THE Peaceable Design; BEING A MODEST ACCOUNT. OF THE Nonconformist's Meetings, With some of their Reasons for Nonconformity: And the way of Accommodation in the matter of Religion.  
Humbly proposed to public consideration by some Ministers of London against the sitting of Parliament in the Year 1675.  
Printed in the Year MDCLXXV.   

TO THE READER.  
WE humbly Judge our Circumstances have made it something necessary to give the World a Taste of some of those many reasons which have prevailed with us to be averse to that conformity which we are called to by Law: Which had it sprung from any Disloyal or Rebellious Principles, could not have been consistent with that inward Peace which we must judge our great concernment to be solicitous to maintain. We hope (save in the matters of our God) the Principles which are truly ours, will urge us to be subject unto Authority, and we do here profess that it is our full persuasion, that the Powers in being are of God, and that should we do any thing derogatory to their due Honour, Rule, and Interest, it would be wickedness to be punished by the Judge, and introductive of our Eternal ruin and damnation. We are not unmindful of the high charges which are laid upon us to Honour the King, and to be subject to the Higher Powers. And God forbidden that we should ever desire or design to enter into the Tents of those who are inclined or love to smite authority with either hand or tongue, or to supplant the Throne which God hath honoured, and guarded both by Laws, and providence. We cannot think the Sword well placed in Peter's hands, nor that the Tongues or Hearts of any should be inflamed with rage, nor exercised with an arbitrary censoriousness of Rulers actions, seeing we neither can, nor is it fit we should stand upon equal ground with them. But we hope it cannot (and that it will not) be charged upon us as our crime, or as the production of insolence, to tell the World wherein, and how we are distressed, nor to make our modest offers and proposals, and humble supplications, as on the Knee unto our Rulers, in whose power God hath placed it to alleviate or remove our burdens, And it is their help and pity we earnestly implore: Our perplexities are afflictive, and our burdens heavy on us: The reasons of our Nonconformity we in part offer modestly to our Superiors, and as prostrate Supplicants at their feet, we crave their consideration of them: The Souls of Men are precious: God's Honour is our undoubted Interest and End: Our own Liberty to Preach Christ (not Sedition, Treason or Rebellion) is dear, and would be grateful to us: And the Character of our Consecration to God in the Gospel of his dear Son engraven on us at our Ordination, we take to be indelible. And we doubt not but that all who are acquainted with the Laws of Christ, will own his charge upon us to be indispensible. If we be dissatisfied about imposed terms of this our Ministerial Liberty, we crave the Resolution of this weighty Case from our judicious, learned and serious Fathers and Brethren in the Service of the Gospel. We hope we are not too obstinate to receive convincing evidence and information from them, only when we have but named some things as we pass, which are of more general notice, (such as two of those three Heads laid down p. 20, 21.) we deplore a disquisition or satisfaction candidly suitable to their importance, and the Volumes of dispute that have been writ, and might be pointed to by us for enlargement. We seriously promise them a quick and full retreat from our mistakes, and hearty compliance with them, when they offer what is truly fit to satisfy our doubts about matters in dispute betwixt them and us. We have long born with patience many a smart reflection on us from both the Press and Pulpit, together with all the severities to which we have been exposed by virtue of those Laws that have been made against us: And yet resolve to use no other Weapons than Prayers and Tears, the ancient Weapons of all afflicted Christians, nor shall our minds be (we trust) at any time exasperated into illegal courses, for our own relief; for such unwarrantable and justly condemned Principles we disown. And we hope our peaceable principles, tempers, and demeanours will not turn to our disadvantage. We have here laid our Case and Reasons a little open, together with some proposals for a desired accommodation for our joint promotion of that Work which is professed to be dear unto us all, that so the prosperity and strength of Church and State may be promoted by us all, without occasions of, or inclinations to, those mutual animosities in the Church, which will become the sport, and strength, and great advantage of foreign and domestic Enemies, and our great shame and disadvantage here at home.  
As to the Materials of this short Treatise, they have mostly been derived from a late Author, whose Spirit in all his Writings hath breathed Peace at such a rate, as that we think we may entitle him to the Character which St. Paul once fixed on Timothy, that he naturally careth for the Peace and Welfare of the Church of Christ, and in that part especially which God hath seated in these His Majesty's Dominions. We humbly deprecate all men's displeasure, and crave the pardon of that excellent person, (whose Words and Actions seem weighed and governed still by His tender Conscience) that (two or three of us) have so boldly and freely used his Writings, without engaging his personal concernedness in the publication of these Sheets, wherein we do assure the Reader, That he had no hand as to the Printing or Publication of them, whatever other use be made of him as to his Books and Papers. Reader, consider what is here offered to thy perusal, and weigh the whole matter in an equal Balance and pray with us that the entire interest of Holiness, Truth, and Concord may be established, and promoted to God's Glory, and the complete felicity and security of His Majesty, and of the Church and State in these His Dominions.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 1. l 7. deal of 11. l. 14. add only, p. 2. l. 5. add our, p. 3. l. 24. for the r. that, p. 4. l. 11. add lay, l. 12. deal lay, p. 6. l. 6. add of, p. 9 l. 4. add Schoolmen. p. 12. l. 19 for contain r. contained, p. 16. l. 13. for and r. or, p. 26. l. ult. add book, p. 30. l. 4. for the r. that, p. 32. l. 6. add against his person, p. 35. l. 3. for People r. Parliament, p. 46 l. 10. for Impurii r. Imperii, p. 46. l. 14. add strong, p. 46. l. 20. for Impurii r. Imperii, p. 47. l. 16. for dinguish r. distinguish, p. 52. l. 18. for sins r. lives, p. 53. l▪ 1. add be, p. 61. l. 21. for enfoying r. enjoining, p. 65. l. 18. add not, l. 19 for case r. ease, p. 66. l. 14. for that r. as, l. 15. for as r. that, p. 67. l. 7. add Church, p. 76. l. 5. add should be all, though they cut themselves with Lances, p. 76. l. 9 for this r. things. p. 78. l. 1. add of Pride, p. 80. l. 9 for word r. work.   

THE Peaceable Design:  
IT is the happiness and birthright of the People of this Nation, that if they lie under any grievance, they may have recourse to the Parliament. There is no burden whereof we ought to be more sensible of than that which lies upon our Consciences: We do humbly hope therefore that it will not be ill taken if we crave the liberty, to show at lest what ails us; To make our apology for that wherein we seem to offend, and to offer something for a general redress: especially seeing a little collection out of some late papers (though several) of one person alone, will serve this triple occasion.  
There are divers sorts of Nonconformists, and they have their Meetings we know, not all on the same reasons.  
There are some who have been, and are for Parochial Churches, who are satisfied with their constitution, and if they might have freedom would still choose them: And there are others that are in their Inclinations for the Congregational way only. For our parts who have put this Paper together, we profess ourselves of the former sort, and do here declare in the behalf of ourselves and others of our Brethren, that we do not go from the Parish Church in opposition to it, as if such Congregations were no Churches, being very deeply sensible when our Lord hath commanded that the Tares should not be plucked up for fear of endangering even but some of the Wheat, what a grievous displeasure it may like to be to him, if we should go to root up all the Wheat for fear of the Tares, which to Un-church whole Parishes, were to do: Nor is it out of affectation, pride, vanity, ostentation, faction, or self-advantage that we do it, we could not answer such a charge against us, if we did so.  
Two things therefore we will acknowledge, that our Parish-churhes are true Churches: And that it is our duty consequently to desire and endeavour their union and prosperity. And what would any Conformist have of us more, unless it be also to join with them there in the participation of the Ordinances, which some of us refuse not neither, upon convenient occasion. Well, upon what ground then shall we offer our apology for the cause we undertake? why we will give it impartially. As we grant those two things to be our duty, so must we assume that which will not, and can not be denied us, that it is the duty likewise of those who are set apart to the offiice of the Ministry (supposing them every way to be sit & called) to preach the Gospel by way of discharge of the office. We have the Apostles express authority and example for this, who when they were threatened, and commanded to speak no more in Christ's name, have left us their answer on Record, We ought to obey God rather than Man. We have the precedent also of the first three hundred years after these Apostles when the Gospel was never preached, but contrary to the will of the Magistrate, that is, against the Laws and Edicts of the Emperors: Now we must down this rule, that when two duties lay come together, so that we cannot perform the one but we must omit the other, the greater duty must take place of the less. The rule appears in its own light, and also from Scripture, I will have mercy (saith God) and not Sacrifice. What is the meaning, but that when acts of righteousness and mercy fall in, such duties as that of sacrifice, which are less, must give way. Here then is our case plainly, which of these is the greater duty? We are to seek Unity, and to preach the Gospel. If we keep our Parish-Churches, we must not preach the Gospel, if we preach the Gospel, we must go to these private Meetings: which of these is indeed of greatest moment to the glory of God, and the People's salvation? In general, which is the greatest matter, that the Gospel of Christ Jesus be preached, or the Union of our Parish Churches be promoted? In particular, whether shall any one of us who have a call on occasion to preach at such a time, place, or company, do more service to God, by going and doing it, or by refusing and going to our Parish-Church for the sake of unity, for which we have still other seasons? And which is the greater evil, to have the people of a Parish only divided into several places to hear the Ministers of both persuasions preach to them (when this too shall not hinder them being parts still or members of the same Parochial society;) or that all the Preachers and Ministers in the Nation but those only who Conform, should have their mouths stopped, and Talents buried? How! when there is so many of them? so many of them truly serious and painful labourers? so many of them that actually do so much good, and the everlasting welfare of thousands men's souls depend upon it? What is Parochial Union in comparison? we will appeal to the Consciences of every upright equal person, (whether Conformist or Nonconformist) that fears God, to give Judgement. The preaching of the Gospel, and particular Assemblies are of Divine: Parochial Churches are of Humane institution. That which is Divine, is undeniably to be preferred before that which is of humane appointment. For the great charge then against us of Schism, we answer. Schism is a causeless separation of the Church's union, a causeless separation from her Communion, the Communion of a Church whereof we are Members, or should be. Let any learned Man that hath read any thing about Schism, tell us, if we do not define it right, by a separation that is causeless; for if there be a cause, the separation will be justified, as it is between us, and the Church of Rome. Now when the Case between the Conformists and us is so open, and in the face of the Sun, that unless we set, and keep up these honest Conventicles, the whole Generation of these Nonconformist Ministers must be laid aside from the Exercise of their Office, for aught we see as long as these Men do hold, whatsoever in the mean while becomes of the Souls of so many Multitudes: What Apology, Defence, or Account do we need more, but this only, Is there not a Cause? they are the words of David to his surly Elder Brethren, who are offended only for his being about the Business he was sent. And David said, what have I done? is there not a Cause!  
To this Apology we know it will be said by the Episcopal Party, (for nothing else that we know can be said to any purpose) But you may conform. If so, we must then desire of some one or other of the Learned and Conscientious among them to contribute but this one thing towards it: A little thing we may think, if they could do it. It is only to answer the Sheet which was tendered to the Parliament about two or three Sessions ago, for taking away the Subscription and Oxford Oath, and which shall be in order therefore by and by repeated. We would give all the Money in our Purses, with a Tax, or without any, upon condition that the Parliament would either have such Arguments of ours answered, or else repeal their Impositions.  
There are Three things enjoined in the Act of Uniformity. Re-ordination. The Declaration. The Subscription. As we have borrowed thus much already from a late Paper of the Author now intimated: So shall we make use of others of the same person, in the which follows.  
We begin with the Threshold, Re-ordination. It must be acknowledged by both Parties, That Re-ordinution is an uncouth thing, quite against the Hair of the literate World, whether Fathers, Counsels, or Modern Divines, Protestants and Papists; and put usually into the same Predicament (and more especially by Austin) with Rebaptisation. If the present Bishops therefore in the imposing of it, would have stood by it, and maintained the Lawfulness of it, as being neither against the Law of Nature, nor positive Institution; but as having rather the Examples of the Apostles, and of Paul and Barnabas more particularly for it, with what else by some is urged, against the stream barely of humane Authority, this would perhaps have looked handsome, and the ingenuity of it would have been notable: But when they would generally have it imposed, and yet disown it, and be ashamed of it, in so much as though there be few or none ordained by Presbyters, but believed the validity of that Ordination, they would have our former Ministry to be null, and make us contented in effect to be held but usurpers of holy things, Sacrilegious persons, and all our Ministerial Acts void, as the Acts of mere Laics before, it is really so intolerably vile, as no mortal flesh is able to bear. It is true, there is one Instance from Antiquity out of Athanasius, of some persons with Ischyras among them whom they would not allow (as these hold) to be Ministers; because one Coluthus, that ordained them, was only a Presbyter. Unto which may be added, the Story of the purblind Bishop, 2. Concil. Hispal. 3. Can. 5. circa An. 656. But we answer with Dr. Field on the Church in his Fifth Book, It is one thing what they judged according to their Ecclesiastical Canons; and another what they ought to judge according to the Word of God. The Scripture makes no difference between Bishop and Presbyter, the Superiority and Inferiority arising after in the Church: And when we are made Christ's Ministers, and put in office by him according to his Word, how shall that Authority be vacated for something wanting only in the Constitutions of Men? Here is a matter of Infinite wrong, which the opinion of these Men do us. It takes away the Office Christ hath given us, and holds it thursdays. If it was a grievous thing in the late times to put one of these Ministers out of his place, what is it to put so many of us out of our Office? There is no Person almost of Spirit, but will be ready to part with his life as soon as the Honour he holds from the King; and shall not the Ordained Minister maintain the Right which he holds from Christ? When so many eminent Predecessors to these Bishops, and other Defenders of this Church have maintained Presbyterian Ordination: When the Reformed Churches abroad have no other: When the Case was such as that there was no other to be had here in the late times▪ When not we alone then are concerned only in the wrong, but our Lord and Master, whose cause it is, and whose business we are to do, and the Souls of so many people: We cannot but appeal to the Higher Powers in a matter of so great right and wrong as this is. For we are contented to have it revised, and judged, whether the Diocesan Bishop be distinguishedly named in Christ's Charter for Ordination, as he is in the Canons of Men: Or when we have been ordained already, as Timothy by the laying on of the hands of Presbytery, whether the Lawn be de Essentia to the Ceremony, and the Hands avail nothing without the Sleeves on.  
The next thing is the Declaration. I A. B. do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contain-and pr●scribed in and by the Book Entitled, The Book of Common Prayer, and the form of Ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons. That is assent to all and every thing contained in, and consent to every thing prescribed by these Books. Sirs, There was a time, when that the Nation had the hopeful overture of a Concord between the sober of two parties, and the Hearts of most Men were in preparation to receive it. But alas! instead of such a Gracious and Blessed Issue as was expected, lo here the straight injunction of an Assent and Consent to all Conformity, and every thing of it, new and old, to be approved and obeyed, or else one part of the Ministry must be immediately turned out. How can those now whose Judgements are, and have been still for moderation between both opinions in times before as now, be able to come over to one side altogether on such terms as these. How can they (we say) make so short a turn as this, without the hazard of some sprain to their Conscience, if they do it? We cannot tell you perhaps, nor are willing to declare the Impressions we have upon our Spirits against a going back from that more Spiritual Plain, and simply zealous Service of Almighty God, in the way we were in, and Reformation we sought, unto that something we are not used to, and fear, to wit, unto a form of Worship and Discipline, that carrying a countenance of both, but being rather only a kind of Idols thereof, doth seem to us, by the show, pomp, and compliment of the things it contains not, to undermine the Life, Power, and Efficacy of one and the other. We cannot tell you perhaps what moves us so much from within, whether fear of Popery returning on us, or aliquid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: But we will produce Two or Three Instances apiece, against Assent, and against Consent to that which is enjoined, that we may approve ourselves to the Consciences of all, as well as our own, in refusing this Declaration.  
For our Assent. In the Athanasian Creed we find this passage, Which Faith, except every one does keep whole, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. One of the Articles of this Creed is this. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son. In this Article we know the Greek Church hath differed from the Latin, and held, That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father only. If we give our Assent then to every thing or passage contained in this Book, we must believe the Greek Church undoubtedly damned. And what if some of the Non-conformists (as well as of Conformists) do believe it not impossible, but that some Heathen, and professed Socinian may be saved? What if they cannot think otherwise in regard to the Goodness of God, but that whosoever he was, or is, that walked, or walks up to his Light in sincerity, with a general Repentance for his unseen Errors, must by virtue of the Covenant made with Adam fallen, and Noah, no less than the Jews were by the same confirmed with Abraham, be in a state of acceptation with God, not conceiving but both alike (for aught they see) were ignorant of their Redemption by the Blood of Christ, or the means how their Peace was made with him? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We have shown before that Christ is the first begotten of God, the Divine Reason, Wisdom or Word, whereof the whole kind of Men, or the whole stock of Mankind do partake; and whosoever lives according to reason, are Christians, though they be accounted Heathen, and without God, such as Socrates, Heraclitus, and the like, Justine Martyr in his second Apology for the Christians: We do not say we receive this, nor deny it: But we are ready to say what was Luther's saying, We hope God will be merciful to such a one as Cicero, but our Duty is to abide by the Word. And yet cannot this little Candour itself be used, if we must be forced to declare, that whosoever believes not the Athanasian Creed, must undoubtedly perish. Not that other Non conformists generally make any scruple in this: But what do those sober and learned Doctors of the Church think of it, who have a name given them upon this account, that though they hold some things that agree not with her Articles or Homilies, yet they can conform to them, or have a Latitude to do it? I A. B. do declare my unfeigned Assent and Consent to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer; and yet I A. B. do declare that I Assent not to that passage in the Athanasian Creed. Again, I A. B. do profess that a Heathen may be saved; and yet I do libenter & ex animo subscribe to the Article among the thirty nine, that does pronounce him accursed, who dares hold such an opinion. We are not ignorant indeed, how some would blend the two terms Assent and Consent, and then interpret them by the words [to the use] in the Act: But this is a shift which will not satisfy all persons, and many desire to use no shifts. If these words [to the use] had been put into the Declaration itself, it had been better: Yet if they had, Assent is proper to the Truth, and Consent to the Use. And yet moreover, how can a Man unfeignedly consent to the use of any such Particular which is false, and which perhaps he even abhors, that the Wise and Ingenious of his particular persuasion should think he believed. Another Instance shall be this. In the Service on the Gunpowder-Treason, we thank God for preserving the King, and the Three Estates of the Realm Assembled. It is a difficult Point now in the Politics of England, Whether the Three Estates be, the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons: Or the Lords-Spiritual, Temporal, and Commons. The late King made no scruple in his Answer to the nineteen Propositions to reckon himself one of the Three Estates: Neither was there any we know that durst account the Three Estates of the Land to be dissolved, when the Bishops were turned out of the House by an Act. We cannot tell therefore of what Consequence it is to the fundimental liberty, constitution, and state of the Kingdom, to yield unto the insinuation of such a thing as this in our Prayers. No Man can give his unfeigned Assent to any thing he knows not, and understands not. This is a thing we do not know that the Bishops are indeed one of the Three Estates of this Realm. Whether they be or no, we dispute not; but till we are better satisfied with them and their station, we are afraid that any snare should be laid for the people in the Exercise of their Devotions unto God. We must mention one Particular more, which is our general Exception. In the new Book there is inserted several Passages that make the Bishops a distinct Office and Order from the Presbyter. We need not name the Words, for they are put in more than once the industria. They would not be content with a difference in Degree and Eminency; but they would have us declare to a jure divino distinction, disproved by learned Doctors among the Papists, and among the Episcopal Men, as well as the Reformed Churches. Now we humbly beseech the Parliament to consider, whether the Bishops have dealt candidly with us to get such a Condition imposed on the Presbyterian to the keeping of his Ministry, as not only Bishop Davenant and Usher, but such as Dr. Field and Francis Mason must have been turned out for Non-conformists upon the same. There are Two Orders Ecclesiastical, Presbyteri & Diaconi. When we say Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, we name but two Orders, yet three Degrees. Mr. Joseph Mede disc. V  
For our Consent. We will name three things likewise (and but name them) more indefinitely. There is the Hierarchy, or Bishop invested with sole power of Ordination, and Jurisdiction. There are the Ceremonies, in general so often disputed. There is the Imposition itself of things not necessary, the occasion of stumbling to many good Men, and cause of our divisions. If we give our unfeigned consent to all and every thing prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, and the form of ordering Bishops, Priests and Deacons, then must we give our approbation (we suppose) to these things amongst others. But if the Two first are disputable, we are past doubt in the last, that to impose things that are inductive to others to sin, and yet not necessary, is unlawful. What Charter hath Christ given to the Church to bind Men up to more than himself hath done? Says Stillingfleet, with much more to the purpose, in his Epistle to his Iranicum? We will not speak so laxly altogether▪ as he does there; but when we distinguish the Imposition and Submission, this we are fully persuaded of in Conscience, that the Submission to the things imposed may perhaps be maintained; the Imposition of them is not to be so, neither by that Dr. nor by us; For if we build again the things we have destroyed, we make ourselves transgressors. It is not (Sirs!) the serving God by a Liturgy, or the reading Common Prayer in the ordinary daily Service that makes us Non-conformists, though it be this only lies in the view of the inconsiderate many, and though there are some things we except against the occasional Offices, which by and by may be named. We are sorry if any have given cause for such a scandal which tends to the breaking of the Concord and Charity which ought to be maintained equally between the Brethren of our private, and of the Parochial Congregations. We should be ready to do any thing we could to the healing this scandal. But there are matters of another moment, which if we had liberty to open to the World at large as our cause requires. We doubt not but that it might come to see, whether we have reason to stick at conformity or no. There are few of us who are not sensible in some measure of the corruption which hath crept into the Church in regard to the discipline or government of it by the Hierarchy and Diocesan Bishop so much degenerated since Cyprians time from the primitive simplicity: And there hath passed a solemn Oath over the Nation, engaging the main Body of it to the endeavour of a Reformation. Now when the same government is returned upon the Land with all its former corruptions, and more heavy Injunctions, if we should generally submit again to it without obtaining any amendment, composition, or abatement, we dread to think on it, with what faces they shall be able to stand before God, who have lift up their hands to him for things quite contrary in the late Revolutions. But to proceed, at last, Besides the matter of this Declaration, the strict prescription as to the form of words is more especially to be noted, That this Declaration be made in these words and no other. And what if a Minister would read the Book of Common Prayer without this Declaration? Or what if he would declare to the contents of the Book in other Expressions? Why should these crooked Ss' be rammed down the Throat to choke any? If we were put to declare in this form of words to any Book we know of this Bulk, even to the Bible itself (as to any Copies we have yet seen of it) we must, for aught we see, still stick out. It is said in the Kings, That Ahazia was two and twenty years old when he began to Reign, and in the Chronicles, that he was two and forty: Both these cannot be true: If we were put therefore to Declare in these words, and no other, I A. B. do declare my Assent to every thing contained in our Bible, we should be gravelled: For we cannot Assent to the Truth of both these places in the English, nor Consent to the error of the Transcription or Translation, when we know not otherwise how to reconcile the contradiction in them. In Psal. 105. v. 28. our Psalter reads the words thus, And they were not obedient to his Word; our Bible reads them, And they rebelled not against his Word. We argue here. One Particular contained in the Book of Common Prayer is the Translation of the Text. But if the Translation be true in the Psalter, it is false in the Bible: And if it be true in the Bible, it is false in the Psalter. That they rebelled, and rebelled not, no Man can give his Assent. We know indeed how the words may be true in both Translations, as to the minds of the Translators, the one referring them to Moses and Aaron, and the other to the Egyptians: But we urge this more strictly. The mind of the Text itself, of the Holy Ghost, or David's mind whose Psalm it is, was but one: While the Translators than are contrary in their minds, both of them cannot have David's mind; and so one of the Translations must have that meaning which is false. And why must we be made then to give our Consent that both these Translations should be used, when the false may be amended by the right? We mention this little thing among many others that have been objected by Non-conformists heretofore, to show the insuperable encumbrance of these continued Injunctions. There is one such a little thing more, which perhaps hath not yet been publicly offered. It is the Rule prescribed us for the finding out the movable Feasts and holidays. Easter-day, on which the rest depend, is always the first Sunday after the first Full Moon, which happens next after the one and twentieth day of March. Now examine this Rule for the last Year 1674. and you will find the first Full Moon after the 21th. of March was upon the 10th. of April, and consequently if this Rule hold good, the next Sunday, which was April the 12th. should have been Easter-day: But Easter-day was upon the 19th. of April, as the Table for 40 years in the Common-Prayer does tell you, as well as our Almanacs did. Well! And how then shall we declare our Assent and Consent to all and every thing contained in this Book? The Table is in the Book, and the Rule is in the Book. If the Rule be true, the Table is false: If the Table be true, the Rule is false. It is a grievous Case, that we must be turned out of our Living, because we cannot give our Assent and Consent to Both.  
Having mentioned these lesser things in the way, we shall perhaps be blamed, if we neglect some other, that are of more notice and moment with our Brethren.  
In the Office of Baptism, the Parents are not admitted to covenant for their Children, and how shall the Infant answer Credo, Abrenuntio, out of the mouth of the Godfather? It is the Parents being in Covenant that gives Title to the Child's Baptism, and unless the Father or Mother make such a profession, as that we can probably judge the one or the other thereby to be in Covenant, we cannot (some of us) admit the Children to Baptism, nor themselves to the Lords Supper.  
In the Burial; how shall we be able for our lives to say of every one that dies Un-excommunicate in the Parish, that God of his great Mercy hath taken his Soul unto himself, with such like Expressions? Or that it is certain by God's Word that every Child Baptised before Actual Sin, is in a state of Salvation? Let our Learned Gataker be consulted, De Baptismatis Infantilis vi & Efficacia, and then judge of it who will.  
In the Service for the holidays, there ale the most of us not agreed upon the Lawfulness of such days, Six days shall thou labour: But above all the rest, there is one thing in S Clement's day prescribed by the New Common-Prayer Book, that we wonder how those themselves that put it in can give their consent to it, which is, the change of a profitable Chapter in Esay for the Story (God defend us!) or Bell, and the Dragon?  
There is lastly the use of the Cross, a complete Institution of itself, brought in or added to the Ordinance of Christ, appearing to be of the same nature and end. This, we doubt, does entrench upon his Kingly Office, and must humbly therefore offer one reason for the removal, which we solicit whatsoever be done in other matters. The Ceremonies in use amongst us (says Mr. Hooker) are retained in no other respect saving only for that to retain them is to our seeming good and profitable. To which purpose, We are content with these only (says the Common Prayer Book) as be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to remembrance of his duty, by some edifying signification. But the Cross being a Ceremony applied to Children who are uncapable of having their minds stirred up by any thing signified thereby, it is manifestly retained without their profit. We will enforce the Argument. By the same reason as we retain the Cross in Baptism, the other Ceremonies in Popery which are left may be readmitted. As we use the Cross to signify that the Child must fight manfully under Christ's Banner, we may use the Chrism wherein the Cross was used to be made, to signify the Christians anointing to the Combat, and so forward. There is nothing can be replied hereto in good earnest, but that it is true if the Church pleased to enjoin it, so we might. We urge consequently, By the same reason as the Church hath relinquished the Chrism in Baptism, it may leave the Cross also, that is only if it please so to vote in a needful Convocation. And that it should do so, there is cause enough, if there were nothing else, to be said but this only, that as for all other Ceremonies enjoined, the Conformists may plead, that they are but Circumstances of Worship, wherein the Church hath proper Authority to appoint what is decent and orderly: But for any solemn entire Rite, which is no Circumstance of the Ordinance unto which it is appended, or any ways in genere necessary thereunto, if this also be enjoined, we shall have no bottom or banks set to the appointment of Ceremonies, how far this Sea shall go, and no farther than so.  
We will heap no more matters of this kind, for they are infinite: And it is some relief to our thoughts, that the Parliament (we thank God) did come to be a little sensible of it, in so much as they were near content one Session to Cashier this Declaration quite. There does remain now therefore the Subscription, and this question which will arise upon it. Whether there be not as good reason, in regard to the most sober Consciences, to take away this subscripttion in the Act of uniformity, and the Oath in the Oxford Ast, as well as the Declaration of Assent and Consent? and here making first our humble Protestation, that we intent nothing hereby but loyally to the Government, we must present the Sheet before mentioned to their renewed consideration.  
The Subscription is this. I A. B. do declare, That it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King. And that I do abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority or those Commissionated by him: And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by Law established. And I do declare, That I do hold there lies no Obligation upon me, or any other person, from the Oath commonly called the solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State: And that the same was in itself an unlawful Oath, and imposed upon the Subjects of the Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom. The Oath this. I A. B. do swear, That it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever, to take Arms against the King. And that I abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions. And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State. In this Oath and Subscription, we have the matter, and the form of words; that is, the Substance, and the Composure. The one whereof, and the other in both are liable to the ensuing Exceptions. Which we desire may be taken with Candour in respect only to our design, that is as argumentative for the removal of these Injunctions: Not as peremptorily definitive of our own judgements, and much less of others above our Sphere in all the Cases contained in them.  
To begin with the Oath. Here are three parts of it. The first part appears not (for we speak it humbly only, and argumentatively) consistent with Judgement; the second with Truth; nor the third with Righteousness.  
We will take up the last part first. And I will not endeavour any alteration of Government. There is no Government on Earth so perfect that it hath need of Laws like the Medes and Persians. Government may be considered in the Administration or the Constitution. The word Government here is set down indefinitely, without distinction. Alteration of Laws, and so Government in the Administration, is as necessary many times upon emergent occasions to the Body politic, as the fresh Air is to the natural. This Oath was brought into the House to have been made Common. It were not a thing righteous to have had that engagement laid on persons in such a capacity: It is not righteous to have it laid on any that are Freeholders'; and free Subjects as we are. The Constitution of our Nation, as Parliamentary, is such that no Law can be established or repealed, but it must pass the House of Commons, and so the whole Body doth concur in their representatives to every alteration of Government (or in the Government) that is made, if it be legal: And no house of Commons are chosen but by the people. Every Englishman is inte●●●●d to be there present, either in person, or by procuration, and the consent of the people is taken to be every man's consent, says Sir Thomas Smith de Rep. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Nay, while the King consilio & assensu Baronum leges olim imposuit universo Regno, by the counsel and assent of his Barons did give Laws to his whole Realm, consentire inferior quisque visus est in persona Domini sui Capitalis prout hodie per procuratores Comitatus, every Inferior seemed to consent in the person of his chief Lord, as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires, says Sir Henry Spelman. This is so true, that in this sens●●●● is, that the Laws that pass are said to 〈◊〉 Quas vulgus elegerit, Which the people s●●ll choose. Now than if every free Subject hath a fundamental liberty to choose Knights and Burgesses, and accordingly to inform them of their Grievances, and petition them for Redress, and in them, as their Representatives, do consent to the alteration of Government and Laws (if there be any) as profitable to the Nation. How can such an Oath be imposed on him, That he will not endeavour any alteration, as this is? Is not choosing Burgesses, informing them, petitioning them, acting and legally consenting in them to that end an endeavour? and that as much as can be in their Place and Calling? And no more than an Endeavour in their Place and Calling was challenged by any. It is true, the new Laws may be made, and old repealed, without alteration of the Constitution: But not without alteration of Government; because Government takes in both the Administration and the Constitution. Let us suppose therefore the word Government confined only to the Constitution. There is the Constitution of the Government in the State, which is a Legal Monarchy, and this indeed we are so far bound from endeavouring to alter, as that we think it is not alterable by the King himself and Parliament; because that Supreme Power for the Administration must be supposed in all Communities, to be derived from, and held by the Constitution. But as for Government in the Church, we are to know and acknowledge, that the Constitution hereof itself is but a Law of the Administration, in reference to the State. And consequently when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulation of Parliaments, the great question will remain, how those Men who are Presbyterian or Independent in their Judgement, and think Episcopacy against the Scripture can be abridged the Endeavour only , (which consists but in choosing Representatives, and doing no more than the Consitution allows) in order to the prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience, both by Oath, and the Word of God? Is not the foundation Liberty of the whole People, and ourselves with them here in danger? Judge ye that are wise. And what an anointed Plot have we had here on the Nation, that Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops, as well as to the King?  
For the Words then (or Form) we wonder at this Rigour in the Compiler, that a Man must swear not to endeavour any Alteration. Had it not been enough to be engaged, not to endeavour the Alteration of the Substance of our Government, Episcopacy in the Church, and Monarchy in the State, but must it be not any Alteration? It were well we were so absolutely perfect. And again, must they not at any time endeavour any alteration? What if times should turn, and we be in as great a confusion as we were, or any the like chance or change come? Must these Men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to reduce back this Government that we have? No, not the King and Bishops, if the Iniquity of the times should put them out; for they have sworn, they will not at any time endeavour any alteration in Church or State. Sirs! The matter of this obligation being against the fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Parliament, and the words you see so ensnaring, and that against the duty all own to the public good: We offer it you to consider in the first place, whether this last part be according to Righteousness.  
For the middle part of the Oath. Here is a position of taking Arms by the King's authority against any Commissionated by him, which must be sworn to, as abhorred and traitorous. There is now a Case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath and Subscription. Suppose some Writ sued out, and comes to the Sheriff's hands, and suppose some to oppose the Execution by the King's Personal Command or Commission, and he thereupon raises the posse Comitatus upon them. We will ask here, whether the Sheriff acts not herein by the King's Authority? We think it cannot be denied. By the King's Authority is all one as by the Law, or in the Name of the King according to Law. And when he can act so against any for all their Commission, and the Law will bear him out, how is this position in this Case traiterus, and to be abhorred? for our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath, or the Subscription, (as to the Major part we may be bold) to advance the personal Will or Commission of the King above Law, which were to make his power despotical, and not Royal. Non est Rex (says Bracton) ubi dominatur voluntas, non Lex, He is no King that governs by his will, and not by the Law. And how this position indefinitely (without exception of this Case at least) must be sworn to as altogether traitorous, we are to learn. What if any should come with a Commission under the Seal to raise Money without an Act of Parliament, and by virtue of such Commission shall seize our Goods, rifle our Houses, and ravish our Wives? May not the People, or our inferior Magistrates, or the Sheriff for the County, withstand such violence? May not the Constable alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace, raise the Neighbourhood, and do it? If he may, or the Sheriff may, it must be in the Name of the King, or by Authority of the Law; and then is there some Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Authority of the King against such as are Commissionated by him, though never against his own Sacred Person. Suppose again that Papists or fanatics should either by Power or Surprise, at any time get the King into their hands, (as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King) and prevail with him for fear of his life to grant Commissions under His Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State, must the Nation be remediless in this Case, and so the King and Kingdom ruined by these Commissions? Nay, what security hath the Nation, that a Lord Keeper may not prove Traitor to his King, and Country? If we may suppose such a thing possible, what if such a Lord Keeper should under the Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband His Majesty's Life Guard, deliver up the Navy or Seaport Towns, seize the Tower or places of strength; in what a Condition were the King and Kingdom brought, if the Subject's hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms, against the execution of such Commissions: Suppose but so long as till they understand his design, for by that time, the whole Nation may be past recovery. We are offended at the sense, and stand amazed at the horror of those sad Consequences into which the Imposition of such like Tests, or Injunctions as these, (if not timely retrenched) may lead our Posterity. The Courts of Law can avoid the King's Charters or Commissions which are passed against Law, for the King is subject to the Law, and Sworn to maintain it, says Judge Jenkins in his Works, p. 48. As for the form then of the words, I abhor this Traitorous Position, they are harsh, the word abhor especially is a word of interest and passion, a cooler word, as I disown or disallow, might have served. Some of the more Grave (as Calamy particularly) were much offended at that word. A Man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience, when he cannot say according to truth, I abhor it. There is never a Gentleman in the Land but may swear truly, that he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife; but if each one was put to swear he abhors it, we suppose some very good Sons of the Church, as well as our Brethren, would be found willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath. Well Sirs! when these words Abhor and Traitorous are so harsh in the Composure, and when such Cases as above mentioned may be put as to the position in the matter of it, wherein it seems justifiable, and without offence: We offer it in the next place to consideration, whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth.  
For the first part, We have a large Assertion roundly sworn. The Oath and Subscription runs not only, that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King, or that it is not lawful on any pretence, but on any pretence (or cause) what soever. The Grammatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation. Amongst the most emment of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes, and established it against Resistance in their writings on this Subject, we suppose there are sew or none to be valued above these Three, Bareley, Grotius, Arnisaeus. And we shall und, that they have all their restrictions or cases of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet. And how shall any be over earnest here in punishing the Refuser, when if the matter be well scanned, the reason perhaps, why he refuses, will be sound only because he hath read more than some others that yield their submission. We begin with Barcley, that is William Barcley, a Scot and Counsellor to the French King, who writes against Buchanan, Boucher, and other Monarchomachists, as he calls them. This learned Man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People, that consequently no Arms can be taken against him: Nevertheless, when he comes to put some pressing Cases, he thus limits himself. Quid ergo? nulli ne Casus incidere possunt, quibus populo in Rigem arma capere jure suo liceat? nulli certe quanidiu Rex manet. What then? Can there no Cafes happen, wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms against the King by Right? None certainly so long as he remains a King. There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere personam Regis, or Dominatu se exuere, Put off the Person of a King. And particularly (l. 3. c. 16.) he mentions Two. Si regnum alienet, si Rempublicam evertere conatur. If he go to alienate his Kingdom, if he go to overthrew the Commonwealth. We cannot tell how to approve this Doctrine; the Papists use the same we know in another Case, we may not fight against our King; but if the Pope Excommunicate him, he shall be no King with them. Let us come to Grotius, and first quote him in his Judgement of Barcley, lest you may think else we mistake him. Barclaius (says he) Regii impariilicet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit, ut populo & insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam. Barcley, though the most assertor of Kingly Government, does come to this, that he grants a Right to the People, or the most eminent part of them, of defending themselves against intolerable oppression. For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet, Summum impurium tenentibus jure resisti non posse; That the higher Powers may not lawfully be resisted, from Scripture, Antiquity, Authority, and Example, to as much purpose perhaps as any, he descends to put seven Cases, wherein he does Lectorem monere, ne putet in bane legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt; Warn his Reader, lest he mistake some for delinquents that are not. For Arnisaeus, he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politics. De Jure Majestatis. De Doctrina Politica. De Authoritate principum in populum semper Inviolabile, seu, quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere. That the Authority of Princes over the People, aught to be inviolable, or that it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince. Here than we have our Tenet, in the state whereof he comes in the issue to dinguish between Rex and Tyrannus, a King and a Tyrant, Tyrannus in Titulo, & Tyrannus in Exercitio; A Tyrant in Title, and in Practice: And Tyrannus in Exercitio, A Tyrant in Practice, he accounts does Excidere de Jure, etsi Haereditario, Fall from his Right, though Hereditary. Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem (says he) ut illi praesit in salutem omnium, a quo si prorsus desciverit, etiam de potestate cadit, quum non alto fine sibi commissum habebat. The Commonwealth is delivered to the Prince, that he should rule over it for the common safety; from which if he depart altogether, he falls even from the Power itself, which was committed to him only for this end. We do not give our consent to, not pass our censure upon the words we cite, but by such Testimonies as these without naming others, we would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed, or sworn, with some resentment and shame, that when the temperate sense and meaning of them is such as we were not like to boggle at, they should be yet composed so in terminis, as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception. For the form then yet of the Words. I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful, etc. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition questioned, to the determination of a Point of Conscience, and that diversely decided. An Oath should be to a matter of fact, and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain. To require of Men therefore to swear to the verity of a Doctrinal Proposition, is not according to Judgement, being a thing impossible, because no Man is insellible. Now then Sirs! When here is such an Erratum in the Composure, as the want of the words I believe, or the like, I swear that I held or believe, that it is not lawful, etc. and so material an Exception, as the Judgement of the most learned in general comes to, against the Substance in Terminis, of the first part of this Oath, which yet gods down ordinarily without chewing; we humbly oder it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken either in Truth or Judgement. An Oath must be taken in Judgement, in Truth, and in Righteousness. The first part (we argue) is not according to Judgement; The second not according to Truth; The third not according to Righteousness. We speak it humbly by way only of Argumentation (as we have said) craving pardon if it offend, for the manner of the Expression. We proceed to the Subscription conjoined, which hath we count Two Parts. The one is the purport wholly of the Oath; whereof therefore we shall add no more but this, That when the matter of the one, and the other in the former part, is such as enters the foundation of Politics in general, and the Laws and State of the Land in particular (which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), a Kingdom regulated by Laws, as Sir Thomas Smith hath it: Rex sub Deo & Loge, The King is under God and the Law, says Hooker and Brecton:) So that it requires the skill ●f the greatest Judges, Sergeants and: ages of the Law to determine the Cases included in it, every poor silly Minister is put to decide the same for himself, and to have that evidence therein, as to be able to take his Cath, or give his Hand to the certainty of it. the other part of the Subscription concerns the Covenant, where the words [nor any other] are such a Ford (that as to the Consciences of all not throughly Episcopal) so far as we see is unpassable, it is nothing to some of ourselves to subscribe, there lies no obligation on me from the Covenant to endeavour any alteration of Government, because we never took it, and was against our Consciences, and we can conceive for others in a private capacity, what have they to do with Government? No Oath can bind to sedition and disobedience. But as for such as are in a public capacity, and can act lawfully towards Reformation in their place, what shall we say to those? One way there is indeed, will strike off all quite, and that is to hold the present Government established to be Jure Divino altogether, so that any alteration is sin. He that holds thus, may affirm clearly, that though a Man swore he would endeavour to alter the Government, it binds him nothing, let him be in what capacity he will, the least afteration is unlawful, and he must therefore repent of his Oath, and not perform it. But if a Man hold, that the Presbyterian Government is rather Jure Divino, or that neither Episcopal nor Presbyterian is Jure Divino, or that Episcopal Government is well, yet that ours, as it is not, is not altogether so well, but that something may be altered for: ●e better: We wo●●●● 〈◊〉 ●●in be informed how such a Man can absolve him who is in a public capacity (as a Parliament Man) from his endeavouring so much according to time and prudence, if he hath sworn before that he will. It is in vain to hid where the water sticks. There are some cannot tell how to absolve one other for their sins. They say not there lies an obligation upon any other to do as they have sworn, for fear it be dangerous; and they dare not say there lies none, for fear of their Consetences. As ●o ourselves this we may say, that we desire to be instructed, and this we will say, that it is an hard thing to put on it to say, that there lies no obligation upon any other but ourselves whether there does or no. We will therefore close up our reasons for Nonconformity, with this one Note only. If there be so many difficulties in one of the things only, which is required to Conformity, what a River hath he to wade, that must pass through All together that belongs to it? We descend to some Proposals for concord or mutual quiet to the Nation, under these Differences: And here also we are accommodated with our Plough and Heifer from the same Author. Secundae cogitationes prudentius & moderatius consulunt, & prudentius quia moderatius.  
It hath pleased His Majesty by several Gracious Overtures to commend an union of his Protestant Subjects to the consideration of Parliament. A Design full of all Princely Wisdom, Honesty, and Goodness. In this Achievement there is a double Interest (we apprehend) to be distinguished and weighed, that of Religion itself, and that of the Nation. The advance of Religion does consist much in 〈◊〉 unity of its Professors both in Opinion and Practice to be of one 〈◊〉, and one, heart, and one Way (in 〈…〉 Worship) so far as may be 〈…〉 ●o the Scriptures. The acknow●●●● of the Nation, doth lie in the Free 〈…〉 F●ou●● thing of Trade; and uniting the whole Body in the Common Bene●● and ●●pendance on the Government. The one of these bespeaks an established order and accommodation; the others 〈◊〉 speaks Indulgeare Liberty of Conscience, or toleration: for while people are in danger about Religion, we dare not launch out into Trade, (say they) but keep our Monnies, seeing we know not into what straits we shall be driven, and when in reference to their party, they are held under severity, in is ●a●ie to those who are designing. H●ads, to mould thein into Wrath and ●a●●ion: which without occasion will melt and dissolve itself into bare diffent of Opinion, peaceably rejoicing under the enjoyment of Profection.  
The King we know is concerned as Supreme Governor, and as a Christian Protestant Governor. As he is King he is to seek the welfare of the Nation; as he is a Christian, the flourishing of Religion, and the Protestan Religion particularly is his Interest, as 〈◊〉 kingdom doth lie in Balance (he being ●he chief Party) with its Neighbour Nations.  
The Judgement now of some is for a comprehending Act. Which may take in those who are for our Parochial Chaurches, that severity than might be used for reclaiming all whosoever separate from them: The Judgement of some others is for a free and equal Act of Grace to all Indifferently, (the Papists with most excepted) whether separalists or others) abhorring Comprehension, as more dangerous to them on that account, mentioned, than all the Acts that have passed. Neither of these Judge up to the full Interest of the King and Kingdom as is proposed. It becomes not the Presbyterian, if his Principles will admit him to own our Parochial Churches, and enjoy a Living to be willing to have his Brethren the Independants given up to persecution: And it becomes not the Sepanatisis, if he may but enjoy his Conscience, to repine or envy at the Presbyterian for reaping any further Emohiment, seeing both of them (supposing the latter may do so) have as much at bottom as can be, in their capacities, desired of either. It is an Act therefore of a mixed Complexion, provividing both Comprehension, and Indulgence for the different Parties, must serve our purpose.  
And to this end (as we may humbly hope) was there a Bill in the House, A Bill for the ease of the Protestant Dissenters in the Business of Religion. Which that it may (some time or other) be cast into this model, we must present the same yet, under a little further Explication.  
There are Two sorts (we all know) of these Protestant Dissentors: One that own the established Ministry, and our Parish Congregations, and are in capacity of union upon that account, desiring it hearty upon condescension to them in some smaller matters: The other that own nor our Churches, and so are uncapable of a Conjunction, who do not, and cannot desue it, or seek it. For the one. That which we propose is a further latitude in the present constituted order, that such may be received and this we call Comprehension or Accommodation. Let us suppose that nothing else were required of a Man to be a Minister of a Parish, than there is to the Parishioner, to be a Member of the Parish Church, as part of the National. If a person Baptised will come to Church, and hear Common Prayer, and receive the Sacrament, and does nothing worthy of Excommunication, he is, he may, he must be received for a Parochial Member: In like manner if a Minister first ordained (and so Episcopally or Classically approved in his abilities for that function) will but read the Book of Liturgy, and administer the Sacraments according to it, and does nothing which deserves suspension (we appeal to all indifferently sober) why should not this suffice a Man for the enjoying his Living, and exercising the Office unto which he is called) and what if some ●itt●e omission here and there to salve a scrupulous Conscience (so long as the main Body of the Service be still read) were tolerated, would it do hurt to any?  
For the other, there is indeed nothing that can be done to bring those in, and join them with us in Parochial union. Yet is there this to be proposed, that you bear with them, and let not any be persecuted merely for their Consciences, and that we call Indulgence or Toleration. If the Presbyterian now may be comprehended, he will be satisfied to act in his Ministry without endeavouring any Alteration, otherwise of Episcopacy: If the Congregationalist be indulged, he will be satisfied, though he be not comprehended, for that he cannot submit unto; and so shall there no dis-obligation put on any, but all be pleased, and enjoy the ease of such a Bill. Let but the Grounds of Comprehension be laid wide enough to take in all who can own and come unto the public Liturgy, (the Conformist than we may suppose well the greater weight of the Nation) and when the Countenance of Authority, and all State Emoluments are cast into one Scale, and others let alone to come on't, without persecution to inflame them, or perferment to encourage them, (especially if one Expedient be used which shall not pass unmentioned in the close, that such as come in may find it really better to them to be a Priest to a Tribe, than a Levite to a Family) we need not doubt but Time, the Mistress of the wise and unwise, will discover the peaceable Issue of such Counsels.  
And here let us pause a little; for we imagine we see what subsidies are hanging on the F●es of the Parliament 〈◊〉 at this motion. What Prejudices and Impressions we mean have been laid on the Members by former A●●s. 〈…〉 a Speech delivered by the 〈…〉 cellor in Chrisis-Church- 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to the Parliament there 〈…〉 ●●●●lars assembled, wherein 〈…〉 of contriving the Oxford Oath, an● 〈…〉 quently of like former Impositions, 〈◊〉 most Magni●●●●, as well a● Sp●●●sili●y enough arroga●●● 〈…〉 It was, it see●●, 〈…〉 of that Great Man, to root those, Prime●ples out of men's minds, upon which the late Wars (as he sup●●● 〈◊〉) were built; and he would do it by this Invention, to wit, the imposing upon them new Declarations. Oaths, Subscriptions of a Strain framed contrary to choose Principles. We do remember now the Sentence of Esdras to the Apologue of the Angel, where the Wo●ds and Seas would encounter one another. Terily (says he) it was a foolish purpose: For the Trees could not come down from the Hills, nor the Waves get up from the Shores. We must say the same of this Policy. It was really a great vanity to think that Folks should be made to swear away the● thoughts and beliefs: Whatsoever it is we think or believe, we do think it, we do believe it, we must believe it, notwithstanding any of these outward Impositions. The Honest Man indeed will refuse an Injunction against his Conscience, the Knave will swallow it, but each retain their Principles, which the last will be likeliest to put ●●●o any villainous practice. On the contrary there is nothing could be advised more certain, to keep the Covenant, and such Principles alive in men's Hearts and Memories, than this perpetual enjoying the Renuntiation of it. Nor may you wonder, if that Lesson sink deep into Man's flesh, which you will teach them with Briars and Thorns, as Gideon taught the Men of Succoth. Besides, it is the most unpolitick thing that ever could have been, for such Contents as are of that dangerous Consequence to Majesty, and the Government, to have them once disputed or brought into question, to be put into these Declarations, Oaths, and Subscriptions, which necessitates the Examination of them to so many. It was the wisdom of the ancient Church instead of contention about the Jewish Ceremonies to take care they might have an Honourable Burial: And we dare say, if that Great Lord Chancellor had but put off his Cap to the Covenant, and bidden it a fair adieu only, he should have done more towards its Extirpation, than by all this iterated trouble to men's Consciences. And if it shall therefore please the succeeding Ministers of State instead of going to root out the Principles of Innovation which are got into people, by this means (which is no means to do it, but the means to river them more into us) to endeavour rather to root out the Causes from us, which make Men willing to entertain such Principles, and desire change: We suppose their Policy will prove the sounder. The way to establish the Throne of the King is this, to make it appear, that all those Grievances, and all those good things which the people in the late times expected to be removed, or to be obtained by a Commonwealth, or a change of the Government, may be more effectually accomplished by a King in the Acts of His Parliament.  
We are sensible how our Theme rises upon us, and that we begin to shoot wide. We take our Aim therefore again, and Two things in earnest we would expect from such a Bill, as the sum of what is necessary to the end of it, our ease, if it be made to serve the turn. The one is, that Bishop Land be confined to his Cathedral; and the other, that Chancellor Hyde be totally expelled our Acts of Parliament. By the first we mean, that the Ceremonies in the ordinary Parish Churches be left to the liberty of the Minister, to use or use them not according to his Conscience and Prudence towards his own Congregation: And by the latter that all these new devised Oaths, Subscriptions and Declarations, together with the Canonical Oath, and the Subscription in the Canon's be suspended for ●●e time to co●●●. If that be too mu●●● we shall content ourselves with a mo●●●●r motion that whatsoever these Declarations be that are required to be ma●le, subscribed▪ or s●●orn. they may be impos●● only as to the matter and end, leaving the taker but free to the use of their own Expressions. And this Expedient we gather from the Lord Coke, who hath providently as it were against such a season laid in this Observation. The formes the Subscription set down in the Canon's, ratis●●● by King James, was not expressed in the Act of the thirteenth of Elizabeth. Inst. part. 4. c. 74. And consequently, if the Clergy enjoyed this freedom until then, in reference to the Particular therein contained, what hinders why they might not have the same restored in reference also to others?  
It is true, that it may seem hard to many in the Parliament; to undo any thing themselves have done: But though this be no rule for Christians, who are sometimes to repent as well as to believe. If they be loath to Repeal any thing, what if they shall only interpret or explain. Let us suppose then some Clause in this Bill, or some new Act, for Explanations. If any Nonconformist cannot come up to the full meaning and intent of these Injunctions rightly explained, let him remain in Statu quo, under the state only of Indulgence, without benefit of Comprehension; for so long as those who are comprehended, may yet enjoy that Case as to be indulged in some equal measure answerable to His Majesty's late Declaration, whether Comprehension be large or narrow, such terms as we obtain are pure advantage, and such as we obtain not, are no loss. But if any does, and can honestly agree to the whole sense the Parliament intends in such Impositionr, why should there be any obstruction for such a Man, though he deliver himself in his own words, to be received into the established order with others, unless Men will look on these Injunctions only to be continued for Engines of Battery to destroy the Nonconformists, and not as Instruments of unity to edify the Church of God.  
We will not leave our Congregational Brethren neither, so long that we have something more as may be said for them, not ordinarily considered by any. It is this, That though indeed, they are not, and cannot seek to be of our Churches as they are Parochial under the Diocese or Super-intendency of the Bishops: Yet do they not refuse, but seek to be comprehended within the Church, as national under His Majesty. We will explain ourselves The Church may be considered as universal, and so Christ alone is the Head of it, and we receive our Laws from him: Or as particular, and so the Pastors are Heads, Guides, or Bishops over their respective Flocks, who are commanded therefore to obey them in the Lord: Or as national, which is an accidental and external respect to the Church of God, wherein the King is to be acknowledged the Supreme Head of it, and as we judge no otherwise; For thus also runs the Statute, That our Sovereign Lord shall be taken and reputed the only Supreme Head in Forth of the Church of England, called Ecclesia Anglicana. Now if it should please the King and Parliament to allow and approve those separate Meetings, and stated places for Worship by a Law, as His Majesty did by His Declaration, we must Profess that, as such Assemblies by this means must be constituted immediately in ●egral parts of the Church as national, no less than our Parish Congregations: So would the Congregate Churches (at least those that understand themselves) own the King for Head over them, in the same sense as we own him Head over ours, that is as much as to say, for the Supreme Coercive Governor of all, (in this accidental regard) both to keep every several Congregation to that Gospel-order themselves profess; and to supervise their Constitutions in things indifferent, that nothing be done but in subordination to the Peace of the Kingdom.  
Well, let us suppose then a liberty for these separate Assemblies under the visitation of His Majesty and His Justices, and not the Bishops: We would fain know what were the evil you can find in them. If it lie in any thing, it must be in that you call Schism. Separation then let us know in itself simply considered is nothing, neither good nor evil. There may be reason to divide or separate some Christians from others out of prudence, as the Catechumeni of old from the fully instructed, for their greater edification; and as a Chapel or two is added to a Parish Church, when the people else were too big a Congregation. It is not all division then or separation is Schism, but sinful division. Now the Supreme Authority as national Head having appointed the Parochial Meetings, and required all the Subjects of the Land to frequent them, and them alone, for the acknowledging, glorifying, or national serving and worshipping the one only True God, and His Son, whom we have generally received, and this Worship or Service in the nature of it being intrinsically good, and the External order (such as that of time and place, and the like Circumstances) being properly under his Jurisdiction, it hath seemed to us hitherto, that unless there was something in that order and way prescribed, which is sinful, and that required too as a condition of that Communion, there is no man could refuse his attendance on these Parochial Assemblies, without the sin of disobedience: And consequently his separation thereby becoming sinful, proves Schism: But if the Scene be altered, and those separate Assemblies made legal; the Schism in reference to the national upon the same account does vanish. Schism is a separation from that Church, whereof we ought, or are bound to be Members: If the Supreme Authority then lose our obligation to the Parish Meeting, so that we are bound no longer, the iniquity, (we say upon this account) is not to be found, and the Schism gone. Lo here, a way ●p●ned for the Parliament (if they please) to rid the trouble and scruple of Schism (at once) out of the Land. If they please not, yet is there something to be thought on for the Separatist in a way of forbearance; that the innocent Christian, at least, as it was in the time of Trajan, may not be sought out unto punishment. Especially when such a Toleration only is desired, as is consistant with the Articles of Faith, a good life, and the Government of the Nation.  
But what shall we say then to the Papists, which is the Objection hit still in their Teeth that plead for moderation? Why, we will not balk the delivery of our opinion. There are Two parts we profess of that favour or condescension we seek from the Higher Powers: The one consisting of a Composition with those whose Principles are fit and capable of it: And the other consisting of forbearance towards those whose Principles will allow them no more. The Papist in our account is but one sort of Recusants, and the conscientious and peaceable among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer. It is true, we have Laws very severe against the Jesuit, and Seminary Priest: But this we suppose to be upon the ground of State Interest. The Supremacy of the Pope, and the Authority of the King are inconsistent in this Land: The Priest and Jesuit are taken by Law as Factors for the Pope; and an undermining the Government in all States is a Capital Crime. But as for the common Papist, who lives innocently in his way, he is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration. That is, he is not to expect to have power or trust, being not of the Religion of the State; but he may hope for the enjoyment of his Conscience as we, without wrong or oppression. And indeed if it be only Liberty of Conscience that he seeks, this will be sufficient, that he is not troubled, nor we. If he desires more, he stirs us all presently into Jealousy, and no wonder if we be very solicitous to have Popery kept out of Dominion, or ourselves from Fire and Faggot, how gentle and equal soever we be to it, and to all parties alike under a safe Subjugation. For as the Roman Catholic we suppose will consider that to go to bring in a Religion upon a people that are no more prepared for theirs than we are in this Nation, were the committing of a Rape upon the public Conscience, and possession being got without our good wills would not likely be long retained: So are we to remember the common rule of Christianity towards them, and to all Men, that we must do as we would be done by, and that, with what measure we meet to others, if shall be met to us again.  
And now we turn us to the Houses. My Lords and Gentlemen! We suppose you honest Persons that would not departed from this Catholic Rule, that would not wrong any, and if you did, would make them recompense. There have been very hard Acts passed, which when the Bills were brought in, might haply look smooth, and fair to you: But you saw not the Covert Art, secret Machination, and purposely contrived Snares against one whole Party. If such a form of words would not, another should do their business: By this means, you in the first place yourselves, some of you were overstript: Multitudes dispossessed of their Live: The Vineyard let out to others: The Lord Jesus the Master of it deprived of many of His Faithful Labourers: And the Poor Sheep (what had they done?) bereft of their accustomed Spiritual Food, to the hazard of their Eternal Souls. Among many Arguments therefore for Liberty in other Papers, from Policy, Convenience, Reason of State, and Reason of Religion, we have this one to offer you of a more binding Nature, an Argument from Justice, Righteousness, and Restitution to the wronged. It is true, that the Places they once had, are filled and disposed of: But there are others enough. There are many of those who possess theirs, do also keep their own, and keep more. There are many who are Canons, Deans, Prebendaries, that are also Parsons, Rectors, Vicars: Who have Benefices and Honours by Heaps, and by the Bushel. If it shall please you therefore in this Bill on the Anvil, or in another to take Cognizance of Pluralists, that for the preventing an idle, scandalous, covetously overgrown, unprofitable Ministry, every Man who hath more than one cure of Souls, or one dignity, shall give them up into a Public stock, or to a general distribution, you shall do the Church right, and the Ejected right, you shall give such Drones their due, and God His due, and strew the way by this means, for making your Grace intended in this Bill, of signification. In the Name of God Sirs, let us move you to this; if it were only hae vice, for a present needful conjunction of us at this season. We see the Jaws of the Jesuit, and the Sectary opening upon us; If the sober Protestant Interest be not united, we perish. We know who will be ready to stamp here, and throw dust in the Air; for it is these Sons of the Horseleech, whose Voice is give, give, that will never be contented with a single Portion. A Dignity therefore with a Living, let them be allowed: But one Dignity, and one cure of Souls. it is therefore this hard Objection at the bottom, the Priest's covetousness, and corruption, rather than their dispute about this indifferent, that really hinders the Church's Peace and Prosperity.  
We shall therefore for the gentle enforcement of this, humbly offer you some Reasons.  
It is manifest, that Pluralists were allowed in the Church at first upon the account only of necessity; because they had not Ministers enough that could Preach to the People. They could get some to Read, but none to give them a Sermon: And upon this account, they admitted one to be Pastor to several Congregations. But now the Land does abound with so many Ministers, who have never a cure, and such as are no less learned, and more painful in Preaching, than those that have three or four. We will plead with these Men before Heaven, and before you who are the Heads of our Tribes assembled, that it is not pious, not fit, nor political, (that is not for the common good) that this Custom should continue, when the Reason is ceased; especially when so many of those that are put out have Families, and scarce Bread to subsist.  
It is a saying since the times of Constantine, That when the Church had but Wooden Chalices, it had Golden Priests; but when they had Golden Chalices, and rich Benefices, they had Wooden Ministers. That Religion brought forth Riches, and the Daughter hath devoured the Mother. It is pity that Men who are called to this Function, which requires them to be Examples to others of humility, lowliness of mind, self-denal, and mortification, should be lead so much as they are into the temptation idleness, and excess by their preferments. For as it hath been reflected upon by some of the House; and other Gentlemen who served the King without repairs, as an error of the State in the late Restauration of Episcopacy, that the profits of the Church-Lands for twenty years together should be bestowed at once on a few single persons, which would have leisurely requited a great many: So are they really as little pleased to have the Priest, who was perhaps a while ago, their Servitor at the University, or Tenant's Son, or something meaner than they will say, should by the sudden accumulation of so many places as he hath had Simonically or Gratuitously conferred upon him, be huffed up to that pompous height and vanity, of his Coach and Liveries, as makes him to become the very envy of of his Patron, and scandal to his profession.  
It is true, that the Nobility Spiritual and Temporal have the Prerogative to capacitate a Minister according to Law for divers Live: But when Jesus Christ the great Master of the Vineyard does command their labour, and that they feed the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them Overseers, there is no such privilege to be urged, but in the nature of the thing it is void. There there is no Custom, no Right, no Law, if the King, Lords, and Commons, if the whole World should agree to make it, that can be of force against the Gospel. Nulla datur potestas ad malum.  
There are few of you who are Protestant's in either Houses without jealousy, that the Romanists were borrowing an Helve for their Hatchet out of the Wood of the fanatics; and that if they came to obtain their purpose: It is not hard to conjecture, which Trees were like to go down, one after another. As those Men of the Church therefore are so willing you should do something for the security of your Religion and them, it is meet that they should be ready to contribute to it. That they who preach the Gospel to others, should be persuaded to put the great duty of it, which is self-abrenuntiation into practise themselves. For that Man is not sit to be a Minister of Christ, or admitted into His Vineyard at all, that does not look more to his Word, than to his Penny, and seeks not the welfare of Jerusalem above his advancement; and had not rather convert one Soul, than get two Live, and have a Prebend to spare. According to what every Man's mind is most upon in his Sphere (the public, Interest, or his own) such is his value more or less.  
However this be, whether they are willing or not, there is an universal eminens dominium in the Supreme legislative Authority that puts an end to all Cavil (if there arise any) de jure privatorum: And we will conclude with this, that whatsoever things, are therefore substantially profitable for the Community, and are retarded only by the interest of private persons, these are things most truly worthy the Consultation of Parliament. God Almighty keep alive the true English, public Spirit. God preserve the Protestant Religion, and the person of the King. God prosper an Accommodation.  
We of the King's Party (says Judge Jenkins) did, and do detest all Grievances of the People, as much as any Men living. In his Lex Terrae.  
It is a certain Truth, This Kingdom without an Act of Oblivion, and a meet regard had to tender Consciences, will unavoidably be ruined. In the Army's Indemnity.  
I say again, That without a Gracious general Pardon from His Majesty, and a favourable regard had to tender Consciences, there will be neither Truth nor Peace in the Land, nor any Man secure of any thing that he hath. In his Cordial for the good People of London.  
And again in His Declaration for Trials of Treasons, and all Capital Crimes to be by a Jury, They that love this Commonwealth, will use all means to procure an Act of Oblivion, and tender Consciences a just and reasonable satisfaction, else we must all perish first or last. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FINIS.