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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deo Gloria Authori Condonatio.