1 LAW. Object. 1.

The firſt and ſtrongeſt Objection, (which I ſhall therefore propoſe to the most advantage of the Objectors) is that which is grounded upon the LAWS, and their Obligation, For it may be objected,

1 That an Humane Law rightly eſtabliſhed, ſo long as it continueth a Law, obligeth the Subject (and that for Conſcience ſake) to the obſervation thereof, in ſuch manner and form as in the ſaid Law is preſcribed, and according to the true meaning and intention of the Lawgiver therein.

2 That a Law is then underſtood to be rightly eſtabliſhed, when it containeth nothing but what is honeſt and lawfull, and is enacted by ſuch perſon or perſons as have full and ſufficient Authority to make Laws.

3. That a Law ſo eſtabliſhed, continueth a Law, and is in force till it be either repealed by as good and full Authority, as that by which it was made, or elſe antiquated by a long continued (unenforced) diſuſe, with the tacite preſumed conſent of the Lawgiver.

4 That the Act printed before the Common Prayer Book, and entitled [An Act for the Ʋniformity of, &c.] was ſuch a Law: being it was eſtabliſhed in a Full and Free Parliament, and in peaceable times, and ratified by the Royal Aſſent.

5 That it ſtill continueth in force; Being not yet repealed, but by ſuch perſons, as (at leaſt in the opinion of thoſe that maintain the diſpute) for want of the Royal Aſſent, have not a ſufficient Right or Authority to do ſuch an Act: nor diſuſed, but of late time, and that by enforcement, and (as is preſumed) much againſt the Mind and Will of the Law-giver.

6 That therefore it ſtill reteineth the power of obliging in point of Conſcience: That power being ſo eſſential and intrinſecal to every Law, quatenus a Law, that it can in no wiſe be ſeparated from it.

7 And that therefore no Miniſter publickly officiating in the Church can with a good Conſcience, either omit any part of that which is commanded by the aforeſaid Law; or uſe any other form then what is conteined in the aforeſaid Book: But muſt either uſe the form preſcribed in the Book, or elſe forbear to officiate.

The Anſwer to this Objection, (granting all in the Premiſes beſides) dependeth upon the right underſtanding of that which is affirmed concerning the obligation of Laws, according to the intention of the Law-giver. Which if it ſhould be underſtood preciſely, of that particular actual and immediate intention, which the Law-giver had in making of any particular Law, and is ſufficiently declared by the words of the Law, will not hold true in all caſes. But there is ſuppoſed beſides that, in the Law-giver, a more general habitual and ultimate intention, of a more excellent and tranſcendent nature then the Former, which is to have an influence into, and over-ruling power over all particular Laws; viz. An intention by the Laws to procure and promote the publick good.

The former intention bindeth, where it is ſubſervient to the Letter, or conſiſtent with it; and conſequently bindeth in ordinary caſes, or elſe the Law is not an wholeſome Law. But where the obſervation of the Law by reaſon of the conjuncture of circumſtances or iniquity of the times (contingencies which no Lawgiver could either certainly fore-ſee, or, if fore-ſeen, ſufficiently provide againſt) would rather be prejudicial then advantagious to the publick, or is manifeſtly attended with ſuch inconveniences and grievous conſequents to the obſervers, as all the imaginable good that can redound to the publick thereby, cannot in any reaſonable meaſure countervail; in ſuch caſe the Law obligeth not, but according to the latter and more general intention only. Even as in the operations of Nature, particular agents do ordinarily move according to their proper and particular inclinations: Yet upon ſome occaſions and to ſerve the ends and intentions of univerſal Nature (for the avoiding of ſomething which Nature abhors) they are ſometimes carried with motions quite contrary to their particular Natures: as the Air to deſcend, and the Water to aſcend, for the avoiding of vacuity, &c.

The common received Maxime (which hath been ſufficiently miſapplied, and that ſometimes to evil purpoſes, ſince the beginning of theſe unhappy diviſions) in the true meaning of it looketh this way; Salus populi ſuprema lex. The equity of which Maxime, as it leaveth in the Lawgiver a power of diſpenſing with the Law (which is a ſuſpenſion of the obligation thereof for the time, in reſpect of the proper and particular intention) as he ſhall ſee it expedient in order to the publick good: So it leaveth in the Subject a liberty upon juſt occaſions (as in caſes of great exigency, and for the preventing of ſuch hazards and inconveniences as might prove of noiſome conſequence to the publick) to do otherwiſe then the Law requireth. And neither is the exerciſe of that power in the Law-giver, to be thought an unreaſonable prerogative, nor the uſe of this liberty in the Subject, an unreaſonable preſumption: In as much as the power of diſpenſing with particular Laws is ſuch a prerogative, as without which no Common-wealth can be well governed, but Juſtice would be turned into Gall and Wormwood; nor can the Supreme Governour, without forfeiture of that faithfulneſs which he ows to the publick Weal, diveſt himſelf thereof. And he that preſumeth of the Law-givers conſent to diſpence with him for the obſerving of the Law, in ſuch needfull caſes (where he hath not the opportunity to conſult his pleaſure therein) preſumeth no more then he hath reaſon to do: For it may well be preſumed that the Law-giver, who is bound in all his Laws to intend the ſafety of the publick, and of every memeber thereof in his due proportion; hath no intention by the ſtrict obſervation of any particular Law to oblige any who is a member of the publick to his deſtruction or ruine, when the common good is not anſwerably promoted thereby. Upon which ground it is generally reſolved by Caſuiſts, that No Conſtitution (meerly humane) can lay ſuch obligation upon the Conſcience of the Subject, but that he may (according to exigence of Circumſtances) do otherwiſe then the Conſtitution requires; provided it be done extra caſum ſcandali et contemptus, that is to ſay, Without either betraying in himſelf any contempt of the authority the Law-giver by his carriage, or giving any juſt occaſion of ſcandal to others by his example in ſo doing.

I have been ſomewhat the larger in explaining this point, not only for the better clearing of the preſent doubt, but alſo in reſpect of the uſefulneſs of this conſideration, for the preventing and removing of many ſcruples that may happen to conſciencious men in ſuch times as theſe, wherein ſo many things are (and are like to be) commanded and forbidden, contrary to the eſtabliſhed Laws, and thoſe (as they are perſwaded) yet ſtanding in force. The beſt Rule that I know, to guide men in their deliberations and actions in ſuch emergent caſes (according to what hath been already delivered) is adviſedly and impartially to weigh the Benefits and Inconveniencies as well on the one ſide as on the other, and then compare them the one with the other, as they ſtand in relation to the publick good. And if after ſuch examination and compariſon made, it ſhall then evidently (or but in judgment of probability) appear, that the obſervation of the Law, according to the proper intention of the Law-giver therein, though with hazard of Eſtate, Liberty or ever Life it ſelf, hath a greater tendency to the publick good, and the preſervation of Church or Common-wealth in Safety Peace and Order, then the preventing of the aforeſaid hazards or other evil conſequents, by doing otherwiſe then the Law requireth, can have: Or (which cometh to one) if the violating of the Law ſhall then appear to be more prejudicial to the publick good, then the preſervation of the Subjects Eſtate, Liberty or Life, can be beneficial thereunto. In ſuch caſe, the Subject is bound to hazard all he hath, and to undergo whatſoever inconveniences or calamities can enſue thereupon, rather the violate the Law, with contempt of that Authority to which he oweth ſubjection. But if it ſhall, after ſuch compariſon made evidently (or but more probably then the contrary) appear, that the preſervation of ſuch a perſons Life Liberty or Eſtate, would more benefit the Church or Common-wealth, then the punctual obſervation of the Law, at that time, and with thoſe circumſtances, would do: It were an unſeaſonable, unreaſonable and pernicious ſcrupuloſity, for ſuch a perſon to think himſelf in that caſe obliged, for the obſerving of the Law (perhaps but once or twice) with little or no benefit to the publick, to ruine himſelf, whereby to render himſelf unuſefull and unſerviceable to the publick ever after.

To bring this diſcourſe home, and to apply it to the buſineſs now under diſpute: Suppoſe we, ten, twenty, or an hundred godly Miniſters, well affected to the eſtabliſhed Liturgie, and actually poſſeſſed of Benefices with charge of Souls to them belonging, ſhould think themſelves in conſcience obliged to uſe the whole form of the Book, as is by the firſt appointed, without any addition, omiſſion or alteration whatſoever, and ſhould notwithſtanding the preſent conjuncture of Affairs, •• reſolve to uſe the ſame accordingly; it would be well conſidered, what the effects and conſequents thereof would be. Beſides other evils theſe three are viſible, which muſt all unavoidably follow, one upon another, if any body ſhall be found (as doubtleſs within a ſhort time there will be found ſome or other) to inform and proſecute againſt them.

1 The utter undoing of ſo many worthy perſons, fit to do God and his Church ſervice, together with all thoſe other perſons that depend upon them for livelihood; by putting the fruits of their Benefices whereby they ſhould buy themſelves Bread, under Sequeſtration.

2 The depriving thoſe perſons of the opportunities of diſcharging the Duties that belong unto them in their Miniſterial Calling; in not permitting them after ſuch Sequaſtration, to teach or inſtruct the people belonging to their Charge or to exerciſe any thing of their Function publickly in the Church.

3 The delivering over the Sheep of Chriſt, that lately were under the hands of faithful Shepherds, into the cuſtody of ravening Wolves; when ſuch Guides ſhall be over the ſeveral Congregations, as will be ſure to miſ-teach them one way or other: viz. either by inſtilling into them Puritanical and ſuperſtitious Principles, that they may the more ſecurely exerciſe their Presbyterian tyranny over their Judgements, Conſciences, Perſons, and Eſtates: Or elſe by ſetting up new Lights before them, to lead them into a maze of Anabaptiſtical Confuſion and Frenſie.

Theſe Conſequents are ſo heavie to the Sufferers, ſo certain to enſue upon the uſe of Common Prayer; and ſo much without the power of the Law-givers (in this ſtate of Affairs,) either to remedie or prevent: That it is beyond the wit of man to imagine, what benefit to the publick can accrue by the ſtrict obſervation of the Act, that may in any proportion countervail theſe miſchiefs. In which caſe, that man muſt needs ſuppoſe a ſtrange auſterity in the Law-giver, that dares not preſume of his conſent, to diſoblige him (for the time) from obſerving the ſame.

It would be alſo well conſidered, whether he, that by his over-nice ſcrupuloſity runneth all theſe hazards, be not (in ſome meaſure) guilty of his own undoing, deſerting his Station and betraying his Flock: and do not thereby loſe much of that comfort, which a Chriſtian Confeſſour may take in his ſufferings, when they are laid upon him by the hand of God, and not pulled upon himſelf with his own hands. And more I ſhall not need to ſay as to that firſt Objection.

2 SCANDAL. Object. 2.

The next thing Objected is, The danger of the SCANDAL, that others might be ready to take at the example: Who ſeeing the Law ſo little regarded by ſuch men (men that have Cure of Souls, and perhaps alſo of ſome eminencie and eſteem in the Church, and whoſe Example will be much look'd upon) will be eaſily encouraged by their Example, to ſet light by all Authority, and to take the liberty to obey and diſobey the Laws of their Soveraigns at their pleaſure.

But this Objection after we are once well ſatisfied concerning the former, need not much trouble us. For

1 Firſt, It ſeemeth a very unreaſonable thing, in caſes of great exigency (ſuch as we now ſuppoſe) that the fear of ſcandalizing our weak Brethren (which is but Debitum charitatis only) ſhould lay upon us a peremptory neceſſity of obſerving the Law punctually, whatſoever inconveniences or miſchiefs may enſue thereupon: Whereas the duty of obedience to our known Governours (which is Debitum juſtitiae alſo, and therefore more obligatory then the other) doth not impoſe upon us that neceſſity; as hath been already ſhewn.

2. Beſides, Arguments drawn from Scandal, in things neither unlawful, nor (ſetting the reaſon of Scandal aſide) inexpedient; as they are ſubject to ſundry frailties otherwiſe, ſo are they manifeſtly of no weight at all, when they are counterpoiſed with the apparent danger of evil conſequents on the other ſide. For in ſuch caſes there is commonly equall danger (if not rather ſometimes more) of Scandal to be taken from the Example the quite contrary way. We may ſee it in debating the point now in hand. It is alledged on the one ſide, that by laying aſide the uſe of Common Prayer, men that are not over-ſcrupulous will be encouraged to take a greater liberty in diſpenſing with the Laws (to the deſpiſing both of Laws and Governours) then they ought. And why may it not by the ſame reaſon be as well alledged on the other ſide, that by holding up a neceſſity of uſing Common Prayer, men that have tenderer Conſciences may be induced to entertain Scruples (to their own undoing, and the deſtruction of their people) when they need not?

3 But that in the third place, which cometh up home to the buſineſs, and taketh off the Objection clearly, is this That in judging caſes of Scandal, we are not to look ſo much at the event, what it is or may be, as at the Cauſe whence it cometh. For ſometimes there is given juſt cauſe of Scandal, and yet no Scandal followeth, becauſe it is not taken: Sometimes Scandal is taken, and yet no juſt cauſe given: And ſometimes there is both cauſe of Scandal given, and Scandal thereat taken. But no man is concerned in any Scandal that happeneth to another, by occaſion of any thing done by him, neither is chargeable with it, farther then he is guilty of having given it.

If then we give Scandal to others, and they take it not, the whole guilt is ours; they are faultleſs.

If we give it and they take it, we are to bear a ſhare in the blame as well as they; and that a deeper ſhare too; (Vae homini: Wo to the man by whom the offence cometh, Matt. 18.7.) But if they take offence when we give none, it is a thing we cannot help, and therefore the whole blame muſt lie upon them. Wherefore, if at any time, any doubt ſhall ariſe in the caſe of Scandal, how far forth the danger thereof may or may not oblige us to the doing or not doing of any thing propoſed: The reſolution will come on much the eaſier, if we ſhall but rightly underſtand what it is to give Scandal, or how many wayes a man may become guilty of ſcandalizing another by his Example.

The wayes as I conceive are but theſe four.

1 The firſt is, when a man doth ſomething before another man, which is in it ſelf evil, unlawfull, and ſinfull. In which caſe, neither the the intention of him that doth it, nor the event as to him that ſeeth it done, is of any conſideration. For it mattereth not whether the doer hath an intention to draw the other into Sin thereby or not; neither doth it matter whether the other were thereby induced to commit Sin or not. The very matter and ſubſtance of the action being evil, and done before others, is ſufficient to render the Doer guilty of having given Scandal; though neither he had any intention himſelf ſo to do, nor was any other perſon actually ſcandalized thereby. Becauſe whatſoever is in it ſelf, and in its own nature evil, is alſo of it ſelf and in its own nature ſcandalous and of ill example. Thus did Hophni and Phineas the Sons of Eli, give Scandal by their wretched profaneneſs and greedineſs about the Sacrifices of the Lord, and their vile and ſhameleſs abuſing the women, 1 Sam. 2.17.22. And ſo did David alſo give great Scandal in the matter of Ʋriah, 2 Sam. 12.14. Here the Rule is, Do nothing that is evil, for fear of giving Scandal.

2 The ſecond way is, when a man doth ſomething before another, with a direct intention and formal purpoſe of drawing him thereby to commit Sin. In which caſe, neither the matter of the Action, nor the Event is of any conſideration. For it maketh no difference (as to the Sin of giving Scandal) whether any man be effectually enticed thereby to commit Sin or not: neither doth it make any difference, whether the thing done, were in it ſelf unlawful or not; ſo as it had but an appearance of evil, and from thence an aptitude to draw another to the doing of that (by imitation) which would be really and intrinſecally evil. The wicked intention alone (whatſoever the effect ſhould be, or what means ſoever ſhould be uſed to promote it) ſufficeth to induce the guilt of giving Scandal upon the Doer. This was Jeroboam's Sin, in ſetting up the Calves with a formal purpoſe and intention thereby (for his own ſecular and ambitious ends) to corrupt the purity of Religion, and to draw the people to an idolatrous worſhip: For which cauſe he is ſo often ſtigmatized with it, as with a note of infamie, to ſtick by him whilſt the world laſteth; being ſcarce ever mentioned in the Scripture, but with this addition, Jeroboam the Son of Nebat, that made Iſrael to ſin. Here the Rule is, Do nothing, good or evil, with an intention to give Scandal.

3 The third way is, when a man doth ſomething before another, which in it ſelf is not evil, but indifferent, and ſo according to the Rule of Chriſtian liberty lawful for him to do or not to do, as he ſhall ſee cauſe, (yea and perhaps otherwiſe commodious and convenient for him to do;) yet whereat he probably foreſeeth the other will take Scandal, and be occaſioned thereby to do evil. In ſuch caſe, if the thing be not in ſome degree (prudentially) neceſſary for him to do; but that he might, without very great inconvenience or prejudice to himſelf, or any third perſon leave it undone: he is bound in charity and compaſſion to his Brothers Soul (for whom Chriſt died) and for the avoiding of Scandal, to abridge himſelf in the exerciſe of his Chriſtian liberty for that time ſo far, as rather to ſuffer ſome inconvenience himſelf by the not doing of it, then by the doing of it, to cauſe his Brother to offend. The very caſe which is ſo often, ſo earneſtly, and ſo largely inſiſted upon by Saint Paul. See Rom. 14.13-21. Rom. 15.1-3. 1 Cor. 8.7-13: and 9.12, 15, 19-22: and 10. 23-33. Here the Rule is, Do nothing, that may be reaſonably forborn, whereat Scandal will be taken.

4 The laſt way is, when a man doth ſomething before another, which it is not only lawful, but (according to the exigency of preſent circumſtances) pro hic & nunc, very behoofefull, and even (prudentially) neceſſary for him to do: but foreſeeth that the other will be very like to make an ill uſe of it, and take encouragement thereby to commit Sin, if he be not withall exceeding carefull, as much as poſſibly in him lieth, to prevent the Scandal that might be taken thereat. For, Qui non prohibet peccare cum poteſt, jubet. In ſuch caſe, the bare neglect of his Brother, and the not uſing his uttermoſt endeavour to prevent the evil that might enſue, maketh him guilty: Upon which conſideration ſtandeth the equity of that judicial Law given to the Jewes, Exod. 21.33, 34. which ordereth, That in caſe a man dig a Pit or Well, for the uſe of his Family, and looking no further then his own conveniency, put no Cover upon it, but leave it open, whereby it happeneth, his Neighbours Beaſt to fall thereinto and periſh. The owner of the Pit is to make it good, in as much as he was the occaſioner of that loſs unto his Neighbour; which he might and ought to have prevented. Here the Rule is, Order the doing of that, which may not well be left undone, in ſuch ſort, that no Scandal (ſo far as you can help it) may be taken thereat.

To apply this, The thing now under debate (the action propoſed to preſent enquiry) is, The Laying aſide of the Common Prayer Book enjoyned by Law, and uſing inſtead thereof, ſome other Form of Church Service of our own deviſing. And the Enquiry concerning it is, Whether it may be done with a good Conſcience, in regard of the Scandal that is given, (or at least) may be taken thereat; yea or no? Now for as much as in this Enquiry we take it for granted, that the thing to be done is not in its own nature and ſimply evil, but rather (in this ſtate of affairs) prudentially neceſſary; and that they who make ſcruple at it upon the point of Scandal, have not the leaſt intention of drawing either the Laws into contempt, or their Brethren into Sin by their example: It is manifeſt that three of the now mentioned caſes, with the ſeveral Rules to each of them appending are not pertinent to the preſent enquiry. But ſince the laſt of the four only proves to be our caſe; we have therefore no more to do for the ſetling of our Judgments, the quieting of our Conſciences, and the regulating of our practiſe in this affair, then to conſider well what the Rule in that caſe given, obligeth us unto. Which is, not to leave the action undone, for the danger of Scandal, (which beſides the inconveniencies formerly mentioned, would but ſtart new Queſtions, and thoſe beget more, to the multiplying of unneceſſary ſcruples in infinitum:) but to order the doing of it ſo, that (if it were poſſible) no Scandal at all might enſue thereupon, or at leaſtwiſe not by our default, through our careleſs or undiſcreet managery thereof. Even as the Jew that ſtood in need to ſink a Pit for the ſervice of his Houſe or Grounds, was not, for fear his Neighbors Beaſt ſhould fall into it, and be drowned, bound by the Law to forbear the making of it; but only to provide a ſufficient Cover for it, when he he had made it. The thing then in this caſe, is not to be left undone, when it ſo much behoveth us to do it: but the action to be carried on (for the manner of doing, and in all reſpects and circumſtances thereunto belonging) with ſo much clearneſs, tenderneſs, moderation and wiſdom (to our beſt underſtandings) that the neceſſity of our ſo doing, with the true cauſe thereof, may appear to the world, to the ſatisfaction of thoſe that are willing to take notice of it; and that ſuch perſons as would be willing to make uſe of our example to do the ſame thing, where there is not the like cauſe of neceſſity, may do it upon their own ſcore, and not be able to vouch our practiſe for their excuſe. Which how it may be beſt done for particular directions, every charitable and conſciencious man muſt ask his own diſcretion: Some general hints tending thereunto, I ſhall lay down in anſwering the next Objection (where they will fall in again not unproperly) and ſo ſtop two Gaps with one Buſh.

3 SCHISM. Object. 3.

The laſt Objection is that of SCHISM. The Object • rs hold all ſuch perſons as have oppoſed againſt either Liturgie or Church-government, as they were by Law eſtabliſhed amongſt us within this Realm, for no better then Schiſmaticks: and truly I ſhall not much gainſay it: But then they argue. That for them to do the ſame thing in the publick worſhip of God, that Schiſmaticks do, and for the doing whereof eſpecially it is that they juſtly account them Schiſmaticks; would (as they conceive) involve them in the Schiſm alſo, as partakers thereof in ſome degree with the other; and their Conſciences alſo would from Rom. 14.22. condemn them, either of Hypocriſie in allowing that in themſelves, and in their own practice, which they condemn in others, or of uncharitableneſs in judging others as Schiſmaticks, for doing but the ſame thing which they can allow themſelves to practice. For all that ſuch perſons as they call Schiſmaticks do in this matter of the Church Service, is but to leave out the Churches Prayers, and to put in their own. Or ſay, this ſhould not make them really guilty of the Schiſm they ſo much deteſt; yet would ſuch their ſymbolizing with them ſeem (at leaſt) a kind of unworthy complyance with them, more then could well become the ſimplicity of a Chriſtian, (much leſs of a Miniſter of the Goſpel,) whoſe duty it is to ſhun even the leaſt appearance of evil, 1 Theſſ. 5.22. Beſides that by ſo doing, they ſhould but confirm thoſe men in their Schiſmatical Principles and Practiſe.

This Objection hath three Branches. To the firſt whereof I oppoſe the old ſaying, Duo cum faciunt idem non eſt idem. Which although ſpoken quite to another purpoſe, yet it is capable of ſuch a ſenſe as will very well fit our preſent purpoſe alſo. I anſwer therefore in ſhort, That to do the ſame thing that Schiſmaticks do (eſpecially in times of confuſion, and untill things can be reduced into better order, and when men are neceſſitated thereunto, to prevent greater miſchiefs,) doth not neceſſarily inferr a partaking with them in Schiſm: no nor ſo much as probably, unleſs it may appear, upon probable preſumptions otherwiſe, that it is done out of the ſame Schiſmatical Spirit, and upon ſuch Schiſmatical Principles as theirs are.

The other two Branches; (viz. That of ſeeming compliance with Schiſmaticks; and that, of the ill uſe they may make of it, to confirm them in their Schiſm) do upon the matter fall in upon the aforeſaid point of Scandal; and are in effect but the ſame Objection, only put into a new Dreſs: and ſo have received their anſwer already. And the only remedy againſt both theſe fears (as well that of Scandal, as this of Schiſm) is the ſame which was there preſcribed: even to give aſſurance to all men, by our carriage and behaviour therein, that we do not lay aſide the Common Prayer of our own accord, or out of any diſlike thereof; neither in contempt of our rightfull Governours, or of the Laws; nor out of any baſe compliance with the times, or other unworthy ſecular own-ends; nor out of any Schiſmatical Principles, Seditious Deſign, or innovating Humour: but meerly enforced thereunto by ſuch a neceſſity as we cannot otherwiſe avoid, in order to the glory of God, and the publick good: for the preſervation of our Families, our Flocks, and our Function: and that with the good leave and allowance (as we have great reaſon to believe) of ſuch as have power to diſpence with us and the Laws in that behalf: This if we ſhall do bona fide, and with our utmoſt endeavours, in ſingleneſs of Heart, and with godly diſcretion; perhaps it will not be enough to prevent, either the cenſures of inconſiderate and inconſiderable perſons, or the ill uſe that may be made of our example, through the ignorance or negligence of ſome; (ſcandalum puſillorum;) or through the perverſeneſs and malice of other ſome (ſcandalum Phariſaeorum, as the Schools term them:) But aſſuredly it will be ſufficient in the ſight of God, and in the witneſs of our own Hearts, and to the Conſciences of charitable and conſidering men, to acquit us clearly of all guilt either of Scandal or Schiſm in the leaſt degree.

Which we may probably do, by obſerving theſe enſuing (and ſuch other like) general directions: (the liberty of uſing ſuch meet accommodations, as the circumſtances in particular caſes ſhall require, ever more allowed and reſerved,) viz.

1 If we ſhall decline the company and ſociety of known Schiſmaticks, not converſing frequently and familiarly with them, or more then the neceſſary affairs of Life, and the rules of Neighbourhood, and common Civility will require: Eſpecially not to give countenance to their Church Aſſemblies by our preſence among them, if we can avoid it.

2 If we ſhall retain as well in common Diſcourſe, as in our Sermons, and the holy Offices of the Church, the old Theological and Eccleſiaſtical terms and forms of ſpeech which have been generally received and uſed in the Churches of Chriſt, which our people are well acquainted with, and are wholſom and ſignificant: And not follow our new Maſters in that uncouth affected garb of ſpeech, or canting language rather (if I may ſo call it,) which they have of late time taken up, as the ſignal diſtinctive and characteriſtical note of that, which (in that their new Language) they call the Godly Party, or the Communion of Saints.

3 If in officiating we repeat not only the Lords Prayer, the Creed, the ten Commandements; and ſuch other paſſages in the Common Prayer Book, as (being the very words of Scripture) no man can except againſt: but ſo much alſo of the old Liturgie beſides, in the very words and ſyllables of the Book as we think the Miniſters of State in thoſe parts where we live, will ſuffer, and the Auditory before whom we officiate wil bear; ſith the Officers in all parts of the Land are not alike ſtrict, nor the People in all Pariſhes alike diſaffected in this reſpect.

4 If where we muſt of neceſſity vary from the words, we yet follow the order of the Book in the main parts of the Holy Offices; retaining the ſubſtance of the Prayers, and embelliſhing thoſe of our own making, which we ſubſtitute into the place of thoſe we leave out, with phraſes and paſſages taken out of the Book in other places.

5 If where we cannot ſafely mention the particulars expreſſed in the Book, as namely for the King, the Queen, the Royal Progeny, and the Biſhops, we ſhall yet uſe in our Prayers ſome ſuch general terms and other intimations deviſed for the purpoſe, as may ſufficiently convey to the underſtandings of the people, what our intentions are therein, and yet not be ſufficient to fetch us within compaſs of the Ordinance.

6 If we ſhall in our Sermons take occaſion, now and then, where it may be pertinent, either to diſcover the weakneſs of the Puritane Principles and Tenents to the People; or to ſhew out of ſome paſſages and expreſſions in the Common Prayer Book, the conſonancy of thoſe obſervations we have raiſed from the Text with the Judgement of the Church of England: or to juſtifie ſuch particular paſſages in the Letany, Collects and other parts of our Liturgie, as have been unjuſtly quarrell'd at by Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptiſts and others, by what Name and Title ſoever they be called, of the Puritan Sectaries.

Thus I have freely acquainted you, both with my Practiſe and Judgment, in the point propoſed in your Friend's Letter: How I ſhall be able to ſatisfie his or your Judgement in what I have written I know not; However I have ſatisfied both your deſire and his in writing, and ſhall reſt

Your Brother and Servant in the Lord. Novemb. 12. 1652.