THE TWO STEPS OF A Nonconformist Minister; Made by him, in Order to the obtaining his liberty of Preaching in Public. Together with an APPENDIX about coming to Church in respect to the People.  
Published for a Testimony in his Generation, by a Lover of Sincerity and Peace.  1 Tim. 5.21. 
Doing nothing by Partiality.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Parkhurst, at the Three Crowns and Bible, at the lower end of Cheapside, near Mercers-Chappel. 1684.   

The First Step, BEING My Paper to the Bishop.  
My Lord,  
THE Design of this Paper is Union between the Moderate Bishop, and Sober Nonconformist; and there is but one Rule must be laid down in order thereunto, supposing both sensible that an endeavour after Concord as Brethren in the same Reformed Religion, is an undeniable Duty, and that a wilful neglect of it cannot be answered to God by either Party, whosoever of them shall be found in default. The Rule is this, that the Nonconformist be ready to do in the sincerity of his Conscience what he can, and that out of the like Conscience to God the Bishop than does bear with him in what he cannot, at least so far I hope as the Law and the Government, or his Duty thereunto, according to his own private Judgement of discretion, will give way.  
The Nonconformist is to consider well the importance of such Texts as require Subjection to the Higher Powers, and he is out of Conscience to the Fifth Commandment to comply with their Injunctions to the uttermost that may give satisfaction, so far as he can without sin. The Bishop is to consider the import of such Texts as tell us what a dangerous thing it is to give occasion to the doubtful to do anything against their Consciences; and he is out of Conscience to the Sixth Commandment (for fear of destroying him for whom Christ died) to take heed as he would of his life, to put a man upon any more than he is convinced he can safely do. When the Nonconformist now does what he can, the Law of God will bear him out in that which he forbears, and if he suffers, he hath peace in his Soul. If the Bishop likewise shall receive a man upon this account, as one that cannot require more of him, lest he wound his weak Conscience, and so sins against Christ, I doubt not but the Law of Charity and Mercy, that is, the Law which is Gods, will justify him also as to whatsoever he falls short in the fulfilling the Law of Man.  
It is true if the Bishop dispenseth, and the Nonconformist exceeds, the penalty may be sued, if there be any, and any body be so affected. It is Law (I suppose) in Foro Civili, and we must never Resist: but it is no Law in Foro Dei, or Conscientiae, for the Authority of those greater Laws of Nature and Religion, does supersede the Execution, so that there is no guilt (as to God's sight I mean) contracted in the omission. God says, Thou shalt not do any thing which will destroy thy Brother, or wound his Conscience. The Law says, Thou shalt put him to do thus, and not dispense with him. Whom shall the good Bishop choose to obey, the Law of his God, or the Statutes of the Realm?  
Having therefore thus proposed the Rule, I will proceed to Practice.  
There are two things (My Lord) necessary for me by the Act for Uniformity, to obtain a liberty of the Pulpit. The one is I must read before the Bishop the 39 Articles and assent to them, and you must give me a Licence; when I have got this, I may be sent to Gaol if I subscribe not the Declaration in the said Act, and that is the 2d thing than I must do likewise. If I do this also, your Lordship must give me a Certificate and that with my Licence will serve, so that I count then no man can and no friend will put a bar to my Preaching, where I am peaceably desired.  
Indeed there is the Declaration of Assent and consent required farther of such as have any preferment in the Church, but if I seek nothing but Liberty to Preach, this cannot be imposed, because I have no Place to make it in, according to the Act, and I must therefore in all points else be dealt with no otherwise than a perfect Conformist.  
Now for my doing these two things (supposing myself willing to do both so far as I can, and your Lordship willing to condescend to me in what I cannot,) I do apprehend that in reading the Articles, I may take leave as I go along to make my explication of any Article, and if my sense be such as is agreeable to your Lordship's Judgement, or at lest what you judge fit to be allowed, you may pass me as to the Articles; and if you will then afford me the like liberty of Explication in Subscribing the Declaration also, I have no more to do but to set down my explications of the one and the other, and leave both to your Lordship's candour and conscience to receive me or reject me, as it shall please God and your Lordship.  
I begin with the Articles.  
The Thirty nine Articles of the Church I receive as Articles for Concord, (according to the Title) and not as Articles of Faith, and I suppose myself therefore not tied up to the Authentic sense of the Imposer (as I think we are in Laws) but to be allowed the liberty of a Doctoral Interpretation; That is, whereas in a Convocation every Doctor there (or Member thereof) is supposed or granted, in passing such Articles or Canons to abound in his own sense, so long as he can but reconcile the words to it. Let a man make any rational construction of an Article which is agreeable either to the precise words (for that he may well think to be the mind of some or other of the Doctors,) or to the sense which he believes to be the meaning of the major part, though varying from the words (for that, above any, when it can, is to be embraced) it is sufficient (I count) in point of Conscience, for his Assent to the same. Neither do I by an Assent to a thing according to my present Judgement, shut up my understanding from receiving and owning any farther, or other Truth, whereof I shall be convinced hereafter. This liberty being foreprized, I do declare my unfeigned Assent to the said Articles, with these Explications or Cautions.  

As Christ died for us, and was buried: so also ' is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.  Art. 3. I assent to the words, they are Scripture, and my Creed, but I am uncertain of the meaning.  

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man's Nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the last day.  Art. 4. That Christ arose and ascended with his proper flesh and bones, it is certain, yet whether upon his entering into the heavenly glory (as Enoch and Elias) this flesh and bones of his were not transformed into a spiritual body, I do question, seeing the Apostle tells us expressly, That flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. We may refer this flesh and bones therefore to his Rising and Ascension, but leave it in dubio in regard to his Sitting in Heaven.  

In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and new Testament, of whose Authoríty was never any doubt in the Church.  Art. 6. By [Church] I understand the whole Catholic Church, or this Church of England; for it is evident that there hath been doubt made of some Books in our Canon by Ancient Particular Churches and Fathers.  

The Three Creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture.  Art. 8. The word [thoroughly] I understand only in regard to the Articles of those Creeds, not in regard to the Proem and Conclusion of the Athanasian Quicunque vult, which is inconsistent I hold with the Goodness of God, and Natural Religion.  

The condition of man after the Fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to Faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.  Art. 10. By the words [no power] and [cannot] I understand a Moral power and impotency, which lies in such a disposition, as that a man never will, without the special grace of God: but not so, as if we had no power at all that is Physical; or as if the terms of the Covenant of Grace were Impossible to any.  

We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.  Art. 11. By the words [Faith only] I understand what Paul means by [Faith without works] that is, Faith in opposition to works, that would make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace, or to works of the Law, works which the Law requires to Justification (which none have, and if any be justified at all, it must be therefore without them, not in opposition to Repentance, and Evangelical Obedience: and though it be for Christ's sake, or his merits, and not ours, that he accounts us righteous, yet is our Faith, Repentance, and sincere Obedience, the condition upon which he does it; or rather the Righteousness itself, which upon the account of Christ's deserving, he accepts unto life everlasting.  

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, (or as the School-Authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.  Art. 13. When good works done before grace are said to have the nature of sin, I understand that though such works are good quoad operis substantiam, yet they are evil quoad modum quo ordinantur ad vitam aeternam, and consequently when they are said not to be pleasant unto God, I understand, not acceptable unto Salvation. I judge that the doing what we can through the strength of free will, and common grace, is not to be discouraged, and to be held in some good sense preparatory to saving Conversion; yet because there is no full promise made thereunto as the condition of obtaining that grace which is special, it is truly said, that such works do not make us meet for receiving, or do not of congruity deserve the same.  

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his Counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting Salvation, as Vessels made to honour. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may departed from grace given, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God (we may) arise again, and amend our lives.  Art. 16, 17. I apprehend the Church here does follow St. Austin in the Points of Election and Perseverance; and when it is said, that, after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may departed from grace given, it must be understood so, as that the Elect for all that, shall never finally fall away, but shall infallibly recover, and be saved.  

They are to be had accursed, that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved.  Art. 18. I observe the Church hath but one Anathema in all her Articles, and that seems to be denounced here against all those who do, or shall hold that any persons can be saved that are not Christians, as if the Death of Christ, or benefits thereof, and the knowledge of him were commensurate through the world. But God forbidden! I am out of doubt that God hath a Government over all mankind, which is Moral in order to Life and Salvation, and that the instrument of that Government must be the Law of Grace (the Law of Innocency becoming in the state of Lapsed Nature, uncapable of that end) which being at first promulgated to Adam after his Fall, and to Noah, must belong to all their Posterity, insomuch as every one (whosoever he be) that lives up in sincerity to this Law, according to that administration of it he is under, shall be saved. For my Assent then to this Article, I do desire the word [by] may be especially noted. I could not assent to this Article, if it were [in the Law or Sect he professeth,] but being [by,] I hold plainly, that if a Heathen, or any Person that never heard the Gospel, reputes of his sin, and trusts to a good God, and lives up to the Law (or Covenant) of Grace according to the first Edition of it, (I say, if any such indeed do, Rom. 2.26. Act. 10.35.) and thereby comes to be saved, it is by the Christian Religion which he implicitly holds in the substance with us, and not [by the Law & Sect that he professeth] that he is saved. And this Salvation of his is in and through the Name and Mediation of Jesus Christ, no less than ours is, who procured that Law for them and all the World, as well as for Abraham and the Jews under the Old, and for us under the New Testament.  

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith.  Art. 20. The Church I think hath [Power to Decree Rites or Ceremonies,] that is, some Rites, not any whatsoever, provided she uses due caution, not placing matter of Worship or Necessity, much less Merit or Justification in them, nor scandalising her Members thereby, and not imposing them, when they need not, as conditions of her Communion: Yet if she does so, and the Imposition be unlawful, if those Rites or Ceremonies be not sinful in themselves, we cannot (I apprehend) refuse our submission for all that, so long as the Supreme Power confirms the same. Again the Church hath authority in controversies of Faith, not to make any new Articles thereof, for that were Antichristian: but upon mature debate to judge what points are de fide (or necessary according to the Scripture to be received) and what not: Only this authority when she hath done, is Ministerial, or Declarative, not Constitutive of duty, as Christ's the Lawgiver's is, and as Princes, or the Supreme Magistrates in his Sphere is so also. The Clergy in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under our broad Seal so to do, and we approving their said Ordinances, says the King in his Declaration before these Articles.  

Whosoever through his private judgement, willingly and purposely doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, aught to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.  Art. 34. I assent to this Article as parallel with the last mentioned, and I gainsay not, but the open breakers of the Church's Traditions or Ceremonies may be reproved for the sake of others: Yet in regard that some of these Traditions or Ceremonies may be repugnant to the Word of God in the judgement of some men, which are not to others, I apprehend both that the reasons of such aught to be heard, and that we cannot condemn any for acting so among others, as to have always a care never to do any thing against Conscience for Company.  

The second Book of Homilies, the several titles whereof we have joined under this Article, doth contain a godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former book of Homilies, which were set forth in the time of Edward the sixth: and therefore we judge them to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently, and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.  Art. 35. I receive this Article on an implicit faith, and I desire that may serve, because I have not read over the Homilies, and cannot assent any otherwise therefore, till I have.  

The book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly.  Art. 36. I understand by Superstition and Ungodliness, two particular Species of that which is sinful. I dare not say that there is nothing at all in the whole Book of Consecration and Orders here mentioned, that is sinful: The Article does not say so, but that there is not any thing in it that of itself is Superstitious or Ungodly, that is, sinful upon the account of either of these particular species of sin. And to this I think I may assent, at least after I have added this caution, that these Articles were agreed upon in the year 1562. and new published by King James, and that this book therefore must be understood of the old book in his time, and not of the book as it is of late altered with the new Preface put to it, wherein there is one thing especially (which I pass here nameless) too too hard for my Approbation.  
Having thus given my Explication, with what I premised before it, it is fit I make yet some little farther apology for this liberty. There is a threefold Interpretation according to Suarez in his excellent Book De Legibus: An Authentic, Usual, and Doctoral (I think he calls it Doctrinal) interpretation. I have explained two of the terms in the beginning, and the third needs no explanation, and I need not it. These Articles of the Church I suppose to be subscribed generally with this presumption that we may use a Doctoral Interpretation; but the question indeed may be whether a man can strictly in point of Conscience give his assent, or subscribe to any Article, unless he believe it to be true in the Authentic sense, or meaning of the Imposers, I must confess I have had such an impression on my mind, that unless I believe an Article in that sense, which I take to be the sense of the majority of the Convocation that passed the Articles, I could not choose but scruple the declaring my assent to it for fear of a Lie; and yet do I find that an Usher and Hammond, the Arminians and Calvinists do subscribe the same Articles without making any scruple about their diversity of interpretation. I find also that in the Council of Trent the Doctors differed in most points, yet as soon as they were but contrived into such words as might salve the contrary opinions, they passed them as unanimous in the Council, writing after one against another, and citing the Council for them on both sides. There is this difference therefore seems reasonable to be made between a Law and a Doctrinal Thesis for establishing consent in the matter of Religion; That when the one must be taken still in the Authentic, the other is to be construed in a Doctoral interpretation. I have intimated it before, I must now give my reason, which is also said, but not applied. It is because the authority of a Lawgiver is Magisterial or Imperative, that constitutes duty, and his will is : but the Pastor's authority, or Convent of Bishops and Presbyters, for agreement in points of Doctrine, is Ministerial and Declarative only (I may use the same terms I hope I have before, and nauseate no body) obliging not, nisi sententia non errante, or no farther than they be agreeable to God's Word; and while every one does judge of that, there must be a diversity of interpretation, it being not equal that so many Articles should be subscribed by all, but upon that supposition. I never could be satisfied therefore with that coming off which is proposed by some great and ingenious men (such as Chillingworth) as sufficient for subscribing these Articles, that they understand nothing else by it, but an obligation not to preach or write against them. A gloss both too lax, because they do not subscribe, I engage never to write or preach against the Articles, b● they profess their unfeigned assent to them, and if this be understood of the Authentic sense, they cannot profess it: and too straight, because, when they preach upon any such point, they will speak (do what they can) according to their own Opinion, and so break their Engagement. It were to be wished therefore, that if ever we have a Convocation that Sits to do any thing, they would pass some such New Canon (most fit to be decreed) as may declare that the Articles and Homilies of the Church are not required to be subscribed, but with this freedom of a Doctoral interpretation. Were such a liberty authorized by an Act of Parliament, or Convocation, the conscience were put out of doubt: In the mean while when others are satisfied with the reasonableness of the thing, whether it be authorized or not, I finding myself in doubt about it, am forced to this course, which is to secure my peace by my aforesaid Explication, and my foreprized declaration concerning the matter.  
I proceed now to the Subscription, or Declaration required to be subscribed by the Act.  
Understanding by taking Arms, raising War, or joining in it, and by the King, his Sacred Person and Authority, I subscribe the first clause thereof, That it is n●● lawful to take Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever.  
Understanding the word abhor, in a cool sense [I disclaim,] and by the Commissionated those who have, and pursue their Commissions according to Law, I subscribe the Second Clause of it; And that I do abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by his Authority (or by Law, that is, upon pretence of it, for the Position else is impossible) against his Person, or against those that are Commissionated by him.  
The Third Clause I take to be an Indefinite Promise of using Common Prayer, which in the main I am not against: And I do therefore subscribe, that if I have a Public Charge or Cure of Souls, I shall in the ordinary constant Lords Day Service, ordinarily, by myself, or by my Assistant, according to the usage of the Church, Rebus sic stantibus, Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established.  
Whether this be the sense of the Lawgiver altogether, it may be a doubt: but in this sense, supposing it to be so, or with these limitations thereunto, if it be otherwise, I set my name.  

The Second Step, BEING A lesser Request, the former not obtained.  
IT was the policy of the Contrivers of the Act for Uniformity, that those Ministers who were engaged in the late times on the Parliament side by taking the Covenant, should renounce it, or be debarred the liberty of their Ministry for twenty years, accounting I suppose that if any supervived that time, there could be no danger in their readmission. There was a clause therefore in the Subscription besides those before going, which concerned the Covenant, and was the forest part of this injunction, abiding in force till the last year, and then it expired. It was believed that many of the Nonconformists upon the expiration would have flocked in, and subscribed, but I know not of any who took the Covenant, but my self only who took it not, that have made any trial upon that occasion. Nevertheless to proceed in what I have begun, having Wrote this Paper, and presented it to the Bishop the last year (1682) when that clause ceased, I think good this year (1683) to Print it, upon the account ensuing.  
I do apprehend there is a kind of universal guilt upon the Conformist (some few always excepted) in receiving our late Impositions hand over head, as they did, which they should rather have all refused as one man, and required explanation. How many were there prepared (the good God vouchsafe us all a sight of our sins, and forgive them) to declare their assent and consent to all and every thing in a book before they saw it, at least read it with any examination as they should have done? How many more were there yet more forward to subscribe a Declaration, wherein there were so many hard things to be swallowed, before any had wrote about them, or themselves able to digest scarce any one branch of it? It was their interest to comply, but how they could declare and subscribe so soon (or perhaps can yet) in Truth, Judgement and Righteousness, the Lord knows.  
On the other side, I am no less sensible of a great deal of weakness and prejudice among our brethren, in judging things sinful that are not, and consequently Superstition in placing fear and danger in such things. There is besides, no little conceitedness of some men's being more holy than the Conformist, and consequently Pride, Uncharitableness, Judging of others; and if any Persons shall separate from the public on sinful grounds, it is really Schism, and in real Schism how many evils are there included?  
In this case of Sin and Scandal, which we see on both sides, I would fain know what way there is for any of us to escape, but by following the rule I have laid down.  
On the point of Sin. If I assent to the Articles, and subscribe the Declaration without an Explication, then do I assent to what I think true, and what I think not true in those Articles, and I subscribe that which I take to be the good sense, and that which is also the bad sense of the Declaration, which seems unlawful to be done, as what neither becomes a good Christian, or true Englishman: But if I assent and subscribe with an Explication, then do I assent only to what I judge true in those Articles, and I subscribe only the good sense of the Declaration, which seems not only what is lawful, but fit to be done, both as a Christian, and good Subject, who is to be Loyal to the Government of the Nation.  
On the point of Scandal. If I shall assent and subscribe as others, without any Caution, Limitation, or Explication, then shall I (quantum ad me) harden the Conformist (who hath Conformed blindly) in his sin and impenitence, and draw the Nonconformist (who judgeth it unlawful) to do that which is against his Conscience by my Example. If I do nothing, or not endeavour what I can, I nurse up my Brethren in those Evils , and give occasion to the Conformist to say, These men can do thus and thus, more than they do; and seeing they are such peevish, obstinate persons, we do well to submit to all that is Enjoined ourselves, and persecute them, and so do I become a stumbling-block to the one, and to the other: But if I assent and subscribe with Explication, (that is, do as much, and only what I can) then do I deliver my own Soul, neither partaking with my Brethren in these Evils out of which I strive to bring them by my Example, nor give occasion to the Conformist of any hardening, who seeing in me a regard to Authority, together with a care of my Conscience in my Explications, he may come to be judged in his own Thoughts; and being ready perhaps then to hearken to any ingenuous Admonition, so long as it is tendered in such a way as is not affected, or done with preference of my Understanding or Piety above his, but with Humility, and sense of my own failings, at least in many other things wherein he so much excels me, he may be brought (the good Spirit of God graciously assisting) to that Repentance which is meet towards God, and that Reconciliation towards us, which we seek with him.  
And now if my Diocesan, or Metropolitan (which I would choose rather) or any other Bishop (they refusing) will vouchsafe me only this condescension in subscribing the Declaration, to speak to their Register, that in setting my name to his Book, I may have leave to do it in these words, According to a Paper delivered in by me to the Bishop I subscribe, I see no reason but I may put my name to his Book, as well as to this Paper; and any other may do so too, giving in the same, or so much of it (for all our Nonconformists have not their Exceptions alike) as himself needs.  
I would urge the Argument of Naaman's Servants. If the Nonconformists required some great thing of the Bishops, for us to come in and unite with them (especially under our common danger) would not they do it? and will they refuse us so small a matter? If none of them for all that will be got to grant us this, then must I commit the Cause of the Nonconformists to Almighty God, to be Judge therein between them and us in this matter.    

The Appendix, BEING My Judgement about coming to Church, and the Case of Private Meetings.  
BEfore I leave my Province, I think fit to reflect a little on what I have said, in reference to my Brethren of the Nonconforming Party, who will be apt, many of them, to be offended at me, that I, who am one of them, should be so indifferent to either side, as I appear, which if it be a fault, I confess it; I am guilty of that impartiality or writing without respect of persons, which I cannot help; and if that fault will make the Episcopal Party bear with me more equally than my Brethren, I think they deserve to be blamed.  
Indeed I hope that as for the most part of the Dissenters, it is out of the true Fear of God that they choose the way wherein they go; but though I think that Fear of God to be true, I think it not pure and unmixed without Error, and without Imperfection. They think (I will suppose, for I mean not as to all of them) the going to Church unlawful, and therefore set up Meetings: As they do this then, because they are afraid to sin, it is the Fear of God; but as there is Error in this Fear, doubting of that to be sin which is none, this Fear turns to Superstition, and Superstition can be no good ground for any thing a man does. The evil they fear being no evil, the cause for what they do is no cause, and to separate from the Church without a cause, I hold to be Schism.  
For my own part I am persuaded in my Conscience that it is lawful to go to a Meeting, and lawful to go to Church, and I am sorry we have such a company of superstitious folks of both sides; Men and Women of the Conformists that think it a sin to go to a Meeting, and of the Nonconformist that thinks he sins if he go to Church, when there is no Communion of Christians whatsoever, where the Essentials of Christianity are, but to separate from them without a cause, whether on one side or other, is Schism. I say not that every Conformist therefore that goes to Church, and never to a Meeting, does incur this guilt, because, though he be locally never at a Meeting, yet does he not mentally separate from the Metres, who holds them for all that to be true Christians, and counts it no sin to join with them in Communion, if he h●d reason: Only he is himself well satisfied with the Service of the Church, and he hath no reason for his going otherwhere. It is not so on the part of the Nonconformist; there is a Command of the Magistrate, that he shall come to Church, & if he does not, he must have some more prevailing reason or cause that will justify his refusing it, or else his Separation being causeless (I must still say) cannot but be sin, and consequently Schism. If this please some, it may be I shall displease them in what I say next; and if it displease some, I may next please them; but I speak my Conscience. A Person is set apart for the Office of the Ministry; he being not able to conform, is prohibited to Preach in Public; having a Call in Private, he Preaches in a Meeting; what is there in this, which the Apostles own case does not justify? Whether it be meet to obey God or man, judge ye. I think moreover, that the Commission of Christ which warrants a Ministers Preaching, does also warrant the Hearers; because Preaching and Hearing are Relata, which will mutually draw one another. I must add, if some good men farther, out of a sense of wrong to the Ejected, do think themselves bound to come sometimes and hear such Ministers for acknowledging their Ministry, and delivering their Souls from participation of the guilt of those that Ejected them (especially if they were heretofore their own Pastors) I take this to be so much more Christian, and justifiable before God. But if these Ministers and People do judge the Parish-Church no true Church, or that it is a sin to go thither (not having any Exception which is particular, but what reaches all Parochial Congregations) and upon that ground set up their Meetings, I do not see (this ground of theirs being a mistaken ground, or this cause for their Separation being such as will not hold, and consequently no cause) how they can be justified from the aforesaid Imputation.  
For the Minister to Preach (I must inculcate) upon the account of Christ's Commission, preferring his Master's Authority before Man's, that is, upon the plea of greater duty, and for the People to come to hear by virtue of the same Commission, upon the same plea still of farther (or greater) Edification (as men go ordinarily to hear other Ministers than their own) not in a way of Separation from the Public Ministers or Parish-Churches, but in Conjunction with them (speaking still so far as concerns God's word) I do maintain lawful: But if any of my Brethren do offer another Plea that must draw with it a separation from the Parish Church, whether it be that of holding such Churches to be no true Churches, or that the Church does impose such things as conditions of her Ordinary, Constant Lay-communion which are sinful or intolerable, As I am of Opinion, that they can make no such plea good; so must I hearty advise them to take heed, because if they do stand upon such a one, their Separation being without cause, if the Parish-Churches be true Churches, and it be no sin to go to them, they know the Charge lies against them. I will add, To separate from any Church, upon a reason common to others, as because we have a Liturgy, or the like, is virtually to separate from all that have one, and consequently from the most of Churches in all Ages of the World.  
The truth is, there is such an impression got on the imaginations of some of the Dissenters, that if they should come in to the Church so as to be subject to the Hierarchy, and submit to her present Impositions; nay, if they shall but touch with the Conformist almost in any thing, though only to go to Church with them, and take the Sacrament there (which yet as to Lay-conformity is in effect indeed all) they are afraid, as if it were the receiving upon them the Mark of the Beast (I mean, the doing some very horrid thing they know not well else what) and were therefore to be cast remediless into the Lake of Fire. A business really of very sad consequence to ourselves at home, as exceeding scandalous to the Reformed Churches abroad, who have their Liturgies and Ceremonies as we have, and perhaps some or other of them less innocent than this of the Church of England.  
But I will ask here, What think we of Bradford, Philpot, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, and the rest that suffered in Q. Mary's time? Were there not amongst these holy Martyrs an Archbishop and Bishops, and did not they go ordinarily to Church, and receive the Sacrament according to the Liturgy as we do, and admit of all the Impositions besides in King Edward's days? Nay, what think we of the old Nonconformists in Q. Elizabeth's and K. James his time, who, though they laid down their Ministry rather than to conform to some Impositions afterwards, did yet maintain Communion with the Parish-Churches all their days? Did any of these now, or all these receive the Mark in their right hands, or in their foreheads by this means? And must they therefore be everlastingly damned?  
I argue: The receiving the Mark in the Revelations must be a sin certainly, because the receiver is cast into Hell for it. But to obey the Law, or to conform only so far as we can (which is the Rule of these Papers) is the duty of every man, & no sin.  
Again; if receiving these Impositions be receiving the Mark, it must be the promiscuous receiving them, without caution, (which to beware of is the end of these Papers) or against Conscience, that is, sinfully receiving them: But to receive them (as I here propose) with Explication (which is to receive them not otherwise but so as they may and aught to be received) is to get a victory over the Mark, avoiding the sin in the doing.  
I must confess I am sorry that I have need to say thus much, I wish I had not; but there are some odd minds, some vehement Revelation-men, some melancholy Spirits, and I am much assured that such a conception I speak of is not uncommon to such. As for those that never had any such kind of thought, but have their rational Exceptions, it will yet be well even for them, when they shall be able to get off their proper Objections, so as to come honestly to Church, with a Judgement that is satisfied, and not only to avoid the Law, to be secured from this also after they have done; who can tell what impression the suggestions of a man's own heart, if troubled, or the words of another upon occasion may lay upon him? And as for such as are for disputing the Point, if they can produce those Arguments as will prove that the Church hath indeed imposed any thing as the condition of her Ordinary Communion, which is sinful and intolerable, & those Arguments be sound, then must I acknowledge the Schism which is made by their Separation from her Communion through those sinful Impositions, must be imputed to her, & the Church of England is the Schismatic till she removes them: But if those Arguments be not sufficient or unsound, then must the Schism which is made, be imputed to them. For if the cause upon which they separate be found no cause (and an insufficient one is none) I must assert still, that the Separation here conceived being causeless, must be Schism.  
But what if it be Schism? There are many such Ministers, and such People, who are riveted in the belief, that the Parish-Churches are no true Churches, or at least, that it is sin to go thither, and what shall these do? I answer, I need not stand to say first what all will, that these men are to lay down their Error, and so come to Church, as the only way to escape sin; but seeing they can never be convinced of that, I must say, there are degrees of Sin and Schism, and the greatest evil must be most carefully shunned. To set up Meetings upon the account these do, is sin, is Schism, I take it: but to hold no Meetings at all, and leave off the Assembling themselves together, so as to rob God of his Worship altogether, this is certainly more sinful, more wicked, more intolerable. It appears consequently in the issue, that a Toleration (understand such a one as is meet, or of such as are Tolerable) is even almost as necessary to be granted by His Majesty and a Parliament, when we have one, as a constant and continued Pardon from God Almighty is to this poor divided Nation.  
Not that I deny but there may be Reasons for the Meetings of Dissenters (and perhaps very many) that will hold, and cannot be gainsaid; and when I say that separating from the Church upon such grounds as draw ill consequences after it, and will not hold, is Schism, I do not say that every mere local Separation from the Parish-Meeting when there is cause, is so, who am sensible what a Scarecrow hath been made of that bare word only, as Mr. Hales hath observed. Suppose a man stands upon his liberty from God and Nature, to choose his own Pastor for the benefit of his Soul, as his own Physician for the health of his Body, and so using those means which he finds most conducive to his own edification, he sits down with such or such a Meeting for his stated Communion, when yet he refuses not to go to Church, maintaining occasional Communion also with his Parish, I will not deny but such a man hath reason. Indeed, if he quite leave the Church, I shall suspect, according to my Principles, that his ground is not good, and that is all one as that he hath none.  
You will say, if I go to Church, I must own the Parish, and I must own the Diocese, and I must own the Bishop, and his Government. I answer, and so you may; but it is not necessary that you own them as of Divine Right, which others I suppose do. Upon that Hypothesis I must confess I do not see how any Separation from the Church (unless in case of something imposed that is sinful) could be justifiable, and the Conformists therefore taking up that Principle, do generally condemn all Meetings, accusing them without discrimination of Schism: But it is one thing to own the Parish-Church, the Diocese, the Bishop, & Episcopal Government according to Law, and another to won them as of Divine Institution.  
I apprehend that Particular Congregations, where there is a Pastor and Flock conjoined for the Worship of God, & carrying on an holy life, are the Churches of Christ's appointment, and that every Minister of such a particular People hath a power of Governing them, as well as Teaching them, derived to him from Christ, being Episcopus Gregis, by virtue of his Office, & if any than shall go to set up an Episcopus Postorum, a Bishop of the Diocese to divest him that is Pastor of a particular Congregation (or the Minister of the Parish) of that Authority which Christ hath committed to him for governing his Flock (which he that makes a Diocese to be the only Church of Apostolical Institution, and the Diocesan the sole Pastor, must do) let him consider what he undertakes, seeing the burden which is hereby laid on the Bishop, and the account he must make at the great day for the Souls of so many he takes no particular care at all of, is intolerable.  
I will own the Bishop and his Regiment, but not to the denial of the Ministers. I will own a Diocese, but not to the unchurching Particular Congregations. There is another consideration therefore to be had of the Church than this here understood, and that is, as it is National, and the King the Head of it. The Church as National is divided into two Provinces, and these into twenty six Dioceses, and they into so many thousand Parishes. The Parish-Church consists of a Particular Congregation, which is therefore a Church of Christ's appointment, and the Authority or Regiment the Minister, Pastor, or Bishop of such a Flock hath, is derived from Christ. The Authority the Diocesan hath is derived from the King. The King makes the Bishops (he might make them if he pleased, as Henry the Eighth by Commission) and he is the Fountain of their Honour, for they have Baronies, and upon that account sit in the Lord's House; and if we may look on them accordingly as his Officers, to exercise no other Authority as Diocesans, but what they derive from him, then, As the Regiment of the Bishop, and of the Pastors are of a different kind, (the Power or Regiment of the Pastor being internal, or in sacris, and formally Ecclesiastical, flowing immediately from Christ, but the Regiment of the Bishop external, or circa sacra, that is, objectively Ecclesiastical, deriving from the King,) so must the Authority or Government of the one be cumulative to, and not destructive of the other.  
And this is a Notion, which methinks should not be hard of entrance to the Conformist or Nonconformist. On the one side the Bishop should receive it, because it grants him his Honour, Dignity, and great Revenues upon a clear and open foundation, and it lightens his care and work. The Office of a Bishop upon this Hypothesis may be discharged as that of any other Magistrate under the King: But the Office of the Diocesan upon the other Hypothesis is a charge he can never perform, and if he live in the negligence of what he thinks his duty, and that wilfully, all his life, how can he be saved? On the other side, the Nonconformist should receive it, because it opens his Eyes, & lets him see how he may be subject to the Bishop, as he is to the King and the other Magistrates under him, without molestation to his Conscience. And this should be the Stone which I would lay for the Foundation (if ever a Parliament would build upon it) of a sound and lasting Peace in the Nation. Wither this tends, let the Reader see farther in the twelfth Section of that universally Learned sort of Gentleman's late Book called The Samaritan.  
FINIS.   

An Advertisement from the Bookseller.  
THere is a late new Book, Entitled, A Private Psalter, composed by the same Hand that wrote these sheets, which being a Devotional Book, is put in a fair Character for the sake of aged Eyes, and sold by me, whom the Reader may find out by the Title page.  
Thomas Parkhurst.   

An Addition from the Author.  
UPon the mention of this Book I have these few words to subjoin concerning the same: If I can judge any thing in Divinity, there is hardly any matter of more near importance to the most of serious Christians than this one thing, to wit, to be solidly informed what to do, or how to live, and support the Soul under the case when it hath examined itself, and is in conflict and doubt whether it be in a state of God's favour, which is all one as whether it be sincere or not. They that are light Christians, do often talk of their assurance, when the more weighty Christians are ready to droop and hang the head, as the ears of Corn do that are fullest.  
In the last Section of the evening Office of that Private Psalter, there is a Determination de industria of this case, according as I was able to admit Instruction with Devotion into my Design. I am sensible of the smallness of my Talon, and the greatness of the Concern, and that whatsoever is peculiar, is in danger to be defective, who must confess my genius hath led me to the seeking a middle resolution in this great Practical case, in regard to Life and Comfort, as it hath usually done in the matter of polemical Opinions. And for the sake of this case more especially was that Book printed.  
If any worthy Person therefore of the Conforming Ministry, who hath a Pen accomplished with the stile of the Times (whose fluency, or command of words may make the task easy to him, which would be burdensome to me) will take the sense only, or matter of that last Section, I mean the full and whole sense of it, though nothing else purely but what is there hinted, and enlarge it into a Treatise of a convenient dimension, as he shall pitch upon a subject to exercise his parts, which I think like to be profitable to most Christians, especially to such as are of a tender Spirit, and solicitous about their Spiritual estate, so if he will bring it to the Bookseller, above intimated, to put it into the Press, he will not be ungrateful to him, I suppose, for his Copy.  
John Humphrey.