Answer to Dr Stillingfleets Sermon, Title page

Answer to Dr Stillingfleets Sermon · Title page

AN ANSWER TO Dr. Stillingfleet's SERMON, BY SOME Nonconformiſts, BEING THE PEACEABLE DESIGN Renewed.

WHEREIN The Imputation of Schiſm wherewith the Doctor hath charged the Nonconformiſts Meetings, is removed: Their Nonconformity juſtified: and Materials for Union drawn up together, which will heal both Parties.

Are they Miniſters of Chriſt? ſo are We.

London, Printed for J. Janeway in Queens-head.-Alley, near Paternoſter-Row, 1680.

p. 3The Peaceable Deſign Renewed, in Anſwer to Dr. Stillingfleet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 16In the Rubrick to theſe Offices before mentioned, and to the Communion, if we Conſent to every thing preſcribed, or to the uſe of every thing there preſcribed, we muſt not deliver the Bread and Wine to a man if he Scruple to Kneel at the Sacrament:☞ We muſt turn away his Child from Baptiſme, if he Scruples God-Fathers: And if the Child dyes before it is Chriſtned (though the Parents be our dear Friends) we muſt not allow it Chriſtian Burial. We do not Conſent to theſe things, and the ſhift before of theſe words [To the uſe] will not help us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 22For the firſt part, We have a large Aſſertion roundly ſworn. The Oath and Subſcription runs not only, that it is not lawful to take Arms againſt the King, or that it is not lawful on any pretence, but on any pretence (or cauſe) whatſoever. The Grammatical literal conſtruction of that word ſeems to intimate no leſs, than that this Propoſition muſt be held without reſtraint or limitation. Amongſt the moſt eminent of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes, and eſtabliſh'd it againſt Reſiſtance in their writings on this Subject, we ſuppoſe there are few or none to be valued above theſe Three, Barclay, Grotius, Arniſaeus, And we ſhall find, that they have all their reſtrictions or caſes of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet. And how ſhall any be over earneſt here in puniſhing the Refuſer, when if the matter be well ſcan'd, the reaſon perhaps, why he refuſes, will be found only becauſe he hath read more than ſome others that yield their ſubmiſſion. We begin with Barclay, that is William Barclay, a Scot and Councellor to the French King, who writes againſt Buchanan, Boucher, and other Monarchomachiſts, as he calls them. This learned man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People, that conſequently no Arms can be taken againſt him: Nevertheleſs, when he comes to put ſome preſſing Caſes, he thus limits him. Quid ergo? nulli ne Caſus incidere poſſunt, quibus populo in Regem arma capere jure ſuo liceat? nulli certe quamdiu Rex manet. What then? Can there no Caſes happen, wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms againſt the King by Right? None certainly ſo long as he remains a King. There are Caſes indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere perſonam Regis, or Dominatu ſe exuere, Put off the Perſon of a King. And particularly (l. 3. c. 16.) he mentions two. Si regnum alienet: ſi Rempublicam evertere conatur. If he go to alienate his Kingdom: if he go to overthrow the Common-wealth. We cannot tell how to approve this Doctrine, the Papiſts uſe the ſame we know in another Caſe. We may not fight againſt our King; but if the People Excommunicate him, he ſhall be no King with them. Let us come to Grotius, and firſt quote him in his Judgment of Barclay, leſt you may think elſe we miſtake him. Barclaius (ſays he) Regii imperii licet aſſertor fortiſſimus huc tamen deſcendit, ut populo & inſigni ejus parti jus concedit ſe tuendi adverſus immanem ſaevitiam. Barelay, though the moſt ſtrong aſſertor of Kingly Government, does come to this, that he grants a Right to the People, or the moſt emsnent part of them, of defending themſelves againſt intolerable oppreſſion. p. 23For himſelf then after he hath aſſerted this Tenet, Summum imperium tenentibus jure reſiſts non poſſe, That the higher Power may not lawfully be reſiſted, from Scripture, Antiquity, Authority, and Example, to as much purpoſe perhaps as any, he deſcends to put ſeven Caſes, wherein he does Lectorem monere, Warn his Reader, ne putet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt, leſt he miſtake ſome for delinquents that are not. For Arniſaeus, he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politicks. De Jure Majeſtatis De Doctrina Politica. De Authoritate principum in populum ſemper Inviolabili, ſeu, quod nulla ex cauſe ſubditis fas ſit contra legitimum principem arma ſumere. That the Authority of Princes over the People, ought to be inviolable, or that it is lawful for no cauſe to take up Arms againſt our lawful Prince. Here then we have our Tenet, in the ſtated whereof he comes in the iſſus to diſtinguiſh between Rex and Tyrannus, a King and a Tyrant; Tyrannus in Titulo, & Tyrannus in Exercitio, A Tyrant in Title, and in Practice: And Tyrannus in Exercitio. A Tyrant in Practiſe, he accounts does Excidere de Jure, etſi Haereditario, Fall from his Right, though Hereditary, Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem (ſays he) ut illi praeſitin ſalutem omnium, a quo ſi prorſus deſciverit, etiam de poteſtate cadit, quam non alio fine ſibi commiſſam habebat. The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince, that he ſhould rule over it for the eommon ſafety; from which if he depart altogether, he falls even from the Power it ſelf, which was committed to him only for this end. We do not give our conſent to, nor paſs our cenſure upon the words we cite: But by ſuch Teſtimonies as theſe, without naming others, we would convince thoſe perſons who were the Compilers of theſe Declarations to be ſubſcribed, or ſwon, with ſome reſentment and ſhame, that when the Temperate ſenſe and meaning of them is ſuch as we were not like to boggle at, they ſhould be yet compoſed ſo in terminis, as to be obnoxious to ſo grand Exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 36However this be, whether they are willing or not, there is a univerſale eminens dominium in the Supreme Legiſlative Authority, that puts an end to all Cavll (if there ariſe any) de jure privatorum: And we will conclude with this, That whatſoever things are therefore ſubſtantially profitable for the Community, and are retarded only by the intereſt of private perſons, theſe are things moſt truly worthy the Conſultation of Parliament. God Almighty keep alive the true Engliſh, publick Spirit. God preſerve the Proteſtant Religion, and the Perſon of the King. God proſper an accommodation.

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