I. FIrst, I take for granted these Postu­lata, or suppositions following (at least until they be upon rational evi­dence disproved by either Party) which I lay as a foundation to my de­sign,

1. That all differences in the Church, (except such as strike at the vitals of Religion, and the very being of the Church) are, with more agreeablenss to principles of Re­ligion and right Reason, and with more likelyhood of per­manency, and stability, to be composed by accommoda­tion, then suppression of dissenting Parties.

2. That in accommodation there must be a mutual con­descention of the Parties accommodating, upon such [Page 2] Conditions, as may afford both a saving Bargain.

3. That in Religious Differences, such an accommodati­on cannot be made without a Salvo to the Conscientious Principles of both Parties; neither of which can save, when their Consciences lose.

4. That (in the Case in hand) both the Episcopa­rians, and Presbyterians, (differing in no fundamental before-mentioned) are dissenters capable of being ad­mitted to accommodation; and seeing they do, upon plau­sible grounds, and such as (in charity we are bound to believe) do really influence their Consciences, justifie their several pretensions, ought to be accommodated with allowance to both their conscientious Principles.

5. That (to omit the several particular Tenets on both sides, and their particular Pleas for them) in general, their respective Pleas may be thus stated.

• 1 The Episcoparian pleads (as his grand Principles swaying his Conscience)
  • 1 (Not baulking Scripture) the harmonious consent of Antiquity, as the best Com­mentary upon the Records of Church affairs mentioned in Scripture.
  • 2 The Constitutions of this Church, conformable to the Law of the Land.
• 2 The Presbyterian pleads (as the grand Principles swaying his Conscience)
  • 1 (Not baulking Antiquity) the Letter of the Scripture, to which all Antiquity must be reduced, and judged by it.
  • 2 The Solemn League and Co­venant.

6. That if what is here supposed rational to be yielded by the Episcoparian, be neither contrary to the current of Antiquity, or Scripture, nor repugnant to the legal con­stitutions [Page 3]of this Church: And what is expected from the Presbyterian, be neither evidently contrary to the Scri­pture, nor aliene from Antiquity, nor repugnant to the Solemn League and Covenant, all their pleas from prin­ciples of Conscience, for keeping up their mutual distance, are out of doors.

7. That the plea of the Episcopal Party from the Con­stitutions of the Church, is of such a nature, as may, espe­cially where it is not in conjunction with the former, (the stream of Antiquity commenting upon Scripture) be voided at their own pleasures, the power of altering those Constitutions (except where so backed as beforesaid) be­ing by Law in the hands of the present Governors of the Church, that is themselves, and so can oblige them no fur­ther then they will be obliged.

8. That the Plea of the Presbyterian party from the Covenant, obligeth them no farther in point of Conscience, then it stands in conjunction with the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches, and (by consequence) that they may, salvâ Conscientiâ, submit to any Terms of accommodation, which are not repugnant to them.

9. That (in effect) the limitations of the reformation engaged for in the Covenant; to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches, are coincident. For how can it be judged, what Church is better or worse reformed, but by the word of God?

10. That if the example of the best reformed Churches, be insisted upon as a Distinct limitation: yet, it being not expressed in the Covenant, what particular Churches the imposers of the Covenant judged most Reformed, nor in­timated what notion of Reformation it is, from whence they insinuate some Churches to be more, and some less Reformed, (whether that which relates barely to the se­paration from Rome, or that which relates to the degrees of pretended improvement of one Protestant Church beyond another, in point of reformation, though they all stand equally distant from Rome) it follows, that it is at the choice of the Covenanters to modell their reformation ac­cording [Page 4]to which notion they please: or rather, that it is their duty to reform according to that which any Prote­stant Church hath attained to, beyond the rest, not espousing the whole frame and constitution of any particu­lar Church in gross as their example, but picking that which seems most agreeable to Scripture, Antiquity, and right Reason out of all.

11. That, supposing a reduction of Episcopacy to the Terms hereafter specified, it doth actually cease to be that Prelacy which is abjured in the Covenant, and (in effect) falls in with a Scriptural Presbyterie; and (by conse­quence) relaxeth the Conscience of the Covenanter to a liberty of fair compliance with it.

12. That however, (seeing the Covenant limits the endeavours of the Covenanter in this, aswell as other par­ticulars, to his place and calling; and reserves the rights of Supream Authority in King and Parliament, which must be understood with reference to matters Ecclesiasti­cal, as well as Civil) no private person or persons can be obliged to reform against the will of that Authority, with­out an apparent exceeding the duty of their places and Callings: and (by consequence) that it is the duty of every Covenanter, to endeavour by humble applications to his Majesty, and the Parliament, to procure the best Terms that he can for the reformation of the Church, and when he hath done his utmost that way, he is super­seded in that obligation, by a moral impossibility, being not in a capacity lawfully to act any further; except it be thought further incumbent upon him to make a positive, or (at least) negative separation from the Church, because not constituted as he desires: which principle, how far it comes under the condemnation of Schism (abjured in the same Article, as deeply as Prelacy) will admit a seri­ous Question; and in the decision of it, must needs touch close upon the state of the Question between the Papists on the one, and the Brownists on the other side, and us con­cerning the justifiableness of the English Church in its con­stitution before these times, and so cannot safely be moved by any true Protestant.

II. Secondly upon these Postulata, if granted, I assert, [1.] 1. Assertions relating to th [...] Episcopal Party. That the Episcoparian party may with safety of Conscience consent to the Reduction of Episcopacy to the Modell of his Majesties declaration concerning Ecclesiasti­cal Affairs, seeing it is demonstrable, that wherein that modell varies from the former Ʋsages of Episcopacy in this Nation, it comes nearer to the practice of Pure Anti­quity. For,

• (1.) That the antient Bishops were constant Preachers, appears by their Homilies, yet ex­tant.
• (2.) That they had their Chorepiscopi, which in his Majesties modell are Suffragan Bishops, is evident by many Testimonies produced in this case, and al­lowed by the highest Episcoparians.
• (3.) That they had a Colledge of Presbyters who joined with them in all acts of Ordination, and Ju­risdiction, is clear by the mention of πρεσβυτέριον in the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 4.14. in the work of imposition of hands; and the frequent conjunction of the Bishop, and his πρεσβυτέριον in Ignatius the great Patron of Episcopacy, in those clauses where he requires subjection from the people to Ecclesi­astical Jurisdiction; of which many instances besides these might be produced. [...] Ad Ephes. [...] Ad Magnes. [...]. &, [...]. Ad Philad. [...]. Ad Trall. [...]. Ad Smyrn. &c.
• (4.) That they delegated their power to any other persons to act in their names, seems most improbable. Nay there is a passage in Ignatius, which not ob­scurely intimates, that (even in the necessary ab­scence [Page 6]of the Bishop) his seat was void, or supplyed (which is most probable) by none or the Presby­terie alone. For he sends commendations to his Church in Smyrna, when he was upon his Journey to Rome, with this clause, [...], That he had left them under the only Episcopal inspection of Jesus Christ [Ign. ep. ad. Romanos.
• (5.) That if such delegation be supposed agreea­ble to the Primitive pattern, yet (to be sure) there is not one footstep of a Lay-Chancellor or Com­missary, exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all Antiquity.
• (6.) That confirmation, admission to, and suspen­tion from the Lords Supper, Catechising and com­posing of Parochial differences, are works in which the Pastors of particular Churches are most dire­ctly concerned, and therefore are most rationally to be joyned with the Bishop and Presbyterie in all such acts as concern them; may be concluded not repugnant to best Antiquity, till the person that questions it, shew sufficient evidence from it for a Contrary practice then we have yet seen.
• (7.) And Lastly, that Bishops did not in the Pri­mitive times act arbitrarily, but according to rule, the acknowleged antient Canons (among the Pa­trons of Episcopacy (at least) whom we have now to do withall) evidence.

All which are the substance of the plat-form laid by his Majesty, and much consonant to the model contrived by his Royal Father, whose knowledge in the nature of Primitive Episcopacy no man can doubt, who hath read his learned discourses upon that subject; and those appro­ved by most Episcopal men, then in being: so that I ac­count my assertion firm thus farr, at least.

But (2.) The Episcopal party may ( salvâ conscientiâ) condescend in these farther particulars upon their own Principles.

(1.) To the reformation of Deans, Chapters, and Cathedral dependants in this manner or the like, as shall seem most adviseable to his Majesty and the Parlia­ment.

1. By annexing to every Cathedral dignity a Cure of souls, in, or near the Metropolis of the Diocess where the Cathedral is, (especially where the Legal main­tenance of a Church is most inconsiderable, and most of all, where it is impropriate to the Cathedral use:) and this Cure to be discharged by the Dignitary in person, except in case of necessary hinderance. It being apparent, that whatever footsteps of such a Collegiate Society of Deans and Chap­ters, are to be found in Antiquity, inform us that the ori­ginal of them was from the convenient situation of the Neighbouring Pastors to the Episcopal seat to assist the Bishop upon all occasions, without damage to their flocks, when those that lived at remoter distance could not be called in as often as he needed them without inconveni­ence.

2. By erecting a standing Presbytery, consisting of such Ministers, having Cure of Souls within or near the place of the Bishops residence, at the choice of the gene­rality of the Ministry of the Diocess (the Dignitaries of the Cathedral not being included in the number, except so chosen) for the Constant asistance of the Bishop in ordi­nary acts of jurisdiction which require not, or in such ex­traordinary, as will not permit the delay requisite to the orderly summoning of remoter Presbyters: There being no clear footstep in Antiquity for the constitution of a select society of Presbyters to assist the Bishop (ex­clusively to the rest of their brethen) who are bare­ly entituled to that Dignity by being entituled to a revenue annexed to the Mother Church; a relati­on which till about Constantines time (at least) had no being.

3. By levelling all such priviledges and im­munities as hinder the reformation of Cathedral depen­dants, and rendring them obnoxious to the same in­spection [Page 8]with the officers and members of Parochial Churches.

4. By taking away pluralities of such Ecclesiasti­cal dignities, which hinder the Dignitaries from attending the Services, which their original foundation had respect unto.

5. By reducing the vast revenues of some Bi­shopricks to a more moderate proportion, and assigning the surplussage of them, as an addition to the maintenance of Suffragan Bishops, and for the bearing of the incidental charges of such as are fain to attend the affairs of the Church upon occasionall calls far from their homes to Synods or other Church Conventions; and other such uses. It being apparent, that till Cathedral Churches were built, they could not be endowed, or priviledged, and (by con­sequence) that in the three last particulars, to plead Primi­tive Antiquity against what is propounded, involves a self-contradiction.

(2.) They may also, upon their own Principles, con­descend to a Law for the ratifying of Ordination in these late years conferred by Presbyters, without exacting a Submission to re-ordination in those who Scruple it. For,

1. That the Bishops hands are necessary to Ordi­nation See Cades Ju­stification of the Church of England p. 311. otherwise then upon the account of Ecclesiastical constitution for orders sake, will be hard to evidence from Scripture or pure Antiquity.

2. That Ordaining of Presbyters by Presbyters, by the Bishops licence, (as in the case of the antient Chorepis­copi) and in the necessary absence, or want of Bishops (as Augustine and Ambrose testifie concerning the pra­ctice in Egypt, and particularly at Alexandria) hath been of great Antiquity in the Church: and certainly if leave or absence of the Bishop render it lawful for Presbyters alone to ordain, it will follow that there is a radical and funda­mental power of Ordination in Presbyters, for else a Bi­shops leave or absence might as well impower a meer Laick to give orders, which was only restrained for Orders sake, as was said before.

3. That Arch. B. Bancroft and the rest of his Brethren, who admitted the Scottish Bishops to consecrati­on, required not their re-ordination: and surely they were not ignorant of what plea's lay against it from Anti­quity.

4. That in the Judgement of two or three late learned Prelates, Pr. of Ar­magh, Brown­ing, and it is said, Morton. the greatest, if not only, blame with which Pres­byteriall Ordination can be charged in England, is, that it was done schismatically. But it will be very hard to prove, that (according to the sense of Antiquity) Ordi­nation is eo nomine null, because performed by persons un­der a Schisme. Nay our own Mason de Minist. Augl. See validity of Ordination of the Mini­sters of the Reformed Churches by F. Mason. proves that Schisme in the Consecrator doth not null the Con­secration of Bishops, out of Antiquity; and (though he be no friend to Ordination by meer Presbyters in England, though he justifie it in forraign Churches, yet) there is par ratio in both, as to this case, I mean scismatical consecrati­on of Bishops, and ordination of Presbyters.

(3.) They may also, without wrong to their Princi­ples, give consent to a more regular election and equall constitution of Synods, which with the impress of Soveraign Authority are the ordinary Legal original of Church-Con­stitutions, and those in whom (by representation, as the whole body of the People in an House of Commons) the whole body of the Clergy do choose the Laws they will be governed by. And under this head, it is supposed, No cogent reason from Scripture or Antiquity can be given, why they may not consent to these regulations following, or the like.

1. That all members of Convocation (except the Bishop himself, whose claime by vertue of his office is not denyed to be of great Antiquity, if the authority of antient Councils be allowed) being but Presbyters, may submit to an equal election with the Clerks of Convocation except (which I think cannot be proved) there be any footsteps in pure Antiquity priviledging one Presbyter be­yond another without election to sit in a Synod, and make Laws for the Church.

2. That if Cathedral members sit as representers of distinct Collegiate bodies they belong to; either the number of them be lessened, or the number of Clerks Elective be augmented to overballance them; it seem­ing unequal, that the Clerks who represent the whole Clergy, should be lyable to be outvoted by the number of those, who, whatever burthens they lay upon their bre­thren and the Churches under them, are by the priviledge of their society little concerned in them themselves.

3. That seeing the late dissolution of Government hath exposed us to so many Schisms in the Church, and factions in the State, and the animosities occasioned by them are yet too flagrant among us; so that it may rationally be supposed, our mutual heats may hinder us from all recon­ciliation by the debates and conclusions of a Synod con­stituted of meer Natives; there be some course taken (as in the Synod of Dort) to call in the assistance of some forraigne Reformed Divines, by way of advice, not jurisdiction; who being uninterested in our quarrels, may be able to suggest better expedients for our accom­modation, then our passion and prejudice will suffer us to light on our selves. This proposal is bottomed upon the use the antients made of General Councils, which seeing we cannot now have, it seems but equal, that when like causes call for forraigne advice, the same course be followed as near as it may.

4. That canvasing for voices by Apparitors, &c. be forbidden, and the present way of summoning Ministers to such election by Apparitors which gives them advan­tage so to do, and opportunity to leave those unsummoned whose votes they doubt of, may be changed into a publike proclamation in all Market Towns, or the like, as shall seem best to Authority.

5. That no Proxie votes be admitted, except upon oath made, that the persons deputing their Proxies are hindred from giving their attendance by some necessary impediment.

6. That all elections be made upon such days as [Page 11]may not necessitate the Ministers that live at distance to an inconvenience in reference to their Lords day la­bours: and in such places as are near the Center of every Diocess, that Ministers from all parts may attend them with less inconvenience.

These last-mentioned particulars carry so much equi­ty in the front of them, that it is not to be supposed, any one will think it needful to appeal to the practice of the antient Church concerning them: or if they should, it were no difficult matter to derive sufficient countenance for them from the records of antient Coun­cills.

(4.) Nor is there any thing to scruple their Con­science in the granting it, from Scripture, or pure An­tiquity, but rather much to induce them thereunto, in case it be farther desired, That an abstract be made of all Ecclesiastical Laws in force, and published, that all men may know when they are, or are not obnoxious to Ecclesiastical Censures: and those litigations occa­sioned by the dispersion of them in so many Books (too many already, but likely to be vastly multiplyed, in case the conceit of some great Church-men now in being, hold good, that a great part of the Canon Laws is still in force) no more turn Ecclesiastical Iudicatories into Courts of Common Pleas. And that visitation Ar­ticles upon which Church-wardens are sworn to present, be confined both in number and quality to such a propor­tion, and nature, as they may safely swear to.

(5.) Nor will it, to any one that considereth how severe the antient discipline of the Church was, in cases of Scandal, and how indulgent in matters of Scruple, be thought repugnant to their principles before mentioned, if they be desired to make the yoke of Church censures heavier for Scandalous Non-conformists to the Laws of God, then scrupulous Non-conformists to the Laws of the Church, and take care that they be executed with a like difference.

(6.) Nor will it be a matter of Conscience, if upon the [Page 12]preceding Consideration, it be desired, that bare non-con­formity in circumstantialls, where it is not joyned with open contempt of authority, or an evident fomenting of Schisme and Faction, may not expose a Ministers station and Livelyhood to such hazards as formerly.

(7.) But rather, that the few Controverted Ceremonies be laid aside altogether, that they may be no more a Shibboleth or note of distinction, between Minister and Minister: nor expose the most conscientious persons (who are the only persons apt to scruple in such cases) a prey to malicious prosecutors, who are upon all occasions apt to make the neglect of them an occasion of disqui­eting those Ministers, whose doctrine disquiets their lusts.

(8.) And seeing the strict observation of the Lords day, in the performance of publike and private duties of religion, is found by experience to conduce very much to the promoting of knowledge and piety where it is so observed; and ignorance and licentiousness where it is neglected; it is supposed they need not scruple, (though possibly not upon the same ground, which the Presbyteri­ans plead (the morality of the day,) yet (at least) by an Ecclesiastical constitution) to enjoin it. To be sure, if Scripture and Fathers, (as some think) be not so severe, as to require a totall abstinence from secular imployment, and recreations on that day, yet there is nothing in them against the practice of such an abstinence in order to religious ends.

(9.) It is hardly to be imagined, that conscience can find so much in Scripture or Antiquity, for the Justification of the whole frame of the English Liturgy, and the forms of Ordination, &c. as that they shoold rationally conclude it a Sin to make any alterations of mis-tran­slations or inconvenient expressions, the main body and bulke of them being preserved, which few quar­rel at.

(10.) Lastly, the multitude of holy-days (as they are called) yet remaining, is under the same disputa­bleness, [Page 13]as to their foundation in pure Antiquity, and so may (even with safety to their principles) be les­sened.

I have not multiplyed all these heads, as if I thought it unpossible to accommodate the Presbyterians upon any easier Terms, or because I think it necessary they should insist upon every punctillio of these Proposals. Nay, some of them may possibly be already sufficiently secu­red in law for ought I know, (who confess my self not much versed in that kind of reading;) and so it may be superfluous to desire them. However, in case such provision be already made, it were but meet, for satisfaction of those who desire it, that it be made ap­pear where, and how that provision is made; and that assurance be given, that such Laws shall be better execu­ted for the future then heretofore. And I have this charity for the Presbyterian Ministers, that I am per­swaded some very few additions to the model, and conces­sions of the Kings Declaration, and those barely usefull to render them practicable; will reconcile the most of them to their Brethren, and render them most entirely one with them. And what pity would it be to cast off so considerable a number of learned, orthodox, peaceable and powerful Preachers from publike imployment in the Church, for not complying in the utmost extremity to those things, which may be more safely indulged by the professed principles of their Governors, then they can be practised by theirs? And let it be seriously considered, whether if St. Peter, and St. Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, who dealt so moderately in the first Synod at Je­rusalem, in a question of as great or greater importance then any before mentioned, would, if they were now in England, not very much condemn the violent principles and actings of some persons, who profess to succeed them. Surely if to become all things (lawfull) to all men that we may win some, be an Apostolical practice, and commend­ed in the Scripture to our imitation as it is, that Principle that will not allow men to become any thing (though never [Page 14]so lawful upon their own declared grounds) to so con­siderable a number of their conscientious Brethren, is nei­ther commendable nor Apostolical. But it may be, the fault is on the other side. It is not meet the Episcoparian should (become all things) to them, and they comply in nothing with them again. Very true; it is not. And therefore, in the next place, upon the former postulata, as they refer to the Presbyterian party, I proceed to Assert,

2. Assertions relating to the Presbyte­rian Party. Secondly, That the Presbyterians may (salvâ consci­entiâ).

[1.] (In reference to Church-Government.)

1. Admit (at least Jure humano, as an Officer of Ecclesiastical constitution, or as deputed by the Kings Majesty, and by vertue of his acknowledged Supremacy) a single Person to preside over the Presbyterie, of such or such a convenient Precinct, as a Master of a Colledge over his Fellows. For though the Scripture do not (according to their grounds) appoint any such Officer, yet it doth not forbid the Constitution of such an one by the Church or Magistrate for more regular managery of affairs: and it is doubtfull (at least) whether such an one were not admitted into the Church (for the remedy of Schisme) as Jerome saith, before the death of St. John.

2. It need not scruple their Consciences by what name (so it be a name of honour and reverence) he be called; whether Father, or President, or Moderator, or Super-intendent, or Bishop. And if the Favour of Prin­ces to this Ecclesiastical Title, add another of Civil Dig­nity, I know not but they may without scruple call him by that Name; as when an Earldom (as lately it fell out in England, in a Noble Family) devolves upon a Minister of the Gospel, I think, Right Honourable, and Your Lord­ship, doth nevertheless belong to him, because he is a Mi­nister. It appears not to me, but the lawfulness of the Titles of Master, and Father given to Ministers, is as disputable from the Scripture, as that of My Lord. Though it little becomes Ministers to strive for them, or be offended with those that scruple to give them.

3. Nor need it be a scruple of Conscience, that such a person is continued in his Chair for Term of life, or quamdiu bene se gesserit, and is not chose anew, on every occasion of publick meeting. For in this the Scri­pture I think (as to any positive determination) is deeply silent, and Antiquity favours not the later constitution at all, as far as I understand.

4. If this Person have large and ample Revenues beyond his Brethren, allowed him, suitable to a Governor deputed by Authority, and to maintain the dignity of his place, &c. (though it be true, that too large Incomes to Officers of the Church, are but baits of Ambition, and temptations to supercilious Lording and domineering over the Flock) I think need not scare the Conscience of any man from accommodation; seeing Scripture determines not the exact proportion of Maintenance which the Governors of the Church may require, and no more! and (if a learn­ed and leading man of that side which goes for Presbyteri­an, M. B. on the Worcest. Peti­tion. say true) so large summs in Cyprians time, and Farms and Lands, were at the Bishops disposall, that some of them complained of the burthen of managing them. And how much they allowed themselves, or the Church allowed them out of those vast summs, who can tell?

5. Nor doth the Constitution of Deans and Chapters, nor their Revenues (as they are a kind of Collegiate preferments, for the encouragement of eminent Divines, and in case they were so modelled as their influ­ence might be less in Ecclesiastical affairs, farther then they are elected by the Clergy, ut suprà) offer any vio­lence to the forementioned Principles of a Presbyterian Conscience; For neither Scripture, Antiquity, nor Cove­nant, forbid or exclude such Societies or their Endowments, under that notion. Yea in the late times, when some of those in power stiffly pleaded the Covenant for extirpation of them, to justifie Sacriledge, the Dean and Prebends of Christs Church in Oxford, would not be perswaded to be­lieve themselves concerned in that Article, because they stood barely in a Collegiate Capacity.

6. Nor is it a matter of Conscience to those of that judgement, who are not Ordained already, to submit to Episcopal Ordination, whiles they admit a competent num­ber of Presbyters to lay on hands with them. Nay some of them (it seems) are so far satisfied in it, that seeing the Law requires it of them, and divers of their people Epis­copally minded, scruple the lawfulness of their adminstra­tions without it, they do submit to super-induce it upon their former Ordination; Nor need any one of Presbyte­rian Principles, refuse the imposition of Episcopal hands, because the Scripture seems to invest a Presbyterie with it. For Bishop includes Presbyter, and he, (being not only a Bishop, but a Presbyter) with his assistants, make a Pres­byterie.

7. The want of ruling Elders, which have been pleaded for as necessary Officers of the Church, need not stick with their Consciences, if the Church-Wardens were well chosen annually, and conscientious in their offices, and encouraged by the Bishops so to be. For who sees not that ( mutato nomine) a Church-Warden is a plain Lay-Elder, as the Over-seer of the poor is a Scripture-Deacon, (at least as to one part of his office, if the Episcoparian be not satisfied that that is all) and annual, or not annual, where Scripture is silent in determining, should make no difference,

8. Nor need they be disturbed upon a Conscien­tious account, if (while acts of Jurisdiction run in his name, with the express consent of his Clergy or Presbyterie) such as meerly relate to matter of Order, suppose the tacite consent of the Presbyterie, and (for expedition sake, and ease to the Ministers assistant to him, whose occasions would be too much intrenched upon, if in every such matter they should be Convened) run in the Bishops name only: For such a power must be placed somewhere, du­ring the Intervals of Presbyterian Assemblies, even where they are settled most to the mind of the Patrons of Pres­byterie; and comes under the rule of the Apostle, that all things be done decently and in order. And if any, (extra [Page 17]Consessum Presbyterorum) why not in the Bishop, as well as any other?

9. That some under-Officers, as Notaries and Messengers, &c. necessary for the carrying on of Govern­ment, be allowed, is so far from clashing with Presbyterian Principles, that the only thing that they have cause to complain of herein, is that they are too often not so honest as they should be; and that they are not maintained out of a publick purse (rather then by occasional fees) which were the more likely way to make and keep them so.

10. The Presbyterian Conscience picks no quarrel at the jurisdiction which the Law placeth in the Bishop and his Chancellors, and other Civilians acting under him in cases of Testaments and Marriages, as being meerly as­sumenta, things annexed to, and not properly parts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

[2] In reference to Liturgy, habit of Ministers, Ce­remonies, and Festivals, Presbyterian Principles may ad­mit, as I suppose,

1. The lawfulness of an imposed Form of Prayer (in Thesi) and the conveniency of it in reference to the essential parts of sacred administrations; and (in Hypothesi) the lawfulness and compleatness of the Form established in this Church, in reference to such Administrations, with very little alteration in any thing of moment.

2. That divers other parts of the Service establi­shed are very good, and edifying, and (with liberty to forbear some passages which are offensive to their people, till they be amended) may be when required, prevailed with to use so much of it, as will declare them unwilling, upon this point, to break with their Brethren. For they know, that some forms have Scriptural warrant; and (therein) other forms a Scriptural precedent, and (upon that account) none unlawful, farther then they contain something anti-Scriptural in their composition.

3. They are sensible, that it is the mind of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, that all Sacred Duties, espe­cially [Page 18]in Solemn Assemblies, should be performed with the greatest reverence; and that God must be glorified with the body as well as the spirit; and therefore have only a quar­rel at such Ceremonies as are only enjoyned upon the ac­count of significancy, and do not naturally (as circum­stances requisite to the Worship in hand) emerge from the quality thereof; for with such as these, upon the grounds mentioned, they are perfectly friends.

4. They so well know, that an unlimited liberty of habits, gives a Temptation to Ministers to cloath them­selves a la mode, and so, many times to conform them­selves to the common extravagancies of undecent fashions, and thereby lose that reputation of gravity which should adorn the Ministerial function in the eyes of the world, and therefore cannot but judge it agreeable to Scripture, that that liberty be restrained, by the enjoyning of grave and comely garments, and it is believed, they forbear some of those enjoyned in the Canon it self, not from a principle of faction and singularity, but only because the long disuse of them, hath rendred them somewhat un­couth in the eyes of their people, and they are unwilling to let others (who upon some accounts may do it with less offence) render them more familiar by their use, be­fore they take them up: only they scruple the use of vest­ments peculiarly appropriated to divine Service, as thinking them proper to the old Law, and abolished with it.

Lastly, they may (notwithstanding their perswasion, that no power on earth can make any portion of time in­trinsecally holy) admit the observation of those eminent Festivals of the Church, that tend to the keeping in re­membrance the Birth, Circumcision, Baptism, Resurrecti­on and Ascension of our blessed Saviour, and the descend­ing of the holy Ghost, as they do other Anniversary thanks­givings, appointed by Publick Authority; so as no ob­ligation be declared to lie upon the Conscience to observe them, from any peculiar holiness in those, more then in other dayes; and others abolished or left indifferently to be observed or omitted.

I am very confident, that very few of that Party which they call Presbyterian, will find themselves concerned in Conscience to dispute the lawfulness of many (if any) of the fore-mentioned Concessions (as here stated) in order to a friendly accommodation. And am also so charitable to those of the soberer sort of Episcoparians, as to think that upon a publike Declaration, that they can yield thus far, and intend not to start new scruples, when these here mentioned are satisfied; (which I perceive is the jealousie that contributes much to the continuing our distances, whiles the ruling Party are suspitious that if once they begin to abate, the others for whose sake they do it will grow unreasonable in their demands, and think to make use of one Concession, as an Argument to prevail for ano­ther in infinitum) they would advance nearer towards them. And hereby (unquestionably) those Brethren may, either expect to be gratified in their desires, or render the persons that deny them before God and the world, inexcuse­able, if they would generally agree on the Terms on which they will be satisfied, and solemnly declare that upon the Concession of them, they will acquiesce, with­out disturbing the peace of the Church. And indeed it seems but reasonable that this should be required of them; that so their Governors may be assured that they have no reserves in ambuscado to disturb them afresh, when the main body of their scruples is disbanded and dismissed the Field. And I have taken this pains of purpose, (not to prescribe to the Reverend Fathers and Brethren of the one, or the other perswasion, my own conceptions as a just standard or ballance by which the Articles of Accommoda­tion must necessarily be measured or weighed out: but) partly, to excite them, by a kind of Pattern, how imper­fect soever, (drawn out of those Notions which by Books or Discourses I have taken up concerning the main differ­ences between them, and the Principles upon which they are engaged to maintain their contrary Assertions) to do something more perfect themselves of the like nature: And partly, with all submission and reverence, to set be­fore [Page 20]those in Publike Authority, if the Parties themselves will not, in what way they may quickly put an end to these strifes and divisions; to wit, by requiring them severally (each side for themselves) to state the utmost of their demands and desires, and the utmost of the Concessions and Condescentions which they can with a safe Conscience yield each other upon those demands; together with the grounds upon which they can go no farther; taken from the pub­likely owned Rules and Principles by which they will be tryed in Concernments of this Nature: and (upon the whole matter) make themselves Judges in the case, and compound the difference so, as it may offer least violence to those Principles of Conscience on either hand. For cer­tainly, what Persons or Parties soever shall upon other Principles then those of Conscience, or farther then those Principles by which their Conscience is governed do require, keep open our wounds, and obstruct a Christian and Cha­ritable Accommodation; will ipso facto, declare themselves guilty of a Schismatical Design in the Church, for some base and unworthy ends, and justly expose themselves to the jealousie of the Magistrate, as those that nurse a Prin­ciple of new disturbances to the State upon that account.