CHAP. I.

Section 1.

INquiries after Truth in matters contro­verted are not more difficult in their prosecution, then pleasant and delight­ful in the satisfaction they afford. For, though it be a true assertion of Demo­critus, that Veritas in puteo latet, &c. and cannot be drawn out but with much labour; yet no dainties are so relishing and delicious to the taste, as truth obtained is to our Intellectnals.

Sect. 2. But more especially ought we to desire to know the truth in matters doubtful, which refer to our practice; and especially such as refer to the purity of Gods Worship, who is a Spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth.

And though this is to be done at all times, yet especi­alty when we are supposed to be brought unto such an hour of temptation, that we must either betray the truth through cowardise in our own apprehensions, or in the ap­prehensions of others betray our liberties sacred and civil by a rash and precipitant suffering.

Sect. 3. Now this, I suppose, being the case of many both Ministers and People at this time; there being but small hopes, notwithstanding our former Civil wars and late Petition for peace, but that now by the Act for Uni­formity [Page 2]established, we must either conform thereunto, or suffer the penalties of the same.

The present duty that now lieth upon us is, by all the helps we can to make a serious search into the nature of those things which are the subject matter of that Con­formity enjoyned, and to satisfie the conscience in this particular, Whether by obedience thereunto we become not children of disobedience unto Christ, who is the ever­lasting Father and supreme Law-giver of his Church?

Sect. 4. For this being a certain truth, That we are never called to suffer as Christians by yielding passive obedience, but when we cannot without sin yield active obedience; and that no Minister, I suppose, is to lay down his Ministry, but in as clear a case as he can lay down his Life; it doth very much concern us to be perswaded in our consciences, by that which hath abso­lutely the commanding and obliging power thereof, viz. the Word of God, Whether or no by yielding obedience to this Act of U ifo mity we are not Violaters of the Law of God? For where no law is violated there is no trans­gression, sin being the transgression of the law.

Sect. 5 And doubtless though there be, as the Authors of the Pe ition for peace do intimate, p. 4. an appearance of very great love to Christ in refusing conformity to things indifferent, because that they judge it to be an Usurpa­tion of his Kingly power, and an accusation of his Law as unsufficient; and because that they dare not be guilty of adding to, or diminution of his worship, or of worshipping him after any other Law then that by which they shall be judged; or such as is meerly subordinate to that, supposing them to be mistaken in thinking things to be so displeasing to God.

Sect. 6. Though this may be commendable in such ca­ses, and about such matters wherein persons are left to their own liberty, and are not under the commands of their Superiours:

Yet when by so doing upon a mistake, through their disobedience they shall violate a positive and clear Go­spel- precept, and in suffering upon this account shall con­demn the generation of the just, even the practice of the primitive Christians in the Apostles dayes, who did con­form to indifferent things of no necessity to salvation, Acts 15. and of the tender-conscienc'd Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes; when they shall thereby also de­prive the Church of God of their labours in the Mini­stry, and be also matter of grief of heart to many. solid and judicious Christians, and thereby administer matter of horrour and great scruple of conscience in weak Christi­ans, who thence conclude, that surely there must needs be many conscience-wasting sins in the use of the Common Prayer, Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, &c. that men will suffer so much for their Non-conformity.

Sect. 7. I humbly conceive that a mistake in this case is of very dangerous consequence, and to avoid these mi­serable and sinful evils is a duty incumbent, and that it would argue a very great fear of displeasing of Christ, and a sollicitous care of obeying him, to make a diligent search into Gods Word, and into the Writings of pious and learned men;

Before such (who especially are Teachers of others) shall expose themselves to the deprivation of their Mi­nistry, and thereby many good souls that delight therein to the loss thereof.

Sect. 8. I say, they ought to be clearly and fully per­swaded they are not onely Truths, but Truths of so high a nature, as may bear proportion with what they do ex­pose themselves to suffer for the same.

I do verily believe it would be a great sin, and highly displeasing to Christ, if now in this juncture of time, meer­ly to please men or avoid suffering, we should do any thing whereby we might violate any Law of Christ, the [Page 4]King of his Church. If Daniel, when there was a Law made forbidding him to offer unto God his daily sacri­fice of prayer for 30. dayes, Dan. 6.7. his conformity to this Law would have been as manifest a breach of Gods Law, as for the three children to have fallen down, and worship'd the golden Image at the command of the King.

Sect. 10. But to refuse such commands as are doubtful and disputable whether sinful or no, it is not the judg­ment of those Worthies named in the Petition for peace, pag. 18. who have taken this Non-conformity to be a sin; but it must appear upon a well-grounded conviction of the conscience from Gods Word truly applyed, which doth either in express terms or by a just consequence make this or that to be a sin, which is now the matter of obedience by this Act; otherwise we shall suffer but for our own fancies or opinions, or upon a tradition received from our Forefathers.

And though I do believe what I have read professed in the name of many who are yet unsatisfied in the Peti­tion for peace, that you have by reading and prayer sought for satisfaction; yet considering what I find asserted in the book aforesaid, pag. 14. That men have not their Understandings at command; who can tell what a word in season may do now, especially from so unlikely and so unlook'd-for, as well as from so unworthy a one as I my self?

Sect. 11. It is an old saying, That sometimes a looker on may see more then a gamster. And therefore though unconcerned in this last Act for Uniformity, being in none of those capacities which call me to the observance of the same:

Yet sympathising with those that are scruplers, and de­siring that they may not thereby be exposed to those sufferings which may be the fruit of their Non-obedience, and that all the ill effects thereof may be prevented.

Sect. 12. I have presumed to be a Remembrancer to [Page 5]such persons, as I was sometimes to the Army, to mind them of such things which I shall present from the Wri­tings of such Non-conformists and other Divines, as are now above all Interest, and being dead yet speak; as also from the judgment of the reverend Mr. Richard Baxter yet living: By which I hope it will appear, That there is not that matter of sin and danger, which I do observe some do conclude and take for granted there is in yielding obedi­ence unto the Act for Uniformity.

CHAP. II.

Section 1.

NOw for as much as the subject matter of Obedience to this Act for Uniformity to some appeareth so sin­ful, that they have already deprived themselves of the op­portunity of preaching the Word, and the Congregations which they have dismissed from the hearing thereof on certain Week-day Lectures in this City.

Sect. 2. I shall by way of Introduction to what follows remember such Ministers of what I hope may give a check to this rashness, and then propound something in general that may incline their hearts to keep this Law.

To which purpose I humbly desire them seriously to peruse and consider of the Reasons given by Mr. Baxter for obedience in lawful things, Five Disput of Government and Worship, pag. 483. and to stay such of you as are in such great haste to be gone out of the Lords vineyard, be pleased to consider what you shall find proposed by the said reverend person, proposit. 1. We must obey both Ma­gistrates and Pastours in all lawful things which belong to their Office. 2. It belongs not to their Office to make God [Page 6]a new Worship; but to command the mode and circumstan­ces of Worship belongeth to their Office; for guiding them therein God hath given them general rules. 3. We must not take the lawful commands of our Governours to be un­lawful. 4. If we do through weakness or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful, that will not excuse us in our disobedience; our errour is our sin, and one sin will not ex­cuse another.

Sect. 3. Concerning the lawfulness of the things ap­pointed by this Act, particularly I hope to make evident to such as will with patience read over this whole Treatise without prejudice.

In the mean time to reconcile the minds of men to this Act, I shall prepare them by what followeth.

Disobedience, you may observe from Mr. Baxter, though but through weakness and a mistake, is very dan­gerous. Obedience also to the commands of our Superi­ours is exceeding pleasing to God; I say, in lawful things, Behold to obey is better then sacrifice, quoted by Mr. Baxter, 1 Sam. 15.2. pag. 489. There being also natu­rally in our hearts a very great averseness to sub­jection, there being as the reverend Calvin saith upon 1 Pet. 5.5. Nihil humano ingenio magis ad­versum quàm subjectio; Calvin on 1 Pet. 5.5. verum enim illud olim dictum est, Regis animum quem (que) intrase ha­bere: Nothing to which the wit of man is so adverse as to subjection; so true is that which was said of old, Every man hath within him the heart of a King.

Sect. 4. Observe, I pray, what he saith, and it will give you the reason why men do so set their wits on work to dispute the commands of their Superiours, why they do so strongly argue against the commanding of un­necessary and indifferent things in their judg­ment, 5 Disput. 471. and why they charge such commands as being the cause of all contentions and divisi­ons: [Page 7]I say, we may well fear what Mr. Calvin saith to be the ground thereof, because there is nothing to which the wit of man is so adverse as to subjection; and because that which was said of old may too truly be affirmed in our dayes, and will be while men are in this state of Im­perfection, that every man hath the heart of a King with­in him, would be a Ruler over others, but hardly brought to subjection himself.

Sect. 5. In order therefore to the healing this distem­per I shall crave leave humbly to propose even to the con­sideration of all peaceable spirits, and all that desire to be such, this general Proposition; ‘That Obedience to this Act of Uniformity is the way to Unity.’

Which if I can demonstrate (as I hope through Christ I shall) and prove by Scripture and Reason, I am apt to believe it may very much conduce to reconcile the minds of many to this work, which is of so great concern­ment at this time.

Sect. 6. To which purpose I shall also for the help of those who are in my own private capacity and station, that they being informed in the nature of this Act, may think well of it themselves, and not think ill of those that do conform thereto.

I shall endeavour to explain what this Uniformity is that the Act requireth.

But before I begin, considering that the reverend Mr. Baxter hath laid down this as his first Proposition, before he giveth his reasons for obedience in lawful things, viz. That we must obey all Magistrates and Pastors in all law­ful things that belong to their Offices: I shall lay down this proposition in the first place, That it doth belong to the Office of the Magistrate and Church-governours to com­mand about matters of Religion, especially as to the modes and circumstances of Worship.

CHAP. III

Section 1.

THat I may proceed more distinctly I shall first prove the proposition in reference to Christian Kings, who are the supreme: secondly, as to Church-governors and Pastors.

That it doth belong to the office of the King to com­mand about matters of Religion I shall endeavour to prove, first, by the light of Nature; secondly, by the light of Scripture; thirdly, from Ecclesiastical History; fourthly, by the Laws of our Land, under which we live.

Sect. 2. First, by the Light of Nature this appeareth to be the Magistrates office to command in matters of Religion. I shall give you but one or two Instances for the proof thereof: first, in Nebuchadnezzar making a Law against blaspheming the true God, Dan. 3.5. se­condly, in Darius, Dan. 6. who upon the sight of ano­ther miracle wrote to all People, Nations and Languages, saying, I make a decree, that in all the domi­nions of my Kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. To both which let me adde the example of the King of Nineveh, who hearing and believing Jo­nahs message from God, did proclaim a Fast, and char­ged all to put on sack cloth, &c. Jonah 3.

Sect. 3. If it be objected, These were Heathen Princes: They do the better service to prove my assertion, that such had so much of those reliques and fragments of the Light of Nature to teach them, that as they were in [Page 9]office they should restrain from Blasphemy, and com­mand the fear of God, and humiliation before him.

Sect. 4. Secondly, by the Light of Scripture that it belongeth to the Supreme Magistrate to command about matters of Religion, all the Examples of Moses, of Jo­shua, of David, of Solomon, of Asa, of Jehosaphat, of He­zekiah, of Josiah, and of Nehemiah, do prove the same.

And as the coming of Christ did not abolish Kingly Go­vernment, but confirm it, as we may observe both by his doctrine and practice; so in no part of his Gospel, or wri­tings of the Apostles, is the dealing about matters of Re­ligion taken from the Magistrate, but the right that Kings had in the Old Testament was rather corroborated by Christs doctrine. The Magistrate therefore Rom. 13.4. is called Gods Minister or Deacon, and he is said to be in this exercised as Gods Minister to take ven­geance on him that doth evil; the greater therefore the evil is, the more to be suppressed; and the greater the good is, the more to be inforced.

Sect. 5. St. Augustine in his 50. Epistle hath a very considerable passage to this purpose, Who being in his right wits will say to Christian Kings, Take you no care who defendeth or impugneth in your Realms the Church of Christ your master, let it not pertain to you who list to be sacrilegious or religious within your Kingdom. And up­on this account he doth challenge the Donatists, Cry thus if you dare, Let murthers be punished, adulteries, &c. onely sacriledge (which he expounds to be a contempt of God, his Truth, his Church) we will not have punished by Princes Laws. And again saith he, will the Donatists, though they were convinced of a sacrilegious schism, say, That it belongeth not to the Princes power to correct or pu­ [...]ish such things?

Sect. 6. Observe, I beseech you, besides the Scrip­ture the judgment of this ancient Father, and that it [Page 10]was the opinion of the Donatists, who were very great Scismaticks, as I find in the Arraignment of schism by Mr. Brinsley; they also, it appeareth, did deny the Christian Magistrate to meddle in matters of Religion. I wish this error be not found amongst such as Mr. John Ball wrote against in the answering of John Can, or any other besides the great Factors for Rome the Jesuites.

Sect. 7. I proceed therefore to prove this to be the Magistrates office in the third place by the practice of the first Christian Emperors that submitted to Christs Gospel; Constantine commanded matters of Religion, as Eusebius in vita Constant. lib. 3. cap. 38. lib. 3. cap. 27. he sheweth what a Nursing father he was to the Church of Christ, how he called Councils, and in many of their Sy­nods did not sit idle, (but as a Moderator among them) and confirmed their decrees with his seal.

And as Constantine so also did Constantius, and after him Justinian, who in his Code repeateth not onely th [...] Laws of former Emperors touching the Christian Faith, Baptisme, the Church, &c. but in his Authenticks he maketh many new constitutions, in which he disposeth o [...] matters about Gods Worship. as in what places, by what persons, with what loudness of voice they are to administer.

The like also did Charles the great, the Emperor of the West part 800. years after Christ, in his Preface to his Laws, Praefat. Caroli in leges Francisc. there is this pas­sage, Therefore, O you Pastors of Christs Church, and Teachers of his flock, have we directed commissions unt [...] you that will joyn with you to redress those things which need reformation, in our Name, and by virtue of our Au­thority.

And that this did belong to Christian Kings ever since the plantation of Christian Religion in our Land, I find by a Letter of Eluthorius Bishop of Rome unto King Lucius, 169. à passione Christi; in this Letter he saith, That h [...] [Page 11]is Gods Vicar in his Kingdom, according to the saying of the Psalmist, Give the King thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness to the Kings son. The Kings sons be Christian people and folk of his Realm, Fox Mon. pag. 96. who if they be divided you ought to gather in concord and peace.

Sect. 8. And that this belongeth to this day to our Kings to meddle in matters of Religion, is evident by se­veral Statute-Laws, that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is an­nexed to the Imperial crown of this Realm, I may have occasion to name some hereafter, and therefore forbear at present.

Having, I hope, fully proved by the Light of Nature, Scripture, the practice of Christian Kings at all times to this day, that it belongeth to the Magistrates office to command in matters of Religion, though not to make God a new Worship, yet to command about the modes thereof:

Sect. 9. I shall speak but a word of the second part of the Proposition, That it belongeth to the Church-go­vernors and Pastors to command about matters of Reli­gion also, but so as to be subject to the Higher powers, 1 Thes. 5.12, 13. Heb. 13.17. 1 Cor. 11.34. The Apostle Paul having given as it were several Canons, for reforming the great abuses that were about the admi­nistration of the Lords Supper, he saith, The rest I will set in order when I come. And the like commission he gi­veth to Titus 1.5. For this cause left I thee in Creet, to set in order the things that were wanting, as I appointed thee, or commanded thee: He doth not say, as God hath commanded, but as I have appointed. The pra­ctice of the Synod in restraining the Christian Gentiles from their liberty of eating bload, doth shew that it be­longeth to Church-governours to command about indiffe­rent things, and the modes of Worship and Discipline.

And thus now having proved that which I judge very necessary to reconcile mens minds to obedience, if once the conscience be perswaded that it belongeth to the Ma­gistrates Office to command what is the subject matter of this Uniformity:

I shall in the next place proceed to explain what this Ʋniformity is which the Act requireth, in order to the proof of my Proposition, That obedience to the Act of Ʋniformity is the way to Unity.

CHAP. IV.

Section 1.

COncerning the term Ʋniformity I shall not spend much Ink or Paper in a critical or Etymological discourse thereof; for to speak de nomine, of the Name, is to no great purpose, further then it makes the thing required more intelligible.

I must confess I do not find the term in Scripture, but yet as Epiphan. lib. 3. haeres. 73. Nomen substantiae non ponitur nude nec in veteri nec novo Testamento, sensus verò ubi (que) est. But the sense or essence thereof we may find in many places of Scripture commanded and commended, that we should all speak the same things, and with one mind and mouth glorifie God. And that is the chief thing propounded by this Law, pag. 71. viz. An universal agreement in the publick Worship of Almighty God.

Sect. 2. I have therefore but one thing from the term Ʋniformity to observe, as to its Etymoligy, if I mistake not, and that is this, Uniform doth signifie one form, mode or manner, in which by a universal agreement the publick Worship of God is to be performed. And were this [Page 13]but well considered, this Act would be the more readily obeyed, it requiring of us no more then what Gods Word commands or allows, and his Church hath practised, as you shall read hereafter, that in the manner of our pub­lick Worship we should be uniform, the whole Church to have but one mode and one rule for its rites and ceremonies.

Now take the term Ʋniformity in my proposition in this sense, for one form, mode or worship to be observed by all that are members of our visible Church; and

I humbly conceive it to be a seasonable Truth to be treated on, That obedience to this Act for Uniformity is the way to Unity.

Sect. 3. The reason in general why it is likely so to be is, because that our chief discords, dissentions and divi­sions, which we so long have laboured under, have been about our modes of Worship and Discipline.

That they have been so from the very first beginning of the troubles of Frankefort to this very day, he is a stran­ger in our Israel that knoweth it not; yet if you will not take it from me, be pleased to take it from Mr. Baxter, who in the Postcript of his Epistle to the Reader, before his Treatise of the Vain Religion of the Formal Hyppo­crite, having cleared the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land from being any matter of our most unchristian dis­cord, he sayes, The more is the pity that the very modes of Worship and Discipline should be the matter of such sharp and uncharitable discords.

Now then if our sharp and uncharitable discords be and have been about the modes of Worship and Discipline, then for all to observe one mode, or form, or rule in pub­lick Worship and Discipline must needs be the way to unity and agreement.

Sect. 4. This at first view may seem to be Durus ser­mo, a very hard saying, who can bear it? and I do the more incline to believe it by what I have read, which [Page 14] discovers how contrary the apprehensions of some learned men are to this Truth.

Who have therefore pleaded very much for Non­conformity, and a liberty for persons to chuse or refuse what form or mode of Worship they please, as the way to peace.

Now this, I say, being the general argument against Ʋniformity, with the means conducing thereunto, as I find in the Petition for peace, and also in Mr. Baxters sive Disputations; I shall make bold with all tenderness and meekness, and with much respect to those worthy persons, to weigh and consider of the truth and strength thereof.

Sect. 6. The argument I find in the Petition for peace, pag. 14. in these or the like words; Nothing more affects us then to think of the lamentable divisions that have been caused, and are still like to be, whilest things unnecessary are imposed; and on the contrary, how blessed a unity and peace we might enjoy, if these occasions of divisions were removed.

So that here in short lyeth, as is said, if I mistake not, the ground of all these lamentable divisions about modes of Worship, even since the Reformation begun in King Edwards dayes to this time, That things unnecessary have been imposed.

And that this is the chief exception against our Supe­riours commands I find pag. 12, 16, 17. and others in the said Petition for peace, that they are esteemed unnecessa­ry; but that I find them not to be charged as absolutely sinful in themselves, in all that book, is worthy of obser­vation.

For this being acknowledged in the general by those persons of that moderation and piety, which were to re­view the Book of Common Prayer, &c. That they are but unnecessary, and not sinful:

Sect. 7. I humbly conceive that it should put a great stand to the thoughts of such who are methinks too for­ward [Page 15]to consider, Whether onely for non-obedience to un­necessary things in their own judgment, or in the judgment of some others that have taken up this tradition from the troubles of Frankfort, it be lawful for them to lay down their Ministry, or to do that which might by Law de­prive them of the same?

Before I proceed further I shall crave leave to ask this modest question;

Whether or no this argument against obedience to the commands of our Superiours, because we judge the things commanded to be unnecessary, is not onely a principle of division, but of confusion in all Government?

Sect. 8. I remember that I have somewhere read, that Licurgus the Law-giver to the Lacedemonians, being moved by one to establish a Democratical Government in the Commonwealth, he bid him go home, and exercise it first in his own family.

And surely if we do but seriously consider of it, we shall find, that were but this objection brought against our commands, as we are Parents or Masters in the go­vernment of our Families, that they are unnecessary, what can be expected but disorder, disobedience, division and confusion?

Sect. 9. And had the converted Gentiles, whom the Governours of the Church, Acts 15. enjoyned to abstain from bloud and things strangled, as necessary, not to sal­vation, but for the setling of the peace, which was bro­ken by the Jewish Teachers, ver. 2. and to propagate the Christian Religion: which are the two professed ends of the framing this Act for Ʋniformity, pag. 71. had they but pleaded, This is an unnecessary Imposition, and so have been non-conformable; how had the Christian Religion been interrupted in [...] first plantation, and the dissentions and divisions, occasioned by the Jewish Teachers, been propagated and continued?

I humbly conceive therefore that this argument or ob­jection against the commands of our Superiours, That their Impositions are unnecessary, is a very unnecessary ob­jection, and a principle of confusion and division in Church, State or Family.

But now that a universal agreement in one mode and form of publick Worship and Discipline is the way to peace and unity, and therefore no unnecessary Imposition, I thus argue;

Sect. 10. First, that which doth deliver us from divi­ding sins must needs be the way to unity.

Secondly, that which tends to the Honour of Religi­on, the edification and building up of the Church, that must needs be the way to unity.

Now to have one form, and to agree universally in the modes of Worship and service of God doth conduce to both these, and therefore Uniformity is the way to Unity.

I shall begin with the first, and shew what are these dividing sins, naming but the principal ring-leaders, a­mongst them, and they are Pride and Error.

Sect. 11. First, Pride, that it is a dividing sin, and the spring of division, if not of disobedience, the Wiseman tells us, Prov. 13.10. onely by pride cometh contention; as if this were the spring of all division and disobedience. But besides, from this root spring many more dividing sins, as self-conceitedness, and thinking of our selves more highly then we ought to think; a sin forbidden with an unusual preface, Rom. 12.3. a sin whereby we are apt to think our selves wiser then seven men that can render a reason, Prov. 26.16. and more holy then the rest of our brethren, as did the proud Pharisee. From whence also floweth the judging, censuring, condemning and despising of each other; which are all dividing sins, and exceed­ingly tend to the tearing of that Badge by which Christ would have all his Disciples to be known, even by their love to each other.

Sect. 12. Secondly, as Pride so Error is a dividing sin; for though Truth be but one, yet Error is the semi­nary of all schisms and divisions. The Apostle John 1. 4, 6, 7. layeth down a [...], a mark or character how we may know the spirit of Truth from the spirit of Error; the spirit of Truth is a Fountain of love, and con­sequently the spirit of Error is the spring of discord, as we have found by woful experience. Error in doctrine is by our Saviour compared to Leaven, Mat. 16.6. com­pared with the 12. Verse: now as Leaven diffuseth a sowrenesse into the whole mass or lump whereever it co­meth, so also doth Error diffuse a sowreness and morose­ness of spirit, whereby he becomes unsociable and apt to divide and separate himself from the rest of his brethren that is leavened with it; even as the Pharisees did in our Saviours time, whose name with the name of Nabal are symbolical.

Sect. 13. Now then that obedience to the Act of Uni­formity is the way to unity, as it is a blessed means for the mortifying of these grand ring-leaders of division and disobedience, may be thus evidenc'd, as it doth remove the occasions of committing these sins.

For, did all that professe the true Reformed Protestant Religion observe an Uniformity in their publick Worship, and in the rites and ceremonies thereto belonging, all di­stinctions of men and parties would soon vanish away; there would be no occasion given for the drawing forth those woful fruits of Pride before-named neither in Ministers or People.

Sect. 14. As the Minister by his obedience to these in­different things acts and exercises those graces which are diametrically opposite to pride and self conceitedness, viz. humility and self-denyal, and declareth that he hath got the victory over that to which the reverend Calvin saith the wit of man is nothing more adverse and contrary to, viz. subjection.

Sect. 15. So the People are thereby delivered from the occasion of putting forth those dividing sins before na­med, in whom there is a natural aptitude upon the for­bearance of the Ministers in these modes of Worship to at­gue; Surely those men do see more into the iniquity of the Common prayer, the Surplice, &c. then all the Go­vernours that enjoyn them, or the rest of their Brethren that observe them; and have therefore a more pure, de­licate and tender conscience, and consequently their Mi­nistry is like to be most soul-saving. And thereupon all other Ministers are usually censured for Time-servers and men-pleasers; by which means Christian love and charity is destroyed, and divisions are contracted and con­tinued.

That therefore which removeth these occasions, as for all to be uniform in their external modes of Worship doth, as I have before shewed, must needs be the way to unity.

Sect. 16. Secondly, as Pride so Error also is a divi­ding sin, as I have before shewed: Now that which ta­keth away one occasion, and a great one too, of diffusing and spreading Error, must needs be the way to unity; now Uniformity in prayer doth this, and was therefore by the Church in the primitive times appointed for this end and purpose, Because that Hereticks did convey and spread their poysons in their Prayers. In the Council of Milva, which was in the year 416. it was appointed, That none should use any prayers but such as were appointed by a Synod.

Sect. 17. There is a desultory levity in the minds even of some good men, whereby they are subject to offend in their publick Devotions, without a great measure of humility and spiritual prudence, which all Ministers have not; and therefore it was the judgement of the reverend Calvin, in his Epist. ad Protector. in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, that there should be a set form of [Page 19]prayer and Ecclosiastical rites: saith he, Quoad formu­lam precum & rituum Ecclesiast, valde approbo, à quo pa­stori in functione discedere non liceat, &c. Observe, he would have a set Form of prayer, and certain rites and ceremonies; but were they to be left to the Ministers choice, whether he would conform to them yea or no? I suppose not: he was not of Mr. Baxters mind in his Di­sputations as to this point, nor yet with the Petitioners for peace, but saith expresly, From which form of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites it may not be lawful for the Pastors in their function to depart. They were then to be imposed by Law upon them; and for what end? for these three Reasons; first, that thereby provision may be made for the simplicity of some: secondly, that the consent that all the Churches have amongst themselves may more certainly ap­pear: and lastly also, that the extravagant levity of some that affect novelties may be prevented.

So that it is very evident that this reverend person did approve of a Uniformity in prayer and other rites as the way to unity, as it did conduce to concord and agreement, as it prevented dividing sins.

Sect. 18. I proceed now to the second Branch for the proof of the proposition, and that is this, That which tends to the honour of our Religion, the edification and building up of the Church, that must needs be the way to Unity.

But now if all persons, both Ministers and People, would be Uniform, and there were an universal agree­ment about these modes of Worship and Discipline; the Reformed Protestant Religion, which for our Non confor­mity and divisions amongst our selves, by our Adversa­ries the Papists is very much reviled; as you find Harding in his Answer to the Apology of the Church of England, flouting them even for the Non-conformists that were amongst them in Queen Elizabeths dayes.

Sect. 19. I say, how would our Religion be honoured? nay, not onely so, but how would it strike a terrour into the hearts of all Romish Catholicks, and fill them with despair of ever seeing the Church of England reconciled to the Church of Rome, for to see these woful divisions that have been amongst us removed by an universal con­formity amongst Protestants in these matters, which are and have been the cause of such unchristian discords?

Now if this would not edifie and build up the Church, judge you.

Besides, how amiable then would our assemblies be, and how delightful would Gods publick Worship be to such as desire to fear his Name, and to reverence his Sanctu­ary, to behold it celebrated orderly and uniformly, while all that worship do sit, and stand, and kneel together, as if but one body; while all do speak the same things required of them, as if but one mouth.

Sect. 20. This was the practice of the primitive Church long before Popery. I remember I have read that the whole Congregation were then so uniform in publick pray­er, lifting up their voices so all together when they said Amen, which, affixed to our prayers, signifieth a full consent and agreement to what is prayed for; I say, it was uttered with such uniformity, that St. Jerome, as I have read, compared their sounding of Amen in the Church unto a clap of Thunder, and St. Basil to the roaring of the Sea.

You see therefore that this Uniformity in matters of re­ligious Worship it is bonum, jucundum, & utile; it is good, it is pleasant, it is profitable; and that not onely as you have read it is pleasing and delightful to those that joyn in that Worship, but as it is profitable also, and so edifying.

Sect. 21. As the God of peace, who hath promised to be with them that are like-minded, Rom. 15.33. So the great Master of the Assemblies, the Prince of peace, [Page 21]hath not onely promised to be present where two or three are gathered together in his Name, but also hath made a promise to their uniformity and agreement together in prayer, Mat. 18. Where two shall agree together to aske any thing on earth, it shall be granted them. When they shall symphonise, so the word is in the Original, when they shall be harmonious and uniform in their supplicati­ons, even to this agreement together is the promise made, if I mistake not. And I think St. Chrysostom is some­what of my mind in Homil. 3. de incomprehensibilis Dei natura; Thou dost not so soon obtain thy prayers when thou prayest alone unto the Lord, as when thou prayest with thy brethren, for there is somewhat the more of concord and con­sent, &c.

Sect. 22. And in his 4. Homil. upon 2 Thes. saith he, Quod quis apud se precatus accipere non poterit, hoc cum multitudine precatus accipiate, quare etiam si non propria virtus, tamen concordia multorum potest. The thing that a man cannot obtain praying alone, praying together with the multitude he may obtain; why so? though not for his own worthiness, yet the concord, unity and agreement pre­vaileth much.

And thus now having I hope made it evident, That obedience to this Act of Uniformity is the way to Unity; and that to have all one form in publick Worship, though to some it may seem very unnecessary, yet for those good ends and purposes aforesaid, though in it self it be an in­different thing, neither forbidden or commanded by God, yet obedience to it when commanded by our Superiours is very necessary, as it delivers from dividing sins, and tends to the honour of Religion.

I shall, before I proceed further, desire all humble and peaceable spirits to compare without prejudice this argu­ment with my proofs thereof, with an argument that I find in Five Disput. chap. 6. pag. 433.

CHAP. V.

Section 1.

THough I do confess that there is much prudence and moderation to be used in every Government, and what the Wiseman saith is applicable to all Governours, Be not thou a Lion in thine own house: and that Fathers are not to provoke their Children to wrath by unjust and unmeet precepts, and by pursuing them with contumeli­ous words, &c. and severe corrections beyond the me­rit of their crime. Imperiousness in government doubt­less is to be avoided.

Sect. 2. But yet should our superiours fail of their duty in this or any other kind, we are not to fail in ours; duty to our superiours being not an act of commutative but di­stributive justice. The same Law-giver that forbids Fathers natural, spiritual, political, not to provoke their children to wrath, lest they be discouraged, yet doth like­wise command children, whether natural, spiritual or po­litical, to obey their Parents in all things, Col. 3.20. in the Lord, Ephes. 6.1.

And this, with the consideration of what followeth, that in every act of obedience to the lawful commands of our superiours there is a complication of many graces, which grace our profession, as humility, self-denyal, love to God, care of the publick peace, and of the preservati­on of unity and order in the place where God hath set us.

I say this consideration should keep us from disputing our Superiours commands, from possessing either corrupt heads or hearts with any principle which may heighten that aversness which is in every mans heart naturally to subjection, as Mr. Calvin saith.

Sect. 3. The argument therefore, with the reason there­of, I desire may be a little weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary, as I find it in Five Disput. pag. 423. pro­posit. 6.

It is not lawful to make any thing the Subjects duty by a command that is meerly indifferent, amecedently both in it self, and as clothed with its accidents.

The reason is evident, because that nothing but Good can be the object of the Governous desire, and nothing but Good can be the just matter of his Law.

Sect. 4. Now taking into consideration good and indif­ferent in the sense there propounded, I humbly conceive that the reason is not evident; That therefore it is not lawful to make any thing the Subjects duty by a com­mand that is meerly indifferent, because that nothing but good may be the just matter of a Law, and not that which is neither good or evil, but indifferent.

For should this be true, all Government would be dis­solved; the Magistrate then is to make no Law at all: What would then become of us may easily be judged.

I offer therefore to consideration this distinction con­cerning Good and Indifferent, the omitting whereof, I suppose, may occasion this great mistake, A thing may be said to be good materially or mediately.

Sect. 5. Now an indifferent thing neither good or evil in its own nature may be mediately good, may have in it bonitatem medii, it may have bonum publicum, the publick good for its end.

A command therefore of our Superiours, by which a thing indifferent is made bonum necessarium, a necessary [Page 24]good, and bonum publicum, for publick peace and unity, it is no idle Law, pag. 434. because it is not unprofita­ble: It may therefore lawfully be commanded for the rea­son beforesaid.

Now that a publick agreement in the externals of Gods Worship is a publick good, as the way to peace, and good in the acception you take goodness, commended by Gods Law, which is the first rule of moral good, pag. 435. that which this Law propoundeth being no more then what is our duty, viz. That which the Apostle did so earnestly pray for and perswade to, That With one mind and mouth men would glorifie God, that they would be like-minded, seek peace and follow after it.

Sect. 6. I humbly conceive that the Answers to all those Objections in Five Disput. from pag. 435. to pag. 437. in my weak judgment are not strong enough to bot­tom that upon which is like to be made the great occasion of those sufferings which are expected to come upon ma­ny good and pious men by reason of this Act.

For it will appear, that most of the matters enjoyned by the Act, except the Declaration about the Covenant, are allowed by the Author of the Five Disputations, as you will find hereafter.

Sect. 7. I beseech you therefore for the Lords sake do not dispute your selves out of the Exercise of your Mi­nistey, do not bring your selves in trouble needlesly, and thereby trouble the peace of the Church. It is a very strange conclusion in my simple judgment, That because there nee­deth no Law to make that which is neither commanded or fo bidden to be indifferent, Five Disput. pag. 437. that therefore it is not lawful to make any thing the Subjects duty by a command that is meerly indifferent, but that indifferent things must be left for us to use or not to use at cu own liberty.

Sect. 8. I beseech you all consider but what is said [Page 25] Five Disput. page 439. to this purpose, If God have left us this liberty, Men should not take that liberty from us without great cause, and without some accidental good that is like to come by depriving us of that liberty, and that good must be greater then the accidental evil.

To all which I do fully agree, and offer to considerati­on, whether what I have said all this time, that the liber­ty that God hath left us in private, whether we will use a form or no form in Prayer, being taken away at some­times onely in publick (for I am of the mind of K. Charles the First, of blessed Memory, in his Meditation on the Or­dinance against the Common prayer; though I am for Common prayer before Preaching) That yet there is use of a grave, modest, discreet and humble use of the Mi­nisters gifts even in publick, the better to fit and ex­cite their own and the peoples affections. I say, whether this liberty is not taken away without great cause, viz. for the Peace of the Church, which was the cause why the liberty of eating Bloud, &c. was taken away from the Gentile Christians, Acts 15.

Sect. 9. And that the accidental good which is like to be by Uniformity, is greater then the accidental evil which is the depriving us of our liberty; so that as Mr. Calvin saith, the Pastor in his Function may not lawfully depart from that Form and those Rites appointed, which he had liberty to do before;

Will evidently appear, not onely by what I have said of Obedience to the Act of Ʋniformity as the way to Unity; but also by what you may find in the Five Disput. amongst those many reasons which are there given for Obedience in lawful things, such as a Form of Prayer, the significant gestures of standing at the profession of our Faith, and the Surplice, &c. as you will find in the said Disputations, if I have not forgot what I have there read, are there granted to be lawful.

Sect. 10. If I mistake not, amongst those reasons beginning at pag. 483. (which are all very good ones, and I desire may be laid to heart in this juncture of time) I find pag. 487. reason 10. That by this diso­bedience in things lawful, the Members of the Church will be involved in contentions, and so engaged in bitter uncha­ritableness, and censures, and persecutions, and reproaches one of another; which scandalous courses will nourish Vice, dishonour God, rejoyce the Enemies, grieve the Godly that are peaceable and judicious, and wound the Consciences of the contenders. We see the beginning of such fires are small, but whether they will tend, and what will be the end of them we see not.

Sect. 11. Now if the preventing of every one of these sinful evils be not a greater good then that accidental evil before spoken of;

That which I further offer, I desire may be seriously laid to heart.

As there is nothing, as Mr. Calvin saith, to which the Wit of man is so averse as subjection; so there is nothing to which humane nature is more subject, then those sins before-named in Five Disput. as Uncharitablenesse and Censoriousness about small matters: we have found it so by woful experience both formerly and to this present day. It is easie to observe how such as take their liberty, as to matters of Conformity, that do not wear the same Cano­nical habit as it is called, that are no Common prayer men, how are they esteemed by the generality of profes­sors, for such that see more into the evil of these things then other men? And on the other side, how are those which do conform, such as are peaceable and judicious, how are they condemned and censured by the same per­sons for Sursingle-men and superstitious temporizers?

Sect. 12. There being therefore such probable grounds of hope, that by a generall obedience to the Act of Ʋni­formity [Page 27]these evils may be remedied, these sins sup­pressed which dishonour God, grieve the judicious godly, make the Papists to be confirmed in their ill opinion of us for our dissentions, occasion others to fall off to them, as we find it to be the case of Grotius, mentioned Five Disput.

Upon all these considerations laid together, I humbly conceive I have made it evident to all, That obedience to the Act for Ʋniformity is the way to Unity,

Wherein I have also proved how great the mistake is in the Petition for Peace, That the commanding of these unnecessary Impositions have been the cause of all the dissentions and divisions that have been from the begin­ning of the Reformation of Religion in King Edwards dayes.

Sect. 13. I shall speak a word or two in order to the inclining of such as are concerned to observe the Act of Ʋniformity, by shewing the great mistake there is, as I humbly conceive, in what is urged by the Petitioners for peace, pag. 15. who there say on the comrary, That if these unnecessary Impositions were removed, we should enjoy a blessed unity and peace.

For if the bare removal of these unnecessary Impositions would procure a blessed unity and peace;

Give me leave to desire you seriously to consider, how cometh it about that in all this time of liberty from these Impositions we have been so wofully divided, that were so unanimous before against the rites and ceremonies of the Church?

Sect. 14. Surely had I known so much before the be­ginning of those troubles, as now I know, that there was so great a difference and feud between the Non-confor­mists and the Separatists, as now appeareth unto me by their Writings that I have seen between them in the Bi­shops dayes; I should have foreseen by their principles [Page 28]which I gather most clearly in a book set forth by Mr. Si­mon Ash, written by Mr. John Ball against John Can, edit. 1642. by which book it appeareth that the one sides principles did tend to Independency, and the other to Pres­bytery: I say, I think verily I should have foreseen, that when the Bishops were down great dissentions and divisions would arise amongst themselves.

Sect. 15. Mow that it did so fall out, that they did fall out extremely when Episcopal Government was laid aside, is so well known to all the Christian World, that I need not fear I should be the first publisher thereof; which ani­mosities, and divisions, and oppositions of each other I de­sire may be buried in everlasting forgetfulness, and should not mention it now, the remembrance thereof being so grievous to me, and should be to all tender-conscienc'd Christians, but that I desire so much may be gathered from it, as may be a means to prevent the like Enterpri­ses again. Sed sat verbum sapienti.

Sect. 16. I have observed this as one great argument used by the Non-conformists to reclaim those of whom Mr. Nicholls complaineth, (as great hinderers of their de­sired Reformation) for making a rash and temerarious se­paration from the Church of England; That they should consider how much God had shewed his displeasure against that way, by the perverse spirit that he had ming­led amongst them, so that they could never agree amongst themselves; implying that their divisions were a punish­ment for their sin.

Sect. 17. And surely if this were but well thought on, we might have cause (in this gloomy day of darkness, as is supposed) to descend into our hearts, and suspect our selves, whether those divisions which are our sin, occasi­oned though our disobedience to these commonds about these supposed unnecessary Impositions, may not be a pu­nishment for sin also.

I beseech you therefore, laying aside your contentions about these things, let us follow the things that make for peace, according to the Apostles counsel, and things where­by we may edifie one another.

Amongst which, if I be not mistaken, Uniformity is one, and obedience to the Law that requireth it is the way to Unity.

Sect. 18. And think not to say with your selves as I somewhere find it is said, That these are but poor and inconsiderable things to be enjoyned upon such severe pe­nalties as the Law inflicteth. Is not the faithful Preach­ing of the Gospel the Unum necessarium, the one thing ne­cessary? and do you think that the Lord is better plea­sed with Re-ordination, Subscription and Ceremonies, then the saving of souls? that Uniformity, agreement and con­cord must be placed in those things which are no way ne­cessary to salvation?

Sect. 19. Doubtlesse God is more pleased with the saving of souls, then with the things before-named abso­lutely considered; and should Ʋniformity in these things be required as necessary to salvation and holiness placed in them, obedience to such commands were sinful, and might justly be scrupled: But as they that command, if I mistake not, are not therefore guilty of Affirmative su­perstition; O take heed that you by refusing are not guilty of Negative superstition, which you seem so much to dread, which lyeth in placing sin in those things which God hath not; chusing rather not to preach the Gospel, then to be Uniform in one mode of Worship and Disci­pline.

Sect. 20. Surely if we had learned what this meaneth indeed, The Kingdom of God consists not in meats or drinks, but in righteousness, peace and joy, Rom. 14. we would proportion our zeal more about those things wherein Christs Kingdom consists, then about Meats and [Page 30] Drink, matters of modes of Worship and Discipline.

For my part, I do not believe that in the imposing of these things aforesaid so severely, that the Kingdom of God doth consist but subordinately, as it may prevent those sins which keep souls from entring into Christs Kingdom, those dividing sins before-named; neither that the Kingdom of Christ consists in the violent refusal of obedi­ence to their commands.

Sect. 21. But I am perswaded by what I find by my own experience, that could we but follow the Apostles counsel, mind most the substantials of Christs Kingdom, such as are holiness, justice and mercifulness towards men, in all which senses righteousness is taken; and could we get our hearts peaceably disposed, and from the sense of the inward joy of the Holy Ghost be joyful, chearful and amicable in our converse with meu; these substantials of Christs Kingdom ruling within us, would so mortifie and circumcise that consorious morosity and narrowness of spirit, which is contracted by our zealous contentions about meats and drinks, these small and circumstantial matters of modes of Worship and Discipline; that we should not think few or none godly but those that are of our mind and way: But we should come to abound in love to all men, and speak evil of no man, which are the Gospel-preceps.

Sect. 22. And what would then be the effect of this the Apostle telleth us in the words following, ver. 8. He that in these things serveth Christ, he is accepted of God, and approved of Men.

This is worthy of consideration, that whereas our Sa­viour hath foretold his Disciples, that they shall be hates of all men for his name-sake: Yet here he that serveth Christ in these things, wherein his Kingdom chiefly con­sists, that to his holiness joyneth righteousness and merci­fulness, doing good to all, that is, peaceable and free from [Page 31] censoriousness in his converse, and subject in lawful things to his Superiours, he is not onely acceptable to God, but approved of men.

That enmity that is between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent, is suspended by the exercise of those good works, which the Apostle tells us are profitable unto men, Titus 3.8. I say by this we come to be ap­proved of men; even by all, but such as have not un-Man'd themselves by horrid debauchery and beastly lusts.

Sect. 23. Be pleased to consider what the Apostle Peter saith to this purpose, 1 Pet. 3.8. after that he had exhorted them to what I now exhort you, to be all of one mind, &c. He giveth this reason to urge it, If any man long after life and would see good dayes, let him endeavour first to be good himself; and let him shew his goodness by eschewing evil, and doing good, by seeking peace and fol­lowing after it. And then saith he, ver. 13. Who is he that will harm you if you be followers of that which is good? as members of a politick body; who is he then that will harm you? We that are peaceably-minded shall live quietly amongst men, they will approve of us, and we by our good conversation shall put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

We shall not then fear Gods Deacon the Magistrate: Wouldst thou not, saith the Apostle, be afraid of the pow­er, do then that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.

Sect. 24. Now because that to this it may be objected, That here lyeth the ground of all our fears and scruples, that what the Magistrate commands by this Act of Ʋniformity, is to put us upon the doing of that which is evil; we desire to be followers of that which is good; but we cannot think to declare, that the Solemn League and Covenant, that we have taken, to be unlawful and bindeth no man, is good, but a sin.

And to declare our unfeigned assent and consent, to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common prayer, and to the manner of making, or­daining and consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. This we do very much fear is not good, but is a sin also; most of these things having no warrant from Gods Word, but are additions to the same, forbidden Deut. 12.32.

Sect. 25. We fear also to subscribe the 39. Articles, as they refer to these Books aforesaid for the very same reason.

And we fear that we being ordained by Bishops, we should receive an Ordination from the limbs of Anti­christ, and renounce the Ordination we receive from the Presbyter; and therefore this alters the case very much. The Apostle Peter that you quote, if you read a little further, saith, notwichstanding all you have alledged, that If we suffer for righteousness-sake, blessed are we.

Now to suffer rather then sin, is to suffer for righte­ousness-sake; and this is our case.

Sect. 26. Now therefore that I may, according to what I have already declared as my End in this my un­usual undertaking, be instrumental in this hour of tempta­tion that is upon many pious and good men, whose books I am not worthy to carry after them;

I shall proceed to the examining of these Objections, which, I suppose, are the chief which may be made a­gainst obedience to the Act of Uniformity.

And because that I do believe by what I find granted by the Author of the Five Disput. that many who may be satisfied as to the Common prayer, Re-ordination and Cereminies, yet are much perplexed about what is requi­red concerning the Covenant.

I shall begin with that in the first place, and take into consideration what the Act requireth of all that are in Holy Orders, School-masters and Tutors to declare.

CHAP. VI.

Section 1.

THe words of the Declaration, as to the Solemne League and Covenant, runne in these words; I do declare, That I hold that there lyeth no obligation upon me, or on any other person, from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State, and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom.

That I may the more distinctly speak unto this great and weighty business, and that the subject matter of this Declaration about the Covenant may be rightly under­stood, and the doubts and scruples about the same may be the better resolved;

I shall consider of these particular parts which are in­cluded in this general Declaration.

First, I do declare, that I hold that there lyeth no obli­gation upon me, or any other person, from the Oath common­ly called the Solemn League and Covenant.

Secondly, what the Covenant bindeth not me or any other to do, viz. To endeavour any alteration of Govern­ment either in Church or State.

Thirdly, that the same is in it self an unlawful Oath.

Fourthly, that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Kingdom against the known Laws and Liberties of this Realm.

Sect. 2 But before I begin to speak of these things, I hold my self under this obligation to declare, That what my thoughts and apprehensions are upon this subject which I now impart, have not been formed in me upon any ac­count of carnal fear or interest by the late occurrents of these times, but some years before, when it was very much beyond my thoughts that ever either I or any other should have been by the Authority of the King and both Houses be called to a Declaration of this nature.

And I hope that I may appeal to the searcher of all hearts, that if I can but be convinced by such clear and evident demonstrations, as I hope to offer to the contrary, I shall bewayle my error, and retract the same, and repent of it, as being guilty of a great sin; for I am very sen­sible of what my blessed master hath taught me in his holy Word, that he that breaketh the least of his Command­ments, and teacheth men so to do, shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sect. 3 Hoping therefore that God hath heard my prayer, and will deliver me from falling into this evil; and that I may by this following Discourse convert some from the error of his way, and so hide a multitude of sins, in the integrity and sincerity of my heart I shall proceed as followeth.

In the first place therefore I shall begin with what I propounded in the second, as being the most principal, viz. What every person by the said Act is to declare, that he holdeth no obligation to lye upon him, or any other person, from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant, viz. To endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State.

So that the matter of the scruple lieth but in a close compass, and a very little room.

Sect. 4. Whether or no any person whatsoever, who hath no lawful Authority from Gods Law or the Lands, [Page 35]to change or alter the Government of Church or State, or to impose an Oath upon any others so to do, be bound by this Solemn League or Covenant, they have taken to endeavour any change or alteration in the same?

Observe here by the way, that whatever we are obli­ged to by the Law of God and of the Land, our Baptis­mal Vow and Covenant, the Oath of Allegeance and Supremacy, we are not called upon to renounce, as is expressed in this Declaration.

But that it bindeth not the Subjects of this Realm, on whom it was imposed against the known Laws of the Land, to endeavour that for which, if I mistake not, the Earl of Straffard and Archbishop of Canterbury were charged with High Treason for: This was the first Ar­ticle of the Charge against the Earl of Strafford, and Mr. Pim in his speech in following the Charge hath these expressions towards the later end: saith he, The 10. con­sideration in this, That as it is a crime odious in the nature of it, viz. to endeavour the alteration of the Government of the State; so it is odious in the judgment and estimation of the Law, to alter the settled frame and constitution of the Government is Treason in any State.

Sect. 5. So then by this argument of Mr. Pim, to swear to do that which is a crime odious in it self, and in the estimation of the Law, Treason, viz. to endeavour to alter the setled Frame and Constitution of Government, must needs be an unlawful Oath, and therefore bindeth not any that have taken it. This being the judgment of the Assembly of Divines and all others, that an unlawful Oath bindeth not.

But it may be objected, that though it be true for any particular person to alter the Fundamental Government of the Land in Church or State be unlawful: But to be en­gaged to endeavour this in our own particular places and callings by a lawful Authority, this maketh that which [Page 36]was Treason in others to be a duty incumbent on us by virtue of the Oath aforesaid.

Sect. 6. For answer to which I humbly conceive, though it be an evil thing after Vows to make inquity; yet to prevent a greater evil, it is that which is our great concern at this time, to do that which we should have done more seriously before we entred into the said Covenant, make this inquiry; Whether any persons what­soever, who have no Authority from Gods Law or from the Law of the Land to alter the Government of Church and State, though for so good an end as publick Refor­mation, are a lawful Authority to impose an Oath upon o­thers, for to endeavour to do that thing which is unlawful in it self. For if this appear to be the case, I humbly con­ceive that we may lawfully make this Declaration, That I hold my self or any other person bound by the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour the change or altera­tion of Government both in Church or State.

Sect. 7. In order to the clearing of this, let us first to the Law and to the Testimony, even unto the sacred Word of God: For in the inquiry which I propound we are all to make for the satisfying of our consciences. The rule I propose, is first Gods Law, whether any persons whatsoever who have no Authority from Gods Law to alter the Government of Church and State, though for so good an end as publick Reformation, are a lawful Au­thority to impose an Oath upon others?

I beseech you Brethren, who do so much press for a command out of Gods word to warrant what you do, to show me where there is any command of Christ, or any approved example in the Holy Scriptures, for subjects without the consent of their Prince and Soveraigre, to swear and make others to swear, that they will endeavour an alteration of Government in Church or State, though for so good an end as publick Reformation.

Sect. 8. I must needs profess that I do not, or cannot upon my own search find any precept or president for the same in the Old Testament.

In the New indeed I find general precepts for Christians to submit themselves to Principalities and Powers, 1 Pet. 3.1. To yield obedience to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or un­der-Governours that are sent by him, &c. 1 Pet. But nothing that may give warrant for this practice, for sub­jects to bind themselves or others to endeavour any alte­ration of those humane creations to which they are to sub­mit for the Lords sake: Neither by an Oath or Covenant to swear a publick reformation without or against the con­sent of their Kings and Governors.

And therefore which is observable, all Covenant-re­formations from Joshuahs time to Josiahs time, were re­gularly commanded by the good reforming Kings and chief Rulers; but none by the Elders of the people against the cammand or consent of their Soveraign.

The Covenant that all the people stood to, 2 King. 23.3. was made by the King. And the King stood by the Pil­lar and made a Covenant before the Lord, and the Oath at which all Judah rejoyced was not by them imposed upon the King, but the reforming King, 2 Chron. 15.8, 9, 15. compared after that Asa had taken away the abominations out of the Land of Judah and Benjamin, Verse 9. he ga­thered all Judah together. This was the ground of the Assembly at Jerusalem in the third year of the reign of Asa; they assembled not to make this Oath, at which all Judah rejoyced, without the Kings Authority, by which he did gather them together.

Sect. 9. If therefore there be no command or example in the Old Testament approving this practice, the express commands of the New Testament forbidding things of this nature and tendency; the scope of that [Page 38]place, 1 Pet. 3. being to arme the Christian Churches against that vile Sect, who called themselves Gnosticks, as knowing more of the mysteries of the Gospel them others; who taught amongst other things destructive to humane society, the Doctrine of liberty and manumission to Chri­stian subjects and servants, as by considering of what fol­loweth to the 12. Verse may appear.

And thus now having from Gods Laws shewed that there is no precept or president for subjects, yea, for the Elders of the people to enter into a Covenant for publick reformation, without the consent or gathering together of the King, and that therefore consequently they are no lawful Authority by the Law of God to impose an Oath upon others.

Sect. 10. This being considered, I humbly conceive that we have nothing now left to resolve our consciences in this case; but the known Law of the Laid, and the Fundamental constitutions of its Government. And I should think this very consideration should put such of the Ministry as are scrupulous to a little pause, and make them to suspect their own judgements in this point all this while.

The resolving of this case of conscience being so diffe­rent from those, whose subject matter are not so perplex­ed, intricate and doubtful, that without the help of the Lawyer the Divine may prove but a blind guide, and when the blind lead the blind, our Saviour tells us, both will fall into the duch.

Sect. 11. I have somewhere read a very good directi­on, which if we had followed at first might have prevent­ed this inquiry now, concerning making Vows and Co­vents, That no action which is matter of Question and Di­spute, especially of Religion, should be the matter of a Vow. And the instance that is given is in a case some­what like ours, which I desire may be laid to heart; Sie [Page 39]Novatus Novitios suos compulit ad jurandum, ne unquam ad Catholicos Episcopos redieriat. Euseb. l. 2. Eccles. Histor.

For Novatus, the Authour of the second great schism, as I find in Mr. Brinsley's Arraignment of Schism, for him to compel his Novices, which he had drawn into that sin with him, to enter into an Oath that they would never return to the Catholick Bishops, never be ordained by them more, or submit to their Jurisdiction; the matter of this Oath was unlawful in a very mild sense, because doubtful.

Sect. 12. And if the modes of Worship and Discipline were not doubtful and disputable amongst us, when this Covenant of endeavouring to alter the Church-govern­ment was imposed, what was the reason that there were such writings for and against the mode of Church-govern­ment, &c. almost ever since the Reformation of the Church of England? Sutcliffe de Presbyt. edit. 1591. Bilsons Perpetual Church-government, 1610. with those contests which were betwixt Dr. Downam and the Dioce­sans Tryal, much about the same time, with many others, and continued to the sitting of the Parliament called by the King, 1640. So that doubtless these matters were very disputable, and to be made the subject of an Oath we now find dangerous; as I find that judicious and learned King of Divines, as Mr. Ford of Northampton styleth King Charles the First, Prognosticating this Covenant would be very dangerous, because the ma ter doubtful.

Sect. 13. There being therefore no remedy now, but to be more wise and careful for the time to come, taking heed of being too dogmatical in what we hold as to mat­ters of modes of Worship and Discipline, because that other holy and good men are of that mind. For likewise one of our opinion, as to the binding power of the Cove­nant, let us not Juraere in verba magistri any more, [Page 40]neither lean too much to our understanding, but consult with the Laws of God and of the Land, especially in this case.

Sect. 14. The Act, you know, that requireth that we should declare, that in this particular the Solemne League and Covenant layeth no tye or obligation upon me or any other, to endeavour to change the Government of Church or State.

On the other side, many are of this opinion, that though it be the judgment of the major part of the Judges that are learned in the Laws, of many great and learned Divines, some that have written De Juramento, and therefore well know the binding power of an Oath, and of the major part of the representative body of the King­dom; yet notwithstanding are perswaded the Covenant, that they have taken, bindeth them to endeavour the al­teration of the Government of Church or State.

Sect. 15. In this case therefore, as I said before, the Laws of the Land are to be consulted with; for there be­ing no other judge in this case but the known Laws of the Land, we must stand to their determination as to the sa­tisfying the conscience about the binding power of the Covenant.

For if by the Law of the Land it appeareth that the matter of the said Covenant as to this particular be by the Law unlawful, and the Imposers thereof without a power by Law invested in them; we may safely and with a good conscience declare, That we hold that there lyeth no obligaaion upon me or any other person from the same.

I do verily believe, that as to the Government of the State, the altering it from a Monarchical to a Democra­tical Government could never be subscribed to by the En­gagement, even by such persons who do yet believe that the Covenant bindeth them to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church.

Now be pleased to consider whether the reason be not the same; They would have altered the Government of the State without Law, and others the Government of the Church without Law.

And that you may be the better perswaded of this, give me leave to impart that little smattering that I have of the Law, as I have learned from the Learned in that Science.

Sect. 16. Concerning therefore the Laws of the Land you may please to observe this in the general;

That the Law hath three fulcimenta or grounds, and they are these: First, Custom or Usage. Secondly, Judi­cial Records. Thirdly, Acts of Parliament.

Now Judicial Records and Acts of Parliament, they are but Declarations of the common Law and customs of the Kingdom. Law is is not known but by usage and cu­stom, and usage proves the Law, 10 Eliz. Plowden 316.

Now if this be so, and it being evident that the Go­vernment in this Kingdom as to Church and State, as now it is established, having been of so long continuance, as the Histories of this Kingdom do tell us:

This custom and usage of Government so long exercised, maketh it to be a Fundamental Law. Plowdens Com­mentary 195.

Sect. 17. To alter therefore a Fundamental Law, as to the Government of Church and State, can never be done lawfully, but by those persons whom Use and custom, Ju­dicial Records and Acts of Parliament have invested with Authority so to do.

Now who these are the Law must tell us; not the two Houses alone, not the King alone, but both together, make up the Body politick; that make Laws for the Go­vernment of Church and State, Dier 38. fol. 59, 60. The King is the head of the Parliament, the Lords the principal members of the body, the Commons the inferiour [Page 42]Members of the same, 1 Ed. 6. cap. 2. All Authority and Jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal, is derived from the King. And every Member that sits in Parliament taketh a corporal Oath that the King is supreme over all persons; the King therefore must needs be above the two Houses of Barliament, which is evidenced further thus; That as the power of their Assembling is by virtue of his Writ, so the time of their staying is determined by his Royal will and pleasure, according to the usage and cu­stom of the Land. The two Houses therefore are not a­bove the King; and there being no Law to be made without the King and both Houses, neither alone, accor­ding to the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Land, can alter, or endeavour to alter, the Government either of Church or State.

So that the altering of the Government, except by such persons who have Authority by Law, is an unlawful act in it self, and the imposing of it upon others by an Oath makes it still more unlawful, if the Imposers have not Authority by the Law of the Land so to do.

Sect. 18. Now I beseech you consider but as to matter of fact, who did impose this Covenant, and by the Law of the Land you will soon be resolved, whether either the matter were lawful or the power lawful.

That the matter was unlawful thus appeareth, not one­ly by what is already alledged, but by what followeth; That matter of an Oath is unlawful that is contrary to the Law of the Land. The Government of the Church, as it now stands, being in the general secured by Magna Charta, which great Charter is confirmed by 32. Acts of Parliament, as I have read, the first Article whereof runneth thus, Salvae sint Episcopis omnes libertates suae.

Sect. 19. Now these general Laws of the great Char­ter of our Liberties, and the Petition of Right, there be­ing no particular Laws against what is there contained, [Page 43]such, I say, as are not repealed by a lawful power; it is not the first Article of the Covenant, as to the extirpation of that Church-government, maketh the great charter void as to that particular.

I am apt to think in this case, that an Oath imposed by persons, that by their Oaths acknowledge the King su­preme, and above them, that can make no Law there­fore without the King, and consequently can impose no lawful Oath by their Authority; an Oath also as to the matter of it being unlawful, as you have heard; cannot make void a known Law, or bind the conscience of the ta­ker to endeavour the same.

But these Laws being in force do relatively bind the conscience to observe them, and to endeavour by any pow­er, but those that made them, to change and alter them, I humbly conceive, is above the sin of Disobedience; and to swear to it maketh the sin to be the greater.

Sect. 20. And therefore I am very much mistaken, if I or any other may not without sin declare what the Act for Uniformity requireth, That I hold there lyeth no obligation upon me, or any other from the highest to the lowest, as having no lawful power to endeavour to alter the Government either of Church or State.

As to the obligation that lyeth on us by the covenant, to alter the government of the State, I do not remember that there is any clause therein that giveth any ground for such thoughts; and therefore I shall pass that over.

But for the further evidencing of the lawfulness of de­claring the non-obliging power of the covenant accor­ding to the Act;

Sect. 21. I shall humbly offer further the judgment of the reverend Mr. Perkins, who in his cases of conscience, and other where, doth resolve this doubt, concerning the obliging power of an Oath, both when it bindeth and when it bindeth not, pag. 107. When an Oath bindeth not he re­solveth [Page 44]in six cases: Some of them I shall produce, de­siring that we may faithfully without prejudice apply to our case in hand.

Sect. 22. First, an Oath bindeth not when it is against the Word of God, and hath a tendency to sin. I desire it may be considered whether this Oath in question, being imposed by part of the two Houses, be not as contrary to the Word as the Law of the Land, and being an Ʋsurpation of the supreme Magistrates office, as to publick Reformation, hath not a tendency to sin, whether it hath not a tendency to Injustice, taking away without Law the liberties of such as are confirm'd so often by Magna charta; whether also it doth not tend to the strengthning us in our disobe­dience, as to the commands of our Superiours about Church-government, and to the maintenance of the sin of discord and division about matters of this nature. I am apt to think that when an Oath pleaded for produceth these effects, it bindeth not; for an Oath, as Mr. Perkins saith, is not to be a bond of iniquity.

Sect. 23 Secondly, Mr. Perkins saith an Oath bind­eth not when it is made against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth, because, as he saith, every soul is to be sub­ject to the higher powers, Rom. 13.

Now whether to swear to change the Government ei­ther in Church or State be not against the wholsome Laws of the common-wealth, I have shewed at large by the statute of the 25. of Edward 1. The great charter is declared to be the common Law of the Land; and this, as I have said, secureth the liberties of the Church. And if the Text that Mr. Perkins quoteth, Rom. 13. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, doth not condemn the practice of all inferiours that shall impose a new Oath without a new Law, especially to alter the old and an­cient Government of Church and State, I am much mi­staken and desire to be better inform'd.

Sect. 24. Thirdly, he saith further, if the Oath be made by those who are under the Tuition of their superi­ours, and have no power to bind themselves, then the Oath bindeth not. Now that the two Houses are under the Tuition of their superiour the King is very evident, 1 Eliz. in Cawdryes case part 5. fol. 5. Every Member of the House of Commons and of the Lords too, if I mistake not, at every Parliament take their corporal Oaths, that the King is the supreme and onely governor in all cases and over all persons; and the said Statute of Eliz. is but de­clarative of the ancient Laws. And in the first of Ed­ward 6. all Authority and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King; therefore all his subjects are under his Tuition and Jurisdiction.

Sect. 25. I desire this may be a little thought on; for if the Imposers of the Covenant be as our Law teacheth, and as their Oaths declare, under the Kings Jurisdiction, and so have no power by Law to bind themselves by an Oath without a new Law, and this Law cannot be made with­out the Kings consent; as Mr. Prin doth acknowledge in his soveraign power of Parliaments, pag. 46, 47. That the Kings assent is necessary to make Laws and ratifie, the King being the Head of the Kingdom and of the Parlia­ment.

And this Solemn League and Covenant being never enjoyned by any such Law, but by such who had no power to bind themselves.

I humbly conceive that we may safely without sin de­clare, that it bindeth not me or any other; for that which inse, in it self hath no binding power, bindeth not any person whatsoever.

Sect. 26. Especially considering what Mr. Perkins saith surther, That an Oath bindeth not, page 527. of Con­science, when persons are not Sui Juris, but are under the power of another, proving it out of Number 30.3. If a [Page 46]Woman vow unto the Lord, and bind her self by a bond, be­ing in her Fathers house, &c. verse 5. If her Father dis­alloweth her the same day that he heareth all her vows and bonds they shall be of no value, and the Lord will forgive her: The case is also the same when a Wife voneth, ver. 7, 9.

Now I humbly conceive this was the case as to the Covenant, when it was Imposed by part of the two Houses, the Father of our Country so far disallowed the same, that in the day that he heard thereof, he Issued out his Proclamation against it from Oxford, and in his [...], after his discourse upon the Covenant, in which are so many passages, which laid together must needs conclude that he in no wise consented to it.

Sect. 27. That you may observe the deep sense that he had of his subjects sinning against God by taking it, after that he had, I say, given his Judgment in the ge­neral of it; that he reckoned it to be the pawning of his peoples souls to his subjects of Scotland, he doth conclude with this prayer for us; To thee, O Lord, do I address my prayer, beseeching thee to pardon the rashness of my subjects swearing, and to quicken their sense and observation of those Just, Moral and Indispensable bonds which thy word and the Law of the Kingdom hath laid upon their consci­ences, &c. make them at length to consider, that nothing violent and injurious can be religious.

Sect. 28. There is a fifth case, pag. 525. and that is this, an Oath bindeth not if it be made of a thing that is out of our power. As if a man swear to his friend to give him another mans goods; this I conceive may be applyed to the case in hand; to alter the Government of Church or State is not in our power, neither by the Law of God or the Land, we cannot do it without very great injury to others, as you have learn'd, and therefore to endeavour after it is a sin.

Sect. 29. And sixthly saith he, If at first it were law­ful, and after by some means becometh either impossible or unlawful; for when it becometh impossible, then we must safely think that God from Heaven freeth a man from his Oath, which I think also is considerable in this case.

And, saith he, when it doth begin to be unlawful, then it ceaseth to bind; because the binding virtue is onely from the Word of God, which bindeth not to any thing forbid­den in the holy Scripture, or that is unlawful either from the Word of God or the Law of the Land.

I beseech you consider, that if when an Oath whose institution by God is to be the end of all strife, shall have a natural tendency to the maintaining of strife, division and contention, to be the occasion of wars and commotions in the Land of our Nativity, to administer matter and occasion of jealousie in our Superiours, that while we judge our selves bound in conscience by an Oath, that we have taken to endeavour to alter and change the Govern­ment whether he will or no, there can be no safety.

Sect. 30. Consider, I pray, whether in this case an Oath, which we have apprended lawful at one time, may not now begin to grow unlawful; because that the word doth forbid resistance of the powers that are over us, and doth require obedience of us for conscience sake; the contrary whereunto we do exert in our endeavours to change the Government, though we should never be able to effect the same.

Sect. 31. And therefore upon all these considerations, which I now offer to all peaceable spirits, to you especi­ally which should be the Embassadours of Peace, and should with John the Baptist be Instrument by your Ministry to turn the hearts of children towards their Pa­rents; Let what I have offered as the judgment of that Orthodox and Reverend Mr. Perkins, who being dead, and so above all interest, yet speaketh, that as to the not [Page 48]binding power of an Oath, which I hope may prevail with you to declare, That you hold that there lyeth no obligati­on upon you or any other person, from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant, to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government of Church or State; especially considering that, if I be not in a very great errour, I have made it appear by the Law of God and of the Land, that it is an unlawful oath, and that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom: Both which are to be de­clared also, and doubtlesse may very well be with­out sin.

Sect. 32. There is also another thing particularly to be declared against, required by the said Act, which I do hold needful to speak a word unto; though, I hope, but very little, if not at all scrupled by Presbyterian Mi­nisters or People; and that is to declare, That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up 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. But of this in the next Chapter briefly.

CHAP. VII.

Section 1.

THat this Declaration may be chearfully made by all His Majesties subjects, and especially the most zealous haters of Rome and Popery, and also may be law­fully [Page 49]made without sin, one would think there were no need to speak a word in that behalf.

But considering how much the Reformed Protestant Religion hath been dishonoured, how much the. Bilson, the differences between Christian Sub­jection and Unchristian Rebellion, Edit. 1536. lib. 3. pag. 92. Jesuites Do­ctrine of the lawfulness of the Subjects taking up arms against their Prince, hath of late years been too much justified.

I shall write a little more then I intended, referring the Reader to more of this subject in Bilsons Answer to this Jesuitical doctrine. Bilsons subjection lib. 3. pag. 97. and so on.

Sect. 2. That this therefore may lawfully be declared, that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King, &c. I argue thus:

That which is unlawful by Gods Law and of the Land for me to do, I may without sin declare to be unlawful.

But for subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King is unlawful; and therefore I may declare according to the Act.

Now that for subjects upon any pretence to take arms against the King is unlawful, Rom. 13.1. may serve for a Scripture-proof instead of many; Let every soul be sub­ject to the Higher powers, for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God, ver. 2. Whoso­ever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves dam­nation.

It is you see a most dangerous sin to offend this Gospel­precept by our disobedience, which commands and re­quires subjection of every soul. No persons of what or­der or degree soever, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil, but are to be subject to the Higher powers thereof; him, as the Apostle Peter doth acknowledge to be the su­preme, [Page 50]the King whom the Laws of the Land doth in­vest with Supremacy of Jurisdiction in all Cases, and o­ver all persons in his own Dominions.

Sect. 3. But to resist the power, this is to resist the Ordinance of God; and therefore the punishment is expressed to be so dreadful to deter us from it. For they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation, instead of getting dominion over others, they shall receive damna­tion to themselves.

Whoever therefore taketh up Arms upon any pre­tence whatsoever, be the cause never so good, against the supreme and higher powers, must have his commission for it out of Gods Word, otherwise you see it is a very great sin: How contrary it is to Gods Law you may read more in Bilsons Christian Subjection. I having I hope said e­nough to perswade to the lawfulness of making this De­claration, from the unlawfulness of taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever, it being so ex­presly forbidden to resist, Rom. 13.2. now he that taketh up Arms against his King resisteth him.

Sect. 4. But further, I may declare it is not lawful upon any pretence to take up Arms against the King, be­cause the Law of the Land forbids it, and maketh it to be high Treason so to do; Mr. St. John's speech pag. 6. the words of the Statute are 25 Edward 3. If any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, this is declared to be Treason.

And so also is the arising to alter the Religion by Law est ablished, 4 of Philip and Mary, not repealed if I mi­stake not.

These being the known Laws of the Land, such Ordi­nances of men to which we are to yield obedience for con­science sake, and for the Lords sake.

Therefore to declare that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King is warranted, and may be done with a safe conscience.

Sect. 5. And that we may lawfully declare that I do abhor that trayterous position of taking Arms by his Au­thority against his person, or against those that are com­missioned by him; this is agreeable to Gods word also. The Scriptures, which command us to honour the King, 1 Pet. 3. mean his Person as well as his Authority; it is so doubtless in reference to our natural Parents whom we are commanded to honour, Command. 5. that we honour their Persons as well as their Authority, and therefore why not to our political Parents?

Further, if I am to obey those which are commissioned by the King as Supreme; That is, those that are sent by him; if this be our duty, 1 Pet. 3. Then to take up Arms against those that are commissioned by him is sinfull and unlawfull.

Sect. 6. To affirm therefore that the Kings Authority is separable from his person, and that I may take up Arms by his Authority against his Person. It is High Treason by the Law of the Land, and therefore may well be de­clared to be a trayterous position. Sir Edward Coke in the 7. part of his Reports in Calvins Case saith thus, fol. 11. In the reign of Edward the second, the Spencers the Fa­ther and the Son to cover the Treason hatched in their hearts, invented this damnable opinion: That Homage or Oaths of Allegeance was more by reason of the Kings Crown or Authority then by reason of the person of the King: upon which opinion they inferred these execrable and detestable consequences.

First, if the King do not deme in him by reason in the right of the Crown, his Lieges are bound by Oath to remove him.

Secondly, seeing the King could not be removed by suit of Law, that ought to be done per Aspertee, that is, by force.

Thirdly, that his Lieges be bound to govern in aid of him and default of him.

All which were condemned by two Parliaments, one in the Reign of Edward the second called Exilium Hu­gonis le opencer, the other by the first of Edward the third chap. 2. all which Articles against the Spencers are con­firmed by this last Statute: the Article; as I have read are extant in the Book called Veter a Statuta.

Sect. 7. Now if these things be so, what manner of persons ought we to be as to our humiliation for what is past, as to our obedience and subjection to the known Laws of the Land for the time to come, and as to our satisfa­ction in the present case, concerning the not binding power of the Covenant, and the lawfulnesse of declaring against the taking up of Arms against the King?

And thus now having turned my heart in-side out­ward, and shewed you what doth satisfie my conscience, and may any other, I suppose as to the lawfulness of decla­ring that I do hold there lyeth no obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath or covenant, to endeavour the alteration or change of Government; and how the same is in it self an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the sub­jects of this Realm against the known Laws and liberties of this Kingdom.

Sect. 8. I humbly conceive the counsel that was given by the Assembly of Divines in their exhortation to the taking of the Covenant, is absolutely necessary to be fol­lowed; which if I mistake not is this, That if an Oath should be found, into which any Ministers or others have entered, not warranted by the Law of God and of the Land, in this case they must teach themselves and others, that such Oaths call for repentance, not pertinacy in them.

I beseech you therefore, if there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if there be in you any com­passion and mercy either to your own souls, bodies, estates with their peace and prosperity; or likewise to all these great concerns of others which now lie at hazard by [Page 53]your means, think of these things which I have laid before you.

Sect. 9. You especially, who do more peradventure scru­ple the declaring against the binding power of the Cove­nant, then many called Independents did long ago, calling it an Almanack out of date, or the Scotch Hook.

Be pleased to take these things into your calm and Christian consideration, you more especially who have not corrupted your consciences by the purchase and pos­sessing your selves of any of the Kings lands, in Law called Patrimonium sacrum lex terrae, pag. 5. or the Re­venues of the Church which is sacriledge so to do. Oh take heed that you drive not on the designes of those that we may suspect would fain involve us again in blood, that they might lick up again those morsels that they have been forced to disgorge.

Sect. 10. And let the great concerns of your liberty, and opportunity for the exercise of your Ministry for the good of souls, the great doubtfulness at least of what you scruple, as to the bincing power of the covenant to alter or endeavour a change in the Government of Church or State. The assurance that you have to the contrary by the Body politick in this present Act of Parliament, pre­vail with you to incline to what I have here offered to you upon this argument, I have prefaced so much of the integrity of my heart, and the sincerity of my intentions i [...] this Discourse, that I shall now leave it to your conside­ration.

Sect. 11. And because that I am apt to believe that there are some amongst us, that doe scruple obedience to the use of an imposed form of prayer, should this scruple of the Covenant be removed; this being greatly argued against by the Author of the Temperate Discourse about Liturgies and forms of prayer, &c. And also that there are others, that though they should yield to the use of a [Page 54]Form, yet not the Liturgy of the Church of England, be­ing assumed by the Authors of Plus ultra to be Tantum non the Mass-book; by Discourse of Liturgies not to be used, having been offered up to an Idol, &c.

The Act of Uniformity requiting every Minister, pag. 77. to declare, That they will conform to the Liturgy of the Clurch of England as it is now by Law established.

Sect. 12. I shall through Gods assistance proceed, by answering what is objected by these two aforesaid Au­thors, make evident the lawfulnesse of Conforming to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now establi­shed by Law; beginning first more generally with what is said by the Author of the Discourse of Liturgies; a book which I have heard too much commended by some I much honour.

And then particularly by removing what is said by Plus ultra against the publick Liturgy, as taken out of the Mass-book, &c.

CHAP. VIII.

Section 1.

COncerning Ʋniformity in publick Worship I have given a little touch before, speaking to the term; and as to its lawfulnesse the instance before given of the bonesit thereof, Christ having made so gracious a promise to those that do agree together in prayer, that do sym­phonise therein, according to the Greek phrase, Mat. 18.19. [...]. Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as [Page 55]touching any thing that they shall aske, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. I say, it is very much evidenced thereby; for our Saviour in the very infancy of the Christian Church would never have given encouragement to such an harmony and agreement in his service, by making so great a promise to his little congre­gation as there he did, if it had not been lawful.

Sect. 2. And admit there should be no other Text in all the New Testament in express terms to prove it, yet if it be in any general Text commanded or approved of, and it appear to be the constant practice of the Church under the Old Testament administration; then doubtless it must be of Divine Institution, the Church of God being stll the same. Therefore Ʋniformity or an universal agreement in publick Worship is lawful to be conformed unto where it is commanded.

Sect. 3. I find in the Church of God, that in Ezra his time there was an Ʋniformity in publick Worship, Ezra 3.10, 11. and that after the Ordinance of David King of Israel, 1 Chron. 16.7, 8. They sung together by course; there was a symphony, an agreement and harmony in their Worship. And this was done according to an Act of Ʋniformity set forth by King David very long ago; forin 1 Chron. 16.4. David he appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the Arke of the Lord, and to re­hearse, and to thank and praise the Lord God of Israel, with Instruments of Musick: and verse 7. then at that time David did appoint to give thanks unto the Lord by the hand of Asaph and his brethren, which were Cho­risters, and Asaph the chief Singer amongst them, as you may find in the Title to some Psams of David: and in ver. 36. by Davids appointment the people were to be uniform also: when the Priest had said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for ever and ever; then were all the people to say, So be it, or Amen, and Praise the Lord.

Behold here Uniformity commanded or appointed by David, practised by the Church according to his Or­dinance in the time of Ezra.

Sect. 4. In Davids practice in this place we may ob­serve, that Kings may command about the modes of Worship and Discipline, to sing joyfully unto the Lord, and to glorifie him by offering of him praise; this hath God com­manded. But as Mr. Baxter saith, Five Disput. page 406. Whether we shall use the Meeter or any mellodious tune to help us or not; use a Musical Instrument, or the help of more arisicial singers or choristers; these are left to our reason to determine of by general rules, which Na­ture and Scripture have laid down. Now the Scripture layeth down, that this mode of praising God by Instru­ments of Musick, and the help of more artificial singers and choristers, may be lawfully appointed by the King, as we find in Davids practice, who appointed the Le­vites with Musick; which is the first time that I read of Musick in Gods publick Worship enjoyned, except in the Chapter before quoted.

Sect. 5. The like also may be said of the time and place for Gods Worship; though, as is said in Five Di­sput these are left to humane determination, and according­ly by King David they were determined and appointed; Asaph and his brethren were to do this every day, ver. 37. the times in this day were Morning and Evening, ver. 40. and the place where was also determined by him, ver. 37. then he left them before the Arke of the Lords covenant.

And though none of all these circumstances in Gods Worship are particularly commanded by God, yet to shew how he approved of such things as no sinful addi­tions to the same: I find that at the Reformation of Reli­gion by the good King Hezekiab, where he also did command the Lovate to worship according to the Ordi­nance [Page 57]of David. In the 25. Verse of the said Chapter it is said, that Hezekiah appointed the Levites in the house of the Lord, with Cymbals and with Harpes, to praise the Lord according to the commandement of David and of Gad the Kings Seir: It is said for the commandement was by the hand of the Lord and by the hand of his Prophets; so that what was appointed by the commandement of Da­vid is said to be done by the commandement of the Lord, he approving of the same.

Sect. 6. For as I do not find God any where com­manding any of these circumstances of Musick, Time and Place, &c. So the Spirit of God would not I humbly conceive have attributed so precisely the Uniformity of the Church in Ezra's time, to be according to the Ordi­nance of David, if he had not been the first appointer thereof, and his appointment by Divine approbation, as you have heard, and generally submitted unto and observed in the Church of the Jews; for in Solomons time the same mode of publick Worship was observed with so very great Uniformity, that 2 Chron. 5.13. in their singing of praise they were but one, and made but one sound.

And as they were Uniform in their singing, so the Bur­then of the song was one and the same form: That which was in Davids time, 1 Chron. 16.34. was in Solomons time, 2 Chron. 5.13. was in Hezekiahs time, 2 Chron. 29.30. and in Ezra's time 3.11. Even in the same words, He is good, for his mercy endureth for ever.

This might be taken for a short shred of a Doxology, as Gloria Patri, &c. in the Common prayer, are by some I have read, but I am apt to think the shortness of that and other of our publick prayers are justifyed by the brevity of this Doxology and their Uniformity therein.

Sect. 7. That these and more then I have named tend­ing to Uniformity, were not determined by God in the [Page 58] Jewish Church. I find the Reverend Mr. John Ball in his answer to Mr. John Can, bearing witness; whose distin­guishing of substantials and circumstantials in Gods Worship, I desire may be well observed by those whe have onely a confused knowledge in this point concern­ing the sinfulness of addition to Gods Worship, as you may find them in the first part of the said Treatise, pag. 45, 46, 47, 48.

To which purpose you shall find that amongst the Jews, who were commanded to make no addition to Gods Worship, and to do all things according to the pat­tern of the Mount; yet the said Mr. Ball doth affirm pag. 47. That though their Synagogues, their Oratories and places of Worship throughout the Land of Canaan, the hours in Morning and Evening sacrifice, their course in reading of the Law, together with their sections of the same, were not of Gods appointment: Yet all these things which tend to an universal agreement in the pub­lick Worship of God, are by Mr. Ball acknowledged to be of men, and no sinful additions, though no where commanded.

Sect. 8. The like may be said, saith Mr. Ball pag. 47. of the divisions of the Chapters and Verses in our Bi-Bles. ‘The phrase of speech and method used in Prayer, Preaching, Administring of the Sacraments, and the very words of Translation wherein the Scri­ptures are read, and cannot be one and the same in all Societies, and so are circumstances, how oft, at what hour, on what day, in what place, the Pastor shall Preach, which are particular determinations of the Church, and so variable: This is when the Church seeth it necessary.’

But to be more clear and satisfying as to what I have propounded to speak to, as to the lawfulness of Unifor­mity by a form of prayer, &c.

I shall offer further a very substantial argument that I find in the Five Disput. 359. Proving a stinted Liturgy is in it self lawful, this saith he is thus proved.

Sect. 9. Argument 1. That which is not directly or consequently forbidden by God remaineth lawful; a stinted Liturgy is not directly or consequentially forbidden by God, therefore it remaineth lawful.

‘The major is undoubted because nothing but a pro­hibition can make a thing unlawfull, pag. 359. Now the minor, that a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden, we need no other proof then that no prohibition can be produced, Five Disput. pag. 361.’

‘If it be prohibited, it is either by some especiall prohibition, or by the generall prohibition of not adding. But it is by neither of these, therefore not at all. Spe­cial prohibition I never yet saw any produced, God hath no where forbidden a form of prayer, and the ge­neral prohibition of not adding extends not to it. For, first, it is the Worship of God which is the matter we are there forbidden to adde; but the praying with a form or without a form as such, are neither any part of the Worship of God, &c. Secondly, if prayer with a form be an addition to Gods Worship, then so is praying without a form, for God onely commands prayer; but neither commands a form, or that we forbeat a form. Thirdly, undetermined mutable modes and circum­stances are none of the prohibited additions, but left to humane determination.’

Sect. 10. Beloved, this argument is, as I said before, a very good one to prove the lawfulnesse of a set or stinted form of prayer; and I desire heartily that the Author of the sober and temperate discourse against Liturgies and a form of prayer, as well as against the Imposition thereof; and so all such who are affected with his argu­ments, as it hinders the intention of our souls, and of the [Page 60]fervency of our spirits in prayer, would consider of this arguments of Mr. Baxters before said, and also of his se­cond argument, pag. 367. of his third also, and of his fourth, which is, that Christ hath left his approbation of such forms by his own owning and citing them, by his thrice repeating the same words in his prayer, which if it had been any hinderance of the fervency of our spirits in pray­er, or limiting that spirit of grace or supplication which was in him above measure, he would not in his Agony have used the same words in his own prayer three times, as the Evangelists do record.

Sect. 11. But, as I said before, besides the usefulness of the first argument, to prove a stinted form of prayer lawfull;

I shall crave leave to offer the same argument for to prove obedience to an imposed form of prayer, with an Uni­formity in rites and ceremonies to be lawful also.

That which is not directly or consequentially forbid­den by God remaineth lawful; Obedience or Conformity to the use of a Form of Prayer, with certain rites and cere­monies tending to decency and order, are not directly or consequentially forbidden by God.

The minor that proveth, that a stinted Liturgy is not forbidden, proveth also that obedience to a stinted Liturgy or form of publick or common prayers is not forbidden; and therefore obedience when imposed or required is lawful.

Besides which aforesaid argument, which doth well agree with Mr. Balls in answet to Mr. Cans, as you shall read hereafter; I desire you to consider whether that Mr. Baxters second proposition upon this head doth not hugely corroborate what I propound to speak principally to in this case, That obedience to an imposed form of pub­lick prayer is lawful, viz. pag. 365. That a stinted Li­turgy in some parts of publick holy service is ordinarily ne­cessary: [Page 61]that is, excepting some unusual cases.

Sect. 12. ‘The parts of Worship where a set form is necessary are, 1. Reading of the Word. 2. Singing of Psalms. 3. Baptism. 4. The use of a form of Con­secration and Administration of the Lords Supper. 5. The blessing people in the name of the Lord. 6. Ordinarily there should be somewhat of a form of Confession of Faith. 7. If there be not a frequent use of many of the same words, and so somewhat of a form in Marriage, Confirmation, Absolution, Excom­munication, the danger will be more then the benefit by mutation will be. 8. And with some Ministers even in prayer, a form, especially about the Sacraments, the ordinary use of a form may be the best and fittest way.’

Now if in all these parts which I have extracted, First, the nature of the thing sufficiently proves the ordinary fitness of a form: Secondly, the constant practice of al­most all Churches, if not all, is for it, &c. that in these parts of Worship there should be a form commanded: Then obedience to a form of prayer, and other Rites, &c. by the Text also quoted by Mr. Baxter, pag. 367. is lawfull.

Sect. 13. Now to what I have said proving the law­fulness of obedience to a form of prayer, and other Rites and Ceremonies not forbidden:

I desire it may be considered, that whether the third proposition in Five Disput. pag. 367. may not be service­able to the end I propose? That a form of prayer at some times may not onely be submitted to, but be desired, when the peace of the Church doth accidentally require it.

Concerning which I shall onely say, that what I find there is very true, in the same page. He is far from the temper of a Christian that sets sought by the peace of the the Church, that he would not use a lawful means for the pro­curing [Page 62]of it; when Paul would become all things to all men to save some, and would eat no flesh while he lived, rather then offend his weak brother.

Sect. 14. Doubtless if S. Paul, who while he was at his own liberty, was so wary of offending his weak brother, that he would eat no flesh while he lived rather then do so; he would if under the command of his superiours for the peace of the Church been uniform in Gods publick Worship; for he was very much for order and for peace also.

And surely whoever is of the temper of a truly self-denying humble Christian, though of never such elevated parts and gifts, will for the peace of the Church conform to the use of that which is not onely lawfull in it self, but the peace of the Church doth accidentally re­quire it. And how much obedience to the Act of Uni­formity is the way to unity and peace I have shewed, even of that peace which tends, as is said pag. 368. Five Disput. to the promoting of holinesse, to the saving of mens souls. the furthering of the Gospel, and prosperity of the Church in spirituall respects. And as it is there said, that a peace that undermineth and betrayeth these is not desire­able.

So that non-obedience that doth betray and undermine the furthering of the Gospel, the promoting of holiness, the saving of mens souls, and prosperity of the Church, is dangerous and undesireable.

Now that the suffering of the Deprivation from the Ministry of the Gospel hath its direct tendency that way, I leave to the judgement of every unbiassed and unpreju­diced person.

Sect. 15. I might be large in the proof of this point of Uniformity by the judgment of M. John Ball, who was not onely very much for a form of prayer, & obedience to it, & for obedience to the Liturgy of the Church of Engl. as you [Page 63]shall hear hereafter; but did very much charge the Brethren of the separation with disaffection to all set forms of prayers or Liturgies whatsoever, part 2. fol. 8. account­ing of all set forms of prayer as humane inventions, as false, devised, idolatrous, Antichristian Worship, forbidden in the second Commandment.

But I shall pass them all by, and confirm the lawfulness of obedience to things of this nature which have no com­mand in Gods Word, as to circumstantials in Wor­ship, by the example of our blessed Saviour who never sinned.

Which I chuse to do the rather, because that I have heard some say that they could conform if it could be proved that Christ did ever conform.

Sect. 16. Now that Christ did conform to the orders of the Jewish Church, not onely in observing some of their Feasts which onely were of humane determination, as the Feast of Dedication, not commanded by God, but also by frequenting their Synagogues, and observing their modes of Worship.

In Luke 6.16. I read that our Saviour went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as his custom was, in which place he conformed to the Ruler of the synagogue; an Of­ficer no where commanded that we read of in the Scri­pture; there he stayed till the Minister delivered him the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, which probably was to be read that day by the appointment of the Church; and when he had read that Section he closed the Book and gave it to the Minister. And whereas he stood reading according to their mode, he then sate down and taught them by opening and applying what he had read unto them, saying, This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Sect. 17. Now that sitting was their custom while they taught the people, appeareth to me, if I mistake not, [Page 64]by what our Saviour alludeth to, saying, They sit in Moses Chair, hear them.

Now our Saviour conforming to these things and ma­ny more, which might be observed by his practice, which were no where commanded, and he being one that never sinned at any time, though wickedly charged by the Scribes and Pharisees for the largeness of his principles and practice, contrary to their narrow spirits.

It is very evident that to conform to a form of praye: and other modes of Worship, not forbidden by God in his Word, is lawful and warrantable.

Sect. 18. Now because it may be objected that what­ever Christ did, yet in the Acts of the Apostles or their Epistles we do not find any forms of prayer, &c. imposed by them upon any of the Elders of the Church in their dayes; which indeed is the objection of the Brownists, pag. 17. And also of the Temperate Discourse, pag. 147.

I shall give the answer of Mr. John Ball to it, pag. 17. which is very considerable, saith he pag. 17. ‘But a set Liturgy might be in use in their times, though we read not of it, for the Apostles set not down a Cata­logue of all and every particular Order that was in the Church, but give us a perfect rule and Canon of faith, &c. And if there were no set Liturgy in their dayes, yet for order a set form of prayer to be used in publick is lawful, because it is in the number of things which God hath not determin'd in his Word; and where God hath not prescribed any form, there no form must be esteemed any part of Gods Worship, or con­demned as simply unlawful. Observe his reason, I pray you, for as to call that holy which God hath not sanctifyed is Superstition; so it is erroneous to con­demn that as unholy or prophane which God allow­eth, or is consonant to his Word.’

Sect. 19. I beseech you consider of this, for if this rea­son [Page 65]were well weighed, and the answer that he giveth to Mr. Cans argument, that no Worship is lawful, but what Gods Word commandeth, were but well digested and received into our souls, it would give us soon to see the insufficiency of that position that is laid down by the Au­thors of Plus ultra, pag. 28. That any action especially conversant about the Worship of God not undertaken in faith is sin, and faith hath no ground to stand upon but Divine Authority. And also of this Argument against Litur­gies by the Temperate Discourse, and also how contrary Mr. Baxters argument for the lawfull use of set forms, being not forbidden by Deut. 12.32. Five Disput. pag. 361. is to what is affirmed, Petition for peace, pag. 14. The strict prohibition of adding to or diminishing from the things commanded by the Law-giver of the Church, Deut. 12.32. puts such a feare into the mindes of multitudes of Christs loyal subjects, lest by such additions or diminutions in the manner of his worship they should provoke him to di­spleasure, as will be a certain and perpetuall hinderance to any common unity and concord in such humane Impositions, of which many of the servants of the jealous God will have a continual jealousie.

Oh Sirs, if what I now offer to your view from the Scriptures, the example of our Saviour, the judgement of Mr. Ball and Mr. Baxter, were but well received into your understandings, doubtless these feares and jealousies would soon vanish, these hinderances to unity and con­cord would not be perpetuall, but would soon vanish and disappear.

Sect. 20. I am apt to think that if Ministers would but faithfully distinguish, as Mr. Ball doth, and not be guilty of that which he chargeth Mr. Can with, in a matter of so much weight, confound things that differ, alledge Scriptures to little purpose.

Multitudes of Christs loyal subjects would be delive­red [Page 66]from their needless feares, and be preserved, if I mi­stake not, from needless sufferings.

I am sure the learned and judicious Calvin, though he did not fully approve of the Liturgy of the Church of England, writing to the Brethren at Frankfort about it, as having in it many Tolerabiles ineptiae, which might in charity, I suppose, be translated Tolerable unfitnesses, which yet I leave to the learned; yet he did not see so far into the work of Reformation as did some in our dayes that pe­tition for peace, that would have either form of prayer left to the Ministers choice; but as I have before quoted, would have a Form of prayer imposed: Saith he in his Epistle to the Duke of Somerset, Lord Protector in the minority of King Edward the Sixth; Quod ad formam precum & rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde probo, ut certa illa extet, à qua pastoribus discedere in fanctione sua non liceat; jam ut consulatur quorundam simplicitati & im­peritiae, quam ut certiùs ita constet omnium inter se Eccle­siarum consensus; postremò etiam ut obviam eatur desul­toriae quorundam levitati, qui novationes quasdam affe­ctant. Calvin. Epist. ad Protector. Angl. As touching the Form of prayers and Rites of the Church, I approve very much that it be set. Observe by the way that he was for a set form; he did not look upon it as a limiting or an appearance of quenching the Spirit, to use a set form, but would have it imposed also; so that, saith he, It may not be lawfull for the Ministers to depart or vary from the same. The reasons why this holy man would have a Form of prayer imposed, I have Englished be­fore, pag. 19. to which I refer you.

And he also was careful in distinguishing about matters of this nature, Institut. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 30. he distin­guisheth in matters meerly ceremonial and circumstantial in the Worship of God, and giveth these reasons why Christ did not prescribe particularly concerning externals [Page 67]of Discipline and Worship; that is to say, why these things are not determined by Christ the Law-giver of his Church, and therefore may be determined by Authority: First, because that Christ foresaw these things to depend upon the occasions and opportunities of time, and how unlike it was for one form to accord with all Ages: And therefore, saith he, Hereupon we must have recourse unto the general rule, whatsoever the necessities of the Church shall require unto order and decency. Finally, he delivered nothing expresly, because that those things are not of necessity to salvation.

Sect. 21. It is worth the observing what he saith, that externals about Discipline and Ceremonies, they are not of necessity to salvation.

Let it suffice therefore, that our sharp discords and contentions, as Mr. Baxter saith, about matters of mode in Discipline and Worship, be no longer cherisht; and a­bove all not so vigorously pursued as to lose the liberties of your Ministry in this quarrel: and if the reasons of Mr. Calvin aforesaid be well considered, I should think might prevaile that way. Christ, he delivered nothing expresly for or against the external circumstantial modes of Wor­ship and Discipline, because that these things are not of necessity to salvation. And will any of you conclude them of such necessity to salvation, as that you will rather expose the salvation of the souls of many of Christs loyal subjects to danger through the deprivation of your Mini­stry, then yield obedience to such cammands of your Su­periours as are not countermanded by Christ?

Surely, if this be not an appearance of a very great sin, to make our selves more wise and more holy then Christ the Law-giver of his Church: If this be not, as Mr. Ball saith in this case, to condemn for unholy or pro­phane that which Gods Word alloweth, and is consonant to his word, though it be not precisely commanded, and conse­quently superstition and Will-worship. Hear further what Mr. Ball saith, pag. 46. part. 2.

Sect. 22. To place Necessity, Holiness and Worship in these circumstantial things, when they be not determined or commanded by God, this is Will-worship and superstition.

This I humbly conceive is affirmative superstition, but when Ʋniformity in Worship shall be commanded, not as having an intrinsecal holiness therein, as necessary to salvation in it self as a substantial of Gods Worship, but as Mr. Calvin saith onely for order and decency; that is, for Uniformity for a general agreement in Gods publick Worship and Service, and that men may know by what rule they are to be guided as to the externals of Worship, which are the very reason given in this very Act of Par­liament, pag. 71. then till I am better informed that superstition lyeth in not conforming. For if I mistake not there is a negative superstition and Will-worship lying in touch not, taste not, handle not, pray not in this or that form, observe not this or that rite, for this is sin. I say so too, if you shew me where forbidden, but Mr. Baxters Five Disput. hath sufficiently proved a stinted form lawful, as being no where forbidden, to which I again refer you.

Sect. 23. I have been the larger upon this, because that I humbly conceive that if Christians did but see their liberty and know but their duty, how would all those black chains by which we lie bound under, perplexing unnecessary scruples and soul- sadning fears fall off from us? How would we then serve the Lord with one shoulder, disappoint the hopes and expectations of the de­vil, that man of sin the Pope and all his adherents? and doubtless we should find what our gracious Soveraign propounds in the enacting of this Law, Religion propaga­ted, and the peace of this Land established, which all good men desire.

Sect. 24. Now knowing that it may be objected by some who are peaceably minded; that though they are satisfyed as to the lawfulness of their obedience to the use [Page 69]of a publick form and some certain Rites for order and decency, yet they do very much scruple conforming to this Book of Common prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, to which they are enjoyned by the Act to declare their unfeigned assent and consent, pag. 73. and promise they will conform to the use thereof, pag. 77.

I shall proceed through the assistance of the spirit of Truth, to offer to you what are the grounds which satisfie my conscience in this case following, and I hope may sa­tisfie all that love the Truth and Peace.

CHAP. IX.

Section 1.

TT is without all doubt very desirable to all persons whom God hath blessed with a being in this Kingdom of England, where the Gospel hath shined upon us for so many years since the Reformation of Religion; from the Idolatries, Errors and superstitions of the Church of Rome, to be assured that the way or mode for the publick Worship of God be reformed also.

Concerning which, in the satisfying of my self, I have observed that two sorts of persons have made their ob­jections. First, such as have condemned the common and publick Liturgy of the Church as sinful and Idolatrous, because taken out of the Mass-book, &c. Some onely as symbolizing with the service of the Romish Church; Of the former sort were the Brownists of old, the later the [Page 70] wiser sort of the Non-conformists, both formerly and at this present time; who do therefore presse a necessity of a further Reformation thereof, as appeareth by the Dis­course of Plus ultra, and by the desires of those persons that were commissioned to advise about the Liturgie, &c. who thought no Reformation like the laying aside the old one as to themselves, and the making a new one in its stead, to be left unto the Ministers liberty to chuse which they would use.

Sect. 2. I shall therefore for the clearing of the law­fulness of our obedience to the use of this Liturgie of the Church, present and lay before you the objections a­gainst the Liturgie of the Church of England by the English Brownists, by which also the Authors of the Tem­perate Discourse and of Plus ultra may see who they do symbolize withall, and how much mistaken I suppose they are, who say, the cause of the Non-conformists hath been long ago stated at the troubles of Frankfort, and hath continued the same.

Sect. 3. That which is laid to the charge of the En­glish Liturgie is this, by those called the Brownists, I find in the second part of the Mr. Balls answer pag. 4. The whole form of the Church service is borrowed from the Pa­pists, for none can deny that it was culled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill, the Mass-book, full of all abominati­ons; from three Romish channels, I say, it was raked, the Breviary, the Ritual and the Mass-book, mentioned by the Sober Discourse, pag. 21. and Plus ultra, pag. 17. with much earnestness affirms, that the English Liturgie is Tantum non the Romish Mass.

Now to vindicate this mode of Gods Worship in the English Church from this charge, and so consequently to give us to apprehend that we may lawfully declare con­formity to the use thereof; be pleased to take notice of Mr. Balls answer pag 6.

Sect. 4. That which you alledge against the English Service-book in particular, you intend against all set forms of prayer or stinted Liturgies whatsoever, &c. to pag. 8. and there saith he further, It is true, the ‘Non­conformists say that it was in a great part picked and culled out of the Mass-book; but it followeth not thence, that either it is or was esteemed by them a de­vised or false Worship, for many things contained in the Mass-book it self are good and holy. A Pearl may, be found upon a Dunghill. We cannot more credit the man of sin then to say, that every thing in the Mass-book is devillish and Antichristian; for then it should be Antichristian to pray unto God in the me­diation of Christ, or read the Scriptures, to professe many fundamentall divine Truths, necessary to salva­tion, pag. 9.’ Our Service was picked and culled out of the Mass-book you say, and so it might, and ‘yet be free from all fault and tincture, from all shew and ap­pearance of evil; though the Mass-book it selfe was fraught with all manner of abominations. For if An­tichrist sit in the Temple of God, and professe himself the servant of Jesus Christ, of necessity some Treasures, Riches and Jewels of the Church must be gathered in­to his Den, which being collected, purged and refined, might serve to adorne the chaste Spouse of Christ. Neither in so doing doth the Church honour Anti­christ, but challenge her own right; if she retain ought that belongeth to Antichrist, that is her stain and ble­mish; but the recovery of that which Christ the King of his Church hath given as her wealth and ornament, must not be imputed a fault.’

Sect. 5. Further saith he pag. 9. ‘If it be wholly taken out of the Mass-book, how cometh it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass, that both cannot possibly stand together? In [Page 72]our Book of Common prayer we pray to God onely in the mediation of Jesus Christ, and in a known Lan­guage, we profess that Christ by one Oblation of him­self, once for all, hath made a full, perfect and suffici­ent satisfaction for the sins of the whole World; that he hath commanded a perpetual remembrance of his Death and Passion in that Ordinance of the Supper; and that the Sacrament is to be administred in both kinds, the Minister and the People to communicate together: Were these things taken out of the Mass-book? The Church of Rome joyneth the two first Commandments into one, or taketh away the second, thereby to cloak their Idolatry in the worshipping of Images; but the Common prayer book of the Church of England divideth them into two, therein following (two of the Fathers at most excepted) all Antiquity, and setteth down the words of the second Command­ment at large. The Church of Rome teacheth, that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is received and eaten carnally, that as much is received in one kind as in both, and that in the Mass Christ is offered up as a propitiatory unbloudy sacri­fice for the sins of quick and dead; but the Common prayer book of the Church of England teacheth ex­presly in the form of administring that Sacrament, that spiritually by faith we feed on him in our hearts, eat­ing and drinking in remembrance that Christ died and shed his blood for us. In the Mass the Priest recei­veth alone, the people standing by and gazing on him; but the Minister and people are appointed with us to communicate together, according to the Insti­tion of Christ, and the practice of the primitive Church. We make the Communion of the Eucharist purposely a Sacrament; they a Sacrament and propi­tiatory Sacrifice. They celebrate at an Altar; we at [Page 73]a Table, according to the example of our Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church in the purest times. We pray for the living; they for the li­ving and dead. And if these be not points directly contrary to the Roman Service, Rome is much depar­ted from her self.’

Sect. 6. I have been the larger in the transcribing of this most singular vindication of the common prayer book by this judicious & learned Mr. John Ball, to the end that such good people, who, as the Author of the Treatise of Liturgies saith, can by no means be reconciled to the use of it, as being an Idolatrous Service, may here see the vast difference between the Mass-book and our common prayer, and be brought to love and like thereof.

And that such Ministers as profess by the said Author, that when their people come to them, and say to them, This common prayer was taken out of the Mass-book, will you read it? they know not what to say; may be furnished with such an answer, as by Gods blessing may be not onely very informing, but reforming also.

And that such Ministers and People that doe feare that by this Act of Uniformity, which requireth a Decla­ration from every Minister, that he will conform to the use of the common prayer book, and that he doth assent and consent thereto; that all this conformity required is but preparatory to Popery: may by a diligent comparing and considering of what Mr. Ball hath published, be quieted in their mindes about their fears in this thing, Mr. Ball saith expresly, pag. 9. That there are such things in the common prayer, such Drctrines there taught, and such practises there enjoyned, that are so directly con­trary to the Mass-book, that both cannot possibly stand to­gether.

Sect. 7. And that I may the further corroborate your minds in this particular, I humbly desire that the further [Page 74] insinuatians of the displeased Ones with the common prayer, as being but the English Mass; and as is affirmed pag. 5. that one Dr. Carrier a dangerous seducing Papist should say, That the common prayer, and the catechisme in it contained, hold no point of Doctrine expresly con­trary to Antiquity; that is, as he explaineth himselfe, the Romish Church; onely hath not enough in it: may be removed not only by what I have already transcribed, out of Mr. Ball, but also from what followeth in answer to the Brownists charge against the common prayer by this Carriers judgement beforesaid.

Saith this reverend person, pag. 11. Carriers pretence in that particular is a meer jugling trick, that he might insinuate a change of Religion might be made amongst us without any great alteration; which is as likely as that the light should be turned into darknesse, and not be espied; if many points of Popery be not condemned expresly in the catechisme or Service-book, &c. yet so many points are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery, that it is not possible that Popery should stand if they take place.

Sect. 8. How much therefore it concerneth all zea­lous haters of Popery to take heed of their contempt of the Service-book and Catechisme therein contained, and to take heed of such a Reformation thereof, as should take this form of Common prayer, Catechisme, and manner of celebration of the Lords Supper out of the way, may appear by what is so confidently and rationally affirmed, if it be seriously considered, that it is not possible that Popery should ever stand if they take place amongst us, pag. 11.

That I may further shew how unlike it is that the Rea­der of the Missale Romanum, &c. or the comparer of the Rituale Romanum, &c. with the printed common prayer Book of the 5. and 6. of Edward the 6. or this our English Liturgy as it is commonly put to sale, shall [Page 75]find but very little but what is to be found in the Mass-book in Latine; Discourse of Liturgies, pag. 1, 21, 22.

I shall desire what is further alleadged by Mr. Ball, may be seriously laid to heart; saith he to such who speak in the language aforesaid, pag. 11. It is more pro­per to say the Mass was added to our Common prayer book, then that our Common prayer was taken out of the Mass-book; For most things in our Common prayer were to be found in the Liturgie of the Church long before the Mass whereof we speak on was heard of in the World, and the Mass was patch'd up by degrees, and added to the Li­turgie of the Church, now one piece and then another, so that the ancient truths and holy Liturgies were at last stained with the Idol of the Mass, which was sacrilegiously thrust into them.

Sect. 9. And that the Reverend Bishop Jewell so much magnified by Plus ultra, as a greater friend to his design, was a great friend to this truth laid down by Mr. Ball, you may find in his defence of the Apologie of the Church of England, upon the occasion of Hardings challenging the Church of England with changing their Commu­nion book so often; replies by retortion, that it was their crime to be guilty of chopping and changing of the Church Liturgie, and not they, saith he, pag. 198. If thou wilt read the often changes and alterations of the Mass, read I beseech thee Platina and Polydore Virgil, concerning the same, and there shalt thou find how, and by whom, and on what occasion, and in what processe of time all the parts of the Mass were pieced and set together. So that it is more easie to observe how Bishop Jewell and Mr. Ball do agree in their judgements about the Mass and Common prayer book, as you shall read hereafter, then that Bishop Jewell and Plus ultra were both of one mind as to the matters in controversie.

Sect. 10. But I shall go no further in shewing than [Page 76]the Common prayer of the Church of England is not Tan­tum non the Romish Mass, saith Mr. Ball pag. 11. ‘The prayers and truths of God taught in the Com­mon prayer pertained to the Church as her Preroga­tive, the Masse and the abominations belonged to the man of sin; and if a true man may challenge his gods which the thief hath drawn into his den, the Church of God may lawfully lay claim to these holy things which Antichrist hath unjustly usurped.’

And that the Church of God may lawfully make use of those forms of prayers recovered as it were out of their den, behold the reverend Mr. Ball bringing the same quotation out of Bishop Jewell for to prove it, as Plus ultra doth to prove it altogether unlawful. Bishop Jewells Sermon on Joshua 6.1, 2, 3. The things that may be reserved, viz. in the destruction of Jericho, must not be dust, or chaffe, or hay, or stubble; but gold, silver, iron and brass: I mean they may not be things meet to furnish and maintain superstition, but such things as be strong, and may serve ei­ther directly to serve God, or else for comeliness and good order. Mr. Ball in the margin of pag. 11. part 2.

Sect. 11. In Plus ultra, pag. 28. you will find this quo­tation of Bishop Jewell is brought to prove that all ceremo­nies are superstitious. But that it is most grievously wrest­ed and mis-applyed, as are most of his quotations out of Jewell, in his discourse will appear, by that which Mr. Ball hath set down honestly, and the other altogether omitted.

For though dust and chaffe, hay and stubble at the de­struction of Jericho might not be brought into the Lords treasury, that is, such things as were meet to maintain su­perstition; yet such things as silver and gold, such things as be strong and may serve directly to serve God, or else comeliness and good order.

These things in the judgment of both Jewell and Ball, [Page 77]which are strong and may serve directly to serve God by, or elfe for comeliness and good order.

These holy things Mr. Ball saith, pag. 11. Antichrist hath unjustly usurped, the Church of God may lawfully lay claim unto.

And therefore if our Book of Common prayer saith he, pag. 12. please the Papists, it is but in some things, wherein in reverence to Antiquity we come too nigh them in some Rites and Ceremonies. But with the substance of the ministration it self they cannot be pleased, unlesse they will be displeased with their own service, and will re­nounce their own Religion.

Sect. 12. Surely, methinks the judgment of this lear­ned and moderate man might very much defend us a­gainst not onely the fear of Popery, he having affirmed that the Papists cannot be pleased with our Book of Com­mon prayer as to the substance of its Ministration, unless they will renounce their own Religion;

But may cause such a day-break of light to shine upon some of our understandings, as that we may be per­swaded that it is lawful to declare they will conform to the use of the Common prayer of the Church of Eng­land, it being no false and Idolatrous Worship, as too many might apprehend from what hath been within this year or two written to exasperate mens minds against it.

But that I may make the lawfulness thereof to appear more evidently, I shall proceed to consider of the En­glish Liturgie and ceremonies, as they are by some appre­hended to symbolize too much with the Mass-book, and being too like the same, and that therefore upon this account conformity is unlawful, it being absolutely affirm­ed, Plus ultra, pag. 30. We say it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain either in Doctrine, Worship or Discipline, any conformity to the Church of Rome.

Sect. 13. I do profess before the searcher of all hearts [Page 78]out of any desire to abstain from all appearance of evil. When I first saw this Book, I desired to take great notice how this Authority did by the authority of the Scriptures convincingly prove the same. For to conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is doubtless unlawful, to conform to the Worship and Discipline of the Church of Rome, in statu corrupto, in that stace wherein it was be­fore Reformation, and is now in at this present time, is sin­ful and unlawful.

But that to conform to the Common prayer book of the Church of England, and those few retained ceremonies, because that they symbolize with the Church of Rome; That this should be sinful and unlawful, notwithstanding so confidently affirmed, I leave to the determination of the wise and learned upon the examination of the proofs of Plus ultra for the same.

Sect. 14. I do find indeed that Mr. Ball doth speak to this purpose: That if any have mistaken the book of Common prayer, because that it hath too much likelihood to the Mass-book, he saith, that hath not been the judgement of the Non-conformists alone, others have said and written so much that never condemned the use of the book, or all things therein contained, pag. 9.

From whence I observe, that there is a great deal of dif­ference between the disliking of a form that doth in something as is supposed symbolize with that form that is in a corrupt Church, and the condemning of it as sinful and unlawful, as Plus ultra doth: And yet that I may deal faithfully before I come to speak to the arguments of Plus ultra, I think I should do a good work tending to our healing, if I should offer but some honest inferences from Mr. Balls conclusions and concessions, that may take off that dislike may be in the minds of men, which may hinder an unfeigned assent and consent in declaring their confo rmity.

Sect. 15. For it being granted that a form of prayer is lawful, and this of the Church of England so much vindicated as you have heard, and may find further in pag. 3. where Mr. Ball saith, that the Non-conformists can prove the Religion and the Worship of the Church of England to be of God, and that by such plain Texts of Scripture, against which the gates of hell shall never pre­vàil.

I humbly conceive that the offence taken at its too much likelihood to the Mass-book, pag. 9. may be taken away by the very reason that Mr. Ball giveth for the same, pag. 12. which he saith is in Reverence to Antiqui­ty. To avoid the imputation of novelty in a Church it is necessary to keep to those externall modes, as to phrases of speech and rites for comeliness in Gods Worship which have been most ancient in the Church.

But if this do it not sufficiently, deferring to answer what I find alledged, but not proved by Mr. Ball, pag. 7. as exceptions against the said book, as in some points dis­agreeing with Gods Word, pag. 7. for which they judge it unlawfull to subscribe as agreeable to the Scripture, which doubtless may lawfully be done by Mr. Balls own Doctrine.

Sect. 16. I say, forbearing to speak further to these particulars, being but the same objections made by Mr. Josias Nicholls and other Non-conformists long before, which I shall through divine assistance speak more par­ticularly to in the next Chapter.

I shall desire that what Mr. Ball doth declare in the name of all the Non-conformists to his time, that did judge the book in the form thereof so nigh the Papists, pag. 15. may be considered, who saith, that herein they shew but what they judge most convenient, not condemning the book for the substance thereof.

So that some of the Non-conformists of our time are [Page 80] gone much beyond this pious and prudent man, who upon this argument doth but onely shew what was the judgment of the Authors of the Admonition, and others in this case, that it was not convenient to use a form so near the Papists; but he saith no such thing himself, being more wise then to judge in a case already determined by the Law of the Land, which God had not determined against by his Law in his Word.

Sect. 17. But though Mr. Ball is so modest, yet Mr. Plus ultra is more magisterial; who, as you have read out of the place before quoted, affirmeth that it is unlaw­ful for the Church of England to retain any conformity to the Church of Rome in Worship or Discipline. Come we therefore to examine his grounds for it, pag. 30. And because we know (from whence I observe many heads were laid together to form this argument) this will hardly down by any reasons we can lay before you, we shall commend this argument to you under the credit of your right learned Prelate Jewell, please you to peruse, pag. 325, 326. of his Defence; The learned and godly men, at whose Persons it pleaseth you so rudely to scoffe, saith Jewell to Harding, (Mr. Doctor;) Harding used to scoffe at Calvin and Zuingliùs, and to upbraid Jewell with them; that refuse either to go in your apparel, or otherwise to shew themselves (note Sir!) like unto you, have age sufficient, and can answer for themselves: notwithstanding thus much I'le say in their behalf, neither do they commend any manner of appa­rel as holy, nor do they condemn any apparel as unholy; they say not therefore that the apparel is either holy or un­holy, but they may truly say, the same apparel on your part hath been foully abused to filthy purposes; they may justly say, they would not gladly in any appearance shew them­selves like unto them that have so untruly and so long de­ceive the world: and herein they are not without sundry authorities and examples of the godly Father St. Austin and Tertullian, &c.

Sect. 18. Now because I observe that by these quota­tions he would make others to apprehend that Bishop Jewell was of his mind, I shall crave leave to shew him, or others that have been deceived by him, how much they are deceived themselves, in bringing this learned and pi­ous Prelate to be the prover of their assertion: And that I may clearly evidence this, I shall present you with the occasion of these words before quoted.

The Church of England in their Defence of the Re­formation from Popery, amongst other things in their Apology mentioned, pag. 322. charge the Papists, That some of them did put a great holiness in eating fish, and some in eating of herbs, some in wearing of shooes and san­dals, some in going in a woolen garment, some in a linnen, one called black, some white. This I observe to be the doctrine of the Church of England, that to put holiness in a black woollen garment or a white linnen one, this is super­stition.

Now to this charge Harding faintly replyed, That they did put no great holinesse in linnen garments, black or white: To which Bishop Jewell answereth, pag. 324. But withall Harding having by recrimination charged the Church of England with the divisions that were a­mongst them even in those dayes by the Non-conformists then; for it is not with Calvin or Zuinglius that he doth upbraid the Bishop there, but they were such persons as would not weare Gowns with a Typpet, &c. but as he there saith, Night-gowns of the most Lay-fashion to avoid super­stition. These things are indifferent, and may be yielded un­to, saith the one Sect. They be the Popes rags, and may not be worn, faith the other Sect. And therefore they will ra­ther be justly put from that which justly they cannot keep, then yield one jot; neither Her Majesty's commandment, nor their Metropolitans decree they care for; they had ra­ther seem to the people, whom they use for their claw-backs, [Page 82]and to whose judgement they stand or fall stout Champions of their own Gospel, then meek followers of Christs Gospel; such mighty Sampsons, such constant Laurences your Jolly Gospel breedeth. Defence of the Apology, part 3. pag. 323.

Sect. 19. Now in answer to this the Bishop maketh this reply quoted by Plus ultra, savouring of very much wisdome and charity; saith he, the persons at which you so rudely scoffe, that refuse to go in your apparel, or otherwise to shew themselves like you, have age sufficient, and can an­swer for themselves; (he maketh no Apologie for them:) Notwithstanding thus much I say in their behalf, neither do they commend any manner of apparel as holy, neither do they condemn any apparel as unholy, &c.

Here, before we go any further, I desire that these par­ticulars may be observed;

Sect. 20. First, that Non-conformity to these matters of apparel, and such like indifferent things is matter of scorn and reproach to the Reformed from the Papists, and hath been so for these many years.

Secondly, that those persons that he would vindicate from Hardings revilings, he could do it onely in this; That in those dayes that he could say onely so much for them, that they did not condemn a Gown or Surplice as sin­ful or unholy.

Thirdly, that therefore why these should refuse to wear such apparel, and thereby give occasion to the Papists to charge them with disobedience to the Queen; he onely saith, that they have age sufficients and can answer for them­selves.

Though as it followeth, They may truly say, that this same apparel hath been foully abused to filthy purposes, and they may truly say, they would not gladly in any appearance shew themselves like unto them, that have so utterly and so long abused the world.

Now that by this part of the quotation Bishop Jewe ll doth not argue against the use of the Gown, Surplice, and such like apparel, as symbolizing with the Papists because they did wear such; and that therefore they were to be justifyed that did refuse to wear onely upon that score. It appeareth thus, by observing that the thing which was chiefly urged in the behalf of the Non­conformists, that they would not gladly in any appea­rance shew themselves like them that had abused these Vestments to foul and filthy purposes; so that his argment is not against the use, but the abuse of these garments, by which they had so long abused the world.

Sect. 21. That I may help my weak Christian friends to understand this, be pleased to take notice that the main thing wherein the Papists did deceive the world as to Priests apparel was this, that they did possesse them with this superstitious opinion of inherent holiness in them, and very greatly merited. Aquinas himself affirmeth that the wearing of Francis or Dominicks Cowle hath power to remove sins as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme: and Bishop Jewell tells us, pag. 324. that the Popish Bishops in hallowing the Priests Vestments pray, that he wearing this holy vesture may deserve to be shielded and defended from all assaults of the wicked spirit.

Now in this sense the Conformists and Non-confor­mists might justly say that this apparel hath been abused to foul and filthy purposes; for the Priests would get a considerable summe of money of such as they had delud­ed with these opinions for a Fryers Cowle to be buryed in, as that which would keep them out of Purgatory; well therefore might the Bishop say in their behalf, that they would not gladly shew themselves like unto them in the wearing of that apparel.

But why they would not wear such and such garments which they did not condemn as sinful, why not a Gown or [Page 84]a Cassock made after the fashion of a Minister in the Church of Rome, when indifferent in it self? Why they cared not for her Majesties commands and their Me­troplitans decrees in this case, I suppose the Bishop meaneth they are of age, let them answer for themselves; he had nothing it should seem to speak in their defence of this practice.

Sect. 22. By all which I humbly conceive that it may appear, that it is not the wearing of a Gown, or Surplice, or Cassock, whereby a person of one calling is distinguisht from another; and also for the use for which Aaron ( Exod, 28.40.) and his Sons wore Cassocks, or Coats and Girdles, viz. for comeliness and for beauty; though they should be made after the same fashion that the garments of Popish Priests were, if they be grave, sober and decent: But the placing of holiness in them, and the abusing of the people by them, this was the evil in them that Bishop Jewell doth condemn, but no the use of them.

This Reverend Prelate you may observe speaketh confidently of the Non-conformists of his time, that as they did not commend Ministers garments as holy, so they did not condemn them as unholy or sinful.

And were the Non-conformists of these times but of the same mind, that they did not condemn a Cassock or a Surplice as unholy, and that it were no sin to wear such vestures when commanded, the case would soon be re­solv'd, that to wear a Cassock, Surplice, Gown, Canonical Coat &c. were lawful for distinction sake and decency in Gods Worship.

Sect. 23. And thus now having shewed, though some­what at large, the true scope of the place brought by Plus ultra to prove his argument by in pag. 30. and that it proveth no such thing for which he doth produce it:

I shall onely shew how much he is mistaken in the reason that he giveth, why the Church of England [Page 85]ought to reject conformity to the Church of Rome in matters of Worship and Discipline, that have renounced communion with her in all material points of Doctrine, pag. 27.

Saith he, the reason why we reject communion with the Church of Rome, is for that the Popes Supremacy, Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Merit of good works, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Latin-Service Worship­piag of Images, half communion, and such like; which are the Pillars of the Romi [...]h Fabrick, cannot be proved and made good out of the Word of God. And is not this rea­son of like force against the ceremonies of the Church yet in use amongst us? Is there a scriptum est for one of them, &c.

Sect. 24 To which give me leave to say the reason is not of like force; for the things before named which are the Pillars of Popery, Gods Word is expresly against them, and the Scriptures of truth shew the Doctrine to be faelse, and so ne to be the Doctrine of devils. And if you could bring as clear Scriptures against using a form of prayer, wearing garments for distinction and decency in Gods Worship, as may be brought again [...]t Lain-Service, Worshipping of Images, Merit of good works, &c. Then there were some shew of reason in yours.

And as for your argument that there is not a scriptum est for one of them;

I shall give you a very ancient answer, that was gi­ven to your very objection by the Reverend Martin Bu­cer to Joannes à Las [...]o, who argued against vestures and other ceremonies, as holding conformity with the Charch of Rome therein: and as having no scrip um est for them, saith the said B [...]er in his Epistle, pag. 6. ‘If therefore you will not admit such liberty and use of vesture to this pure and holy Church, because they have no commandement of the Lord, nor no example for it; [Page 86]I do not see how you can grant to any Church that it may celebrate the Lords Supper in the morning, &c. for we have received for these things no commande­ment of the Lord, nor any example, yea, rather the Lord gave a contrary example.’

Sect. 25. Behold here you that have made a challenge in pag. 13. in the name of all the Non-conformists, that if any learned men of our Adversaries be able to bring one sufficient sentence out of the holy Scripture, or any one ex­ample of any Bishop or Minister, in the time of King Ed­ward the sixth, that doe directly or ex professo plead for the wearing of Caps and Surplices, &c. the Zuinglian Go­spellers will be then content to yeeld and subscribe.

Here is the authority of a great, learned and pious man in the time of King Edward the sixth, defending the lawfulness of these vestures you so much argue against, and also condemning your very argument, pag. 10. Saith he, Many things which the Antichrists have made marks of their impiety, may be tokens of the Kingdom of Christ, as the signs of Bread and Wine, the water of Baptisme, the Laying on of hands, Preachings, Churches, Holy dayes, and many other things: All these places of Scripture are of a great scope; The earth and the fulness thereof is of the Lord; not of the Devil, not of Antichrist, not of the wic­ked. This colourable craft of Sathan, saith he, must be taken heed of, by the which he bringeth to pass oftentimes, that either we reckon those things which are no sins, and those that be sins indeed we seem not to regard them in our selves, &c.

Sect. 26. If the Authority of this holy man in King Edwards dayes satisfie not your conscience, that these things may be continued, and prevail not with you to prevail with all other Non-conformists, in whose name you made the challenge, and also have promised to yield and subscribe.

I shall in answer to your challenge produce the Au­thority of Bishop Jewell, whom you so much quote, ex professo commending the present Liturgy in the frame of it. And this you will find written in pag. 162. of the Defence of the Apology, occasioned by the reproachful spee­ches of Dr. Harding against it, calling the Liturgy in Queen Elizabeth's dayes as you do now, A devised Service, &c. but saith Bishop Jewell to him, appealing to his own conscience; ‘You know that we serve God according to his holy Word, and the order of his pri­mitive Church; we administer the holy Sacraments in pure and reverent sort, (though I suppose the signe of the Crosse was used in one, and Kneeling at the other.) We baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we receive the Sacrament of Christs body and bloud from the holy Table, we make our humble confession and prayers together, we pray with one heart and one voice, &c. And of all these things what one is contrary to the Catholick Faith? Oh Mr. Harding, is it not written, The man that lieth destroyeth his own soul? and Christ saith, the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, in this life or in the life to come.’

Sect. 27. If Bishop Jewell did not plead for the present Liturgy in the frame of it, his zeal burning so hot, that he accounteth Hardings calumnies of the Common prayer to be as a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, I leave to the consideration of all judicious Christians; and conse­quently, whether the Authors of the challenge are not bound to conform and subscribe, especially considering what the said Bishop Jewell saith of the said Communion book or Common prayer book, pag. 198. The holy Com­munion book and Order of the holy Administration stand­eth, and by Gods mercy shall stand still without any change.

Observe, I pray, whatever you have said of the Li­turgy of the Church, that it is Tantum non the Masse­book; yet if you had searched into Jewell as you ought for truth, you would have found the Jesuite frequently depravi g the book of common prayer, and that for the very thing for which you plead the changing of further reformation thereof, which occasioned this Reply of Jewell, which cleerly evidenceth that he did so much ap­prove of the present frame of the Liturgy, that he said by Gods mercy it should not be changed no more.

And therefore I pray remember your promise, yield and subscribe to the book of common prayer, according as the Act requireth.

Sect. 28. And that this may be done with an unfeign­ed assent and consent, I doe beseech you all who are zea­lous haters of Popery, se [...]iously to weigh what is the judgement of the most judicious Jesuited Papists of this our present Liturgy, as I find it published long since by their great champion Harding: saith he, (that which ought to be written upon the heart of every true Prote­stant) Every good man and zealous keeper of the Catho­lick Faith, will never allow the Service devised in King E [...]wards time, now restored again; not so much for the Tongue that it is in, as for the order it self and disposi­tion of it, wanting some things necessary, and having some other things repugnant to the Faith and the custome of the Carholick Church. Reply of Jewell to Harding, pag. 162.

Let me intreat all Non-conformists especially to ponder upon this passage.

The Liturgy and Service of the Church of England, to which we are to conform, though some account it Po­pish, Idolatrous, and at the best too like the Mass book in the order and disposi [...]ion of it, which is the great exception of the wisest Non-conformists at this day; yet [Page 89]this Harding, with the Separatists against whom Mr. Ball hath written, agree together in calling it a Devised Ser­vice, an Humane Invention. Now consider what is pre­dicated of this subject, that the good men and zealous kee­pers of the Catholick Faith, viz. the hottest, rankest, and most violent Papists, they will never allow of this devised Service; I think very good news.

Sect. 29. But to proceed to the reason that he giveth for this, not so much for the tongue in which it is, being now English; whereas the Service of the Romish Church is Latin to this day, which some make to be the onely difference between the Mass-book and the English Liturgy, grounded upon a politick Proclamation in King Edwards time, to quiet an Insurrection about it. But saith Harding, for the order it self and the disposition of it; that which is a great exception of the Non-confor­mists why they cannot allow it, is given as the reason why the good and zelous Catholicks cannot allow it also. But how doth it appear further that the good Catholicks cannot, nay he saith, will not allow it, because that it lacketh some things necessary; as prayers to Saints, to Angels, to Images, and for the dead to bring them out of Purgatory, a thing very necessary to make the Popes Pot boyle; together with many of those Bables, Trifles and Follies, which Bishop Jewell reckons up in his Ser­mon at S. Mary's quoted by Plus ultra, to another purpose?

But to make our English Liturgy completely diffe­rent from the Romish Mass-book, he saith, that it hath many things in it repugnant to the Faith and customes of the Catholick Church.

For these reasons the zealous Catholicks will never allow of our book of common prayer, and therefore for these reasons the Book of Common prayer devised, as they say, in King Edwards time, restored in Queen Eli­zabeths [Page 90]time, confirmed since by King James, King Charls the First and the Second, should be worthy of a better ac­ceptation then yet it hath received from those that de­clare themselves to be the most zealous professors of the true Reformed Protestant Religion.

Sect. 30. And thus now having proved it to be very lawfull to declare conformity to the Book of Common prayer; having by the help of an old Non-conformist uncloathed it of that Idolatrous dress in which it hath been presented to the World by the Author of the Tem­perate Discourse and Plus ultra, who having thereby but new-vam [...]t the arguments of the old Brownists, and brought them forth as new lights to mislead weak people.

I shall, through the help of the said Mr. John Ball, give you but one general answer to what the said Author of the Discourse of Liturgies, and others, are very copi­ous in cha ging the Common prayer with many particu­lar defects and errors, and so conclude.

Which answer you shall find part 2. pag. 22. ‘Your long Catalogue of corruptions to be found in our Li­turgy is to small purpose, unlesse you could prove so e of them to be sundamental, heretical, and really Idolatrous. Suppose, saith he, pag. 30. the seventy errors which you reckon up were all true and justly ta­ken against the Book, and as many more to them might be named; yet the quotation that he giveth out of Usher, de Success. Eccles. Chapter 1. answers all; That the main truths which concern the very life and soul of Religion be few, and the failings which may stand with the substance of Religion many.’

Sect. 31. To conclude therefore with this Memoran­dum to the Authors of Plus ultra, who upon the Autho­rity that I have brought in King Edwards time, from the Reverend Martin Bucer in Q. Elizabeths time, from the Reverend Bishop Jewell, that they are under an obli­gation [Page 91]to yield to subscribe and turn conformists, even all the Zuinglian-Gospellers, as he calleth them, pag. 13. And that it will be expected they should shew them­selves to be as good as their words.

I shall be a further help unto them in endeavouring to remove what may be an impediment to the subscribing of the 39. Articles of Religion, with what followeth in the Act for Uniformity, pag. 83. hoping in the following Chapter to make it appear, that the particular ceremo­nies and rites of the Church by Law enjoyned; together with the Books of Ordination, &c. which are part of the 39. Articles, may lawfully be subscribed and confor­med to.

CHAP. X.

Section I.

THat we may be the more clearly informed and more fully resolved in this case, the matter of this que­stion being the subject matter of that obedience, which the Act for the Ʋniformity of publick prayers, &c. doth require. That we may the better judge of the iniquity or equity of what is required; I humbly conceive it would be worth our time to make a particular inspection into this Act, concerning what is enacted about these things a­foresaid: To which end I shall offer these three particu­lars to your consideration.

First, what is required. Secondly, of whom it is requi­red. [Page 92]Thirdly, after what manner the things required are to be done.

Sect. 2. First, that which is required is a Subscription or Declaration of an approbation to the nine and thirty Articles of Religion, mentioned in the Statute of the 13. of Queen Elizabeth, and of the book of Common parayer, &c. Act. pag. 85.

Secondly, who are to subscribe and declare, &c. The persons from whom this is expected, are onely schollars, men of more then ordinary parts and abilities, such as shall be thought fit to be Governors of others in the schools of the Prophets, in both the Universities, pag. 82. and all such as are thought fit to be Ministers and Teachers of others in the school of Christ, the publick congregation, pag. 72, 85.

These persons are to be light to the blind, to be in­structers of the ignorant: Now our Saviour telleth us, That if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch. And therefore should any such persons be igno­norant of what they are to subscribe, o unwilling to it up­on any fal e or erroneous principles, it would prove of very dangerous consequence to the Reformed Religion; and should not they be all of one mind, who are Tutors and Teachers of others, it must needs occasion great con­fusion and division amongst their Disciples and followers.

Sect. 3. All which being considered, Subscription and Uniformity is so far from being a sin, as that it is a duty which is required of these persons aforesaid.

An here, by the wa , cannot but have some ground of hope, that the strict execution or this Act will keep out not onely all Papists and Romish Catholicks, the profes­sed Adversaties to the Reformed Religion of the Church of England, from poysoning the fountaines of Learning, and corrupting the Youth in our Ʋniversities; but also any of their Emissaries from our publick Congregations, [Page 93]who have formerly in the disguise of Anabaptists, Qua­kers and others, brought to many honest-hearted people into their present distempers; for except they can do these things, and that after the manner prescribed, Assent and Consent, unfeignedly and universally; they are nei­ther to have preferment or imployment in the places a­foresaid. And that they cannot do this, what I have before quoted from Hardings own expressions doth evi­dence the same; for he saith, No good Catholick can allow of the devised Service of the Church of England.

Sect. 4. Now methinks this very consideration should calm our spirits to take the same into our further thoughts: To this purpose I shall proceed to the next particular, viz. the third, and that is,

Thirdly, the manner how this subscription or declaration is to be made. In considering whereof I shall take in what the Act expresseth as the End of this Subscription after this manner, p. 72. To the end that Uniformity in the publick Worship of God, which is so desired, may be speedily effected.

Therefore this declaration and subscription must be made, the manner how you shall find, pag. 73. with an unfeigned assent and consent, pag. 84, 85 to all the Ar­ticles, to all the Prayers, to all the Rites and Ceremonies.

So that from hence it is evident, that this subscription and declaration, as I humbly conceive, must be with a n assent, which is the Act of the judgment and understand­ing, with consent and act of the will and affections, and it must be unfeigned, and without guile or h [...]pocrisie; sin­cerity must attend both the assent and consent. Thirdly, there is the universality of this unfeigned assent and con­sent; it must be to all and every thing rescribed in the book of Common prayer, pag. 73. to all the nine and thirty Articles, &c. pag. 83. To evidence their agreement to that Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, which the Church, whereof they are Members, doth profess and practice.

Sect. 5. That we may now come to make a right judgment in this case, taking for granted the manner here prescribed is no way contrary, but agreeable to Christs Laws, as the Scriptures evidently prove; the great inquiry will be into the matter of Vniformity and Subscription, &c.

And those are the Nine and thirty Articles of Reli­gion, the Book of Common prayer, and all the Rites and Ceremonies of the same; which generally contain these two particulars worthy of consideration.

Sect. 6. First, as to matters of Faith or Doctrine.

Secondly, as to modes and manner of Worship and Di­scipline.

Concerning the first of these, the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion are to be subscribed unto, and ap­proved of. Concerning the second, the book of Common prayer, with all its Rites and Ceremonies, with the form or manner of ordaining Priests and Deacons, is to be unfeignedly assented and consented to.

As to the former of these, what I have to say is chief­ly to inform those that are in my own station and capa­city of the Lay sort, that being rightly informed con­cerning these Nine and thirty Articles, they may not be offended at the Subscription and Conformity of such Ministers whom they reverence and esteem.

Sect. 7. In the first place therefore be pleased to take notice, that the Nine and thirty Articles of Religion, 13 Eliz. do in the general contain a confession of the Faith of the Church of England, as to matter of Doctrine, Worship and Discipline.

That I have not given it a new name I find a person much esteemed for his piety, and very modest in his Apo­logy or Plea for the Innocent, Mr. Josias Nichols, an old Non-conformist; I say, in his Book so called, printed 1602. now sixty years since, giveth this term to the [Page 95]Articles of the Church of England, The Confession of their Faith.

Sect. 8. Now, as I said before, that such as know lit­tle or nothing of these Articles, and therefore may well be troubled if any of our good Ministers or Lectures should be laid aside, as some have done already them­selves, laid aside Lecturing or preaching the Word of God upon this account, as I suppose, because that they can­not subscribe these Articles amongst other things; I shall give you an account of some of them, as I find them quoted by this worthy person, whom I have often seen, Mr. Josias Nicholls aforesaid: saith he, pag. 15.

Therefore as it becometh the true people and congregation of God, the Church of England, humbly submitting it selfe to his Law, doth meekly and constantly confesse, that it is not lawfull for the Church to ordain any thing that is con­trary to Gods written Word, Artic. 20. And for this cause they describe the visible Church of Christ to be A congre­gation of faithfull men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, &c. Artic. 19. And dutifully and truly affirm, that in our doings the Word of God is to be followed, which we have expresly declared unto us in the Word of God, Artic. 17.

Sect. 9. I beseech you let us pause a little upon these Articles, who know no more, and let us seriously con­sider whether our Ministers have any just cause to lay down their Ministry, because they must not lay downe subscription to these Articles, which teach or professe a­mongst other things, the Church hath no power to ordain any thing contrary to Gods Word, &c.

I shall omit to fill up my paper with a particular reci­tall of all the 39. Articles.

But in the stead thereof I shall give you a generall account of those Articles, refetting to their Doctrinal part, as to faith and substantialls of Worship, as I finde [Page 96]them clearly expressed and acknowledged by some late writers.

Sect. 10. For the Doctrine, saith the Authors of Plus ultra, pag. 16. With the Doctrine we meddle not, the bloud of the Martyrs shed in the defence of it alone by the Word of God hath washed away the Romish silth cast into it.

And Reverend Mr. Richard Baxter in a Post-script of his Epistle to the Reader before a Treatise of the Vain Religion of the formall Hipocrite, giveth his sense not onely of the Doctrine of the Church of England, but also of the Doctrine of the common prayer Book, if I mistake not, saith he; ‘For the Doctrine of the Common prayer Book, though I had read exceptions against di­vers passages; I remembred not any thing that might not receive a good construction, if it were read with the same candour and allowance as we read the wri­tings of other men. So that it was onely the truth of the Doctrine that I spoke of, against which I hate to be peevishly, quarrelsome, when God hath bless'd this Church so wonderfully with a moderate and caute­lous, yet effectuall Reformation in matter of Do­ctrine. The more pity it is, that the very modes of Worship and Discipline should be the matter of such sharp and uncharitable discords; which must one day prove the grief of those that are found to be the cau­sers of it, and of the sufferings of the Church on that occasion.’

To all which I yield my unfeigded assent and consent to be true.

Sect. 11. Now, if I mistake not, what Mr. Baxter here publisheth refers to the subject matter of the 39. Arti­cles, as to their doctrinall part, concerning Faith and Worship, and affords us these instructions besides, viz.

That the matter of our sharp contentions and uncharita­ble discords are the very modes of Worship and Discipline.

That Reformation may be effectual though but mode­rate and cautelous. If this be a truth in matters of Do­ctrine, it holds good in reforming the modes of worship and Discipline; and these instructions if they were well twist­ed about our understandings, might exceedingly tend to humble all of all sorts; and to make us jealous that we have been out of the way of a right Reformation, and incline our minds to conform and yield to what is now required at our hands.

Sect. 12. Especially considering that the Doctrine of the Church of England, which though principally is con­tained in the Scripture, yet in the 39. Articles is there sum'd up as a form or systeme thereof; is as I have pro­ved by these quotations from Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Baxter, and Plus ultra, so pure and reformed.

Methinks it should incline all persons in the Ministry that love the Truth and Peace, to resolve rather then not preach the Gospel, to subscribe and approve of those Articles that teach, that it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing contrary to Gods Word, whose Doctrine is washed from its Romish filth by the bloud of the Mar­tyrs, and hath arrived to an effectual reformation as Mr. Baxter phraseth it.

Surely, these considerations should make us, as Mr. Baxter saith, not only hate to be peevishly quarrelsome as to the Doctrine against subscription to these Articles, but unfeignedly assent and consent to them, and the use of the Book of Common prayer, &c.

Sect. 13. And this now leads me to speak unto the consideration of the second particular before named, comprehended in the 39. Articles, and also in the Book of Common prayer, viz. of subscription to and appoba­tion of the modes and manner of Worship and Disci­pline.

By which modes, I principally mean the Rites and [Page 98] Ceremonies of the Church, with all the forms and orders in the said book rescribed.

For having in the preceding Discourse proved by the judgement of Mr. Ball and others, the lawfulnesse of an imposed form, and of the Liturgie of the Church of England; I shall onely adde a testimony how far the Non-conformists in Queen Elizabeths dayes conformed to it, and then proceed.

Sect. 14. I find it declared by Mr. Josias Nicholls in the Plea for the Innocent, pag. 20. even this Mr. Nicholls named for one of those Worthies that did take confor­mity for a sin. Saith he in the name of all the Non-con­formists in his time: We do willingly use the book of Com­mon prayer and no other form, unless sometime upon extra­ordinary occasion by publick Authority some other prayer be assigned, onely we leave out some few things, or perad­venture explain other, pag. 21.

So that by the way the Common prayer was not then represented to the view of weak Christians under that Idolatrous dress you find it either in Plus ultra, or the Temperate Discourse of Liturgies.

But those old Christians used it and no other form.

Sect. 15. That therefore I may be instrumental in the healing of those misapprehensions which are upon the minds of many, as a hinderance of their conformity to the modes, ceremonies and rites of the Church; and that I may speak a word in season as to the removing of the principal part of the scruple or quaere, as to subscription or conformity to all the rites and ceremonies, &c.

I shall humbly offer this argument to the consideration of all prudent and peaceable Christians, whether of the Clergy or the Layety, viz.

That which our Superiours either in Church or State may without sin command; that every Member of the Church or State may lawfully and without sin unfeign­edly, assent, consent and conform to.

Sect. 16. This proposition I have proved before in general, and could do much more out of the sacred Scri­ptures, from the examples of Christ and his Apostles, the Judgement of Reverend Calvin and others, all agreeing that circumstantials in the Worship and Service of God tending to Ʋniformity, Decency Peace and Edification of the Church; I say, that these circumstantials, rites or ceremonies may be imposed by the Church or our Superi­ours.

But when we come to the assumption or conclusion from this proposition, applying it to our present case; then here lyeth the great scruple about these ceremonies and rites of the Church of England; these are superstitious, these are insignificant, these are superfluous, & what not? and there­fore no subscription, no conformity to these without sin.

Sect. 17. That I may therefore come more close to the business, I shall with much candour and faithfulness give you the objections that I find particularly made a­gainst subscription in our present sense. As to the rites and ceremonies of the Church, the ordaining of Priests and Deacons, &c. as I finde them made by Mr. Josias Ni­cholls Plea for the Innocent, pag. 21. We subscribe willingly unto the book of Articles according to the statute 13. in that behalf provided; namely, to those Articles which concern the confession of the true Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments, as that statute expresly commandeth and limitteth.

Now finding in examining those books ( contained, as he saith, pag. 20. in those two Articles they could not subscribe to) which are the book of common prayer, and of ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and many things doubtfull in our consciences, we dare not subscribe, &c.

The reason given by him in general is this:

"If we subscribe we break the Canon of holy Scri­pture.

‘I will therefore shew some two or three instances whereby it shall appear that if we had subscribed, we had done contrary to this holy Canon of Gods writ­ten Word.’

Sect. 18. The instances that he giveth are these fol­lowing briefly.

‘First, we should subscribe that it is not contrary to the Word of God, to read in the Church under the name of holy Scriptures; namely, such Books, as are not holy Scripture, as namely the Apocrypha, &c.’

Secondly, it is objected against subscription to these Books, ‘That it is ascribed to the Imposition of hands at the Confirmation of children, and Matrimony to be Signs and Seals of the Covenant; which is proper to the Sacraments, and that no man can make any Sign of such a Mystical and Sacramental nature to signifie Gods good will, unless he have Authority from God. We therefore conclude that if we should subscribe, we should allow that which is contrary to Gods Word.’

The third instance is this, pag. 27. That in the book of Orders there is an Office of Ministry called the Deacon, whose description is not to be found in Gods Book; namely, consisting in helping the Priest &c. Seeing that this kind of Ministry hath no resemblance with the Office of the Deacon, Acts 6. or 1 Tim. 3. That he should preach and baptize, and not be of the Order of Priest-hood, as they call it: We therefore think that in subscribing hereunto we should offend the holy canon of scripture, and allow that which is contrary to the same by our subscription, pag. 28.

Sect. 19. These are the three great instances or ob­jections against a universal subscription to all the Articles, and the main grounds of that Non-conformity then. Because I suppose, that had there been any more ponde­rous, they would have been produced then; though as he saith There were many other doubts which some of us Mi­nisters [Page 101]of Kent delivered to the Reverend Archbishop of Canterbury, pag. 28.

Now laying aside all humane considerations of the piety and integrity of the persons that then could not subscribe without sin; let us seriously weigh these arguments by Scripture and reason, that so we may see what there is of truth in them, and come to make a right judgement in this case, whether these things excepted against, are so momentous as they are made.

Sect. 20. I shall therefore begin with the first argu­ment against an universal subscription, In so doing we should subscribe that it is not contrary to the Word of God, to read in the Church under the name of holy Scripture, such books as are not holy Scripture. viz. out of the Apo­cripha.

I must confess here was some appearance in those dayes of so doing, by the misunderstanding the sense of the Ru­brick next after the order for the reading of the Psalms. Because of these words, the order how the rest of the ho­ly Scripture besides the Psalter, is appointed to be read, some Chapters by the same Rubrick being appointed to be read out of the Apocripha; from thence I conceive is gathered the objection as aforesaid.

Sect. 21. But who ever shall seriously consider of it, will find it to be weak and groundlesse, there being scarce any point in difference between us and the Papists so strongly followed, as this about Apocripha, which by the Church of England is denied to be Canonical Scripture; and therefore it cannot be imagined they should appoint it to be read as any part or portion of Gods blessed book, This is contra­ry to the 6. Article. to be the rule of Faith.

Now this must be clearly proved, otherwise the objecti­on against subscription signifieth nothing.

For the reading onely of the Apocripha, or any part [Page 102]thereof that is not sinful, being no where forbidden; nay, being read in the publick congregation sometimes for matter of instruction, the Authors thereof being accoun­ted wise and holy men in their generations, is warrantable, and that by the practice of the Primitive Churches; for I find quoted by Bishop Jewell, that long before Popery these Books of Apocripha were read in the publick Con­gregations.

Cyprian in Expositione Symboli, saith he, Alii libri sunt qui non sunt Canonici, St. Hierom in Praefat. Salo­moni. saith the like. sed Ec­clesiasti appellantur, &c. & hujus Ordinis est Libellus Tobiae, & Judith, & Macha­baeorum. And these were called Ecclesiasti, because that they were allowed to be read in Churches.

Sect. 22. So that it appeareth the very Books that Mr. Nicholls excepteth against, as Tobit and Judith, amongst the rest; these were allowed to be read in Churches so many hundred years since, and it is observable the di­stinction that Father there maketh, would help us out of this very scruple. These portions of the Apocripha appointed to be read, they are Ecclesiastical but not Ca­nonical Books; and therefore as we may lawfully in the publick Congregations read the writings of any wise and good men, so may we any portion of the Apocripha, e­specially considering I finde them not enjoyned to be read but upon one Lords day, but at such times when very few come to hear them; and also to do is no where forbidden in the sacred Scripture.

And therefore to subscribe that they may be lawfully read, and ro promise to read the same is not contrary t Gods Word.

Sect. 23. I come now to the next place to consider the second great Instance, why no universal subscription to all he 39. Articles, because that in this book it is ascribed to Imposition of hands at the confirmation of chil­dren, [Page 103]and Matrimony, to be signs and seals of the cove­nant, which is proper to the Sacraments, &c. pag. 26.

Concerning which should there not be a very great mistake, it would doubtless be contrary to the Word of God, yea, to the Doctrine of the Church of England, who strongly affirm against the seven Popish Sacraments, that Christ hath instituted but two, viz. Baptism and the Lords Supper.

That therefore this mistake may appear, I desire the proofs of this Instance may be well weighed, pag. 25. Plea. In the Rubrick before confirmation it is affirmed, That confirmation is administred to them that be baptised, that by Imposition of hands and prayer they may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin.

Secondly, in the latter prayer of consecration it is said, That after the example of the holy Apostles they lay their hands upon them, to certifie them by this sign of Gods fa­vour and gracious goodness towards them.

And that Matrimony signifie h to us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church.

Sect. 24. To begin now with the examination of the first proof. Though this be granted, that confirmation is appointed as a means whereby persons baptised may re­ceive strength and defence against all temptations to sin; doth it therefore follow, that it is ascribed to Imposition of hands to be a sign and seal of the covenant? This is a very great mis-apprehension and huge mistake about this ordinance of confirmation: To evidence this, I desire what I now offer may be considered and compared with the holy Scripture.

Sect. 25. Imposition, or the Laying on of hands upon persons that have been baptized, is not of meer humane invention, but of divine authority; and therefore the Author to the Hebrews 6.2. he doth reckon it amongst one of the beginnings of the Doctrines of Christ, joyning [Page 104]it with the initiating ordinance of Baptism; I say, this Doctrine of Laying on of hands followeth next in order after the doctrine of Baptism.

Now for the warranting of this practice now in the Church I shall do two things; first, give example from Scripture; secondly, from the practice of the Christian Church in former Ages.

In Acts 8.14. when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word, and were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, ver. 13. they sent Peter and John, which were Apostles also, (from whence by the way, if Peter had been the Prince of the Apostles, he would have sent some of those Apostles that sent him) to Confirm the people of Samaria in the profession of the Christian Faith. Now when they came thither, they prayed for those baptised persons, ver. 15. that they might receive the Holy Ghost both in its extraordinary gifts and saving graces, by which they might be confir­med, and receive strength against all temptations. Now after this prayer what did they? they laid their hands up­on then, ver. 17. Behold here a Scripture-warrant for Imposition of hands and prayer, for the Holy Ghost the giver of all grace, whereby we may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin.

Sect. 26. Now that this Ordinance continued in the Charch of God after the Apostles dayes, what I have read alledged by St. Jerome doth prove the same: saith he in his book advers. Lucifer, cap. 4. I deny not the cu­stom of the Church was, that the Bishop should go abroad, and imposing hands pray for the gift of the Holy Ghost on them whom the Presbyters and Deacons for off in lesser Ci­tie had al ealy baptised.

I desire that this proof may be well considered of, for it is serviceable, besides the end for which I bring it, to inform also in that which is the subject of the third [Page 105]scruple about Deacons; and that it may be the better un­derstood I shall make it into these Propositions.

First, that the Imposition of hands by Bishops was the custom of the Church before St. Jeromes time.

Secondly, that this ceremony was attended with pray­ers, as in the Apostles dayes.

Thirdly, that the persons thus confirmed by this sign and prayer, were such as were already baptised by the Deacons and Presbyters.

To all which let me adde but this observation, being of great use in what followeth, That in the Church of God in St. Jeromes dayes there were three degrees of or­der in the Gospel-Ministry, or Ministerial Function, viz. a Bishop, a Presbyter, and a Deacon.

Sect. 27. And thus having communicated my thoughts upon a diligent search of the sacred Scriptures, as to this ordinance of Consirmation by the Imposition of hands and prayer; I suppose it will appear to be a great mistake in those that are offended at what the Rubrick mention; before Confirmation.

As to the second proof I shall say the less, for having so fully cleared what is done by the Church of England, to be according to the example of the holy Apostles, as they affirm in their last prayer at confirmation; and there­fore this sign of Laying on their hands being no sign or ceremony of their own devising, but by divine right; it may charitably be concluded that such persons, who are made partakers thereof, may thereby be certified of Gods favour and gracious goodnesse towards them; that they have not onely been baptised but have had an opportunity to make profession of their Faith, and have had the prayers of the Church for them to receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin, &c.

Sect. 28. And thus now having examined the proofs brought by Mr. Nicholls, for making the sign of Imposition [Page 106]of hands, and what is said of Matrimony, to be a sacra­ment or seal of the covenant; I leave it to your serious consideration, whether this were a ground sufficient for refusal of an universal subscription.

CHAP. XI.

Section 1.

BEcause that I find this Principle so well improved once, that this charge is fastned upon all such rites and ceremonies as have any significancy in them, as the Surplice and Cross in Baptism; and that to this day, though so much be granted, That the civil power or Church besides the circumstances of time and Place, may order an hundred things, which Reason and Nature it self teaches all sober persons to be such, as that without some order to be observed in them, the Worship of God would not be perfor­med, or would be undecently performed. Discourse of Li­turgies, pag. 88.

Yet it is denyed that they have any Authority to appoint significative ceremonies, which are sensible signs to affect the understanding; this is to give them Authority to insti­tute Sacraments, as Mr. Nicholls said of old, Sect. 9. pag. 88.

For the proof of this denyal I find not a word of Scri­pture, or any other reason but this, against significant ce­remonies, We believe them reducible to no command; which is his great argument against an Imposed Liturgy, We find no command of Christ for it.

Sect. 2. I am in great hopes that if I can by Scripture, or the judgement of such as have been accounted for god­ly and learned, now above all interest or right reason, prove the contrary; It may be a blessed means of inclining those that are concerned unfeignedly and universally to assent, cons [...]nt and conform to all the Book of common prayer, with all the rites and ceremonies according to the Act for Unformity.

But before I begin I shall lay down this distinction concerning Rites and Ceremonies, viz. of Morall and sacramental.

A rite or ceremony may be significative, and represent spiritual objects to our understanding, and yet not be a sacramental ceremony.

Sect. 3. For a Sacrament, according as I learned when a child, is thus defined, to be a signe to represent, a seale to confirme, and an instrument to conveigh grace; and I humbly conceive that where any of these are wanting it is no Sacrament. A Ceremony may be as a sign to sig­nifie or present to our understanding a spirituall truth or moral duty; but being not affirmed of them that they are appointed as instruments to confer Grace, or to be as seals of the covenant of Grace; such a Ceremony though it may be of morall and spirituull use, yet is it not a Sacrament. And I humbly conceive to use such, are no additions to Gods Word or Sacraments: The signe of the Cross is no addition of a Sacrament to a Sacrament, as is often said, but onely a sign to put us in minde of such a Christian duty; wherein if we fail, Christ, in whose name we have been baptized, will be ashamed of us at the last day.

My argument at present is somewhat considerable; I believe that there is no command of Christ forbidding a­ny such mystical and significant ceremonies to be appoint­ed by the Church.

Sect. 4. I now proceed through divine assistance to of­fer to consideration what I have propounded to prove concerning the power of the Church about Rites and Ceremonies.

Desiring such as would be more fully satisfied to con­sult the judgement of that godly and leaaned man, Mr. John Randall, who in his most Excellent Lectures of the Church, published by that faithful Minister of Christ, Mr. William Holbrooke and his Son-in-law Mr. Ithiel Smart late Minister of Ashby de la Zouch, doth most clearly and solialy discourse on this subject; whom though you shall find very exact and strict in affirming the Church hath no power to decree any mattters of substance in Religion without or besides the Scripture, XXV. Le­cture of the Church, pag. 131. which he proveth by clear and pregnant Scriptures and strong reason; yet he granteth, nay, layeth it down as a Thesis or proposition, which he proveth by Scriptures, and giveth four reasons for it, pag. 145. viz. That every particular visible Church hath power from God to ordain some outward rites and ceremonies for the outward carriage of Gods Worship.

Amongst which rites and ceremonies, speaking of the bounds the Church is to keep in ordaining matters of ceremony under this head, that they must have no opinion of Gods Worship placed in them, as the Surplice and the Cross if the Church so enjoyn them, it makes them unlaw­ful if they have been abused so by the Papists. That is not their sin now; take away the abuse, and the things may still be imposed and put in practice.

Sect. 5. If this be not a sufficient proof or vindication of the Power and Authority of the Church abou ceremo­nies in general, and these two significant ones, the Sur­plice and sign of the Cross.

I shall presume to give you in my poor and weak obser­vations [Page 109]from the Scriptures of truth by way of furthe illu­stration. And I argue thus, That which is a Christian duty may lawfully be done without Superstition or Will-wor­ship, and may be subscribed as agreeable to Gods Word.

Now if Christians might not lawfully make use of terrene and common things to represent to their under­standings spiritual and heavenly truths, and to mind them of their duties, our blessed Saviour would never have repeesented himself to us by such things whereby his spi­ritual worth and usefulness might be the more evidently presented to our understandings. How often doth he by meat and drink, by a Vine, a door, and such like, affect our understanding with his usefulness and worth? Now that which Christ hath sanctifyed by his own example, is a sufficient warrant for us to observe and do.

Sect. 6. True it is, some things there are about Gods worship which are particularly forbidden in the second com­mandement, as to the making to our selves any graven Image, though to worship God by, or the second person in the glorious Trinity. But any meanes that God hath not forbidden whereby we may signifie our inward Worship of God, this is warrantable: We do not find our Saviour condemning the Publican for using that significant cere­mony of smiting upon his heart while he confest his sin. Though doubtless it might signifie how angry he was with his wicked heart from whence all evil springs, by smiting upon the place of its residence the breast; though I can find no command for this in the holy scripture.

And the like might be said of that against which Mr. Josias Nicholls so excepteth against as a Sacrament, that holy Ordinance of Marriage, because that it signifieth, as the Church expresseth it, the Mystical Ʋnion that is be­tween Christ and his Church. Surely we may make use even of this representation by Matrimony, to endeare our affections to Christ our spiritual Spouse, and yet not [Page 110]be guilty of Will-worship or superstition, because the A­postle Paul doth from this very argument presse husbands to love their wives, Eph. 5.15, 32. and therefore what we know of matrimonial love, may teach us to love Christ with a conjugal affection.

Sect. 7. And might we not lawfully use such common things in themselves to affect our understandings with spiritual things, the Spirit of God would never teach us by them. It is no superstition, calling to minde the affe­ction that we see in Mothers to their children, to streng­then our faith in the love of Christ to us. If this might not lawfully be done without superstition and Will-wor­ship, God himself would never teach us by such repre­sentations; saith he, can a Mother forget her child, &c. yet will I not forget thee. In like manner the considerati­on of the sign of the Cross, which is a representation of all that Christ suffered for us, to mind us of our duty of confessing of Christ, to which nothing can more engage us then the remembrance of what he endured for us upon the cross, when he despised the shame thereof for us, as the Apostle speaketh. To subscribe to the use thereof in Baptism is lawful.

Sect. 8. Now though it may be objected that there is a particular Ordinance, even that of the Supper, to remem­ber us of his death and sufferings upon the cross; and therefore the use of this sign of the cross, if it be not su­perstitious, yet it is superfluous.

It may be considered of, that besides an Ordinance ap­pointed of God for a general use, it is warrantable to make use of particular reembrances of Gods mercy and our duty, though we have no particular command for them.

Many instances of this might be given in the Church of the Jewes, who were most strictly tyed to particular circumstances in Gods Worship in matters of Religi­on; yet for to keep up particular remembrances of Gods [Page 111] mercy to them, and their duty to witness that they were Members of the true Church, to avoid contention in af­ter-ages, and such like ends referring to Religion; they have without any particular command from God institu­ted significant signs for the purposes aforesaid.

Sect. 9. Passing by many, I shall onely remember you of a very great remark, Josh. 22.9. The Children of Reu­ben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses, they build an Altar by Jordan, even a great Altar to see to, ver. 2. this the rest of the tribes of Israel took for a rebellion against God, and like to be a very great provocation, ver. 16, 17, 18, 19. beseeching them whatsoever they did, not to rebell against God or them, in building an Altar besides Gods Altar. Thus to do, I say, the rest of the Tribes did account to be a great sin, this was to set up Posts by Gods posts, &c.

Now observe, though what was done here was done without any particular command from God, nay, was seemingly contrary to it, for to build an Altar besides Gods Altar; yet if you consult the story, you will find that though they do not deny what their brethren apprehended about this significant sign, yet they did justifie their erect­ing or instituting it for a token or a witness to future gene­rations, that they were Members of the true Church, that they had a part in the Lord, ver. 27. it was upon a reli­gious account they did this; and yet it was no Altar for burnt offerings or sacrifices, this they did utterly disclaim ver. 29.

Sect. 10. I wish from my heart this Instance might be well considered of, and what was the effect of it in those dayes.

For though before the children of Reuben had declared their true grounds and reasons why they did set up this said token, sign or witness, the rest of the Tribes were re­solved to imbrue their hands in their brethrens blond, even [Page 112]for building this Altar, ver. 12. it had very near occasio­ned a civil War; but when they had understood their reason for so doing, and perceived they were not guilty of Idolatry, which they feared, ver. 16, 17. they were content with what the childen of Reuben spake, ver. 30.

Sect. 11. They might, as we do now in cases of this nature, have charg'd them with superstition, saying, Where is your warrant out of the Word for what you have done? you have set up posts by Gods posts, is this according to the pattern in the Mount? this is contrary to the precept you have so lately received, Deut. 12.32. you have made an addition to Gods Word, have you not the seals of the co­venant, Circumcision and the Passeover to remember you and your children, that you have a part in the Lord, and are his people; but must you go and make a significant ce­remony of your own invention, nay, which is worse, take Gods own Institution, his holy Altar, and design it for another purpose then he intended it?

This and much more might they have said, had they been of the temper and tenents that many good people are of in our dayes.

But Phineas said, ver. 31. This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, because that you have not done this trespass against the Lord. Behold here they clear them from sin, that they had transgressed no commandement of God. Nay, this holy man doth ingeniously confess, that had the children of Israel proceeded to have made war with their brethren upon the apprehension they had of Re­bellion and Idolatry, &c. that they had offended God, and had fallen into his hand who is a consuming fire: But saith he now, you have delivered the children of Israel out of the hand of the Lord.

And the people of Israel, when they were informed by Phineas and the Princes of these things, they were also of so yielding a temper, that the Text saith, that the re­port [Page 113]that Phineas made had these two excellent effects, ver. 33. They were very well pleased with what the Reu­benites had done, and they blessed God, who had kept them from committing of murther, upon a mis-apprehension that their brethren had committed Idolatry.

Sect. 12. I have been the larger in glossing or para­phrasing upon this practice, and all the material passages thereof.

Being perswaded that if God would but give to his people that are most zealous against Idolatry and supersti­tion, to be of the mind the children of Israel were of then, that they would without passion and prejudice hear the defence those make for themselves in commanding or doing things about Religion, and the modes of Worship and Di­scipline; which may seem to others to be Idolatrous, as the Altar at first did to the Israelites, and but charitably believe what the Church of England declares in their Apology, chap. 17. division 1. and also in their preface to the Common prayer concerning ceremonies in general, and of the Cross in particular in her Canons; it would hugely conduce to heal us by extinguishing our great heats and animosities, and by delivering us from scruple­ing our selves, and censuring others about the same: That so after all our unbrotherly and unchristian diffe­rences and discords about the modes onely of Worship, as Mr. Baxter saith, we may now serve the Lord with one shoulder, and with one mind and mouth glorifie God.

Sect. 13. In particular, did the most unsatisfied but be­lieve what hath been written in the defence of the sign of the Cross in Baptism by the Canons of the Church, or what I now write of it, that they do not by appointing or conforming to it set up an Altar by Gods Altar, or adde a Sacrament to a Sacrament thereby. It is but Ed, as the Reubenites called their significant sign; it is but a wit­ness, or a token as the Church teacheth, that persons bapti­sed [Page 114]may not be ashamed of Christ; a duty, as I said be­fore, of high concern.

They do not place any worship or holiness in this sign, as the Papists do; but that it may appear that they are not guilty of novelty, they do retain the signe of the cross amongst them, as being of great antiquity in the primi­tive Church, and used as a means to mind the Christian Converts then from Paganism, that they should not be ashamed to confess Christ, nor yet of his cross, which was foolishness to the Gentiles, as the Apostle speaketh.

Sect. 14. But now finding that Mr. Baxter in his Five Disp. after he hath granted that it is in the power of men to determine of such modes and circumstances, as are neces­sary to the performance of that Worship which God hath in­stituted in his Word; and therefore lawful governours may in such cases bind us by their commands, pag 400. Sect. 5. And thereby, I suppose, impose them.

Giving for instance, that it is left to human determinati­on concerning time, and the Utensils about Gods Worship, pag. 401. whether we shall preach in a Pulpit, and what shall be its shape? where we shall read, whether we shall bap­tize in a Font or Bason? and of what materials, whether of Stone or Pewter, whether we shall receive the Lords Supper at a Table or in our Seats? whether it shall stand in the East or West end of the Temple, or the middle, whether it shall have rayles or no rayles, &c. pag. 402. Sect. 9. and in pag. 405. having granted that God hath not tyed us to any one particular gesture; but that it is left to humane pru­dence to order our gesture by the general rules of order, de­cency and edification in preaching, praying, hearing, sing­ing, and whether the Ministers habit be black or white, linnen or wollen, or of what shape and fashion; this he saith is left to humane prudence, Sect. 21. pag. 405. and in 406. he that hath commanded us joyfully to sing his praises, hath not told us whether we shall use the Meeter or any [Page 115]melodious tune to help us, or whether we shall use or not use a Musical instrument, or the help of more artificial singers or choristers, &c. and in Sect. 23. the use of the Ring in Marriage. In all these cases it is no usurpation or addition to the word or institution of God for man to determine; it is but obeying of Gods commands, all these are necessary in their genus, and commanded us of God; and the species, no where by the Word of God determined of, &c.

Sect. 15. Yet in pag. 417. he saith, that of all our ceremonies there is none that I have more suspected to be simply unlawful, then the Crosse in Baptism. The rest as I have said, I should have submitted to, rather then hinder the Service or Peace of the Church, saying pag. 418. yet dare I not peremptorily say it is unlawful, nor will I make any disturbance in the Church about it more then my own forbearance, which I fear will not be a little, considering what is published against the same by these following reasons, pag. 418. Sect. 53. This is not, saith he, the mere circumstance of a duty, but a substantial humane Or­dinance of Worship, &c. There must be some time, some place, some gesture, some vesture some utensils; but you cannot say that there must be some teaching symbols, some mystical signs, &c.

Sect. 16. To which I shall crave leave to reply, That I can say so, because that I have read so much affirmed by your self, pag. 404. Five Disput. being as much, if I mistake not, as the Church of England doth declare. For there I find Sect. 18. Though the tongue be the chief in­strument, yet not the onely instrument to express the mind. And though words be the ordinary, yet not the onely signs, as the Prophets of old were wont by other signs, as well as words to prophesie to the people, Sect. 19. And therefore I durst not have reproved any of the ancient Christians that used the sign of the Cross meerly as a professing signal action, to shew to the Heathen and Jews about them that they believed in [Page 116]a crucifyed Christ, and were not ashamed of his Cross.

Sect. 17. Now I beseech the Christian Reader to consider whether the sign of the Cross so used was not a teaching symbol or a mystical sign. And therefore it seem­eth strange to me, that though this worthy person durst not reprove the ancient Christians for the use of the sign of the Cross, yet seemeth to reprove the Church of England upon the same account and no other, who do use it one­ly as a professing signal action; who also granteth signi­ficant signs warrantable, pag. 410. secondarily though not primary, speaking of the Surplice, Sect. 40. saying, he would use that garment if he could not be dispensed with. Though secondarily, the whitenesse be to signifie purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would I obey; for se­condarily, we may lawfully and piously make teaching signs of our food and rayment, and any thing that we see, (And if so, why not of the sign of the Crosse?)

Sect. 18. Now that the sign of the Crosse is instituted by the Church onely as a teaching sign, and that according to Mr. Baxters distinction secondarily and not primary, not as a humane sacrament as is said before, Sect. 54.

I argue, first, from the words quoted by Mr. Baxter in the Form of Celebration, pag. 421. We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross, in token that he shall not hereafter be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucifyed, &c.

Two things I desire may be observed from hence, and then it will appear to be no covenanting sign, as is said Sect. 60. pag. 420.

Sect. 19. First, the order of the use of this ceremony, it is after the child is baptized according to Christs own in­stitution, by water, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; after that the Infant is externally admitted into the covenant by the seal thereof, and thereby made a visible Church member; Then it followeth, We receive [Page 117]this child into the congregation of Christs flock, and do sign him with the sign of the Cross. But to what end, to be an instrument to convey grace? No, but for the very end that Mr. Baxter durst not reprove any of the ancient Christians that used this sign, viz. as a professing signal action that they should not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, &c. So that the secundary end of this ceremony or sign of the Cross being onely a teach­ing sign to remember us of a moral duty, as I have said before. The Sacrament of Baptisme it self being the pri­mary one, the investing, the listing and the covenanting sign. The sign of the Cross, as I said before, being onely a teaching sign of a duty of so much moment; that if we perform it not, Christ will be ashamed of us before his Father. Methinks this should encline all peaceable minds to encline to the use of this ceremony when commanded, it being only a sign and token to mind us of a moral duty.

Sect. 20. But secondly, that it is onely and no other then a teaching sign, I argue from what I find brought to endeavour to prove the contrary, pag. 419. Sect. 57. by those words prefixed before the Common prayer Book of ceremonies, where they say, That they be not dark and dumb ceremonies, but are so set forth that every man may understand what they do mean, and to what use they do serve; and that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some no­table and special signification whereby he might be edifyed. This ceremony therefore amongst the rest is declared to be but of that teaching significancy which is allowed in Five Disput. to the Surplice; and therefore being onely for the remembrance of so Christian a duty, being a means no where forbidden may lawfully be used. The Ring in Marriage, though acknowledged Five Disput. before quoted to be a symbolical sign and lawful to be used, pag. 406. yet I humbly conceive that it is appointed for [Page 118]to remember the party that weareth it of the covenant of her God which she hath entred into with her husband, at the publick celebration of Matrimony before many wit­nesses. The engaging covenanting act, in the solemni­zing of Matrimony lyeth in the Promise, the Ring a­mongst other uses, is to be a token for to remember the promise that was then made.

Sect. 21. Now that the sign of the Cross after Baptism is appointed for the same use (and is no Sacramentum in Sacramento, as I have I hope fully proved before) ap­peareth best by the Church, who declare it not onely in her Preface before the ceremomies, but also in several Ca­nons of the Church, to which I refer you.

If after all this it may be objected, that though this sign of the Cross have onely this signal professing signification, and so was lawful in the primitive times, when the Church lived amongst Jews and Gentiles; but now the reason for the continuance of the same holdethout, we live not now amongst Pagans, Heathens and Jews, as they did.

Sect. 22. I answer; It is true, but do not many Infi­dels and enemies to the cross of Christ live amongst us? I name them not, such as do still look upon our blessed Jesus as an Impostor, the Gospel as a fable, and Christs crucifixion as a just demerit for his seduction of the people.

And therefore judge, I pray you, whether there be not the same, if not better reason for the continuance in the Christian Church of this Ceremony of the sign of the Cross at the celebration of Baptism; which ordinance of Baptism is to us as circumcision was to the Jews.

Whether all be true in every circumstance concern­ing the sig of the Cross that appeared in Constantines time, with this Motto, In hoc vinces, By this thou shalt overcome, I determine not.

Sect. 23. But considering this sign of it as used in the [Page 119] Reformed Church of England, who can tell but that by an universal conformity to the use of it throughout His Majesty's dominions we may In hoc vincere, by this ve­ry significant sign overcome them into Christs fold? It is not irrational to think, but that the Jews observing how much we all from highest to lowest, glory in the representation of that opprobrious instrument of death which their Fore­fathers used, viz. The cross, so as that even at our Bap­tism, when we are listed among the number of Christs soul­diers, we are by that sign and token to remember, that we be never ashamed to own Christ before the Jews as well as the Gentiles. Did I say, they? But understand it aright: it might be a great means to make them ashamed of their obstinacy in which they continue to this day; they being a people led so much by signes and ceremonies, for although, if I mistake not, the manner how the Jewes shall be converted is obscurely laid down in the holy Scripture, yet if there be any truth in the opinion of the learned Mead about it, who from 1 Tim. 1.16. maketh the mystery of St. Pauls conversion to be a Type of the calling of the Jews, shewing that as Paul was converted by an extraordinary meanes, so pag. 27. The Jewes not to be converted to Christ by such means as were the rest of the Nations, by the Ministry of Preachers sent unto them; but by the Revelation of Christ Jesus in his glory from heaven, whose coming then shall be as a Lightning out of the East shining into the West, and the sign of the Son of Man shall appear in the clouds of heaven. Mat. 23.39. and 24. ver. 27, 30.

Sect. 24. I say, if there be any truth in this conjecture, who can tell but this simple conjecture, also referring to what is said before, may not be a Prodrome in this Kingdome, where it is supposed so many Jewes are and prepare for it?

But whether this be true or no, yet it is much to be feared, that the divisions which are amongst Christians [Page 120]about the modes of Worship is a great hinderance to their conversion. And therefore we should lay it to heart, and as much as in us lieth, to follow the things that make for peace, Rom. 14.

Sect. 25. Hoping therefore that what I have written in the sincerity and uprightness of my heart, may be useful to this end and purpose, and helpful also to take away those scruples and doubts hindering an universal subscription to the 39. Articles of Religion, the Book of common prayer, and all the rites and ceremonies; whose sinfulness, as is sup­posed, lieth in their Sacramentality, by Mr. Nicholls, the Author of the Discourse of Liturgies, and others.