A discourse of the forbearance or the penalties which a due reformation requires by H. Thorndike ...

OF THE FORBEARANCE OR PENALTIES Which a due Reformation requires.

CHAP. I. The Case, in which forbearance is pre∣tended for weak Consciences.

IT is a long time, that the forbear∣ance due to tender Consciences hath been alledged, for the means to restore Unity in this Church. And certainly, were the Case stated, in which S. Paul prescribed it to the Church of Rome, that so it might be drawn into Consequence in our Case; the Scripture must needs produce that which would be of advantage for Peace, without prejudice to Truth. But, when

the bare Phrase of Scripture is tossed up and down, in the discourse of them that care not to understand, either the Reason upon which it is grounded, or the Effect to which it sorteth; no marvel to see the decay of Religion proceed from the abuse of the Scripture. We need not the He∣resies of the Primitive Times; even the abominable Villanies of the Gnosticks; to tell us, what irreligious pretenses may be set forth in Scripture Phrase. Our own Fanaticks would furnish sport enough, with the fooleries which they pretend, as from Gods Spirit, because they can deli∣ver their non-sense in the Phrase of Scri∣pture; could such irreligious madness move any thing, but the compassion and lamentation of Christians. It is enough for my purpose, that, unless the Precept of the Apostle be limited to that conse∣quence, which the reason of the Case will produce; the two-edged Sword of the ho∣ly Scripture may prove an edge tool, to cut their shins with, who take upon them, and have not the skill to handle it. For the state of the Case, to which S. Paul speaks, I will say no more at present, but this; That he prescribeth only to the Church of Rome, at that time, when the

care was, not to loose the Jews, by winning the Gentiles to be Christians. There could then be no question, of establishing a Na∣tional Church, by the Law of a Kingdom; which Church, and which Kingdom shall; by that Law, reform that which it protest∣eth to have been decayed, and depraved, in the Faith and Laws of the then present Church. We have a Reformation esta∣blished by certain Laws of the Kingdom; which, all men know, how great a part of the Kingdom declineth, because the See of Rome disclaimeth it. And therefore the question is, what that Law should be, that may oblige Recusants, to the Reformati∣on which we profess. For, division in Religion can never so deprave mens sen∣ses, as to punish them for refusing that, which they are not obliged to embrace. And yet, who would have the Kingdom to establish that Reformation, which they would not have it inact by competent Pe∣nalties? Now, such is our Case, that, since the afflictions, which this Nation hath been visited with, have revived the humor of departing into Conventicles, Independents and Fanaticks decline Communion with this Church, as much as Recusants; And, if we will speak properly, to be understood

according to the Laws, we must distin∣guish them, by the addition of Popish or Fanatick Recusants. Whereupon the question arises, what Penalties are compe∣tent to the one & to the other; whether the same or diverse. For, as there can be no Law, if there can be no Penalties to enact it with; So, there can be no Penalty, unless the Legislative Power be Judge of the Cause, why the Parties decline the Law; and may secure them in Conscience, that they ought not to decline it. Can any Christian Power punish the disobeying of that Law, concerning which, it cannot se∣cure the Consciences of them that obey? But there is a further difficulty in our Case, in regard of the Presbyterians; Who, whatsoever they may do, or may have done, since the time of disorder, have al∣ways pretended to the service of the Church; so far from disclaiming Commu∣nion with it. For, grant they do usurp the liberty of Conventicles, to hold their People at the more distance, from being reduced to Law; their pretense is not, to be obnoxious to the Law, for violating it, but to make the Law obnoxious to them∣selves, by reforming it. Suppose we them then, comprehended with the Clergy,

(whose Authority is included in the present Laws) in the same Priviledge, of mini∣string in and to the Church; Our Case is not stated, till we consider that, which all Pulpits ring of, that no Religion stands to be the Religion of the Kingdom. The Case was like to come to this, when Crom∣well first usurped. For then it began to appear, that this would be the fruit of his Course, in maintaining all Parties in the Religions, which the licentiousness of the War had allowed them to exercise. The Laws having recovered possession, and the dispute remaining, by what Penalties to be exercised, whether any or none, whether those that are, or what others; I need not say, that there is any Profession of Atheism; (which could never be pro∣fessed among the very Gentiles) This I say, that, whosoever favours it, will ne∣cessarily shelter himself under the Law, professing that which it maintaineth. And therefore, that it is to come into the state of our Case, in which, Forbearance is de∣manded for tender Consciences; how it is to be limited; That those who have No Religion, if any such should be, may not have the Benefit of it. So, the question now in hand is of the same consequence, as

if it were demanded, upon what terms the Reformation of the Church is to be stated. For whatsoever comes to debate, the que∣stion will always be, how far we ought to depart from the Church of Rome. The other part of the question; What Penal∣ties the Reformation, duly stated, may or is to be inacted with; will depend upon this, for the greater part of it. For, what can render the subject of this Kingdom lia∣ble to Penalty, for not obeying the Law which our Reformation is established with; but, that he is first bound in consci∣ence to embrace the Reformation, and to do the duty of a Christian according to it? Only what Penalties, and how great, or or how grievous, it is to be, or may be in∣acted with; This will further require the reason, which makes it the duty of Chri∣stian States, to joyn in Reforming the Church.

CHAP. II. That a private Person may be obliged to declare in it.

THis is that which obliges a private person, as I am, to declare his Opi∣nion, when so great a concernment of his Conscience is at stake. For, who could ever think the Reformation could stand, were not the Clergy obliged, as the Law obliges them, every one in his place, to reduce Recusants to the Church? Or, how should they either do this, or stand obliged to do it, if the Reason, upon which the Reformation, and the Law by which it is stated proceeds, inable them not to convince them, that they are bound in Conscience to embrace it? These hun∣dred years hath the dispute been on foot. Very nigh so long it is, since the Bull of Pius V. acquited the Subjects of the King∣dom, of their Allegiance to Q. Elizabeth. The Government being then jealous of that Party; those that had appeared before in the Troubles of Francford, to challenge a share in the Government of the Church,

thought this the time to set their preten∣sions on foot. It is to be seen, by Camdens Annals, that, when the Recusants first for∣bore coming to Church, about that time, did this Party begin to be known, by the name of Puritans. Ever since that time, did these embers lye raked up in deceitful ashes, still most appearing, when the State was most solicitous; till at length the Par∣ty appeared in Arms against the late King; and, prevailing in those Arms, became divided into those several Parties, which remain united in the Plea for tender Con∣sciences. For, the Laws recovering by His Majesties return, the same embers, which it was then thought fit to rake up again, in the same deceitful ashes, upon the first rub, have flamed out again, to de∣mand Law, to justifie that which they usurp, by way of Fact, against Law; Both pleading, that their Consciences cannot be subject to any Law in the Case; and that Christianity hath not wherewith to clear up those doubts, against which if they proceed, they are damned. It must therefore needs be said, that the present Laws have been justified, beyond all con∣tradiction, that may pretend, any thing to be commanded by the Laws, which Gods

Law forbids; So that, the demand of new Laws seems to be a demand, that the Conclusion be contradictory to that which is inferred by the Premises. And, what should Weakness demand of Reason, that is to give Law, but inconsequence? Only, let not inconsequence in Reason draw mis∣chief upon us in effect. We have hither∣to answered the demand; Where was your Church before Luther? That it was where it is; The same Church Reformed, which was decayed and depraved afore. Nei∣ther can we ever answer otherwise, till we renounce our Creed, and deny that One Holy Catholick Church, which, we must be saved by believing, and by continuing in the Ʋnity of it. Depart we once from these terms of our Reformation, what shall we plead, with a good Conscience, to bring Recusants to Church? It will be said, that the Pope is Antichrist, and the Church of Rome all I Idolaters: that there can be no question, of abandoning Idolatry and Antichrist. But is there no question of holding the true Faith, of continuing a true Church, parting with Idolatry and Antichrist? Were Papists Idolaters, and the Pope Antichrist a thousand times, the Reason, and the Rule of Reforming the

Church would be where it is; and will require, that it be so Reformed, as to con∣tinue a Member of one Catholick Church, as it was unreformed; saving the Unity, which cannot be held, without the consent of those that will not be reformed. Not that I grant the pretense of Idolatry and Antichrist; Or, that I intend to dispute against it at present, being a question too large to be voided, by so short a Discourse as this. But that, to ground our Refor∣mation, and Salvation, upon the interpre∣tation of Prophesies, is a thing without the compass of Reason to do; And also a departure from that Plea, upon which our Reformation is hitherto stated. Ha∣ving therefore placed my business, and spent my time, in considering the Contro∣versies, which the Reformation hath occa∣sioned; Because the Disputes we have among our selves concern nothing, but how far we are to depart from the Church of Rome; I thought my self tyed in Con∣science, to publish the Resolution I had attained, both under the danger, that might be expected, from the late Usurpa∣tion, and at His Majesties happy return. So that, the publishing of my Opinion in the Case at this time in dispute, is but a de∣claration

of the consequences, that have ensued, because a palliative cure hath not served the turn. If they that break Uni∣ty in the Church, have liberty to plead for their their Conventicles, which they Ʋsurp against Law; why should not my Opini∣on expect a favourable Audience? Pro∣testing before God, that, how advanta∣gious soever I think it, to the Salvation of Souls, yet I do not desire that it should take place, but by the free Act of this Church and Kingdom.

CHAP. III. That the Rule of Reformation is the Catholick Church.

IN the first place, therefore, I hold my self bound in Conscience, upon this occasion, freely to declare to my Superi∣ours; That there is no Power in this Church and Kingdom, to reform it self in matter of Religion, but only by that Form, and to that Form, which may ap∣pear to have been held by the whole Primi∣tive Church, before the Corruption came in, which we pretend to Reform. And

the reason hereof is unanswerable; being immediately grounded upon the Article of our Creed, whereby we profess to be∣lieve one Catholick and Apostolick Church. For, if there be such a thing in the world, then must there be one Catholick Faith, the Profession whereof is the condition of Communion with it; And one and the same Laws, the violating whereof is the forfeiture of the same. And here I crave leave, to call all Canons, all Customs of the Church, whether concerning the Rites of Gods Service, or other Observations; whether delivered in writing, or received by silent Ʋse and Practice; by one and the same general name, of Laws of the Church; Only, that I may be the better under∣stood. Being therefore well assured, that the Church cannot be Catholick, but it needs must be Visible; Because it can∣not be Catholick, till it may be Visibly distinguished, from Heretick and Schis∣matick both; I must also infer, that it can never be Visible, till it become Catholick. That is the only way, to justifie that which hath been always pretended; that this Church is the same, that it was before Luthers time. For, as the Church had never been Catholick, had it been confi∣ned

to one Nation, as the Synagogue was; So I do believe, that it had never been called Catholick, had there not been He∣resies and Schisms, before it was so called. It had been One Church of all Nations, by virtue of the Conversion of the Gentiles. When Heresies sprung up, as Tares among the Corn, then was it called Catholick, for distinctions sake. It was visible, that the true Faith was spread all over; Heresies and Schisms prevailed but here and there, where they were raised. So, if an Here∣tick or Schismatick were asked the way to the Catholick Church, he durst not have shewed the way to his own, saith S. Austin. Nor is it a question to be asked a Christi∣an, why the true Church should be Catho∣lick; The answer being so obvious, that it was Aposiolick. Say why the Faith preached by the Apostles prevailed, why the Communion setled by their Authori∣ty; (whereas Heresies and Schisms were known but here and there) and you have said, why the True Church was Ca∣tholick. We that profess the Reforma∣tion are agreed, that this provision of Gods goodness is no Promise of God, against mans malice; That corruption may become Catholick, for the present

Age, though not from the Apostles. This is the common ground of Reforming the Church; If the measure and bounds which it limiteth were also common, all our divisions were at an end. Nor can any private Spirit, expounding the Scripture without these bounds, derogate from it. It is a sufficient prejudice, against any In∣terpretation of Scripture, that it standeth not with the Faith, and with the Laws of the Primitive Church. S. Paul challeng∣eth the prophets at Corinth, to shew them∣selves Spiritual men, by submitting to his Orders; Having said, that the Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets: and inferring, that all their Spirits are to be sub∣ject to his, being an Apostle, 1 Cor. XIV. 32, 36, 37. The same is the Case to the Worlds end; the promise of our Lord, Behold, I am with you to the worlds end; being made to the Apostles, and to all that should be Christs Disciples, and learn of the Apostles, to do all that he hath command∣ed, Mat. XXVIII. 19, 20. For, who can think he continueth in the Doctrine of the Apostles, departing from their Au∣thority, in any thing subject to their Au∣thority? Or what is not subject to their Authority, excepting that which our

Lord had commanded, before he gave them their Authority? His own Com∣mands being the condition of Salva∣tion; Their Authority, the means provi∣ded, to inable us to attain it, by observing and learning his Commands. So, as it is Heresie, to depart from the Faith which they preached; so is it Schism, to depart from the Authority which they left in the Church, till the Worlds end. Were not the Catholick Church a Warrant to parti∣cular Churches, they could not Reform themselves, without the consent of the Whole. But, seeing abuses are and were Visible at the Reformation, it is necessary to grant, that particular Churches (and secular Powers, by whose Laws they sub∣sist) may restore that which may appear to have been decayed; But it is also neces∣sary to say, that Reformation is the Re∣storing of that which was, not the intro∣ducing of that which was not.

CHAP. IV. That the Church is no further Visible, then it is Catholick.

ANd thus shall the Church become Vi∣sible, according to the Will and Ordinance of God; which, being in de∣cay by the malice of man, though not In∣visible, yet must needs become hard to be seen, at least to the purpose of Gods good∣ness. For, by the discourse premised it appears, why it pleased God to provide, that the true Church should be Catholick. That is to say, that when it was so easie to discern the True Church, from all that pretended, being indeed Hereticks or Schismaticks; the simplest were left with∣out excuse, if they made a wrong choice. Which if it be true, how can it be in the Power of any Church, or of the secular Powers that maintain it, being bound to continue a Member of the whole Church, to introduce that for Reformation, which cannot appear to be restored, but may seem to be innovated? Which, how should it be done, without owning that

ground of Reformation, which I have de∣livered; and by consequence, those bounds, which the said ground inferreth? And I do very well believe, that none of those, who decline Conformity with the Church, would have the Face to deny this, had they to do with the now Missio∣naries of the Church of Rome. For it would not serve their turn, in answer to them, to plead, that the Pope is Anti∣christ, and the Papists Idolaters; having Reason to challenge, that God hath found∣ed a Visible Church. It would be abso∣lutely necessary to plead; though the goodness of God hath instituted a Visible Church, yet, that, by the malice of man, it might be, and is become Invisible, for the difficulty of finding Salvation by it; though absolutely Visible, because Salvation might always be had in it. It is easie for him, that would answer them with a good Conscience, for Truth and not for Victo∣ry, to maintain the Church to be Visible, so far as the Faith and the Laws thereof con∣tinue Visible. But that, so far as the Faith and Laws thereof may be disguised, from that which was from the beginning, so far it may and is to be said, that the Church, which by Gods Ordinance is and ought to

be Visible, by humane disorder is become Invisible. Which being said, it follows immediately, that, as all estates in the Church are obliged, in their several qua∣lities, to do their utmost, that the Church may be Visible; (the Salvation of all Christians requiring them to Resort to the Communion of the Church, which they believe to be Catholick) so, there is no o∣ther way to make it Visible, but to restore the Faith and the Laws of the Church, that from the beginning made it Visible. And therefore, no Christian Church or State can have Power, to Reform the Church any otherwise, then, by restoring that Faith, and those Laws, which the Church may appear to have had from the beginning. It would be Sacriledge, and Ʋsurpation upon the Faith, which God hath built his Church upon; and upon the Laws, which either the Apostles have de∣livered to the Church, or inabled the Church to deliver to posterity; to intro∣duce any thing else for the Reformation of the Church. Which seeing it must needs bind over the Church and Kingdom, to the wrath of God; as either destru∣ctive, or at least prejudicial to the Salva∣tion of the People; must needs bind over

him that hath this opinion, to the same, if, upon so just an occasion, he should for∣bear to publish and to plead it as he may, without offense. And therefore, I take leave to blame all those, who declare, in behalf of this Church, that it departeth, and separateth it self from the Church of Rome. For, seeing it hath been granted, in and by this Church, ever since the Re∣formation, that there is and always was Salvation to be had in the Church of Rome, as a true Church, though corrupt∣ed; I am very confident, that no Church can separate from the Church of Rome, but they must make themselves thereby Schismaticks before God; though, before the Church, they cannot be condemned for such, because the Church of Rome, (the Authority whereof must needs be in∣gredient into the Sentence) cannot oblige any Body, to stand to the Authority, which it so abuseth. For, if God have tied all Churches to Communion with all Churches, how should it not be Schism, to profess Separation from a true Church? And it is every whit as easie to say, that we in∣tend only to Reform our selves: and that the Separation hath come to pass, by the rigour of the Church of Rome, Excom∣municating

those that Reform themselves without her leave.

CHAP. V. How far this Rule is owned by this Church.

HEre, it will perhaps be demanded, whether or no, the Law of this Land make this the Rule of the Reformation which we Profess. And my Answer is, that in effect, and by consequence it doth. For, by maintaining the three Creeds to be part of the Service, wherewith we glorifie God, by Professing the Catholick Faith; and by maintaining the four Councils, whereby, both the Faith, and the then Ca∣nons of the whole Church are established; it doth in effect maintain the Primitive Church, not only till that time, but beyond it. For, seeing it is evident, that the fifth and sixth Councils are but appendances of the Fourth; (tending only to maintain and inforce the decree of it) how can it be doubted, that the Article of this Church; receiving all Councils, that have decreed according to the Word of God; receiveth

and inacteth those, which tend only to inforce the Fourth; which it own∣eth, for decreeing that Faith which the Word of God teacheth? Besides the pray∣ers for the prosperity of the Catholick Church; whereby we prove our selves no Schismaticks, to the See of Rome, when we repay the Curses of it with our prayers. Besides that Injunction of Edward the VI, which obligeth all Preachers, to expound the Scripture, according to the Consent of the Ancient Fathers. Which, as no man can say, why it should not be in force; So, had it been in force, we need not have come to the question now on foot. And indeed, it is, in effect, that which I de∣mand. For it will be found, that the Consent of the Fathers is not to be had, but in the common Faith, and in those Laws, which the whole Church either enjoyned, or allowed particular Churches. So that, to expound the Scriptures according to the Consent of the Fathers, is to expound them within those bounds; and to trouble the heads of Christian people with no∣thing, that is without the same; As if their Salvation could be concerned, all being safe within those bounds. Here I must take notice, that the reason, why the

Church Catholick, is to be held, may be miskenned; if it be extended to all that is called Christians, and not limited to that, which, maintaining the Faith, violateth not the Ʋnity of the Primitive Church. If the profession of Christ and Christianity were enough, to make men members of the Catholick Church, why should not Socinians and Anabaptists belong to the Church dispersed over the face of the whole earth? Again, the Eastern Christians, that are thought to come from Nestorius; the Southern Christians under Prester John, that maintain the memory of Dioscorus, and condemn the fourth Council of Chal∣cedon, cannot be admitted to be Catholicks, by any man that owneth the four Coun∣cils. But, in regard it appeareth not, that they owne the Heresies of Nestorius and Eu∣tyches, though they owne the memory of their persons; and in regard there is cause enough to presume, that they would, with all their hearts, be reunited to the Church, did not the See of Rome refuse all terms of Re-union, that include not the infinite power which it challengeth; they cannot be included within the Catholick Church without reserving a liberty to exclude them, whensoever, in point of Faith, it

shall appear, that they owne the Heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. As for the Ca∣nons of the Church, it was never necesla∣ry, to the maintenance of Communion, that the same Customs should be held in all parts of the Church; It was only necessa∣ry, that several Customs should be held by the same Authority. Which is to say; That the same Authority instituted seve∣ral Customs, which they thought to be for the best, in several times, and in seve∣ral places. For so, they might be chan∣ged by the same Authority, and yet Unity remain. Whereas, questioning the Au∣thority; by questioning whether the Acts of it be agreeable to Gods Law or not; how should Unity be maintained? This is the Reason of that which I said even now; that the Fathers do not agree in any thing, but in the Faith and the Laws of the Church. For it is manifest, that they could not have agreed in the Laws of the Church, if any had excepted against any thing, used in any part of the Church, as if Gods Law had been infringed by it. Seeing therefore it is manifest, that there are certain Canons and Customs, known to have been the Canons and Customs of the Primitive Church, owned by this Church; it

followeth of necessity, that nothing can be disowned by this Church, as contrary to Gods Law, which holdeth by the Primi∣tive Church. So, it is not my intent to say, that the Canons and Customs of the Primitive Church ought to be in force: And, that there is no other means to re∣store Unity in the Church. But, that no∣thing can cause a Breach in the Church, that hath Authority from the Primitive Church. And that nothing can have Authority in the present Church, that in∣fringeth the Authority of the Primitive Church; as if Gods Law were destroyed by any Act of it. Further, there are two points in the Title and Cause of the late War; Episcopacy and Sacriledge; where∣in, the Cause of the Crown hath been so united to the Cause, both of this and of the Catholick Church, that I may well say, that, to disowne the same Cause in other points, alike Primitive and Catholick, would be to deny the Conclusion admitting the Premises; Or to keep divers weights and measures in the same Budget. The Plea for Episcopacy, and for Consecrate Goods, hath made out so much evidence for it self, that it hath helped to recover the Laws of the Kingdom. And shall

not the Laws of the Kingdom, so recover∣ed, maintain the same Plea, in all other things? For, the Visible Unity of the Ca∣tholick Church, as it never subsisted, but in the consent of Bishops, so was it never maintained, but out of Consecrate Goods.

CHAP. VI. What Errours have followed, because it is not so expresly.

BUt I do freely acknowledge, that, though this Church hath many Obli∣gations, to owne this Principle, for their Rule; yet, it is not formally and expres∣ly inacted, by those Laws of the Land, whereby Religion, and the Rights of the Church are established. For I do further claim, that the want of inacting and in∣forcing it, and driving it home to the true Consequence, in every point, is the Cause and Sourse, not only of the disorders, which divers pitiful plaisters have been tendred to cure; But of all disorders, imperfections, and decays of Religion, which have succeeded upon the Reforma∣tion; having been made without limiting

those bounds. And, that the present dis∣orders in Religion are the Symptoms of a common disease, which all men are of∣fended with, but cannot be cured, with∣out recourse to the Unity of the Catho∣lick Church, and the terms of it; where∣in that health of Christianity consisteth, which all division impeacheth. I do therefore freely acknowledge, that I find two positions, to be the sourse of all those Excentrical Opinions in Religion, which caused that Confusion, upon the issue of the War, that helped to make way for his Majesties happy Return. The first is, that there is no Condition for the Covenant of Grace; That there is no Contract in it, but a meer Promise. The second is, that there is no such thing as a Visible Church, instituted by God; But, that men are first Children of God by Faith, then members of a Church, of free choice. Of these Positions, the one necessarily dependeth upon the other. For, the Faith of the whole Church from the beginning re∣quires Baptism to Salvation. And there∣fore, includeth it in that Faith, which a∣lone justifieth. And by consequence requires, that justifying Faith cannot be understood, without that Profession of

Faith, which a man maketh at his Baptism. And this will necessarily infer a Church, therefore Visible, because Catholick. For it is agreed upon by the whole Church, that Baptism in Heresie or Schism, (That is, when a man gives up himself to the Communion of Hereticks or Schismaticks, by recei∣ving Baptism from them) though it may be true Baptism, and not to be repeated, being given in the form of the Church; yet is not available to Salvation; making him accessory to Heresie or Schism, that is so Baptized. Now, it is not my intent to say, that these two Positions were ex∣presly and formally professed, by Compa∣nies distinguishing themselves from o∣thers, by Ecclesiastical Communion in the Profession; Which is the true signifi∣cation of an Heresie, in the eye of the Church. But the Positions I maintain to be Here∣sies, in so much that, if there were such Companies, they must of necessity be taken for Heresies, in the account of the Church. And my Reason is clear. For it is ac∣knowledged by the whole Church, clear∣ly delivered by our Lord in the Gospel, that the taking up of his Cross is a neces∣sary condition to Salvation. Now, since our Lord gave Commission to his Apo∣stles,

to Baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; it is evident, that ever since, we take up Christs Cross, when we undertake at our Baptism, to lay down our lives, rather then deny the Faith of Christ, or transgress his Commandments. And since this Pro∣mise is not available, unless it be deposited with the true Church; it cannot be avail∣able, to him that continueth not in the true Church, that may exact the Promise deposited with it. If any man ask, whom I can charge with these Positions, which, I cannot shew to have been Professed by Visi∣ble Bodies; I discharge my self upon a number of Pamphlets, of the time of that Confusion, which was called the Blessed Reformation; wherein free Grace was made to be the pardon of sin before it is done; Justification to be the Revelation of predestination to Glory, and no sin to be seen in Gods Elect. One particularly; which I have cause to believe was printed by Cromwells own Appointment; because it answered a Petition of Welsh Fanaticks, which charged him to depart from his Principles; answers expresly, that the Principle of Salvation is neither Faith nor good Works, but Christ living in the heart,

and abiding there, whatever Principles the Godly may change. And for the Church, have we not seen our Indepen∣dent Congregations, or, do we not see them in New-England, refuse Baptism to all, that will not take the Covenant, which they ap∣point themselves to take; and owne no other Churches, but such Congregations? I suppose, no man in his right senses will imagine, that there can be a Catholick Church, consisting in the Communion of all such Congregations: Or, that there can be any Faith, to give Law to their Com∣munion; who have the Law in their own hand, to be to morrow Socinians if they please; Or any other Sect, that allows Independent Congregations. For, the So∣cinians may seem to have the Eldership of New-England, for Independent Congrega∣tions. On the other side, do we not see the Leviathan, that Monster of a Christi∣an, openly Profess, that he is bound to re∣nounce Christ with his mouth, if his Sove∣raign command; Though still bound to believe in him at the heart? So utterly perswaded, that there is no such thing as a Church, of Gods Ordinance; But only by the Act of Soveraign Powers, within the respective Dominions of each of them;

That he had rather renounce his Baptism, (and so the Benefit of it) then owne any Creed, or any Catholick Church.

CHAP. VII. That it is for the Interest of the Reformation, as much as of the See of Rome.

HAving therefore observed (upon due consideration, as I hope) that all the Errours, which have had Vogue during our late Confusions, are reducible to these two Positions, destructive to two Articles of our Creed, that Profess one Catholick Church, and one Baptism for remission of Sins; I am still led by the same Conside∣ration, to think my self tyed in Consci∣ence, freely to Profess; that, where these two Positions clearly renounced, and the sense of those two Articles duely establish∣ed, and received by all Parties, that owne the same Creed, the Re-union of the whole Church, must needs follow. For, the Power of the whole Church being so stated, as to presuppose the whole condi∣tion of our Salvation: and to extend only, to the determining of those things, which

may promote edification in it, without endangering the Unity of the Church; why should not I think, that there is found, by the consent of the whole Church from the beginning, so clear a re∣solution of all that is disputed, to maintain Separation, concerning the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, that it cannot be refused by the Parties, owning the com∣mon Faith? There is great cause to fear, that, notwithstanding the mischiefs we feel by our own Divisions, some would think it still a greater mischief, that the Whole Church should be re-united; Though upon just Terms, and such, as must needs re-unite our selves. But, if the Christian Religion oblige us to do men good against their will; He that demands nothing, but the Right Ʋnder∣standing of two Articles in the Creed, to the Re-uniting of Christendom, intends the greatest Charity, that those who love Division can receive. Whether his de∣mand be sufficient to do his Work or no; he must leave it to the World to judge. For, it is to be acknowledged, that, when the Condition of our Salvation is setled, and all that causes Division upon the Account of it; there remains, besides,

very many Disputes, concerning Publick Orders, as well in the Offices of the Church, as in the publick Government of it; and the Interest, as well of the State as of the Church, in the same. But, let not therefore those that love not Unity pretend Difficulty. For, they shall find such Principles laid, to the determining of them all, in the Visible Laws of that one Church, which cannot continue One, but by owning the same; that the due bounds of Reformation cannot escape them, that will not decline the thred and the grain of these grounds. And yet, in all this, no man declines the Scripture for the only Rule of Faith. But, he that refuses the See of Rome for Judge in the Sense of it; which is all that remains in question; may well crave leave to decline the Judgment of any private Spirit, not confined within the bounds, which the Visible consent of the Church determineth. Not as if the sense of the Scripture were not more and more to be discovered; which is in∣deed discovered every day more and more. But, because the true sense of it will always fall within the compass of that, which the Church hath always re∣ceived. I am very well perswaded, that

the See of Rome will never hear of any Terms of Reconcilement, so long as they see our Divisions increase. But I am very well assured, that the Divisions of the Re∣formation can never be Re-united, so as to prevent the like for the future; but upon that Ground, which, being received, will serve to re-unite the Whole Church. There can never be One Visible Faith, One Visible Church, upon any other terms. There can be no such sin as Heresie to vio∣late Faith, as Schism to violate Charity, upon other terms. And therefore, it is out of Love to the Reformation, that I in∣sist upon such a Principle, as may serve to re-unite us with the Church of Rome; Being well assured, that we can never be well re-united with our selves otherwise, That, not only the Reformation, but the Common Christianity must needs be lost, in the Divisions, which will never have an end otherwise. And he that can take measure, how much of it is lost in thirty years time, since these Troubles began; even among them that inclose the Name of Saints, and the Godly to themselves; will easily believe, that it hath not long to live, unless Division be put to death. And yet the vain hopes of the Parties,

ever since the Division, may make it ap∣pear, that both have Reason enough to be reconciled. They of the See of Rome have long expected; a hundred and fifty years or thereabouts; that those Christi∣an Princes, that have looked upon the Reformation as dangerous to the Peace of their Dominions, should give them assistance, to reduce all that Protest against the abuses thereof, by force of Arms, to submit to their Will. Which would be, to make that Will the Law of Religion, as well to themselves, as to those that should be so reduced. But the experi∣ence of so much time evidences, that the Powers of Christendom have something else to do, then to imploy the forces of their Dominions to that purpose: And that, if it prove for the Interest of some of them, at some times, it will prove not to be for the Interest of others, at the same or other times. Of which Interest, as they are indeed, and in Conscience, to give account to God, and not to the See of Rome; so, that they will ever make the See of Rome the Judge of them, what ap∣pearance can there be? So, it is time of the day for them to hearken to Reason, whether they regard God, and Religion, or

Interest, and themselves. But is not our Case the same? Or, are not we transpor∣ted as far, with the conceit that they are limbs of Antichrist and Idolaters, as they are, with the conceit, that we are Here∣ticks and Schismaticks? Have we not as long expected, when the Kings would joyn to strip the Whore of Babylon naked, as they, when they would joyn to reduce the Hereticks by force? And is it not yet time of the day for us; whatsoever opi∣nion, those that imploy their time, in searching the meaning of a Prophesie, may have; at least to make it no Princi∣ple of our Profession, nor to maintain Sepa∣ration upon the Account of it? Knowing, that were the Pope twenty times Anti∣christ, and the Papists Idolaters, he can ne∣ver be Antichrist, nor they Idolaters, for any thing, that the consent of the Catho∣lick Church either alloweth, or injoy∣neth. So, that, whatever become of any Prophesie in Gods Word, and the sense of it, the bounds of Reformation will be the very same; And he will be no less an Heretick or a Schismatick, that makes the Pope Antichrist, or the Papists Idolaters, for doing or believing any thing, which the Church from the beginning hath in∣joyned

or allowed, to be believed or to be done, then if he pretended no Prophesie to prove it. If ever any people had cause to reflect upon the sad consequences of this conceit, we are they, that shall find no probable reason, to impute the mischiefs of the late Ʋsurpation to, but the hope of fulfilling this sense of this Prophesie. It is a vain thing to think, that a man, who believed no God, could Act a counterfei∣ted Religion throughout, as we have seen the Usurper do. He that could hope to be saved, either without Faith, or with∣out good Works, by having Christ alive at the Heart, why should not he think, that all the foul way he went through was the Service of God, having intended to strip the Whore of Babylon by his means? Neither Manichaeus, nor Mahomet, nor any Enthusiast can be barred, of the like aim with this, if once he make his private Spi∣rit parallel to the Scripture. For, that which the same Authority last dictates, as in Wills and Testaments, must take place. I say not that this is the Case of those, that interpret this Prophesie of the See of Rome. I believe they follow their Rea∣son, in expounding Scripture by Scripture. But if their Reason be not the Reason of

Religion, the Reason of that Christianity which we all have Interest in, the private Spirit that follows it may take all for Gods Service, though never so wicked, that is done in prosecution of it. In the mean time, Division increasing among us as it does, I think, I gratifie our selves, and not the See of Rome, in proposing that truth, which reconciles the Interest of Re∣formation, to the Interest of Ʋnity in the Church. For in Civil War; as Schism is nothing but a Civil War in the Church; that Party that divides is the likely to Ruine. And though the first hopes of the See of Rome have proved addle, yet if our Divisions prevail, they must needs have fresh hopes to prevail, by our Divi∣sions.

CHAP. VIII. That it is the Duty of this Kingdom, and of all Christian Soveraignties.

ANd therefore, I must freely profess my opinion, without any manner of hope, that ever the See of Rome will abate any thing of their rigour; Though the

Reformation should content themselves with these terms. For, I find, by the proceeding of former times, that it is their Maxime, to stand to that which they have once done: And to mark those Popes to posterity, that have abated any thing, from the rigour of their Predeces∣sors. For, being arrived at this Great∣ness, by this Rigour and obstinacy in all Pretenses, right or wrong, they will al∣ways think themselves obliged, in Reason of State, not to yield so much as the Cup in the Eucharist; Though the Council of Trent leave it in the Popes Power to grant it. Because, granting, that any thing is and hath been amiss; who shall secure them, that nothing more shall be questioned, then is indeed amiss; when we see no point in Religion remain unque∣stioned, some time or some where? Not considering, all the While, that this Rigor is the cause of Division, and Division the cause of these Questions: And that, the Reason of Reformation being owned on both sides, there is a Ground restored, for Confidence, that they who accept of it will stand to those Bounds which it setleth. But, if the See of Rome can have no Power against the Whole Church; Much less

can any other Church, or any part of the Church, or any Secular Power that pro∣tecteth it, make that to be Reformation, which the Whole Church alloweth not; Or secure their Subjects Consciences of the Salvation they seek, in exercising their Christianity according to their Laws, but by confining the Reformation which they maintain, within those Bounds, which the Faith and the Laws of the Whole Church either require or allow. Now, how can the Interest of the Nation be secured, with∣out due ground, for hope of Gods blessing upon that which shall be done? How can there be ground to expect Gods blessing, till it appear, how all Subjects of this Kingdom shall stand discharged at the day of Judgment, following that form which the Kingdom inacteth, rather then that which the See of Rome requireth? For, there are other Christian Princes and So∣veraignties, that command their Subjects to obey the See of Rome; whose Sub∣jects must as well stand discharged to God, upon the same Plea, as the Subjects of Re∣formed Princes and States. And how shall the Consciences of them that make Laws be secured, if they cannot secure the Consciences of them for whom they

are made? Or how can Gods blessing be expected, if this security cannot be evi∣denced? It is not yet time to ask, how, those that allow not the Reformation, up∣on these Terms, should be punished; Be∣cause there are that pretend, that no pu∣nishment can be inflicted, for disobeying any Law of the Kingdom, by which Reli∣gion is setled. But it is time to say, that they make it a very ridiculous thing, for the Legislative Power to make Laws for the Kingdom, which they can inact by no Penalty. And how shall this difficulty be voided, but by demanding nothing, but that which Christianity will require of all Christians? That no Christian King∣dom can have Power, to introduce any thing, for Reformation in the Church, but that which the Consent of the Whole Church either injoyneth, or alloweth. Not as if the least Tittle of Scripture were not enough, to warrant, that which it injoyn∣eth to be the Reformation of the Church. But, whereas the sense of the Scripture is that which remains questionable, not the Authority of it; that nothing can be the true sense of the Scripture, which the Consent of the Whole Church contra∣dicteth. And therefore, that, though

there be an appearance of truth in such a sense, yet, it is not for a Christian Kingdom to inact it for Law, till it be duely deba∣ted. And, that being done, it will infal∣libly appear in all, which in most things appeareth already; that the Consent of the Whole Church cannot contradict the true sense of the Scripture; And that it is nothing else, but not knowing the one or the other, that makes it seem other∣wise. If the Scripture it self is not, nor can be owned for Gods Word, but by the Consent of Gods people, from the begin∣ning, attesting, the Motives of Faith related in the Scripture to have been infallibly done, by submitting to the Faith which they inforce; Then must the same Con∣sent be of force, to assure common reason, that the Faith, and the Laws, wherein the whole Church agrees, came from the Au∣thority setled by God, not by any Consent of all Christians, to fall from that which they Profess. And therefore, though a Kingdom may force the Subjects thereof, to call that Reformation, which they inact; yet they can never make it Reformation, in that sense, which the Salvation of Chri∣stians requires, if it be not within these bounds. It may be called Reformation,

to signifie a New form, but it can never be Reformation, to signifie that form which should be, unless it signifie the form that hath been in Gods Church. For, that be∣ing One and the same, from the first to the second Coming of Christ, can authorize no other form, then that which it may ap∣pear to have had from the beginning.

CHAP. IX. That it cannot be done without the Synods of this Church.

ANd therefore, it being granted on both sides, that the Soveraign Pow∣er of Christian Kingdoms and States, pro∣ceeding duely, obligeth the Subjects, to submit to the Reformation of the Church; and cannot exact Legal Penalties of them which refuse, upon any other Terms; I do except, in the second place, that it ought to proceed in all Reformation, by and upon the Authority of this Church; That is, of the Synods. For what doth the whole Church agree in so Visibly, as in this; That the Authority which God hath instituted in his Church should give Laws

to his Church? And how can a Christian Kingdom promise themselves Gods bles∣sing, upon such Acts, as they have no Pow∣er nor Right from God to do? For, granting there is such a thing as a Catho∣lick Church; it is not possible, that any Christian Kingdom, which must be a part of it, should have Power to inact any thing Prejudicial, much less destructive to the Whole; to the Visible Being, which is, the Visible Communion of it. And there∣fore, the Faith and the Laws of the whole being the Condition, under which the parts are to communicate; no Christian Kingdom can have Power from God, to give New Laws in Religion, to the Subjects thereof, which the Church of the King∣dom warranteth not, to be according to the Laws of the whole Church. If any thing may appear to have been in force, in the Primitive Church, and, by the abuse of succeeding times, to have become void; I do not deny, that the Secular Power may Reform the Church, by re∣storing it, though the Church should re∣fuse their Consent to it. The reason is, be∣cause the Church would be without help, if there were no Lawful way to restore the decays of it; Which, we agree, have

come to pass; without the consent of them that are chargeable for the decay of it. Now, the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church are the Birth-right of all Christians; Purchased, by underta∣king to Profess one Catholick Church, at their Baptism: And Christian Powers are to protect their Christian Subjects in their Birth-right. And, the Authority of the present Church is not seen, in the Faith and the Laws of the Whole Church. For, it is meer matter of Fact, what they are; The evidence whereof (praeexi∣stent to the Authority of the present Church) cannot be understood to require, or to presuppose it. And therefore, the Authority of the Church cannot be vio∣lated, by reducing the Faith and the Laws of the Primitive Church into force. Nevertheless, in regard, that which is decayed can seldom be restored, without determining new Bounds, which the pre∣sent state of the Church requires; It is manifestly the Office of the Church, to determine the same: Nor can it be done by Christian Powers of this World, without assuming to themselves that Authority, in which they are to maintain the Church. For, though Soveraign Power hath Sove∣raign

Right, in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical, yet is it capable of no Ecclesiastical Power, or Right; But is to maintain those that have it, by the Laws of the Church, in the use of it. If any thing were done at the Reformation, setting aside the Synods of this Church; which, I am here neither to deny, nor to acknowledge; it must be justified upon this Account, that they refused the Au∣thority of the Whole Church, in autho∣rizing the Reformation of this Church. If any thing now may appear to be de∣manded upon the same Account; let the Authority of the Synods be passed by, for their punishment, if they hinder the Reformation of the Church, by refusing it. But that cannot appear, till it may appear; First, that the matter demanded ought to have the force of Law in the Church; having been of force, and since decayed, by the injury of time, or cor∣ruption of men: Secondly, that it is of such weight, that Religion is like to have more advantage, by restoring it, then the Ʋnity of the Church shall suffer, by viola∣ting the Regular Authority of the Church. What thanks I shall have of my LL. the Bishops for this, I know not; For I deny,

that they themselves can have any Autho∣rity in the Case, that shall not be confined within the same bounds. But it is not possible, for him that is the most jealous of the Rights of the Crown, in Church-mat∣ters, to say, what danger there can be to this Crown, in securing the Conscience of the Kingdom, by the Authority of the Church. For, the acknowledging of those Bounds, which the Authority of the Church is confined to, as well in respect of Soveraign Power, in the Dominions whereof it subsisteth, as of the rest of the Church; leaveth no Plea for it to Ʋsurp, either upon the Crown, or upon the Chri∣stian Subjects of it. And all this I claim by S. Paul, where he commandeth all Christians, to abide in that state in which they are called to be Christians. Which cannot otherwise oblige all Clergie-men, to be Subjects, upon the same terms, as they should be, if their Soveraigns were not Christians; but, that it must oblige all Publick Powers, to maintain the Clergy in the same Rights, which they had, and must have had over Christian People, did not the Publick Powers profess the Faith. And therefore, though I do claim, that the Synods of the two Provinces, and

their Decrees, ought to be confined within the bounds so oft said; yet I do demand of All, (especially of those that may have made the Oath of Canonical Obe∣dience, to their Bishops) how they can profess to owne Episcopacy; especially according to their Oath; that pass over this Right of the Synods. For, that which is done without, or against their Consent, shall make them no Bishops; That must receive Law from their Clergy, if the Se∣cular Power make their sense of the Scripture Law to the Kingdom. Where∣as I, that take the liberty to prove all this, without their Authority, can clearly Pro∣fess, that I think it a point not subject to Canonical Authority, which I plead for; And that otherwise, I should think it in∣consistent with the Oath of Canonical Obedience which I have made.

CHAP. X. The Case in which S. Paul forbears the Weak.

COme we now to that Scripture of S. Paul to the Romans, upon which, the whole Plea for tender Consciences is grounded, and to state the Case, in which he prescribeth. And see, what forbearance it will inforce in our Case. S. Paul, having shewed the Romans; who, before they were converted to be Christians, had been, some Jews, some Gentiles; that Righteousness and Salvation comes only by Faith, or by Christianity, and not by the Law, or by Judaism also; proceedeth in the fourteenth Chapter of that Epistle, to Order them, to forbear one another; The Jews not to censure the Gentiles, for not observing the Law; The Gentiles not to scorn the Jews; if, not understanding the freedom of Christians, they lived as Jews, in all or in some things. It is mani∣fest, who are the strong and who are the weak, with S. Paul, in that he is one of the strong, where he says, XV. 1. We that

are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak. They that understand, how Righ∣teousness and Salvation comes only by Faith; notwithstanding that it was to be had under the Law, as well as afore the Law; these are the strong. One man be∣lieves he may eat any thing; though for∣bidden by the Law; but he that is weak, and sees nothing else on the Table but that which the Law forbids, eats herbs. One man makes difference of a day above a day, according to the Law, another esteems every day alike, XIV. 2, 5. These two instances are put for all indifferent things, prescribed or forbidden by the Law. He that understood the purpose of God in giving the Law, which he intended to make void, or rather to fulfil, in due time; So that Salvation came not by it, when it was to be had under it; He is the strong with S. Paul. He that understood it not, and yet continued a Christian, that he might come to understand it, the weak. Let no man marvel, that the Romans, who took S. Paul for an Apostle, should not understand that which S. Paul had pro∣ved, by this whole Epistle. For he pro∣veth it by the Mystical sense of the Old Te∣stament; Which, they who had submit∣ted

to the Faith could not owne, never∣theless, until they understood the reason, why God gave the Law, with an intent to bring in the Gospel by it. Let no man think, that they were not fit to be bapti∣zed, (for such were they all to whom S. Paul writes) that understood not this, be∣longing to the Foundation of Faith. Baptism maketh all Disciples of Christ, and therefore findeth them not so. It is necessary, that he who is baptized should undertake all that, which, he shall come to learn, that Christ hath taught. It is not necessary that he should know what it is; knowing that Salvation is not to be had, without doing all that, whatsoever it is, which, it shall appear, that Christ hath taught.

CHAP. XI. Compared with his Orders at Corinth, and elsewhere.

BUt, seeing S. Paul forbiddeth the Co∣rinthians to scandalize the weak, in eating meats that had been sacrificed to Idols; we must not state the Case of the

Romans, without considering, how the Case of the Corinthians may concern it. Here S. Paul distinguishes scholastically; that such meats might be eaten, either as Gods Creatures, materially, or formally, as meats sacrificed to Idols; which Idola∣ters feasted upon, after their Sacrifices, in honour of their Idols; as we see by his words, 1 Cor. X. 7. Nor be ye Idolaters, as some of them were; As it is written; The people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. And Dan. V. 4. They drunk wine, and praised the Gods of gold and sil∣ver, of brass, of iron, of wood and of stone. S. Paul then resolveth, that Christians may eat meats sacrificed to Idols, as Gods creatures; and that they cannot be pollu∣ted, by being sacrificed to Idols, which are nothing. But that, when there may be occasion for Christians to think, that a Christian eats them as Idolaters did; (as eating them in an Idol-Temple, or, being invited home by an Idolater) in such Cases, it was necessary to forbear, for Christian Charities sake; least a weak Christian, seeing a strong Christian eat them, should think he eat them as Idolaters did; and, doing so himself, should fall into mispri∣sion of Idolatry, 1 Cor. VIII. 7, 10. X. 27,

28. And by this example we may gather, by the way, what S. Paul means, Rom. XIV. 15, 20. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ dyed. For meat de∣stroy not the work of God. He means, that the danger was no less, (if the Gentiles should not forbear the Jews, but despise their weakness, that could not see them∣selves free of the Law) then, that they should fall into dislike with the Faith, and return to the Jews Religion again. So, the danger at Corinth was Idolatry; at Rome Apostasie. S. Paul then, forbids the Corinthians, to make inquiry for con∣science sake, 1 Cor. X. 25. whether that which is sold in the shambles had been sa∣crificed to an Idol or not. But Daniel did make inquiry for conscience sake, when he resolved, not to be polluted with the Kings meat, Dan. I. 5, 8. taking all of it to be dedicated to Idols, in the first-fruits of it. For this, being the cu∣stom of the Heathen, made all their meats suspicious, as dedicated to their Idols. Tobit is not Canonical Scripture; But it is as Old as the Old Testament in Greek. The Author of it relates, for his commen∣dation, that he kept himself from eating the bread of the Gentiles, when his Brethren and

kindred did eat of it. Tobit I. 10, 11, 12. because he remembred God with all his heart. This signifies, that the more Reli∣gious did observe it, though not com∣manded by the Law. It seems they were only forbidden by the Law to go to the feasts which they, the Gentiles, made of their Sacrifices; lest they should wor∣ship their Gods, as they that invited them did, Exod. XXXIII. 15. and as they did with the Madianites, Numb. XXV. 2. The forbearing of Idolaters meat, was a hedge to the Law, that they might be the further off from trans∣gressing it; But brought in under the Pro∣phets, and observed by the more Religi∣ous. And the Jews have reason, when they tell us, that, Nehemiah was dispensed with, for drinking the wine of the Gentiles, because he was Cup-bearer to the King. Whereby it appears, that S. Paul leaves it to the Charity of every Christian, to use his freedom so sparingly, as not to offend a weak Christian. But, under the Law, it became a Rule, that all the strong should forbear that, which might possibly offend the weak. And therefore, when the Apostles at Jerusalem injoyn those that were converted of Gentiles, to abstain

from meats sacrificed to Idols; they do forbid them to eat such meats, even mate∣rially: And command them to make inqui∣ry for conscience sake, as the Jews used to do, and as converted Gentiles did in the Land of Promise. For the Ordinance of Acts XV. 23. addresseth only to the Churches of Judaea, and to those, which Paul and Barnabas, being sent from Antio∣chia, had founded in Cilicia, and the parts adjacent, Acts XIII. 2, 3, 14—XIV. 26. XV. XIV. 4. The reason of this diffe∣rence is manifest, by the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. XII. 2. Ye know ye were Gentiles, carried after these dumb Idols, as ye were led. Whereas Paul and Barnabas addres∣sed first to the Jews, and founded Chur∣ches of them, for the greatest part. So that, the hopes of winning the Jews re∣maining, the dispensation was to take place. But the Church of Rome consisted of Gentiles, as well as of Jews; whereas, in the Church of Corinth, there is no ac∣count at all had of the Jews. And there∣fore, the forbearance required at Corinth is out of fear of Idolatry; at Rome, of Apo∣stasie.

CHAP. XII. The present Case of this time stated.

HAving thus stated the Case, in which S. Paul ordereth this forbearance, let us state our Case, in which it is deman∣ded, by consequence. But that cannot be done, but out of the premises. We must suppose, the Church of England, a member of the whole Church, desires to Reform it self, because the rest of the Church will not joyn in the same work; But desires to continue a member of the whole Church, and not to give any cause of interrupting Unity, by improving Christianity. I know, some of them that demand Toleration do not allow any such thing, as a Church of England, when they are understood. For, how should they owne any Right of Soveraign Powers, to give Law to the Church of their Do∣minions, that allow them no Right, to punish the transgression of such Laws? But the Case must be stated upon the Terms proposed, nevertheless, as to those that acknowledge National Churches;

Excepting for those that make this Plea, when we see time. This only, I think, would be said, that the Church of England is not now to be Reformed; but, having been Reformed, is now questioned, as if the Reformation of it were not yet per∣fect; And therefore the boldness is ta∣ken, by a private person of my condition, to give an Opinion, what is most wanting in the Reformation of it. Because it cannot be said, what is unduely demand∣ed, until it may be said, what is due to be done. But it must be remembred, that the demand is made in behalf of those, that had made a Schism in the Church of England, by Ordaining or being Ordained Presbyters by Presbyters, without and against the will of their Bishops. In be∣half of those it hath been demanded, that their Ordinations may stand valid and good, and the persons inabled, by the Law of the Land, to minister the Offices of their Orders, and to be trusted with the Cure of Souls, by their Bishops. And not only so, but it hath been further de∣manded, that some of those Laws, by which Religion is setled in the Kingdom, be repealed, for their sakes; That they may have no pretense to scruple the Office

of the Ministry. Not that it is now said, (as for this hundred years it hath been said) that the Laws which they would have repealed are against Gods Law; And that therefore they cannot yield them obedience. But that the Ministers, or People that will follow them, have a doubt in Conscience, which they cannot be cleared of, that it is not Lawful for them to yield them obedience; and that they cannot do it without sinning, and incurring damnation, by doing against their Consciences. And this is also the Case, in which, those that acknowledge no Church of England, no Right in Chri∣stian Powers, to give Law to the Church within their own Dominions, do demand liberty to separate from the Church, into their private Conventicles. Protesting, that they cannot hold Communion with the Church setled by the Laws of the Land; No not though Reformed to the content of those hitherto mentioned. And pretending the same reason from S. Paul, that they should incur sin and dam∣nation, doing it in that doubt, which they cannot be cleared of.

CHAP. XIII. The Mistake which causeth Weakness in our Case.

THe Case thus stated, I must, in the first place, ask both Parties, whe∣ther they do think in their Consciences, that S. Paul had not shewed the Jews at Rome, that were become Christians, suffi∣cient reason, to clear them of the doubts they had, concerning their obligation to the Law of Moses; that they were indeed free of it, and ought to be free of those doubts. I suppose they will think it fit to say, that, though S. Paul injoyn them to forbear one another, so long as they did not understand their freedom; yet, that they might understand it, and were bound to understand it. For, is there any man so little a Christian; now that the time of forbearance is past, that there is no more hope to gain the Jews, by compliance, without making our selves Jews; as to make a question of offending a Jew, by not abating the Profession of his Christianity? The consequence

whereof is all that I demand. If S. Paul would have the Jews forborn, that the provocation, which they might meet with, might not move them to dislike their Christianity; certainly he held them to be under a light, which obliged them not to dislike it. Otherwise he should not have done the work which he pre∣tends to do by this Epistle; to shew the Law to be void, because Salvation comes only by Faith. And certainly, there can be nothing more opprobrious to Christia∣nity, then that which is pleaded, for abatement in the present Laws; That the weak are not under a light, inabling them to see those things to be lawful, which indeed, and to the strong, may be lawful, and appear such. For how could this doubt be cleared, if a weak Conscience should be pretended, when the question is, whether to turn Christian or not? Is it possible, that there should be such a doubt in that point, that a man, to whom the Reason why he ought to be a Chri∣stian is sufficiently proposed, can be said to be under a light, that convinceth him not? Which if it be true, then is there nothing in Christianity, which there is not a sufficient light, to convict that man

of, to whose Office it belongs. Other∣wise, it could not being to his Office; not being able to discern the Obligation of it. It is therefore a horrible reproach to Christianity, to say, that any doubting Conscience is not under a light, sufficient to resolve it. Scruples of Conscience there may be, which may eternally have re∣course; and that no disparagement to the Faith; Because the Faith provides a Re∣solution, that they who have scruples in Conscience, are bound in Conscience to lay them aside; Nay to act positively against them. But he that says, that, be∣ing a Christian, he is not under a light sufficient to clear him, in any doubt of Conscience, says, that the Faith obligeth him to sin; Whereas it is not the Faith, but the want of it, which, obligeth not the erring Conscience to sin, but intang∣leth him so, that he must sin, if the obliga∣tion of acting fall out before the errour be removed. Suppose the Jews convict by the Epistle to the Romans, that Salvation comes only by Faith, and not by the Law also; And you suppose them under a light, that, neither the Law, nor any Or∣dinance, then standing by virtue of the Law, could oblige. But, suppose them

in love with themselves, and with their Ancestors, and to have such an Opinion of Salvation intailed upon them and their issue, by the Law, as to think, that they could not have it by God that gave the Law, if the Gentiles might have it as well as themselves; and they might (very well, for consequence of Reason, though very ill, for their own account) oversee the light they were under. Suppose we now, those that make this Plea, not to believe one Catholick Church, and one Baptism for the remission of sins; But had rather grati∣fie the Socinians, and deny that any Chri∣stian can be obliged, to any thing that ap∣pears not to his own Reason, out of Canoni∣cal Scripture; Then imagine he should gratifie the Papist, if he should grant, that Catholick Communion always made the Catholick Church; Suppose them not to believe, that the Faith which only saveth includeth Baptism in the Catholick Church; And that this Church is not Reformed, unless it be restored to the same form; I say supposing them possest with such prejudices as these, and marvel not, to see them eternally doubting, whether or no, it be lawful for them, to obey the Laws, which this Church and Kingdom is

able to make. Nay, to see them break out into Schism, as all Parties now seem to do, rather then obey them, when they shall be out of hope, to give their own Law to the Kingdom; Never fore∣casting, how it may appear to continue a Church, when they have given such Laws to it.

CHAP. XIV. That it is not Forbearance to allow their Orders.

I Suppose, they who make this Plea, will not grant, that they are in any er∣rour so near the Foundation, as these which I name. Nor do I think, that those Chri∣stian Jews at Rome, that doubted of trans∣gressing the Law, when they knew that Salvation comes only by Faith, did deny the Foundation of Faith. For, as long as they lived in the Church, they were in the way to learn, and understand, how both were true. Neither will I say, that any of those, who desire Forbearance for the weak, are in any errour destructive to the Foundation of Faith, and the hope of Sal∣vation,

till they break out into Conven∣ticles. When that is done, I am thence∣forth bound to charge them with all the Error, which the Title of their Schism can signifie. And therefore I charge them with Hypocrisie, when they pretend to Forbearance because they are weak, and yet break out into Conventieles. when they do so, then they can be counted no more the weak among Christians, then those Jews which S. Paul will have to be forborn, as the weak among Christians; supposing them to have renounced the Faith afterwards, rather then continue in the Church. And therefore, the Plea of weak Consciences cannot be allowed those that ingage in Conventicles. They have cut themselves off from it, by lea∣ving the Church; Let them return, and then make the best of it. As to them, the Church is under a new Precept of S. Paul, which says; A man that is an He∣retick, after the first and second admoni∣tion avoid. Knowing that such a one is out of the way, and sinneth, being condemned by himself, Titus III. 10, 11. Because, saith S. Hierom, after S. Cyprian; Where∣as other sinners are put out of the Church, by those that manage the Keys of the

Church; Hereticks and Schismaticks put themselves out of the Church. There∣fore Titus; that is, all Titus his flock; are to avoid them for Excommunicate per∣sons, who do Excommunicate themselves. As for those that continue in the Church; though with a pretense of giving such Laws to the Church, as no man knows how soon they may unchurch it; let them make their best of it. But being grounded, at least upon a pretense of weakness, there can be no question made, but some errour must be granted, for the ground of this weakness. Let themselves, at their leisure, assign what errour they will acknowledge, if they like not that which I have assigned. Only let them shew the world; that is, the Legislative Power of this Kingdom; what errour it is, that they have hitherto had, which be∣ing avoided for the future, all those diffi∣culties will cease, which, this Discourse pretendeth, cannot be met with, but by bounding the Reformation within the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church. In the mean time, let me go on to shew, that those who were Ordained in and for the late Schism, (composed by the Laws, at his Majesties Return) by

Presbyters against their Bishops, cannot claim by virtue of it, to be owned for Presbyters; Or, in the terms of the An∣cient Church, to be received in their own Orders. A thing which there can no que∣stion be made in, by any body that under∣stands, what the Church, or what a Schism signifies. And it is marvel, how, they that would be thought to allow Episco∣pacy should question it. To acknow∣ledge the Authority of giving Orders in the Bishops, according to the Laws, by which we both maintain this Church to be Re∣formed; and yet to allow those that are made Presbyters by those Bishops, (not to Ordain others, but to Minister the Office of their Order, according to the Reformation setled in this Church) I say, to allow them to Ordain others, to Mini∣ster their Office by other Laws, not only without, but against the consent of the Bishops, from whom they have their Or∣ders, is nothing else but to imagine, that God hath given Power to divide (that is, to destroy) his Church. For what is set∣ting up Altar against Altar, but to Usurp Power to Consecrate the Eucharist, and give the Communion of it, in despite of them, whom they allow to have Power to

do the same; because they do it by Autho∣rity received from themselves? In all the Records of the Church, there is but one Case expresly remembred, in which it can be said to have been done. That fell out in Aegypt, at the time when the Church was divided, between the Arians and the Ca∣tholicks. But before that trouble, there was another division on foot, about re∣ceiving back into the Church, those that had fellen from the Faith, in the persecu∣tion of Diocletian. For Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, had proceeded to Ordain Bishops, in as many Cities as he could, in opposition to those Bishops, that stuck to the See of Alexandria. In these distracti∣ons, Coluthus, one of the XII Presbyters of Alexandria, became the Head of a Party by himself; and to propagate his Party, took upon him to make Ordinations of Presbyters, to Minister to those of his Sect. Aerius is the man, that maintained the Authority of Bishops and Presbyters to be all one. Yet do I not remember, that it is any where said, that Aerius took upon him to Ordain Presbyters, being him∣self one. Much less, that he was able to hold up a Sect, by such Ordinations. Au∣dius was a Presbyter, that became the Fa∣ther

of one of those Sects, that Epiphanius writes against. But Epiphanius says ex∣presly, that he had Bishops that imbraced his Opinion, and propagated his Sect by Ordination. Tertullian became the Fa∣ther of a Sect, which continued at Car∣thage, till S. Austines time; by whom they were reduced to the Church. And truly it is to be presumed, that the Fa∣ther of the Sect did propagate it, by Or∣dinations made of his own Head. For what should he stick at, that takes upon him to divide the Church, and to set up Altar against Altar? But I have not found it said, that he did do it. Nor have I found, that any Presbyter did ever un∣dertake to do it, but Coluthus. At the Council of Nicaea, to unite the Meletians to the Church, the Bishops Ordained by him were allowed to succeed, when the present Bishops should dye; yet so, as to be then lawfully Ordained, though they had been Schismatically Ordained afore. But when the Coluthians pretended the same priviledge, Athanasius pleads for himself, that all Coluthus his Ordinations were made void. Which is thought to have been done, by that Synod at Alexan∣dria, which Hosius was present at, with

Commission from Constantine. This is the only Example of Presbyters Ordained by a Presbyter, without and against his Bishop. All the rest are meer conjectures, which cannot stand, unless we suppose, the Canons of the Church were not obser∣ved, because it is not recorded how they were observed. Whereas all rea∣son requires us to suppose, that they were observed, because they might be obser∣ved; and because there followed no dis∣sension, upon their not being observed. Such Ordinations then, being meer nulli∣ties, as presumed to be done by them, that never received Authority from the Church to Ordain; do further induce Irregularity, by the Canons of the Church. And who can deny, that all reason and Conscience requires it? For, who can believe his Creed, professing one Catho∣lick Church, and not think the Church more disobliged by Schism, then by any other Crime, that renders a man uncapable to be promoted to Orders? Certainly, if Rebellion be the Crime, that is hardest to be reconciled to Civil trust, then is Schism hardest to be reconciled to trust in the Church. Nevertheless, because Unity is to be preferred before Disci∣pline;

and because experience shews, that, when men are taken off from an in∣gagement in division, they prove the more trusty, the more weary they were of their ingagement; it hath been often practised by the Church, to receive, not only Schismaticks, but even Hereticks al∣so, (That is, such as had received Orders of those, that parted from the Church, upon an errour in Faith) in their re∣spective Orders. But always upon con∣dition of renouncing the cause of their division; Whereupon they were to re∣ceive the Blessing of the Church, by Prayer with Imposition of Hands. The reason was, because neither is Baptism in Schism effectual to Salvation, nor Ordination in Schism effectual to Grace, by the Ministry of any Office in Schism. But, being re∣nounced, there remains no Cause, why their Ministry should not be effectual to their people; Their Baptism and their Mi∣nistry to their own Salvation; supposing it sincerely renounced. Therefore the Reason, why they who are Ordained by Presbyters cannot be received in their respective Orders, is peremptory; Be∣cause, the Schism, consisting in Ordain∣ing against Authority, cannot be renoun∣ced,

unless the Ordination be voided. For, so long as the Ministry may be usurp∣ed, upon such Ordination, so long is the Schism on foot. I do very well know, that the Ordinations of Arians were al∣lowed by S. Athanasius, in a Synod at Alexandria; who had made the Ordina∣tion of Ischyras by Coluthus void. And I remember the high acclamation, which S. Hierom applauds his Act with; That thereby, the world was snatched out of Sa∣tans jaws. But I read, that the Tertulli∣niasts were received into the Church; not that they were received in their Orders. I find difficulty made by Forreign Chur∣ches, of receiving the Donatists in their Orders; Notwithstanding the complaints of the African Bishops, that, without them, they had not Clergy enough to serve the Church. Hereby it is to be judged, how severe this Church was, with them that had received Ordination by Presbyters. The Canon of the whole Church makes all Irregular; Ordainers and Ordained. Because they had con∣curred to bring back his Majesty; (Which was the restoring of the Laws, and so of the Church) the forfeiture was wholly passed by, and nothing required

of Ordainers, more then of the Clergy; Which is an utter Oblivion of the attempt made by those Ordinations. And is not that a very great degree of Forbearance in our Case? S. Paul, when he injoyns Forbearance, doth he injoyn, that those who did not understand, how men were saved by Faith alone, that were saved under the Law, should be promoted to Orders, indifferently with those that did profess it? That were indeed something like that which hath been demanded, that Weakness should intitle to the Clergy; which orderly supposes strength. But does he injoyn farther, that they should Minister without Orders? That, conti∣nuing Lay-men, they should commit the Sacrilege of Usurping to Celebrate the Eucharist? That, if their Ordination be void, by the Law of the Land, there should be a new Law made, to make their Ordination good and valid, which was void when it was made? Then must he injoyn, that it be lawful for every Lay-man to celebrate the Eucharist; Foras∣much as every Lay-man hath as much to do, to celebrate the Eucharist, as he whose Ordination is void. Surely S. Paul, that commands Christians to be without

offense to the Jews and Gentiles, as well as to the Church, commands them also to be without offense to Papists. And will not we have those, that would be inabled to consecrate the Eucharist, by such a Law, to shew us how to satisfie the Papists, that such Orders are good? At least those, that by their sufferings have preserved Ordination by Bishops; Let them at least be satisfied of the Validity of Ordination without Bishops. At least, let no man impose upon them, that they cannot yield the Forbearance, which S. Paul requires for tender Consciences, unless they re∣ceive the Sacrament consecrated by Lay-men; That is, by those, whose Ordina∣tion they believe to be utterly void.

CHAP. XV. That the Orders of the Reformed Churches are not void, because these are.

NOw I am to look an Objection in the face, which, at a distance seems to admit of no Answer; but, if it be a little considered, will appear, to have neither Reason nor Religion at the bottom of it.

It is said, that hereby, we shall make void the Ordinations of the Reformed Chur∣ches of France, and others Reformed ac∣cording to Calvin; And so, make them no Churches. Here we agree, that it was necessary for the French, as well as for our selves, to Reform themselves; That it was necessary for all to Reform themselves, unto the Form of the Primi∣tive Catholick Church, I say not we do agree; I say, that, till we do agree, there remains no hope of Unity, because no Rule for Reformation, in the Church. But to the Objection; Who hath the Conscience to think, or the Face to say, that if Ordinations made by Presbyters against their Bishops be void; Then, Ordinations made by Presbyters, where they could not be had by Bishops, are void? For, that is the difference of the Cases. It is manifest, that the Bishops of this Church, when they Ordain Presby∣ters, Ordain them to Minister their Of∣fice, according to the Laws; That is, under their Bishops. And can any man imagine, that hereby, they give them Power to Ordain others to Minister their Office, by what Laws they please themselves? And, had the French demanded of their

Bishops, to Ordain them Presbyters, that should Minister their Office, according to the Reformation, does any man think they would have done it? So, the neces∣sity of Reforming, which we all agree in, made the Ordinations of the Reformed Churches; The Pride and Presumption, which causeth all Heresie and Schism, usurping Authority never received, made the Ordinations of our Presbyters. And shall they be as valid as those? All that can be questioned is, how it may appear, that it was not of choice, but of necessity, that they imbraced that way, of setling and propagating their Reformation, which they imbraced. And for that, we have sufficient Presumption, from the Albi∣genses; Who secretly Reforming them∣selves, under the See of Rome, did cer∣tainly do it, by the Authority of Bishops, who propagated their Order by Ordina∣tions. This may be proved by other te∣stimonies, if need be; But it is sufficient, that the Case of the Bohemians is so well known. They, having resolved, exactly to Reform themselves; and having cho∣sen the Persons, whom they would have for their Bishops; were at a stand, how to compass their succession from the Apo∣stles,

by having them Ordained by Bi∣shops. In this nonplus, they understood, that there were in Austria, of the Albi∣genses, that kept secret Communion a∣mong themselves, under their Bishops; notwithstanding that publickly, to avoid the Laws, they went to Mass. To them they sent their Bishops elect, protesting against their dissembling; but desiring Ordination for their Bishops, which thus were propagated. And this may well seem to be the Reason, why, they that Reformed in the Empire, according to Luther, (in the name of whom Melancthon hath offered, to be subject to their own Bishops, admitting the Reformation) set up such a Form of Episcopacy, as they could, of themselves. For, they had cause to think, that the Bohemians had not advantaged themselves enough, by that Ordination, which they had been able to procure. For, it is to be noted, that they, the Bohemians, had sent all over the World, to learn, how to get such Or∣dination, as might authorize their Mini∣stry, according to the Reformation which they pretended. And are not we, here∣upon, to presume, that the French, by these degrees, finding a necessity of balk∣ing

the Authority of the Episcopacy, which they were under, did think them∣selves, thereupon, free, to cast themselves into that Form, which they use? For, if it be said; That, by this time, they had profited beyond their Predecessors, in discovering the Whore of Babylon; that they found Episcopacy to be the Body of Antichrist, and therefore renounced it; It will appear, by many Reasons, that this cannot serve the turn. First, how can the common sense of men endure to be∣lieve, that the Pope is Antichrist, by rea∣son of that Greatness, which, it is certain and evident, that he hath attained, by Usurping the Rights of his inferiour Bi∣shops? And yet, those inferiour Bishops be the Body of Antichrist; by suffering those Usurpations, which they cannot help? Secondly, it is manifest, that they who should hold this Plea could not pre∣tend, by virtue of their Orders, received from the Bishops of this Church, to Or∣dain Presbyters; Unless they would say, that they may have their Authority from Antichrist. This Plea, therefore, must remain for the Independents; to autho∣rize them, (that think themselves in the State of Grace, before they are members

of the Church) to make their their Congrega∣tions Churches, and Usurp the Authority of Apostles, in Ordaining their own Mini∣sters. Lastly, it appeareth sufficiently, that very many learned and religious per∣sons, of those Churches, have not only approved the Episcopacy here setled; But have wished the benefit of it, to themselves. Whereby it is manifest, that those Churches cannot owne this Reason; when another, so far from it, is owned by their principal Members. I have another Reason to alledge, which weighs as much with me as all these; And, that is, the Communion, which hath al∣ways been used, between this Church, and the Reformed Churches. For, should they hold Communion with us, and yet think our Ordinations authorized by Antichrist, how could they expect to be believed, so grosly contradicting them∣selves? And therefore, though I must not take upon me, either to justifie, or to con∣demn their Ordinations; Averring on one side, that they are not according to Rule; Seeing on the other side, that they are owned by my Superiors; yet I must acknowledge, that there are very great Reasons to hope, and to presume,

that God accepteth of their Ordinations, though not made according to Rule; In consideration of the necessity that drove them to it, and of the Reformation, which they were used to propagate. Whereas, those that Ʋsurp the Power of the Keys, and the Consecrating of the Eucha∣rist, by virtue of Ordinations made in despite of those Bishops, from whom they have all the Authority, which they can challenge by their Orders; what pre∣tense is there to imagine, that there can be any such Crime as Schism, if this be not it? That God should bless that, which is done by such gross Ʋsurpation, as this is? And when all this is said, it remains free for me to say, That there is no other way to restore, and to preserve Ʋnity within the Reformation, but by establishing and maintaining Episcopacy, in that Au∣thority, which it hath always had, for the determining of differences; Nor maintain that Authority, but by confining it, within the Bounds, which the Faith and the Laws of the whole Church do limit. As for the Fanaticks, which make our Orders void, because the Pope is An∣tichrist, and the Mass Idolatry, whence our Bishops received, and where they ex∣ercised

their Orders; I will only consi∣der the Case of the Donatists, forejudged by the whole Church. They pleaded, in point of fact, that Caecilianus was Ordained by Apostates. A thing which the Church was so clear in, that the African Bishops offered to give up their Sees, if it were proved. But besides, in point of Right, had it been proved, and Caecilianus owned by the Church, because it did not appear, or because they thought the Canons ought to be dispensed with, for Unities sake; those that Ordained Caecilianus ha∣ving repented of their Apostacy; shall we imagine, that the Church was lost, by owning those that had been Apostates, and their Ordinations? The Donatists are branded for Hereticks and Schismaticks, maintaining all the Laws of the Church, but that of Unity. And shall Lay-Chri∣stians, presuming to authorize Lay-Chri∣stians, to consecrate the Eucharist, and set up Churches, be esteemed less then Hereticks and Schismaticks? Let those that pretend to Unity find that Forbear∣ance, which a favourable construction of their actions signifies. But Charity to the sound obligeth, to take the profession of Schismaticks in the worst sense, which

if we do, the making of Independent Congregations Churches will be the de∣nying of One Catholick Church; and the making of them Hereticks that do it.

CHAP. XVI. That changing the Laws for the Weak is not Forbearance.

BUt if it be a thing absurd in common sense, to allow them their Orders, much more absurd will it be, to change the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land for their sakes; Which is nothing else, but to purchase their Ministry, at the price of our Religion; which the Ecclesiastical Laws contain. Here, we must distinguish two questions; For it may be lawful for Christian people, to live by those Laws, which it was not lawful for Superiors, in Church and State, to make. A thing evi∣dent to all that believe, that it was possi∣ble for our Ancestors, before the Refor∣mation, to be saved, under the abuses of the Church of Rome. But our question is, whether or no, the Laws of Superiors injoyn that, which Gods Law forbids

Inferiors to do. Otherwise, it is perni∣cious to all Government, that Inferiors should take upon them, to judge the Acts of Superiors. But if the matter of the Law be within the Power that makes it, to require an Exception for tender Con∣sciences is to say, that there is no Power in the World to give any Law to those tender Consciences. Was there ever any Here∣sie, any Schism, any Religion pretending Christianity, that did not alledge Scri∣pture for themselves? Did ever any man alledge it, that would not be thought, to be touched at the heart with it? What is there for a Christian to doubt at, where the Exception of tender Consciences lyes not? Or how shall we, that agree against the See of Rome, but agree not in the terms and grounds of Reformation, be tryed, in the sense of the Scripture? Can any man imagine, that S. Paul intended to destroy his own Authority, of giving Law to the Church, which he exercised, when he ordered the Jews and Gentiles at Rome, to forbear one another? Or is this Authority dead with the Apostles? What Church then can there be alive, if there be no Authority deriyed from the Apostles, to give Law to it? But the Au∣thority

is not questioned, so it provide for weak Consciences. Episcopacy will be owned, if the Secular Power will force it, to take them for their Presbyters, whose Ministry they cannot give account to God of; Being both authorized and exercised by Laws made, without and against their Authority. This, no Chri∣stianity can justifie. Christianity main∣tains the Estates of the World, in all the Right they had, when they became Chri∣stians; And cannot justifie it self to the World otherwise. How should the World receive it upon other terms? But if the World stand upon the same terms, having received Christianity, as afore; then must Christianity, and the Church, continue in the same Rights, which it had before the World received it. No exception to be allowed, but as afore; If it appear, that the Faith and Laws of the Primitive Church be decayed. Not if it seem to private Spirits, that the Scri∣pture is not fulfilled. In the mean time, is it for the honour of the Religion we pro∣fess, that Weakness, (which at the best is negative ignorance, in truth, perhaps, wil∣ful ignorance) should give Law to it? Is it reason, that they, who have failed to

destroy both Church and Kingdom, should give Law to both? As if a Child should govern the House, because he will be framfold, and disquieted, otherwise. Surely it is that, which the Emperor said to his Niece; Put as tibi injuriam fieri nisi imperas? But is that the way to have Peace in Religion? When Inferiors shall be made to tread upon the necks of their Superiors, they will be so modest for the future, as to stay there. They will be content, to have their Doctrine regulated by them, as the Law of the Kingdom re∣quires. Or, they will think fit, that the Bishops be content with their Revenues, and leave them to Preach what they please. Surely, they that can carry the dispute of a hundred years; wherein the Bishops had so visibly the better, that Club-law was found requisite to get the advantage; will not lay down the Cudgels here. So, they that agree, in conforming to the Laws, differing every day, in that which the Law determines not, the Recusants on both sides may make hay in the heat of our Contentions; and profit more by such a Law, then by the War which de∣stroyed this Church. But especially the Atheists, who have profited so well under

these Contentions, as to make that visi∣ble, which was but foreseen under the Usurper; That no Religion would in time stand to be the Religion of the King∣dom; They, having the Priviledge of the Laws, and not liable to any Infamy, when the differences maintained make Religion contemptible, shall have cause to thank all that shall have done their work, by solliciting such Laws.

CHAP. XVII. Of the Opinion of Regeneration by Baptism.

ONe point I must not pass over in si∣lence, which hath been named for a point to be changed; That all passages, seeming to determine the Opinion of Ba∣ptismal Regeneration, be altered in the Li∣turgy and Rubricks of it. For, this point is an instance, how easily, the substance of Faith, necessary to Salvation, may be questioned, or abated, or renounced, by a Clause of such an Act. I grant it is clearly S. Pauls Opinion, S. Peters Opinion, our Lord Christs Opinion, the Opinion of Gods whole Church. Be it the Opinion of

those, whose Opinion is our Faith. But he that would have it no more then Opinion, must teach us a new Faith. No Remission of Sins but by Baptism; En∣tring us into the Covenant of Grace, which the Vow of Baptism inacteth. Entring us into the Church, into which the Sacra∣ment of Baptism introduceth. Abate the Covenant, which the Sacrament of Ba∣ptism inacteth, and how shall a Christian be regenerate? Abate the mention of it in the Service, and where will be the Faith, which this Church, with the Whole Church, hitherto professeth? Shew me any Christian, that ever que∣stioned it, till it was questioned, what was to be Reformed in the Church, and let it be abated. Could Pelagius have questioned it, his Heresie had not so easi∣ly been quelled. He that travelled all the Church, from Britain to Jerusalem, had he found any Church, any received Do∣ctor of any Church, that durst maintain Salvation due by the Covenant of Grace, to any man that dyes unbaptized, he had made the Church more work then he did. No Baptism, no Original sin; no Cure for Original sin but Baptism; no Salvation without the Cure. They that think to

confute Anabaptists, abating this point of Faith, no marvel if they make Anaba∣ptists; when they make men think, that the Church hath no better Reason to con∣fute them with, then they will use. Some perhaps, that are not so well taught as they should be, may think it unagreeable with Christianity, that Salvation should depend upon a Bodily act, as the washing of Baptism; and that in the Power, not of him that is Baptized, but of the Church, or of him that is to minister in behalf of the Church. But S. Peter hath answered this Objection, by distinguishing two things in Baptism, 1 Pet. III. 21. the one, the washing of the Body, which saves not; The other, the Answer that is made out of a good Conscience, to the Examination ten∣dered him that is Baptized; whether he will undertake Christianity or not; And this saves, if S. Peter say true. And what account can any Christian give himself, to ground the hope of his Salvation upon, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christianity; which the Gospel tendreth, which Baptism inacteth? Or what can be necessary to Salvation, if the ground of the hope thereof be not? This is that one ground, which over∣throweth both those Heresies, in which,

I said, all the erroneous Doctrines, of that Confusion which we have seen, do re∣solve. The Profession, which we make at our Baptism, is the Condition on our part, upon which, the Promise of the Co∣venant of Grace becomes due on Gods part. The Profession so made, nothing can defeat the hope of a Christian, but the transgressing of it; Being transgres∣sed, nothing can repair this hope, but the restoring of it. All Arts to disguise this Faith, all over the Scripture, signifie no∣thing, but the hope of Salvation, without living the life of Christians. I will hope, whatsoever Fanaticks or Atheists would have, that there was never any intent to demand, so great an Apostasie from the Faith to be inacted, by a Law of the King∣dom. I will hope much more, that, had it been demanded, it would have been rejected, with that indignation, which so great Apostasie deserveth. But I am glad, and give God hearty thanks, that I have lived to the day, when I may and do testifie to my Country, and to the Church of God in it, that he who should demand of them, to renounce this point, must de∣mand of them to unchurch themselves, and to be, for the future, that which the

See of Rome would have us to be.

CHAP. XVIII. Conference for Satisfaction is Forbearance.

BUt is there then no effect of S. Pauls precept, in our Case? Can we break the Unity of the Church, without bread∣ing the Charity of Christians? Or can particular Christians be tyed to forbear one another, and Christian Powers not be tied, to cause both to do the same? Here is indeed the Hinge, upon which the truth turns; and resolves all questions, and clears all difficulties, which must and will intangle the World in confusion, upon the account of Christianity, till it be owned. Christian Powers may constrain their Subjects, that profess Christianity, to be Christians; and punish them if they be not. But they must protect them for their Subjects, though they be not. The rea∣son of this hath not been declared, by the Reformation; though they have just cause to complain, and do, as they have cause, complain of the See of Rome, for authorizing capital Penalties upon Here∣ticks.

Under that name they comprize also Schismaticks; And Schismaticks, in their language, (as also in the language of all that claim the Authority of the Church) signifies all that maintain Com∣munion apart; though the Cause make the Crime before God. But if S. Paul have Reason, when he commands every Chri∣stian to continue in the Estate in which he was called to be a Christian, then can no mans Life or Estate become forfeit, for not being a Christian; And much less, for not being Orthodox, but an Heretick. If the Life or Estates of Subjects should Eschete to the Soveraign, for not being Christians, that temporal Dominion of So∣veraigns must be founded upon the Grace they have to be Christians. All such Right S. Paul disclaims, and discharges. But shall Soveraign Power, that is Chri∣stian, be therefore disabled, to give Law to Subjects professing Christianity? That is our Case; the whole Kingdom pro∣fessing Christianity, though the Whole cannot so properly be said to profess the Reformation. For, the Reformation setled by Law, we see, is refused, as well by those that separate from it, for a Re∣formation of their own, as by those that

adhere to the See of Rome. Shall the Soveraign then lose the Right, that all Christian Soveraigns have, of giving Law to their Subjects, in point of Religion, because he is a Christian? Or shall the Subject, by being a Christian, stand obli∣ged to the Laws of his Soveraign, com∣manding him to stand to the Christianity which he professeth? Suppose the Chri∣stianity commanded to be Visible, before Christian Powers command it, and you inable their Laws to oblige their Sub∣jects. Not supposing it, you cannot say, how the Laws of Soveraign Powers should oblige Christian Subjects; seeing the Papacy, as well as the Reformation, maintained by Christian Soveraigns. For, by the same Reason, for which, the Subjects of those Powers that maintain the Reformation are tied to their Laws; by the same Reason, should the Subjects of those that maintain the Papacy be ob∣liged to obey the Laws, by which they maintain it. There can be no Reason for a difference, if that which they main∣tain be not Visible, before the Law main∣tain it. I suppose it will not be though a good Plea, at the day of Judgment, for a Subject to say; that he was either Pro∣testant

or Papist, because his Soveraign was so. Now, Christianity can be Visi∣ble, by no other means, but, because it is the Visible Profession of the Visible Church. If it become Invisible, by diffe∣rences betwixt Parties, it must be in So∣veraign Powers, to bring the Parties to tryal; Provided, that there be no tryal, but by the Visible Church. This is the Forbearance that may be extended by Pa∣stors, and may be required by the Sove∣raign, in our Case. For, the present dis∣sension shews, that the Reformation was well begun, indeed, but not perfected. Does not the World know, that there was an Act in force, for nominating Commis∣saries, to Reform the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Kingdom? I am not to say, why this Act took no effect. I think I have said it, when I have observed the rise of the Puritan Party, and the seeds of the late War, sowed in the beginning of Re∣cusancy. But I am to say, it could not have taken good effect, without taking in the Principle which I maintain. What could be more just, and discreet, then to appoint Commissaries, in equal num∣ber, of Bishops, Divines, Civil and Com∣mon Lawyers? But what could have had

force, but that which had been done, to restore and maintain the Faith, and Laws of the Primitive Church? There are ve∣ry great Reasons, why, those that desire to serve the Church should be satisfied, in all that this Exception will allow. There can be no Reason, why more should be allowed. To bring them into dispute with their Pastors, is to put the Authority of the Church to compromise. To com∣promise any Law of the Kingdom, to dis∣pute of Divines, upon this Principle, is no more, then to oblige, either Popish or Fanatick Recusants, either to stand to the Result, or to suffer Penalties competent to their disobedience; and the hazard which the Publick Peace runneth, when the Peace of Religion is disturbed. If that which hath been pretended be all that is intend∣ed; That some small things are scrupled; Let the Legislative Power be satisfied, that the preservation of Religion, and of the Authority of the Church; in which the preservation of Religion consisteth; is only sought. The Interest of the Par∣ties, to give and to receive mutual satis∣faction, is so great, that if there can be ever hope of Peace, by dispute, this is the time, and ours the Case, wherein to hope for it.

CHAP. XIX. Probability of recovering the Presbyterians.

FOr, I cannot have so hard an opinion of men, whose zeal, for the advance∣ment of Discipline in the Church, I have always esteemed; as to think them re∣solved, to ruine the Common Christianity, without hope of doing their own busi∣ness; seeing this to be the unavoidable consequence, of holding up the diffe∣rence on foot; rather then taking up, with so much of their own Pretensions, as the State of the Catholick Church will allow. Let them consider, in the first place, the Recusancy of the Fanaticks as well as those of the Church of Rome; What hope their Principles can give them, either to make their Recusancy pu∣nishable by the Law of the Land, or to reduce them, by convicting them of that sense of the Scripture, which they only allow themselves to convict them with? I set aside, for the present, those Prophe∣sies of Daniel and the Revelation, by which, they pretend the Pope to be Anti∣christ,

and the Papists Idolaters. For, I must argue in due place, that the Recu∣sancy of the Papist cannot be punishable by Law, upon this Account. But how will they, either reduce the Recusancy of the Papist, by those punishments, which the Recusancy of the Fanaticks must suffer; or give the Kingdom, God, and the World, a Reason for the why not? which the best of them is here challenged to undertake. Then, let them consider the wantonness of these times, and the wits of them, that think it good sport, to call in question the foundation of Christiani∣ty, upon the belief of Original sin, by in∣troducing the praeexistence of Souls; That think it but sport, to make ready their studies in Divinity, for the Pulpit, by Episcopius his Works; denying Original sin both name and thing, and making the Faith of the Holy Trinity unnecessary to Salvation. Or rather by the Works of the Socinians, collected and united toge∣ther in Holland, on purpose to prepare us, for the same Apostasie to Socinianism, which they are in so much danger of there. Let them consider, what hope they have, to make the Ʋniversities good Presbyterians, that have sowed the seeds

of this danger in them, by the dissatisfa∣ction they had of their Doctrine, when they were in Possession there. Then let them tell me, what we shall say to the Papists, to perswade them, to come to Church; when as they shall say, that they cannot be secured, that their Curate is no Socinian, or Origenist. For, the Armi∣nian Congregations in Holland having ad∣mitted the Socinians into their Commu∣nion; and the Canon of the Church ma∣king all Socinians, in the eye of the Church, that Communicate with Socini∣ans; how shall they be secured against those, that take their Doctrine from the Socinians; Or from them, who commu∣nicate with Socinians? Besides, let them but remember the time, when they had the Ball at their Foot; an Ordinance of Parliament for setting up their Presbyte∣ries; And how much they gained upon the People, (whom they had disordered out of all Ecclesiastical Government) when they came to be at what they would be at. I think they will be at so great despair, of reducing the World to their intent, (having nothing in the Law of the Land to favour it) that they will think, that they have cause to thank God, of a

good opportunity, to bring them off from an ingagement, in which they are like to gain so little, by hazarding the common Christianity. As for the Clergy of this Church, I suppose there is none of them so little a Christian, as to repute it a loss to the Party, to see their Adversaries capable of that trust in the Church, and those re∣wards of it, which they have suffered for themselves. For, if the necessity of the Kingdom hath required an Act of Obli∣vion, much more must the necessity of Religion; which cannot be attained, without a cordial conspiring, of those that are to manage it; inforce a mixture of Interest. And that being considered, let any man tell me, how that can be made, but by a Third, in which all are alike Interessed; That is, by owning the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church, whereby the Papist is either re∣duced, or left punishable as the Fanatick.

CHAP. XX. The Cure, by repairing the Revenue of the Church.

BUt all this is but a Cure for the Sym∣ptom. Should such a Conference take effect, the Cause of the disease would re∣main intire. For, the Cause of our Di∣visions is not these differences; which are too inconsiderable, to produce so in∣comparable a mischief, as that of Schism. It rises, and is fomented, by those Inte∣rests, which the imperfection of two Laws of Henry VIII. hath created. So that, the Reformation is no way obliged to answer for them; Only, if it refuse not to mend them, now that time hath discovered the mischiefs which they have produced. I call them two Laws, not as if they were comprised in two Acts of Parliament; but because they concern, one of them the indowment, the other, the Rights of the Church. We all know, that, when the Monasteries were given to the Crown, the indowment of those Churches, which had been impropriated to those Monaste∣ries,

was transferred, by the Crown, into those hands, that could not Officiate the Cure of Parishes; as the Monasteries, by some of their Members, or by their Vicars, had done. And, though the Right of the Crown (which could be no more then the Monasteries had) could not abate the Original Right of the Bishop, in setling a reasonable portion upon the Vi∣carages; yet, in the hands of those that claim under the Crown, it hath appeared so strong, that such Vicarages are gene∣rally impoverished; But where the Cure lay upon the Covent, there, there now remains no indowment, no Provision for the Cure of Souls; Which falls out most in Cities, and places that were most fre∣quented with Monasteries, as well as with People. What the consequence hereof hath been, it is plain enough; Even a sort of Mungrel Clergie of Lecturers; Who, being Authorized by the Bishops Orders and License, but payed by the Peo∣ple, to supply the Office of Preaching, which the Benefices of the Church were not able to maintain; Like a Pack of Dogs, that are ruled by the Huntsman that seeds them, and sets them a work, not by the Master that provides for them;

No marvel that they owne not the Bi∣shops, for Judge of their Preaching, whe∣ther according to the Law or not. He that sees not, that this was the sourse of the late War, of him is the Proverb, that says; No man so blind as he that will not see. And the worst is, that so great a part of the Gentry, as have shared with the Crown, in the spoils of the Monaste∣ries, think it their Interest, to hold up that Party, which, they think, would justifie their Title in point of Conscience; Whereas it is found by experience, that those very Preachers, that would Reform the Church by force of the People, would question their Tenure, as soon as they saw themselves in condition to do it. Now, I intend not here to dispute, that, founda∣tions to intents of false Religion; as for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory; are ipso facto forfeit to the true. God him∣self hath recommended this Course to the Church, in the Case of the Censers of Core, Dathan, and Abiram; which he challenges for his own, to the use of the Altar, though consecrated to the use of their Schism. But the Christian Emperors of the Pri∣mitive Churches, inacting those Penalties upon the Conventicles of Hereticks and

Schismaticks, which we read, in the last Book of Theodosius his Code, the fifth Ti∣tle de Haereticis; have confiscated the pla∣ces where they met in nine Laws, and forfeited them to the Church, in five. Whereby it appears, that the Primitive Church, living under those Laws, did not think, that goods, so consecrated, do, of necessity, eschete to the Church. My present purpose obliges me only to sup∣pose, that the Tithes; which, all the world saw, that they had been consecra∣ted to God, for maintaining the Cures of the Parishes; These, if there be any such thing as a Church, could not be alienated from it, without Sacriledge. But I say not, therefore, that they can never be held bona side; Which is that which makes the jealousie incurable, in those that find their Estates consist much of them. And, yet, I undertake not to warrant, generally, the holding of them; Only think, that, in some particulars, it may be warrantable. For, when they are come into such hands, that the support of Estates depends necessarily upon them; and that, by mean contracts, and originally such, as had in them no ill Faith; I say not I can warrant them, I think they may be

warrantable. Now, I know there may be an Act of Oblivion done by the Church, as well as by the Kingdom. And the Church of Rome knew it well enough, when they reconciled this Kingdom, under Q. Mary, without restoring these Possessions. By the same Reason, for which Hereticks and Schismaticks were always dispensed with for Canonical Penalties; (leaving the Pardon to God, that the Unity of the Church might be recovered) By the same, may the Church leave all to their own Consciences; not warranting their pardon from God, neither yet refusing them the Communion, as unpardonable. But alas, what would this Act do in our Case, did the whole Clergy understand themselves tyed in Conscience, by it, not so much as to mention, much less to re∣proach any such Tenure? So long as the mischief once done remains unprovided for, by the Law, which gives the Title and Possession; the contradiction be∣tween the Canonical and Popular Interests can never cease. But if the Kingdom consider, that it was an Act of Parliament that did the wrong, they must necessarily find, that nothing but an Act of Parliament can repair it. And if the People consi∣der,

that a Parliament may transgress the trust which they repose in them; (which of necessity may come to pass, unless we make the Parliament infallible, and the Pope not) they will easily find, that a Par∣liament cannot repair the wrong that a former Parliament hath done, but upon the Charge of the people. For Church∣goods, under Christianity, cease not to be the Goods of the People, though the Church be trusted with managing them, being founded by God for that purpose. And he that admits of the necessity of all this, will find it no considerable Charge for the whole Kingdom, to furnish contribu∣tion, necessary for the founding and in∣dowing of Churches, requisite for the Resort and Cures of all Assemblies, requi∣site for a Reformation regulated by the Primitive Church. And if this be one Cause of our Divisions, and that the Kingdom cannot be counted a Christian Kingdom, till it take a course in it; let no man marvel to see the Judgments of God, in our Divisions, when he sees the Sin of the Kingdom continue. And if this were considered, the discourses that walk up and down in all Assemblies, of relieving the Publick Charge, by seizing

the pitiful remainder of the Church-Re∣venue, would appear to be, as they are, the productions of Atheism, not of pity to the peoples purses.

CHAP. XXI. By limiting and restoring Ecclesiastical Discipline.

THe other Law, concerning the Right of the Church, in the Supre∣macy of the Crown, over all Persons, and in all Causes, as well Fcclesiastical as Civil, may seem to extinguish the Right of the Church, over the same Persons, and in the same Causes: Which could not be called Ecclesiastical, if there were no such thing as a Church, (as one of the Articles of our Creed professes) indowed by God, with a Right in and over the same. And there∣fore, I do not attribute the cause of our divisions to it, as unjust, but as indefinite, and unlimited. And I instance in the Tenure of our Ecclesiastical Courts; Which, by a branch of this Law, are de∣clared to be the Kings Courts, and the Judges of them the Kings Judges. A thing

necessarily following, upon the Resumpti∣on of the Rights of the Crown, usurped by the See of Rome, into the Crown. But which hath turned so great dissatisfaction, in the establishment of Religion by the Law of this Land; because the Right of the Church, in that part of their Jurisdi∣ction, which necessarily ariseth from the Founding of the Church, by our Lord Christ, hath not been reserved to the Church, by express Provision of Law. Thereupon followed another Law, which gave the Judges of these Courts the Priviledge of being Married: At such time, as the Law of the Land allowed not the Clergy to Marry. And by conse∣quence, made them no Clergy-men, whom the Law owned for the Kings Judges of these Courts; Exempting them thereby, from the Canonical Obedience, which they of Clergy owe their Bishops; And leaving their Ministring of the Laws, in their respective Jurisdiction, to their own discretion, as well against, as without the consent of their Bishops. It is true, they subsist by Patents granted by their Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Dignities, indowed with Jurisdictions. But, the Law having declared them the Kings

Judges, I refer it to Judgment, whether it were any marvel, that the Bishops, and other Dignities with Jurisdiction, should discharge themselves of their Jurisdiction, upon such Judges, as the Law had quali∣fied, rather then cross the Law, in taking them upon their own charge; Part whereof, in ministring the Power of the Keys, and in correcting the inferior Clergie, is essential, and necessary to the Office, which Ordination makes the Clergy (Bi∣shops, and Presbyters) capable of. For it is resolved upon, by the Sages of our Laws, that, such a Patent being granted for term of life, the Patentee is inabled to exercise the whole Jurisdiction, without and against the consent of him that grants it; and shall be maintained against him, in so doing, by the Law of the Land. I am neither to blame, nor to excuse them, that have not done their utmost, to re∣deem the Office, which we are consecra∣ted to a capacity of managing, out of that Possession, which the Law of the Land thus ingageth. For, it is granted, and it is to be granted, that the Church cannot pardon sin; As if it could pardon him that is not qualified for pardon: Or keep him from pardon that is. But the Church par∣dons

sin, by bringing him to be qualified for pardon that is not: And declaring him pardoned that is. If we were Fana∣ticks, and believed no Condition of par∣don, but only, to imagine that we are pardoned; There would be no Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Keys of the Church to manage. If we believed, as some understand the Council of Trent; That sin is pardoned, by sub∣mitting it to the Keys of the Church: And that the mortification of the flesh serves only to redeem the temporal Penalty, re∣maining due when the sin is pardoned; A Lay Judge, having knowledge, might manage the Keys of the Church, as well as a Priest. But, because a notorious sinner becomes qualified for pardon, when the Concupiscence is mortified, which his sin gratifies: And, because he undergoes his Mortification, because he cannot have the Communion otherwise; Therefore are they only, that consecrate the Eucha∣rist, to judge, whether he be qualified or not, and to give or refuse him that which they consecrate. And, Commutation of Pe∣nance, when it supposes not, the inward contrition of the heart performed, by outward mortification of the flesh, is but the betraying of that Soul to damnation,

whom it admits to Communion, not be∣ing qualified for it. True it is, nothing hinders him, that is discharged of Excom∣munication, to become qualified by his own private endeavours. But, God would never have founded his Church, upon the Power of the Keys, if the Office thereof were only, not to hinder, and not also to procure, notorious sinners, to be fit for Communion with the Church. And, that to procure, must be the Office of those, who, by the Foundation of the Church, are to judge, who is fit and who not. If therefore the Law of the Land provide not, that that Office of the Church may be in force, to that effect, for which the Power of the Keys is given them that consecrate the Eucharist; Is it any marvel, that the Judgment and Ven∣geance of God should lye so heavy upon the Land, professing Reformation, and not inabling that which it professeth to take place? My present business there∣fore is now to say; That the Interests which cause our Divisions are so far im∣putable to these Laws, as, without the Reforming of the Laws, they cannot be cured. Two of these Interests I name, contradictory the one to the other, in their

Pretenses. For, what doth the World complain of, but of the abuse of Excom∣munication; daily imployed, to inforce the contentious Jurisdiction of these Courts; Never imployed, to the corre∣ction of sin, and recalling of sinners; Which, being the Office of those that receove the Power of the Keys by Ordina∣tion, cannot be exercised by the Laity, without Sacriledge. Now, granting, that the Usurpation of the See of Rome, or the Indulgence of Christian Princes and States have procured, or granted to the Clergy, a larger Jurisdiction then their Office required; It would have been no Inconvenience, that the whole Jurisdiction should be inforced, by Ex∣communication, signifying imprisonment by the Law of the Land; If a difference had been made, between the proper Ju∣risdiction of the Church, and the Accessory. For, in this part of it, it is an oppression to Christian Subjects, that they should be barred the Communion, for maintaining themselves and their Right, by Law, in matters of any Right of this World; Though the Clergy were Judges, by the Law of the Land. But it would be no oppression to them, that the Jurisdiction

of the Kings Courts should be inforced by imprisonment; which Excommunication might signifie, by the Law of the Land, without signifying a Bar to the Communion of the Eucharist; if these were duely di∣stinguished. In the mean time, the whole indowment of the Church, in a manner, being irrecoverable by these Courts, with∣out Excommunication; the scandal of these Jurisdictions becomes a Popular Plea, to strip the Clergy of their mainte∣nance; Tyths being no farther paid, then it please Frantick Fanaticks, or contenti∣ous neighbours, to do right of good will; Knowing that, Excommunication being odious, Imprisonment is not like easily to follow upon it. I said, that there is ano∣ther Interest on foot, upon a Pretense contradictory to this. And I mean that, which vulgar Professors of the Laws of the Land set up to themselves, out of these scandals; To reduce the whole Jurisdi∣ction of Ecclesiastical Courts under the Jurisdiction of the Laws of the Land, and those Courts that minister the same. This Interest espouseth the Opinion, which voids the Article of our Creed that pro∣fesses One Catholick Church; making Ex∣communication, and Ecclesiastical Juris∣diction,

founded by our Lord Christ, a meer Imposture; declareth it uncapable of any Sacriledge, to be committed in the using of it. In the mean time, the Clergy, whose Interest is no ways con∣cerned, in the Scandals, which the Eccle∣siastical Courts may give; Further, then as they are hindred, by the said Courts, to cure their Scandals, by the due Use of their own Office; do suffer, not only the Scandals which are done under colour of their Patents; But even the affronts of the Ecclesiastical Courts themselves; Receiving Appeals, from the Censure of their Bishops upon the Clergy. For, a few examples, serving the Bishops, not to imploy that Jurisdiction, which is so ea∣sily affronted, it must be acknowledged, that the debauches of the Clergy are come to that height, that, till they be Reformed, Reformation is not duely pretended against the See of Rome.

CHAP. XXII. The ground of the proper Interest of the Church.

BUt perhaps there be those, that are perswaded by the Leviathan, that a Church is nothing else but a Christian Common-wealth. And that the Civil Power thereof, which is Soveraign, hath full Right to injoyn whatsoever it please, for the Christian Religion; exacting what Penalties it please of Recusants. There be others besides the Leviathan, that have maintained some branches of the same Opinion; but he is the only man, that hath looked the whole Questi∣on in the Face, with this Answer. I will but relate the Issue, which his own Reso∣lution hath driven him to, and leave him to Judgment. For, having objected to himself, in his Latine Book de Cive, that which is obvious to all Understandings; That then, a Christian may be justly pu∣nished, for his Christianity; He answers, that it is no inconvenience, that he should; Because, by suffering, he pur∣chases

an abundant reward. I know not whether any man told him, or whether himself took notice, that this was the an∣swer of Julian the Apostate, making him∣self sport with the complaints of the Christians; That they were beholding to him for the Kingdom of Heaven, which they gained by suffering his Persecutions; But, that it was not for the credit of his doctrine, to bring Christian Princes into the predicament of Julian the Apostate. And therefore, upon second thoughts, his Leviathan answers; That a Subject is bound to obey all that his Soveraign commands in Religion, whether he be Christian or not: Insomuch that, if he command him to renounce Christ, he is bound to do it with his mouth, and shall be saved, believing in him with his heart, nevertheless. This answer shews the necessary issue of this Opinion; That he who holds it, if he be as bad as his word, is as necessarily an Apostate, as Julian the Apostate. The hope of Salvation, and the Right of Communion with the Church, lyes not only in the heart, which believes to righteousness, but in the mouth, which professeth to Salvation. The Pro∣fession, which is made at our Baptism, is a

Condition, without which it cannot be had. It is the taking up of Christs Cross, which the Gospel requireth. He that de∣clares himself free, in any Case whatsoe∣ver, to renounce Christs, though he hath not done it, hath declared himself free of the Bond, which he entred into at his Ba∣ptism; And as he is no more a Christian to God, no more should he be to the Church. If further he say; As the Pro∣positions first maintained, and afterwards recanted, by his late Disciple at Cam∣bridge, do import; That there is no dif∣ference between good and bad, before Civil Power that is Soveraign inact it; Then must it be said further, that he is properly an Atheist. For, if God govern not the World, if he reward not the good, if he punish not the bad, though man do not, (pardon me God and all good Christians, if I repeat Blasphemy, that it may never more be repeated) then is he not God. Particularly, if Civil Power can oblige a man to say or swear, that which he means not, there remains not that Ground for Civil Society, which the Heathen themselves (whom nevertheless S. Paul truly calls Atheists) maintained. For, what Ground for Civil trust, if

there be no Law, before Civil trust, to punish the falsifying of it? Let him that considers this Consequence, (necessary upon all Opinions, that distinguish not the matter of Ecclesiastical Law, conse∣quent to the State and Constitution of the Church, from the Force it hath, to be a Law of the Kingdom, by the Act of the Kingdom) I say, let him answer in Con∣science, whether those Laws, by which the Rights of the Crown, Usurped by the See of Rome, are Resumed into it, did proceed upon this Opinion or not. For my part, I remember very well a solemn Protestation, which one of them makes, that the intent was not, to innovate any thing in Religion, by vindicating the Rights of the Crown. And therefore do infer, that none of them can be under∣stood, to extinguish the Rights of Reli∣gion, concurrent with the Rights of the Crown, in Church-matters, which it doth not distinguish; Knowing how difficult it is, to distinguish between them; As not knowing, that ever the ground, upon which they are to be distinguished, was delivered till now. But there is an Act of the V. of Q. Elizabeth, by which, that abatement in the sense of the Supremacy

of the Crown in Church-matters, which had been declared by her Injunctions, from the beginning of her Raign, to prevent misconstructions, was made a Law of the Land. This Act, because it undertaketh not to limit the Supremacy, by distinguish∣ing the Interest of the Crown from the In∣terest of the Church, (for the difficulty of satisfying all Consciences) gives the Subject leave, to declare the sense, in which he takes that Oath; reserving to himself, that which Religion requires a Christian to reserve, for the Church. Which was not the sense of them that be∣lieved no Catholick Church, no Visible Right of it. And, by vertue of this De∣claration, it is, that my self have under∣taken to declare that limitation, which the Catholick Church requireth. For, how many Prelates and Divines of this Church, (King James of excellent Me∣mory in particular) have done the same? But it is no other, then that which the Canons of K. James declare; when they describe this Supremacy to be the same, which the Godly Kings of Gods Ancient People, which the Roman Emperors of the Primitive times (before that corruption came in, which we Protest against) did

exercise. Here have you the due bounds of this Supremacy, setled by Law, upon the true ground of it. For it is manifest, that it cannot be derived from the Rights of the Kings of Gods Ancient People alone; Because there could be no Catho∣lick Church, before the calling of the Gen∣tiles. But, the Empire, imbracing the Faith, when the Church was setled upon that Faith, and those Laws, that are now as Visible, as the Laws of England, from which present Titles are derived, can be Visible; must needs have that Right, from which the Right of all present So∣veraignties must be derived; Because the Church, (whose Interest concurreth with the Interest of them all, in the same matters) is always One and the same, and ought so to be, from the first to the second Coming of Christ. And that answers any difficulty, that may be objected, when any Law of any Roman Emperor, or other Christian Prince or State, seems to infringe the Canons of the Church. For, the Protection of the Crown being of such advantage as it is, both for the in∣larging, and maintaining of Christianity; It is enough, that the Church can conti∣nue One and the same Visible Church, by

one and the same Visible Laws; Though the force and effect of them be hindred now and then, here and there, by some Acts of Secular Power, which, in some regards, may advance the Church as much, as they hinder it in others. It was necessary for the Crown, under Henry the VIII, to vindicate the Supremacy from the pretense of the Popes Secular Power; which had been on foot divers Ages afore. And therefore, not to have to do with him, that pretended to assoil the Sub∣jects of Princes, whom he should excom∣municate, of their Allegiance, till they might owne him, upon terms, consistent with the Protection they owe their Peo∣ple. And it was still more necessary, under Edward the VI. when the Refor∣mation was inacted; which, they knew well enough, that the Pope would not en∣dure. But, when the Right of the Crown in Church-matters is declared by Law, to be the same, which the Kings of Gods Ancient People, and the first Christian Emperors did exercise, the ground of that Interest, and the bounds of that Interest, which the Church must challenge, if it will continue a Church, are declared to be the same, which the Faith and the Laws

of the Whole Church from the beginning do allow.

CHAP. XXIII. Of restoring and reforming the Jurisdicti∣ons of the Crown, and of the Church, in Ecclesiastical Causes.

ANd this makes the Reformation of our Ecclesiastical Laws as easie, as it is visibly the cure of all distempers in Religion among us. It is in brief this; That the Jurisdiction, which may by this means appear to the Kingdom, to be in∣vested in the Church by Gods Law, be, by a Law of the Kingdom, restored to the Clergy; To the Bishops in chief, then, to the Chapters of their Cathedrals, and to their Archdeacons; (And to these, not without the Assistance of the Principal Clergie, of their Respective Jurisdictions) the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts continuing the Kings Judges, as they are now by Law; to manage the Interest of the Crown, (in all the Rights thereof, resumed into the Crown, by the Acts of Supremacy) according to the Roman

Laws, in those Ages of Christendom, which passed before the Usurpation of the See of Rome had taken place. If it be said; That it is not Visible, when those Usurpations took place; I shall allow all the time, which that Code of the Canons contains, that Pope Adrian sent to Charles the Great; In whose time, there can be no pretense of Usurpation, upon the Temporalties of Princes, by the See of Rome. This Code is yet read, under the Name of Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Ro∣manae. I have commended the Justice and Wisdom of that Commission, which was designed under Henry the VIII, and Edward the VI, for the qualities of Per∣sons limited by it. But I do not think it possible for any Commission, to Reform the Alterations introduced by the Popes Canon Law, after that time, in one Kings Raign, with that circumspection which is requisite. The Jurisdiction which the Church challenges, by Gods Law, can not be distinctly stated, with more satis∣faction to all Interests, preserving that of Religion, then by a Commission so qua∣lified. The Interest of the Kingdom, in preserving the study of the Roman Laws, hath always been thought considerable.

But how shall the study of them be main∣tained, if the Authority of them be not maintained? Or how shall that Autho∣rity be maintained, but by adopting them into the Law of the Kingdom, in matters necessary to be provided for by Law, but not provided for, by the native Law of the Kingdom? Or what provision can there he, by the native Law of the King∣dom, for those Causes, which, for so ma∣ny hundred years before the Reforma∣tion, the Popes Canon Law had senten∣ced, by the Authority of the Kingdom? There is an Interest of Religion in Matri∣monial Causes, in Testamentary Causes, in Causes arising upon Elections of Corporate Clergie, in Causes of Dispensation in Ca∣nons, in Causes of Tithes, in divers sorts of Causes, besides those which the Power of the Keys, in the Discipline of the People, and the Correction of Inferior Clergy occasioneth. Let me not say, that it were Barbarous, for a flourishing Kingdom, in a flourishing Age, for all other Learning, to reduce the Tryal of them, to the Arbitrary Verdicts of Juries; (Who can never understand the Grounds, upon which the matter of Fact is to be stated) when I can so clearly say, that

there can be nothing more like to meer Tyranny, then Arbitrary Justice; nor Ju∣stice more Arbitrary, then, where it is manifest, that there can have been no other Law provided, because the Canon Law hath been hitherto used. As for those Causes, which are proper to the Church, as rising from the Constitution of it; how can it stand with Religion, and Reformation in Religion, which we pre∣tend, to try them otherwise, then by those, which, the Kingdom shall be satis∣fied, by such a Commission, that they are by Gods Law capable of Authority to do it? And the Interest of the Crown, and of the Subjects, which it is bound to pro∣tect, shall be secured, when provision is made, by adopting the Roman Laws, for managing the Rights of the Crown, re∣sumed by the Act of Supremacy, within those Bounds, which the Roman Laws maintained, before the Usurpation of the See of Rome. It cannot be denied, that the Popes Canon Law (which the Law of the Land hath already adopted, so far as it contradicteth not the Law of the Land) provideth for many things, not provided for by the Primitive Canons, within the Compass of the Roman Laws. And it

would be too much rashness, to recal that Adoption, and to leave so much matter to arbitrary Justice, rather then retain a Provision, which the Law and Religion professed by the Kingdom owns not the Original of, though it owne the matter it hath adopted. For, whatsoever shall prove, by time and tryal, to hinder the Reformation, which we pretend thus to ground, and thus to bound, the faults that shall be found by experience must open the way of mending it, because the Cure must be as particular, as the disease is. And upon these Terms, it can be no dishonour to the Kingdom, and to the Reformation which it professeth, to use the Canon Law which it adopteth, till time shew the way of amending those par∣ticulars, which, time shall shew, that the Reformation pretended requires to be changed. For instance, we know, that since Henry VIII. it is not the custom to take any degree in Canon Law; Not∣withstanding the Law of the Land ado∣pteth the Canon Law. And, according∣ly we all know, that Graduates in the Civil Law of the Romans are privi∣ledged, by the Ecclesiastical Law of the Kingdom. I would fain have any of

them, that would wear the Face, and the Conscience of a good Christian, and a good English man both; Give me a rea∣sonable Account of these their Tenures, waving that which I here set forth for them; whom they will think too bold with their Freehold for it. For my part, who am no mans foe, but my own, in publishing my Opinion thus freely, upon this Exigent; I think I do good service to them, with my Country, to set forth this Account, why and how the Roman Laws deserve to be adopted into the Laws of the Kingdom; Namely, that the Popes Canon Law, which is already adopted, may be limited within those Bounds, with the Roman Laws; (And by consequence, the Primitive Canons of the Church, which the Roman Laws acknow∣ledge and inforce) do either prescribe or allow. I would make a further Offer, of introducing the Roman Laws, both into the Study of the Law of the Land, and into Authority in our Courts of Equi∣ty; And of reconciling, thereby, the Cross-Interests of the Professions, upon competence of Jurisdictions. But, though I must needs have that Opinion my self, which, I can see nothing against, seeing

much for it; yet I will trouble no man with an Opinion, which neither my Pro∣fession obliges me, nor my skill inables me to make out. It shall be enough for me to observe, that they shall deserve to be counted Professors of the Roman Laws, that are trusted to minister the Canon Laws, by those Bounds, which the Roman Laws allow. As for the Concurrence of that Jurisdiction which is proper to the Clergy, by Gods Law, and that which is resumed by the Crown, to be ministred by the Professors of the Roman Laws; I do acknowledge it cannot be ended, but by Appeals; The issue whereof, whither it ought to resort, when it is time to say, it will be then time to say also, how these Interests are reconcileable. In the mean time, Episcopacy being owned by the Law of the Kingdom, and the Law of God both, to be that which the whole Church, from the beginning acknowledg∣eth; I think I do my Country, and the Church of God in it no disservice, to pro∣pose a plaister large enough for the Sore of it, that shall come within the bounds which I have proposed. For, the Chapters of Cathedral Churches are, by their Birth-right, Counsellors to the Bishops,

and Assistants, in his whole Office; The Archdeacon his Minister, and principal Commissary. Those, by the Rule first set on foot by the Apostles, and observed always by the Church, of planting Ca∣thedral Churches in Cities, and making the Churches planted in Cities Cathedral Churches, for the Government of all Christendom within the Territories of those Cities. This being, by his Order, Ministerial to them, as well as to the Bi∣shop, when both have part in the same Office. And here I place the hinge, up∣on which I hang the Reconcilement of the presumed Interest of the Presbyterians, with the true Interest of the Clergy; Supposing the Conference proposed to have taken effect, and produced a Request of both Parties, to the Legislative Power of the Kingdom, to make a Law of those particulars, upon which they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come to agreement, to be received, and to ex∣ercise their Ministry. For, the Office of the Clergy being separated from the In∣terest of the Crown, by an Act of the Kingdom; And the Professors of the Roman Laws trusted to manage this In∣terest, in behalf of the Subject; (Only assisting the Clergy, in that part of the

Jurisdiction proper to the Church, which will concern the Interest of Subjects, as Members of the Church, as well as the Office of the Clergy) What shall hinder them, the Presbyterians, as well as the rest of the Clergy, to exercise the Zeal, which they have always professed, to∣wards the Reforming of the conversation of the People, in assisting that Discipline, as well over the Inserior Clergie as the People, which the Chapters of Cathedral Churches, and the Archdeacons shall, by the Bishop and under the Bishop, be trusted with? For what need all this hinder the Preroga∣tive of the Bishops Negative Vote; when as there will be more to do under him, then hands will be found for, reserving to him those causes, which he would chuse to reserve? For, that will be found no more then requisite, to preserve his Pre∣rogative, that nothing be done without him; when nothing is done without him, but that which he shall chuse to be eased in. He that knows what the Hierarchy signifies, must needs understand, that the same means, which preserved the Whole Church in Ʋnity, so far and wide for place, so long for time, as Unity prevailed in the Church, and Christianity with it and by

it, knows that the same must be used, to preserve Unity in the Church of this King∣om; The Question being, how to Re∣form it so, that it may continue a Member of the Whole.

CHAP. XXIV. Some Principal Canons to be restored, in our present State.

FOr, let no man think, that any Law can be effectual to this purpose, till the Case be stated, which the Law is pro∣vided for. We are in the State of Schism, in spite of our teeth: Though we are to clear our selves of the crime of Schism, upon the Terms setled; which cannot clear us, if it be possible, that any other should clear us. King Henry the VIII. had reason to declare, that he and his Kingdom should have nothing to do with the Pope, that Excommunicated him for his Divorce; So many Popes having dis∣charged the Subjects of Princes Excom∣municate, of their Allegiance. But, to make good the Protestation, that he in∣tended no further change in Religion; I

need not say what he did, to give suc∣ceeding Popes occasion to recal the folly of that Pope, which Excommunicated him, by a timely Reconcilement. In the mean time, the way to preserve the Kingdom in Peace was, to have nothing to do with the See of Rome. But, had he been so well advised, as to have main∣tained his Divorce upon the terms which I plead for; What could the Pope have said to that Code of Canons, which Pope Adrian the I. sent to Charles the Great; which I would have this Church to owne? For it concludes, with a Synod of the Province of Rome, under Pope Gregory the II. which pronounces Anathema, to whosoever shall marry his deceased Bro∣thers Wife. Let Julius II. Pope, that dispensed with Henry the VIII. and his Marriage with the Lady Katherine of Spain, have bethought himself, how to come clear of this Anathema; the Au∣thority of the See of Rome being intire. For K. Henry the VIII. or at least for his Kingdom, it was and is enough, that, so long as he owned the Authority of that See, he must needs be troubled in consci∣ence at that Marriage, by which he must needs incur it, preferring the former Act

of a Council under Gregory the II. Pope, before a Bull of Julius the II. Pope, dis∣pensing in an Anathema of the said Coun∣cil. For, as the Primitive Canons are to be preferred, in Church-Law, before the loosness of succeeding Ages, being still further from the Apostles; So the Act of the Council, under the Regular Power of the Pope, is to be preferred before a Bull; which now passeth without the Consistory, as the Popes personal Act, af∣ter the unlimited absolute Power of the Pope hath taken place. As for King Ed∣ward the VI. professing the Reformation, and protesting it as he did; so that the See of Rome could have no pretense of correspendence, without owning it them∣selves; there succeeds the necessity of a State of Schism, upon the Excommunica∣tion following; The Crime of Schism re∣maining on that side that Excommuni∣cates, for vindicating and restoring the Faith and the Laws of the Whole Church. This being the state of our Case: and the Laws of the Whole Church, and the Faith thereof, necessary to the Title, that must justifie Reformation without the Consent of the Whole; Is it not manifest, to all Understandings, that the Law, by which

this State is to be Governed, must be such a Provision, as the Laws of the Whole Church inable a part of it to make for it self, in the Case? And therefore, we must affirm, as many of us as would have no share in the Schism, as to God; being thus secured, that, to the Church, we are not chargeable with it; That there is no∣thing to hinder such a Provision, but the misunderstanding of them: And that we see not, what the Consequence of our own Profession requires. A reason that presses me so hard, that I do willingly expose my self to the displeasure of all, that shall find themselves disgusted, with this freedom; Only to give my self the satisfaction of publishing it, whatsoever displeasure it procure me; As being satisfied, that there is no other cure for our present distempers. For in the first place, it must be said, that it is in vain to talk of Regular Government, by the Canons of the Church, without restoring the liberty of Synods, to the respective Provinces. Not as if the Church needed any abatement, in the Act of Henry the VIII., which for∣biddeth making, and perhaps advising of Canons to be made, without the Assent of the Crown. But because the World

knows, it was the Usurped Legatine Pow∣er, that had brought Synods to nothing, by Usurping upon the Ordinary. And therefore, it is but Justice in the Crown, finding the Right of Synods, the Subjects thereof, Usurped by the See of Rome; to restore it to the Subjects, upon whom the Usurpation had been made; The Su∣premacy of the Crown being sufficiently provided for, by the said Act: And, the force of all Acts of Synods depending up∣on the Legislative Power of the King∣dom. In the next place, it is to no pur∣pose, to talk of Reformation in the Church, unto Regular Government, without restoring the Liberty of chusing Bishops, and the Priviledge of injoying them, to the Synods, Clergy and People of each Diocese. I say not, depriving the Crown of the due Interest of a Nega∣tive, to any Person to be promoted a Bi∣shop, in any instance of his Promotion. God forbid it should come into my thought. But, the Supremacy being so provided for, so evident is the Right of the Synods, Clergy and People, in the making of those, of whom they consist, and by whom they are to be governed, that I need mark no other Reason, for

the neglect of Episcopacy, but the neglect of it; For the neglect of Cathedral Chur∣ches, but the neglect, & alienation of their Office, under and with their Bishops. This for certain, had not the See of Rome intro∣duced so much disorder, in the creating of Bishops, that we have not yet cured it, we should have heard of it with both ears, from their Advocates. And, if I may cre∣dit a person of unquestionable credit, his late Majesty was so convinced hereof, when he was at Oxford, that he offered to part with it, if a way were shewed how to do it. As for the translating of Bi∣shops; which done, as it is, of course, must needs render the Office unfruitful to their People; As no man can deny, that there ought to be a course, for dispensing in the Canon, for publick good; So can∣not this pretense of publick good come to effect, unless it be maintained by the Of∣fice of Synods, to whom the State of the Church vindicates the Right of it. That which I said afore, of Appeals, belongs to this place. For, what Law can provide, that, in Causes reserved to the Bishop, parties shall rest content always with his sentence? Or whether can Ecclesiastical Causes resort, from him, but to the Synod

of the Province? Again, what Christian Kingdom could ever prevent a mixture of Causes; That is, a concurrence of In∣terest, between the Soveraign Power, and the Office of the Church? Or what danger can be imaginable, to this Crown, in doing Right to the Church; Having only its own Subjects to deal with? Or what can be more ready, to receive Ap∣peals of this Nature, then a Commission of Judges, delegate, as well by the Sy∣nods as by the Crown, for the expedition of such Causes, in which, the pretense of the Subject, as well as the Interest of Reli∣gion, may be concerned? As for matter of Faith; Having admitted all that hath been decreed within the time of the six truly General Councils; I dare say, that there is nothing, that the See of Rome can charge upon the Socinians, or Anaba∣ptists, or any Sect of our Fanaticks, that is not condemned, in the Arians, Pelagi∣ans, or other Sects, which the Whole Church hath condemned, during that time. So that there can be no cause, why Christianity should not be maintained, by the Reformation, during this State of Schism, but neglecting the true conse∣quence of that which we our selves pro∣fess.

CHAP. XXV. Two Laws more, necessary to the Reforma∣tion of the Church.

THese are the principal points, in the Canons of the Whole Church, which the Profession of Reforming the Church obliges us to restore. There are two points more, the one concerning the People, the other the Inferior Clergy; which, till they be restored, our Refor∣mation cannot be that which it pretend∣eth. That all, who shall be convicted in Law, of capital or infamous Crimes, stand Excommunicate ipso facto, and if Execu∣tion pass, be deprived of Christian Burial, unless they reconcile themselves to the Church; Unless the Law make this good, how should the Kingdom be counted a Christian Kingdom? For, if scandalous Crimes, that are notorious, be allowed Communion with the Church, how can it be a Church? Conviction, which is the Act of the Law, making the Crime notorious, how can Christianity be protected, and the Church not able to renounce them

that renounce it by their deeds? The in∣crease of sin so flagrant in this Nation, since the War began, makes the necessity of this Law flagrant. I was speaking of the Leviathan, that Monster of a Christi∣an, that with one Book, (allowed by the Act of Oblivion, because the Doctrine was not damned, when the Person was pardoned) hath introduced that Deluge of Atheism and Prophaneness, which we are ready to be drowned with. Let Publick Justice have the convicting of the Blasphemies which he hath taught, if the Church be not in Case to bear the envy of such a trust. But to account for such a crime, by a pecuniary mulct, is to sell our Christianity, at the price, at which it is defied. Unless Infamy follow, and Excommunication, to bring it on, fare∣wel Christianity, which compoundeth with Apostasie. The Father of the Sect thinks, I believe, that he hath as good Right to the Communion, as the rest of His Majesties Subjects; Who, though he should profess Penitence for his crime, could not be believed; having given the World warning, that he may be bound to say, and to swear, that which he doth not believe. What course but this,

to suppress the Vanity of committing Mur∣ther, under the name of a Duel? For, in all Common-wealths, where mens memo∣ry is not liable to Infamy, sin is not out of countenance. In that which is Chri∣stian, what can be infamous, if to forfeit Communion with the Church be not? As for Adultery, what punishment hath this Kingdom left for it? Or how shall it be counted a Christian Kingdom, having none? Be the tryal of it, as Civil Interest shall require. If it pass without Excom∣munication, though the Law of the Land lay no hold on it, what can clear the King∣dom of the expectation of Gods ven∣geance? By consequence hereof, they that are convicted of Simony in Civil Justice, must remain Irregular, to the Church; That is, though their Ordina∣tion can never be void, yet their persons must remain incapable of any trust, which their Clergy should make them capable of. And why should not the Priviledge of their Clergy cease, and they remain Excommunicate for such a Crime? The other Law, concerning the Clergy, is the confining of every one to one Diocese; Which is but the Restoring of that Order, which the See of Rome had disordered,

on purpose to ingage in the disorders of it, all that they obliged by such Privi∣ledges. For, the Priviledges reserved to the Crown, Nobility, and Bishops, where∣by the abuse is but displaced, will not be considerable, in comparison with the Re∣formation which it hindreth. It seems strange to those, that find themselves In∣terested, that two Benefices with Cure should be allowed in one Diocese, not in several Dioceses, though at less distance. But the Law cannot be understood to allow all that it forbids not; Because there may be Reason, why the Publick good will not allow the forbidding of that, which is left to the Conscience of particular persons. Were all Benefices restored to that Provision, which the Cures might require, perhaps Priviledges of Pluralities might be extinguished. In the mean time, is it not enough, that, whatsoever the Quality be, the Office of Priest and Deacon is relative to their Re∣spective Bishops? that no man can be an∣swerable to one Bishop for a Charge, in which he is answerable to another for the same? Which if it hold not in one and the same Diocese, the Reason of the dif∣ference is both sufficient and evident.

Always, the Ground being laid, that the Reformation of the Church is to be Ru∣led by the Canons of the Primitive Church; there can be no more question in this, then is in any thing, where the Primitive Institution, is as Visible, as the decay and abuse. But this will princi∣pally concern Archdeacons, and the Dig∣nified Clergy, which are to bear a part in the Bishops Office. For how should they be charged with that, which they are not charged to execute?

CHAP. XXVI. Of Forbearance, due or not due, in two Instances.

I Have proposed a Conference, I have determined, that all is to be tryed by the agreement of the Catholick Church; But if we stay till the Parties agree to that, there must be no Conference. What have we to overcome this difficulty with? Considering, how the necessity of losing all Religion presses all Parties, and con∣sidering how slight the pretenses of dissa∣tisfaction at the Act of Uniformity are;

though I cannot depart from my claim, that the Reformation cannot duely be made, but by and to that Pattern; yet I see it may be laid aside in the Tryal, not supposing that the Will of God is declared by it. But, if the advantage be not allow∣ed, which the consent of Christendom from the beginning hath, in the judgment of common Reason, above any Opinion of this time, or any Party pretending Reformation; what course can they hold, that have not reasonable Creatures to deal with? For how can they be count∣ed reasonable, that prefer their own Rea∣son, before the Reason of Christendom? Or how shall they distinguish their pri∣vate Spirits, from the Enthusiasms of Fa∣naticks, that insist upon those Interpreta∣tions, and Consequences of Scripture, which, had any man seen before them, the Church had never been as it hath been? In fine, the Case being stated, I see no cause, to apprehend any obstinacy in the Parties, to prefer any faction, or partiality, before Reason so manifested, and so concerning the common Christia∣nity. I will insist upon two Instances. All the World knows, that one of the abuses, which made the necessity of Reformation

most appear, was that of private Masses; where the Eucharist was celebrated, and the people did not communicate. It is as well known, that the Reformation ac∣cording to Calvin contents it self with four Communions a year; but no Assembly without Preaching. The Church of England hath aimed at the Communion every Lords-day and Holy-day; at Ser∣mons, as frequent as can be had, so as to maintain the reverence due to Religion, to Preaching, and to the Church. What question can there be in Religion, that the Eucharist is the principal Office of Re∣ligious Assemblies? What pretense of Reformation, in restoring Preaching, by silencing the Eucharist? It will be said, that there is fear of prophaning so Reli∣gious an Office. But where is Reforma∣tion, if it make not the people fit for it? The Papists say; Private Masses are not commanded; they would have the peo∣ple communicate, and incourage them to it. But what do they do to bring them to it? Surely more then they do, that silence the Eucharist for the Sermon; That are not contented, till so much Preaching be commanded, that they know the Eucharist must be silenced.

Let them think what abilities are requi∣site, to maintain so frequent Preaching, that there shall be no time for the Eucha∣rist; Let them think of the Scandals, that must needs fall out, for want of due abilities; and they will find cause, I doubt not, to prefer the Whole Church, before a late Party: and abate the Ser∣mon, to restore the Eucharist. Especi∣ally, seeing the Law of this Land must be changed, to bear out what others have done; though it is manifest, they never gave any reason for it. They will see cause to think, that the best Preaching is that which may fit the people for the Eu∣charist; by understanding the Covenant of Baptism, and the importance of daily renewing and restoring it, by Communi∣on in the Eucharist. The other Instance shall be the Psalms; that are sung in Ca∣thedral Churches, but allowed to be read where there is not company to sing them. For it is plain enough, what excuses are made, and what indeavours used, to si∣lence this part of Gods Service: and to turn the Psalms; which this Church, with the Whole Church, appointeth for devo∣tion; into Lessons of Instruction only. Hence all the Plea against the Old Trans∣lation

with points; all the indeavors to crowd in the Psalms in Rhime, instead of the Psalter, and all use which the Church hath always made of it. But, did not partiality and faction prevail over that Reason, which all Christendom be∣fore the Reformation hath always owned, there could be no question of using the Psalter of David, for an Instrument to tune the devotion of Christian people, by; transforming the expressions of Da∣vid unto our Lord Christ, in the first place; and, according to the Figure of Christ, to the Whole Church first, and then to every particular member of it. He that hath learnt this from the Whole Church, will never think it reason, to put this part of Gods Service to silence, who∣soever they be, that desire or desing it. He will rather indeavour, to reduce the singing of them into Parish Churches; being evidently so much easier, then the singing of the Psalms in Rhime. But how∣soever, retain the reading of them by Antiphones, and not quench the Spirit of God, which breatheth forth that transfor∣mation whereof I spake. Having thus instanced, I will not propose the Ground, upon which I maintain, that all Reforma∣tion

is to proceed, for the condition of the Conference which I propose. I will think it a point of that Forbearance, which S. Paul commandeth the Romans, not to insist upon those terms, which the Autho∣rity of the Apostles doth inforce. Be∣cause I see him, not insist upon the Autho∣rity of an Apostle, with them; but, ha∣ving infallibly proved his ground, of Ju∣stification by Faith alone, forbear the consequence of it; charging the Ro∣mans, to hold that indifferent, whatsoever his Authority, so grounded, declareth such; yet charging them to forbear those, that, for all his Authority and Reasons, understood it not. For, I believe verily, that his reason and mine is the very same; Namely, to keep both Parties in the Uni∣ty of one Church, a Member of the Whole; Hoping that, by Gods blessing, upon the advantages, which the commu∣nication of the Faithful one with another, and with their Clergy affordeth, those that are now most keenly set against these little things, that are excepted at in the Act of Uniformity, may, by that condescen∣sion, which the Interest of Christianity obliges all Parties to, come to understand the only Principle of Reformation and

Unity both; The Authority of the Ca∣tholick Church, in all things not determi∣ned by Gods Law, which is only the Gos∣pel under this time of Christianity. And I set before them, to that purpose, the example of the Jews; Who, for all the Forbearance commanded by S. Paul, ha∣ving stopped their ears, at all his charms; with the Unity of the Church, have for∣feited the Faith, hitherto irrecoverably. For, being fully perswaded, that with∣out this Principle, it is not possible, either for this Church, or for any part of the Reformation, long to subsist; Can I fear any less, then the utter loss of Religion, for my dearest Country, and for the dearer Church of God in it?

CHAP. XXVII. How Recusants may, or may not be punished as Idolaters.

IT remains that I say, what Penalties this Position makes competent to those, that refuse the Reformation thus limited. A thing easie for me to do, having decla∣red the Ground, upon which the refusing

of Christianity is punishable; Which the Reformation, hitherto, hath not been able to do. The Position of punishing Hereticks capitally is generally decryed by them; And yet we see Servetus and Gentilis put to death, at Geneva and Bern; and others elsewhere. If, because sen∣tenced for Hereticks by them that put them to death; Why should not the Powers that adhere to the Church of Rome execute the Sentence thereof, upon those whom they pronounce Hereticks? If, because so sentenced by the Primitive Church, in which we both agree; Why owne we not the Primitive Church in the rest, as well as in that? If, because they that gave the Sentence are compe∣tent Judges in Religion; What remains, but that contrary Sentences be executed by the Sword, and Religion be no other∣wise judged? But, supposing Religion, and the Church, and the sense of the Scri∣pture Visible, so far as the preserving of Unity requires; Christian Powers must both protect Subjects in their Civil, as well as natural being, though not true Christians; and yet punish them for not being true Christians. Only, if they pretend freedom from Allegiance, by

Christianity, (and we know it is false Christianity that so pretends) there will be also fit time to declare, why they may be capitally punished. But those who declare the Pope Antichrist, and the Pa∣pists Idolaters in the exercise of their Religion, have not declared, what Penal∣ty is competent to their Idolatry. And yet, till that be cleared, we are in the clouds. This difficulty, I find my self able to look in the face, without ever dis∣puting, whether the Papists, by their Religion, are bound to commit Idolatry, or not. The Law of Moses, indeed, seems to shew, that, by the Law of Nature, Idolaters may be put to death, for their Idolatry. For, there is no appearance, that the Law of God would have injoyn∣ed that, which the Law of Nature allows not. But the Case is otherwise under Chri∣stianity, then under the Law of Moses. The people of Israel held the Land of Promise, upon Condition, not to suffer any other God to be worshipped within the Bounds of it, but the true God, that gave it them upon those terms. There∣fore they committed a forfeit, whenso∣ever they suffered Idolatry in it. But the Gospel was preached to the Roman

Empire, consisting of two Religions, of Jews and Gentiles; Maintaining the State of the World upon the same terms which it found; saving that, which, if they imbraced the Faith, they must voluntari∣ly change. When therefore the Sove∣raign Power of the Empire came to pro∣fess the Faith; (and thereupon, an obli∣gation to maintain and propagate it, by all means, which the Right of Soveraign Power furnishes) they could not answer God, for the right use of their Power, using any other means, then the Interest of Christianity allows. They might have confiscated Estates, where they might have taken away lives; But that would have made the meekness, which Christianity pretendeth, to appear that Hypocrisie of our Sects; Who are always humble, always for Toleration, till they get the Power into their own hands. To shut up the Temples of Idols, and to for∣bid Sacrifices, was no more then to sup∣press that Sacriledge, which the light and Law of Nature discovereth. If any of the Imperial Laws make it death to sacri∣fice; it is to be understood, upon presum∣ption, that those Sacrifices were Inquiries into the life of the Prince, or of their

enemies. To constrain them to be Chri∣stians by Penalties, had been to make them counterfeit Christians. Besides, the Nations that bordered upon the Empire were all Idolaters; And Christianity pretended to convert them, as well as the Empire. If the Emperors had punished their Subjects, being Gentiles, for being Idolaters, must not the Neighbour Na∣tions have persecuted the Christians, their Subjects, for being Christians? The reason of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, in this behalf, is that which S. Austin giveth, why the Law of Moses voids the Marriages of Jews with Gen∣tiles; Whereas S. Paul advises those that •…•…ned Christians, being married to Ido∣laters, to continue in Wedlock with them, desiring it. S. Austins reason is this; That the Law, tendring only temporal promises expresly, (which Gentiles as well as Jews, might & did injoy in this world) thought it too hard a temptation, to trust a Jew in Wedlock with a Gentile; by wh•…•…, he might be in danger to be sedu∣ced, to prosperous Idolatry. Whereas Christianity, upon the advantage of the world to come, assured by the Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles, challengeth

all other Religions, as unable to resist it, when it is performed as well as professed. So that to suffer Idolaters, in conversing with Christians, was but the allowing of opportunity, for the converting of Idola∣ters. I think I have cause to make this an argument ad hominem, that our Secta∣ries themselves cannot, nor do require the Penalty of Idolatry, by Moses Law, upon Papists. They that remember the time, when the late Q. Mother of Royal memory came over, do know, what infusi∣ons the Pulpits then made, into the minds of the people, of the curse of God hang∣ing upon the Nation, for His Majesties Marriage. The pretense was wholly, upon the Law of Moses; Which, as I have shewed, is not to the purpose among Christians. But indeed, those prognosti∣cations were no other, then the Prophe∣sies of the Devils Oracles, among the Gentiles; Foretelling the mischiefs, which they intended or desired to do themselves. This being a sufficient rea∣son, why the same pretense is not now on foot, because it cannot be plausible, after so dear experience of the mischief it tends to; I think I am to take advantage of it, in behalf of Truth and Justice; That

no Party can pretend, the Penalty of Moses Law to lye, in our Case; Supposing, not granting the Papists to be Idolaters, according to Moses Law. And is not the Case the same, between the Reformation and the See of Rome? At least it is so, if the Reformation be that which it pre∣tendeth. For then, the advantage must needs be so Visible, that to allow conver∣sation between the Professions that are at such distance, is but to allow the means of bringing all Popish Recusants to Church; when the Reformation is that, which it pretendeth. I grant that it falls out to be otherwise, in our experience. For, they that are converted to the See of Rome, at this time, are converted by this miscarri∣age, that they venture themselves into dispute with those, which they are not able to deal with. But the miscarriage is accidental; Because of the Divisions within our selves; arising from hence, that our Reformation owneth not the Bounds which it requireth. For, by this means, the Clergy of this Church is in contempt with their Flock; and private Christians venture themselves into dis∣pute with Recusants, (that is, with their Priests) without trusting their Pastors,

or acquainting them with what they do. Which if they did do, in due time, such occasions would be opportunities of re∣ducing Recusants to Church. Besides, to pursue the Idolatry of the See of Rome, (supposing, not granting that so it is) what would it be, but to draw the Sword on both sides, to try the quarrel of Religion with? And therefore Soveraign Powers cannot give God account, that they use the Right he gives them over Papists their Subjects, pursuing them to the Penalty of Moses Law, as Idolaters. There is ano∣ther reason for the same, that appears now and then, in the disputes of them, that maintain the Religion of the See of Rome to be Idolaters. For, they have many times found themselves obliged to grant, that their Idolatry is another kind of Idolatry, then that which is prohibited, and punished with death, by the Law of Moses. And if so, it must be another kind of Penalty, that belongs to it. Now I suppose S. Paul says true, that Covetous∣ness is Idolatry, and that, there be those that make their Belly their God. And whosoever understands the difference between the Old and the New Testa∣ment, will allow, that S. Hierom under∣stood

it; Who, in his Commentaries upon the Prophets, makes all that they, the Prophets say, against the Idolatry of the ten Tribes, to belong to the Heresies and Schisms of Christians; and, all Here∣ticks and Schismaticks to be Idolaters, in the mystical sense of the Old Testament, under the New. Which is no more, then our Lord says of the Samaritans; That they worshipped they knew not what; At such time when it was well enough known, that the Samaritans were no Ido∣laters; worshipping the only true God of Israel. For certainly, though all Super∣stition be not Idolatry, yet all Idolatry is Superstition; Because the chief of Super∣stitions is Idolatry. All Superstitions stand upon the same ground as Idolatry, and aim at the same mark. Man is sensi∣ble, by that Conscience, which the light of Nature creates, that one true God is to be worshipped; And that as himself shall require, not as his Creature is willing to allow. And being therefore sensible, that Concupiscence allows him not that Service, which Conscience requires, they are willing to pay him in Coin of their own stamping; Usurping the Prero∣gative of his Soveraignty, even in that,

whereby they pretend to pay their Alle∣giance. Is there any other sourse of Ido∣latry but this? For, is it not reasonable to think, that men can satisfie themselves, and put off the Gods they have made themselves, with that, which the jealous God, the true God will not be served with? And therefore, Religion teaches, that Idolatry is the Worship of the Devil. Not only, because he teaches it; But be∣cause he holds the Opinion of a God, by corresponding with Idolaters in their Ido∣latries. And what is all Superstition, but redeeming the Service of God in Spirit and Truth, by the service of our Bodies or Estates; which may be done, when the inward man is not subject to God? Such are the Invocations of Saints, the Worshipping of their Reliques and Images, the Pilgrimages and Indulgences commended or commanded by the See of Rome; And such they may be owned to be, by him that dare not undertake them to be that Idolatry, that was punishable with death by the Law of Moses. And being such, it will be punishable in all, who, for an undue respect to the See of Rome, will not have their fellow-subjects freed from superstitious customs; Nor

obey the Laws of their Country, that give them this freedom. But if this be the due Reason, for which it is punish∣able; the same Reason will render them punishable, who think they serve God, by running into Conventicles, in despite of the Laws of God and their Country. For, what is that, but a pretense of pay∣ing the debt of Religion, which Christia∣nity makes due to God, by worshipping an Idol of their own setting up? That is, as I said afore, by worshipping God ac∣cording to an Imagination of their own erecting; and not according to that, which the common Christianity requires. And thus I am come to the Conclusion, which I intended, without disputing, whether or no, the Papists, by their Re∣ligion, do exercise that Idolatry, which is punishable by death in Moses Law. For if capital Penalty lye not in our Case; If it be agreed upon, that they are punish∣able upon the same Ground, for which the other sort of Recusants are punish∣able; then is the way clear before me, to proceed to declare, what Penalties, both sorts of Recusants are to be, or may be punished with: Supposing our Reforma∣tion confined within those Bounds, which

the Faith and the Laws of the Catholick Church either determine or allow.

CHAP. XXVIII. All that take Arms against the Soveraign, to Reform Religion, may be liable to Capital Punishment.

BUt if the Papists cannot be liable to capital punishment, as Idolaters, neither can they be liable to it, as limbs of Antichrist. The name of Antichrist is a challenge of Soveraign Power; Be∣cause the name of Christ is so; Signifying a Prince and a Prophet, raised and setled by Gods immediate Word, which is the Soveraign Title. For Antichrist can sig∣nifie nothing, but a counterfeit Christ; One that pretends to be Christ, and is not; Our Lord Christ being the Messias, which the Fathers and Prophets from the beginning expected. But the Soveraign∣ty of Christ is declared by himself, to be a meer Spiritual Soveraignty; which all the Jews, even the Apostles before our Lords death, expected to be a tempo∣ral Kingdom. And therefore, whoso∣soever

it is, that groundeth Soveraignty upon Christianity, though he be not Antichrist for that, yet is he the enemy of all Christian States, for it. And so are the Subjects of all Christian States, that think themselves free of their Allegiance to Princes, or States, Excommunicated by the Pope. And upon this account, I deny not, that Papists may become liable to capital punishment, or to banishment with confiscation; Which seems to be, of the two, the greater punishment. But this, neither common to all Papists, nor proper to Papists alone. For, that this is not the Faith of all Papists, I need no more, then the distance between the Se∣cular Priests and the Jesuits here, to prove. And that it is not proper to Pa∣pists alone, I need no more, then the Scottish Covenant, and the troubles of the three Kingdoms upon it, to prove. And therefore, it is a thing absolutely necessa∣ry, to make those Penalties just, which the Laws inflict upon the Papists; that they distinguish between the Cause of Religion, common to all, and the Cause of them, that make it a point of Religion, to violate their Allegiance to a Soveraign deposed by the Pope. Nay it will be

necessary, in point of Justice, to impose the same Penalties, upon all of all Reli∣gions, that may think themselves dis∣charged of their Allegiance, upon any account of Religion whatsoever. It is manifest, that they who take Arms against their Soveraign, to reform Religion, do ground themselves upon the Title of Religion, and think themselves tyed by their Christianity to do it; As they who take Arms against their Prince, deposed by the Pope, think themselves tyed in Christianity, to execute his Sentence. Those whom the people follow, in re∣forming Religion against the will of their Soveraign; Those they make as much Judges, in reforming Religion, as the other do the Pope. And all that refuse to secure their Soveraign by Oath, that they will neither lead nor follow any man, in reforming Religion, without his Au∣thority, deserve to be out of the protecti∣on of that Sword, which he weareth not in vain. They fall into the Case of the Jews, expecting the Messias; For, when they imagine, that he is come, they will think themselves dispensed with, by their Religion, for any Bond of Allegiance. But Christian Princes and States are not wont,

so far as I know, to think themselves se∣cured by the Oath of Jews. Let this be a difference, which they make between Jews and Christians, to take the Oath of their Christian Subjects, for security of their Allegiance; Because true Christia∣nity obliges all good Christians, to bear Allegiance to their Soveraigns, not to be dispensed with, upon any account of Christianity; Notwithstanding we see, that there are those, that count them∣selves the best Christians, that do think themselves dispensed with in their Alle∣giance, upon divers and several accounts of their Christianity. But let this King∣dom, having had tryal of contrary pre∣tenses, think it self bound, to declare the same Penalties, against the same Crimes; And able to impose the utmost Penalties, upon all that shall refuse, to secure their Soveraign by Oath, of their Allegiance. And since the allowance, which the Law makes, in understanding the Oath of Supremacy, evidences, that it may be understood, in a sense offensive, in point of Religion; let it be thought time, to antiquate the old, and to inact a new form, that may tye all Subjects as Sub∣jects, without pretense of offending any

Religion; by condemning all Religions, that make difficulty to undertake it, for irreligious.

CHAP. XXIX. What Penalties the Protection of Religion requires.

NOw I am to say, how far Christian Powers are to punish Hereticks and Schismaticks. For, it is too late for me to say, that they may punish their Con∣venticles, having declared the reason, why they may do it; And being now only to draw the consequence of that reason, how far they are to do, or may do it. Here, I must first marvel at our Independents; some of whom have dis∣puted, in very good earnest, that it is not lawful, for Civil Powers, to impose Pe∣nalties upon Religion. Whereas the World knows, that there never was any such Religion in the World, as that of Independents, before the planting of New England. And that since, those that framed Independent Congregations there, upon a Covenant, whereby they re∣nounce

One Catholick Church, and One Baptism for Remission of Sins; have not only banished Antinomians, and put Qua∣kers to death; But have imposed a Pe∣nalty of five shillings a Lords-day, upon all that come not to hear their Sermons. For, though this Penalty is not strictly exacted at present, yet it lyes at present. Whereby, the greater part of His Ma∣jesties Subjects in that Plantation, are not only hindred, from exercising the Reli∣gion injoyned by the Laws of this King∣dom; But also their Children dye un∣baptized, themselves live and dye with∣out the Communion of the Eucharist, and, in fine, their Souls are murthered, by this Tyranny of their misbelieving fellow-Subjects. Whether all this by their Fa∣tent, or by Ʋsurpation, I leave to those that may redress it, to judge. But, if the Protection of Religion, and of the Church lye, in maintaining those Rights, which the Soveraign Power finds the Church possest of, when it undertakes the Profession of Christianity; And all the Right of the Church, (which it hath, by the meer consent of those that voluntarily undertake Christianity) resolves into Excommunication; Then is not the

Church protected in the Rights of it, by Christian Powers, unless their Laws in∣able the Excommunication of the Church to lay hold on all their Subjects. Nor can any inconvenience follow hereupon; Because the Excommunication of the Church, when it is protected by the Ci∣vil Power, can never proceed, but upon Causes which the Law allows. Now, ther are two sorts of Excommunicate persons, according to the Premises; One are they that Excommunicate themselves; the other, they that are Excommunica∣ted by the Church. For, though they Excommunicate themselves, yet, be∣cause they are to be avoided by the Flock, from whence they depart, when they Ex∣communicate themselves, they are to be held, as if they were Excommunicate by the Church. Now, if they who thus Excommunicate themselves should be under no Penalty of Civil Power, for so doing, I would fain know, what that Protection, which Christian Powers must needs owne, to the Christianity which themselves profess, can avail it. For, if the Church Excommunicate those that perform not the Christianity which they profess, and the Excommunicate be free

to run into the Conventicles of those that Excommunicate themselves, whowill care for performing the Christianity which he professeth? Or how shall the Church and Religion subsist, when no man need to care for performing the Christianity which he professeth? This is the danger which is come so near, to bring this Church to nothing, at this time. On the one side, all Papists Excommunicate themselves, on the other side, all that run into Conventicles. The Papists, we all know, are under Penalties grievous enough; If we speak of that part, which doth not decline their Allegiance. As for those that do, I have already set the consideration of them aside. And yet there is this Apology, for the severity of those Laws; That they do take off the Penalty of perpetual imprisonment, which by the Ancient Laws of the King∣dom, introduced under the Papacy, lyes against all that are Excommunicate; And therefore is to lye, against all that Ex∣communicate themselves. If there be a reason, why such severe Laws should be in force against them, can any, that wears the face of a man, say, why the other sort of Recusants should be free from all

Penalties? I think the World is sensible hereof, in the suspension of the Penal Laws against the Recusants; Which, under his late Majesty, was charged with such violent jealousies: and now passes without discontent, because there is nei∣ther conscience nor shame, to levy those Penalties upon them, and none upon the Conventicles. In the mean time, Atheism, Prophaneness, Blasphemy, Apostasie, Heresie shelter themselves under the Communion of the Church, which the Laws protect; and will needs be of that Religion, which they may profess, and need not perform. And, how long this Church can continue this Church, upon those terms, let those judge, whom it concerns. My business is only this; That, if those that Excom∣municate themselves be under no Penal∣ty, those that are Excommunicate by the Church need not care, that they are Ex∣communicate. And so the Church is not protected, because the Excommunication of the Church is not in force; That is, it is no Penalty to be Excommunicate, to all that can think it is none. And there∣fore, unless it draw a Penalty of this World after it; that all may have occasion to avoid the Penalty of the World to come,

by avoiding the Penalty of this World; the Church is not protected. It may be thought, that the Church is protected nevertheless, by the Priviledge of recei∣ving the Tyths, of those that decline it, and of the Trust it manages, of dispensing Church-goods. And this is, indeed, part of the Penalty, by which they re∣deem their Recusancy; In as much, as they are put to maintain the Religion which they invent; Church-goods, though they be Publick goods, yet, being originally affected to the maintenance of that Church, which the Law protecteth. But that, being a Penalty of their own choice, satisfies not the Protection of the Religion which the Kingdom professeth; until the Law make it a disgrace, and a degree of Infamy, to stand Excommuni∣cate, whether by themselves, or by the Church. And, seeing all Discipline, even that of the Clergy, ends in Excommuni∣cation; To maintain the Revenue, and let go Discipline, would be, to sell Reli∣gion for the Revenue of the Church. For what would this be, but a tempting of the debauched, into the Service of the Church, when there is no Discipline, to restrain their debauches? The complaints

of this time shew this to be a Persecution, which the Sects of the time bring upon the Church. For, Discipline is released, for fear to stir, and for hope to gain Sectaries; and the fault is laid upon the Clergy, that suffer in the releasing of Discipline. But Christian Powers are bound, not only not to persecute the Church themselves, but not to suffer Sects to persecute it. And to avoid trouble, by releasing Dis∣cipline, may be the way to find it, in the means of avoiding it. Certainly, till Excommunication (which is the utmost resort of all Discipline) be in force, we can∣not say we have a Church; but only, be∣cause we have Laws, by which it ought to be in force; And because we hope to have Laws, by which it will be in force. Men may amuse themselves, with the in∣stance of the Ʋnited Provinces; which, they say, flourish in trade and riches, by maintaining all Religions. But the que∣stion is of Religion, not of Trade, nor Riches. If it could be said, that their Religion is improved, with their Trade, the example were considerable. But, they that would restore and improve the Religion, that flourished in England thirty years ago, must not take up with

the base Alloy of that which is seen in the Ʋnited Provinces. Nor is this a reproach to them, but a truth of Gods Word; that Religion and Trade cannot be both at once at the height. Besides, there is a Religion of the State in the Ʋnited Provin∣ces: and other Religions are tolerated there, because they were in being before the State was setled, or contributed to the setling of it, upon expectation of being tolerated in their Religions, when it should be setled. But when the Ʋnited Provin∣ces were in danger to break in pieces, upon a Dispute in Religion, in the year 1618. and when the point of Religion was decided by the point of that Sword, which decided by the point of that Sword, which inabled the States General to give Law to the States of Holland; Let him, that now may see more Aprons then Clokes come from their Arminian Gon∣gregations, tell me, whether the point were decided by a Penalty, or not. But let him tell me also, whether it had not been better, to have decided it no fur∣ther, then the Catholick Church had de∣cided it; then to indanger the Refor∣mation, (as now it is in danger, by admit∣ting the Socinians into Communion with the Arminians) in case the Penalty should

prove insufficient. As for the Discourses, that threaten the transporting of Estates, upon Penalties for Religion; and, that would incourage strangers to plant and improve Trade here; Who knows not, that the Conventicles now Usurped were first erected by the late War? And there∣fore must be presumed to cherish the pre∣tense of it. And how easie is it, for those that inact Penalties for Religion, to provide, that it be for no mans ease, to declare himself an enemy to his Country? Nor let any man think, that strangers are affected in Religion, as those at home are; who pretend, by Religion, to give Law to their Country. The dissensions on foot among us may well discourage them from planting among us, to improve Trade with us. The improving of the Reformation, and the setling of it, would be but an incouragement to them, to pass by those frivolous pretenses, which carry us to these frantick distances. In the mean time, be it considered, that Inde∣pendency, which was not in rerum natura at the planting of New England, being once setled there, by the pretense which their Patent or Patents gave, became so fruitful, that within twenty years, they

were able to cut off their Prince. For., all that love truth must acknowledge, that they were Independents that did that horrible Act. And then consider, how you would hope to have it re∣strained, if S. Pauls precept of avoiding Sectaries that Excommunicate themselves be not in force, by Canonical Penalties, upon them that are to avoid; And by temporal Penalties, upon them that are to be avoided. For, conversing together, otherwise then for Trade and Commerce, experience shews, that infection is un∣avoidable. And therefore the Prote∣ction, which the Kingdom owes the Reli∣gion which it professeth, necessarily re∣quires, not only, that it be maintain∣ed, at the Charge of the Schismaticks in it. For, as that is the proper Penalty, for them to redeem their Recusancy with; So is it the Justice, which they owe their fellow-Subjects, whom they have hither∣to kept in that Aegyptian Bondage. And this Reason will extend the same obliga∣tion, to all other Plantations and Resi∣dences of English; To wit, that, if they be suffered to live in another Religi∣on there, account may be taken of them

here, that they be not admitted to Commu∣nion here, without renouncing that which they lived in there. That they be not suffered there, without maintaining the Religion professed here. It extends also to French and Dutch, and all Forreign Churches, that, for Trade, or otherwise, may be allowed to plant here. For, either they hold Communion with this Church, or not. If not, it must be Pe∣nal, both for those of this Church, to Communicate with them, and for them, to admit those of this Church. If so, yet, so long as there is cause of jealousie, there must be provision, that neither Church be declined, upon any pretense of such jealousie. I will here add one thing, before I make an end; Because it may be demanded, how the Law of the Land may make Excommunication turn to disgrace, and to some degree of Infa∣my. The answer is; Let the Law of the Land provide, that no man may have Christian Burial, (that is, be buried in Consecrate ground, and with the Office of the Church) but he whom his Curate knows to have received the Communion within the year; And, I believe, the most part of them that Excommunicate

themselves will return of themselves. But then it must be provided, and the Bishop must be inabled by Law, to dis∣charge that Curate of Office and Benefice, that shall falsifie his trust in that point. Now give me leave to demand, whether the Church be under Protection, or under Persecution; If the Curate be not inabled by Law, to refuse Christian Burial to those, of whose Salvation he can give no account, because they withdraw them∣selves from his Cure.

CHAP. XXX. The Condition of reconciling Recusants.

BUt this not all; There is one point yet behind. For, whensoever the Church Excommunicates for notorious and scandalous sin, to restore him that is so Excommunicate to Communion would be to murther his Soul, and Christianity both at once; not supposing some pro∣portionable presumption of amendment, in him that is restored. This therefore must hold, as the Reason of it holds, in those that Excommunicate themselves; In the

reconciling of Hereticks and Schisma∣ticks to the Church. And this, the pra∣ctice of the Whole Church of God from the beginning shews them, that are wil∣ling to understand the reason of it, before they tread that Authority under foot, which the common Christianity obliges all to follow. Shew me any Heresie or Schism ever restored to the Church, with∣out renouncing the same, and I will con∣fess, that the Church it self turned Heretick or Schismatick from the same date. Only there is a difference to be put, between Heresie and Schism, and other Personal Crimes. For, I see no reason, why we should not call other Crimes Personal, in opposition to Heresie and Schism; Be∣cause we call it not Heresie or Schism, till Scparation be made. A false Belief in Fundamentals is Heresie before God, a Resolution to divide the Church is Schism before God, both destructive to Salvation, before Separation be made. But Separation is the disease we pretend to cure, without prejudicing the health of Gods Church. And therefore, should Separation be made to maintain a Profession, that Simony, for example, or Sacriledge, or any other deadly Crime is

no sin, the Party so formed would be, ipso facto, an Heresie. Personal Crimes, then, must be restored to Communion, upon presumption of Personal Conver∣sion from the same. But Heresies and Schisms becoming Bodies, by professing an Ingagement, may be re-united to the Church in Body, renouncing the Separa∣tion in which they stood ingaged. For, there is reasonable presumption, that the Leaders would not renounce, if they did not repent them of it. As for the People, that only follows and leads not, it is most true and just to maintain, that Heresie and Schism is a Bar to Salvation; though we allow hope of Salvation to the simple, that follow malicious Leaders, out of in∣vincible ignorance. It is therefore no blemish to the Church, to receive them, as they departed, in company of their Leaders. For their Salvation is provided for, when the Bar is removed. The ex∣perience of our Case makes this conside∣rable. At His Majesties Return, it was inacted, that such Usurpers, as were posses∣sed of dead Places, should hold, without inquiring, whether Ordained or not. Whereby it might seem to them, that found no fault with their own Title,

that the Law of the Kingdom owned their Ordinations to be good. But with∣out cause. For, the Kingdom being then under that Force, which was not as yet removed, (a thing manifest enough; The Church not being yet restored) the re∣taining of them, (which I am neither to justifie nor to blame) was nothing but the induring of that Force upon Part, rather then call in question the Whole. But hereupon, they that had got this colour for their Possession, were not like to disowne that Ordination, which the Law of the Land had seemed thus far to owne. So, the way was paved for the Schism on foot, by refusing the Act of Uniformity, when they were imployed, without recon∣ciling themselves to the Church, by fore∣going their Schism. Some may think, that I abate more then this, for their sakes, when I allow them Satisfaction by Conference; yea and Laws to be changed for their satisfaction, if just cause may ap∣pear. But it is no more then I would allow Popish Recusants, to justifie the Pe∣nalties, that will be always necessary, because they prefer the Authority of the See of Rome, (forbidding all Treaty of Religion without it) before the common

Christianity, requiring Reformation in the Christianity of the Kingdom. For, do not they deserve those Penalties, who refuse to assist their Country, in a work so concerning the common Salvation, upon just terms? This I am sure, suppo∣sing satisfaction, there can be no difficulty in departing from Ʋsurped Ordinations, and from the Schism grounded upon the same. And therefore, it is only the so∣lemnity of Renouncing that is abated, and the Irregularity that is pardoned; And that, by the example of the first Great Council, in the Case of the Meletians. And that, because they renounce not the Catholick Church, but acknowledge a National Church; Which they cannot ac∣knowledge, upon due grounds, but they must acknowledge the Catholick Church. And therefore, I say not the same of the Independents; Who are Banded into a Profession destructive to it, upon a Cove∣nant. For that Covenant is it, that must be expresly and formally renounced, be∣fore they can be capable of Communion with the Church; And much more of Orders. To grant them Communion otherwise, is to make the Church guilty of their Schism, which it alloweth. And

so, to give Popish Recusants a just cause to refuse Communion with it. As for other Sects of Antinomians, Anabaptists, and the like; When any man knows, up∣on what Grounds they Excommunicate themselves, and how far they are Banded into Sects, it will then be no difficult thing to say, how they are to be Recon∣ciled, so as their Schisms and Heresies may be duely Renounced. A thing which must be considered, in those that were Presbyterians, before they broke into Conventicles. For, since that came to pass, who shall warrant, that they have been guided by none but such, as have Presbyterian Orders? Or that they stand now to that Religion, which the Rebel∣lion once made Law to the Kingdom? Which if they do not, who shall warrant, or how shall the Church be satisfied, that they do depart from their Schisms, with their Leaders? And indeed, the Inde∣pendents, though they be Banded into a Sect, by a Covenant; yet, if once they be disbanded, who shall answer for them, that they will follow their Lea∣ders? And all this by virtue of the Sa∣criledge, whereby they all betray the Authority of the Church, and with it the

Christian Faith, to the Will of their People, to debauch them into the same Schism with themselves. Which if it be consi∣dered, perhaps it will appear, that the Forbearance which I have granted, can, for this reason, extend no further, then to the Persons of those that deserted their Churches, rather then submit to the Act of Uniformity. Nor shall it trouble me, if my Opinion be found to come to no more. For the Opinions of private per∣sons are to content themselves, with de∣claring what may be; Leaving them that are concerned, to judge what is. But, as for the way of Reconciling those which shall be converted, to the Church; in that, the Apostolical Wisdom of the Primi∣tive Catholick Church is of necessity to take place. For, Schism or Heresie be∣ing the Bar to the effect of Baptism, which is the Gift of the Holy Ghost; And the renouncing of it being the removing of that Bar; It follows, that all that shall return are to be reconciled by Confirma∣tion, as always they were reconciled to the Primitive Catholick Church. This were easier done, could it be presumed, that all would follow their Leaders. But if that cannot be presumed, if they must

be reconciled one by one, yet is that no more, than the work of an Episcopal Visi∣tation, from Parish to Parish: A thing practised and usual in the Church, after the building of Parish-Churches, in the worst of those times, in which, the Ca∣nons which I have commended took place. But now, as for Quakers, we are no more to reckon them among Christi∣ans, then the Gnosticks and Manichees of Old, then the Mahumetans at present. For they do openly owne, the Dictate of their own Spirits to be as much the Word of God as the Scriptures. And that is as much, as serves to create all such new Sects, as, acknowledging the Scriptures so far as they please, introduce the pretenses of their own Revelations, where they think fit. For, when the private Spirit is equalled with Gods Word, the last Di∣ctate, as in mens last Wills, must of neces∣sity take place. Only this difference; That, whereas Gnosticks, Manichees, Ma∣humetans, followed, or do follow their Leaders Spirit, Quakers follow every one their own. And therefore are the more contemptible, and the more reducible, whensoever a course shall be established. Certainly, did they see, that they cannot

be reconciled but as so many Renegades, they would bethink themselves, before they went on in their madness. Especi∣ally, did the Law set before them, that this their Position is not reconcileable to Civil Trust: Always obliging them, to the most desperate Acts of Treason, and violence to their Country, that they can imagine their own Spirit to dictate. Up∣on which account, it cannot be beyond the merit of their madness, that they are made servi poenae by Law, as the Roman Laws call it; That is, that they are transported to work in the Plantations. For, they that take upon them to impose upon their Country, that the Offices of common Civility are Acts of Idolatry; What is not to be expected from their madness, who, as the Case is, dare pre∣tend, that it ought to be Law to all Chri∣stians? But, since the Law is to provide for such People, it is manifest, that it is to provide, that they may not fail of the trust which the Church and Kingdom en∣ters into, with those whom they receive to Communion, but that they must fail of the Civil Trust of Subjects; That is, that their Testimonies be not receivable in Law, that they be disabled to sue at Law,

that they be disabled to make Wills, or to get by Wills, or any thing else within the effect of Civil Trust. And this must also be the Penalty of the Leviathan, and all that have or may follow him, either into Apostasie or Atheism. For, they who declare themselves at freedom, to for∣swear the Christian Faith, can never be held by any bond of Civil Trust. It must also be the Penalty of all Sects, that may relapse, after they may have been recon∣ciled; At least in that Proportion, which, that part of the Faith, which their respe∣ctive Sect denieth, holds, to the whole Pro∣fession of Christianity; which Apostacy and Atheism destroy at once. For, it may be a Question, why the Kingdom should be counted a Christian Kingdom, if the Laws of it set not some mark of Infamy or Disgrace upon the enemies of Chri∣stianity, according to the Rate of their Enmity; Which, only the inforcing of Excommunication, by the Laws, can do.

FINIS.