LET every Soul be subject to the higher Powers, verse 1. saith this.

Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, saith another Apostle, 1 Pet. 2.13.

Here's a couple of Tory Bishops for ye! Base Sy­cophants and Court Flatterers, who for fear, or for hope, would go to fill a Princes head, with Ambiti­ous and Arbitrary Principles! Sneaking low Spirits, that would say any thing to save their Necks, and respit the Princes fury! Or poor Wretches peradven­ture, whose Lot placed them in such ill Circumstan­ces! How were they feign to Preach in compliance with the times, and talk according to the Infant-state of the Churches Minority! Surely had they liv'd in those more glorious times of Liberty that happened in this Inquisitive and Learned Age, they would have Preached at another Rate.

[Page 2]I believe they might; had they writ their Epistles with the same spirit, wherewith the Modern Catho­licks writ, that we reformed from; or the more Mo­dern Protestants, that have reformed from us.

But seriously, Sirs; these men Preached a great Truth, and meant it in the plain sence they spoke it, without any Equivocation about the Powers; or Re­servation as to the time and opportunity:

And this they did not to humor the times, but to inform our Consciences, and discharge their own.

Ev [...]n for Conscience sake, saith one: And for the Lords sake, saith the other. The case of Subjection and Obedience is so trite a Theme, not only in the worst sence, that grieves me old and slighted, but in a better sence, I fancy pinches them, viz. There has been said so much, and so well upon that Sub­ject by the Church of England men, that they ne­ver could, nor never will tell how to answer.

And if upon the former accompt, it be more need­full to be urged and inculcated: upon the latter I think it less, till it be better answered than by noise and force.

But I decline it for another reason, viz. the ineffe­ctiveness of this sort of menaging these men: who a­bound with the qualities of those good natured Chil­dren, that do more for a blow than a word.

A Generation that grow Obdurate by Convictions, Insolent by Kindness, and whom nothing but the Ex­ecution of the Penal Laws could ever keep within their duty. Indeed Lenity and Kindness are the best expedients, where they will obtain: but not with such Cattle the Psalmist speaks of in Psalm 59. that are always barking at their Superiors, and grudging they are not satisfied.

[Page 3]This is no doubt most agreeable to the Prince, for besides, that a man must sink below humane Na­ture, that can delight in oppression and blood; and must be a Devil that makes Innocence and Obedience the Ground on't. It makes his Government the more secure and easie, by freeing at once them of their hatred, and him of his fear. I! if it meet with Loyalty and Obedience in the governed, 'tis a most happy Conjunction. But to forgive men that have Rebelled once, and to stand still, and let them do it a second time, is an odd way of securing the Govern­ment in the opinion of all that love it.

I would be glad the experience of these mens for­mer Errours, had made them change their Principles; and that we might have but a just occasion to com­mend the Modesty and Ingenuity of the men of that way.

That their whole Character in the Sermon were a lye and the design of it needless. That they would post merit the former act by their Repentance and by their amendment stand in no need of another.

This, This, is the method the Apostle does pre­scribe to divert the Princes Anger, verse 3. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power, do that which is Good.

The way to avoid the severity of their displeasure, is to live in obedience to their Laws. And thou shalt have praise of the same. The end of that verse.

And those whom the Conscience of Religion and the Love of their Prince, cannot make so, Fear and the Penal Sanctions of the Law must be tryed with, verse 4. If thou do that which is evil be afraid.

[Page 4]And as 'tis their fault, they don't do their duty; so 'tis the Princes, if he does not punish them in neg­lecting Gods Trust and his own Right; for he beareth not the Sword in vain. Two things I have propounded to discourse to you from the words I have chosen.

1 The Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate; particularly in reference to the punishing of Offenders; 2 and, His Duty and Office, in the Regular discharge of that Trust, and due Improvement of that Power.

Without the former, all Government would be no­thing but Violence and Ʋsurpation; and without the latter, Vain and Ridiculous.

• 1 The Rise and Origine.
• 2 The Expedience and Necessity. And
• 3 The Extent and Latitude of this Power.

1 In the first Place therefore, as to its Rise and Origine; for as in Science, that is the best way of Demon­strating the Effects by the Cause; or, as in Nature all the perfections of a Plant are contained in its Seminal Principles, in like manner, if we can but discover and fix upon the first cause of the Magistrates Power, we shall be easie able to trace it down to all the branches.

Settle but this Foundation, and we need not fear all that stately Structure will remain secure against the Assaults and Batteries of the Plebeians, and Hob­bists; both of which proceed upon one and the same Anarchical Principle, making the People the Fountain of all Power.

‘In contradiction to both, I do assert, That all Do­minion and Sovereignty is Original in God: to whom our Subjection is the Result of our Being; and from which it does immediately, and insepa­rably [Page 5] arise: which cannot be said of any earthly Po­tentate whatsoever; to whom notwithstanding their respective Subjects owe a Natural & Inviolable Alle­giance; Yet it is not the Immediate Consequence of our Being, which were to assign them a Supremacy equal to Heaven, and Independing upon God himself.’

All Pretentions therefore of Superiority and Dominion must plead their derivation from him: or else they mani­fectly intrude upon his Prerogative, and Usurp his Throne; And this is plainly asserted in the first verse of this Chapter, every power, saith the Apostle, i. e. which is rightly ordained and Constituted (for that's the diffe­rence between [...], and [...].) is of God nor is it in­validated by St. Peter calling it [...] a hu­mane Ordinance so called, either to denote the Laws 1 and Ordinances by them made: or to determine it 2 expresly and particularly to the heathen Magistrate, as Dr. Hammond has noted upon the Eighth Chapter to the Romans. Or else it belongs only to the particular 3 form of Administration of Government, which no body Contends for their Divine Right. Though the Mo­narchical bid thus far towards it, to the intimation of Nature, and Example of God. Nor is this any Dimi­nution of the Magistrates Authority to make it thus deri­vative, but rather its security. For by this reason, no soo­ner shall God intimate, and discover such delegation of any part of his Power and Sovereignty over us, to them▪ but we become Subject upon the account of Re­ligion, i. e. All our Obedience to the Civil Magistrate is a part of our duty, and but a mediate Expression of our Homage and Allegiance to God himself. Now the wayes by which God is pleased to signifie this delegati­on of his Power are either by the Light of Nature, as 1 that Children should Obey their Parents: or by Revela­tion, 2 [Page 6] as in the Founding of the Kingdomes of Israel and 3 Judah: or by his Ordinary Providence, in directing the Civil Administrations of the World. ‘For now know I, and am as determinable hereby that I ought to obey this person who is thus Regularly Constituted accor­ding to the Municipal Laws of this Land; as if he were miraculously advanced thereto, or immediately reveal'd to be so. Which account of Government is the most Sacred and Inviolable that can be.’

If you please now, let us Examine the other Hypo­thesis, according to Mr. Hobs's Principle.

1 And First, What ground has he to lay that wild, and extravagant supposition of his state of Nature; to avoid which inconveniency Men entred into Society and Government? Admitting God had made a very great number of persons, at first, this might have given some Colour to such a fancy: But we are assur'd the Creation was begun in a single person, and afterwards to be pro­pagated in such a way, that all Men in the World, must necessarily be born in some subjection antecedent to their consent and choice.

Besides, what unworthy Conceptions must we have of the divine Goodness, in making it the Author of such a Nature by which every Man was endued with such Rights and Principles, to mischief and hurt every bo­dy else:

2 This State Heresie makes Princes very unsecure; For besides the debasing their Authority, for they're indebted to their Subjects for their Power, and beholding to them for their Crownes; it does also leave their Subjects (and that's the use they make of this Doctrine) aright of Recovering their Liberty when they are able, and Rebelling when ever they can have a fit opportunity.

For it Self Love and Preservation, be the ground and [Page 7] measure of my parting with my Liberty, then when these require, or no longer bind, my Compact's void, and my Grant retracted. 'Tis true, the due stateing of selfe Love and Preservation would somewhat mend the matter.

For I doubt not to say that so understood, it may be as good a Rule and Measure of my Actions as any whatever: but if we extend it no farther than Life and Members, Princes have a very ill bargain on't, for their Subjects may Lawfully Rebel when they can.

And for this Cause his writings deserve to be burnt by the hand of the Common-hangman: for if his Leviathan can but make men Atheists, his Principles of Government, will justifie and authorize if not make 'em Rebels. Rebellion! there can be no such thing, there may be want of Success, which men may be hang'd for, like Lacedemonian Theft! No! but if he prove a Tyrant, and by Mal-administration forfeit the trust we repos'd in him, this may alter the case. It may! In whose Opinion? in the Opinion of Mariana or Knox, Hobbs, or Bradshaw: i. e. In the Judgment of Papists, Sectaries, Atheists, and Re­bells; and then also they must judge of the Fact too: (and we know what Justice to expect from such, as Judge of Law and Fact both) will you believe your Eyes instead of other Arguments? look back but to Forty eight, and you see the best King in the World Murthered by this very Engine.

Whereas the accompt I gave of it, and which is agree­able to Scripture, and the Church of England, viz. that all obedience is due to God, a part whereof, God has required us to pay unto them in his name: So that our obedience is not properly unto them but unto God; as it does ad­vance their Authoriey next to his, so it renders it as sa­cred, as that to himself, and this is what we are taught in the Collect after the Decalogue, where we are told that [Page 8] the King is Gods Minister, and has his Authority (the other makes him the Peoples Tool) and that therefore we ought to obey him in God, and for God.

By which means they are so secured, though not in an unlimited Obedience, (which is another Malmsbury Chimoera) yet from any manner of Resistance, that 'tis impossible there should be a Rebellion, while the Prin­ciples of the Church of England are Rever'd and Owned:

2 Let us in the second place consider the Reason and Expediency of the thing, that there should be such a Power and Government. There is a plain and Abso­lute necessity of it, without which, there would soon follow, what he has falsly made Precedent to Govern­ment. A state of nature, or Ʋniversal Hostility by which he understands an Original Right innate to us, whereby we were inclined and authorized, to do as much Mischief and Villany as we can.

If we would fancy a state of Nature preceding to Government, we ought with more reason to suppose some Golden Age, wherein all men lived peaceably one with another, without doing wrong or injury to each other.

If such a state had been, there would have been no need of Government as to the use of the Sword.

For order there must have been, and some kind of Superiority and Subordination. But now in this state of Corruption, wherein men not by any Natural Right, as he hath falsly imagined, but by a vicious and inordi­nate Licentiousness are become so prone, and apt to do all those violences, to which an unbridled Lust would lead them if there were no power antecedaneous to this state (which must necessarily accuse Providence, and destroy the essential difference between Good and Emil) it would undeniably follow; that men would be [Page 9] necessitated to enter into Societies to secure and pre­serve themselves. But for which Atheists and Villains would live under the obedience of no other Laws and Rules but their own Wills and Lusts: and the effects of want of Government would light most severe upon Good and Vertuous Persons. For if I am tyed up by the aw of an invisible Power from doing wrong to any body, and every one that lists may do me what wrong they please, which would be the case of every good man, in respect of every evil man, under such an Universal Anarchy; I say my condition must needs be very mi­serable; for which reason, it no less concerns wicked men also in respect of themselves to be secur'd from each other.

And this is one special Instance of Providence, whereby it Rules the Beasts of the People (as one Tran­slation of the Psalms calls them) such, that is, as are not awed, by the sence of an invisible Power, that re­gard no inward Ties and Obligations of Conscience, but are acted and swayed like Bruits by the impressions of sensual Objects: but the strongest Hold that Govern­ment has of us, is by those secret and invisible tyes, by which it bounds upon our Consciences; for when all the other Respects and Conveniencies of Govern­ment fail, this cannot.

It may be my advantage, and I may have an op­portunity to Rebel; what should hinder me? The Pub­lick Good! That's no Rule of my Practice, for in that respect, what he said of any Peace, we may say of any Government, be it the most Tyrannical upon the Earth, it is a far less evil than Anarchy. ‘ But now take in the sence of my Duty and Obedience to God, that will do it effectually: If I make Conscience of being subject as I ought, from which no circum­stances [Page 10] of our Condition, or any accidents or occurren­ces whatsoever can dissolve us so far as to resist, i. e. un­less, (which we are assured he never will) God himself should revoke his Grant, and alter the Princes Patent.’

3 There remains one thing more for the establishing of the Civill Magistrates authority, and that is to consider the Extent and Latitude of this power where­with God hath Invested them. Bishop Taylor's Ductor Dubitant lib. 3. ch. 3. Rule 1. And we must distin­guish between Potestas Imperantis licita and legitima, what a Prince may Lawfully, i. e. Warrantably do, and what he may do Legitimately, i. e. Ʋnaccomptably to any but Almighty God. In the Conjunction of both these consists the whole of their Supremacy.

In the stateing whereof, my Design is not to set bounds and limits to the Exercise, and Administration of their Power, but to remove those restrictions and encroachments the Enemies of the King and the Church have made upon it. The Church of England, gives unto all Sovereign Princes the Supremacy, in their respective Dominions, as well over Spiritual, as Temporal Persons; and in Sacred as well as Civil Causes: which we ac­count, not as an Act of Grace, or any base flattering of Authority, or fawning upon the Crown; but 'tis the expression of a just Debt, and a bare Recognition of what is their undoubted Right, giving them neither more nor less than what they always did enjoy, except where the Popish Ʋsurpation, or the Presbyterian Reformation have invaded it.

But most fierce Opposition hath this Doctrine met with, from the Bigots of both those Parties the Guelphes and the Gibellines, from Rome, and from Scotland; from St. Peter and St. Andrew, the Papist and the Presbyteri­an; who have hardly left any branch of their Suprema­cy unassaulted and unquestioned, but either by Rebellious [Page 11] and Traiterous practices, or by Monstrous and Damna­ble Positions, have endeavoured to rend it from the Crown.

It has not scap'd quite in temporals, For how is he Su­pream if he be Minor Ʋniversis, if he may be resisted in the Tyrannical and Exorbitant use of his Power, if he may be Depos'd, Murdered? which we may reckon under the Apostles [...] strange and monstrous Doctrines, 13 Heb. 9. 1 Tim. 4.1. or rather under his [...], Doctrines of Devils. Though I know the Learned Mede has another Notion of that place.

But especially they quarrel about the Potestas licita in Ecclesiasticis; which the Romish Party and their Ad­herents will by no means endure, either in reference to Persons, or Things, but subject them to their De­crees and Ecclesiastical Constitutions: nay, they are not only bound to a Personal, but to a kind of Politick O­bedience, i. e. To enjoyn Obedience thereto from their Subjects, and punish such as refuse, or else they must be Excommunicated, and their Subjects absolv'd.

Concerning which, I shall only say (in the Words of a very Reverend Prelate) Kings and Princes are ty'd to obey the Laws of the Church, by Religion, but not by Power or Church-Censures; and that is only in things which concern their essential Duty, and not in the contingent External and Political Concerns of Religi­on, which their Assent alone can pass into a Law.

So likewise for the Presbyterians; for they are like Samson's Foxes, their Faces are contrary to each other, but they are ty'd fast together in the same mischeivous Design, of putting the Church and Kingdom into Com­bustion and a Flame.

Nor is it possible to find any Difference between [Page 12] them herein, but Pope for Synod, and Synod for Pope; They take upon them to appoint Fasts, indict Synods, decree Constitutions, without and against Royal Assent; and what they do of this kind, he shall be concluded under too, as well in his Politick, as Personal Capa­city.

For that's the Meaning of his being Custos utriusque Tabulae, he must see that all his Subjects, in their several Orders obey and conform to their Injunctions; and if he do's not, he must be Admonished, Excom­municated, Depos'd.

The thing is too Notorious to Instance in passages of this kind in the many Writers of either side.

‘Betwixt both these, I fancy Monarchy, like St. Peter, 12 Acts 6. lying bound between two Soul­diers, ready to be executed; and were it not that the Constant and Steady Loyalty of the Church of En­land-Men (like the Guardian-Angel there mention­ed) did from time to time rescue and preserve it, you would soon see Monarchy in its Grave: And therefore I admire at their Wisdom that could tell a Reason why the Prosecutors of one Side, should be the Saviours and Deliverers of our Nation, and those of the other the Grievance.’

‘If Rebellious Principles and Practices be the ground of their Zeal, and the reason of their prosecuting men; wherein do's the adding of Presbyterian qua­lifie either; unless Number and Interest make an Ene­my less dangerous?’ I confess these things are a My­stery to me, unless the Reason be contained in the Py­rates Answer to Alexander. But to return from whence we have digress'd, namely, the Kings Supremacy in Matters Spiritual. I would only subjoyn instead of laying down and answering the Exceptions against it, [Page 13] this one, I think Conclusive Argument; You know the End of Government; it is the Publick Weal, and external Happiness of the City, and therefore it must be invested with a Power and Means sufficient to that Purpose; or else he will never be able to prosecute his own Duty and their Good.

And this I do affirm cannot otherwise be done, than by establishing its Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals; allow­ing it to have a Legislative and Coercive Power in the Things of Religion: And the Reason hereof is this; Because an unbounded Liberty in Conscience and Re­ligion, would unavoidably end, in a wild and dange­rous Rebellion; whereby the Government is dissolv'd, and the Publick Peace overthrown, which is the greatest Evil that can befal the City; so that I do not only think the Magistrate may make Laws con­cerning the Exercise of Religion, and punish such as break them; but there is a Necessity hereof, to pre­vent Anarchy and Confusion.

For Separations and Divisions in the Church (which is the Design, as well as the Effects of a Toleration) are as sure to be succeeded as Day by Night, with Distractions, Commotions, and Wars in the State. And this was constantly urged by the Assembly-men to the late House of Commons: And look, by how much stronger the Influence is, that these things have up­on mens Lives and Actions, by so much is the dan­ger abundantly greater, after once men are grown to this impatiency of Legal Restraints; for it makes men apt and bold to rebel, the most desperate and pernicious one having commenced, from the specious pretexts of Conscience and Religion. You remember it was but crying it up for God's Cause, and the Lord's Work; and when the Ecclesiastick Drum beat thus, [Page 14] how did the Saints flock into Christ's Banner, and list themselves Volunteers for this Civil and Holy War?

So dangerous and unsafe it is to tolerate these Per­sons in a Commonwealth, that turns mens Consciences (which else are its best Security) upon the Govern­ment; for humane Sanctions will avail but little, where men are hurried on by the Fury of an Impe­tuous Zeal.

2 To see the men of this Kidney so Religiously break the Second Table, in Obedience to the First; Serve God with Blood and Rapine, Schism, Faction and Sedition; and as if they had a design to requite, and outvie our Saviour in his Sufferings, descend into Hell for Christ's sake.

In short, you leave a Prince but one Expedient more after this is gone, to preserve himself, and Go­vernment, and that is a Standing Army, so that the King shall be necessitated to substitute an Arbitrary and Tyrannical Power in the Room of a Just and Law­ful one.

And this is de facto Confirmed by all the Govern­ments in the World, where the practice of Diversity of Religions is allowed; and it holds as true of the Netherlands as of Constantinople: Besides, the bare Supposition hereof takes away all Conscience and Re­ligion from a Christian Monarch: Which was, what the old King so tenaciously insisted upon. For if I think those Opinions and Ways wherein they desire their Liberty, unsafe, or destructive to mens Souls, where's my own Religion if I consent to it? And he that thinks his own Religion the right is an Atheist in Practice, if he does not heartily wish, and as far as he may Lawfully, endeavour to bring every body else to it. And this is to me an undeniable Argument [Page 15] in Religion on the Princes side, as the other was in Policy.

You have seen what Power of Right they have; our next Enquiry is, how they ought to exercise this Trust. This wall make up the [...] of my Dis­course. The Text says, a Sword they have, and they are not to bear it in vain. Now that is said to be in vain, which do's not attain its End: The End of Go­vernment, you have heard, is to procure the exter­nal Peace and Happiness of the Weal Publick, where­to the Magistrates are but so many [...], Ministers Servants; but then as the Sacred Function are impro­perly called Ministers by the People, whose Rulers these are, but [...], so, and much more are Princes [...], but their Power is said to be [...], and [...], and [...], and [...] which are the several Expressions of Scripture relating thereunto. So that if they abuse this Power, by Exorbitancy, 'tis their own, and God's that they abuse, to whom a­lone, as I said, they are accomptable: For who of their Subjects may say unto them, What dost thou? as Solomon says. Or against whom do they sin? as Da­vid said; who both did certainly understand as well as any, the Just Proportions of Liberty and Preroga­gative.

But 'tis an extream of another nature, that my Text does admonish them of, their being too Laxe and Re­miss in the exercise of their Coercive Power, whereby the good and the vertuous, that is the Loyal and Obedient, are expos'd to the Arbitrary Violences and Oppressions of the Factious and the Turbulent. Which is somewhat worse than suffering under the Tyranny of a Lawful Power, because that has always some right in what it does.

[Page 16]Another thing, which is a worse inconvenience than that, is, it exposes the Government it self, to the In­solencies and Affronts of such as are bold and impu­dent, in their disobedience; For there is nothing more certain, in Experience, than that Impunity gives war­ranty and incouragement to sin: So that if Authority grow a little tame and easie, if they suffer the Sword to Rust in the Scabbard, and the edge of it to grow Blunt for want of Vigor and Zeal, you'l see men quick­ly grow up from disobeying the Laws, to contemn the Authority that made 'em, and the very next remove's [check-mate] open Rebellion.

Especially this duty of putting the Laws in Execu­tion, belongs to all subordinate Magistrates, according to the proportions of Trust and Power they share un­der the Government. Who besides the Obligations of the Prince, are bound to it by the additional Chara­cters of Trust, Law and Religion, i. e. their Commission the Laws of the Land, and their Oath, and in some, (particularly the Act against Conventicles) by Penal Provissions.

Let us extend this Lenity of ours a little farther, and see what mischievous effects would attend it. Let Villains alone to break your Houses, ravish your Wives, cut your Throats: Throw off all restraints of Goals and Fetters, and bonds of Peace and Behaviour, and see how it will reform mens Manners. Lay by the Mace and the Gown, the little Pagentries of your honour. For­bear to Fine and Amerce Men for neglecting your Courts, and mark with what Veneration and Atten­dance, you will be Observed?

To Improve this to our Purpose, What's the near? as to the higher ends of Government, to burn a Fellow in the Hand for sttealing of a Sheep, or a Calfe? Or [Page 17] Truss up a poor Wretch for Committing of Burglary, to the great damage of wakeing the Child, and loosing a Chese? There are enormities of another kind, but more dangerous issue then these, which are very much in your power to redress; In curbing such as go about to Debauch the Minds of His Majesties good Subjects with Atheism, and Faction; thereby robbing him of his great­est Treasure, and best security of his Government, and our Peace, their Affections and Consciences: Such as Preach Seditiously, and can't tell how to pray for the King without Libelling of him.

Such as dare not only Disobey, but Confront Laws; who not only act contrary to the Government, but en­deavour to Subvert it. Who not only break their Su­periours Injunctions, but as our Saviour says of the Pha­risees (whose Successors they are in mischief and hypocrisie) teach others to do so too.

And for this reason, I think they ought to be punish'd, and punish'd worse too. Let me adde then Common Drunkards, Open Whoremasters, and Prophane Swearers, (I make no Apology for them,) because as my Lord Verulam has well Observ'd (and he was no great friend to the Churches Exaltation) as in the body Natural we dread a Wound that makes a Solutio Continui, worse than Botches and Ulcers that are more painful and offensive, so in the Parallel, these Mens Principles lead to Schism and Rebellion (and we have pretty well known their Practises,) which are the Solutio Continui in Church and State; whereas the other are indeed, against the Dignity of the Crown, and Honour of Religion, and do by a long Consequence weaken, and by degrees dis­pose both Church and State to Ruine: but not like Drums and Trumpets. If it were only for their peevish stubbornness, they deserve Punishment perhaps more [Page 18] than worse Offenders in another kind: because the Laws do not so much Consider the Nature of an Offence in it self, as its evil tendency to the Publick; which because it is more, and more often indangered by persons under that Guise, than any other; they therefore ought to proceed more severely against them, than Offences in the estimation of Religion, of a far more hainous Nature. And for the Mobile's being scandaliz'd hereat, concludes no more with me, but that their Ignorance, does not comprehend the Wisdom of our Laws.

And if what has been said, seem to warp too much one way, 'tis not because I think better or worse of Phanaticism, or Popery; though to give the Devil his due, we can't Charge them with such another Instance, as the Late Kings Death; which we could never have been quit with them for, had not Oates in his Evidence made them a party in it.

The truth is, they are as bad or worse, but their Num­bers and Advantages are not so great, and the danger on this side was so Imminent, that the very fear of the other had almost undone us. And the Word Popery was like to have done us, (as it had done formerly) as great or greater mischief, then we could suffer by the thing.

And yet we think our selves as good Protestants as them that speak so little in so much against Popery, i. e. If by Protestant, we understand the Religion of the Church of England, as it is by Law Established; and not meerly an Anti-religion form'd in Contradiction to another. If they mean such a Protestant; I am none, nor ever will be.

And 'tis the thing Popery I am angry with; whether I meet with it in Mariana, or Buchanan, Bellarmine or Knox. Of the two, 'twas more Creditable, to disown the debt upon their death, then to justifie the Rebellion as [Page 19] Kid, and King did; and the rest of them have since done upon the Gallows. One thing (me thinks) looks intolerable from this sort of men; they have not only the impudence to deny all this, and some the folly to believe them innocent: but they set up for the Patriots of our Liberty, and the King's best Friends, and the great Bulwarks against Popery: All true alike.

As to our Liberties, If they mean the quiet enjoyment of those Rights and Properties the Kings of England have given to us by their Bounty, and confirmed by their Laws; when were they invaded, when were they in Jeopardy but from them?

If they mean the putting us into a capacity of doing what we list, and disobeying those Laws we do not like, and disturb­ing the King's Peace; it concerns His Majesty, and those about him, to look to that. We well remember what fast Friends they were to the Old King: for which I shall never be reconciled to them, till they blush and repent.

But they atton'd for that, by bringing in this.

I believe their Spleen against the Independent Party did contri­bute towards it.

But, if they had been the only Instruments of his Restoration, and had done it too upon the most Loyal and Generous Prin­ciples (neither of which is true) must that attone for all their Treasons past, present and to come?

I, for my part, think them such Back Friends to the King, and to Monarchy, that I do not think either, safe, till they are dis­arm'd, if not suppressed.

And as for Popery, Alas, They keep it out! did ever any of them say or write any thing against it, The Church of Rome thought fit to answer.

They wound the Pope! they never levell'd their Arrows higher than the Church of England.

I'll give you an Instance equivalent to a Demonstration. When they had the Power in their own hands, what new Laws or Provisions did they then make against Papists? what Severities did they then execute upon them?

Their Zeal and Malice extended as far as to tear the Surplice, rend the Prayer-Book, break the Communion-Rails, prophane the Altar, hang the King's Party, and famish sequester'd and outed Ministers; but went no farther.

If I might guess, the Heads of that Party are not governed by Conscience and Religion, but by Covetousness and Ambition to [Page 20] rule. Now what Booty will Popery afford them? I believe all the Lands they have discovered yet, will scarce pay one of the Prosecutors Debts; But the Crown and Church-Lands would make a world of New Squires and Lords.

I would not be thought to speak this, to abate any bodies Zeal against Popery: Let Justice have its Course in the name of God; but then let it be equally and impartially distributed? If men Will be plotting against the King's Life, and the Fun­damental Establishments of the Government, I value not what Religion they be of.

I can easily foresee a great many well meaning People will account all this as spoken against Godliness, and good Men: I don't much matter it, for I may serve them more effectually by their dislike; because I know 'tis the easiest matter in the earth, to wheadle the Multitude, especially in Religion; whom I therefore look upon as the most Incompetent Judges of their own Good, and had need be governed by those who have bet­ter Eyes and Judgments than themselves, to distinguish between Truths and Colours, the Necessities and Essentials of Govern­ment, from the Popular Noyse of Liberty and Right.

I forbear to urge you any farther: Let me intreat you to to be Zealous herein, by all that is Sacred and Inviolable; by the Duty you owe to Almighty God, and to Religion, not to suf­fer Prophaneness, Superstition, Faction, to get any farther foot­ing, to the reproach of Christianity, and hazard of Mens Souls.

By your Faith and Allegiance to his Majesty, whose Honour and Safety is undermin'd hereby.

By your Love and Affections to your Mother the Church, whom in Kindness and Gratitude, for maintaining and assert­ing your Authority, you ought to defend from the Furies and Insolencies of her Enemies.

And last of all, by the Remembrance of all those horrid Im­pieties and Villanies, Impunity and Connivance in Matters of that nature, was the undoubted Cause of.

From the like whereof being ever involv'd under again, The Good Lord of his mercy deliver us; and grant that our Factions and Divisions never procure and effect those Calamitous Judg­ments in the midst of us, which our Impieties and other Pro­phanations have but too justly deserved.

Amen, Good Lord grant it for Jesus sake; to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory and Honour, Amen.

LEt me do it this once though it be not usual, acquaint you to rights, with the design of the following Discourse: And 'tis this.

Though God Almighty do's expect the purity of our Mind, and devotion of our Hearts, in the Offices of Religion; yet is he extremely pleas'd that it be attended with and express'd by out­ward Splendor and Decency.

A seeming odd and bold collection from a dark and antiquated Text of Scripture.

But your wonder and amazement will be soon over, when you shall understand—

1. That this is the Genuine purport of the expres­sions in my Text: And—

2. That it continues to oblige us now, under the Evangelick administration.

[Page 20]1. Then I do affirm that this is no forc'd Com­ment; there needs no violence nor rack to be put to my Text to extort this sense; but 'tis the plain meaning of the words, which will appear as plain, if we but compare this with two other Texts of Scri­pture; the one part of the Proposition from the one, and the other from the other. Our Saviours discourse with St. Peter, in the 13th. Chapter of St. John's Gospel, the 6th. and 10th. Verses, inclusive, about washing his feet, i. e. purging his affections, does sufficiently clear that part, viz. inward purity to be compriz'd in the words, and is a farther proof of the necessity of it. And

The other part, viz. of outward Reverence is as clear from the words of God to Moses in the 3d. Ch. of Exodus, 5th. Verse, commanding him to put off his Shooes from off his feet, by reason of the holiness of the place; because of Gods special presence. A Rite and Ceremony famous enough, both as to use and signification, among the Oriental Nations.

Now if we would expound this in the Analogy, what putting off the Shoes was to them, a thing al­together unpractis'd with us; the same is uncovering of the Head with us; a thing with them abomina­ble. And if we explain this by a Synecdoche speciei, comprizing the whole kind, under one instance; this must be the necessary result of the expressions in my Text, that we should use all possible Reverence and Decency, when we are about the Service of God; not excluding the other, which yet is but the Symbo­lick and Mystical signification.

2. But how in the second place if we are not under the Obligation of this Precept?

[Page 21]That I am next to shew you how far we are, or are not.

In applying all the peculiar cases of the Jewish Church in the Old Testament, we observe this Rule.

We do not urge them in the Letter, and prime in­tention; but only in the equity and analogy thereof: whatsoever, i. e, is of moral use in them belongs to us. And this I justifie from two Instances; the first is that of St. Paul, in the 1st. of Corinth. 9th. Chap. 13, 14. Verses, where he infers the mainte­nance of our Clergy from theirs; as he had done be­fore at the 9th. Verse, from a precept more remote than that, viz. the not muzling the Ox.

The other Instance, (and which is very proper to our present design) is that of our Saviour in the 21st. of St. Matthew, 12, 13, Verses, where, having driv'n those that bought and sold in the Temple out of it. (Suffer me to observe (by the by) that this was the only case in which we read, he exercis'd a Jurisdiction of this kind, and in this he did it twice.

Once at the coming in to his Ministerial Office, John 2.15. and here at the going out; both for the sacrilegious prophanation of the place of Gods Worship.)

To vindicate himself he refers them to the words of God by the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 56. Verse 7. which words as they are applied by our Saviour, be­long not to the Jewish Temple, but to the Gentil Oratory, or else they would not make at all to our, or his purpose. And because the stress of the Argu­ment lies there, let me make that out clear to you.

You must know that the furious zeal of the Jews was so great, that they would not suffer an Ʋncir­cumcised person to enter into the Temple: Than [Page 22] which, nothing can be more evident from St. Paul's case, Acts 21.28.

And Josephus tells us, they would not suffer Agrippa's Palace to look into it, for fear of prophaning it.

Understand it therefore of that part of the Tem­ple which was called the Court of the Gentils, where the [...] or Proselytes of the gate worshiped.

And this our Saviour would not suffer to be pro­phan'd by common usages, no not under a Religious pretence: the design being only to furnish people with those necessary provisions which the Law en­joyn'd, and which many (by reason of their distant habitations) could not bring with them.

From both which Instances, we collect our general proposition, viz, that we are so far under the obligati­on of the Jewish precepts, as they are capable of moral improvement; and from the latter, we gain thus much of our particular assertion; that God ab­hors all indecencies and prophanations of his Worship. And I doubt not, by that time we have considered what other proofs I have to confirm it by, it will ap­pear that this injunction of Reverence farther than the particular right or manner of expressing it, was none of the strict ceremonial or appropriate Laws of that Religion. But,

1. Begin we with the former part, viz. the neces­sity of inward purity, and the spirituality of Divine Worship. I know none so vain as to affirm in direct terms, that corporal Worship, and the outward so­lemnities of Religion alone are grateful to God; per­haps that which makes them to be so at all, is, their being conducible hereunto, or significative hereof. [Page 23] But without this, all outward splendor otherwise very acceptable to God) is but a kind of Religious Pageantry, and a more solemn and notorious mock­ing of Almighty God, and is extremely [...] to his Divine Majesty; as you find [...] protesting, especially under the [...] Testament when their more early zeal was apt to spire [...] those verd but fruitless expressions of Religion like the Fig-tree by which they are emblemated in the Gospel, Mat. 21, 19. Our Saviour in answering that important question about the manner of Divine Wor­ship, in the 4th. Chap. of St. John, 24. Verse. does not exclude corporal Worship: he mentions only spiritual, because that Worship which has this pro­perty may be accepted without the other; but never the other without this.

He does not condemn, or dislike any external splendor and decency in the expressions of our Reli­gious Worship (as we shall afterwards prove) unless it be separated and divided from the other; and if we our selves make the separation, neither is acce­ptable;

For as that without this is always hypocrisie, so this without that (where there is opportunity) is a down­right prophanation.

Moralists say, that a defect in any considerable circumstance, marrs an action otherwise good; how much more when it labours under a deficiency, in any of the prime parts; that which we may call the life and soul of Religion, since the Apostle has justi­fied the allusion, Rom. 12.1.

The conjunction of Soul and Body make us what we are; and the joynt expression of the various [Page 24] powers of both these, make up that living Sacrifice there spoken of.

But now if the mind be not fill'd with Reverence, Devotion and Obedience, our corporeal worship, is but like the cutting off a Dogs head, or the exposing of Carrion in a Sacrifice; without this sincerity of mind, all our out-side performances, altho in those instances of Religion, that are immediately and di­rectly enjoyned by God, are

• 1. Irrational and absurd. And
• 2. Dangerous and provoking. First,

'Tis irrational and absurd, altogether incongruous both to Gods nature and our own.

Nothing I think can be more repugning to God Al­mighty, than such an equivocal Religion; certainly he could never appoint, nor can he ever be pleas'd, with a service so unsuitable to his being: We sink him as low as the vilest notion of the Heathen Dai­mons, to think him recreated with the smell of In­cense, or nourished by the vapours of a Sacrifice. God (says our Saviour) is a Spirit, and for that rea­son is delighted with spiritual Worship: So that there cannot be a greater contradiction to his nature and worship, than this out-side obedience. For what mean we by Religious Worship but the acknowledging of the Divine Excellency, and the profession of our Obedience to him. And is not this to accuse him of Weakness, Ignorance and Injustice, to tolerate such contempt, mockery and derision? So that if in one re­spect, this be to worship God, as it is to others a seem­ing profession of our subjection to, and dependence upon him; yet is it on another, and much greater accompt, the highest violation of his Worship, be­cause [Page 25] men do really and effectively deny, what they do only overtly and superficially acknowledg and profess.

Besides it would be very absurd, and irrational in respect of our selves. That God Almighty ought to be worship'd in the best way and manner that we can, no body that owns any Religion and his senses will offer to deny.

Now if for that reason, God require, and we offer the external manifestations of our inward fear, and love, by certain corporeal and symbolical expressions; that the Holocaust might be perfect and entire; and that no part of us might be wanting in the acknow­ledgment of his bounty in our being; Certes that, of our mind may least be omitted, without which our services were no better than the chattering of Mag­pies, or howling of Wolves; nay much worse, because these know nor are capable of no better; ‘Whereas the mind of man being a perpetually active principle, when it secretly inclines to evil, causes not a de­fect only, but a Sacrilegious detraction in Religion; and is rather a nullity than imperfection in our Obedience.’

For if we for any other respects, than such as are allowed by God, compose our selves to the performing of any of the external Offices of Religion; what is this! but a serving of those respects, our Pride, or Lust suppose, and not of God?

2. Farther in the second place, 'tis not only irra­tional and absurd, but most abominably vain, impi­ous and full of hazard. Than which, nothing in the world, no, not open Irreligiousness, which may be worse perhaps upon the account of Scandals, is more [Page 26] incensing and provoking to God Almighty. 'Tis impos­sible to express a higher resentment and disgust against any thing than he does against it, in the 1st. Chapter of Isaiah.

And with great justice: for to their Disobedience men add contempt and derision (for such are all the services of ungodly men, till at least they begin to purpose amendment) which is, you know, the most insufferable of all affronts; and by consequence 'tis our highest folly (as Solomon has observed) Prov. 14.9. And the worst aggravation of sin that can be. Surely, as those things are most ugly and displeasing that have only a similitude or resemblance of what is truly excellent, as Baboons and Apes to humane nature, so in like manner those services of ours, that have only a mask or shadow of Religion, must needs be more abhorr'd, and distasted by God, than open and gross Impiety.

I forbear to urge this point any further, because hypocrisie, though it be not so easily detected, as 'tis rashly censur'd, is, however generally decried and ex­ploded.

Thus far the Dissenters and we are agreed. But why this devotion of the heart, and mind, should be confined there, or suffer'd on y to goggle at the eyes, or foam at the mouth of the Preacher; (for that's the great instance of their Religion) or vent it self in nauseous and forbidden tautologies, in broad and ugly metaphors▪ saucy familiarities, and a rude ignorance unworthy humane nature, and approaching to blas­phemy? no solid reason can ever be giv'n for it. Or, As if I could not pray to God in a grave and com­pos'd form, think reverently of his Majesty upon my [Page 27] knees, and offer my Thanks and Obedience in an Alb, or Cope, they will never be able to produce any solid reason to oppose it.

If noise be demonstration, and the multitude may judg what's best, the day is theirs: But if we weigh things in a clear and impartial judgment, and deter­mine according to the strength and evidence of right reason, we fear not the Cause. For I doubt not to prove (which was the other part of our proposition) the justifiableness, I will say requisiteness of outward Reverence and Decency in all the solemn concerns of Religion.

1. The first kind of proof I shall bring for it, shall be drawn from the constant Observation of it, in all the immediate Institutes of Divine Worship in the Jewish Church.

Time was, when men could find no better colour to mask their villany and impiety. A single Text out of the Old Testament was thought sufficient to justifie the worst of Crimes, Murder, Robbery, Sacrilege, Re­bellion, &c. against the plainest rules of our Saviour, and the whole design of Religion: But let any thing of that kind be alledged for the subserviency of the Churches peace, and the maintenance of the splendor and decency of Religion: Then Quid nobis cum Mose? What is the Ceremonial Law to us?

1. I do readily grant in the first place, That to bring any under the necessity and obedience of that Law, is directly against the liberty of the Gospel, vir­tually to deny Christ to become in the flesh. The same is to impose any of the Ceremonies there enjoyned, as a part of Gods worship, because there comman­ded, by immediate vertue thereof.

[Page 28]2. I grant farther, to impose these, or any other Ceremonies in Religion, either as essentially good and necessary in themselves, or by reason of any imme­diate command of Gods (other than such as are of Divine appointment) or as universally and immutably obligatory to mens Consciences. This is not to retrieve that (which St. Paul contended so against in his Epi­stles) but to erect a new Ceremonial Law.

But what therefore! is there no use of the Mosaick Writing to us Christians? why then are they conti­nued in the Sacred Rule? May they not still be con­sidered and inforced as far as the reason and equity of them shall extend? Yes, no doubt; though it were in the very instances of that Law, as in accommoda­ting the Laws and Rules of the Jewish Sabbath and Temple, to our Lords Day and Christian Churches.

This being premis'd; I have no more to do, but to shew you that God himself did not only enjoyn so much, which is true by manifold, and undeniable in­stances; but, and also that it is within the equity and reason of those Precepts.

Never was any Religion (I think) more stately and pompous erected by the most superstitious pretenders thereto; and they are not usually backward in what relates to the external part, the Habiliments of the Priest, and the Ornaments of the Sanctuary were rich, even to a degree of Gawdery. Which thing I would be satisfied, why they may not as well signifie decency in Religious Worship, whereto they are aptly and easily improvable, as any of those re­moter things whereto they are generally apply'd?

Thus much therefore we may not be deny'd, that there can be no unlawfulness simply in making such [Page 29] provision and appointments; because God himself did once direct and enjoyn as much. 'Tis true as to the particular instances of his pleasure, he has repeal'd these from being any longer a Law; and there is a great deal of reason for it, and such as may render them uncapable from ever passing into a Law again; because 'tis apparent they had another design peculiar and appropriate, namely to prefigure, signifie, or exhi­bit such and such things. But this could not be the sole reason of all those Laws; because that parti­cular end, suppose the coming of Christ, might have been done by fewer Ceremonies, and those more sim­ple and plain; which yet God did not think so fit, but made choice of such, as besides their peculiar re­lations might indicate the decency and splendor of his Service.

I know not what more can be added for the illu­strating of this proof, unless it be the general con­sent, and universal practice of Religious men of all kinds, and in all ages: for though we see but little hereof in the infancy of the Jewish and Christian Churches (whereof there was one and the same reason in both, viz. their Poverty) but this you shall observe in both, that the outward grandeur of their Religion bore always a proportion to their outward State.

God, I doubt not was well pleased with the Worship of the Israelites in Egypt, but they no sooner became possessors of any thing in the Wilderness, but you find a progression in the Ceremonious part of Religion. And so in Solomons days (which was the Crisis of that state) what surplusage and increase of utensils, does he make to adorn the Temple with, notwithstanding what God had said Exod. 25.40. to the contrary.

[Page 30]So in the first ages of Christianity, there were no Secular honors, nor settled Revenues bestowed upon the Clergy; they had none of those Ornaments that after-Ages brought in, at the ministring of holy Offi­ces. The places of Divine Worship (for such they had hallow'd and appropriate, Mr. Mede has undeniably prov'd in all the most controverted Centuries) they were mean and simple, but this continued no longer than, and was born with, the rest of their afflictions. Their after-practice upon their very first freedom, is an unquestionable evidence, that this was the effect of their necessity, not of their choice and liking.

I'le conclude this point, with an observation of the judicious Hooker, ‘We must not think (saith he) but there is some ground of reason, even in nature, whereby it comes to pass, that no Nation under Heaven, did ever suffer any weighty actions, whe­ther Civil and Temporal, or Spiritual and Sacred, to pass without some visible Solemnities.’

And if this do not sufficiently conclude and prove our assertion, I am sure the two following do; for if I can but deduce it directly from any of the ten Com­mandments in the Moral Law, or shew it you in ex­press terms in the Canons of the Gospel (as I make no great question I shall do both) there can remain no farther cause of exception or appeal. First then,

1. I do affirm, though this be not contained in so many words, in any of the ten Commandments, yet is it the principal if not sole design of one of them, viz, the fourth.

For do but take away the Ceremonial part of this precept (as we must allow a great part of it to be so) and there remains nothing more, i. e. distinct and pe­culiar [Page 31] to this, from the other three preceding com­mands, but what do amount to our present purpose; for neither the special, nor the particular determina­tion of time there expressed, nor yet the manner of the rest, can with any pretence of reason be accounted for any moral part of that Law: for then they would have been immutably and perpetually Obliga­tory.

And if so, upon what else can we fix as the moral intendment of that precept, but somewhat to this or the like purpose; namely, that God Almighty will be publickly worship'd, by stated and solemn times, places, and manners. For whereas the design of the first Commandment is to appoint and enjoyn inward worship, and of the two next to order and regulate the outward manifestations and expressions of it, that is to say, in opposition to Superstition in the second, and prophaneness in the third.

All which concerned the particular, and single worship of individual persons. There wanted there­fore a Law to appoint and govern the publick and solemn worship of Communities and Societies.

For of either of these truths I think there can a­rise but very little doubt, viz. first, that all men are obliged to worship and serve God, not only in their particular capacity, but also as members of some Church and Congregation. And secondly, That there is not any direct provision for this in any of the three preceding Laws, which were sufficient and complete for the other.

Wherefore God Almighty took care to secure and direct that part of his Worship by a new Law, wherein we have instructions, not only how to be­have [Page 32] our selves, but how to govern our families, and dependents.

So that if you take away the publickness, and other things pertaining to the decency and solemnity of Religion, you take away almost, or altogether, all that is directly and pr [...]perly intended in the fourth Commandment: and without this we leave the first Table uncomplete, and but an imperfect digest of Divine Worship. For say that God be to be worship'd truly and spiritually, outwardly and cor­porally, appropriate and discriminately; there wants to be added publickly and solemnly.

And altho time be the only circumstance therein seemingly aimed at, yet the Jews Rule, who make it the head and measure of all Ceremonies, and by the necessity of the thing we must include and comprize under the law of times, places also and persons, and modes, as standing in equal relation to Gods Worship.

2. Pass we next to the Evangelick Law, and see what ground and authority we have for our assertion there. I shall refer you but to one place, which for the perspicuity, and validity of it, is irrefragable.

And that is that grand and Apostolical Canon in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chap. 14. and last Verse, Let all things be done decently and in order.

This is one of those two Rules, or Laws by which the Governors of the Church are to be directed in the regulating and exercising of their Power. The other is the good and benefit of those whom God has set 'em over. Which rule you have enjoyned in the 15. Chapter to the Romans, the 1. and 2. Verses. Which two Rules have ends very differing, though consist­ing well enough; for the former seems to refer di­rectly [Page 33] and immediately to God and his honor, as the latter does to the Church and her benefit. Now as 'tis most evident that God Almighty took in both these under the Jewish Church, appointing such Ce­remonies, as might prefigure the excellencies of our Redeemer, and signifie the graces of Sanctification: So likewise, as appears by their multitude and riches, he therein preserv'd and imply'd that decency which is requir'd in all Religion.

But because this way was subject to errors and mistakes, God Almighty has not left us any longer to be govern'd by such measures as shadows and intima­tions; but he has plainly declar'd, not only his acce­ptance and allowance hereof, but his will and plea­sure to have it so, by passing it into a direct Law. So that to contend here about in thesi, whether God ought to be worship'd decently and in order, is neither more nor less, than to controvert the Jurisdiction of Heaven, and the authority of the Bible.

‘The only difficulty therefore must be touching the particular manner of expressing our decency, of which certainly Reason, Custom, and the determi­nations of Authority, must be constituted the fittest and most proper Judges, and not the petulant fan­cy of such as are dispos'd to wrangle; without which we do by an inevitable necessity, render the Rule unpracticable; for, if either there be no Judg in such cases, or (which comes all to one) if every body be permitted to be their own judges, 'tis im­possible to conserve decency or order.’

And look whatever inconveniencies may seeming­ly arise from this assertion of ours, I am very sure there's none that's comparable to that disorder, and [Page 34] confusion, that would infallibly ensue, and attend the want hereof. And we soon saw the effects of such a Toleration; for every body to do what seem'd right in their own eyes. For when men came to be govern'd by their own Enthusiasms, Good Lord! what a Hotch­poch had men made of Religion. And this, no doubt would have been the consequence of it, if that state of affairs had continued much longer, we should have had so many, till at length we had had no Reli­gion, name, nor thing.

‘ This mischief we did see in that time it did last, they reduc'd Religion to that pass, that it became generally distasted; and the witty people of the Nation, became Atheists, and the inconsiderate turn'd Papists.’

All which we ow'd to them who blunted the edg of Church Censures, and stript Religion of her Orna­ments and Ceremonies. And these Modern Reformers had so refin'd Religion, by their Spiritual Alchymy, that we had almost lost it. Suffer me to accommo­date what has been said to the vindication of our Church, in reference to her Ceremonious Institution. The Ceremonies that are retained in the Church of England, except those of the Sacraments which are of our Saviours own appointment; and which he has made of immutable necessity, are but very few, and so admit of no pretence of cavil upon that account; when by the multitude or intricacy, of the Ceremo­nies, the service is either clogg'd, or obscur'd. Which, where it is, is an abuse, and ought to be reformed, i. e. by those to whom of right it does belong, and not by Schism, Faction, and Disobedience. ‘For I observe that never any Reformation that was managed by [Page 35] the populace, whether in Church, or State, could possibly begin well, or did ever end so.’

And I account it a prime glory of ours, (that what­ever tincture the springs might receive under-ground) from the passions and interests of any, it broke out at the Fountain of just Authority; and then it descen­ded like the streams of nature, gentle and easie, and not with the noise of a Cataract, or the violence of an Inundation: And for so much of it wherein Re­ligion was immediately concern'd, and was manag'd by the subordinate care and province of Church-men. (For the matter of the Revenues, it belongs not to our present enquiry) nor am I concern'd to solve the difficulties wherewith it's press'd; but for the other, 'twas impossible for men to have discover'd greater Characters of prudence and moderation in all those alterations they made both in Doctrine and Disci­pline.

It was not the least instance of their wisdom, the retaining of those Ceremonies they did for the more orderly and decent administration of holy duties.

Those actions of our Governors must needs be ju­stifiable in a high measure, when both those ends, or Rules, which I laid down before, are attended and secured; tho either be sufficient, if the other be not manifestly violated: as namely, if our Rulers think this makes for the decency of Religious Worship, or such a thing may be expedient for the peoples infor­mation, much more when they both concur and are signally discernable, as most certain one or both of them are obvious in all our Ceremonies.

The Surplice, besides the comeliness of the habit, speaks Innocence and Purity. The Ring, besides the [Page 36] Ornament it's worn for, signifies the perpetuity and endlesness of the Conjugal Love. The use of the Cross is explained by the Church her self; and Kneeling vindicated from its corruption and abuse.

I know some make this the pretended ground of their exception, whereby I go about to defend them; namely for their being symbolical and significant; which I look upon, to be a great instance of their folly; for their significancy is one part of their excellency; without which the enjoyning of 'em were not, how­ever not so highly justifiable.

For as in humane Polity, those Laws are unquesti­onably the best, which are stampt with the marks of Authority, and of great usefulness; so no doubt in Religion, those are the best Canons and Constitutions whereby men are not only contain'd in their Obedi­ence, but instructed in their Duty.

And though this be not so necessary, to the con­stitution of any Law, as that it should cease to oblige without it (for the will of the Law-giver is the formal reason of our Obedience) from which, nothing can ab­solve us, but an apparent contrariety to a superior will.

I say, notwithstanding the necessity of Obedience in those cases, the superinducing of this, makes our Obedience more rational and easie, and it makes those Laws look more Divine, when like those of Heaven, they are accommodated to the principles of Reason, and advancement of our Interest. And now from hence it will be no difficult matter, to infer the neces­sity of our Conformity and Obedience to the Laws of our Church; for besides, that we are oblig'd by the same Rules in doing our duty, as they are in com­manding; namely of decency in reference to Al­mighty [Page] God, and the promoting of our own good, [...] far as our apprehensions concur with theirs. There is besides another obligation incumbing upon us, (as I before hinted) viz. that of the Apostle in Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, i. e. the Episcopal Power, how much more when it is twin'd and corroborated with the bands of Civil Authority. All which considera­tions, are complicated in our present case, and so con­clude the stronger for our Obedience.

And therefore altho my apprehensions were not throughly convinc'd of the decency and expedience of these things, I stand obliged for all, unless the thing appear very plainly to be sinful and unlawful (not on­ly to command, for so a thing may be for want of the other reasons, and yet be lawfully obey'd for this) but it must be so in it self, and to you, or else we sin: and the reason is evident, because Obedience to Authority is an express Duty, and to evacuate that there need to be as plain a Prohibition, and not every fidling scruple and petit cavil, that by men who are dispos'd to wrangle, may be brought against any thing whatever.

Much less may we censure or condemn Authority, upon this account; forasmuch as we cannot without the greatest pride and vanity but confess, that the Governors, by reason of those advantages they have above us, by their Learning, Leisure, Station, and special assistance of God, must needs see and know more than we do or can: And if we believe this (and if we do not we must be intolerably impudent) where's our Charity, if we reproach them with tyrannical and un­reasonable impositions?

[Page] ‘The plain truth is, Rulers are to govern by their own consciences, and not yours or mine. And there­fore if your Conscience be opposite to his, ('tis your own Rule, and the whole strength of the objection) he must follow his Conscience. Which besides the necessity of maintaining the reverence and autho­rity of Laws, would be well considered by such as are in Power, whether it does not reflect a guilt upon them if they don't do it; whatever they say, or suffer, who are the occasion on't.’

‘Mean while, how little just ground is there, for those so wide and contrary imputations that are falsly charg'd upon the Church of England: Of Schism from the Papists, and of Popery from the Phanaticks?’

We had in vain complained of the Romish Supersti­tions, and long groan'd under the Yoke of its Tyranny, but never dream'd of a Separation, till the terms of their Communion grew to that height, that no Sal­vation could be expected therein, or but very diffi­cultly; and 'twas but time to seek a remedy, when the Disease was become almost incurable. Altho I must needs assert, there wanted no such reason to have justified our Reformation, which might very lawfully have been effected, by the Right and Power of a National Church distinct and independing upon a Forein Jurisdiction: but this made our proceedings fair and candid, as well as just.

‘As to the charge of Popery on the other side, 'tis the silliest, but most malicious slander that ever was thrown upon any Order of men. We know they don't use to heed what ground Calumnies have, so they will but serve their turn. Which because 'tis [Page] very certain the grandees of them do not [...] themselves, it can have no other design but [...]. They know and are assur'd, what by that aversation in the Kingdom against Popery, and by the in­considerable numbers of Papists comparatively, for I wish with my soul their numbers were not so great; for if ever the Government be subverted (which God forbid) the Power must necessarily devolve among their party: And there is no way to do this but by rendering those of the Church of England odious to the Mobile; and there is no way to do that so effectually, as to call them Papists. And he that does not see this, has more credit for an evi­dence that may possibly deceive, than for a demon­stration that can not.’

Well, and what are the pretences of this Clamor? some of them belong to the being of the Church as the distinctions of Orders: Some to its flourishing and well-being, as the honorary additions of Power and maintenance; some to the places of Divine Wor­ship, their relative holiness, and appropriate discrimi­nations, and some to the modes of Worship, as habits and gestures. And is it enough to make a man a Papist for believing a Bishop to be above a Priest, or assert the Bishops Peerage, or the sacredness of Churches, and decency of a Surplice: and is that all the reason too, because we observe these things among them. Jesu! What do men pretend to? by the same reason I would prove a Turk a Protestant, and a Protestant a Devil.

‘The truth is, they better deserve to suffer under the reproach themselves; for besides their agreeing with the Church of Rome in those very Doctrines, [Page] wherein we do protest against her, and them, as denying the Kings Supremacy, Excommunicating, Deposing and Murdering of Princes, founding Do­minion in Grace, and the like: besides this, let any body judg whether they do not serve the Church of Rome hereby? For if when I look below the Church of England, I see nothing but distraction and confusion, no Priest, no Sacrament, whereof a man may very well doubt; and if there be no more hurt in Po­pery than Lawn Sleeves, a Cross or a Surplice, who! that lov'd his soul, would not? who ought not to be a Papist?’

Thanks be to God, we profess a Religion infinitely better than either of them, however envied and perse­cuted by both.

Which God make us for Jesus sake, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory and Ho­nor. Amen.