I Have found my self obliged, by that hor­rible confusion in Religion, which the late Warre had introduced, to declare the ut­most of mine opinion, concerning the whole point of Religion, upon which the Western Church stands divided into so many parties. And now finding no cause to repent me of do­ing it, can find no cause why I should not declare the consequence of it, in setling of that which remains of our differences. For, middle waies to so good an end, are now ac­ceptable, meerly as middle waies, and ten­ding to drive a bargain, without pretending that they ought to be admitted. How much more an expedient pretending necessity, from reasons extant in publick, and not contra­dicted?

The chief ground that I suppose here, because I have proved it at large, is the meaning of that Article of our Creed, which professeth one Catholick Church. For either it signifies nothing, or it signifies that God hath founded one Visible Church, [Page 4] That is, that he hath obliged all Churches, (and all Christians, of whom all Churches consist) to hold visible communion with the whole Church, in the visible offi­ces of Gods publick service; and there­fore I am satisfied, that the differences upon which we are divided, cannot be justly setled upon any terms, which any part of the whole Church shall have just cause to refuse, as in­consistent with the unity of the whole Church. For, in that case we must needs become Schismaticks, by setling our selves upon such Laws, under which any Church may refuse to communicate with us, because it is bound to communicate with the whole Church. True it is, that the foundation of the Church, upon these terms, will presup­pose the intire profession of Christianity, whether concerning Faith or manners; For otherwise, how should those offices, in which all the Church is to communicate, be coun­ted the service of God, according to Christi­anity? And this profession is the condition, upon the undergoing whereof, all men, by being baptized and made Christians, are also admitted to communion with the Church, as members of it.

But nothing can make it visible to the com­mon [Page 5] reason of all men, what communion they are to resort unto for their Salvation; but the visible Communion of all parts of the Church; which, having been maintained for divers ages of the Church, is now visi­bly interrupted by the Reformation, and be­fore, by the breach between the Greek and Latin Church; and therefore, though it be visible to reason rightly informed, what com­munion a man is to imbrace for his Salvati­on; yet it is not now visible to the common reason of all men that seek it. If this be true, then, no power of the Church can ex­tend to farre, as to make any thing a part of the common Christianity, which was not so from the beginning; but it must needs extend so farre, as to limit and determine all matters in difference, so as the preservation of Unity may require. And therefore the Unity of all parts supposing the profession of Christi­anity whole, and intire; we shall justly be chargeable with the crime of Heresie, if we admit them to our communion, who openly disclaim the Faith of the whole Church, or any part of it. For, those men have been, and are justly counted Hereticks, as to the Church, that communicate with those who profess Heresie; though no Hereticks as to [Page 6] God, as not believing it themselves. But the unity of all parts being subordinate, and and of inferiour consideration to the Unity of the whole; we shall justly be chargeable with the crime of Schisme, if we seek unity within our selves, by abrogating the Laws of the whole, as not obliged to hold communion with it.

I confess I am convicted, that as things stand, we are not to expect any reason from the Church of Rome, and those who hold communion with it, in restoring the unity of the Church, upon such Laws, as shall render the means of Salvation visible to all that use them as they ought. And this, and only this, I hold to be the due ground, upon which we are inabled to provide an establishment of Uni­ty in Religion among our selves, (as hereto­fore a Reformation in Religion for our selves) without concurrence of the whole. But if we should think our selves at large, to conclude our selves without respect to the Faith and Laws of the whole Church; we may easily bring upon our selves a just imputation of Hereticks, for communicating with Here­ticks; but a juster of Schismaticks, if we abrogate the Laws of the whole Church, to obtain Unity among our selves; as declaring [Page 7] thereby, that we are not content to hold uni­ty with the whole, unless a part may give Law to the whole. So farre am I from that mad­ness, which hath had a hand in all our mis­eries; of thinking the right measure of Re­formation to stand in going as far as it is pos­sible from the Church of Rome. For, were it evidenced, (as it neither is, nor ever will be evidenced,) that the Pope is Antichrist, and all Papists by their profession Idolaters; yet must we either rase the Article of one Catholick Church out of our Creed, or confess that the Pope can neither be Antichrist, nor the Papists Idolaters, for, or by any thing vvhich is common to them vvith the vvhole Church.

I knovv some vvill think it strange, that the Pope should excommunicate us on Maundy-Thursdays; that vve should svvear in the Oath of Supremacy, that no forreign Prelate hath, or ought to have any Jurisdiction, or Autho­rity Ecclesiastical in this Kingdom; and yet vve be subject to do such Acts, for vvhich the Church of Rome may justly renounce communion vvith us. But the vvord ought in that Oath is Indicative and not Potential, not deberet, but debet; For it vvere a contradicti­on for the Church of England to pray for the Catholick Church, and the unity thereof, [Page 8] and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church, and the General Councile thereof, over it self. King James of excellent memory, acknowledgeth the Pope to be Pa­triarch of the west; that is, Head of the general Council of the Western Churches. And the right R. Father in God, Thomas L. B. of Winchester under Q. Elizabeth, in his answer to the Seminaries Apology, being demanded why we own him not so in effect, answereth bluntly, but truely, because he is not content with the right of a Patriarch. For, should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance, should he retire to the Priviledge of a Patriarch, in seeing the Ca­nons executed, the schisme would lye at our door, if we should refuse it. Now, if they curse us, while we pray for the unity of the whole Church, is it not the case of the Ca­tholicks with the Donatists? For, these re­baptized them whom those had baptized, whited over the inside of their Churches, when they became possessed of them, scra­ped over their Altars, (being Tables of wood) in detestation of them, as Apostates & persecutors; while the Catholicks called them brethren, and acknowledg'd them rightly bap­tized, and received them that were converted [Page 9] from that Schism in their respective Orders. The unity of the Church is of such conse­quence to the salvation of all Cristians, that no excess on one side can cause the other to in­crease the distance, but they shall be answera­ble for the souls that perish by the means of it.

And therefore, not departing from the opinion which I have declared, concerning the termes upon which all parties ought to reconcile themselves, untill I shall have rea­son showed me, why I should do it; I shall now go no further, then the matters that are actually questioned among us; not extending my discourse to points, that may perhaps more justly become questionable, then some of those which have come into dispute. Profes­sing in the beginning, that I believe they may and ought to be setled by a Law of the King­dom, obliging all parties beside Recusants. But, that the matter of that Law ought to be limited by the consent and Authority of the Church, respective to this Kingdom. And withall, that I think it ought to be held, and shall for mine own part hold it an act meerly ambulatory & provisionall for the time. For, though there is no hope of reconcilement with the Church of Rome, as thinges are; yet is there infinite reason for all sides, to abate of [Page 10] their particular pretensions, for the recovering of so incomparable a benefit as the unity of the whole; If ever it shall please God to make the parties appear disposed to it.

Now, the errors which we are to shut out, if [...]e will recover the unity of a visible Church, (that is, of Gods whole Church) are two in my judgment. First, though some things have been disputed in other parts, from whence the same consequence may be infer­red; yet England is the place, and ours the times, which first openly and downright have maintained, that there is no such thing as a Church, in the nature of one visible Commu­nion, founded by God. But it is maintained by severall parties among us, upon severall grounds. For, some do not or will not under­stand, that there can be any Ecclesiasticall Power founded by that act of God which foundeth Christianity, where there is Secular Power, founded also by those acts of God, whereby he authorizeth and inforceth all just Soveraignties. Though all times, all parts, all Nations of Christendom since Constantine profess to maintain the Church in that Pow­er, in which they found it acknowledged by Christians, when he first undertook to main­tain that Christianity which he professed; [Page 11] all this must be taken, either for meer hypo­crisy, or meer nonsense. Others there are, that do not think themselves obliged to the unity of Gods Church, upon farre different Principles. There are of our Enthusiasts, such as are themselves every one a Church to them­selves, and by themselves, as being above Or­dinances, and the Communion of the Church provided only for proficients. But all Inde­pendent Congregations make the same pro­fession, and are manifestly grounded upon the same. For, how can they imagine themselves members of one visible Church, who profess that they cannot be obliged to hold commu­nion with any Congregation but their own?

And yet, with favour, the same consequence insuing upon so different pretenses, there must be some supposition common to both, upon which both do ground themselves. And it is easily visible what that is. Both o­pinions must suppose, that a man may be heir to Christs Kingdom, and indowed with Gods Spirit, without being, or before he be a mem­ber of Gods Church. And the Independents indeed do manifestly profess, that, knowing themselves and others to be Gods Children, and indowed with his Spirit, they are in a ca­pacity to joyn in Ecclesiasticall Communion, [Page 12] with those whom they know to be such. So, they become members of a Church, being Gods Children before, without considering how they shall be members of the Whole Church. The others are satisfied, that, by be­ing members of a State which professeth Christianity, they are also members of that one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church, which by our Creed we profess to believe. A ground which holdeth accidentally, so long as that State constituteth a visible member of the Whole, or the Catholick Church; But not imaginable to serve the turn, when States differ in point of Christianity, and may every day appeal to force, whither is the true Church and whither the false.

For, is it not manifest, that the professi­ons of the Lutheranes, the Calvinists, the Greekes, the Abyssines are protected by Soveraign Powers, as well as the professi­on of the Church of Rome, or the Church of England? Is it not manifest, that the Powers that profess them, maintain them respectively to be Gods truth? Why then do we dispute any longer, which is the true Reli­gion and which is the false, if it be enough for Christians to resolve all the doubt they can have concerning Religion, into the command [Page 13] of their Soveraigns, only professing Christia­nity? Is it not manifest that Soveraigns do use to punish their Subjects, that conform not to their Lawes concerning Religion, but fol­low that Religion which is in force under other Soveraignties? Is it possible to imagine, that Subjects can be obliged, by one and the same will of God, to follow contrary Lawes under severall Soveraigns? Or that Soveraigns can be inabled, by one and the same Law of God, to punish their Subjects, for serving God according to contrary professions? True it is, Subjects that suffer in a good cause shall be gainers thereby; gaining Heaven by their losses of this world. But what shall become of the Soveraigns that persecute them, being in a good cause? Or how shall not some of them bepersecuted in a good cause, who are persecuted in contrary causes? I know not whither this peremtory difficulty was the cause; But I am sure recourse hath been had to a more desperate answer; that every Subject is bound to profess the Religion of his Sove­raign; yea, though it injoin him to renounce Christ with his mouth; remaining bound all the while to believe in him with his heart; and that by this belief, he shall be saved as a Christian. Neither is this position tenable [Page 14] but upon this answer, nor doth this answer import any less, than the utter renouncing of Christianity. I know, that in the records of the ancient Church, those who only professed to believe Christianity, (who were called Ca­techumeni, or Scholars to the Church) are some­times called by the name of Christians. But I know withall, that they were never counted in the state of Salvation, till they had taken upon them the profession of Christianity, by being admitted to the Sacrament of Baptisme. I know also, that this Baptisme, though it was not counted void, when it was Ministred in due form; yet it was never counted effectuall to Salvation, but when a man is baptised into the true Faith, and that in the Unity of Gods Church. For, though the names of Here­ticks and Schismaticks, have been made only Bug-bears to fright children with, in this time of our troubles; yet, so long as Christianity continues, those that separate themselves from the Church upon pretenses concerning the substance of Faith shall be properly called Hereticks; But, if the cause concern not the substance of Christianity, Schismaticks. And therefore, Christianity consisting not only in believing, or purposing with the heart, but also in professing with the mouth; (first sincerely, [Page 15] then the true Faith, & lastly by being baptised) he that professeth himself free to renounce his Christianity, as farre as the mouth, hath effectively renounced it; Because he hath ef­fectively drawn back that promise, upon con­dition whereof he was baptized; of professing Chistianity to the death.

And truly, if every Christian State be the Church of God within the territories there­of, then cannot all Churches concurr to make up that one visible Church of God which our Creed professeth. For, there is nothing more evidently true than the saying of Plato; that all States are natu­rally enemies one to another, especially those that are borderers, And this enmity, in our dayes, consisteth visibly in those diffe­rences of Religion, upon which the neighbor Soveraignties of Christendome are now at distance. It is therefore no way imaginable, how all Christian States should concur to make up that one visible Church, whereinto by being Baptized, we obtain the spirituall and eternall priviledges of Christians. But, that it is the profession of the whole Rule of Christianity, that makes any people or State a part of the visible Church; being governed by such rules, in the exercise of Gods service, as [Page 16] may make it the same Society with that, which was once unquestionably Gods Church, or part of it. For otherwise, how should the visible Church continue one and the same, from the first to the second comming of our Lord?

And here you have the second point of our differences; For, all our Sects, under the ti­tle of Gods free grace, do maintain, that the promises of the Gospell, and our right in them, depends not upon the truth of mens Christianity. As if God were not free enough of his Grace, if he should reserve himself a duty of being served, as by Christians, upon those whom he tenders life everlasting to, upon such termes. It is no new thing in Eng­land, to hear of those who professe, that God sees not, nor can see any sinne in his elect; So that in their opinion there is no mortall sinne but repentance; because that must sup­pose, that a man thought himself out of the State of grace, by the sin whereof he repents? I think I am duly informed of a Malefactor dying upon the Gallows, that professed, to the strengthening of his brethren, that he had overcome all temptation to repentance; ac­knowledging that, since his being in Prison, he had been strongly moved to repent. And, [Page 17] that one of Hackets three conspirators, when he was come to himself, continued to profess, that he thought himself in the State of Gods grace all the while. But I will go no further, then the words which I have quoted in ano­ther place, out of a Pamphlet written to satis­fy the Godly party in Wales, being offended at the late Usurpers proceedings; which al­ledgeth, that we are not to be judged at the last day, either by our works, or by our faith; but by Gods everlasting purpose concerning each of us; By virtue whereof Christ being alive at the heart, the violation of all his ingagements to them, by usurping over them as over others, made no difference in his estate towards God. Whosoever writ this, I think I am duly informed, that himself caused it to be published. But I am certain, that, to the everlasting in­famy of a Christian Nation, if reparation be not made, it is supposed to be the sense of all the Godly in it. And to the same effect, my memory assures me to have read in one of his speeches; That there are at this day inspira­tions of Gods Spirit besides the Scriptures, though not against the Scriptures. Now cer­tainly, that which a man hath by virtue of the Scriptures; that is of Christianity; can by [Page 18] no means be understood to be besides the Scriptures. And certainly, he that presumeth upon any motion of Gods Spirit, not suppo­sing Christianity; that is, not supposing the Scriptures; may by the same reason pre­fume of his own Salvation, not supposing that he believes and lives as a Christian.

The same is the consequence of a Position, I will not say injoyned by any party, but noto­riously allowed among us; That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is one of them that are predestinate, whom God sent our Lord Christ to redeem, and none else. For, how can he think himself obliged to make good the profession of a Christian, who thinks himself assured of all that he can attain to by so doing, not supposing it? Indeed it may be said, that our Antinomians and Enthusiasts, and other Sects among us, (whom no conceit without this could have seduced to their several frenzies,) do think themselves justified from everlasting, by Gods decree to send Christ for that purpose; whereas this opinion dateth Justification from the instant that God revealeth the said decree by his spirit, in which revelation they think that justifying Faith consi­steth. And certainly, there can be no [Page 19] reason why God, receiving men into grace only in consideration of Christs obe­dience, should suspend their reconcilement upon that knowledge of his purpose, which he giveth them by Faith. For what can be more unreasonable, than that God should ju­stifie a man, by revealing to him that he is justified? But the opinion is not the less de­structive to Christianity, because it is the more unreasonable. Now it is possible that the ef­fect of this position may bestifled, and be­come void in some, by reason of other truths which contradict the same in deed, and yet are believed by them, not seeing the conse­quence of their own perswasions. But those who, besides this position, do pertinaciously hold absolute predestination to glory, those I maintain are in an errour destructive to Chri­stianity, that is, in an Heresy. And therefore this Doctrine being such, it is no way enough, that it is no way injoyned to be taught; but it is requisite that it be disclaimed, by those that pretend to recover the unity of a visible Church. For there can be no Church, where any thing destructive to Christianity, which the being of the Church supposeth, is notori­ously allowed to be taught.

Novv, betvveen these two points of our [Page 20] differences, I am to observe a vast difference. For, this latter is necessary for all Christians to knovv, as being the principle of all those actions, vvhich, being just for the matter of them, must render the men acceptable to God in order to life everlasting. And therefore, he that thinketh he can be regenerate, or justi­fied, or the child of God, or indovved vvith Gods Spirit, not supposing that he undertakes and performs the profession of a Christian, renounces the Article of his Creed, concer­ning one baptisme to remission of sins. But the being of Gods visible Church consisteth in that Unity, which ariseth upon the agree­ment of all Christians, to hold communion in the visible Offices of Gods service. And therefore, though it be an Article of our Creed, to believe one Catholick Church, yet can it not concern the Salvation of every particular Christian, to understand the nature of that Society or Corpora­tion, which the bond of this Unity createth. Nay, even they who are best seen in that Government, by which this Unity is pre­served, may well fail in comprehending the reason thereof, by reflecting their discourse upon it. In the mean time, it is necessary for all that believe their Creed, to think them­selves [Page 21] tied by this Article to maintain the Uni­ty of the Church, according to their estate; That is, for every ones part, not to be accesso­ry to any Schism that dissolveth it. And there­fore to deny the crime of Schism is to deny this Article.

The consequence of this observation will be the difference which the Church hath rea­son to use, in reconciling parties at distance from it, to the unity thereof, according to the difference of those pretenses upon which they are at distance. For, those who have only disputed against the being of the Church, upon misunderstanding the right of secular Power, which they think the being of the Church inconsistent with, shall be suffici­ently reunited to the Church, by conforming to the Law by which the Church is, and was, and may be established. For, that there ought to be provision against such disputes for the future, it concernes not me to give warning. Only, where willfullness hath pro­ceeded so farre in maintaining a false positi­on, as to make no bones of denying Christia­nity, and teaching Atheism, (by obliging to renounce Christ, if the Soveraign command it) it concerneth the Christianity of the Nati­on to see reparation made.

But, where the Hereticall positions men­tioned afore have notoriously been maintai­ned, especially, where Congregations have been framed, and used, for the exercise of Re­ligion, upon pretense of them; there will it be absolutely necessary, that they be expressly renounced and disclaimed, either by persons in particular, or in Body by Congregations. To this head I reduce all Anabaptists, and Congregations of Anabaptists; Those of the fift Monarchy, and Congregations of the fifth Monarchy; Quakers, and Congregations of Quakers. Nay, all Independent Congre­gations, in my opinion, ought to be reduced under this measure. Not only because their profession is grounded upon the denial of one visible Church; But, because they suppose themselves Children of God, and indowed with his Spirit, before they be members of Gods Church; That is, setting aside their Baptism, and the Covenant which is solemn­ly inacted by it, between God and each soul. And, though I do referre my self to the wis­dom of Superiors, in what form this reconci­liation be solemnized; yet, I must express my opinion thus far, that there can be none so fit, as that which the wisdom of the Ca­tholick Church, from the beginning, hath all­wayes [Page 23] frequented; By granting them the bles­sing of the Church; with Imposition of hands, renouncing for their part their severall Sects and errors, That is, by the prayers of the Church, for the spirit of God, to rest upon them, who have barred their baptism to give it by opposing the peace of the Church, which now they retire unto. For how shall the unity of the Church be secured, but by de­claring them who violate the same accursed of God?

Nor let it be thought, that, our Sectaries of their own accord retiring themselves unto the Communion of this Church, it will be requisite for the Church to admit them, with­out taking notice of any thing that hath pas­sed. For, neither is it to be presumed, that they, who have made their own wills their Law for so many yeares, will so much as pro­fess conformity to the Rule of the Church; And, if they did profess it, there is no reason to think that they should stand to it, having a dispensation dormant of the Spirit, to stand to their profession, as the interest of their faction shall require. So, their coming to Church would be only an advantage for them to in­fect others. And how should that Commu­nion be counted a Church, which intertains [Page 24] Hereticks as Hereticks, and Schismaticks as Schismaticks; that is, without renouncing positions destructive to the Faith; without ob­liging themselves for the future, to hold Uni­ty with the Church? Certainly there is no just answer for this, if the Church of Rome should object it, for the reason why they re­fuse to hold communion with us. Certainly S. Augustine, when he was charged by the Donatists, that the Church received their A­postates without rebaptizing them, and in their respective Orders, could have had no answer, if he had not had this; That the Church received them not as Donatists, but as converted from being Donatists; they not refusing to profess so much.

Certainly it may be, and perhaps is justifiable for the Secular power, to grant them the exercise of their Religion, in private places of their own providing, under such moderate penalties, as the diso­beying of the Laws of a mans Countrey might require. For, persecution to death for that cause, the whole Reformation con­demneth in the Church of Rome; And I conceive there is no reason for that, which will not condemn persecution to banishment. But this would require the like moderation to [Page 25] be extended to Recusants of the Church of Rome. True it is, in mine opinion, those Papists that think themselves tied by the Bull of Pius V. against Queen Elizabeth, or that they may be tied by the like Acts of his Suc­cessors against hers, are justly lyable to the ut­most of penalties, as professed enemies to their Countrey. But, besides that it is mani­fest, that all Papists are not of that opinion, which the said Bull presupposeth; The State may easier he secured of Papists, against all such power in the Pope, than of our Sectaries, against that dispensation to their Allegiance, which the pretense of Gods Spirit may im­port when they please.

And whereas it is manifest, that many Pa­pists hold against those equivocations and re­servations, which destroy all considence of the Soveraign in his Subjects allegiance; How shall a State be secured against that in­famous falsehood of the late Usurper, in any man that pretends Gods Spirit upon his terms, which I mentioned afore? Besides, the Recusants, being for the most part, of the good Families of the Nation, will take it for a part of their Nobility, freely to professe them­selves in their Religion, if they understand themselves; whereas the Sectaries, being [Page 26] people of mean quality, for the most part, cannot be presumed to stand upon their repu­tation so much. So, if they cannot be tolera­ted in the exercise of their Religion, it must be provided upon what terms they may be received by the Church. And by that which hath been said, it may appear what my opi­nion will require of the Presbyterians, for the condition of reconciling our selves into one Church again; Namely, in the first place, their concurrence to the Act, or Decree, or Order, according to which the Sectaries ought to be tied to renounce the damnable positions which they have notoriously set on foot. For, if they should refuse this, what reason could be alledged why they should be counted Strangers to that infection, which they will not exclude? As for the other Article of the Creed, concerning one visible Church, it is evident that they cannot belong to that Church, supposing the Premises. For it is evi­dent, that there was a time, when the whole Church was governed by Bishops; and that not against Gods Law, for then there had re­mained no Church. And therefore, for them to break the unity of the Church, upon pre­tence of governing this Church by Presbyters, is to break unity, unless a part may give Law [Page 27] to the whole, which who so do, are for so do­ing Schismaticks. And the Church of Rome would have due cause to cast us off for Schis­maticks, if we should admit this pretense. But this is a point, the knowledg whereof can­not belong to the substance of Christianity, for the reason alleged before. And therefore, I do not think the Church tied to exact the express profession of it, or the disclaiming of the error that is opposite to it. On the other side, the Church, maintaining the Ordinations of Presbyters alone to be meer nullities in themselves, can never own their Ordinations, without renouncing the Catholick Church; yet may it consent in the persons, upon their consent to the order, which shall be establish­ed for the future. And indeed, what can they challeng by the meer consent of certain Pres­byters, which the Ministers of Congregations may not pretend to, by the consent of their re­spective Congregations? And yet, I suppose, both parties are agreed, not to own them in that Power which the celebration of the Eu­charist importeth? Let any man, that is capa­ble to judg of such matters, think upon the madness of the Lancashire Presbyterians with­out prejudice; Of whome I am duly infor­med, that they caused those, who were ordai­ned [Page 28] only Deacons in the Church of England, to do the office of Presbyters (which they had no title to) in celebrating the Eucharist; And tell me what reason there can be, exclu­ding the Ordinations of the Congregations, to admit the usurpations of the Presbyterians. As for the form and solemnity, in which the consent of the Church to their Ordinations shall be celebrated, therein I refer my self to the wisdom of Superiors; Thinking it would be a great impertinence in the Presbyterians, if, finding a necessity of submitting those whom they have allready promoted, to the judg­ment of the Church, for the condition upon which they are to Minister; (which without doubt, is the principall) they should insist upon the accessory, which is the form, and so­lemnity, by which the power is visibly con­vayed. And thus I think the second great dif­ficulty concerning their Ordinations, may be composed.

But, supposing these great difficulties set aside, the composing of our first differences, about the Order of Bishops, and the Service, cannot seem difficult, if the parties be content to give up their ingagements, to the advan­tage, which the Christianity of the Nation may have by it. For, what reasonable Chri­stian [Page 29] can think much to acknowledge, that, by reason of those partialities, which at length have produced this Schisme, the Ecclesiasti­cal Laws of the Land are capable of amend­ment in those two points? On the other fide, doth not dear evperience tell all parts, that the change of them by force, though it must be called Reformation, if the Law of the Land call it so, yet it is not likely to be that which it is called? Besides; Consider the kind­ness which his Majesties return, and Gods goodness, that hath over-ruled mens hearts in it, hath bredde in all parties consenting to it. For, can we have this before us, and not hope that it will be enough to subdue all prejudices and animosities, to the interest of our com­mon Christianity? Had the peace of the Church never been questioned, it might be charity in a discreet Christian, not to call it in­to question, by proposing what might be amended, because the hope of amendment might not countervail the danger of that Peace. But, now that unity is not to be had, without setling of agreement in mat­ters of difference; to propose what may seem best for the Community of Gods Church, in the cure of our breaches, is not to give offence, but to take it away.

I will therefore premise here one conside­ration, which I mean to assume for a suppo­sition, to ground that which I shall propose to this purpose. It shall contain that which I observe in the New Testament, and the pri­mitive practice of Gods Church pointing out the meaning of it, concerning the difference between the Clergie and People in all Churches, and the ground of it. For, though the edict of our Lord in the Gospel be peremptory, that, who so forsaketh not all things, cannot be my Disciple; that is a Christian; (For, they who were other whiles called Disciples, were called Christians at Antiochia, as we read in the Acts,) yet common reason evinceth, that all Disci­ples professed not to forsake the World, (which we all profess to forsake at our Bap­tisme) according to the same rate. For, we see by the Gospel, that the voluntary oblations of those who followed our Lord, ministring to him, made a stock of money, which Judas was trusted with, for charity to the poor, af­ter that his followers were provided for. But, it is against the evidence of commmon sense to imagine, that all those who professed to follow Christ, and to be his Disciples, were provided for out of this Stock. It is true, our Lord promiseth in the Gospell, [Page 31] that whosoever shall forsake kindred, or wife, or house, or goods, for the Gospell, shall re­ceive an hundred fold here, and in the World to come life everlasting. A thing visibly full­filled in the primitive state of the Church; when, whosoever was persecuted for Christia­nity, all Christians acknowledged themselves bound to provide for his support. Neither can it be said, how S. Paules saying; that godliness hath the promises of this life and of that which is to come; could be otherwise fullfilled, when those who had undertaken Christs Cross where subject to powers, that did, or might persecute Christianity at their pleasure. But, though all Christians, in case of persecution, are bound by their Baptisme to leave all they have, that they may carry Christs Cross after him; Yet it was something more that S. Peter meant when he said; Lord we have left all to follow thee, what shall we have? For, though a Net and a Fisher-boat were no great thing to leave; yet, so firm a faith as to forsake a mans whole course of living, casting himself upon the word of Christ for his very being, whither here or in the World to come, is sutable to the promise that followes, of sitting upon xii. Throues to judg the xii. Tribes of Israel. The Christians of Jerusalem, who parted with their [Page 32] Estates, that the disciples might be maintai­ned in their daily attendance upon Gods ser­vice, cannot be said to have obtained thereby any common ranke in the Church; But it must be said, that, quitting their former course and state of living, by quitting the means of maintaining it, they became from thenceforth, either of the Clergy, or of the poor which were allwayes maintained out of the stock of the Church. For, by S. Paules instructions to Timothy. 1. Tim. V. it appeareth, that those Widdows which were imployed and main­tained by the Church for the common necessi­ties of it, were to be taken out of such as were destitute of means to live other wise.

Herewith agreeth an infinite number of ex­amples in the primitive Church, of Godly Bishops, Priests, and others of the Clergy, who, taking upon them such professions, de­vested themselves of their worldly goods; whither applying them to the property, or only to the use of the Church; as reserving themselves power to dispose of them, in favor of friends or kindred, at their death. And, from the same reason and ground proceed all the Canons, whereby it was provided, that they should not dispose of the Church goods to such uses, at death, but of their own, [Page 33] well and good. For, whatsoever their estates were, though they renounced them not, yet, it became necessary for them to live as others of the Clergy lived; Who were generally poor when they were promoted, and therefore professed to content themselves with meer necessaries, because the Church goods, of which they lived, were due to the mainte­nance of the poor, as well as of the Clergy. From whence we may see, what truth there is in those sayings of the Fathers, which make the precepts of our Lord, in his Sermon upon the mount, matters of Counsaile. For, if all Christians be to leave all thinges that they may follow Christ, it is certain that they are commanded, and not only advised, to turn the other cheek, to quit a mans Cote to him that takes away his Cloke, to undergo the rest of those precepts, whereby our Lord describeth the duty of a Christian; provided they be so understood, as the maintenance of a mans estate in the World, and the obligations which it inferreth, even by virtue of that Christianity which alloweth the same, will re­quire. But, if there be another estate in the Church, of Disciples which profess to follow Christ, leaving the imployment of the world for that purpose, and therefore to forbear the [Page 34] pleasures and proffits thereof accordingly; That strict Rate and that high degree, in which they profess to leave the world to fol­low Christ, must needes be meer matter of Counsaile; because no man is commanded to undertake that estate, but invited to it, for the securing of his Salvation, who knowes he may be saved without it. Whereby it appeares, that this estate imports a profession of absti­nence from the pride, the revenge, the lusts and pleasures of the world, as well as from the riches of it; as well of the humility, the patience, the continence, the meekness and obedience of our Lord, as of the mean estate in which he lived; But that, for the means to compass this end, it im­ports first a profession of renouncing the ranke and estate which every man holds in the world, and dedicating himself to the service of the Church, and that imploy­ment which tends to the common good of Christians.

If it should be inferred from hence, that the state of the Clergy, importing the forsa­king of the World, at this extraordinary Rate, must therefore import the profession of single life, as some of the Church of Rome would have it; The answer is, that it will not [Page 35] follow. And the instance is peremptory That the Apostles themselves, who thus left the world, did not profess it. And if by un­dertaking the Clergy, a man was not obliged to renounce his goods; As appeares by those Canons which inable the Clergy to dispose of them at death; much less doth that estate import a profession of single life; being more difficult to perform, then to live as a Clergy man upon the Church goods. For, it is possi­ble for them who have wives, to live as if they had them not, according to S. Paul; No other­wise, then it is possible for them who have the dispensing of Church goods, to use them as if they used them not. The reason of single life for the Clergy is firmly grounded by the Fathers and Canons of the Church, upon the precept of S. Paul, forbidding man & wife to part, unless for a time, to attend up­on Prayer. For, Priests & Deacons being con­tinually to attend upon occasions of celebra­ting the Eucharist, which ought continually to be frequented; if others be to abstain from the use of Marriage for a time for that purpose, then they allwayes. And this is the reason, that prevailed so farre, even in the primitive times, that the instances which are produced to the contrary, during those times, seem to [Page 36] argue no more then dispensation in a Rule, which had the force of a Law, when an ex­ception took not place; That is, when those that were thought necessary for the service of the Church, though not fit to ty themselves to live single.

But this profession was evidently the ground for that discipline, which was used all over the Church, in breeding youth from ten­der yeares, to such a strict course of life as only use and custome is able to render agrea­ble to mans nature. And to this education and discipline, all the authority and credit of the Clergy over the people is to be imputed; the dissolution whereof, is the true occasion of the miseries which we have seen. For, did the people think themselves tied to depend upon the Clergy for their instructions, to ad­mit their admonitions & reproofes in matter of Religion, (that is, did the discipline and education of the Clergy maintain them in that authority with the people) it is not possi­ble, that the pride which hath been seen, in setting up new Religions, and giving new Lawes to the Church, should take place. But this authority is not to be preserved, without retirement from the world, that is, from conversation with the People, of what [Page 37] ranke or degree soever, whither upon pre­tense of profit or pleasure. And therefore, being once lost, by the debauches of the Cler­gy before the Reformation, it is not to be resto­red, without restoring the ground of it, the said education and discipline; nor, by conse­quence, the Reformation to be counted com­pleat otherwise; Supposing allwayes the Re­formation to be the restoring of that Church which hath been, not the building of that which hath not been. The same education and discipline is, by the express Canons of the Church, the ground of that title, upon which promotion is due to the Clergy, in their respective Churches. For, what is more against the Rules of the Church, then to take such men for Priests & Bishops of such Churches, as men know not how they beha­ved themselves in lower degrees? Those that talk of the Interest of the People in Ecclesi­asticall promotions, without supposing this ground, do allege nothing but their own dreams, to bring their own dreams to pass.

Having this premised, I must needs say, I see no manner of inconvenience in that which the Presbyterians pretend for the cheif cause of their distance; that is, the concur­rence of Presbyters with their Bishops, in Ordinations, [Page 38] and the Jurisdiction of the Church; provided it be setled in that form, which, be­ing grounded upon the Rule of the Catholick Church, may tend to restore and advance the common Christianity.

Now, I take the Rule of the Church to be as evidently this, as the common Christi­anity is evident; that every City, with the Territory thereof, be the seat and content of a Church. For, though it hath been used with so much difference in several parts and times of the Church, that those Countries, which some whiles, and some where, might have been cast into fourscore Churches, have other whiles, and else where, been cast into four; yet, these are but exceptions to a Rule, which the Law saith, do not destroy, but con­firm it. For, in matters concerning the whole, the Unity of the whole, may as well be pre­served by the concurrence of four, as of four­score.

The Churches, (that is, according to this Rule) the Dioceses of England have been constituted and distinguished upon occasion of the Soveraignties, in which, and by con­sent whereof, the Christianity of the Nation was first planted. He that considers with half an eye, shall easily see, how the conver­sion [Page 39] of Kent, of the East, and South, and West Saxons, of the East Angles and Mercians, and lastly of Northumberland, produced the foundation of English Churches. For, of the British foundations, in the West parts of the Island, from the two Forths to the Lands end, the same account is to be kept; the Dominion of the Britains being for some time divided into several Soveraignties. He that is con­victed of this truth, (which no man can be convicted of, but he that considereth the case; But, who so considereth the case, must needs stand convict of it) will easily grant me, that, when the Monarchy prevailed, and England came to be divided into Counties, the Gene­ral Rule of the Church would have required another course to have been observ'd. For, had the Head Town of every County been made the Seat of a Church containing that Coun­ty, no man, that survayes the division of the Romane Empire into Churches (made with­out the secular Power, as before Constantine) will deny; That, the division so made, would have been more correspondent to the primitive forme, tending to the Unity of the whole.

But, let no man think, that, for the love of such a correspondence, I have any itch to call [Page 40] in question the Unity of the Whole. The al­teration is great, and must needs produce a great motion, to ingraffe it into the Laws of the Kingdom. And therefore, I am not of opinion to change the Law for hope of amendment, with so much appearance of danger, to the being of the Whole. But I am of opinion, that it would be easie to erect Presbyteries, that is, Colleges of Presbyters, in all Shire Towns which have no Cathedral Churches, for the Ecclesiastical Government of the respective Counties, with, and under the Bishops; And that so, the Rule of the Church would be set on work, to the best ef­fect and purpose. For, those Towns have commonly Churches altogether unprovided of means, through the horrible sacriledges that have passed; and yet, in common reason (agreeing with the wisdom of Gods Spirit, from whence the Rule of Episcopacy issued) ought to be Nurseries of Christianity to the respective Counties. And that intent cannot so well be brought to effect, as by planting the wisest, and those that have most of the Cler­gie in their lives, in the most eminent places, with authority next to the Chief, over their respective bounds. By the ministery of such persons, the Offices of Gods service might so [Page 41] be performed in the chief places, as might be a pattern for their Country Churches to fol­low. These Presbyters might grow up, by education, in that discipline of the Clergie, which I have recommended upon the expe­rience of the whole Church. They might live a Collegiate life in common, with the care and inspection of Inferiours, together with the charge of instructing, or seeing them instructed in the Scriptures. The Canon of the whole Church, confining all degrees of the Clergie to their respective Churches, might be revived by their means; The super­seding whereof, being certainly one of the irregularities of the Papacy, hath conduced much to the dissolution of Discipline in the Church. For, in conscience, how can he that is obliged to any Church, give account of him­self to another, to which the first is not subor­dinate? And therefore, though the Presby­teries which I propose be not Churches, yet may they take account of their respective Clergie, and render it to their Bishops. The promotion of inferiour Orders, belonging unto their account, may proceed upon the account which they give. The censures that are requisite to pass in foro exteriori may pass them in the first instance, and from them be­ing [Page 42] transmitted to the Bishop, be either in­acted or voided; Alwaies with right of ap­peal to the Synod of the Province, in ca­ses of weight, and in the intervals thereof, to their Deputies; To which purpose, and in which nature, the High Commission ought to be revived. For, as it is by no means to be allowed, that the Bishops negative be any way questioned; So is it no way fit, that the consent of Bishop and Presbyters both be concluded in one and the same instance. As for those Dioceses which are concluded within onely one County, there, I suppose I need not say, that the Chapter of the Ca­thedral are by inheritance this Presby­tery.

Now, these Colleges of Presbyters con­sisting of those only, that shall have run the whole course of their lives in the education and discipline of the Clergie; is there any possible pretence of burthen upon them, if the condition of single life should be requi­red, to qualifie them for their places? For, this were not to tye any man to single life, seeing who will may go forth, and be provi­ded of a Countrey Church; But it were to maintain the discipline of the Clergie, in the most eminent places, wherein, there is a [Page 43] course proposed to them who imbrace it, of ending their dayes in it. And the course of a Collegiate life, which I propose, seemeth a sufficient means and advantage to overcome those temptations, which in these dayes, may seem too difficult for all the Clergie to un­dergo.

As for the means of supporting these Presby­teries, wherein the Cure of all Parishes within the Shire Towns is provided for, and included; It is no difficulty to him that considers with conscience, that originally, the indowment of the Diocese was the Patrimony of the Mother Church; and afterwards appropriated to Parish Churches, by abating the right of the Mother Church, upon particular contracts, appearing to be for the good of the parts. For, if the Mother Church have abated so much of her common right, when it was for the good of the Parishes; Is it not necessary, that the Parishes now abate of their proper­ty in their respective indowments, by Pensions to these Colleges, now they appear to be for the good of the Diocese? And this I am now bold to profess, before the judgement of Superiors be declared, because I am confi­dent, that by this position, I abate not a hair of that Power which the Bishops in England [Page 44] now use; But I adde much to the strictness of discipline, (that is, in effect, of Christianity) by requiring all Ordinations, all acts of Juris­diction in foro exteriori, to pass both the Pres­byters and the Bishop in severall instances. And further then this I extend not the opini­on of a divine to particulars, but leave the rest intire to the wisdom of superiors. And this may serve to show, that there is no cause why the difference on foot, concerning the Go­vernment of the Church, may not settle into a change conducing to the advancement of the common Christianity.

Which will hold till stronger in the other, concerning the Service, if men take their mea­sures by the common interest of Christianity, not by their particular prejudices. For, I con­ceive, I may well suppose, that the Sectaries pretense of praying by the Spirit, is content to be buried in oblivion and silence; considering that the excesses are evident, and horrible, which that pretense hath brought forth. Be­sides, that no man now stands to that dange­rous position; That the offices of Gods ser­vice are of no effect, when they are ministred by such as are not in the state of grace. For, I presume it is not, nor can be supposed on any hand, that all whom the Church must imploy, [Page 45] are indowed with Gods spirit; that is, are in the state of grace. I suppose further, as not questioned on any hand, that the publick ser­vice of God is to consist of the praises of God, (by the Psalmes of David, and other Hymnes of Gods Church) of the reading of the Scriptures, of the instruction of Gods peo­ple out of them, in fine, of the Prayers of the Church, and in the chief place, of the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, and those prayers which it is to be celebrated with.

Some of our Sects have been bold to pre­tend, that the Psalter, or Psalmes of David, are impertinent to the Devotions of Christi­ans, as concerning the particular condition of David, and composed whith regard to it. Whereby they overthrow the foundation of Christianity, standing upon this supposition, that the old Testament is the figure ad sha­dow of the new, and that Christ hath the key of the writings, as well as of the house of David. For, seeing Christ and his mysti­cal Body the Church are all one, the meaning and intent of the Psalmes cannot concern Christ, but it must end in his Church. But, seeing the Church is but shadowed in the Psalmes, being part of the Old Testament; I can expect no dispute of the necessity of other [Page 46] Hymnes, composed under Christianity, in the solemnizing of Gods publick service. And seeing the question on foot concerns the setling of the form of Gods service by a Law of the Kingdom; there can remain no di­spute concerning the necessity of a setled Or­der in reading the Scriptures, and using the Psalmes and Hymnes of the Church. Nor do I know any man, sincerely professing the Reformation, that could not wish with all his heart, that the whole order and form which shall be setled, with the circumstance of the same, might be according to the pri­mitive simplicity, and naked plainness of the ancient Church; supposing the difference between the state in which the Church lived under persecution; and now, that, being pro­tected by the secular Power, it receiveth all the World to take part in the service of God. For, what difference this will inferre in the Order and Rule of Gods service to be in­acted by a Law of this Kingdom, common reason, and the perpetual practice of Gods Church, together with the precedents recor­ded in Scripture, must be admitted to Wit­ness.

These things supposed, no man doubts, that the form of service now in force by the [Page 47] Law of this Land, may be acknowledged ca­pable of amendment, without disparagement, either to the wisdom of the Church, that pre­scribed, or of the Nation that inacted it. For, what positive Law of man is there that is not? Nay, what arrogance can it be in a particu­lar person, (having bestowed more considera­tion upon it, then it is possible, that those who had the framing of it should have leisure to do) to think that he knows some particulars, in which it might be mended? For, neither doth it follow, that it is better to indanger the spoyling of it by calling it in question, than to let it rest as it is; And that particular person, whosoever he is, that should think his own opinion necessary to be followed, with­out com-promising it to the publick, would justly incurre the mark of arrogance. Since therefore, that this is the time for such a de­bate, if any change be pretended; and that the reasons mentioned afore, are of sufficient consideration to oblige all sides, to prefer uni­ty before prejudice; what remains, but that, either it be left intire in that State wherein it stands, or that nothing be changed, without sufficient debate of reason upon the whole, what is fit to be changed, what not?

But one thing I must here expresly stand [Page 48] upon, because the forme of Gods service which hath been usurped during the Schisme, protesteth against the Law in force. I ac­knowledge, that the whole Reformation pro­testeth against the insufficience and defects of the Church of Rome, in the course which it taketh for the instruction of Christian peo­ple, in the duties of their Christianity; against the abuses there practised, in celebrating the Eucharist without any pretense of a Com­munion, in private Masses, and in serving God in a Language which the people understand not. For, these abuses are a principal part of the ground for that change, which we justly maintain to be Reformation; The boldness of those that opposed it, being come to such a height, as openly to maintain; that it con­cerneth not Christian people to know, or to mind what is done at the Mass, (being the ordinary service of God, for which they come to Church,) or what is said; But, that the intention of the Priest is enough to apply the sacrifice of Christ to all that are present, (which they think it doth no less to them that are absent; and therefore leave us unsatisfied why people should come to Church) who need do nothing but say their Paters and their Aves. These abuses I do acknowledge. But, [Page 49] be the World my witness, and all that know what hath passed, for the matter of Religion, in the World; was it ever protested, by those who demanded Reformation in the Church; that the Eucharist cught to be celebrated but four times, or twelve times in the year? That by Gods Law, there ought to be two Sermons every Sunday in every Church? That other Festivals beside the Sunday, and set times of fasting oughr not to be solemni­zed with the service of God? That the Church doors ought not to be open, but when there is preaching? Take the primitive practice of the Church along with the Scripture, and they shall tell you another tale; that Prayer, and the praises of God, is the more principal end of Christian Assemblies; than Preaching. The reason is unanswera­ble; For, the one is the end, the other the means. That the celebration of the Eucha­rist, is the most principal Office of Gods ser­vice under Christianity, is no less evident; For, other Offices are common to Judaisme, this, consisting most in Prayers, consists of those Prayers which are proper to Christia­nity; that is to those causes wherein our Sal­vation consisteth. And can there be question how frequent it ought to be? Shall not the [Page 50] practice of the whole Church, from the be­ginning, decide the question, if any remain? The single life of the Clergie prevailed for this end, that they might be alwaies ready to celebrate the Eucharist; say the Fathers and the Canons, which I alledged afore. It is a question in Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesiasti­cis, whither every man ought to communi­cate every day or not. But therefore no que­stion, that it ought to be celebrated every day, that who so would might communicate. In conscience, would they be bound to Preach every day, that are so much for Preaching? After the reading of the Scripture, follows the Sermon, and after that the Eucharist; This is the primitive order of the whole Church, at that solemne service when the Eucharist, (on Fasting-dayes in the Evening, on other dayes before Noon) was Celebrated. After the Scriptures were read, the people were taught their duty out of them. A thing necessary and possible. Not that every Curate should be bound to declame by the Glass; But, that he should be bound to instruct his Parish out of the Scriptures which are read. If he be tied to Preach as often as the Church door opens, the Church door must be shut, because no sides can hold out, so oft as Chri­stians [Page 51] ought to meet for Gods service. I call the World to witness; Is it not as much a work of lungs and sides, as an Office of Gods service, which takes up the time of their Church Assemblies? Is not the way open­ed, by this means, to declame of publick Government in Church and State, to intertain the Hearers? For alas, should men confine themselves to that which the generality of their audience might edifie by, in their Chri­stianity, the Trade would be obstructed.

For, let me freely say, the undoubted truth of the common Christianity, (which no Sermons ought to exceed, because they pre­tend the edification of the generality of Chri­stians) is contained in so narrow a compass, that no eloquence, (much less, the eloquence of all that must come into the Pulpit) can change the seasoning and serving of it, so as to make it agreeable to mens palats; without fetching in matter impertinent, if not destru­ctive to the common Christianity. And the same is, for more peremptory reason, to be said of arbitrary Prayers. For, the very po­sture of him, that pretendeth to prefer the devotions of Gods people to the Altar which is above, strongly impresseth upon the hearts of simple Christians, an opinion, that there­by [Page 52] they discharge to God the duty which their creation and redemption requires at their hands. Which, if the matter of those Pray­ers be such as the common Christianity re­quires, they may do indeed. But, if it be pos­sible, that Rebellion, Slander, Nonsense and Blasphemy may be the matter of them, as well as Christianity, then is it not Religion, but Superstition which such devotions exer­cise; Nor, can that Kingdom stand excused to God, which shall gratifie that licentiousness, whereof they see the effect before their eyes. All reason of Christianity concurres with the practice of the whole Church, to witness; that the interest of Christianity re­quires the service of God to be maintained and exercised daily, (yea hourly, were it pos­sible) not only by particular Christians, but by Assemblies of Christians, so far as the busi­ness of the World will give leave, and as there is means to maintain mens attendance upon it. There may come abuse in the or­der, the forme, the matter of that which is tendred to God for his Service. But, instead of reforming those abuses, to take away the means, the Rule, the obligation of such meet­ings, is meer Sacriledge, in destroying, (under pretense of Reforming) his Church.

And, though I charge no such designe upon those who maintain the obligation of the Sab­bath to consist in two Sermons; yet I do main­tain, it is manifest to common reason, that the forme which that opinion introduceth neces­sarily tends to that effect. Strange it is, that a Nation capable of sens, in an age improved by learning, should be intangled with the super­stition of so vain an imagination; that God by the same fourth Commandment, should ob­lige both Jews to keep the Saturday; & Chri­stians the Sunday; Especially, no man da­ring to maintain, that both were, or are tied to the same measure of resting. And there­fore, though, (rather than cross the stream of such a superstition; For, let no man think, that all superstition can be shut out of Gods Church) I am ready to conform to the Or­der that shall take place, so far as the strength of my body shall inable me; Yet, provided that the Ecclesiastical Laws of England, be­ing the Laws of the whole Church, be not abated, so as to stick an evident mark of Schisme upon the Church of England. For, the Law that is recommending the celebra­tion of the Eucharist, upon all Sundayes and Festivals, but commanding the service to be used, as well on Festivals and Fasting dayes, [Page 54] as upon Sundayes, (besides the week dayes) at the publick Assemblies of respective Con­gregations; To change this Order for two Sermons on the Sunday alone, what is it but to renounce the whole Church, for the love of those that have divided from the Church of England, upon causes common to it with the whole Church.

They that would have the Reformation of the Church to be indeed, that which the Law of the Land calleth it, should first provide a course to be established for Law, by which, all Christian soules, (who have equal inter­est in the common Salvation) might serve God in publick, all Sundaies and Festivals. For, seeing there was a course in Law, before the Reformation, for all servants, as well as others, to be at Masse all Sundayes and Festi­vals; And the Church was inabled to require account of it at their hands; It will not be Reformation to abrogate the abuses of the Mass, till a course be taken, that all Christians may frequent that, which shall appear to be indeed the service of God instead of the Masse. Let no Preachers flatter themselves with an opinion, that they shall ever make Christians so perfectly Jewes, as to perswade them to dress no meat on the Sundayes. If [Page 55] Servants must stay at home to dress meat on Sundayes, (and for other occasions they must stay at home, besides that) will not the way to repair that breach, be to injoyne several Assemblies in all Parish Churches, upon all Sunday mornings, that several Persons, of se­veral Estates and qualities, may have opportu­nity to attend the publick service of God, at several hours of the same Sundayes and Holy­dayes. For, though I understand very well, that this would impose upon the Church, (that is, upon my hrethren of the Clergie,) a greater burthen, than an afternoons meal of a Sermon, (which all men know, is furnished of the cold meat of the forenoon) yet, I would have the Word cleared of this impo­sture that reigneth, that two Sermons every Sunday, is the due way of keeping the Sab­bath among Christians, or of advancing Gods publick service.

I will not here dispute, that the Lent-Fast was instituted by the Apostles. But this I maintain to be evident, that the Fast afore the Resurrection of Christ is and was as antient as the Feast of his Resurrection; and that more antient than the keeping of all Lords dayes in the year; being meerly the reflection of that one, all the weeks of the yeaar. Nor [Page 56] will any man, that knows what he sayes, ever question, that the inlarging of it to forty dayes is a just Law, voluntarily undertaken by the whole Church, not to be condemned without the like mark of Schisme. For, since the World is come into the Church, is there not manifest reason, that more time should be taken, for the expiating of more sins, which are the sins of more people? to pre­pare, as well the Elder, to renew their Chri­stianity by communicating at Easter; as the yonger to be confirmed, and come first to the Communion at Easter, now they are baptized Infants? Which, in former ages, was the time of their first coming to Baptism. As for the Wednsdayes and Fridayes, if we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, un­less our Righteousness exceed the Righteous­ness of the Scribes and Pharises; And, if it be evident, as evident it is, that the Scribes and Pharises prescribed Mundayes and Thurs­dayes for dayes of less solemne Assemblies then the Sabbath; How shall we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, if, in despite of the whole Church, which hath hitherto used Wednesdayes and Fridayes, in lieu of Mun­dayes and Thursdays, used by the Synagogues, we void the Law of England by which they are [Page 57] in force? Of the Ceremonies the same is to be understood; Not because it can be with­in the compass of common reason to ima­gine, that the same Ceremonies have conti­nued, from the time that the Church was per­secuted into holes and caves of the Earth, to this time, in which the question is of set­ling Christianity by the Law of this King­dom. It were want of common understan­ding to think that the same could serve. But, because so few, and so innocent as we use, cannot be condemned, without condemning, not only Gods whole Church, but also Gods antient people; who will evidently be found in the same cause.

One thing hath been cast forth in barre to all this, which we must not swallow whole, un­less we mean to impose upon our selves. It is the pretense of complying with the Refor­med Churches. For, it is evident, that there are four forms of Reformation extant; One according to Luther, another according to Calvine, the third is, that of the Church of England, and in the last place, (though first for time,) because least known, and protected by no Soveraign, I name that of the Union in Bohemia. For, we are to know, that the follow­ers of John Husse having sent Deputies to the [Page 58] Council of Basil, they accorded to reunite the Nation upon four Articles; The chief where­of was the Communion in both kinds. They that stood to the accord are to this day called thereupon Calixtin, or sub utra (que) in Latine. But another part of those that were at di­stance, thinking themselves betrayed by their Deputies in that accord, proceeded to settle themselves in a form of Religion, and the ser­vice of God, by that which they held the pure truth of God, in all points that had been dis­puted. The Emperour Ferdinand I. King of Bohemia, having subdued his subjects there, that rose with the Protestants in Germany, cast a good part of these out of the Country; who, finding shelter in Polonia, and Prussia, there planted and propagated their form, till the troubles of our time, when by the Em­perours victory in Bohemia, and the late trou­bles in Poland, they seem to be at a loweble, though they impute it to the decay of their first discipline.

They that would reform the Church of England, professing already that Reformation which it found best, will they not first show us reason, why we are to leave Luther for Calvine? For, if they mean his form, when they talk of conforming us to the reformed [Page 59] Churches, because of the Scotts Presbyteries, they must have better arguments, then either the learning or the Christianity of the Scot­tish Presbyterians will yeild, to perswade us. They say, those that framed the Reformation in England, beeing bred under Melancthon among the Lutheranes, followed them much an end in the order and form which they pre­scribed. But is that any reason for any change, before it appear which is in the right? I free­ly profess I find Melancthon the better learned, and the more Christian spirit. But the Church of England, which in divers points differeth from both, why should it be thought to fol­low either for any reason, but, as either agrees with the Catholick Church? And for that, I prefer the Unity of Bohemia before both; For, they had the rule of Vincentius given them, to take their measure by the consent of the Catholick Church, and these things which have allwayes and every where been professed and practised in it; And, had they done nothing but what is justifiable by that Rule, I should not blame them for that which I blame in them most. But where they agree not with Luther and Calvine, wherein do they not agree with the Church of England?

In particular, they sent all over the World, [Page 60] to inform themselves of a visible succession of Bishops, whose profession was such, that they might derive the Ordination of Bishops, for their Churches, from their hands. They took the superstitions of the Greekes to be such, that they could not own it from them. In that I think they were in the wrong. For, I doubt not, the Greekes would have granted them Ordination onely under the profession of the Catholick Church; and that had been enough. But, thinking themselves in a strait of necessity, they chose twelve by lots; And hearing that the Waldenses lived in Austria un­der Bishops, deriving their succession from the time of Constantine (and therefore from the Apostles) they sent them thither to be Ordained, protesting against their weakness, in going to Masse for fear. The protestation was admitted, and the persons ordained Bishops. Now, I take not upon me to main­tain the truth of that information, concerning the succession of these Bishops, whereupon they proceeded. But, they being reasonably perswaded of it, and not knowing how to proceed otherwise, (through a mistake which they could not overcome) and setling themselves upon an innocent presumption, why should the effect of these Ordinations [Page 61] seem questionable? For, under these Bishops they have subsisted from that day to this.

And, with what conscience is it deman­ded; for conformity to the Reformation, that we acknowledge them Priests who are ordained against Bishops? If we do not, we shall condemn those Reformed Churches, which have no Bishops. Is it the fashion, that a man quit his Cloke, because his fellow hath none? Or is it any thing else, to renounce a good Title, because they cannot plead it? There was a good expedient in the ancient Church, to refer things to God, which could not be decided without a breach in the Church. Let their zele against the abuses of the Church of Rome be counted pardonable with God, which caused them to think the Order of Bishops a support of Antichrist; when as the Papacy is visibly raised upon the rights of Bishops which it ingrosseth. Let the difficulty of procuring Ordinations, and ha­ving Bishops, render them excusable to God. Those that are ordained by Presbyters against Bishops, on purpose to set up Altar against Al­tar, how can we count them ordained refusing the concurrence of the Church to their Ordi­nations? They that would ty us to comply with the Reformation, are first to show us, [Page 62] that the Unity of Bohemia is no part of it, And, that their Reformation is not to be preferred, either before that of Luther, or that of Calvine. For, can we acknowledg the Ordinations of Presbyters against their Bishops, and not con­demn them, that sought all over the World for Bishops to ordain them Bishops, that the Bishops so ordained might ordain them Pres­byters?

But, not only in this prime point of our differences, but also in the difference of the Clergy from the people, in the three Or­ders, of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons, in the matter of Justification and the Eucharist, of Confirmation, and Penance of the Festivalls and Fasts of the Church, one of divers Orders and institutions of less consequence, their pro­fession agreeth with the ancient Church, and the Church of England, where it departeth from both Luther and Calvine. In the matter of Penance (though with much humility) they tell the Lutheranes roundly, they have but one of the keyes, viz. that of loosing, but bind not; as pronouncing absolution without injoyning of Penance. The discipline of Gene­va they magnify indeed, as they find it descri­bed by Bodine, in his method of Histories; But they distinguish not, whither they mean [Page 63] the civill discipline, which the Lawes of that State inforce, or that which the Power of the Keyes, exercised there according to Calvine, doth constitute. For, the Civill Law of a Christian State (especially, no bigger then that of Geneva) may settle such a discipline over the outward man, as may restrain from the outward act of sin, without mortifying the inward man to the inward love of it. The late Usurpers Army we have seen well dis­ciplined, against the ordinary vices of the Camp; Who, appearing now to have been then enimies to their Country, are thereby discovered, not to have followed the reward of Christians, but of Souldiers. And the Lawes of Christian States, by the means of Christianity which they maintain, may reach to the mortifying of sin, and the quick­ning of righteousness at the heart; But of themselves, being Civill Lawes, and propo­sing no further reward or punishment, then that good which a mans Country signifies, they reach no futther then the outward man, for the better or for the worse. Nor is it of any greater consequence to Christianity, that the outward act of sin or virtue is repressed or incouraged, by the rewards and penalties of Civill Lawes. But, when the discipline of the [Page 64] Church takes place, he who forfeiteth his Christianity by gross sin that is notorious, for­feiteth also Communion with the Church; and recovereth it not, till the presumption be no less notorious, that he hath recovered his Christianity. Now, Communion with the Church is the consequence of our Baptism, which intitleth us to life everlasting. There­fore it is not duely forfeited, without forfei­ting the effect of Baptisme, our right to life everlasting. So, our right to heaven depen­ding upon the Communion of the Church; the discipline of the Church, must needes reach the inward man as effectually, as any outward application can reach the heart, which is invisible. For, the presumption is grounded upon visible workes of Penance, the effects of that invisible disposition, without which they could not be constantly brought forth. Whither or no this discipline be visi­ble at Geneva, I will not pronounce. This I undertake, that, comparing the Doctrine of Calvine with their Orders, they need not set a value upon the Power of the Keyes exercised according to his Doctrine, in comparison of the same exercised according to their own Orders. So that supposing, not granting, that the Lawes of the Church of England, (being [Page 65] the Lawes of the primitive Catholick Church) are to be changed for conformity with the Reformed Churches; it followeth not there­fore, that they are to be changed, for those of the Churches reformed according to Calvine. Certainly, the receiving of the Communion kneeling, having been one of the Adors of their Reformation from the beginning, and so stiffly insisted upon by them in Poland, they that pretend to change the Law of England, in that point for conformity with the Refor­mation, think they have not men but beasts to to deal with.

The Church of England, in the Commina­tion against sinners, hath declared a great zeal for the renouncing of that ancient discipline of Penance, which was in force in the primi­tive Church. And certainly, the Church of England is not the Church of England but in Name, till the power of excommunication be restored unto it, which there was not, nor ever can be sufficient cause to take from any Church. But, the discipline of Penance, though depending upon the Power of excom­munication, is as much to be preferred before it, as it is more desirable to bring men to the Church, then to shut them out of it. If preju­dice & faction have not more to do in the pre­tenses [Page 66] of this sin, then the truth of Christiani­ty, and zeal to advance it; it is a point that can­not be neglected in any deliberation of Refor­ming the Church. I cannot render a more visible reason, why so godly a zeal, in these that first prescribed our Reformation, to the restoring of penance, hath now been impro­ved by their successors, then the partialities which sprung up in it like tares in the wheat, and have now prevailed to choke even the power of excommunication, wherein the be­ing of a Church consisteth. And though many sinnes of this Nation may be alleged, for the cause why God hath taken this sharp revenge upon us; yet can no reason be so pro­per, why he should permit the hedge of the Church to be cast down, (for all Sects to devour, and tread his vineyard under foot) by suffering the power of excommunication to be taken from it; as the neglect of impro­ving it, in and to the discipline of penance. True it is, not only all capital, but all in­famous crimes, whereof men are convicted by Law, are thereby notorious, and require this discipline, no less then those which the Law of this Land punisheth not otherwise then by penance. And if the Church did make a difference among those that dye by [Page 67] publick Justice; owning only these, who ap­prove their desire to undergo regular pe­nance, in case they might survive; then were this discipline visible, no visible crime esca­ping it. For, all capitall and infamous crimes, that are not actually punished with death, must by that reason remain unreconciled to the Church, though free of the Law, till pe­nance be done. And seeing crimes that are not known cannot be cured upon easier terms then those that are; would [...]o [...] the judg­ment of the Law, authorizing the Church in the cure of known sins, move even them that believe their Christianity, no further then it is authorized by Law, to submit invisible sins to the same cure? For, what is it, but the slighting of this cure, that makes mens sins fester and rankle inwardly, and break out into greater and greater excesses? And there­fore, to debate of Ceremonies, and words in the service, and May-poles, and Sabbath dayes journeyes, not considering the Power of the Keyes, upon which the Church is founded, and the restoring of the same; is to neglect a consumption at the heart, preten­ding only to cure the hair or the nailes.

Now if any of our Sects insist upon a pre­tense that deserves to be insisted upon, far be [Page 68] it from us to cast off the consideration of it, be­cause they have unduely separated from the Church for it. Our Anabaptists, it is known insist upon two points; The baptizing of Infants, and that, by sprinkling, not by dip­ping. In both, they have neglected S. Peters Doctrine, That Baptisme saveth us, not the laying aside of the filth of our flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to God. For, were the pro­fession of Christianity, celebrated by the Sa­crament of Baptisme, believed to be that which saveth us, men would not goe to bap­tize them, as not baptized, who by their pro­fession (which they acknowledge by seeking the Communion of the Church) are under that bond, which intitleth them to the Salva­tion of Christians. Nor can there be any greater presumption, then the voiding of Baptisme so celebrated, that they expect Sal­vation upon other termes. But, in making void Baptisme ministred by sprinkling alone, without dipping, they neglect S. Peter again, when he maketh the Baptisme that saveth not to consist in cleansing the flesh, but in a due profession of Christianity; signifying this to be the principal, that only the accessary Ceremony, which it is solemnized with. And therefore, they are to acknowledg this diffe­rence [Page 69] by acknowledging Baptisme so mini­stred to be good and valid, not void. But, this being acknowledged, well may they in­sist, that it is unduely ministred. For it is evi­dent, that, neither the Scripture, nor the practice of the whole Church, can by any means allow the sprinkling of water for Bap­tisme, though the pouring on of water in case of necessity, be allowed. Nor doth the Law of the Church of England allow any more then pouring water upon a Child that is weak, commanding therefore dipping otherwise. And therefore this Law, being much weak­ned by the tenderness of Mothers and friends, (supposing all Infants weak, which the Law supposeth not) and by undue zeal for forraign fashions ought to be revived and brought into use by all Ordinances, that there may remain no colour for such an offence. And there­fore, reparation is to be made for the sacri­ledge of the late Warrs, in destroying the Fonts of Baptisme in Churches, and bringing in Christening out of Basins by force.

I cannot say that I have touched all that is fit to be touched. But I hope I have said no­thing, but that which followeth upon the ground, which I have justified. That which is proposed, and is not so justified, seems to [Page 70] demand the consent of those who propose it, as able to hold the Church divided, if they be not contented; But that calls to mind a rea­son on the other side, that men use to get a stomack with eating in such cases. The due measure is not the satisfying of mens appetites, but the improvement of our com­mon Christianity.