lives as a Chriſtian.
The ſame is the conſequence of a Poſition, I will not ſay injoyned by any party, but notoriouſly allowed among us; That juſtifying Faith conſiſteth in believing that a man is one of them that are predeſtinate, whom God ſent our Lord Chriſt to redeem, and none elſe. For, how can he think himſelf obliged to make good the profeſſion of a Chriſtian, who thinks himſelf aſſured of all that he can attain to by ſo doing, not ſuppoſing it? Indeed it may be ſaid, that our Antinomians and Enthuſiaſts, and other Sects among us, (whom no conceit without this could have ſeduced to their ſeveral frenzies,) do think themſelves juſtified from everlaſting, by Gods decree to ſend Chriſt for that purpoſe; whereas this opinion dateth Juſtification from the inſtant that God revealeth the ſaid decree by his ſpirit, in which revelation they think that juſtifying Faith conſiſteth. And certainly, there can be no
reaſon why God, receiving men into grace only in conſideration of Chriſts obedience, ſhould ſuſpend their reconcilement upon that knowledge of his purpoſe, which he giveth them by Faith. For what can be more unreaſonable, than that God ſhould juſtifie a man, by revealing to him that he is juſtified? But the opinion is not the leſs deſtructive to Chriſtianity, becauſe it is the more unreaſonable. Now it is poſſible that the effect of this poſition may beſtifled, and become void in ſome, by reaſon of other truths which contradict the ſame in deed, and yet are believed by them, not ſeeing the conſequence of their own perſwaſions. But thoſe who, beſides this poſition, do pertinaciouſly hold abſolute predeſtination to glory, thoſe I maintain are in an errour deſtructive to Chriſtianity, that is, in an Hereſy. And therefore this Doctrine being ſuch, it is no way enough, that it is no way injoyned to be taught; but it is requiſite that it be diſclaimed, by thoſe that pretend to recover the unity of a viſible Church. For there can be no Church, where any thing deſtructive to Chriſtianity, which the being of the Church ſuppoſeth, is notoriouſly allowed to be taught.
Novv, betvveen theſe two points of our
differences, I am to obſerve a vaſt difference. For, this latter is neceſſary for all Chriſtians to knovv, as being the principle of all thoſe actions, vvhich, being juſt for the matter of them, muſt render the men acceptable to God in order to life everlaſting. And therefore, he that thinketh he can be regenerate, or juſtified, or the child of God, or indovved vvith Gods Spirit, not ſuppoſing that he undertakes and performs the profeſſion of a Chriſtian, renounces the Article of his Creed, concerning one baptiſme to remiſſion of ſins. But the being of Gods viſible Church conſiſteth in that Unity, which ariſeth upon the agreement of all Chriſtians, to hold communion in the viſible Offices of Gods ſervice. And therefore, though it be an Article of our Creed, to believe one Catholick Church, yet can it not concern the Salvation of every particular Chriſtian, to underſtand the nature of that Society or Corporation, which the bond of this Unity createth. Nay, even they who are beſt ſeen in that Government, by which this Unity is preſerved, may well fail in comprehending the reaſon thereof, by reflecting their diſcourſe upon it. In the mean time, it is neceſſary for all that believe their Creed, to think themſelves
tied by this Article to maintain the Unity of the Church, according to their eſtate; That is, for every ones part, not to be acceſſory to any Schiſm that diſſolveth it. And therefore to deny the crime of Schiſm is to deny this Article.
The conſequence of this obſervation will be the difference which the Church hath reaſon to uſe, in reconciling parties at diſtance from it, to the unity thereof, according to the difference of thoſe pretenſes upon which they are at diſtance. For, thoſe who have only diſputed againſt the being of the Church, upon miſunderſtanding the right of ſecular Power, which they think the being of the Church inconſiſtent with, ſhall be ſufficiently reunited to the Church, by conforming to the Law by which the Church is, and was, and may be eſtabliſhed. For, that there ought to be proviſion againſt ſuch diſputes for the future, it concernes not me to give warning. Only, where willfullneſs hath proceeded ſo farre in maintaining a falſe poſition, as to make no bones of denying Chriſtianity, and teaching Atheiſm, (by obliging to renounce Chriſt, if the Soveraign command it) it concerneth the Chriſtianity of the Nation to ſee reparation made.
But, where the Hereticall poſitions mentioned afore have notoriouſly been maintained, eſpecially, where Congregations have been framed, and uſed, for the exerciſe of Religion, upon pretenſe of them; there will it be abſolutely neceſſary, that they be expreſsly renounced and diſclaimed, either by perſons in particular, or in Body by Congregations. To this head I reduce all Anabaptiſts, and Congregations of Anabaptiſts; Thoſe of the fift Monarchy, and Congregations of the fifth Monarchy; Quakers, and Congregations of Quakers. Nay, all Independent Congregations, in my opinion, ought to be reduced under this meaſure. Not only becauſe their profeſſion is grounded upon the denial of one viſible Church; But, becauſe they ſuppoſe themſelves Children of God, and indowed with his Spirit, before they be members of Gods Church; That is, ſetting aſide their Baptiſm, and the Covenant which is ſolemnly inacted by it, between God and each ſoul. And, though I do referre my ſelf to the wiſdom of Superiors, in what form this reconciliation be ſolemnized; yet, I muſt expreſs my opinion thus far, that there can be none ſo fit, as that which the wiſdom of the Catholick Church, from the beginning, hath allwayes
frequented; By granting them the bleſſing of the Church; with Impoſition of hands, renouncing for their part their ſeverall Sects and errors, That is, by the prayers of the Church, for the ſpirit of God, to reſt upon them, who have barred their baptiſm to give it by oppoſing the peace of the Church, which now they retire unto. For how ſhall the unity of the Church be ſecured, but by declaring them who violate the ſame accurſed of God?
Nor let it be thought, that, our Sectaries of their own accord retiring themſelves unto the Communion of this Church, it will be requiſite for the Church to admit them, without taking notice of any thing that hath paſſed. For, neither is it to be preſumed, that they, who have made their own wills their Law for ſo many yeares, will ſo much as profeſs conformity to the Rule of the Church; And, if they did profeſs it, there is no reaſon to think that they ſhould ſtand to it, having a diſpenſation dormant of the Spirit, to ſtand to their profeſſion, as the intereſt of their faction ſhall require. So, their coming to Church would be only an advantage for them to infect others. And how ſhould that Communion be counted a Church, which intertains
Hereticks as Hereticks, and Schiſmaticks as Schiſmaticks; that is, without renouncing poſitions deſtructive to the Faith; without obliging themſelves for the future, to hold Unity with the Church? Certainly there is no juſt anſwer for this, if the Church of Rome ſhould object it, for the reaſon why they refuſe to hold communion with us. Certainly S. Auguſtine, when he was charged by the Donatiſts, that the Church received their Apoſtates without rebaptizing them, and in their reſpective Orders, could have had no anſwer, if he had not had this; That the Church received them not as Donatiſts, but as converted from being Donatiſts; they not refuſing to profeſs ſo much.
Certainly it may be, and perhaps is juſtifiable for the Secular power, to grant them the exerciſe of their Religion, in private places of their own providing, under ſuch moderate penalties, as the diſobeying of the Laws of a mans Countrey might require. For, perſecution to death for that cauſe, the whole Reformation condemneth in the Church of Rome; And I conceive there is no reaſon for that, which will not condemn perſecution to baniſhment. But this would require the like moderation to
be extended to Recuſants of the Church of Rome. True it is, in mine opinion, thoſe Papiſts that think themſelves tied by the Bull of Pius V. againſt Queen Elizabeth, or that they may be tied by the like Acts of his Succeſſors againſt hers, are juſtly lyable to the utmoſt of penalties, as profeſſed enemies to their Countrey. But, beſides that it is manifeſt, that all Papiſts are not of that opinion, which the ſaid Bull preſuppoſeth; The State may eaſier he ſecured of Papiſts, againſt all ſuch power in the Pope, than of our Sectaries, againſt that diſpenſation to their Allegiance, which the pretenſe of Gods Spirit may import when they pleaſe.
And whereas it is manifeſt, that many Papiſts hold againſt thoſe equivocations and reſervations, which deſtroy all conſidence of the Soveraign in his Subjects allegiance; How ſhall a State be ſecured againſt that infamous falſehood of the late Uſurper, in any man that pretends Gods Spirit upon his terms, which I mentioned afore? Beſides, the Recuſants, being for the moſt part, of the good Families of the Nation, will take it for a part of their Nobility, freely to profeſſe themſelves in their Religion, if they underſtand themſelves; whereas the Sectaries, being
people of mean quality, for the moſt part, cannot be preſumed to ſtand upon their reputation ſo much. So, if they cannot be tolerated in the exerciſe of their Religion, it muſt be provided upon what terms they may be received by the Church. And by that which hath been ſaid, it may appear what my opinion will require of the Presbyterians, for the condition of reconciling our ſelves into one Church again; Namely, in the firſt place, their concurrence to the Act, or Decree, or Order, according to which the Sectaries ought to be tied to renounce the damnable poſitions which they have notoriouſly ſet on foot. For, if they ſhould refuſe this, what reaſon could be alledged why they ſhould be counted Strangers to that infection, which they will not exclude? As for the other Article of the Creed, concerning one viſible Church, it is evident that they cannot belong to that Church, ſuppoſing the Premiſes. For it is evident, that there was a time, when the whole Church was governed by Biſhops; and that not againſt Gods Law, for then there had remained no Church. And therefore, for them to break the unity of the Church, upon pretence of governing this Church by Presbyters, is to break unity, unleſs a part may give Law
to the whole, which who ſo do, are for ſo doing Schiſmaticks. And the Church of Rome would have due cauſe to caſt us off for Schiſmaticks, if we ſhould admit this pretenſe. But this is a point, the knowledg whereof cannot belong to the ſubſtance of Chriſtianity, for the reaſon alleged before. And therefore, I do not think the Church tied to exact the expreſs profeſſion of it, or the diſclaiming of the error that is oppoſite to it. On the other ſide, the Church, maintaining the Ordinations of Presbyters alone to be meer nullities in themſelves, can never own their Ordinations, without renouncing the Catholick Church; yet may it conſent in the perſons, upon their conſent to the order, which ſhall be eſtabliſhed for the future. And indeed, what can they challeng by the meer conſent of certain Preſbyters, which the Miniſters of Congregations may not pretend to, by the conſent of their reſpective Congregations? And yet, I ſuppoſe, both parties are agreed, not to own them in that Power which the celebration of the Euchariſt importeth? Let any man, that is capable to judg of ſuch matters, think upon the madneſs of the Lancaſhire Preſbyterians without prejudice; Of whome I am duly informed, that they cauſed thoſe, who were ordained
only Deacons in the Church of England, to do the office of Presbyters (which they had no title to) in celebrating the Euchariſt; And tell me what reaſon there can be, excluding the Ordinations of the Congregations, to admit the uſurpations of the Presbyterians. As for the form and ſolemnity, in which the conſent of the Church to their Ordinations ſhall be celebrated, therein I refer my ſelf to the wiſdom of Superiors; Thinking it would be a great impertinence in the Preſbyterians, if, finding a neceſſity of ſubmitting thoſe whom they have allready promoted, to the judgment of the Church, for the condition upon which they are to Miniſter; (which without doubt, is the principall) they ſhould inſiſt upon the acceſſory, which is the form, and ſolemnity, by which the power is viſibly convayed. And thus I think the ſecond great difficulty concerning their Ordinations, may be compoſed.
But, ſuppoſing theſe great difficulties ſet aſide, the compoſing of our firſt differences, about the Order of Biſhops, and the Service, cannot ſeem difficult, if the parties be content to give up their ingagements, to the advantage, which the Chriſtianity of the Nation may have by it. For, what reaſonable Chriſtian
can think much to acknowledge, that, by reaſon of thoſe partialities, which at length have produced this Schiſme, the Eccleſiaſtical Laws of the Land are capable of amendment in thoſe two points? On the other fide, doth not dear evperience tell all parts, that the change of them by force, though it muſt be called Reformation, if the Law of the Land call it ſo, yet it is not likely to be that which it is called? Beſides; Conſider the kindneſs which his Majeſties return, and Gods goodneſs, that hath over-ruled mens hearts in it, hath bredde in all parties conſenting to it. For, can we have this before us, and not hope that it will be enough to ſubdue all prejudices and animoſities, to the intereſt of our common Chriſtianity? Had the peace of the Church never been queſtioned, it might be charity in a diſcreet Chriſtian, not to call it into queſtion, by propoſing what might be amended, becauſe the hope of amendment might not countervail the danger of that Peace. But, now that unity is not to be had, without ſetling of agreement in matters of difference; to propoſe what may ſeem beſt for the Community of Gods Church, in the cure of our breaches, is not to give offence, but to take it away.
I will therefore premiſe here one conſideration, which I mean to aſſume for a ſuppoſition, to ground that which I ſhall propoſe to this purpoſe. It ſhall contain that which I obſerve in the New Teſtament, and the primitive practice of Gods Church pointing out the meaning of it, concerning the difference between the Clergie and People in all Churches, and the ground of it. For, though the edict of our Lord in the Goſpel be peremptory, that, who ſo forſaketh not all things, cannot be my Diſciple; that is a Chriſtian; (For, they who were other whiles called Diſciples, were called Chriſtians at Antiochia, as we read in the Acts,) yet common reaſon evinceth, that all Diſciples profeſſed not to forſake the World, (which we all profeſs to forſake at our Baptiſme) according to the ſame rate. For, we ſee by the Goſpel, that the voluntary oblations of thoſe who followed our Lord, miniſtring to him, made a ſtock of money, which Judas was truſted with, for charity to the poor, after that his followers were provided for. But, it is againſt the evidence of commmon ſenſe to imagine, that all thoſe who profeſſed to follow Chriſt, and to be his Diſciples, were provided for out of this Stock. It is true, our Lord promiſeth in the Goſpell,
that whoſoever ſhall forſake kindred, or wife, or houſe, or goods, for the Goſpell, ſhall receive an hundred fold here, and in the World to come life everlaſting. A thing viſibly fullfilled in the primitive ſtate of the Church; when, whoſoever was perſecuted for Chriſtianity, all Chriſtians acknowledged themſelves bound to provide for his ſupport. Neither can it be ſaid, how S. Paules ſaying; that godlineſs hath the promiſes of this life and of that which is to come; could be otherwiſe fullfilled, when thoſe who had undertaken Chriſts Croſs where ſubject to powers, that did, or might perſecute Chriſtianity at their pleaſure. But, though all Chriſtians, in caſe of perſecution, are bound by their Baptiſme to leave all they have, that they may carry Chriſts Croſs after him; Yet it was ſomething more that S. Peter meant when he ſaid; Lord we have left all to follow thee, what ſhall we have? For, though a Net and a Fiſher-boat were no great thing to leave; yet, ſo firm a faith as to forſake a mans whole courſe of living, caſting himſelf upon the word of Chriſt for his very being, whither here or in the World to come, is ſutable to the promiſe that followes, of ſitting upon xii. Throues to judg the xii. Tribes of Iſrael. The Chriſtians of Jeruſalem, who parted with their
Eſtates, that the diſciples might be maintained in their daily attendance upon Gods ſervice, cannot be ſaid to have obtained thereby any common ranke in the Church; But it muſt be ſaid, that, quitting their former courſe and ſtate of living, by quitting the means of maintaining it, they became from thenceforth, either of the Clergy, or of the poor which were allwayes maintained out of the ſtock of the Church. For, by S. Paules inſtructions to Timothy. 1. Tim. V. it appeareth, that thoſe Widdows which were imployed and maintained by the Church for the common neceſſities of it, were to be taken out of ſuch as were deſtitute of means to live other wiſe.
Herewith agreeth an infinite number of examples in the primitive Church, of Godly Biſhops, Prieſts, and others of the Clergy, who, taking upon them ſuch profeſſions, deveſted themſelves of their worldly goods; whither applying them to the property, or only to the uſe of the Church; as reſerving themſelves power to diſpoſe of them, in favor of friends or kindred, at their death. And, from the ſame reaſon and ground proceed all the Canons, whereby it was provided, that they ſhould not diſpoſe of the Church goods to ſuch uſes, at death, but of their own,
well and good. For, whatſoever their eſtates were, though they renounced them not, yet, it became neceſſary for them to live as others of the Clergy lived; Who were generally poor when they were promoted, and therefore profeſſed to content themſelves with meer neceſſaries, becauſe the Church goods, of which they lived, were due to the maintenance of the poor, as well as of the Clergy. From whence we may ſee, what truth there is in thoſe ſayings of the Fathers, which make the precepts of our Lord, in his Sermon upon the mount, matters of Counſaile. For, if all Chriſtians be to leave all thinges that they may follow Chriſt, it is certain that they are commanded, and not only adviſed, to turn the other cheek, to quit a mans Cote to him that takes away his Cloke, to undergo the reſt of thoſe precepts, whereby our Lord deſcribeth the duty of a Chriſtian; provided they be ſo underſtood, as the maintenance of a mans eſtate in the World, and the obligations which it inferreth, even by virtue of that Chriſtianity which alloweth the ſame, will require. But, if there be another eſtate in the Church, of Diſciples which profeſs to follow Chriſt, leaving the imployment of the world for that purpoſe, and therefore to forbear the
pleaſures and proffits thereof accordingly; That ſtrict Rate and that high degree, in which they profeſs to leave the world to follow Chriſt, muſt needes be meer matter of Counſaile; becauſe no man is commanded to undertake that eſtate, but invited to it, for the ſecuring of his Salvation, who knowes he may be ſaved without it. Whereby it appeares, that this eſtate imports a profeſſion of abſtinence from the pride, the revenge, the luſts and pleaſures of the world, as well as from the riches of it; as well of the humility, the patience, the continence, the meekneſs and obedience of our Lord, as of the mean eſtate in which he lived; But that, for the means to compaſs this end, it imports firſt a profeſſion of renouncing the ranke and eſtate which every man holds in the world, and dedicating himſelf to the ſervice of the Church, and that imployment which tends to the common good of Chriſtians.
If it ſhould be inferred from hence, that the ſtate of the Clergy, importing the forſaking of the World, at this extraordinary Rate, muſt therefore import the profeſſion of ſingle life, as ſome of the Church of Rome would have it; The anſwer is, that it will not
follow. And the inſtance is peremptory That the Apoſtles themſelves, who thus left the world, did not profeſs it. And if by undertaking the Clergy, a man was not obliged to renounce his goods; As appeares by thoſe Canons which inable the Clergy to diſpoſe of them at death; much leſs doth that eſtate import a profeſſion of ſingle life; being more difficult to perform, then to live as a Clergy man upon the Church goods. For, it is poſſible for them who have wives, to live as if they had them not, according to S. Paul; No otherwiſe, then it is poſſible for them who have the diſpenſing of Church goods, to uſe them as if they uſed them not. The reaſon of ſingle life for the Clergy is firmly grounded by the Fathers and Canons of the Church, upon the precept of S. Paul, forbidding man & wife to part, unleſs for a time, to attend upon Prayer. For, Prieſts & Deacons being continually to attend upon occaſions of celebrating the Euchariſt, which ought continually to be frequented; if others be to abſtain from the uſe of Marriage for a time for that purpoſe, then they allwayes. And this is the reaſon, that prevailed ſo farre, even in the primitive times, that the inſtances which are produced to the contrary, during thoſe times, ſeem to
argue no more then diſpenſation in a Rule, which had the force of a Law, when an exception took not place; That is, when thoſe that were thought neceſſary for the ſervice of the Church, though not fit to ty themſelves to live ſingle.
But this profeſſion was evidently the ground for that diſcipline, which was uſed all over the Church, in breeding youth from tender yeares, to ſuch a ſtrict courſe of life as only uſe and cuſtome is able to render agreable to mans nature. And to this education and diſcipline, all the authority and credit of the Clergy over the people is to be imputed; the diſſolution whereof, is the true occaſion of the miſeries which we have ſeen. For, did the people think themſelves tied to depend upon the Clergy for their inſtructions, to admit their admonitions & reproofes in matter of Religion, (that is, did the diſcipline and education of the Clergy maintain them in that authority with the people) it is not poſſible, that the pride which hath been ſeen, in ſetting up new Religions, and giving new Lawes to the Church, ſhould take place. But this authority is not to be preſerved, without retirement from the world, that is, from converſation with the People, of what
ranke or degree ſoever, whither upon pretenſe of profit or pleaſure. And therefore, being once loſt, by the debauches of the Clergy before the Reformation, it is not to be reſtored, without reſtoring the ground of it, the ſaid education and diſcipline; nor, by conſequence, the Reformation to be counted compleat otherwiſe; Suppoſing allwayes the Reformation to be the reſtoring of that Church which hath been, not the building of that which hath not been. The ſame education and diſcipline is, by the expreſs Canons of the Church, the ground of that title, upon which promotion is due to the Clergy, in their reſpective Churches. For, what is more againſt the Rules of the Church, then to take ſuch men for Prieſts & Biſhops of ſuch Churches, as men know not how they behaved themſelves in lower degrees? Thoſe that talk of the Intereſt of the People in Eccleſiaſticall promotions, without ſuppoſing this ground, do allege nothing but their own dreams, to bring their own dreams to paſs.
Having this premiſed, I muſt needs ſay, I ſee no manner of inconvenience in that which the Presbyterians pretend for the cheif cauſe of their diſtance; that is, the concurrence of Presbyters with their Biſhops, in Ordinations,
and the Juriſdiction of the Church; provided it be ſetled in that form, which, being grounded upon the Rule of the Catholick Church, may tend to reſtore and advance the common Chriſtianity.
Now, I take the Rule of the Church to be as evidently this, as the common Chriſtianity is evident; that every City, with the Territory thereof, be the ſeat and content of a Church. For, though it hath been uſed with ſo much difference in ſeveral parts and times of the Church, that thoſe Countries, which ſome whiles, and ſome where, might have been caſt into fourſcore Churches, have other whiles, and elſe where, been caſt into four; yet, theſe are but exceptions to a Rule, which the Law ſaith, do not deſtroy, but confirm it. For, in matters concerning the whole, the Unity of the whole, may as well be preſerved by the concurrence of four, as of fourſcore.
The Churches, (that is, according to this Rule) the Dioceſes of England have been conſtituted and diſtinguiſhed upon occaſion of the Soveraignties, in which, and by conſent whereof, the Chriſtianity of the Nation was firſt planted. He that conſiders with half an eye, ſhall eaſily ſee, how the converſion
of Kent, of the Eaſt, and South, and West Saxons, of the East Angles and Mercians, and laſtly of Northumberland, produced the foundation of Engliſh Churches. For, of the Britiſh foundations, in the Weſt parts of the Iſland, from the two Forths to the Lands end, the ſame account is to be kept; the Dominion of the Britains being for ſome time divided into ſeveral Soveraignties. He that is convicted of this truth, (which no man can be convicted of, but he that conſidereth the caſe; But, who ſo conſidereth the caſe, muſt needs ſtand convict of it) will eaſily grant me, that, when the Monarchy prevailed, and England came to be divided into Counties, the General Rule of the Church would have required another courſe to have been obſerv'd. For, had the Head Town of every County been made the Seat of a Church containing that County, no man, that ſurvayes the diviſion of the Romane Empire into Churches (made without the ſecular Power, as before Conſtantine) will deny; That, the diviſion ſo made, would have been more correſpondent to the primitive forme, tending to the Unity of the whole.
But, let no man think, that, for the love of ſuch a correſpondence, I have any itch to call
in queſtion the Unity of the Whole. The alteration is great, and muſt needs produce a great motion, to ingraffe it into the Laws of the Kingdom. And therefore, I am not of opinion to change the Law for hope of amendment, with ſo much appearance of danger, to the being of the Whole. But I am of opinion, that it would be eaſie to erect Presbyteries, that is, Colleges of Presbyters, in all Shire Towns which have no Cathedral Churches, for the Eccleſiaſtical Government of the reſpective Counties, with, and under the Biſhops; And that ſo, the Rule of the Church would be ſet on work, to the beſt effect and purpoſe. For, thoſe Towns have commonly Churches altogether unprovided of means, through the horrible ſacriledges that have paſſed; and yet, in common reaſon (agreeing with the wiſdom of Gods Spirit, from whence the Rule of Epiſcopacy iſſued) ought to be Nurſeries of Chriſtianity to the reſpective Counties. And that intent cannot ſo well be brought to effect, as by planting the wiſeſt, and thoſe that have moſt of the Clergie in their lives, in the moſt eminent places, with authority next to the Chief, over their reſpective bounds. By the miniſtery of ſuch perſons, the Offices of Gods ſervice might ſo
be performed in the chief places, as might be a pattern for their Country Churches to follow. Theſe Presbyters might grow up, by education, in that diſcipline of the Clergie, which I have recommended upon the experience of the whole Church. They might live a Collegiate life in common, with the care and inſpection of Inferiours, together with the charge of inſtructing, or ſeeing them inſtructed in the Scriptures. The Canon of the whole Church, confining all degrees of the Clergie to their reſpective Churches, might be revived by their means; The ſuperſeding whereof, being certainly one of the irregularities of the Papacy, hath conduced much to the diſſolution of Diſcipline in the Church. For, in conſcience, how can he that is obliged to any Church, give account of himſelf to another, to which the firſt is not ſubordinate? And therefore, though the Presbyteries which I propoſe be not Churches, yet may they take account of their reſpective Clergie, and render it to their Biſhops. The promotion of inferiour Orders, belonging unto their account, may proceed upon the account which they give. The cenſures that are requiſite to paſs in foro exteriori may paſs them in the firſt inſtance, and from them being
tranſmitted to the Biſhop, be either inacted or voided; Alwaies with right of appeal to the Synod of the Province, in caſes of weight, and in the intervals thereof, to their Deputies; To which purpoſe, and in which nature, the High Commiſſion ought to be revived. For, as it is by no means to be allowed, that the Biſhops negative be any way queſtioned; So is it no way fit, that the conſent of Biſhop and Presbyters both be concluded in one and the ſame inſtance. As for thoſe Dioceſes which are concluded within onely one County, there, I ſuppoſe I need not ſay, that the Chapter of the Cathedral are by inheritance this Presbytery.
Now, theſe Colleges of Presbyters conſiſting of thoſe only, that ſhall have run the whole courſe of their lives in the education and diſcipline of the Clergie; is there any poſſible pretence of burthen upon them, if the condition of ſingle life ſhould be required, to qualifie them for their places? For, this were not to tye any man to ſingle life, ſeeing who will may go forth, and be provided of a Countrey Church; But it were to maintain the diſcipline of the Clergie, in the moſt eminent places, wherein, there is a
courſe propoſed to them who imbrace it, of ending their dayes in it. And the courſe of a Collegiate life, which I propoſe, ſeemeth a ſufficient means and advantage to overcome thoſe temptations, which in theſe dayes, may ſeem too difficult for all the Clergie to undergo.
As for the means of ſupporting theſe Presbyteries, wherein the Cure of all Pariſhes within the Shire Towns is provided for, and included; It is no difficulty to him that conſiders with conſcience, that originally, the indowment of the Dioceſe was the Patrimony of the Mother Church; and afterwards appropriated to Pariſh Churches, by abating the right of the Mother Church, upon particular contracts, appearing to be for the good of the parts. For, if the Mother Church have abated ſo much of her common right, when it was for the good of the Pariſhes; Is it not neceſſary, that the Pariſhes now abate of their property in their reſpective indowments, by Penſions to theſe Colleges, now they appear to be for the good of the Dioceſe? And this I am now bold to profeſs, before the judgement of Superiors be declared, becauſe I am confident, that by this poſition, I abate not a hair of that Power which the Biſhops in England
now uſe; But I adde much to the ſtrictneſs of diſcipline, (that is, in effect, of Chriſtianity) by requiring all Ordinations, all acts of Juriſdiction in foro exteriori, to paſs both the Preſbyters and the Biſhop in ſeverall inſtances. And further then this I extend not the opinion of a divine to particulars, but leave the reſt intire to the wiſdom of ſuperiors. And this may ſerve to ſhow, that there is no cauſe why the difference on foot, concerning the Government of the Church, may not ſettle into a change conducing to the advancement of the common Chriſtianity.
Which will hold till ſtronger in the other, concerning the Service, if men take their meaſures by the common intereſt of Chriſtianity, not by their particular prejudices. For, I conceive, I may well ſuppoſe, that the Sectaries pretenſe of praying by the Spirit, is content to be buried in oblivion and ſilence; conſidering that the exceſſes are evident, and horrible, which that pretenſe hath brought forth. Beſides, that no man now ſtands to that dangerous poſition; That the offices of Gods ſervice are of no effect, when they are miniſtred by ſuch as are not in the ſtate of grace. For, I preſume it is not, nor can be ſuppoſed on any hand, that all whom the Church muſt imploy,
are indowed with Gods ſpirit; that is, are in the ſtate of grace. I ſuppoſe further, as not queſtioned on any hand, that the publick ſervice of God is to conſiſt of the praiſes of God, (by the Pſalmes of David, and other Hymnes of Gods Church) of the reading of the Scriptures, of the inſtruction of Gods people out of them, in fine, of the Prayers of the Church, and in the chief place, of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, and thoſe prayers which it is to be celebrated with.
Some of our Sects have been bold to pretend, that the Pſalter, or Pſalmes of David, are impertinent to the Devotions of Chriſtians, as concerning the particular condition of David, and compoſed whith regard to it. Whereby they overthrow the foundation of Chriſtianity, ſtanding upon this ſuppoſition, that the old Teſtament is the figure ad ſhadow of the new, and that Chriſt hath the key of the writings, as well as of the houſe of David. For, ſeeing Chriſt and his myſtical Body the Church are all one, the meaning and intent of the Pſalmes cannot concern Chriſt, but it muſt end in his Church. But, ſeeing the Church is but ſhadowed in the Pſalmes, being part of the Old Teſtament; I can expect no diſpute of the neceſſity of other
Hymnes, compoſed under Chriſtianity, in the ſolemnizing of Gods publick ſervice. And ſeeing the queſtion on foot concerns the ſetling of the form of Gods ſervice by a Law of the Kingdom; there can remain no diſpute concerning the neceſſity of a ſetled Order in reading the Scriptures, and uſing the Pſalmes and Hymnes of the Church. Nor do I know any man, ſincerely profeſſing the Reformation, that could not wiſh with all his heart, that the whole order and form which ſhall be ſetled, with the circumſtance of the ſame, might be according to the primitive ſimplicity, and naked plainneſs of the ancient Church; ſuppoſing the difference between the ſtate in which the Church lived under perſecution; and now, that, being protected by the ſecular Power, it receiveth all the World to take part in the ſervice of God. For, what difference this will inferre in the Order and Rule of Gods ſervice to be inacted by a Law of this Kingdom, common reaſon, and the perpetual practice of Gods Church, together with the precedents recorded in Scripture, muſt be admitted to Witneſs.
Theſe things ſuppoſed, no man doubts, that the form of ſervice now in force by the
Law of this Land, may be acknowledged capable of amendment, without diſparagement, either to the wiſdom of the Church, that preſcribed, or of the Nation that inacted it. For, what poſitive Law of man is there that is not? Nay, what arrogance can it be in a particular perſon, (having beſtowed more conſideration upon it, then it is poſſible, that thoſe who had the framing of it ſhould have leiſure to do) to think that he knows ſome particulars, in which it might be mended? For, neither doth it follow, that it is better to indanger the ſpoyling of it by calling it in queſtion, than to let it reſt as it is; And that particular perſon, whoſoever he is, that ſhould think his own opinion neceſſary to be followed, without com-promiſing it to the publick, would juſtly incurre the mark of arrogance. Since therefore, that this is the time for ſuch a debate, if any change be pretended; and that the reaſons mentioned afore, are of ſufficient conſideration to oblige all ſides, to prefer unity before prejudice; what remains, but that, either it be left intire in that State wherein it ſtands, or that nothing be changed, without ſufficient debate of reaſon upon the whole, what is fit to be changed, what not?
But one thing I muſt here expreſly ſtand
upon, becauſe the forme of Gods ſervice which hath been uſurped during the Schiſme, proteſteth againſt the Law in force. I acknowledge, that the whole Reformation proteſteth againſt the inſufficience and defects of the Church of Rome, in the courſe which it taketh for the inſtruction of Chriſtian people, in the duties of their Chriſtianity; againſt the abuſes there practiſed, in celebrating the Euchariſt without any pretenſe of a Communion, in private Maſſes, and in ſerving God in a Language which the people underſtand not. For, theſe abuſes are a principal part of the ground for that change, which we juſtly maintain to be Reformation; The boldneſs of thoſe that oppoſed it, being come to ſuch a height, as openly to maintain; that it concerneth not Chriſtian people to know, or to mind what is done at the Maſs, (being the ordinary ſervice of God, for which they come to Church,) or what is ſaid; But, that the intention of the Prieſt is enough to apply the ſacrifice of Chriſt to all that are preſent, (which they think it doth no leſs to them that are abſent; and therefore leave us unſatisfied why people ſhould come to Church) who need do nothing but ſay their Paters and their Aves. Theſe abuſes I do acknowledge. But,
be the World my witneſs, and all that know what hath paſſed, for the matter of Religion, in the World; was it ever proteſted, by thoſe who demanded Reformation in the Church; that the Euchariſt cught to be celebrated but four times, or twelve times in the year? That by Gods Law, there ought to be two Sermons every Sunday in every Church? That other Feſtivals beſide the Sunday, and ſet times of faſting oughr not to be ſolemnized with the ſervice of God? That the Church doors ought not to be open, but when there is preaching? Take the primitive practice of the Church along with the Scripture, and they ſhall tell you another tale; that Prayer, and the praiſes of God, is the more principal end of Chriſtian Aſſemblies; than Preaching. The reaſon is unanſwerable; For, the one is the end, the other the means. That the celebration of the Euchariſt, is the moſt principal Office of Gods ſervice under Chriſtianity, is no leſs evident; For, other Offices are common to Judaiſme, this, conſiſting moſt in Prayers, conſiſts of thoſe Prayers which are proper to Chriſtianity; that is to thoſe cauſes wherein our Salvation conſiſteth. And can there be queſtion how frequent it ought to be? Shall not the
practice of the whole Church, from the beginning, decide the queſtion, if any remain? The ſingle life of the Clergie prevailed for this end, that they might be alwaies ready to celebrate the Euchariſt; ſay the Fathers and the Canons, which I alledged afore. It is a queſtion in Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccleſiaſticis, whither every man ought to communicate every day or not. But therefore no queſtion, that it ought to be celebrated every day, that who ſo would might communicate. In conſcience, would they be bound to Preach every day, that are ſo much for Preaching? After the reading of the Scripture, follows the Sermon, and after that the Euchariſt; This is the primitive order of the whole Church, at that ſolemne ſervice when the Euchariſt, (on Faſting-dayes in the Evening, on other dayes before Noon) was Celebrated. After the Scriptures were read, the people were taught their duty out of them. A thing neceſſary and poſſible. Not that every Curate ſhould be bound to declame by the Glaſs; But, that he ſhould be bound to inſtruct his Pariſh out of the Scriptures which are read. If he be tied to Preach as often as the Church door opens, the Church door muſt be ſhut, becauſe no ſides can hold out, ſo oft as Chriſtians
ought to meet for Gods ſervice. I call the World to witneſs; Is it not as much a work of lungs and ſides, as an Office of Gods ſervice, which takes up the time of their Church Aſſemblies? Is not the way opened, by this means, to declame of publick Government in Church and State, to intertain the Hearers? For alas, ſhould men confine themſelves to that which the generality of their audience might edifie by, in their Chriſtianity, the Trade would be obſtructed.
For, let me freely ſay, the undoubted truth of the common Chriſtianity, (which no Sermons ought to exceed, becauſe they pretend the edification of the generality of Chriſtians) is contained in ſo narrow a compaſs, that no eloquence, (much leſs, the eloquence of all that muſt come into the Pulpit) can change the ſeaſoning and ſerving of it, ſo as to make it agreeable to mens palats; without fetching in matter impertinent, if not deſtructive to the common Chriſtianity. And the ſame is, for more peremptory reaſon, to be ſaid of arbitrary Prayers. For, the very poſture of him, that pretendeth to prefer the devotions of Gods people to the Altar which is above, ſtrongly impreſſeth upon the hearts of ſimple Chriſtians, an opinion, that thereby
they diſcharge to God the duty which their creation and redemption requires at their hands. Which, if the matter of thoſe Prayers be ſuch as the common Chriſtianity requires, they may do indeed. But, if it be poſſible, that Rebellion, Slander, Nonſenſe and Blaſphemy may be the matter of them, as well as Chriſtianity, then is it not Religion, but Superſtition which ſuch devotions exerciſe; Nor, can that Kingdom ſtand excuſed to God, which ſhall gratifie that licentiouſneſs, whereof they ſee the effect before their eyes. All reaſon of Chriſtianity concurres with the practice of the whole Church, to witneſs; that the intereſt of Chriſtianity requires the ſervice of God to be maintained and exerciſed daily, (yea hourly, were it poſſible) not only by particular Chriſtians, but by Aſſemblies of Chriſtians, ſo far as the buſineſs of the World will give leave, and as there is means to maintain mens attendance upon it. There may come abuſe in the order, the forme, the matter of that which is tendred to God for his Service. But, inſtead of reforming thoſe abuſes, to take away the means, the Rule, the obligation of ſuch meetings, is meer Sacriledge, in deſtroying, (under pretenſe of Reforming) his Church.
And, though I charge no ſuch deſigne upon thoſe who maintain the obligation of the Sabbath to conſiſt in two Sermons; yet I do maintain, it is manifeſt to common reaſon, that the forme which that opinion introduceth neceſſarily tends to that effect. Strange it is, that a Nation capable of ſens, in an age improved by learning, ſhould be intangled with the ſuperſtition of ſo vain an imagination; that God by the ſame fourth Commandment, ſhould oblige both Jews to keep the Saturday; & Chriſtians the Sunday; Eſpecially, no man daring to maintain, that both were, or are tied to the ſame meaſure of reſting. And therefore, though, (rather than croſs the ſtream of ſuch a ſuperſtition; For, let no man think, that all ſuperſtition can be ſhut out of Gods Church) I am ready to conform to the Order that ſhall take place, ſo far as the ſtrength of my body ſhall inable me; Yet, provided that the Eccleſiaſtical Laws of England, being the Laws of the whole Church, be not abated, ſo as to ſtick an evident mark of Schiſme upon the Church of England. For, the Law that is recommending the celebration of the Euchariſt, upon all Sundayes and Feſtivals, but commanding the ſervice to be uſed, as well on Feſtivals and Faſting dayes,
as upon Sundayes, (beſides the week dayes) at the publick Aſſemblies of reſpective Congregations; To change this Order for two Sermons on the Sunday alone, what is it but to renounce the whole Church, for the love of thoſe that have divided from the Church of England, upon cauſes common to it with the whole Church.
They that would have the Reformation of the Church to be indeed, that which the Law of the Land calleth it, ſhould firſt provide a courſe to be eſtabliſhed for Law, by which, all Chriſtian ſoules, (who have equal intereſt in the common Salvation) might ſerve God in publick, all Sundaies and Feſtivals. For, ſeeing there was a courſe in Law, before the Reformation, for all ſervants, as well as others, to be at Maſſe all Sundayes and Feſtivals; And the Church was inabled to require account of it at their hands; It will not be Reformation to abrogate the abuſes of the Maſs, till a courſe be taken, that all Chriſtians may frequent that, which ſhall appear to be indeed the ſervice of God inſtead of the Maſſe. Let no Preachers flatter themſelves with an opinion, that they ſhall ever make Chriſtians ſo perfectly Jewes, as to perſwade them to dreſs no meat on the Sundayes. If
Servants muſt ſtay at home to dreſs meat on Sundayes, (and for other occaſions they muſt ſtay at home, beſides that) will not the way to repair that breach, be to injoyne ſeveral Aſſemblies in all Pariſh Churches, upon all Sunday mornings, that ſeveral Perſons, of ſeveral Eſtates and qualities, may have opportunity to attend the publick ſervice of God, at ſeveral hours of the ſame Sundayes and Holydayes. For, though I underſtand very well, that this would impoſe upon the Church, (that is, upon my hrethren of the Clergie,) a greater burthen, than an afternoons meal of a Sermon, (which all men know, is furniſhed of the cold meat of the forenoon) yet, I would have the Word cleared of this impoſture that reigneth, that two Sermons every Sunday, is the due way of keeping the Sabbath among Chriſtians, or of advancing Gods publick ſervice.
I will not here diſpute, that the Lent-Faſt was inſtituted by the Apoſtles. But this I maintain to be evident, that the Faſt afore the Reſurrection of Chriſt is and was as antient as the Feaſt of his Reſurrection; and that more antient than the keeping of all Lords dayes in the year; being meerly the reflection of that one, all the weeks of the yeaar. Nor
will any man, that knows what he ſayes, ever queſtion, that the inlarging of it to forty dayes is a juſt Law, voluntarily undertaken by the whole Church, not to be condemned without the like mark of Schiſme. For, ſince the World is come into the Church, is there not manifeſt reaſon, that more time ſhould be taken, for the expiating of more ſins, which are the ſins of more people? to prepare, as well the Elder, to renew their Chriſtianity by communicating at Eaſter; as the yonger to be confirmed, and come firſt to the Communion at Eaſter, now they are baptized Infants? Which, in former ages, was the time of their firſt coming to Baptiſm. As for the Wednſdayes and Fridayes, if we ſhall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, unleſs our Righteouſneſs exceed the Righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſes; And, if it be evident, as evident it is, that the Scribes and Phariſes preſcribed Mundayes and Thurſdayes for dayes of leſs ſolemne Aſſemblies then the Sabbath; How ſhall we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, if, in deſpite of the whole Church, which hath hitherto uſed Wedneſdayes and Fridayes, in lieu of Mundayes and Thurſdays, uſed by the Synagogues, we void the Law of England by which they are
in force? Of the Ceremonies the ſame is to be underſtood; Not becauſe it can be within the compaſs of common reaſon to imagine, that the ſame Ceremonies have continued, from the time that the Church was perſecuted into holes and caves of the Earth, to this time, in which the queſtion is of ſetling Chriſtianity by the Law of this Kingdom. It were want of common underſtanding to think that the ſame could ſerve. But, becauſe ſo few, and ſo innocent as we uſe, cannot be condemned, without condemning, not only Gods whole Church, but alſo Gods antient people; who will evidently be found in the ſame cauſe.
One thing hath been caſt forth in barre to all this, which we muſt not ſwallow whole, unleſs we mean to impoſe upon our ſelves. It is the pretenſe of complying with the Reformed Churches. For, it is evident, that there are four forms of Reformation extant; One according to Luther, another according to Calvine, the third is, that of the Church of England, and in the laſt place, (though firſt for time,) becauſe leaſt known, and protected by no Soveraign, I name that of the Union in Bohemia. For, we are to know, that the followers of John Huſſe having ſent Deputies to the
Council of Baſil, they accorded to reunite the Nation upon four Articles; The chief whereof was the Communion in both kinds. They that ſtood to the accord are to this day called thereupon Calixtin, or ſub utra
que
in Latine. But another part of thoſe that were at diſtance, thinking themſelves betrayed by their Deputies in that accord, proceeded to ſettle themſelves in a form of Religion, and the ſervice of God, by that which they held the pure truth of God, in all points that had been diſputed. The Emperour Ferdinand I. King of Bohemia, having ſubdued his ſubjects there, that roſe with the Proteſtants in Germany, caſt a good part of theſe out of the Country; who, finding ſhelter in Polonia, and Pruſſia, there planted and propagated their form, till the troubles of our time, when by the Emperours victory in Bohemia, and the late troubles in Poland, they ſeem to be at a loweble, though they impute it to the decay of their firſt diſcipline.
They that would reform the Church of England, profeſſing already that Reformation which it found beſt, will they not firſt ſhow us reaſon, why we are to leave Luther for Calvine? For, if they mean his form, when they talk of conforming us to the reformed
Churches, becauſe of the Scotts Presbyteries, they muſt have better arguments, then either the learning or the Chriſtianity of the Scottiſh Presbyterians will yeild, to perſwade us. They ſay, thoſe that framed the Reformation in England, beeing bred under Melancthon among the Lutheranes, followed them much an end in the order and form which they preſcribed. But is that any reaſon for any change, before it appear which is in the right? I freely profeſs I find Melancthon the better learned, and the more Chriſtian ſpirit. But the Church of England, which in divers points differeth from both, why ſhould it be thought to follow either for any reaſon, but, as either agrees with the Catholick Church? And for that, I prefer the Unity of Bohemia before both; For, they had the rule of Vincentius given them, to take their meaſure by the conſent of the Catholick Church, and theſe things which have allwayes and every where been profeſſed and practiſed in it; And, had they done nothing but what is juſtifiable by that Rule, I ſhould not blame them for that which I blame in them moſt. But where they agree not with Luther and Calvine, wherein do they not agree with the Church of England?
In particular, they ſent all over the World,
to inform themſelves of a viſible ſucceſſion of Biſhops, whoſe profeſſion was ſuch, that they might derive the Ordination of Biſhops, for their Churches, from their hands. They took the ſuperſtitions of the Greekes to be ſuch, that they could not own it from them. In that I think they were in the wrong. For, I doubt not, the Greekes would have granted them Ordination onely under the profeſſion of the Catholick Church; and that had been enough. But, thinking themſelves in a ſtrait of neceſſity, they choſe twelve by lots; And hearing that the Waldenſes lived in Auſtria under Biſhops, deriving their ſucceſſion from the time of Conſtantine (and therefore from the Apoſtles) they ſent them thither to be Ordained, proteſting againſt their weakneſs, in going to Maſſe for fear. The proteſtation was admitted, and the perſons ordained Biſhops. Now, I take not upon me to maintain the truth of that information, concerning the ſucceſſion of theſe Biſhops, whereupon they proceeded. But, they being reaſonably perſwaded of it, and not knowing how to proceed otherwiſe, (through a miſtake which they could not overcome) and ſetling themſelves upon an innocent preſumption, why ſhould the effect of theſe Ordinations
ſeem queſtionable? For, under theſe Biſhops they have ſubſiſted from that day to this.
And, with what conſcience is it demanded; for conformity to the Reformation, that we acknowledge them Prieſts who are ordained againſt Biſhops? If we do not, we ſhall condemn thoſe Reformed Churches, which have no Biſhops. Is it the faſhion, that a man quit his Cloke, becauſe his fellow hath none? Or is it any thing elſe, to renounce a good Title, becauſe they cannot plead it? There was a good expedient in the ancient Church, to refer things to God, which could not be decided without a breach in the Church. Let their zele againſt the abuſes of the Church of Rome be counted pardonable with God, which cauſed them to think the Order of Biſhops a ſupport of Antichriſt; when as the Papacy is viſibly raiſed upon the rights of Biſhops which it ingroſſeth. Let the difficulty of procuring Ordinations, and having Biſhops, render them excuſable to God. Thoſe that are ordained by Presbyters againſt Biſhops, on purpoſe to ſet up Altar againſt Altar, how can we count them ordained refuſing the concurrence of the Church to their Ordinations? They that would ty us to comply with the Reformation, are firſt to ſhow us,
that the Unity of Bohemia is no part of it, And, that their Reformation is not to be preferred, either before that of Luther, or that of Calvine. For, can we acknowledg the Ordinations of Presbyters againſt their Biſhops, and not condemn them, that ſought all over the World for Biſhops to ordain them Biſhops, that the Biſhops ſo ordained might ordain them Presbyters?
But, not only in this prime point of our differences, but alſo in the difference of the Clergy from the people, in the three Orders, of Biſhops Presbyters and Deacons, in the matter of Juſtification and the Euchariſt, of Confirmation, and Penance of the Feſtivalls and Faſts of the Church, one of divers Orders and inſtitutions of leſs conſequence, their profeſſion agreeth with the ancient Church, and the Church of England, where it departeth from both Luther and Calvine. In the matter of Penance (though with much humility) they tell the Lutheranes roundly, they have but one of the keyes, viz. that of looſing, but bind not; as pronouncing abſolution without injoyning of Penance. The diſcipline of Geneva they magnify indeed, as they find it deſcribed by Bodine, in his method of Hiſtories; But they diſtinguiſh not, whither they mean
the civill diſcipline, which the Lawes of that State inforce, or that which the Power of the Keyes, exerciſed there according to Calvine, doth conſtitute. For, the Civill Law of a Chriſtian State (eſpecially, no bigger then that of Geneva) may ſettle ſuch a diſcipline over the outward man, as may reſtrain from the outward act of ſin, without mortifying the inward man to the inward love of it. The late Uſurpers Army we have ſeen well diſciplined, againſt the ordinary vices of the Camp; Who, appearing now to have been then enimies to their Country, are thereby diſcovered, not to have followed the reward of Chriſtians, but of Souldiers. And the Lawes of Chriſtian States, by the means of Chriſtianity which they maintain, may reach to the mortifying of ſin, and the quickning of righteouſneſs at the heart; But of themſelves, being Civill Lawes, and propoſing no further reward or puniſhment, then that good which a mans Country ſignifies, they reach no futther then the outward man, for the better or for the worſe. Nor is it of any greater conſequence to Chriſtianity, that the outward act of ſin or virtue is repreſſed or incouraged, by the rewards and penalties of Civill Lawes. But, when the diſcipline of the
Church takes place, he who forfeiteth his Chriſtianity by groſs ſin that is notorious, forfeiteth alſo Communion with the Church; and recovereth it not, till the preſumption be no leſs notorious, that he hath recovered his Chriſtianity. Now, Communion with the Church is the conſequence of our Baptiſm, which intitleth us to life everlaſting. Therefore it is not duely forfeited, without forfeiting the effect of Baptiſme, our right to life everlaſting. So, our right to heaven depending upon the Communion of the Church; the diſcipline of the Church, muſt needes reach the inward man as effectually, as any outward application can reach the heart, which is inviſible. For, the preſumption is grounded upon viſible workes of Penance, the effects of that inviſible diſpoſition, without which they could not be conſtantly brought forth. Whither or no this diſcipline be viſible at Geneva, I will not pronounce. This I undertake, that, comparing the Doctrine of Calvine with their Orders, they need not ſet a value upon the Power of the Keyes exerciſed according to his Doctrine, in compariſon of the ſame exerciſed according to their own Orders. So that ſuppoſing, not granting, that the Lawes of the Church of England, (being
the Lawes of the primitive Catholick Church) are to be changed for conformity with the Reformed Churches; it followeth not therefore, that they are to be changed, for thoſe of the Churches reformed according to Calvine. Certainly, the receiving of the Communion kneeling, having been one of the Adors of their Reformation from the beginning, and ſo ſtiffly inſiſted upon by them in Poland, they that pretend to change the Law of England, in that point for conformity with the Reformation, think they have not men but beaſts to to deal with.
The Church of England, in the Commination againſt ſinners, hath declared a great zeal for the renouncing of that ancient diſcipline of Penance, which was in force in the primitive Church. And certainly, the Church of England is not the Church of England but in Name, till the power of excommunication be reſtored unto it, which there was not, nor ever can be ſufficient cauſe to take from any Church. But, the diſcipline of Penance, though depending upon the Power of excommunication, is as much to be preferred before it, as it is more deſirable to bring men to the Church, then to ſhut them out of it. If prejudice & faction have not more to do in the pretenſes
of this ſin, then the truth of Chriſtianity, and zeal to advance it; it is a point that cannot be neglected in any deliberation of Reforming the Church. I cannot render a more viſible reaſon, why ſo godly a zeal, in theſe that firſt preſcribed our Reformation, to the reſtoring of penance, hath now been improved by their ſucceſſors, then the partialities which ſprung up in it like tares in the wheat, and have now prevailed to choke even the power of excommunication, wherein the being of a Church conſiſteth. And though many ſinnes of this Nation may be alleged, for the cauſe why God hath taken this ſharp revenge upon us; yet can no reaſon be ſo proper, why he ſhould permit the hedge of the Church to be caſt down, (for all Sects to devour, and tread his vineyard under foot) by ſuffering the power of excommunication to be taken from it; as the neglect of improving it, in and to the diſcipline of penance. True it is, not only all capital, but all infamous crimes, whereof men are convicted by Law, are thereby notorious, and require this diſcipline, no leſs then thoſe which the Law of this Land puniſheth not otherwiſe then by penance. And if the Church did make a difference among thoſe that dye by
publick Juſtice; owning only theſe, who approve their deſire to undergo regular penance, in caſe they might ſurvive; then were this diſcipline viſible, no viſible crime eſcaping it. For, all capitall and infamous crimes, that are not actually puniſhed with death, muſt by that reaſon remain unreconciled to the Church, though free of the Law, till penance be done. And ſeeing crimes that are not known cannot be cured upon eaſier terms then thoſe that are; would
•
o
•
the judgment of the Law, authorizing the Church in the cure of known ſins, move even them that believe their Chriſtianity, no further then it is authorized by Law, to ſubmit inviſible ſins to the ſame cure? For, what is it, but the ſlighting of this cure, that makes mens ſins feſter and rankle inwardly, and break out into greater and greater exceſſes? And therefore, to debate of Ceremonies, and words in the ſervice, and May-poles, and Sabbath dayes journeyes, not conſidering the Power of the Keyes, upon which the Church is founded, and the reſtoring of the ſame; is to neglect a conſumption at the heart, pretending only to cure the hair or the nailes.
Now if any of our Sects inſiſt upon a pretenſe that deſerves to be inſiſted upon, far be
it from us to caſt off the conſideration of it, becauſe they have unduely ſeparated from the Church for it. Our Anabaptiſts, it is known inſiſt upon two points; The baptizing of Infants, and that, by ſprinkling, not by dipping. In both, they have neglected S. Peters Doctrine, That Baptiſme ſaveth us, not the laying aſide of the filth of our fleſh, but the anſwer of a good conſcience to God. For, were the profeſſion of Chriſtianity, celebrated by the Sacrament of Baptiſme, believed to be that which ſaveth us, men would not goe to baptize them, as not baptized, who by their profeſſion (which they acknowledge by ſeeking the Communion of the Church) are under that bond, which intitleth them to the Salvation of Chriſtians. Nor can there be any greater preſumption, then the voiding of Baptiſme ſo celebrated, that they expect Salvation upon other termes. But, in making void Baptiſme miniſtred by ſprinkling alone, without dipping, they neglect S. Peter again, when he maketh the Baptiſme that ſaveth not to conſiſt in cleanſing the fleſh, but in a due profeſſion of Chriſtianity; ſignifying this to be the principal, that only the acceſſary Ceremony, which it is ſolemnized with. And therefore, they are to acknowledg this difference
by acknowledging Baptiſme ſo miniſtred to be good and valid, not void. But, this being acknowledged, well may they inſiſt, that it is unduely miniſtred. For it is evident, that, neither the Scripture, nor the practice of the whole Church, can by any means allow the ſprinkling of water for Baptiſme, though the pouring on of water in caſe of neceſſity, be allowed. Nor doth the Law of the Church of England allow any more then pouring water upon a Child that is weak, commanding therefore dipping otherwiſe. And therefore this Law, being much weakned by the tenderneſs of Mothers and friends, (ſuppoſing all Infants weak, which the Law ſuppoſeth not) and by undue zeal for forraign faſhions ought to be revived and brought into uſe by all Ordinances, that there may remain no colour for ſuch an offence. And therefore, reparation is to be made for the ſacriledge of the late Warrs, in deſtroying the Fonts of Baptiſme in Churches, and bringing in Chriſtening out of Baſins by force.
I cannot ſay that I have touched all that is fit to be touched. But I hope I have ſaid nothing, but that which followeth upon the ground, which I have juſtified. That which is propoſed, and is not ſo juſtified, ſeems to
demand the conſent of thoſe who propoſe it, as able to hold the Church divided, if they be not contented; But that calls to mind a reaſon on the other ſide, that men uſe to get a ſtomack with eating in ſuch caſes. The due meaſure is not the ſatisfying of mens appetites, but the improvement of our common Chriſtianity.
FINIS.