The Healing Paper, Text – Notice

The Healing Paper · Text – Notice

p. 1The Healing Paper.

IF I had any longer hope or truſt in our Publick Phyſitians, that they would lay to heart the Breaches of the Church, and endeavour the Cure of thoſe Wounds which ſhe hath received in the Houſe of her Friends, by ſome Univerſal Accommodation of Proteſtants one with another; which would be the ſtrength of the Nation againſt Forreign Enemies, and the Security of our Religion at Home, I ſhould forbear the Studying out any of theſe leſſer and private Remedies in our caſe, for fear of being guilty of the Healing the Hurt of the Daughter of Gods People ſlightly, which were a fault indeed if I could do it better: but when no more can be done, God forbid I ſhould ceaſe to offer my laſt mite to the Work, in ſhewing the way that is yet left us (and conſequently the duty for ought I know on both ſides unto which were are bound) how to do it; not diſtruſting the favour of God, and many good men in the Action.

There is a Rule therefore I muſt lay down between the Nonconformiſt and the Biſhop for my proceeding in this great Deſign. I will ſuppoſe them both ſenſible, that an endeavour after Concord as brethren in the ſame Reformed Religion, is an undeniable duty; and that a wilful neglect of it cannot be Anſwered unto God by either Party, whoſoever of them ſhall be found in Default. The Rule then for Accommodation which I have to offer, in the Name of God, as equal to both, is this: That the Nonconformiſt be ready to do in the ſincerity of his Conſcience what he can; and that out of the like conſcience to God, the Biſhop do bear with him in what he cannot; ſo long as by this means, or upon theſe termes, they ſo agree and unite in the Main, as the Eſtabliſht Order be kept up in the Land. It is but Reaſonable the Biſhop look to This, and it is Neceſſary that Wee look to our Conſciences. The Rule is in order to the End; and if they will abate to us in the Circumſtances, or in the Leſſer things enjoyned, ſo much as we may preſerve our Conſciences, and abate no more but that the Eſtabliſhment (which being made by King and Parliament requires our Subjection) may be preſerved in the Subſtance, or in the greater concerns of it, I ſee not, but for Peace ſake, for our Souls ſake, for the Churches ſake, the thing ſhould be done. The Nonconformiſt p. 2is to conſider well the import of ſuch Texts as require Subjection to the Higher Powers; and he is out of Conſcience to the Fifth Commandement to comply with their Injunctions to the uttermoſt that may give them ſatisfaction ſo far as he can without Sin. The Biſhop is to conſider the import of ſuch Texts, as tell us what a dangerous thing it is to give occaſion to the Doubtful to do any thing againſt their Conſciences: and he is out of Conſcience to the Sixth Commandement (for fear of deſtroying him for whom Chriſt dyed) to take heed as he would of his life, to put a man upon any more than he is convinced he can ſafely do. When the Nonconformiſt does what he can, the Law of God will bear him out in that which he does not; and if he ſuffers, he has peace in his Soul. If the Biſhop likewiſe ſhall Receive a man upon this account, as one that cannot require more of him, leſt he wound his weak Conſcience, and ſo ſins againſt Chriſt, I do not doubt but the Law of God will juſtifie him alſo in whatſoever he falls ſhort in the execution of the Law of Man. I know the Law does indeed make no difference between thoſe that would do what they can, and thoſe that do any thing leſs than all it requires; but the great Law of Charity, Mercy and Righteouſneſs, or of Meeting to others that meaſure as we would have met to us in the like caſe, does require other things. This is a Truth to be made known and propagated to the Nation, that all Laws or Injunctions of Men whatſoever, which are not conſiſtent with the Law of Nature, or Word of God (ſo far I ſay as they are inconſiſtent therewith) are void, null, and no Laws. Nihil minus ſunt q am leges, as Cicero (De legibus) does expreſs it. That is, (I will interpret him) they can lay no obligation on the Conſcience (which is the eſſential property of a right Law) as to the obſervance. it is true, if the Biſhop Diſpences, and the Non-conformiſt come ſhort in any thing, the Penalty may be Sued, if any be ſo affected. It is a Law in foro humano, and we muſt never reſiſt (This we mu… venture, and can but be in ſtatu quo): but it is no Law in fo… Dei, or Conſcientiae; for the Authority of theſe greater Laws of Nature and Religion does ſuperſede the Execution; ſo that there is no guilt contracted in the Omiſſion.

And having ſaid this, I do not care to profeſs my ſelf one, that am prepared to come into the Church upon theſe Terms; that is, I will come in upon Quarter; for I can come in no otherwiſe: If the Biſhop will give me Quarter for my Conſcience, and ſpare me in the things, which it were a Killing me to do while I am in Doubt, I p. 3will yield in the reſt. We will, we muſt yield (I judge) upon theſe Terms: To do what we can, if they will but do (upon this ſcore, I ſay, of thoſe Superiour Laws) what they ought. There are no Texts which require Unity among Chriſtians, To be of one mind, To ſpeak the ſame things, To have one Heart: No Texts, that require Love and Fellowſhip with one another as Brethren, the Following of Peace, a Tenderneſs to one anothers Conſciences, and taking heed of Offending any of Chiſt's Little Ones, and the like matters: No Texts, that forbid Schiſm and Diviſions in the Church, with the Evil Concomitants and Effects thereof in the Nation, but they are all Warrants to the Biſhop, for his Forbearance and Moderation in the Execution of theſe Laws, when his Non-Conformiſt-Brother cannot obey them without ſinning againſt his Soul. God ſays, Thou ſhalt not do any thing, which will deſtroy thy Brother, and wound his Conſcience: The Law ſays, Thou ſhalt put him to do thus, and not diſpenſe with him. Chriſt ſays, You muſt do thus, You muſt do theſe things. The Law ſays, You muſt do that which is otherwiſe. Whom ſhall the good Biſhop now chooſe to obey, the Law of his God, or the Statutes of the Realm?

Not that I will find fault with my Superiours, or with their Laws; onelyonly as the Apoſtle ſayes of the Law of God it ſelf, We know the Law is good if a Man uſe it Lawfully: So muſt I ſay upon ſuppoſition, that theſe Acts for Conforming be in themſelves, for the peace of the Church, ſo long as they be Executed upon fit Reaſons, and ſuch Perſons for whom all Laws are indeed to be made, (The Law is not made for the Righteous, or the willing, ſayes the ſame Divine Author, but the Ʋnrighteous and Diſobedient): Yet when they are Adminiſtred to all alike without putting any difference between the Willing and the Ʋnwilling, the Ready and the Refractory, that which was intended for Good, is made Death unto us, (to ſpeak ſtill in Holy Language) by becoming inſtead of a means for promoting of Peace, an occaſion for eſtabliſhing our Diviſions. I ſee indeed that moſt Men with whom the Laws are entruſted, do act ordinarily, as if all they were concern'd in the hurt that comes by any Law, were no more but to impute it to the Law-makers, and to account themſelves clear before God and Men, ſo long as they are but exact in putting the ſame in rigorous Execution: whereas there is no power given, or can be received by any, but to the great p. 4ends of Gods Glory, and the common good of Men (for all Power is of God), and conſequently no ſuch truſt is committed to them but in Subordination to the higher Laws of Nature, and Gods Word; ſo that if theſe Laws and Mans Laws do come in any inſtances of Life to claſh, as commonly in matters of conſcience they do, there is prudence to be uſed in ſuch a diſcernment between Perſons and Perſons, thoſe that are truly, and thoſe that are pretendedly conſcencious, and between things and things, what will profit the Church, and what will tend onelyonly to publick offence, that both the ends of Government may be kept up, and the greater Laws take place. According to the authority the Lord hath given us (ſaies the Apoſtle) for Edification, and not for Deſtruction.

Neither do I once imagin that the Biſhop can diſpenſe with me in any Impoſition committed to his truſt, ſo as that his diſpenſation ſhould be my warrant for my doing otherwiſe then the Law requires I ſhould do, either in regard to Man, if he will proſecute the Law upon me (as I have intimated before) or in regard to God if it were any Sin or Evil in me to break it: But he can bear with me as to his part, which is enough (for I may then venture others, I have alſo ſaid,) and it is the ſuperiour authority of God which is the warrant both to him and me upon which we muſt be juſtified, in my conformity only ſo far, and his requiring no more. The Law, it is true requires more, and it requires him to require more, but the greater Law (I ſay) of the Ten Commandements of God, which is ſum'd up in this one Word, Love, the tranſcript of the Law Eternal upon Mans heart, muſt over-rule, and relaxes the obligation as to both of us in the ſight of God. And thus when we do what we can for union on both ſides, and no more than we can on either ſide: When we bear with one another, in the things wherein we differ, and bear one anothers burdens as we are bound in the common accidents of our Lives, we ſhall Compound (I hope) for our failings or Non-performance to an Act of Parliament, by our fulfilling the Law of Chriſt. Be of the ſame mind (ſaies the Apoſtle) one towards another. Mind not high things, but condeſcend to Men of low eſtate.

In fine, Our eyes have almoſt failed us in looking out after every Seſſion of Parliament to do ſomthing for Union, and they do it not. It is another courſe then muſt be ſought; The Biſhop alone and we muſt reſolve to do the buſineſs our ſelves. That which we cannot get done by a relaxation of the Laws, may be p. 5obtained by little and little, by a Relaxation of our ſtifneſs on both ſides. If the concerns of the Church lies near any one of their hearts, than his own bare Honour and Worldly intereſt does, he will venture as we do, and what we cannot procure by an Act, we muſt force by Example, and the Authority of Heaven, and the Proteſtant cauſe ſhall be our Broad Seal for what we do.

Having thus propoſed the Rule, I muſt proceed to Practiſe. We have ſeveral Impoſitions therfore to come under conſideration, and they are the Old, or the New.

For the Old, there is in the firſt place the Common Prayer it ſelf which I muſt confeſs for my own part I do commonly hear, and in the Ordinary daily ſervice I do not think unlawful to read. And God forbid I ſhould, when we have had ſo many Holy Men in the Marian Reign ready to lay down their lives for the Matter of this Book. If I find ſcruple in reſpect to ſome things in the By-Offices, or in any thing of the Occaſional ſervice, I will either my ſelf wave it, or leave that work to ſome other to perform. There is next an Aſſent required to the Articles of the Church of England, unto the Doctrine whereof according to the ſtatute of the thirteenth of Elizabeth (that is ſo far as is expreſsly required) I do not find but the Nonconformiſts generally are ready to ſubſcribe of their own accord. I have a few exceptions for my own part, which I doubt not but they will be allowed me to make, being conſonant to the Judgments moſtly of thoſe that conform, and contrary to theirs, more generally who do not; I may name ſome of them ere I have done. There is then the Subſcription in the Canons, and Canonical Oath of Obedience, which being not impoſed by Law, or a ſtatute, but by a penal Canon; and that onelyonly rendring the Biſhop upon neglect obnoxious to a ſuſpenſion from giving Orders, or Licences to Preach for a year, which is never like to be proſecuted, nor I ſuppoſe uſed to be, it was heretofore very ordinary for many Biſhops to forbear the exacting of either of theſe (which were abated to me without any regret at my Ordination): and I ſhall hope that what hath bin done in former time out of favour, will be done now out of conſcience, if this Rule laid down does, as it ought, take place.

For the New Impoſitions, there are three of them in the Act of Uniformity, the Declaration, the Subſcription, and Re-ordination. The laſt of theſe [Re-ordination] I have paſſed, yet as to others I p. 6muſt ſay this. That to be Re-ordain'd to the Work of a new Charge, I am fully perſwaded is Lawful, and conſequently, that this matter may be eaſily Compounded, between the Biſhop, and him that ſcruples the thing (for too juſt Reaſon otherwiſe) upon this ſaid Account. The foremoſt, the Declaration, is to be made to the Congregation, and I think to do thus. I will Read the Common-Prayer in the Ordinary daily Service (which I have ſaid I hold Lawful), and then I will declare my Aſſent and Conſent, to all and every particular I have Read. And I do not doubt, but this will be as good a Declaration to the Church-Wardens, as if I had uſed the Words of the Act and no other. I will not conceal from them that I ſave my Conſcience, but will venture it. If it be told the Biſhop, I will expect that he ſhould be more like to Connive at that which is entruſted with others, than to Indulge any in the Second, and chief thing that remaines, which is committed only to his truſt, and wherein, if we obtain not ſome Condeſcention from him, we muſt continue in our ejected Eſtate. And this is the Subſcription, in reference to which mainely, I do now preſent to the Publick this Paper; and in purſuance of my own Rule of doing what I can, I am willing for an Authoritative uſe of my Miniſtry, to Subſcribe the words enſuing.

This Declaration in the Act of Uniformity, viz. I do declare that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatſoever, to take Arms againſt the King; and that I do abhor that Trayterous Poſition of taking Arms by his Authority againſt his Perſon, or againſt thoſe that are Commiſſionated by him; and that I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now eſtabliſhed; and I do Declare, that I do hold, that there lies no Obligation upon me, or any other Perſon, from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavor any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State; and that the ſame was in it ſelf an unlawful Oath, and impoſed upon the Subjects of this Realm, againſt the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, I ſubſcribe with theſe Limitations or Exceptions.

The firſt Clauſe I hold Indefinitly true in a due and a p. 7fair ſtate of the Point, as it is maintain'd by ſuch eminent and faithful Aſſertors of the Authority of Princes, as Arniſaeus, Barclay, Grotius, Sarrania, and the like Authors: And upon ſuch a meet State of the Poſition (prout prudens definierit) ſuppoſed, I do Subſcribe That it is not lawful to take Arms againſt the King, upon any pretence what-ſo-ever.

The Second Clauſe I allow with this Interpretation only, which I think to be the Mind of the Legiſlators. By the Word Abhor, I underſtand in the cool Senſe, no more than I Diſclaim; and ſuch a Poſition I count Traytorous, if it be made uſe of for Rebellion: And I underſtand by the Word Theſe that are Commiſſionated by him, ſuch only as are Legally Commiſſionated by him, and in the Legal Purſuit of ſuch Commiſſions. It could never be the Intent of the Majority of Parliament to advance the King's will above Law; and therefore, this being their Meaning, I do in this Meaning, (or with theſe Explanatory Limitations to their Meaning, if I be miſtaken in it) Subſcribe That I abhor that Trayterous Poſition, of taking Arms by the Authority of the King, againſt his Perſon, or againſt thoſe that are Commiſſionated by him.

The Third Clauſe, is a Promiſe which I dare not make, but with the Reſervation of a neceſſary and juſt Liberty, both for my Conſcience, in any matter or thing wherein I doubt; and for Prudence, in regard to Time, Place, and Circumſtances; to act, as appears to me moſt conductive to the Intereſt of the Church, and Edification of the People: And with ſuch a Reſervation as this, I Subſcribe That I will Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Eſtabliſhed.

The Fourth Clauſe I can Subſcribe to readily, as to my ſelf, becauſe I never took the Covenant, (I was convinced, I remember, by the Oxford Reaſons, and it was againſt my Conſcience): But for the Words, Nor any other Perſons, I muſt put in this Reſtriction; to wit, Nor p. 8any other in a Private Capacity, or Acting in a Private Capacity. It is true, (as I think) that every Man is bound to ſeek the Reformation of the Church in his Place: But it is as great a Truth, that it is not the place of Private Perſon, or any one, to endeavour any Reformation of the Church or State, be it never ſo good, but with the Concurrence of the King, or in ſuch a way only, as is agreeable to the Conſtitution of the Kingdome. Nay, as he may not act, he may not exhort, perſivade, ſeek, or pray in a Seditious way, to have it done. Now, for-aſ-much, as this Covenant did lay an Obligation on the Subject, (in their Opinion) to endeavour the Reformation of the Church, without the Conſent of the King in his Parliament, I do apprehend that Obligation in that reſpect to be voyd, and Subſcribe That I do hold, that there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other Perſon, from the Oath, commonly called the Solemn League or Covenant, to endeavour any Change or Alteration of Government, either in Church or State, by any Means, or any other way, than with the Conſent of the King in an Act of Parliament.

The Fifth Clauſe does require a Diſtinction between the Act of Covenanting, and the Matter Covenanted. I dare not Subſcribe, That this Oath in the Matter Covenanted, was in it ſelf Unlawful, becauſe I muſt then (I think) be Uncharitable to the Reformed Churches abroad, whoſe Government is not as ours by Biſhops: But I do ſuppoſe, that the Oath in the Act of Covenanting, or the Oath, if taken for the Act Complexly conſidered, was in it ſelf Unlawful: So that, he that took it, did as I count, do ill in it, or did that, which in my Judgement was unwarrantable. A Combined endeavour to pull down the preſent Government of the Church, and ſet-up another, without the Conſent of the King, and againſt it (upon ſuppoſition only, which no doubt, will be generally granted, that the King did not loſe his Authority in the Sight of God, on p. 9his with-drawing from his Parliament, which muſt alſo be ſo underſtood, or elſe, how could they at the ſame time in one Branch of the ſaid Covenant, own the King, and his Authority, and ſwear to maintain them?) muſt be, I judg, a Breach of the Subject's Duty, required in the Thirteenth to the Romans. But the Covenant was ſuch an Act. Or thus, To own the King, and his Authority, in the ſame Oath, and yet to Swear to change the Government without his Will, and againſt it, is, I think, in it ſelf Unlawful. Such an Oath was the Covenant. Thus far I Subſcribe to this Clauſe, That the ſame was in it ſelf an Unlawful Oath, and I draw no farther.

The laſt Clauſe is (ſo far as I know) undoubtedly true; and therefore, I muſt, and do Subſcribe And impoſed upon the Subjects of this Realm, againſt the known Laws and liberties of this Kingdome.

This is what I can, and am ready to Subſcribe; only, I muſt firſt make it Public: I cannot ſatisfy my Conſcience elſe, to propoſe it in Private to the Biſhop, though it ſhould obtain, unleſs I Publiſh it: Both becauſe of my Brethren, that I may avoid Scandal; I mean not the Scandal of Diſpleaſure, which I care little for; but the Scandal tending to Sin, or to wound any of their Conſciences by my Example: And alſo, becauſe of the Biſhop; leſt I ſhould draw him into ſome Condeſcenſion, out of his preſent Goodneſs and Benignity, which he might Repent after; unleſs he be firſt come to a Reſolution of Mind, and ſo acts out of Conſcience; and that alone will bear him out againſt any Inconvenience, that can enſue: And more-over, becauſe of my own Soul and Temper, that cannot endure to do any thing of this Nature, but what is open and fit for a plain Honeſt ſort of Man to do. And here there is but one thing in the general, wherein I ſeek favour of the Biſhop, which I muſt explain on the ſame Account.

I am ſenſible, that a Liberty of Subſcribing this Declaration, or ſubmitting to any Impoſition in our own Senſe or Interpretation, is a Favour ſignifies nothing: For, no Man that acts in Judgment and Conſcience, can make any Interpretation of a Law or Impoſition, p. 10but what he believes to be the Meaning of the Law-giver: If I am not ſatisfyed then in that Meaning, I have no other Interpretation to make; and if I am ſatisfyed in that Meaning, I need no Favour or Liberty to be given me; for there is none can take this away from me, which neceſſarily goes to a Judgment of Private Diſcretion. I ſhall not care what any Biſhop, or Judg upon the Bench may ſay, to thwart me in the Caſe of the Oxford-Oath, ſince I Publiſhed my late Paper (unleſs I feel ſome Wavering in my Mind, or doubt in the Interpretation there delivered), notwithſtanding ſome of my Brethren were ſo much concern'd here-to-fore, with the Words of one about it. I ſhould be afraid of what he ſaid, if it were in a Suit of Law; but, the matter is otherwiſe in a Caſe of Conſcience; where I am to be juſtified by God alone, and not by a Jury. But to have a Liberty of Subſcribing or Submitting to an Impoſition, with ſome Reſtriction, Limitation, or Exception; this is indeed a Favour, which I ſeek in this Declaration. An Interpretation gives me Liberty (I count) only as to the Words, while I am yet tyed up to the Meaning of the Law-giver. A Limitation gives me Liberty, as to the Meaning of the Impoſer, as well as to the Literal Conſtruction, and that is a great matter. I cannot Subſcribe this Declaration, without ſuch a Liberty; and with ſuch a Liberty, I can Conform alſo to other Impoſitions. I know, that the Biſhop can give me no ſuch Liberty, as to limit, reſtrain, or make any Exception to the Meaning of the Law, any more than I can diſpenſe with my ſelf, I have ſaid: But, if he ſhall be got to paſs me for his part, I do not queſtion, but I ſhall paſs after with others, I have ſaid alſo. And as for the matter of Conſcience in it, I have laid down my Rule between us, and the Superiour Law of Almighty God, ſhall be the juſtification of us both in the purſuance of it, I have affirmed likewiſe.

I will here add one Argument. If there be any evil in this (the Subſcribing with Limitation), it muſt be either in regard to the Fifth Commandment, or the Nineth: Either becauſe it is againſt our duty of Obedience to the Higher Powers, or againſt our duty of Sincerity and Truth. Here is no Sin againſt Truth and Sincerity, for therefore do I make theſe Reſtrictions or Exceptions, that I may not forſake Truth, but keep my Sincerity in what I do. I declare to all the world, I will not go a ſtep further than my Conſcience goes along with me; and unleſs I have this liberty, or take it, I will not go on. And here is no Sin of diſobedience to my Superiours p. 11becauſe the Law of God forbids me to do more. It is a caſe decided by the Apoſtle, and yeilded, that when the Law of God hath laid an Obligation on the Conſcience already, the Law of man to the contrary can have no place. If my Non-conformiſt brother ſins not that ſubſcribes Nothing of this Declaration becauſe of his Conſcience, then do not I ſin that make my Limitation. If it were a ſin to make any of theſe Reſtrictions or Exceptions, how ſhall they be juſtified by the greater Law, that is the Law of God, who refuſe to Subſcribe any thing, becauſe they cannot Subſcribe to all upon that account? If I ſin in doing what I can, how ſhall Obedience to the Higher-Powers be a Duty? And if I ſin in doing only what I can, how ſhall my Brethren be acquitted that make no tryal at all, and do nothing? And yet do I make no doubt of their Integrity.

To frame any interpretation of the words of a Law, and ſo Subſcribe them in that ſenſe which a man believes is not the meaning of the Law-giver, is a prevarication of the Law; for he pretends to Subſcribe to the Law when he knows he does not, ſeeing it is the Law-givers meaning, and not the bare words is the Law: but when I declare that I do not Subſcribe to the Law in ſuch or ſuch particulars, but on others, Here is all the plainneſs that can be, and ſo no breach of Sincerity; and here is a doing what I can, and ſo no neglect of my duty. If any be ready to reply to me, then you ſhould have done thus, and been more expreſs upon the particulars of this Declaration, in ſhewing what we may agree to, and whereunto we are to make our exceptions: I would have that man to know that I have done thus, and with ſollicitude ſo far as does ſerve me, or ſave my own Conſcience; and it may ſuffice him that I have broken the ice, or opened the way for him to do that farther as he would have had me do, if his Conſcience be not ſatisfied without it, and he can get leave to do it Neither will my Shooes ſerve his feet, or my Gloves come on his hands: nor will my Limitations be the meaſure of every mans coalition.

Indeed I am ſorry here to be more Subtill then this comes to already. The Biſhop I ſuppoſe will give me liberty to Subſcribe in my own Senſe, and this I have ſaid ſignifies nothing: but I muſt recall my ſelf. It is nothing I mean, unleſs we ſtate this liberty of our own ſenſe, and know what we agree upon by if. I by a liberty of our own ſenſe any Biſhop ſhall candidly underſtand my Subſcribing this Declaration in ſuch a ſenſe as I can, though I believe it not to be the meaning of the Law, and he accepts of that, and lets me p. 12expreſs it, this is no other then a liberty of Exception, and we muſt beware that we ſtick not on ſcruple; when we agree upon the matter. In the way, one thing is to be put out of doubt, that, though in Subſcribing to an Impoſition we muſt be ſuppoſed to ſubſcribe it in the meaning of the Impoſer if we ſay nothing, yet if we make our Limitations or Exceptions, and expreſs them (with leave to do ſo) we contract no guilt, or are obliged no further in Conſcience than we conſent thereunto and take the obligation on our Souls, as may appear in the Oath between Rahab and the Spies. I am ſorry therefore (I ſay) that I am forced here to be more critical and nice, than I would be. I can be content to diſtinguiſh an Interpretation and a Limitation, but I am very loath to diſtinguiſh any further, between the Laſt and an Exception, which vertually is implied in it, nevertheleſs ſeeing I am breaking my own way, and I cannot help it, and ſeeing the uſe of words we know is to expreſs the mind, and every man conſequently hath liberty over his own words to explain and diſtinguiſh them as he pleaſe, I will in the firſt place diſtinguiſh for once theſe things. An Interpretation, A Limitation, An Exception. An Interpretation let me ſay requires the Senſe or meaning of the Law-giver, and that altogether, and all of it. A Limitation requires that meaning, but not all of it. An Exception ſignifies a deniall of it. Again I muſt diſtinguiſh of the Submiſſion to an impoſition upon favour, or without any. In my former Paper about the Oxford-Oath I laid down a Rule to ſtrew the way for our coming up to an impoſition (where we can) without favour in thoſe that adminiſter it: In this Paper I proceed to lay down another for our ſubmiſſion in caſe of favour, when we cannot ſubmit to the Impoſition unleſs we obtain it. I muſt in the laſt place yet diſtinguiſh more-over between the Subſcribing to an Impoſition in the form of words wherein it is enjoyned, and the having liberty of our own expreſſions. I muſt confeſs, I have ſeveral times propoſed this expedient for accommodating us to the Laws, that our preſent Impoſitions might be required of us only in the matter and the End; that is, if we can come up to them ſo far as to agree in the chief ſubſtance of the thing enjoyned, and anſwer the end of the Impoſer, it ſhould ſuffice, though we expreſſed our Conſent in our own words. This would make out Subſcriptions eaſy, and every one could tell what to do for himſelf: but ſuppoſing that this will not be granted, I am put againſt my will upon this curioſity.

p. 13Let us ſuppoſe then an Expoſition made of any Injunction according to the meaning of the Law-giver. If I aſſent to all of it, I may ſubmit to it, and need no favour: If I aſſent to part of it and not to all, I muſt have the favour to make my Limitation: If there be any Clauſe in it that I cannot aſſent at all unto, I muſt have leave to put in my Exception, or I cannot ſubmit to it. In the firſt caſe, when an Interpretation alone does ſerve me, I may Subſcribe to an impoſition in the form of words wherein it is enjoyned; and ſo long as I can do ſo, I may offer my interpretation for the avoiding of Scandal whether the Miniſters of the Law are willing or not, they muſt receive me. In the laſt caſe; when an Exception is need-full, I cannot (I think) Subſcribe to the form of words without prevaricating with the Law, and they that Adminiſter the Impoſition may (and I ſuppoſe will) refuſe me the licenſe of uſing my own expreſſions: In the middle caſe, wherein I have need of a Limitation (which I accounts leſs than an Exception, and more than an Interpretation) I may Subſcribe (I think) to the words, becauſe there is a truth in the words with my ſenſe, and my ſenſe is the meaning of the Law giver; only becauſe I cannot ſubſcribe to all their meaning, I muſt have favour to expreſs my Limitations, or reſtraint of the words to that ſenſe, or elſe I cannot Subſcribe them (I account) with faithfulneſs: but if I have the liberty to do ſo, I am (I think) to ſteel my mind againſt all Scruple; and if any comes into it, to caſt it out. The Conſideration of that one Text alone Be not righteous over much, will bear me out (I apprehend) in ſuch a Subſcription.

To be yet Clearer, if I can be poſſible, If by a Liberty of my own Senſe (which I ſuppoſe the Biſhop will give me) he ſhall underſtand my giving the ſenſe of the Law, or declaring what I believe to be the meaning of the Law-giver, and then Subſcribing to the Impoſition in that Senſe, which is a proper Interpretation, here is no advantage to me, or favour, but what I may take my ſelf: If he ſhall underſtand my declaring a ſenſe of my own, though I believe it not to be the Senſe of the Impoſer, this is a great favour; but I ſee not how I can be Subſcribe to the words of the Impoſition, and he will not give me leave for all this, to Subſcribe in any other form: If he ſhall underſtand my Subſcribing ſo far as I can to the ſenſe in the words enjoyned, with liberty of Reſtriction of them to this meaning (which vertually includes an Exception againſt what I cannot aſſent unto), here I do humbly believe p. 14both, that I may Conſcionably Subſcribe, and he be ſatisfied in the matter. If we be tyed to the Meaning of the Law-giver every jot, the way is too Streight: To frame to our ſelves any Meaning without Regard to the Law giver's is a Way too Wide: But to Subſcribe to the Meaning of the Impoſer ſo far as I can, and to forbear in what I cannot, is the Way which I think ſafe, and which I ſeek in this Paper. Only I muſt add one thing after this, that where there is no Form of Words impoſed, the Liberty of a Limitation and of an Exception comes to one; and as I now diſtinguiſh theſe two Words, I may again confound them, according to my occaſion.

Having thus diſtinguiſhed then between an Interpretation and a Limation or Exception, I muſt yet proceed ſo far as I do go, to apply the ſame to my preſent Subſcription, that I may avoid all miſtake and ambiguity, and Conſequently the laying a ſtumbling block before any.

In the firſt Clauſe I do not Subſcribe to the propoſition which it contains Ʋniverſally but Indefinitely, To wit, with the Reſtriction of it to ſuch a prudential ſtate of the queſtion as may be gathered out of ſuch Authors I have named. It becomes a Loyall Subject to Subſcribe that Tenet, and it becomes an Honeſt-man to Subſcribe it no further, or no otherwiſe, than ſuch learned and excellent perſons upon ſtudy, were able to maintain it. There are ſeveral caſes which are put by themſelves by way of Limitation of it, yet ſo long as we may believe, that none of them came into the Minds of the Majority of Parliament in paſſing the Law, and there were Actually none of them as could be put in regard to our preſent King, we are to look upon it as the Intent of the Act, that we ſhould conſequently object no ſuch Caſes to our ſelves in Subſcribing to this Clauſe; ſo that, though I here uſe my Liberty of Reſtriction in regard to Others (which I muſt tell) I might be content my ſelf (as I ſuppoſe in the Oxford-Oath) with an Interpretation only. Nay, I do not need any of this Caution at all, in regard to Soveraign Majeſty it ſelf, but in regard to thoſe that are at his Commandment. For, let me underſtand by Taking Arms, the Raiſing an Army, or a War (which I take to be the true Senſe in Conſtruction of Law), and by the King, his own Sacred Perſon only: There is no Caſe I know, but I may Subſcribe, That to take Arms againſt the King is Ʋniverſally Unlawful.

p. 15In the Second Clauſe I am more fully perſwaded, that I do offer the true Senſe of the Acts, Of Ʋniformity, and that at Oxford in reference to the Poſition which is Renounced; and I am ſorry at my Heart to ſee it poſſible for ſo many of Judgment and Temper as there are, to be capable of any ſuch Pre-occupation of Mind, as to harbour once the Thought of another Interpretation, which cannot be made but by ſuppoſing it the very Intent of the Parliament in thoſe Acts, to advance an Arbitrary Authority in the King above the true Regal Power he hath by Law: And yet hath the late Diſcourſes of People about the Teſt and later Matters, with Stories thereunto appertaining, brought ſuch a Jaundiſe on our Imaginations, that makes every thing look Yellow and Jealouſly to us, as we even quite forget that the Meaning of theſe Acts is, and muſt be, the Senſe, Mind, or Purpoſe of the Parliament, or Major Part of both Houſe at the time when they paſſed them, and that is, when there was not the leaſt Breath of any ſuch thing as an Arbitrary Government talked of, or ſuſpected by any. It is plain enough, there was in the Prevailing Part, (I ſay not in the Major Number, which is againſt Reaſon and Charity to think) an inveterate Reſolution to ſuppreſs one ſort of Men they hated, which are now the Non-conformiſts, and that indeed was all the Plot in that time which was going. For let us ſuppoſe ſuch a Queſtion had bin propoſed at the paſſing theſe Acts, Whether the King ſhould have a Power for the time to come, to raiſe Money and make Laws without a Parliament? Can any Man's Heart ſerve him to believe, that ſuch a Motion would have bin entertained, or ſuch a Vote by any Means under Heaven have bin obtained (or could be yet) from the Majority of both Houſes? To put the Queſtion, Whether by thoſe Commiſſionated by the King in this Clauſe of the Subſcription, and that of the Oxford-Oath, is meant any but the Legally Commiſſionated, or ſuch as can juſtify their Commiſſions and Actings by Law, is all one in good earneſt with the Knowing, as to put this ſaid Queſtion. And how then does any Man that underſtands (and conſiders that he underſtands) himſelf, make a doubt of my Interpretation? It hath bin talked, that when it was endeavoured by ſome in the Upper Hoſe, to put the Word Legally into the Teſt at the time when that was in Agitation, it was refuſed: But what of that, ſuppoſing it were true? Muſt this be the Reaſon on Neceſſity, becauſe they intended to make the Government Arbitrary? I am given to underſtand, for p. 16certain, that when this Clauſe came into motion, they did unanimouſly Vote, that by the Commiſſionated, the Legally Commiſſionated, and nothing elſe was to be underſtood, without any Contradiction: So that the Reaſon why they put not in that Word, Legally, could not be becauſe they had another Meaning, but becauſe this Meanning was ſo manifeſt, ſo undoubted, and yielded by all, that there was no need to do it; As alſo, leſt by the Inſertion of more than needs, they might give occaſion to People for the time to come of queſtioning ſtill the Legality of the King's Commiſſions. So eaſily are we miſled by Reports, which are always Partial, & often miſtaken. Nay, what if it were in the Thoughts of ſome Court Flatterers, who are not alwayes the King's Friends, to advance the Prerogative above its due Height? Did we not ſee, that as ſoon as this Suſpition did but enter in the Thoughts of a few, what a ſtir it this Teſt was but in the Upper Houſe only, there is no force at all in the Argument, what a few Men at ſuch a diſtance were contriving (if they were): ſo long as it is not to be imagined that the Major Part of both Houſes, at the time when the Acts were made, had the leaſt Intention, or Thought of any ſuch matter. I will add, that I am aſſured for my own part by certain Teſtimony, that the King himſelf hath ſaid it more than once, not only in his Publick Speeches which may be thought Popular, but in his Private Retirement upon apt Occaſions, that he really deſired and ſought no more than his juſt Prerogative, without Intrenchment on the Peoples Liberty. As he needed not, ſo he would not have ſaid this to ſome upon the Occaſion I know, if he was not Cordial in it. And if he ſhould be of another Mind more lately (which it were a Wickedneſs in us to think), yet were that nothing as to the Acts of Parliament which have bin ſo long paſſed. Nay, that I may cut off this very Suggeſtion alſo, Duke Laudardale in his Speech to the Convention of Eſtates at Edenburgh, now muſt lately, July 1678. hath theſe Words. Majeſty hath theſe Eighteen Years in all his Kingdoms, ſolemnly profeſſed his Abhorrence of Arbitrary Government, his Ruling by the Law, and his Inviolable Care to preſerve the Liberty and Property of his Subjects. I ſhould not, I muſt confeſs, inculcate this thus much, but in regard to the Oxford-Oath, and that the Conſcience of a Man is indeed as tender a Point as the Throne of a King. For, as for this Subſcription alone, if any can be of another mind yet, he may p. 17put in his Particular Exception, and ſay, I Subſcribe to it as unlawful to Reſiſt any Commiſſionated by the King, if their Commiſſions be according to Law: if they be not, I hold the contrary.

In the Third Clauſe I have one thing to remember, which is to declare, that I apprehend not that any Man by his Subſcribing to conform to the Liturgy, does engage, or ſtand engaged becauſe of that, to forſake his Brethren preſently who conform not, and come no more amongſt them; or that he does debar himſelf thereby the Benefit to hear them, or deprive others of his Labours to Preach with them, at leaſt if ſome of the Common-Prayer will but be ſuffered to be read by him. I underſtand no ſuch matter by it: if any others do, I enter my Exception. For, as I am one that have ordinarily gone to my Pariſh-Church, not only joyning in the Publick Prayers, but receiving the Sacrament there, and never yet elſewhere, though I am a Non-conformiſt: So, if I ſhall conform (that is, ſo far as I can (which does but fix me ſo much more firm in that wherein I conform not), I intend not but to be the ſame Man ſtill, as to the keeping in with my Brethren, and to do as I did; which is to be ſometimes with them, and for the moſt part with the Parochial Congregation. I am convinced, that it is a great Fault of the Non-conformiſt and Conformiſt both, who fear God, that they keep no more Fellowſhip with one another, which were the neareſt way to make up Difference, and to underſtand better what is to be done by both for the Peace of the Church, and for the Sake of our Religion. And here I muſt advance a little in this Clauſe; I think it enough for a Licenſe to Preach, to Subſcribe the ſame with the mentioned Limitations: but if I ſhould find in my heart to take upon me a Parochial Charge, it were more fit, and in order to that Work, to Subſcribe more ſtrictly. In ſhort, So far as I Aſſent and Conſent, ſo far I an ſay, I will Conform. For this is uniforme, and that I may be expreſs in that I do, becauſe it ſtands me upon; I am come to an Agreement, upon Treaty, to change this Clauſe thus, which differs little in the Import.

The Third Clauſe is a Promiſe, as I take it, to Read Common Prayer, which I am not againſt; and do therefore Subſcribe, That if I have a Publick Charge, or Cure of Souls, I Shall in the ordinary Lord's-Day Service, by my ſelf, or by an Aſſiſtant, according to the Uſage of the p. 18Church, conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law Eſtabliſhed. Only, if upon any occaſion (or Reaſon) I ſhall ſometimes ſhorten the Work, I will not be held a Breaker of my Promiſe for that: Nor ſhall the Omiſſion of another, be laid to my Charge.

In the Fourth Clauſe there is ſome Diſtinction, and my Reſtrictions or Limitation on that Diſtinction. I will add here ſome few Words for Explication of the Reſtrictions. I do ſay, there lyes no Obligation from the Covenant on any Perſon [in a Private Capacity, or Acting in a Private Capacity] to endeavour any Alteration of Government. By which Words I underſtand not only an Exception to ſuch who are Public Perſons that Act in Parliament, which I expreſs in the firſt Words [in a Private Capacity] but to all others likewiſe, Acting in ſuch a way, as (or in no other way than) is warrantable by the Conſtitution of the Land, which I expreſs in the Word ſuperadded [or Acting in a private Capacity]. The Government of this Nation is a Mixt Government, and there is ſomething of it in the Hands of the Popularity. The People may chooſe their Repreſentatives for Parliament, and tell them what they would have done, and perſwade them to endeavour it, and Petition both Houſes for it (nay, they Vote in them), and in all this, Act, I count in a Publick Capacity though Private Perſons, ſo long as they do Act by Vertue of the Conſtitution. I muſt account likewiſe, if any ſeek the Reformation of the Church, or any other Good for the Nation, in Praying to God for it, or Preaching (ſuppoſe one Preaching to the Houſes) and Perſwading to it, and the like (if you ſcrue up the Word Endeavour to that Height), with the purpoſe only of having it done in an orderly way, by a due Proceeding in Parliament, that this is to be held Equivalent, becauſe whatſoever is done this way, is warranted (I ſay) be the Conſtitution. I dare not then deny, but there does lye an Obligation on every Man in the Parliament as Publick Perſons, and on all Private Perſons likewiſe, ſo far as they can act in a Publick Capacity thereunto, to Honour God, in ſeeking the Reformation of the Church, and the Publick Good: But I Subſcribe, that there lyes no Obligation from the Covenant upon my ſelf or any other Perſon, to endeavour the ſame any otherwiſe but in a Political Capacity that is only as it can be obtained by a Rightful Act of Parliament. If any think, I have not expreſſed thus much aptly or p. 19fully enough in its place, let him mend it to his own Mind who has occaſion for it: If ſuffices me, (as I have for the general once intimated) if I have here and there together (as Maſter of my own Senſe and Explanations), delivered my ſelf from Scruple.

In the Fift Clauſe, I do the like as in the fourth, and then give my reaſon why I Subſcribe upon the Reſtriction. I dare not ſay that nothing in the Covenant is Lawfull or Obligatory, They covenanted againſt Schiſme, Popery, to Repent and amend their lives; This muſt oblige thoſe that took it. Nay I dare no ſay that it is unlawfull top make any change of Government. The power of the Keyes is committed by Chriſt to the Miniſter, or his own Officers; The Biſhop commits them to the Chancellour, who is a Lay man, and yet executes that Charge. Who does doubt but if the Government were changed in this point, it were lawfull? Nay I do not ſay that a change of the Hierarchy it ſelf, of the Arch-biſhop and Dioceſan Biſhop inveſted with the ſole power of Ordination and Juridiction into the Primitive Epiſcopacy, acting along in theſe things with the Presbyters, is in it ſelf unlawfull, but that it lyes in the power of a Parliament (if they pleaſe) to do it. When I do then thus put in my exception as to the Matter Covenanted (even the Alteration of Government) preciſely conſidered, and reſt my ſelf only in ſhewing how this Oath in the Act of Covenanting was indeed in the Complex conſideration (in regard to that matter) obivouſly unlawfull as I judge, and give my Reaſon: if this ſhall content the Biſhop and ſerve my turn, I may have cauſe to acknowledge his candour, but none of my brethren have any, to be offended at me for what I do.

In the laſt Clauſe I find no need of any Exception or Interpretation.

That which remaines therefore now in regard to this Subſcription, is only to put my had to my Paper, which if I obtain hereby the uſe of my Miniſtry (and none can convince me of ſin in it) I am content to do: If I obtain it not, if ſhall ſuffice me to have made the tryal, and the matter ſhall be all one in point of Conformity between God and my ſoul, as if I were clear altogether, and had put no name at all to it. J, H.

Thus much then for the Subſcription. I have offered my Rule and I have proceeded to Practiſe; which I have done in the General, and in this Particular. I have no more to ſay of that. Of p. 20the former, the General, there are ſeveral branches mentioned before, and there are ſome of them wherein I perceive it neeedfull to make yet ſome further declaration; more eſpecially, Concerning the Common Prayer, Concerning my Second Orders, and Concerning the Church Articles. And when I have alſo done this, my work is not quite done, I have ſomething to leave then (if it might be obtained) on other hands.

For the firſt, the Common Prayer. There are many particular things, little and great, in ſome part or other of the book, which I muſt profeſſe really I cannot give my unfained aſſent and conſent unto, and think, that any man who is ſevere at any time upon his Conſcience, can hardly chooſe but be ſtartled at. I remember ſome years ſince, a Conformiſt Miniſter uſing the Common Prayer in his houſe, gave me this reaſon. It was required (he ſaid) of all Miniſters, and turned me preſently to this paſſage in the Preface before the Prayers. 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 urgent cauſe. From that time, I perceived I was no man for the Declaration of Aſſent and Conſent to all, and every thing, contained in, and preſcribed by this book; and alſo that by the ſhift of thoſe words [to the uſe] I could not help my ſelf. I dare not give my conſent to the uſe of any thing which I never intend to do. I do, and I ſhall uſe at home my own Prayers. In the other Preface before Ordination, there is a difference of Order (or Office) aſſerted between Biſhop and Presbyter (which was put in alſo in this new book on purpoſe) when ſuch men as Field, Maſon, Davenant, Mead, Ʋſher, do hold a difference in Degree only. I cannot aſſent to this, becauſe I was otherwiſe engaged in print before this book was enjoyned, and I cannot retract my opinion without conviction. In the ſame place, there is this paſſage, but with more words. And to the intent that theſe Orders be reverendly eſteemed, no man ſhall be accounted or taken for a Lawfull Prieſt, or be ſuffered to execute the function, except he be called according to this for me, or bath had formerly Epiſcopal Ordination. Reader, can thy heart conſent to this? Art thou ſo aſſured that the nation lies under no guilt in turning out ſo many Miniſters who were Ordained only by Presbyters, as thou dareſt partake in the deed by thy Conſent? My heart I am ſure will not ſerve me to do it. In the Athanaſian Creed I cannot aſſent to the Proeme and Concluſion p. 21by no means, and God forbid they ſhould be true. The whoſe Creed and Articles of it I believe, but I believe not that every one that don't, is uncapable of Salvation. I will mention one more peculiar thing (and it is a great matter) that ſticks with me being againſt my written judgement. I perceive the Liturgy though all its Offices does lay the Notion of the Church upon ſo narrow a foundation as the Congregationall men do, and I think that without ſome other Hypotheſis, we cannot defend our ſelves againſt Separation. It is not upon the Chriſtian profeſſion in general in oppoſition to other Religions, but upon the profeſſion of no leſs than a true ſaving faith the child is baptized, when the Sureties in the name of it ſelf, and not of its Parents, do anſwer actually, Credo, Abrenuncio; Having thus profeſſed faith or repentance, it is ſaid to be Regenerate in the Office performed; Upon the ſame profeſſion renewed, when the child comes to more years, it is Confirmed; No man is then admoniſhed, or preſumed to be allowed, to come to the Sacrament but upon an aſſured faith; And none are burried but according to a Church judgement of Charity (as Profeſſours), they are, and muſt be accounted, to go to Heaven. I cannot tell well how to reliſh this, for here is no bottom methinks for a National Church. I muſt have ſuch a Notion of the Church (Catholick, National, Parochicall) as a Polliceor according to the Catechiſme may ſerve for a perſons entrance into it, and all the Ordinances of Worſhip and Diſcipline be means after to excite him unto grace and his duty, as well as to edify him when he is holy unto Salvation. This is no place I know for ſuch a diſcourſe; Only I am not willing to be Choaked in it, by ſwallowing this Pear of Aſſent and Conſent. In the Orders of Deacon I never approve ſince my ſelf was faulty, that a man does Solemnly promiſe to performe that Office (the duties hereof being read to him) when he is made Prieſt alſo at the ſame time, and immediately caſts off that Charge. In the Rubricks to the Communion, Baptiſme, and Burial, if I conſent to every thing preſcribed, or to the uſe of every thing there preſcribed, I muſt not deliver the Bread and Wine to a man, if he ſcruples to Kneel at the Sacrament; I muſt turn away his child from baptiſme, if he Scruples God-fathers; and if the Child dies before it is Chriſtened, though the parents be my dear friends, I muſt not allow it Chriſtian burial. Theſe are hard Inſtances in my mind, and I could eaſily make up the number twenty, which I believe the indifferent Reader would count reaſonable exception. p. 22I muſt diſtinguiſh therefore (as I here carefully do) the Ordinary appointed Prayers, and Service of the Liturgy, from other Matters on the By; which I declare no Aſſent or Conſent unto. And when I come in, or ſeek to come in to the Church upon the terms of Moderation, I do declare my ſelf Ipſo facto a Nonconformiſt ſtill to the Severity of theſe Impoſitions; bearing indeed thereby, only a more diſtinct, fixed and aſſured teſtimony againſt them. Nevertheleſs being ſenſible of the Scandal which is given to the Nation, who ſee generally no other difference between us but our refuſing to read the Common Prayer, and do think us very exceeding refractory perſons who will not comply in the things we can do, I do reſolve for one, by the grace of God (without turning to the left hand in doing any thing which is againſt my conſcience for preferment, or to the right in contenting my ſelf with Suffering only and doing nothing), to ſet my ſelf as it were in the Market place, and if any Biſhop ſhall give me a call (that is fitting) into the Vineyard (when I ſeek to them) upon the termes of this Paper, I ſhall not refuſe them, though it be almoſt the Eleventh hour with me. I ſhall not ſtick out with them I believe upon the account of reading Common Prayer. I will truſt in Gods power, it he hath work for me to do that he will give me aſſiſtance to do it: and if they will not let me come in upon theſe termes to Labour, I will truſt in his Goodneſs that he will forgive me when I am found Idle. The Nation ſhall ſee at whoſe door the fault Lyes by my experiment. For I do profeſſe my ſelf one who can neither ſtretch my Soul beyond its ſtaple, nor yet will give off upon deſpondence, or on the preſumption onelyonly that it will not ſerve me unleſs I do every thing to a tittle, which is the prepoſſeſſed judgment of moſt of my brethren when they have made no tryal, and which I would humbly reprove therefore by my Example.

For the Second, Re-ordination. I will here make my Remonſtrance and Confeſſion. I will ſet things at rights between God and my Soul, and between my Soul and the World. I am one that was ordained by Presbyters in the late times, and re-ordained ſince by the Biſhop. I was perſwaded into it before I had ſtudied the point, and brought my ſelf in diſtreſs. I was fain to take ſuch a courſe for relief of my Soul, as nothing could have drove me to, but that diſtreſs it ſelf, which I would not lye under again for the World. Not that I was any way touched in my p. 23Intellectuals by it, as ſome that never knew me have bin apt to talk ever ſince, which I muſt aſſure them is a tale, and there was no ſuch thing (I thank God) in the least. I have reaſon yet to ſay this, becauſe I know the temper of my mind being Melancholy and Thoughtful, and ſo apt to be intent on any one thing that hath got into it, whether of Notion or Buſineſs, I do not often, and I cannot ſomtimes recall my ſelf from thoſe thoughts to an attendance on the preſent company I am in, or diſcourſe that is going ſo freely as others, which makes my unheedfulneſs lyable to the cenſure of thoſe that are not uſed to me; Beſides that, being One reſolved generally to follow my own conſcience in what I write, or do, whether it pleaſe or diſpleaſe others, the Offended (who are commonly on both ſides) may be apt to put ſome ſuch ſlur upon me, at leaſt, while in any thing I go but in a way uncommon. As Paul therefore ſaid, when Feſtus had got ſuch a conceit of him, ſo muſt I. I am not Mad my worthy Brethren who are ſtrangers to me, when I differ from you, (and from thoſe alſo, whom I do know) in what I write, or act: But what I do (I truſt) are deeds of Soberneſs, and I ſpeak forth the words of Truth. I acknowledge, the Church in her giving Orders does intend the collation of an Office to the Presbyter diſtinct from the Biſhop, that is an office without the power of Ordination; and conſequently if a Presbyter ordains any, the Church-men muſt hold ſuch an ordination to be void, becauſe the perſons that confer the orders have no power to do it. But I muſt confeſs my thoughts about Orders are ſomthing different from others. I do not think that the Spiritual power, or miniſterial authority is conveyed to us by the hands of any, but does come Immediately upon us (the conditions on our part being put) from the inſtitution of Chriſt. I apprehend conſequently that whatſoever be the intention of the Church in her giving Orders, ſuch a power muſt be derived from Chriſt to the perſon ordained as is intended in his Inſtitution: and ſo long as we find not any diſtinction (which is touched before) of Order or Office (though we allow one as to Degree and Eminency) in the Scripture between Biſhop and Presbyter, the authority of one in regard to God muſt be the ſame with the other; and the laying on the hands of the one be of the ſame validity in Ordination as the impoſition of the hands of the other. We do read, that God hath ſet in his Church, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Paſtors and Teachers, but we find not Biſhop and Presbyter p. 24enumerated as two of them. I enter not into diſpute here, but I am one that dare not give way to the making void of my Miniſtry and all my miniſterial acts for a dozen years, or more, before I was Ordained by the Biſhop, for that were a heynous crime for me (I think) to do: yet will I be content as to the Exerciſe of my Office now, to own my authority from him. I was a Miniſter before in foro Dei & Conſcientiae: I was made a Miniſter then (I will account) in foro Eccleſia Anglicanae. I acknowledge I did ill in my circumſtances to take ſecond orders: and yet was I too extream (I doubt) in my renunciation, or in the way of my renunciation again of them. If any man thinks that Orders give the ſpiritual power, and makes us Miniſters in foro Dei, it is apparent that a Man who is a Miniſter already cannot be ſo made a Miniſter again. Conſequently if I have formerly writ any thing that ſeems to countenance Re-ordination to the Office (which is good earneſt my Hypotheſes never favoured) I do rennounce it all, and thoſe ſecond Orders, on that account (I humbly crave the Churches abſolution and benediction): But if Orders be onelyonly a Recommendation of us to the grace of God for the work unto which a man is called, there is nothing in Re-ordination to ſcare any; and as my ſecond Orders may ſerve me for the Exerciſe of my Miniſtry when my firſt will not, I do, I muſt, retain them to that purpoſe, if I be received (on my termes otherwiſe) into the Church. I crave pardon of God for my faillings on either hand, eſpecially where my caſe in the work crept in to deflour my Sincerity in ſuch a peice of Self deny all as I know elſe what was. The prevailing intereſt of my heart (I hope) was right in the ſight of God in what I did, yet dare I not juſtfie my ſelf, but commit my caſe unto my Judge, imploring his mercy and begging his pardon. For when there is nothing almoſt that I do, but upon a ſevere Examination I can find ſome ſlaws in it my ſelf: If thou O Lord, ſhould'ſt be extream to mark againſt me what I have done amiſſe, how could I abide it? I will bind my ſelf therefore (If I be fit) ſo much more to my duty, and in ſome kind of pennance for my infirmity, ſhall be the more content that I take that courſe to make my return to the Vineyard as no man elſe hath endeavoured, at leaſt in ſuch a Manifeſto as this is. And to the ſame end, I ſhall yet commit this enſuing Memoriall to Poſterity.

Notum ſit omnibus ad quos haec ſpectant, me J. H. legitime p. 25& Canonice ab Epiſcopo Bathonienſi ordinatum fuiſſe; Quod cum praegrave nimium Conſcientiae meae ob priorem aliquam Ordinationem a Presbyteris ſine Epiſcopo collatam viſum eſt: Ordinationem hanc denuò receptam non ad Miniſterij Officium, ſed ad ejus Exercitium particulare, ubicun que vocatus (ſi vocatus) fuero, habendi; ea que habita utendi, egomet mihi, & Deus meus (facillime omnia in quibus peccavi mihi condonans) poteſtatem facimus.

For the third, the Nine and Thirty Articles. I muſt confeſs my ſelf in this one thing ſomething more difficult to be ſatisfied than others. It is but diſtinguiſhing of the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Church (which includes the Government and Ceremonies), and the moſt of my Brethren can Subſcribe to theſe Articles without Scruple. And no more than an Aſſent to the Doctrine (I think) is required by the Statute. But I am one much in doubt concerning the Doctrine of ſome of our Articles. I do think that the Article of Juſtification, and the Eighteenth Article in the Authentick ſenſe of them are queſtionable. Theſe words in the Eleventh article, That we are Juſtified by Faith only, are expreſly contrary to the meaning of St. James: And the meaning of thoſe that compoſed the Articles at that time (who had not the Light which is going now) was I believe contrary alſo to the meaning of St. James: Their miſtake I apprehend Obvious, who took St. Pauls juſtification, by Faith without the Works of the Law to be all one as by Faith only. In the Eighteenth Article likewiſe I believe it was the judgment, and ſo the meaning of the Compoſers, that no man who is not converted to the Chriſtian Faith can be ſaved, and conſequently that every Heathen Man in the World muſt periſh. For this is conſonant to the beginning and end of the Athanaſian Creed, that whoſoever believes not that faithfully, and keeps it whole and undefiled is undoubtedly Damn'd. But for my own part, I cannot be of this Opinion, which ſeems to me inconſiſtent with the Goodneſs of God, and Natural Religion. I have offered ſome little Light and Argument for the ſalvability of ſome Heathen (in my Book lately come out, entituled Peaceable Diſquiſitions) that will not, or cannot (I think) be withſtood by the Conſiderate and Equal. I have offered alſo in the ſame book that reconciliation of Paul and James which I believe to be the Right. I can believe no otherwiſe, and I muſt have liberty therefore of ſome exception p. 26in theſe two Articles (and perhaps in ſome others) from that which I believe to be the Authentick Senſe of them, or I cannot Subſcribe them. Nay, to ſay ſomething that may ſeem ſtrange, I can ſubſcribe the words of one of theſe Articles, and yet not to the article (without diſpenſation) becauſe I think the meaning of the Impoſers to be more than the words come to. I verily think the Compoſers of the Articles did believe that all Heathen are excluded Salvation, yet do they proceed to their Anathema here (which they have in no other Article) with wary words, which is not pronounced againſt any that ſay only ſome Heathen may be ſaved, but againſt them who preſume to ſay that every Man ſhall be ſaved by the Law or Sect he profeſſeth, ſo that he be diligent to frame his Life according to it, which is a Doctrine I abhor my ſelf as being againſt the ſenſe of what I offer in my Book nam'd; the ſcope whereof is to ſhew, that there is but one Rule, Law, or Religion for the World to obtain Life by; That this is the Law of our Lapſed Nature, which is God's Grace adminiſtred under a threefold State; Of the Heathen, Of the Jews, Of Chriſtians; That our Advantage over them lyes (as the Apoſtle ſpeaks) in our having the Oracles of God, which (including the Minſtry and Ordinances) are (we know) thoſe further (and our ordinary) Means which they have not, to bring Men up to the Performance of that Law, that is the Condition to us and them of obtaining Salvation by it. This makes that Advantage ſo ſignificant, that in compariſon of the ſtate of the Jews (or Common-Wealth of Iſrael) and much more in compariſon of our Eſtate; the Heathen wanting theſe means, are ſaid to be dead in their Sins, to be without God, without Chriſt, to ſit in Darkneſs, and the like, (that is (I ſay) Comparatively to us, or Secundum quid) when yet they are under the ſame Law (I affirm) in the Subſtance for Life as we, and we know not but more than a few of them live with acceptance up to it. When ſome Men will have Chriſtians ſaved only by Morality and Good Nature, it will be time, and no Fault for others, to make the Heathens Salvable by Grace and Chriſt Jeſus. This is not indeed here (or there) my concern to perſue: But that I have to obſerve to my preſent Purpoſe, is (as I am ſaying), that though I know none that do ſcruple the Literal Senſe of this article, which is, That no Man can be ſaved by any Religion, but the True Religion; yet ſo long as I believe, that the Impoſers did mean more, to wit, that no Man can be Saved p. 27in any Religion but the Chriſtian, which is another Matter (As a Man may be Saved in Popery, but not by it; He may be ſaved from Popery, in Popery, and ſo from Idolatry in Heatheniſme): I have bin in ſuſpenſe ſtill how to Subſcribe this Article, unleſs it be only to the Words, with Exception to the Authentick Meaning. There is a threefold Interpretation, An Authentick, Ʋſual, and Doctrinal Interpretation, as Suarez has it De Legibus. I will therefore advance here one Notion, which will be received (I think) as Conſonant to the Judgment of moſt Men, as ſoon as they have laid it to Conſideration. It is this, that though I account all Laws in general are to be taken in that Senſe only, which we believe to be the Meaning of the Law giver, becauſe the Law is his Will, and it is not the Words, but his Meaning is his Will: Yet do I judge, that in theſe Articles of the Church, which are not Laws, nor Articles of Faith, but Articles for Concord, that is, in the Words of the Cannon, Articles for the avoiding Diverſities of Opinions, and for eſtabliſhing of Conſent touching true Religion, there is no Man to be ſtaked down to the Authentick Interpretation (which I account that, as a Man believes to be the Meaning of the Majority of the Convocation that paſſed the Article), but to be allowed (or rather, he is ſuppoſed to be allowed, and to take) the Freedome of a Doctrinal Interpretation (which is, any Judicious Explication of ſuch a Theſis or Doctrine, as ſome of the Eminent Doctors of the Church, or other Pious and Learned Author or Authors have offered to the Nation; or indeed any ſuch as a Man himſelf ſhall tender, which in the Literal Grammatical Conſtruction of the Article (to keep to the King's Declaration before the Articles) appears Rational, and is ſatisfactory to his own Conſcience, and much more if it be allowed by the Biſhop). My Reaſon is, becauſe it muſt be conceived, that when any Council, Synod, or Convocation of Divines do meet about an Agreement upon any Articles or Theſes concerning Religion, they are generally of divers Minds in the debating the Points, and every one is to be ſuppoſed free in the Delivery of his Judgment, until they come to draw up the Article or Doctrine into ſuch Words as they are all to conſent to; and then if it be Compoſed ſo, as they can yield to one another in the Words which they agree upon, it is to be underſtood, that there is an Univerſal Allowance tacitly granted from all to one another, of abounding in their own Senſe, and ſo they came to a Coalition. There is the Meaning p. 28then of the Majority; and a Ʋniverſal Meaning. The Ʋniverſal Meaning is above the Meaning of the Major Part. The Meaning of the Majority I believe in ſome of theſe Articles, to be ſuch as I cannot Subſcribe them in their Meaning: But foraſmuch, as I apprehend it the Ʋniverſal Meaning, that every one of thoſe that are to paſſ their Vote in Eſtabliſhing the Article, ſhould have the Liberty of his own Senſe, ſo long as he can but agree with the reſt in the Words, or in the Literal Conſtruction of the Article, if I bring an Interpretation of ſome Doctor, or one of my own, which may be ſuppoſed to be the ſame with any one of them who ſo conſented to it with difference of Explication from others, then muſt I be ſuppoſed to have the Univerſal Allowance of the Convocation for that Interpretation, which I call a Doctrinal Interpretation. I will confirm this by the Notoriety of the Practiſe in the Council of Trent. The Doctors differed in moſt Points, but as ſoon as (through the Expertneſs of one of the Preſidents, famous for that Knack) they were but put into Words as might ſalve their contrary Opinions, they paſſed their Votes as Unanimous in the Council, although they writ after alſo one againſt another, citing the Council for them on both ſides. To this purpoſe are the Words of the King, in his Declaration for the Ratification of the Articles to be conſidered. We take Comfort in this, that even in thoſe curious Points, in which the preſent Differences lye, Men of all ſorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them. The Arminians with Doctor Hammond, and the Calviniſts with Biſhop Ʋſher do Subſcribe them, and find out their own different Senſe in them. I will leave it therefore on the File, as the fit Matter of a new Cannon, if ever we have another Convocation, to be declared, that the Articles and Homilies of the Church are impoſed, and to be Subſcribed, not in the Authentick, nor in the Ʋſual, but in a Doctrinal Interpretation. There being a Latitude in all Controverted Points, and conſequently ſome Diverſity of Opinion to be allowed to Brethren, for the abounding in their own Senſe in the ſame Religion, or elſe there can be no ſufficient Foundation of Unity amongſt any conſiderable Number of Men of Free Judgments in the World.

In the mean time, if the caſe be put, what a man ſhall do that ſcruples or doubts of the truth of any of the Articles, whether he may ſatisfie himſelf with ſuch an Interpretation before it be p. 29Authorized by a Convocation (or otherwiſe), I muſt anſwer that I apprehend a great deal of reaſon for it, but dare not paſs ſuch a determination. If I ſcruple any thing my ſelf I ſhall declare it, and unleſs I am ſatisfied in that ſenſe of the point as I believe was the meaning of the Impoſers, I muſt fly to my remedy, not of an Interpretation, but of the liberty for Exception or Limitation, and that indeed does my work. This Scrupuloſity, and rigour of my mind for avoiding every thing of a Solemne lie (though never ſo ſmall) does make me wiſh for ſuch a Canon, or the allowance of a greater Authority, by ſome Act of Parliament.

I will therefore now turn me to the Higher Powers, for I muſt beg their Pardon for this Endeavour of mine to make my return to the Vineyard before they have opened the way for us, who can alone Legally do it. I would hereby, kindly provoke them to think at laſt on ſome Explanatory Act for Uniting the Proteſtant, and reſtoring the Ejected; who have now been out of our Livings above Fifteen year, and no evil we hope hath been found in us, beſides our preaching ſometimes, and praying, and the keeping of our Conſciences. And becauſe it is ſaid, commonly by the Members of either Houſe, that if they knew what we would have, or thought we know our ſelves, they would do it; I cannot forbear to preſent them with the Materialls of ſuch a Bill, in telling them what we would have, from what is ſaid already; if they will but bear with the repetition. For when the obtainment of ſuch a bleſſing for the Nation is even near paſt my hopes, yet muſt it be ſtill in my prayers; I may not be wanting to it in my endeavours; and it cannot be beyond my Wiſhes.

Whereas then, there are many jealouſies aroſe about Popery (to frame a Preamble, as well as a body for ſuch a Bill out of what is before delivered,) which makes it even neceſſary to the peace of the Nation, that the Proteſtant intereſt be united and ſtrengthened by all good and lawfull means, and to this end there being this one proper expedient, to wit, the removing the occaſions of Diviſion which ſeveral perſons do find to themſelves in thoſe late injunctions which yet were intended to the ſame purpoſe of Concord in the Realm: That which we would have, is, that the Parliament would be pleaſed that a Bill be prepared for Peace and Union, which might bear ſome ſuch Title. An Explanatory Act for agreement amongſt Proteſtants, and for Eaſe in the buſineſs in Religion. In which Bill I would have ſuch an Explanation p. 30of theſe Impoſitions, and ſuch Alleviations in regard to the tenderly conſiderate, and peaceably Scrupulous, or, ſoberly, not factiouſly Conſciencious (who will never be wonne) as may do our buſineſs.

In the Act of Uniformity, By the Declaration of Aſſent and Conſent to all things, and every thing, contained in, and preſcribed, by, the two book, of Common Prayer, and of Ordering Prieſts and Deacons, there is no conſiderate man of the Parliament ever (I hope) underſtood that theſe books are in every minute particular infallible, or free from that defect which is incident to all humane Compoſures; but they underſtand I ſuppoſe, that they are in the maine contents to be ſincerely approved and uſed: I would have it therefore be here ſufficient, if this Declaration be made to the uſe of the book in the Ordinary dayly Lords-day ſervice, which we can conſent to, or that we may make it with a licenſe of Exception againſt any matter or matters (out of that Service) which the Biſhop ſhall think meet to be diſpenſed with upon Convincing reaſon; Provided only that the Ordinary conſtant publick Service of the Liturgy obtains Conſent and Practiſe. And for the Ceremonies, which are, and have been always, and on all hands held only for indifferent things, I wiſh they might be left to the Conſciences and prudence of Miniſters and People every where (excepting the Cathedralls,) to uſe them, or forbear them as they judge it moſt meet for one anothers edification; for ſo ſome Biſhops I believe, if it be left to them, will ſometimes be apt to determine themſelves. Provided that if any perſon will have his child baptized with the ſigne of the Croſs, or ſtands upon any thing elſe hitherto required by the Service-book, if the Miniſter himſelf Scruple the performance, he ſhall always have ſome Aſſiſtant or Curate to do it.

In the ſame Act, By the Subſcription, before treated, As I believe there was no new Ill or ſtrange thing intended by any of them, but the rightfull maintenance onelyonly of the Kings authority againſt Rebellion: So do I apprehend that the Interpretation and the Limitations which I do here humbly preſent with an unfeigned impartiality upon the ſeveral Clauſes of it, may paſs their publick approbation or allowance; which therefore I would have to be done, as a matter of kind ſatisfaction to moſt Mens conſciences, and of grievance to no Body. OnelyOnly for that part of it which is enjoyned but to the year 1682, it might do better perhaps to be p. 31made to ceaſe preſently, and be no longer impoſed.

And foraſmuch as there is an Oath alſo in the Act of Oxford required of all Non conformiſt preachers that reſide ín any Corporate town, or come within five Miles of it, whereof I have Printed a former Paper, and given the Interpretation throughout as I believed it to be the very ſenſe and meaning onelyonly of the Act, without limitation or exception, which cannot therefore be refuſed, inſomuch as I dare, and do appeal to a Vote of the two Houſes whether I have delivered their minds or no: I would here have it onelyonly put to the Queſtion; and if it be (as I doubt not) indeed their ſenſe, that they would declare it. This will make that Oath ſtreight be generally taken. Or elſe, I will propoſe this rather (which is better) that it may ſuffice any man to enjoy the right of this free-born liberty to go where he will in his own Country, I mean to eſcape the penalty of this Act, and ſerve him alſo inſtead of the forementioned Subſcription, to take that Oath in this form of words following. I A. B. do ſwear, that I hold it unlawful upon any pretence to take Armes againſt the King, his Government, or Laws: And that I diſclaim that dangerous Poſition of taking Armes by his Authority againſt his Perſon, or any Legally commiſſionated by him in the Legal purſuit of ſuch Commiſſions: And that I will not endeavour any alteration of Government in the Church or State in any way or manner not warranted by the Conſtitution of this Kingdom (that is in a ſeditious manner), or any otherwiſe then by Act of Parliament.

It being required moreover in the Act of uniformity (which is another of the things alſo before Mentioned) that every Miniſter who enjoyes any Living ſhall be ordained by a Biſhop, and there are ſeveral perſons of late who in caſe of neceſſity for want of Biſhops took Presbyterian Orders, I would have the Parliament declare it their intent (for redeeming their credit with the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas), not to make it abſolutely neceſſary for ſuch perſons to be reordained to the Office, but that it may be enough for them if they receive this ſecond Impoſition of hands to the Exerciſe of their Office in the New charge unto which they are, or ſhall be appointed, and that the Biſhop may, and ſhall frame his words accordingly. This is the only way that I could find out, for peace to my own mind (as I have told before) in this buſineſs.

And whereas there is a Subſcription alſo in the Canons and the p. 32Canonical Oath of Obedience impoſed on moſt Miniſters by the Biſhops (mentioned before likewiſe), which have given ſome of the greateſt occaſion to Non-conformiſts heretofore, and which yet have never paſſed into a Law by any Act of Parliament: I would here have it enquired by what Authorty one of theſe is impoſed, for I know none; And for that which is found in the Canons, being what is more than needs, becauſe included in other injunctions, I would have it Exauthorized, and that nothing more of this nature might be impoſed on us than is made neceſſary by the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. Provided nevertheleſs, if the Biſhop be unſatisfyed about any particular Perſon, he ſhall be ready to offer a due acknowledgment of his reverence to Biſhops in a laudible Teſtimony thereof under his hand, and of his fair regard to the main ſubſtance of the three Articles contained in that Canonicall Subſcription in ſuch expreſſions as ſhall beſt ſatisfy his own Conſcience, and be approved as ſufficient under the hands of two Epiſcopal Doctors, or allowed by the Biſhop.

And in regard there hath bin great offence taken by conſciencious Miniſters (which is a thing hath not yet bin mentioned) at the Biſhop, or his Courts commanding them to read then ſentence of Excommunication againſt ſome or other of their Pariſh, for ſuch faults as they think not at all worthy of ſo great cenſure, or elſe be exempted from the execution of that charge; and that the Biſhop or his Court provide ſome other perſon that is ſatisfied about it, to do it. And I would have none forced to give the Body and Blood of Chriſt to any, but to whom they can, in point of Conſcience.

In the laſt place, To the intent that a free ſearch after Truth may be encouraged, and many other Scruples avoided upon that account: I would have them Authorize this one thing which I have offered, as more peculiar in this Paper; which is, That though an Authentick Interpretation, which is the Senſe and Meaning only of the Law-giver, be that Interpretation which is to be regarded as the Subſtance of all Laws, ſeeing no Law, as no Scripture is of Private Interpretation: yet in all matters of Words merely and Phraſes, an Interpretation that is Ʋſual, and in all Articles, or Theſes for Concord (which I diſtinguiſh from Laws) about Religion, and the Homilies of the Church, a Doctrinal Interpretation p. 33be ſufficient for an Aſſent or Subſcription to them.

Theſe are the Things, and there is no leſs than theſe, and (I think) no more than theſe, which are neceſſary to reconcile the Moderate Conformiſt and Non-conformiſt, which is one Part of my Deſigne, and Accommodation. If they will pull out Nine Thorns out of our Feet, and leave a Tenth, we cannot go along with them. Be it reſolved therefore by the Grace of God, and both Houſes, that if any Perſon be willing to conform to the preſent Eſtabliſhment of the Church of England, and her Service appointed upon theſe, any of theſe, and every one of theſe Explanations, Alleviations, Declarations, Lenitives, or Cautions, he ſhall be admitted to any Eccleſiaſtical Preferment, and enjoy the uſe of his Miniſtry without Moleſtation. All Statutes, Canons, or Laws to the contrary notwithſtanding.

To paſs now to the other part of this Bill or Deſigne, which is Indulgence; In the way, Becauſe the very Superintendency of Biſhops, and that Subjection to them which is required by the Conſtitution of the Realm is, or may be, an Hindrance to many ſober Miniſters, and other Proteſtants of coming into the Church, who are ready to conſent to the Doctrine, but not to the Diſcipline or Government of it, I would have them declare, That ſo long as any Perſon or Party do acknowledge the King's Supremacy, as Head of the Church in this Nation, and obey their Ordinary in licitis & honeſtis, upon the account of his Authority committed to the Biſhops, and their Officers, as Subſtitutes of his for the Exerciſe of that External Objective Regiment Circa Sacra, which is granted by all our Divines to the Higher Powers in every Nation, it is much as is, or can be required in Law to the owning Epiſcopal Juriſdiction; and ſhall ſerve them to all Intents and Purpoſes, no leſs than a profeſſed Belief and Acknowledgment of the immediate Divine Right of it. That is, Although there be ſome that cannot acknowledge our Dioceſan Prelates to be Chriſt's Officers diſtinct from the Elders in Scripture, yet ſo long as they can live peaceable Lives in Obedience to them, as Eccleſiaſtical Magiſtrates under his Majeſty for the keeping the ſeveral Congregations in their Precincts to that Goſpel-Order which themſelves allow, and for Superviſing their Conſtitutions in things indifferent, that nothing be done but in Subordination to the Peace of the Kingdome (which is a Notion wherein the Judicious of every Party may acquieſce) it is enough p. 34for their Reception into National Church-Union. And this is ſo far from Derogating from the Biſhops Office and Dignity, that it were a way to be choſe in Policy to advance it; while it makes his Authority ſignificant to the Presbyterian, and Independent, as well as to the Miniſter that hath a Living; and rears him an Inſpection over the Gathered, as over the Parochial Congregation.

And foraſmuch then, as there are moreover ſome Miniſters of a good Life, that cannot according to their Judgments allow of our Parochial Churches, nor the Book of Liturgy; but do chooſe to Worſhip God and Jeſus Chriſt in the way of their gathered or ſeparate Congregations, and crave the Protection and Clemency of the King upon their Allegiance, as other Subjects enjoy (the Conſcience being obnoxious to God only, and not capable to be conſtrained by the Rigour of Laws, or by the extreameſt Execution of them): If the Parliament-Men would know further what we would have, I would have theſe Men all forborn and let alone, thinking this Advantage the Church-Men have over ſuch, to be enough, that they have the State-Countenance, and theſe are uncapable in their way of all Publick Emolument till they come into them.

And to the intent the Forborn may be wrought upon by the proper Motives of their own Good, and at their own Time, I would have (as the other deſigned Part (I ſay) of ſuch a Bill) ſuch a Univerſal Act of Grace be granted, that all and every Chriſtian-Subject throughout his Majeſty's Realms, that profeſs themſelves of the Reformed Religion, be pardoned all Faults and Penalties whatſoever incurred upon the account of any forepaſſed Non-conformity, and that they ſhall not, during ſo many Years to come (as ſhall be Voted) be vexed or perſecuted any more for their Conſciences, in the matter of Religion. Provided they commit not any heinous Crime worthy of Puniſhment, but carry themſelves Innocently and Peaceably, both with Submiſſion to all due Order in their own Churches, and without Diſturbance to the Civil or Eccléſiaſtical Government now ſetled in the Nation.

There are theſe two Ingredients that are neceſſary to the Happineſs of the Kingdom. Ʋnion and Liberty. Union is for ſtrengthning the Church for God: Liberty is for ſtrengthning the Land, for the King. There is Trade to be encouraged, and Wars to be Managed; and Liberty of Conſcience ſerves theſe ends againſt our Civil Enemies in helping us to more hands; as Ʋnion p. 35ſerves us againſt Popery, and the Enemies of our Religion. And what indeed ſhould we do with our Brethren that differ from us in opinion? Shall we ſmite them? No, but ſet Bread and Water before them. Perſecution will make them more zealous and combine them, but liberty muſt brake them, or win them. They muſt have time. And if the naming what time may not be waved, and I may ſpeak who ſpake the reſt, I would ſet it during this Kings Reign, that ſo every Man may pray for his Life, and he may have the Title (more auguſtly) of Carolus Clemens when he dyes.

And for the making our Union of better ſignification to the Concern'd, and more effectual prevention of that Scandall which is raiſed on the Clergy through the Covetouſneſs of ſome (A fault that we Miniſters are taxed with generally, even when we ſeek but things juſt, and theſe therefore muſt take the more heed) who heap up to themſelves all the Preferments they can get, which are neither agreeable to their Labour, or their want; nor to the duty of that tremendous calling unto which they are called; but by this means, many other Miniſters are deprived even of neceſſary maintenance for their families, and an occaſion is adminiſtred to themſelves of pride (an undecent immeaſurable Exaltation above their rank and birth, to the envy of others), Of careleſneſs (through the impoſſibility of a due attendance on a double or trebble charge), Of more worldly mindedneſs, a looſer life, and ſo of ill example of ten times unto their flocks, whereby the Souls of many Pariſhes (which ought to be more precious to the Miniſter than his Maintenance) are ſinfully neglected, to the offence of Almighty God, and the hazzard of their own, and their peoples Salvation: I would have no Clergy-man henceforward be ſuffered to enjoy any more than one Living, or Cure of Souls, and one Dignity at one time; and that every man without exception, that hath more than one of either, ſhould immediately give up the reſt to be diſtributed among thoſe who ſhall be Comprehended, or brought into the Eſtabliſhed Order. Which that they may alſo be obtained, and poſſeſſed with a clear Conſcience, and that grievous Corruption of Simony may be extirpate out of the Land, I wiſh that Every Patron that ſhall hence forward preſent his Clerk to any Living, may have the Oath called the Simoniacall Oath impoſed on himſelf, no leſſe than on the Incumbent (which I perceive (ſince I writ this) is petitioned for by the Schollars of p. 36Oxford) and if he refuſes to take it, that then the Biſhop ſhould have immediate power (taking only the ſame Oath) of preſentation in his Room.

By ſuch Materialls as theſe put into the hands of a Skillfull workman, by the Order of our Maſter builders, and by ſuch a courſe, or courſes, as this, or theſe, thoroughly perſued, the name of the great God would be exceedingly honoured, in the integrity and ingenuity of thoſe Gentlemen who have Benefices in their donation; in the ſelf deny all of thoſe Miniſters who have Pluralities in in their poſſeſſion; in the reſtauration of ſeveral ejected painfull Laborers into the Vineyard; in the generall advancement of Piety, and that intereſt which is Heavenly, above worldly advantage; in the unity, peace, and mutual agreement of Brethren in the ſame function differing mainly in things indifferent; in the univerſall good will among the People; and in the eſtabliſhed Happineſs and Proſperity of the Church of England to future Generations. In that time ſhall the Preſent be brought unto the Lord of Hoſts, of a people ſcattered and peeled, meeted out, and troden under foot, to the place of the Name of the Lord of Hoſts, Mount Zion.

Deo Gloria Authori Condonatio.

An Advertiſement

Reader, I thought here to Reprint my Paper about the Oxford-Oath, which ſeems to be made neceſſary by my Reference to it (p. 31.): but becauſe the Matter thereof is incident with that of the Subſcription, I ſuppoſe it may be ſpared. I muſt ſignifie alſo, that whereas I have dropt the two Letters of my Name in reference to my Subſcription (in p. 19.): I cannot, and I do not let it go, as one that is a preſent Actual Subſcriber, but as one under Deliberation to proceed (or not) as I can, and no otherwiſe than I can, according to my Conſcience, with the flow haſt of others Advice, and my own ſetled Judgment. Adieu.

FINIS.