I Could heartily wish, that our Condition at present were such, that we might study and debate how to advance the Glory, Riches and Power of this Nation, rather then with so much Distraction, labour, how to pre­serve its Being. But since the general ill Conduct of our Affairs under the late Chan­cellour and others, (for whom we ought to retain all due resentments, since they have reduced us to this necessitous posture.) Let us consider what our present Exigencies call for from us; and while therein we find a justification for the most extravagant debates and resolutions, let us continue sensible of their baseness who created the necessity, with which it is our prudence and unhappiness to comply.

There have been sundry Overtures and Projects in order to the Uniting of the minds of the Protestants here in this dangerous juncture of Affairs: I confess I am apprehensive of the dangers that any great change subjects a Govern­ment unto; I am sensible of the Reputation of the House, which may suffer by rescinding its own Acts: I have made some reflections upon the parties that may endanger the [Page 4]Kingdome by their factiousness: I have all just respect for the National Church of England in its present Constitu­tion; and I shall so order my Councels, that I deviat not from the Scripture, and the Constitution of God in the Mo­saical Law, the Judgement and Practise of the primitive Fathers, and the Acts and Constitutions of those Empe­rours who first modelled Christianity, and accommodated it to Government, and who reduced the Empire (in circum­stances not much different from ours) to as flourishing a condition, and as peaceable as ever it enjoyed. As is clear from the Emperour Theodosius surnamed the Great; and insisted on by Bodin de repub. who recommends the practise as prudential, and gave the Counsel to Queen Elizab.

In the Kingdome of Israel (that great President for Mo­narchy, as far as it is established by the Word of God) where God himself was Law-giver, and the Constitution is as unquestionable as his Authority that made it, and the wisdome of Solomon and some others (no Fools, nor Fana­ticks) that complyed with it. The Settlement was thus as to Religion. The Jews, and such as were total Converts or Proselites of Justice, did observe all the Levitical Law, as it is made up of Ceremonies, and all the Decalogue or Ten Com­mandments. What the ceremonial conformity was you all know: and how much of it was performed in the Temple, in the several places or stations for the Priests, and Laity, Men and Women? But did this constitution oblige all? Could no man, or number of men live, and live openly there exem­pted from this Conformity, and exact Uniformity to every punctilio? It is undeniable that it was quite otherwise. There were among the Jews a great number of persons, cal­led prosyliti domicilii, or strangers not proselytes of justice, that dwelt constantly among them, that were so far from being concluded by the Mosaical Law, that it was death for them to observe it. Of this number were many Aegy­ptians that came up with them into the Holy Land: Such were the Gibeonites, of whose number we may guess by the bigness of their City: Such were the Canaanites that dwelt in the land, whose power was such, that they could not be [Page 5]exterminated by the Israelites. All these strangers (yet constant inhabitants of the Land) were onely obliged to the seven Commandements of Noah, and not to the Cere­monial Law at all. They worshipped in the same Tem­ple, in a particular apartment, but with different Cere­monies: the Jews had a Liturgy, these no Form: they had Priests, these none: the Jewes offered variety of Sa­crifices and Oblations, these none but burnt offerings: the one observed the Sabbath, and divers Holy dayes, on the which the other might work, nay, the one worship­ped God under several attributes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the other was not obliged actually to any worship, but negatively not to deny a Deity, or to speak irreverently or contumeliously of him: and when they did pray, it was onely the owning and worshipping a Creatour and Ruler of the world. This is avowed by the greatest of the Rabbines from the time of Moses, to the time of his writing, and that is Maimonides: Gentilis qui legem Mosaicam obser­varet, reus erat mortis; quippe cui tantum ob­servanda erant septem praecepta Noachidarum seu omnium hominum communia. and is at large proved by Mr. Selden, Jus naturale Hebraeorum. and granted in the whole extent, as I have proposed it, by the learned Grotius, De Jur. Bell, cap. 1. lib. 1 par. 16. a man of good credit with all Sons of the Church of En­gland: Of the same mind are all that write of the Common-Wealth of the Jewes. As to the observation of the Sabbath, Proselytos domicilii s [...]ve eos qui Ju­daisino nomina nondum dedera innt, qualecun (que) vitae commercium intra ditionem Israeliticam admissi, non modò observatione Sabbati omninò solutes habnere, sed poems gravissimis obnoxios, si observarent. (were it not for fear of being prolix) I would particularly illustrate that point, because it is a Dispensation with a Conformity with one of the Ten Commandments; which is at large proved too by Mr. Selden. De Jur. Nat. l. 3. c. 12. and the Talmudists say, Israelitae non prohibent ab­opere Gentile [...] in Sabbato.

It is easie to compare this Liberty of Religion, with ours in England, as it is contended for, or opposed: and ac­cording to judge of the extent of a Tolleration, how far it may go, how publick it may be, how possible, and how pra­cticable the thing is in it self (for they had no standing [Page 6]Army; and it was under a Monarchy, and that no despi­cable one, under Solomon and David) and how it had God himself for its establisher. I pass by the times under Herod and his immediate predecessors from Zerobabel down wards, in which, beside the aforesaid strangers, there were the se­veral Sects of Scribes, Pharisees, Sadduces, and Hero­dians, whose Tenets if any shall enquire into, he shall find them to differ as much as our subdivided Christians and Protestants do: As Sca­liger, Drusus, and Serrarius evidence. As to the Essenes, it is peculiarly ob­servable that they declin'd the Temple-worship, and were the separatists of that age: and yet I must tell you, this condition of the Jewes was not altogether unhappy, and our Saviour never told the Magistrates that it was unlaw­full, or that it would be the ruine of the state; which cannot be otherwise then by accident imputed thereun­to.

As to the first Christians, while those unerring Guides of the Church instructed and ruled in the Church, and were as well the foundation of our Doctrine, as of our Hi­erarchy: let us take a view of their Establishment. There were Converts of the Jewes, and Converts of the Gentiles, and of the Gentiles some were Proselytes of the Mosaical Law, others of the profession onely of the Seven Command­ments of Noah. The Jews, and such as did Judaise, ob­served all the Mosaical Law, as strictly as the Pharisees did; they did circumcise, and pay their vowes and wor­ship in the Temple, and offer Sacrifice, and kept the Sab­bath, and the like: So Origen Judae iqui in Jesum Christum crediderunt, non desciverunt a patri is legibus; vivunt enim ju [...]ta eas contra celsum. sayes of those in his dayes. Nor was this onely at Jerusalem, where Judaism was National, but at Alexandria, and else-where, where it was not so: For St. Je­rome About Ecclesiastical Writers. saith, that Philo the Jew observed this at Alexandria: Yet did the other converted Gentiles, not Judaising, live ac­cording to a Christianity superadded to the Seven Com­mandments, and consequently differing in form of wor­ship vastly. It is true, some went about to reduce them all [Page 7]to Uniformity; but who were they? Some of the Jewes (mark that) which believed (in Christ, Some Bibles only say they were Hhari­sees. and yet strictly observed the Mosaical Law,) of the Sect of the Pharisees, (a Sect so much decry'd by Christ) not the Apostles, and persons spirited by the Holy Ghost; Paul and Barnabas op­posed it. And what character doth the Scripture bestow upon this design of Uniformity? In truth, that they trou­bled the Church, Acts 15. And behold the issue of these troubles. The Synod of the Apostles and others guided by the Holy Ghost, thus decide the Controversie. They do not like this Uniformity of Worship and Liturgies; for the Jewes had a Liturgy. This is no part of the Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. No, they oblige them to a few, and those such as were onely necessary. For the Text, however vulgarly corrupted, and represented to establish Ecclesiastical Decisions as necessary: yet in our Biblia Polyglotta It is not in the manuscript of our Kings Library, [...]. Beside these subsequent necessary things. (a candid work of the Bishops of our Church) in a Lection stands cor­rected thus: It seems meet to the Holy Ghost and us, not to lay upon you any further burthen, [...], beside what is absolutely necessary: that is (say very learned Writers) the Seven Precepts of Noah: for who will believe the Holy Ghost thought it necessary to Salvation, that we neither eat black Puddings, or Rabbets? That which follows is an illustration, not restriction; forbidding blood-shed, See Selden de jure Nat. lib. 7. cap. 12. You must note that the text speaks of things strangled, and blood; but by blood is meant blood-shed; and things strangled is an ad­dition to the text, as the Fathers observe, and the Biblia Polyglotta: and the other clause of avoiding that which they would not have done to them, is in old Copies, and so repeated by Irenaeus and others; as you may see in the place above in Selden. as well as Idolatry, and Fornica­tion: (parts of the Law of Noah) And further that Holy Synod adds, And whatsoever you would not have done to your selves, do not that to others; which is a De­cision I recommend to you in the like case, the debate being there as well as here, about Liberty of Conscience. That Liberty which you would not be deprived of, do not go about to deprive others of For the precedent words include things necessary: the following therefore must refer to the point of Ceremonial Conformity.

As to the tolleration under Christian Emperours, I can­not but observe unto you Sir, That it was the judgement of those primitive times, and every where discovers it self in the Edicts of the first Christian Emperours, and Fathers, that Religion is not to be inforced, but that every one should abound in his own sense, and that all variety not onely of Opinions, but diversity of Religions should be tol­lerated in the State, if they were not destructive to Go­vernment. In this point Tertullian In his Discourse to Scapula. is peremptory, and Lactantius; In his Book de Justitia, speaking of supporting Religion by Cruelty, Oppres­sion and blood-shed, jam non defendetur illa, sed polluetur et violabitur: Nihil enim est tam voluntarium quam religio. and agreeable to this is the Speech of Constantine Related by Baronius in his Annals of the year 324. Inter divina et humana ser­vitia hoc interest, quòd humana servitia coacta sint, divina outem voluntaria comproben­tur. to the Roman Senate; the particu­lar passages I would willingly re­cite, were there not, beside pro­tracting this Discourse, a great deal of pedantry in quoting Latin: And I should be too tedious, should I relate unto you all the Edicts made to this purpose by the subse­quent Emperours, which are Re­corded in the Theodosian Code. No learned Son of the Church of England can deny it; And Chrysostome is positive, that no Godly Emperour did Enact against the Pagans any such Laws, as they did against the Christians. No man versed in Antiquity can deny but that all the Sects of the Christians, the Pagans, and the Jews, had a full Liberty of Conscience and Religion, without being excluded from publick offices of Trust and Profit in the Se­nate, Army and Court. So that these times which our Epis­copal Divines so much recommend unto our imitation, when their Hierachy is concerned, and their Ceremonies, these times do clearly assert the lawfulness of a General Liberty of Conscience, without subjecting the several dissenters to any penalties. The Heathen had their Priests, their Pon [...]i­fices, Augures, Quindecim viros sacris faciundis, Salios, &c. untill the time of Theodosius. Onuphrius descr. arb. tom. lib. 2. The Arrians had their Bi­shops; the Novatians their Bishops, and Churches (not to mention other Sects) in the same Diocesses in which the [Page 9]more orthodox Bishops had also their jurisdiction, and made up the national religion of the Roman Empire. The Jewes also had their Academies and Patriarchs. From all which I do conclude, that it is lawful to enact for Liberty of Con­science; and that such Acts are not inconsistent with Go­vernment, nor subject to those inconveniencies many sug­gest; since such Monarchies have flourished notwithstand­ing them: All those conjectures are refuted by the aforesaid instances. Nor need they trouble themselves to object, that the Roman Empire had a standing Army to preserve the Peace and Authority of the Empire; seeing that those of that Army were diversify'd by their several Religions: and it is all one not to have any Army at all, or to have one com­posed indifferently of the several parties that were to be kept under.

Having thus laid before you the judgement and practise of the best times; it will not be amiss to reflect upon the several ways and endeavours have been used toward the uniting the minds of men about Religion.

As to the Popish way of inforcing a general Uniformity, it is so barbarous, so unchristian, and so generally rejected by Protestants, that I believe you cannot endure an harangue in the behalf of the inquisition: and to extoll the practises of Queen Mary's days were as absurd, as to write an Enco­mium for Phalaris, or Busiris, or Nere.

Another way of Uniting them hath been by contriving general forms and wayes, (not much unlike the Device of Comprehension, if I understand it aright) to which each par­ty might subscribe: but this way God never blessed, but it proved like the fire-brands, which (with the cords) united the tails of Sampsons foxes, while their heads were at di­stance; and being put into the corn, they burnt it; as this method hath set all Kingdoms on fire. Nor is it Policy; for instead of abrogating all, it gives a countenance to all opini­ons it would extinguish. How little are the controversies ceased between the Dominicans and Jesuites, since the equi­vocal Council of Trent, to which they subscribe; and which both parties alledge? So among Protestants, how little are [Page 10]controversies extinguished by the dubious or general texts of Scripture? nay, are they not eternised by them? how lit­tle doth the dubious Creed of the Apostles conduce to the deciding among Protestants or Socinians?

As to the uniting therefore of mens minds into one Reli­gion, it is impossible; it is as impossible to make all mens con­sciences of the same extent and latitude, as to make all mens shooes of the same size. Different gifts make different pro­fessions: since none is accountable for more then he hath re­ceived. The weak are not to condemn the strong; and the strong are to tollerate, not destroy the weak. This is Gospel. and I hope you will make this to be Law. Take away the condemning of the one, and the oppression of the other, and you will establish the Church, rather then destroy it, or the peace of this Nation. Besides,

I desire you would observe that there is no president of any Liberty of Conscience granted on penalties: for that unavoidably establisheth a faction: for it is natural for man­kind to desire to be at ease, and to wish, and (upon occasion) to endeavour its redress and relief from any grievance; and it is as natural for such as reap benefit from the depression of others, to strive to continue them in that oppressed conditi­on: from hence ariseth anger, hatred, malice, and all uncha­ritableness, and such contention as destroys a State. If a Kingdom be divided, how can it stand? as all things different are not opposite: no more is all distinction a factious divi­sion, and destructive to the being of a Government. All you make up one Parliament: personal quarrels may ruine you, but personal distinctions will not. Contrarieties mutually expel each other out of the same subject by course of na­ture, things disparat do not.

Since therefore a Popish Inquisition is barbarous and odi­ous; subscribing to general forms and opinions dangerous, and ineffectual; uniting mens minds into one religion im­possible; and no liberty granted upon penalties: What other way is left us to unite, but to allow each Church its several way of worship? which kind usage with moderate endea­vours, and not imposing general opinions, may in time (as [Page 11]it was of old) so far prevail with them to reconcile the dif­ferences among themselves, that at last they may arrive to a mutual communion, though not an exact Uniformity. Thus the Millenaries of old, and Fifth Monarchy men communica­ted with the other Christians: and so it was with Mr. Mead and the Church of England: Thus the baptized Christians and the Anabaptists As Ter­tullion Nazian­zen, the Em­perours Con­stantine and Valentinian. made up one Church: Thus the Ju­daising Christians and Gentiles communicated together; So did the Arrians V. Euse­bius. and Trinitarians. And methinks it is odd, that the Church of England should suffer our tutelar Saint to be St. George, As Calvin saith. that Arrian Bishop, and yet not allow the communion of any favour to an Anabaptist, or fifth Monarchist. Such a communion I say, were to be wish'd, and the only way we can hope for at present to unite us, is to al­low Constantine and the sub­sequent Em­perors main­tained at their charge, the variety of Re­ligions, Priests and Sacrifices: As there had been at Anti­och one Anti­och, one Apo­stle for the Jews, and an­other for the Gentiles; so there were afterwards in the same Ci­ties, besides the different Heathen Priests, Bi­shops to the Novatians, Arrians, Donatists, and Catholicks. each Church its several way of worship, they main­taining their Ministers: all reproachful language, and odious consequences imposed upon each party, as well as odious names, being prohibited: as were the names of Heretick and Scismatick by Qu. Eliz. This course hath succeeded well; for under it Religion grew: and whilst Religion was no mans Interest, it was scarce any mans Hypocrisie: when truth had no other recommendations but its naked self, such as imbraced it did it cordially. Nor was it ever demonstra­ted, or can be, that the use of this Liberty did directly and necessarily introduce such factions as are inconsistent with any Government or Monarchy. And if it were onely the a­buse of it; let us look to that: since the Church of England so often inculcates to us, that propter abusum non est tollendus usus: for that were like the forbidding Aristotle condemns that Paralo­gism of Anacharsis. the Scythians to plant wine, because wine might make them drunk. To conclude all therefore, Let us in our Law be as tender of Mens Consciences, as our Common Law is of their lives; which takes care rather that a thousand Criminals should escape, then one innocent be destroyed.