THE DUE WAY OF COMPOSING The differences on FOOT Preserving the CHURCH, According to the opinion of HERBERT THORNDIKE.  
LONDON, Printed by A. Warren, for John Martin, James Allestry, and Thomas Dicas, at the Bell in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLX.   

I Have found myself obliged, by that horrible confusion in Religion, which the late War had introduced, to declare the utmost of mine opinion, concerning the whole point of Religion, upon which the Western Church stands divided into so many parties. And now finding no cause to repent me of doing it, can find no cause why I should not declare the consequence of it, in settling of that which remains of our differences. For, middle ways to so good an end, are now acceptable, merely as middle ways, and tending to drive a bargain, without pretending that they ought to be admitted. How much more an expedient pretending necessity, from reasons extant in public, and not contradicted?  
The chief ground that I suppose here, because I have proved it at large, is the meaning of that Article of our Creed, which professeth one Catholic Church. For either it signifies nothing, or it signifies that God hath founded one Visible Church, That is, that he hath obliged all Churches, (and all Christians, of whom all Churches consist) to hold visible communion with the whole Church, in the visible offices of Gods public service; and therefore I am satisfied, that the differences upon which we are divided, cannot be justly settled upon any terms, which any part of the whole Church shall have just cause to refuse, as inconsistent with the unity of the whole Church. For, in that case we must needs become Schismatics, by settling ourselves upon such Laws, under which any Church may refuse to communicate with us, because it is bound to communicate with the whole Church. True it is, that the foundation of the Church, upon these terms, will presuppose the entire profession of Christianity, whether concerning Faith or manners; For otherwise, how should those offices, in which all the Church is to communicate, be counted the service of God, according to Christianity? And this profession is the condition, upon the undergoing whereof, all men, by being baptised and made Christians, are also admitted to communion with the Church, as members of it.  
But nothing can make it visible to the common reason of all men, what communion they are to resort unto for their Salvation; but the visible Communion of all parts of the Church; which, having been maintained for divers ages of the Church, is now visibly interrupted by the Reformation, and before, by the breach between the Greek and Latin Church; and therefore, though it be visible to reason rightly informed, what communion a man is to embrace for his Salvation; yet it is not now visible to the common reason of all men that seek it. If this be true, then, no power of the Church can extend to fare, as to make any thing a part of the common Christianity, which was not so from the beginning; but it must needs extend so fare, as to limit and determine all matters in difference, so as the preservation of Unity may require. And therefore the Unity of all parts supposing the profession of Christianity whole, and entire; we shall justly be chargeable with the crime of Heresy, if we admit them to our communion, who openly disclaim the Faith of the whole Church, or any part of it. For, those men have been, and are justly counted Heretics, as to the Church, that communicate with those who profess Heresy; though no Heretics as to God, as not believing it themselves. But the unity of all parts being subordinate, and and of inferior consideration to the Unity of the whole; we shall justly be chargeable with the crime of Schism, if we seek unity within ourselves, by abrogating the Laws of the whole, as not obliged to hold communion with it.  
I confess I am convicted, that as things stand, we are not to expect any reason from the Church of Rome, and those who hold communion with it, in restoring the unity of the Church, upon such Laws, as shall render the means of Salvation visible to all that use them as they ought. And this, and only this, I hold to be the due ground, upon which we are enabled to provide an establishment of Unity in Religion among ourselves, (as heretofore a Reformation in Religion for ourselves) without concurrence of the whole. But if we should think ourselves at large, to conclude ourselves without respect to the Faith and Laws of the whole Church; we may easily bring upon ourselves a just imputation of Heretics, for communicating with Heretics; but a juster of Schismatics, if we abrogate the Laws of the whole Church, to obtain Unity among ourselves; as declaring thereby, that we are not content to hold unity with the whole, unless a part may give Law to the whole. So fare am I from that madness, which hath had a hand in all our miseries; of thinking the right measure of Reformation to stand in going as far as it is possible from the Church of Rome. For, were it evidenced, (as it neither is, nor ever will be evidenced,) that the Pope is Antichrist, and all Papists by their profession Idolaters; yet must we either raze the Article of one Catholic Church out of our Creed, or confess that the Pope can neither be Antichrist, nor the Papists Idolaters, for, or by any thing which is common to them with the whole Church.  
I know some will think it strange, that the Pope should excommunicate us on Maundy-Thursdays; that we should swear in the Oath of Supremacy, that no foreign Prelate hath, or aught to have any Jurisdiction, or Authority Ecclesiastical in this Kingdom; and yet we be subject to do such Acts, for which the Church of Rome may justly renounce communion with us. But the word ought in that Oath is Indicative and not Potential, not deberet, but debet; For it were a contradiction for the Church of England to pray for the Catholic Church, and the unity thereof, and yet renounce the Jurisdiction of the whole Church, and the General Councile thereof, over itself. King James of excellent memory, acknowledgeth the Pope to be Patriarch of the west; that is, Head of the general Council of the Western Churches. And the right R. Father in God, Thomas L. B. of Winchester under Q. Elizabeth, in his answer to the Seminaries Apology, being demanded why we own him not so in effect, answereth bluntly, but truly, because he is not content with the right of a Patriarch. For, should he disclaim the pretence of dissolving the bond of Allegiance, should he retire to the Privilege of a Patriarch, in seeing the Canons executed, the schism would lie at our door, if we should refuse it. Now, if they curse us, while we pray for the unity of the whole Church, is it not the case of the Catholics with the Donatists? For, these rebaptised them whom those had baptised, whited over the inside of their Churches, when they became possessed of them, scraped over their Altars, (being Tables of wood) in detestation of them, as Apostates & persecutors; while the Catholics called them brethren, and acknowledged them rightly baptised, and received them that were converted from that Schism in their respective Orders. The unity of the Church is of such consequence to the salvation of all Cristians, that no excess on one side can cause the other to increase the distance, but they shall be answerable for the souls that perish by the means of it.  
And therefore, not departing from the opinion which I have declared, concerning the terms upon which all parties ought to reconcile themselves, until I shall have reason showed me, why I should do it; I shall now go no further, than the matters that are actually questioned among us; not extending my discourse to points, that may perhaps more justly become questionable, than some of those which have come into dispute. Professing in the beginning, that I believe they may and aught to be settled by a Law of the Kingdom, obliging all parties beside Recusants. But, that the matter of that Law ought to be limited by the consent and Authority of the Church, respective to this Kingdom. And withal, that I think it ought to be held, and shall for mine own part hold it an act merely ambulatory & provisional for the time. For, though there is no hope of reconcilement with the Church of Rome, as things are; yet is there infinite reason for all sides, to abate of their particular pretensions, for the recovering of so incomparable a benefit as the unity of the whole; If ever it shall please God to make the parties appear disposed to it.  
Now, the errors which we are to shut out, if ●e will recover the unity of a visible Church, (that is, of God's whole Church) are two in my judgement. First, though some things have been disputed in other parts, from whence the same consequence may be inferred; yet England is the place, and ours the times, which first openly and downright have maintained, that there is no such thing as a Church, in the nature of one visible Communion, founded by God. But it is maintained by several parties among us, upon several grounds. For, some do not or will not understand, that there can be any Ecclesiastical Power founded by that act of God which foundeth Christianity, where there is Secular Power, founded also by those acts of God, whereby he authorizeth and enforceth all just Sovereignty's. Though all times, all parts, all Nations of Christendom since Constantine profess to maintain the Church in that Power, in which they found it acknowledged by Christians, when he first undertook to maintain that Christianity which he professed; all this must be taken, either for mere hypocrisy, or mere nonsense. Others there are, that do not think themselves obliged to the unity of God's Church, upon fare different Principles. There are of our Enthusiasts, such as are themselves every one a Church to themselves, and by themselves, as being above Ordinances, and the Communion of the Church provided only for proficients. But all Independent Congregations make the same profession, and are manifestly grounded upon the same. For, how can they imagine themselves members of one visible Church, who profess that they cannot be obliged to hold communion with any Congregation but their own?  
And yet, with favour, the same consequence ensuing upon so different pretences, there must be some supposition common to both, upon which both do ground themselves. And it is easily visible what that is. Both opinions must suppose, that a man may be heir to Christ's Kingdom, and endowed with God's Spirit, without being, or before he be a member of God's Church. And the Independents indeed do manifestly profess, that, knowing themselves and others to be God's Children, and endowed with his Spirit, they are in a capacity to join in Ecclesiastical Communion, with those whom they know to be such. So, they become members of a Church, being God's Children before, without considering how they shall be members of the Whole Church. The others are satisfied, that, by being members of a State which professeth Christianity, they are also members of that one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which by our Creed we profess to believe. A ground which holdeth accidentally, so long as that State constituteth a visible member of the Whole, or the Catholic Church; But not imaginable to serve the turn, when States differ in point of Christianity, and may every day appeal to force, whither is the true Church and whither the false.  
For, is it not manifest, that the professions of the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Greeks', the Abyssines are protected by Sovereign Powers, as well as the profession of the Church of Rome, or the Church of England? Is it not manifest, that the Powers that profess them, maintain them respectively to be God's truth? Why then do we dispute any longer, which is the true Religion and which is the false, if it be enough for Christians to resolve all the doubt they can have concerning Religion, into the command of their Sovereigns, only professing Christianity? Is it not manifest that Sovereigns do use to punish their Subjects, that conform not to their Laws concerning Religion, but follow that Religion which is in force under other Sovereignty's? Is it possible to imagine, that Subjects can be obliged, by one and the same will of God, to follow contrary Laws under several Sovereigns? Or that Sovereigns can be enabled, by one and the same Law of God, to punish their Subjects, for serving God according to contrary professions? True it is, Subjects that suffer in a good cause shall be gainers thereby; gaining Heaven by their losses of this world. But what shall become of the Sovereigns that persecute them, being in a good cause? Or how shall not some of them bepersecuted in a good cause, who are persecuted in contrary causes? I know not whither this peremptory difficulty was the cause; But I am sure recourse hath been had to a more desperate answer; that every Subject is bound to profess the Religion of his Sovereign; yea, though it enjoin him to renounce Christ with his mouth; remaining bound all the while to believe in him with his heart; and that by this belief, he shall be saved as a Christian. Neither is this position tenable but upon this answer, nor doth this answer import any less, than the utter renouncing of Christianity. I know, that in the records of the ancient Church, those who only professed to believe Christianity, (who were called Catechumeni, or Scholars to the Church) are sometimes called by the name of Christians. But I know withal, that they were never counted in the state of Salvation, till they had taken upon them the profession of Christianity, by being admitted to the Sacrament of Baptism. I know also, that this Baptism, though it was not counted void, when it was Ministered in due form; yet it was never counted effectual to Salvation, but when a man is baptised into the true Faith, and that in the Unity of God's Church. For, though the names of Heretics and Schismatics, have been made only Bug-bears to fright children with, in this time of our troubles; yet, so long as Christianity continues, those that separate themselves from the Church upon pretences concerning the substance of Faith shall be properly called Heretics; But, if the cause concern not the substance of Christianity, Schismatics. And therefore, Christianity consisting not only in believing, or purposing with the heart, but also in professing with the mouth; (first sincerely, than the true Faith, & lastly by being baptised) he that professeth himself free to renounce his Christianity, as fare as the mouth, hath effectively renounced it; Because he hath effectively drawn back that promise, upon condition whereof he was baptised; of professing Chistianity to the death.  
And truly, if every Christian State be the Church of God within the territories thereof, then cannot all Churches concur to make up that one visible Church of God which our Creed professeth. For, there is nothing more evidently true than the saying of Plato; that all States are naturally enemies one to another, especially those that are borderers, And this enmity, in our days, consisteth visibly in those differences of Religion, upon which the neighbour Sovereignty's of Christendom are now at distance. It is therefore no way imaginable, how all Christian States should concur to make up that one visible Church, whereinto by being Baptised, we obtain the spiritual and eternal privileges of Christians. But, that it is the profession of the whole Rule of Christianity, that makes any people or State a part of the visible Church; being governed by such rules, in the exercise of God's service, as may make it the same Society with that, which was once unquestionably God's Church, or part of it. For otherwise, how should the visible Church continue one and the same, from the first to the second coming of our Lord?  
And here you have the second point of our differences; For, all our Sects, under the title of God's free grace, do maintain, that the promises of the Gospel, and our right in them, depends not upon the truth of men's Christianity. As if God were not free enough of his Grace, if he should reserve himself a duty of being served, as by Christians, upon those whom he tenders life everlasting to, upon such terms. It is no new thing in England, to hear of those who profess, that God sees not, nor can see any sin in his elect; So that in their opinion there is no mortal sin but repentance; because that must suppose, that a man thought himself out of the State of grace, by the sin whereof he reputes? I think I am duly informed of a Malefactor dying upon the Gallows, that professed, to the strengthening of his brethren, that he had overcome all temptation to repentance; acknowledging that, since his being in Prison, he had been strongly moved to repent. And, that one of Hackets three conspirators, when he was come to himself, continued to profess, that he thought himself in the State of God's grace all the while. But I will go no further, than the words which I have quoted in another place, out of a Pamphlet written to satisfy the Godly party in Wales, being offended at the late Usurpers proceed; which allegeth, that we are not to be judged at the last day, either by our works, or by our faith; but by God's everlasting purpose concerning each of us; By virtue whereof Christ being alive at the heart, the violation of all his engagements to them, by usurping over them as over others, made no difference in his estate towards God. Whosoever writ this, I think I am duly informed, that himself caused it to be published. But I am certain, that, to the everlasting infamy of a Christian Nation, if reparation be not made, it is supposed to be the sense of all the Godly in it. And to the same effect, my memory assures me to have read in one of his speeches; That there are at this day inspirations of God's Spirit besides the Scriptures, though not against the Scriptures. Now certainly, that which a man hath by virtue of the Scriptures; that is of Christianity; can by no means be understood to be besides the Scriptures. And certainly, he that presumeth upon any motion of God's Spirit, not supposing Christianity; that is, not supposing the Scriptures; may by the same reason prefume of his own Salvation, not supposing that he believes and lives as a Christian.  
The same is the consequence of a Position, I will not say enjoined by any party, but notoriously allowed among us; That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is one of them that are predestinate, whom God sent our Lord Christ to redeem, and none else. For, how can he think himself obliged to make good the profession of a Christian, who thinks himself assured of all that he can attain to by so doing, not supposing it? Indeed it may be said, that our Antinomians and Enthusiasts, and other Sects among us, (whom no conceit without this could have seduced to their several frenzies,) do think themselves justified from everlasting, by God's decree to send Christ for that purpose; whereas this opinion dateth Justification from the instant that God revealeth the said decree by his spirit, in which revelation they think that justifying Faith consisteth. And certainly, there can be no reason why God, receiving men into grace only in consideration of Christ's obedience, should suspend their reconcilement upon that knowledge of his purpose, which he giveth them by Faith. For what can be more unreasonable, than that God should justify a man, by revealing to him that he is justified? But the opinion is not the less destructive to Christianity, because it is the more unreasonable. Now it is possible that the effect of this position may bestifled, and become void in some, by reason of other truths which contradict the same in deed, and yet are believed by them, not seeing the consequence of their own persuasions. But those who, besides this position, do pertinaciously hold absolute predestination to glory, those I maintain are in an error destructive to Christianity, that is, in an Heresy. And therefore this Doctrine being such, it is no way enough, that it is no way enjoined to be taught; but it is requisite that it be disclaimed, by those that pretend to recover the unity of a visible Church. For there can be no Church, where any thing destructive to Christianity, which the being of the Church supposeth, is notoriously allowed to be taught.  
Now, betvveen these two points of our differences, I am to observe a vast difference. For, this latter is necessary for all Christians to know, as being the principle of all those actions, which, being just for the matter of them, must render the men acceptable to God in order to life everlasting. And therefore, he that thinketh he can be regenerate, or justified, or the child of God, or endowed with God's Spirit, not supposing that he undertakes and performs the profession of a Christian, renounces the Article of his Creed, concerning one baptism to remission of sins. But the being of God's visible Church consisteth in that Unity, which ariseth upon the agreement of all Christians, to hold communion in the visible Offices of God's service. And therefore, though it be an Article of our Creed, to believe one Catholic Church, yet can it not concern the Salvation of every particular Christian, to understand the nature of that Society or Corporation, which the bond of this Unity createth. Nay, even they who are best seen in that Government, by which this Unity is preserved, may well fail in comprehending the reason thereof, by reflecting their discourse upon it. In the mean time, it is necessary for all that believe their Creed, to think themselves tied by this Article to maintain the Unity of the Church, according to their estate; That is, for every ones part, not to be accessary to any Schism that dissolveth it. And therefore to deny the crime of Schism is to deny this Article.  
The consequence of this observation will be the difference which the Church hath reason to use, in reconciling parties at distance from it, to the unity thereof, according to the difference of those pretences upon which they are at distance. For, those who have only disputed against the being of the Church, upon misunderstanding the right of secular Power, which they think the being of the Church inconsistent with, shall be sufficiently reunited to the Church, by conforming to the Law by which the Church is, and was, and may be established. For, that there ought to be provision against such disputes for the future, it concerns not me to give warning. Only, where wilfulness hath proceeded so fare in maintaining a false position, as to make no bones of denying Christianity, and teaching Atheism, (by obliging to renounce Christ, if the Sovereign command it) it concerneth the Christianity of the Nation to see reparation made.  
But, where the Heretical positions mentioned afore have notoriously been maintained, especially, where Congregations have been framed, and used, for the exercise of Religion, upon pretence of them; there will it be absolutely necessary, that they be expressly renounced and disclaimed, either by persons in particular, or in Body by Congregations. To this head I reduce all Anabaptists, and Congregations of Anabaptists; Those of the fift Monarchy, and Congregations of the fifth Monarchy; Quakers, and Congregations of Quakers. Nay, all Independent Congregations, in my opinion, aught to be reduced under this measure. Not only because their profession is grounded upon the denial of one visible Church; But, because they suppose themselves Children of God, and endowed with his Spirit, before they be members of God's Church; That is, setting aside their Baptism, and the Covenant which is solemnly enacted by it, between God and each soul. And, though I do refer myself to the wisdom of Superiors, in what form this reconciliation be solemnised; yet, I must express my opinion thus far, that there can be none so fit, as that which the wisdom of the Catholic Church, from the beginning, hath always frequented; By granting them the blessing of the Church; with Imposition of hands, renouncing for their part their several Sects and errors, That is, by the prayers of the Church, for the spirit of God, to rest upon them, who have barred their baptism to give it by opposing the peace of the Church, which now they retire unto. For how shall the unity of the Church be secured, but by declaring them who violate the same accursed of God?  
Nor let it be thought, that, our Sectaries of their own accord retiring themselves unto the Communion of this Church, it will be requisite for the Church to admit them, without taking notice of any thing that hath passed. For, neither is it to be presumed, that they, who have made their own wills their Law for so many years, will so much as profess conformity to the Rule of the Church; And, if they did profess it, there is no reason to think that they should stand to it, having a dispensation dormant of the Spirit, to stand to their profession, as the interest of their faction shall require. So, their coming to Church would be only an advantage for them to infect others. And how should that Communion be counted a Church, which intertains Heretics as Heretics, and Schismatics as Schismatics; that is, without renouncing positions destructive to the Faith; without obliging themselves for the future, to hold Unity with the Church? Certainly there is no just answer for this, if the Church of Rome should object it, for the reason why they refuse to hold communion with us. Certainly S. Augustine, when he was charged by the Donatists, that the Church received their Apostates without rebaptising them, and in their respective Orders, could have had no answer, if he had not had this; That the Church received them not as Donatists, but as converted from being Donatists; they not refusing to profess so much.  
Certainly it may be, and perhaps is justifiable for the Secular power, to grant them the exercise of their Religion, in private places of their own providing, under such moderate penalties, as the disobeying of the Laws of a man's Country might require. For, persecution to death for that cause, the whole Reformation condemneth in the Church of Rome; And I conceive there is no reason for that, which will not condemn persecution to banishment. But this would require the like moderation to be extended to Recusants of the Church of Rome. True it is, in mine opinion, those Papists that think themselves tied by the Bull of Pius V against Queen Elizabeth, or that they may be tied by the like Acts of his Successors against hers, are justly liable to the utmost of penalties, as professed enemies to their Country. But, besides that it is manifest, that all Papists are not of that opinion, which the said Bull presupposeth; The State may easier he secured of Papists, against all such power in the Pope, than of our Sectaries, against that dispensation to their Allegiance, which the pretence of God's Spirit may import when they please.  
And whereas it is manifest, that many Papists hold against those equivocations and reservations, which destroy all confidence of the Sovereign in his Subject's allegiance; How shall a State be secured against that infamous falsehood of the late Usurper, in any man that pretends God's Spirit upon his terms, which I mentioned afore? Besides, the Recusants, being for the most part, of the good Families of the Nation, will take it for a part of their Nobility, freely to profess themselves in their Religion, if they understand themselves; whereas the Sectaries, being people of mean quality, for the most part, cannot be presumed to stand upon their reputation so much. So, if they cannot be tolerated in the exercise of their Religion, it must be provided upon what terms they may be received by the Church. And by that which hath been said, it may appear what my opinion will require of the Presbyterians, for the condition of reconciling ourselves into one Church again; Namely, in the first place, their concurrence to the Act, or Decree, or Order, according to which the Sectaries ought to be tied to renounce the damnable positions which they have notoriously set on foot. For, if they should refuse this, what reason could be alleged why they should be counted Strangers to that infection, which they will not exclude? As for the other Article of the Creed, concerning one visible Church, it is evident that they cannot belong to that Church, supposing the Premises. For it is evident, that there was a time, when the whole Church was governed by Bishops; and that not against God's Law, for then there had remained no Church. And therefore, for them to break the unity of the Church, upon pretence of governing this Church by Presbyters, is to break unity, unless a part may give Law to the whole, which who so do, are for so doing Schismatics. And the Church of Rome would have due cause to cast us off for Schismatics, if we should admit this pretence. But this is a point, the knowledge whereof cannot belong to the substance of Christianity, for the reason alleged before. And therefore, I do not think the Church tied to exact the express profession of it, or the disclaiming of the error that is opposite to it. On the other side, the Church, maintaining the Ordinations of Presbyters alone to be mere nullities in themselves, can never own their Ordinations, without renouncing the Catholic Church; yet may it consent in the persons, upon their consent to the order, which shall be established for the future. And indeed, what can they challenge by the mere consent of certain Presbyters, which the Ministers of Congregations may not pretend to, by the consent of their respective Congregations? And yet, I suppose, both parties are agreed, not to own them in that Power which the celebration of the Eucharist importeth? Let any man, that is capable to judge of such matters, think upon the madness of the Lancashire Presbyterians without prejudice; Of whom I am duly informed, that they caused those, who were ordained only Deacons in the Church of England, to do the office of Presbyters (which they had no title to) in celebrating the Eucharist; And tell me what reason there can be, excluding the Ordinations of the Congregations, to admit the usurpations of the Presbyterians. As for the form and solemnity, in which the consent of the Church to their Ordinations shall be celebrated, therein I refer myself to the wisdom of Superiors; Thinking it would be a great impertinence in the Presbyterians, if, finding a necessity of submitting those whom they have already promoted, to the judgement of the Church, for the condition upon which they are to Minister; (which without doubt, is the principal) they should insist upon the accessary, which is the form, and solemnity, by which the power is visibly conveyed. And thus I think the second great difficulty concerning their Ordinations, may be composed.  
But, supposing these great difficulties set aside, the composing of our first differences, about the Order of Bishops, and the Service, cannot seem difficult, if the parties be content to give up their engagements, to the advantage, which the Christianity of the Nation may have by it. For, what reasonable Christian can think much to acknowledge, that, by reason of those partialities, which at length have produced this Schism, the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land are capable of amendment in those two points? On the other fide, doth not dear euperience tell all parts, that the change of them by force, though it must be called Reformation, if the Law of the Land call it so, yet it is not likely to be that which it is called? Besides; Consider the kindness which his Majesty's return, and God's goodness, that hath overruled men's hearts in it, hath bred in all parties consenting to it. For, can we have this before us, and not hope that it will be enough to subdue all prejudices and animosities, to the interest of our common Christianity? Had the peace of the Church never been questioned, it might be charity in a discreet Christian, not to call it into question, by proposing what might be amended, because the hope of amendment might not countervail the danger of that Peace. But, now that unity is not to be had, without settling of agreement in matters of difference; to propose what may seem best for the Community of God's Church, in the cure of our breaches, is not to give offence, but to take it away.  
I will therefore premise here one consideration, which I mean to assume for a supposition, to ground that which I shall propose to this purpose. It shall contain that which I observe in the New Testament, and the primitive practice of God's Church pointing out the meaning of it, concerning the difference between the Clergy and People in all Churches, and the ground of it. For, though the edict of our Lord in the Gospel be peremptory, that, who so forsaketh not all things, cannot be my Disciple; that is a Christian; (For, they who were other while called Disciples, were called Christians at Antiochia, as we read in the Acts,) yet common reason evinceth, that all Disciples professed not to forsake the World, (which we all profess to forsake at our Baptism) according to the same rate. For, we see by the Gospel, that the voluntary oblations of those who followed our Lord, ministering to him, made a stock of money, which Judas was trusted with, for charity to the poor, after that his followers were provided for. But, it is against the evidence of common sense to imagine, that all those who professed to follow Christ, and to be his Disciples, were provided for out of this Stock. It is true, our Lord promiseth in the Gospel, that whosoever shall forsake kindred, or wife, or house, or goods, for the Gospel, shall receive an hundred fold here, and in the World to come life everlasting. A thing visibly fulfiled in the primitive state of the Church; when, whosoever was persecuted for Christianity, all Christians acknowledged themselves bound to provide for his support. Neither can it be said, how S. Paul's saying; that godliness hath the promises of this life and of that which is to come; could be otherwise fulfiled, when those who had undertaken Christ's Cross where subject to powers, that did, or might persecute Christianity at their pleasure. But, though all Christians, in case of persecution, are bound by their Baptism to leave all they have, that they may carry Christ's Cross after him; Yet it was something more that S. Peter meant when he said; Lord we have left all to follow thee, what shall we have? For, though a Net and a Fisherboat were no great thing to leave; yet, so firm a faith as to forsake a man's whole course of living, casting himself upon the word of Christ for his very being, whither here or in the World to come, is suitable to the promise that follows, of sitting upon xii. Throves to judge the xii. Tribes of Israel. The Christians of Jerusalem, who parted with their Estates, that the disciples might be maintained in their daily attendance upon God's service, cannot be said to have obtained thereby any common rank in the Church; But it must be said, that, quitting their former course and state of living, by quitting the means of maintaining it, they became from thenceforth, either of the Clergy, or of the poor which were always maintained out of the stock of the Church. For, by S. Paul's instructions to Timothy. 1. Tim. V it appeareth, that those Widows which were employed and maintained by the Church for the common necessities of it, were to be taken out of such as were destitute of means to live other wise.  
Herewith agreeth an infinite number of examples in the primitive Church, of Godly Bishops, Priests, and others of the Clergy, who, taking upon them such professions, devested themselves of their worldly goods; whither applying them to the property, or only to the use of the Church; as reserving themselves power to dispose of them, in favour of friends or kindred, at their death. And, from the same reason and ground proceed all the Canons, whereby it was provided, that they should not dispose of the Church goods to such uses, at death, but of their own, well and good. For, whatsoever their estates were, though they renounced them not, yet, it became necessary for them to live as others of the Clergy lived; Who were generally poor when they were promoted, and therefore professed to content themselves with mere necessaries, because the Church goods, of which they lived, were due to the maintenance of the poor, as well as of the Clergy. From whence we may see, what truth there is in those say of the Fathers, which make the precepts of our Lord, in his Sermon upon the mount, matters of Counsel. For, if all Christians be to leave all things that they may follow Christ, it is certain that they are commanded, and not only advised, to turn the other cheek, to quit a man's Coat to him that takes away his Cloak, to undergo the rest of those precepts, whereby our Lord describeth the duty of a Christian; provided they be so understood, as the maintenance of a man's estate in the World, and the obligations which it inferreth, even by virtue of that Christianity which alloweth the same, will require. But, if there be another estate in the Church, of Disciples which profess to follow Christ, leaving the employment of the world for that purpose, and therefore to forbear the pleasures and profits thereof accordingly; That strict Rate and that high degree, in which they profess to leave the world to follow Christ, must needs be mere matter of Counsel; because no man is commanded to undertake that estate, but invited to it, for the securing of his Salvation, who knows he may be saved without it. Whereby it appears, that this estate imports a profession of abstinence from the pride, the revenge, the lusts and pleasures of the world, as well as from the riches of it; as well of the humility, the patience, the continence, the meekness and obedience of our Lord, as of the mean estate in which he lived; But that, for the means to compass this end, it imports first a profession of renouncing the rank and estate which every man holds in the world, and dedicating himself to the service of the Church, and that employment which tends to the common good of Christians.  
If it should be inferred from hence, that the state of the Clergy, importing the forsaking of the World, at this extraordinary Rate, must therefore import the profession of single life, as some of the Church of Rome would have it; The answer is, that it will not follow. And the instance is peremptory That the Apostles themselves, who thus left the world, did not profess it. And if by undertaking the Clergy, a man was not obliged to renounce his goods; As appears by those Canons which enable the Clergy to dispose of them at death; much less doth that estate import a profession of single life; being more difficult to perform, then to live as a Clergy man upon the Church goods. For, it is possible for them who have wives, to live as if they had them not, according to S. Paul; No otherwise, than it is possible for them who have the dispensing of Church goods, to use them as if they used them not. The reason of single life for the Clergy is firmly grounded by the Fathers and Canons of the Church, upon the precept of S. Paul, forbidding man & wife to part, unless for a time, to attend upon Prayer. For, Priests & Deacons being continually to attend upon occasions of celebrating the Eucharist, which ought continually to be frequented; if others be to abstain from the use of Marriage for a time for that purpose, than they always. And this is the reason, that prevailed so fare, even in the primitive times, that the instances which are produced to the contrary, during those times, seem to argue no more than dispensation in a Rule, which had the force of a Law, when an exception took not place; That is, when those that were thought necessary for the service of the Church, though not fit to tie themselves to live single.  
But this profession was evidently the ground for that discipline, which was used all over the Church, in breeding youth from tender years, to such a strict course of life as only use and custom is able to render agreeable to man's nature. And to this education and discipline, all the authority and credit of the Clergy over the people is to be imputed; the dissolution whereof, is the true occasion of the miseries which we have seen. For, did the people think themselves tied to depend upon the Clergy for their instructions, to admit their admonitions & reproofs in matter of Religion, (that is, did the discipline and education of the Clergy maintain them in that authority with the people) it is not possible, that the pride which hath been seen, in setting up new Religions, and giving new Laws to the Church, should take place. But this authority is not to be preserved, without retirement from the world, that is, from conversation with the People, of what rank or degree soever, whither upon pretence of profit or pleasure. And therefore, being once lost, by the debauches of the Clergy before the Reformation, it is not to be restored, without restoring the ground of it, the said education and discipline; nor, by consequence, the Reformation to be counted complete otherwise; Supposing always the Reformation to be the restoring of that Church which hath been, not the building of that which hath not been. The same education and discipline is, by the express Canons of the Church, the ground of that title, upon which promotion is due to the Clergy, in their respective Churches. For, what is more against the Rules of the Church, then to take such men for Priests & Bishops of such Churches, as men know not how they behaved themselves in lower degrees? Those that talk of the Interest of the People in Ecclesiastical promotions, without supposing this ground, do allege nothing but their own dreams, to bring their own dreams to pass.  
Having this premised, I must needs say, I see no manner of inconvenience in that which the Presbyterians pretend for the chief cause of their distance; that is, the concurrence of Presbyters with their Bishops, in Ordinations, and the Jurisdiction of the Church; provided it be settled in that form, which, being grounded upon the Rule of the Catholic Church, may tend to restore and advance the common Christianity.  
Now, I take the Rule of the Church to be as evidently this, as the common Christianity is evident; that every City, with the Territory thereof, be the seat and content of a Church. For, though it hath been used with so much difference in several parts and times of the Church, that those Countries, which some while, and some where, might have been cast into fourscore Churches, have other while, and else where, been cast into four; yet, these are but exceptions to a Rule, which the Law saith, do not destroy, but confirm it. For, in matters concerning the whole, the Unity of the whole, may as well be preserved by the concurrence of four, as of fourscore.  
The Churches, (that is, according to this Rule) the Dioceses of England have been constituted and distinguished upon occasion of the Sovereignty's, in which, and by consent whereof, the Christianity of the Nation was first planted. He that considers with half an eye, shall easily see, how the conversion of Kent, of the East, and South, and West Saxons, of the East Angles and Mercians, and lastly of Northumberland, produced the foundation of English Churches. For, of the British foundations, in the West parts of the Island, from the two Forths to the Lands end, the same account is to be kept; the Dominion of the Britain's being for some time divided into several Sovereignty's. He that is convicted of this truth, (which no man can be convicted of, but he that considereth the case; But, who so considereth the case, must needs stand convict of it) will easily grant me, that, when the Monarchy prevailed, and England came to be divided into Counties, the General Rule of the Church would have required another course to have been observed. For, had the Head Town of every County been made the Seat of a Church containing that County, no man, that surveys the division of the Roman Empire into Churches (made without the secular Power, as before Constantine) will deny; That, the division so made, would have been more correspondent to the primitive form, tending to the Unity of the whole.  
But, let no man think, that, for the love of such a correspondence, I have any itch to call in question the Unity of the Whole. The alteration is great, and must needs produce a great motion, to engraff it into the Laws of the Kingdom. And therefore, I am not of opinion to change the Law for hope of amendment, with so much appearance of danger, to the being of the Whole. But I am of opinion, that it would be easy to erect Presbyteries, that is, Colleges of Presbyters, in all Shire Towns which have no Cathedral Churches, for the Ecclesiastical Government of the respective Counties, with, and under the Bishops; And that so, the Rule of the Church would be set on work, to the best effect and purpose. For, those Towns have commonly Churches altogether unprovided of means, through the horrible sacrileges that have passed; and yet, in common reason (agreeing with the wisdom of God's Spirit, from whence the Rule of Episcopacy issued) ought to be Nurseries of Christianity to the respective Counties. And that intent cannot so well be brought to effect, as by planting the wisest, and those that have most of the Clergy in their lives, in the most eminent places, with authority next to the Chief, over their respective bounds. By the ministry of such persons, the Offices of God's service might so be performed in the chief places, as might be a pattern for their Country Churches to follow. These Presbyters might grow up, by education, in that discipline of the Clergy, which I have recommended upon the experience of the whole Church. They might live a Collegiate life in common, with the care and inspection of Inferiors, together with the charge of instructing, or seeing them instructed in the Scriptures. The Canon of the whole Church, confining all degrees of the Clergy to their respective Churches, might be revived by their means; The superseding whereof, being certainly one of the irregularities of the Papacy, hath conduced much to the dissolution of Discipline in the Church. For, in conscience, how can he that is obliged to any Church, give account of himself to another, to which the first is not subordinate? And therefore, though the Presbyteries which I propose be not Churches, yet may they take account of their respective Clergy, and render it to their Bishops. The promotion of inferior Orders, belonging unto their account, may proceed upon the account which they give. The censures that are requisite to pass in foro exteriori may pass them in the first instance, and from them being transmitted to the Bishop, be either enacted or voided; Always with right of appeal to the Synod of the Province, in cases of weight, and in the intervals thereof, to their Deputies; To which purpose, and in which nature, the High Commission ought to be revived. For, as it is by no means to be allowed, that the Bishop's negative be any way questioned; So is it no way fit, that the consent of Bishop and Presbyters both be concluded in one and the same instance. As for those Dioceses which are concluded within only one County, there, I suppose I need not say, that the Chapter of the Cathedral are by inheritance this Presbytery.  
Now, these Colleges of Presbyters consisting of those only, that shall have run the whole course of their lives in the education and discipline of the Clergy; is there any possible pretence of burden upon them, if the condition of single life should be required, to qualify them for their places? For, this were not to tie any man to single life, seeing who will may go forth, and be provided of a Country Church; But it were to maintain the discipline of the Clergy, in the most eminent places, wherein, there is a course proposed to them who embrace it, of ending their days in it. And the course of a Collegiate life, which I propose, seemeth a sufficient means and advantage to overcome those temptations, which in these days, may seem too difficult for all the Clergy to undergo.  
As for the means of supporting these Presbyteries, wherein the Cure of all Parishes within the Shire Towns is provided for, and included; It is no difficulty to him that considers with conscience, that originally, the endowment of the Diocese was the Patrimony of the Mother Church; and afterwards appropriated to Parish Churches, by abating the right of the Mother Church, upon particular contracts, appearing to be for the good of the parts. For, if the Mother Church have abated so much of her common right, when it was for the good of the Parishes; Is it not necessary, that the Parishes now abate of their property in their respective endowments, by Pensions to these Colleges, now they appear to be for the good of the Diocese? And this I am now bold to profess, before the judgement of Superiors be declared, because I am confident, that by this position, I abate not a hair of that Power which the Bishops in England now use; But I add much to the strictness of discipline, (that is, in effect, of Christianity) by requiring all Ordinations, all acts of Jurisdiction in foro exteriori, to pass both the Presbyters and the Bishop in several instances. And further than this I extend not the opinion of a divine to particulars, but leave the rest entire to the wisdom of superiors. And this may serve to show, that there is no cause why the difference on foot, concerning the Government of the Church, may not settle into a change conducing to the advancement of the common Christianity.  
Which will hold till stronger in the other, concerning the Service, if men take their measures by the common interest of Christianity, not by their particular prejudices. For, I conceive, I may well suppose, that the Sectaries pretence of praying by the Spirit, is content to be buried in oblivion and silence; considering that the excesses are evident, and horrible, which that pretence hath brought forth. Besides, that no man now stands to that dangerous position; That the offices of God's service are of no effect, when they are ministered by such as are not in the state of grace. For, I presume it is not, nor can be supposed on any hand, that all whom the Church must employ, are endowed with God's spirit; that is, are in the state of grace. I suppose further, as not questioned on any hand, that the public service of God is to consist of the praises of God, (by the Psalms of David, and other Hymns of God's Church) of the reading of the Scriptures, of the instruction of God's people out of them, in fine, of the Prayers of the Church, and in the chief place, of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and those prayers which it is to be celebrated with.  
Some of our Sects have been bold to pretend, that the Psalter, or Psalms of David, are impertinent to the Devotions of Christians, as concerning the particular condition of David, and composed  regard to it. Whereby they overthrew the foundation of Christianity, standing upon this supposition, that the old Testament is the figure ad shadow of the new, and that Christ hath the key of the writings, as well as of the house of David. For, seeing Christ and his mystical Body the Church are all one, the meaning and intent of the Psalms cannot concern Christ, but it must end in his Church. But, seeing the Church is but shadowed in the Psalms, being part of the Old Testament; I can expect no dispute of the necessity of other Hymns, composed under Christianity, in the solemnising of Gods public service. And seeing the question on foot concerns the settling of the form of God's service by a Law of the Kingdom; there can remain no dispute concerning the necessity of a settled Order in reading the Scriptures, and using the Psalms and Hymns of the Church. Nor do I know any man, sincerely professing the Reformation, that could not wish with all his heart, that the whole order and form which shall be settled, with the circumstance of the same, might be according to the primitive simplicity, and naked plainness of the ancient Church; supposing the difference between the state in which the Church lived under persecution; and now, that, being protected by the secular Power, it receiveth all the World to take part in the service of God. For, what difference this will infer in the Order and Rule of God's service to be enacted by a Law of this Kingdom, common reason, and the perpetual practice of God's Church, together with the precedents recorded in Scripture, must be admitted to Witness.  
These things supposed, no man doubts, that the form of service now in force by the Law of this Land, may be acknowledged capable of amendment, without disparagement, either to the wisdom of the Church, that prescribed, or of the Nation that enacted it. For, what positive Law of man is there that is not? Nay, what arrogance can it be in a particular person, (having bestowed more consideration upon it, than it is possible, that those who had the framing of it should have leisure to do) to think that he knows some particulars, in which it might be mended? For, neither doth it follow, that it is better to endanger the spoiling of it by calling it in question, than to let it rest as it is; And that particular person, whosoever he is, that should think his own opinion necessary to be followed, without com-promising it to the public, would justly incur the mark of arrogance. Since therefore, that this is the time for such a debate, if any change be pretended; and that the reasons mentioned afore, are of sufficient consideration to oblige all sides, to prefer unity before prejudice; what remains, but that, either it be left entire in that State wherein it stands, or that nothing be changed, without sufficient debate of reason upon the whole, what is fit to be changed, what not?  
But one thing I must here expressly stand upon, because the form of God's service which hath been usurped during the Schism, protesteth against the Law in force. I acknowledge, that the whole Reformation protesteth against the insufficience and defects of the Church of Rome, in the course which it taketh for the instruction of Christian people, in the duties of their Christianity; against the abuses there practised, in celebrating the Eucharist without any pretence of a Communion, in private Masses, and in serving God in a Language which the people understand not. For, these abuses are a principal part of the ground for that change, which we justly maintain to be Reformation; The boldness of those that opposed it, being come to such a height, as openly to maintain; that it concerneth not Christian people to know, or to mind what is done at the Mass, (being the ordinary service of God, for which they come to Church,) or what is said; But, that the intention of the Priest is enough to apply the sacrifice of Christ to all that are present, (which they think it doth no less to them that are absent; and therefore leave us unsatisfied why people should come to Church) who need do nothing but say their Pater's and their Aves. These abuses I do acknowledge. But, be the World my witness, and all that know what hath passed, for the matter of Religion, in the World; was it ever protested, by those who demanded Reformation in the Church; that the Eucharist cught to be celebrated but four times, or twelve times in the year? That by God's Law, there ought to be two Sermons every Sunday in every Church? That other Festivals beside the Sunday, and set times of fasting oughr not to be solemnised with the service of God? That the Church doors ought not to be open, but when there is preaching? Take the primitive practice of the Church along with the Scripture, and they shall tell you another tale; that Prayer, and the praises of God, is the more principal end of Christian Assemblies; than Preaching. The reason is unanswerable; For, the one is the end, the other the means. That the celebration of the Eucharist, is the most principal Office of God's service under Christianity, is no less evident; For, other Offices are common to Judaisme, this, consisting most in Prayers, consists of those Prayers which are proper to Christianity; that is to those causes wherein our Salvation consisteth. And can there be question how frequent it ought to be? Shall not the practice of the whole Church, from the beginning, decide the question, if any remain? The single life of the Clergy prevailed for this end, that they might be always ready to celebrate the Eucharist; say the Fathers and the Canons, which I alleged afore. It is a question in Gennadius de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, whither every man ought to communicate every day or not. But therefore no question, that it ought to be celebrated every day, that who so would might communicate. In conscience, would they be bound to Preach every day, that are so much for Preaching? After the reading of the Scripture, follows the Sermon, and after that the Eucharist; This is the primitive order of the whole Church, at that solemn service when the Eucharist, (on Fasting-days in the Evening, on other days before Noon) was Celebrated. After the Scriptures were read, the people were taught their duty out of them. A thing necessary and possible. Not that every Curate should be bound to declaim by the Glass; But, that he should be bound to instruct his Parish out of the Scriptures which are read. If he be tied to Preach as often as the Church door opens, the Church door must be shut, because no sides can hold out, so oft as Christians ought to meet for God's service. I call the World to witness; Is it not as much a work of lungs and sides, as an Office of God's service, which takes up the time of their Church Assemblies? Is not the way opened, by this means, to declaim of public Government in Church and State, to  the Hearers? For alas, should men confine themselves to that which the generality of their audience might edify by, in their Christianity, the Trade would be obstructed.  
For, let me freely say, the undoubted truth of the common Christianity, (which no Sermons ought to exceed, because they pretend the edification of the generality of Christians) is contained in so narrow a compass, that no eloquence, (much less, the eloquence of all that must come into the Pulpit) can change the seasoning and serving of it, so as to make it agreeable to men's palates; without fetching in matter impertinent, if not destructive to the common Christianity. And the same is, for more peremptory reason, to be said of arbitrary Prayers. For, the very posture of him, that pretendeth to prefer the devotions of God's people to the Altar which is above, strongly impresseth upon the hearts of simple Christians, an opinion, that thereby they discharge to God the duty which their creation and redemption requires at their hands. Which, if the matter of those Prayers be such as the common Christianity requires, they may do indeed. But, if it be possible, that Rebellion, Slander, Nonsense and Blasphemy may be the matter of them, as well as Christianity, then is it not Religion, but Superstition which such devotions exercise; Nor, can that Kingdom stand excused to God, which shall gratify that licentiousness, whereof they see the effect before their eyes. All reason of Christianity concurres with the practice of the whole Church, to witness; that the interest of Christianity requires the service of God to be maintained and exercised daily, (yea hourly, were it possible) not only by particular Christians, but by Assemblies of Christians, so far as the business of the World will give leave, and as there is means to maintain men's attendance upon it. There may come abuse in the order, the form, the matter of that which is tendered to God for his Service. But, instead of reforming those abuses, to take away the means, the Rule, the obligation of such meetings, is mere Sacrilege, in destroying, (under pretence of Reforming) his Church.  
And, though I charge no such design upon those who maintain the obligation of the Sabbath to consist in two Sermons; yet I do maintain, it is manifest to common reason, that the form which that opinion introduceth necessarily tends to that effect. Strange it is, that a Nation capable of since, in an age improved by learning, should be entangled with the superstition of so vain an imagination; that God by the same fourth Commandment, should oblige both Jews to keep the Saturday; & Christians the Sunday; Especially, no man daring to maintain, that both were, or are tied to the same measure of resting. And therefore, though, (rather than cross the stream of such a superstition; For, let no man think, that all superstition can be shut out of God's Church) I am ready to conform to the Order that shall take place, so far as the strength of my body shall enable me; Yet, provided that the Ecclesiastical Laws of England, being the Laws of the whole Church, be not abated, so as to stick an evident mark of Schism upon the Church of England. For, the Law that is recommending the celebration of the Eucharist, upon all Sundays and Festivals, but commanding the service to be used, as well on Festivals and Fasting days, as upon Sundays, (besides the week days) at the public Assemblies of respective Congregations; To change this Order for two Sermons on the Sunday alone, what is it but to renounce the whole Church, for the love of those that have divided from the Church of England, upon causes common to it with the whole Church.  
They that would have the Reformation of the Church to be indeed, that which the Law of the Land calleth it, should first provide a course to be established for Law, by which, all Christian souls, (who have equal interest in the common Salvation) might serve God in public, all Sundays and Festivals. For, seeing there was a course in Law, before the Reformation, for all servants, as well as others, to be at Mass all Sundays and Festivals; And the Church was enabled to require account of it at their hands; It will not be Reformation to abrogate the abuses of the Mass, till a course be taken, that all Christians may frequent that, which shall appear to be indeed the service of God instead of the Mass. Let no Preachers flatter themselves with an opinion, that they shall ever make Christians so perfectly Jew's, as to persuade them to dress no meat on the Sundays. If Servants must stay at home to dress meat on Sundays, (and for other occasions they must stay at home, besides that) will not the way to repair that breach, be to enjoin several Assemblies in all Parish Churches, upon all Sunday mornings, that several Persons, of several Estates and qualities, may have opportunity to attend the public service of God, at several hours of the same Sundays and Holidays. For, though I understand very well, that this would impose upon the Church, (that is, upon my hrethrens of the Clergy,) a greater burden, than an afternoons meal of a Sermon, (which all men know, is furnished of the cold meat of the forenoon) yet, I would have the Word cleared of this imposture that reigneth, that two Sermons every Sunday, is the due way of keeping the Sabbath among Christians, or of advancing Gods public service.  
I will not here dispute, that the Lent-Fast was instituted by the Apostles. But this I maintain to be evident, that the Fast afore the Resurrection of Christ is and was as ancient as the Feast of his Resurrection; and that more ancient than the keeping of all Lords days in the year; being merely the reflection of that one, all the weeks of the yeaar. Nor will any man, that knows what he says, ever question, that the enlarging of it to forty days is a just Law, voluntarily undertaken by the whole Church, not to be condemned without the like mark of Schism. For, since the World is come into the Church, is there not manifest reason, that more time should be taken, for the expiating of more sins, which are the sins of more people? to prepare, as well the Elder, to renew their Christianity by communicating at Easter; as the younger to be confirmed, and come first to the Communion at Easter, now they are baptised Infants? Which, in former ages, was the time of their first coming to Baptism. As for the Wednsdayes and Fridays, if we shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, unless our Righteousness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharises; And, if it be evident, as evident it is, that the Scribes and Pharises prescribed mondays and Thursdays for days of less solemn Assemblies than the Sabbath; How shall we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, if, in despite of the whole Church, which hath hitherto used Wednesdays and Fridays, in lieu of mondays and Thursdays, used by the Synagogues, we void the Law of England by which they are in force? Of the Ceremonies the same is to be understood; Not because it can be within the compass of common reason to imagine, that the same Ceremonies have continued, from the time that the Church was persecuted into holes and caves of the Earth, to this time, in which the question is of settling Christianity by the Law of this Kingdom. It were want of common understanding to think that the same could serve. But, because so few, and so innocent as we use, cannot be condemned, without condemning, not only Gods whole Church, but also Gods ancient people; who will evidently be found in the same cause.  
One thing hath been cast forth in bar to all this, which we must not swallow whole, unless we mean to impose upon ourselves. It is the pretence of complying with the Reformed Churches. For, it is evident, that there are four forms of Reformation extant; One according to Luther, another according to Calvine, the third is, that of the Church of England, and in the last place, (though first for time,) because least known, and protected by no Sovereign, I name that of the Union in Bohemia. For, we are to know, that the followers of John Husse having sent Deputies to the Council of Basil, they accorded to reunite the Nation upon four Articles; The chief whereof was the Communion in both kinds. They that stood to the accord are to this day called thereupon Calixtin, or sub utraque in Latin. But another part of those that were at distance, thinking themselves betrayed by their Deputies in that accord, proceeded to settle themselves in a form of Religion, and the service of God, by that which they held the pure truth of God, in all points that had been disputed. The Emperor Ferdinand I. King of Bohemia, having subdued his subjects there, that risen with the Protestants in Germany, cast a good part of these out of the Country; who, finding shelter in Polonia, and Prussia, there planted and propagated their form, till the troubles of our time, when by the Emperor's victory in Bohemia, and the late troubles in Poland, they seem to be at a loweble, though they impute it to the decay of their first discipline.  
They that would reform the Church of England, professing already that Reformation which it found best, will they not first show us reason, why we are to leave Luther for Calvine? For, if they mean his form, when they talk of conforming us to the reformed Churches, because of the Scots Presbyteries, they must have better arguments, then either the learning or the Christianity of the Scottish Presbyterians will yield, to persuade us. They say, those that framed the Reformation in England, being bred under Melancthon among the Lutherans, followed them much an end in the order and form which they prescribed. But is that any reason for any change, before it appear which is in the right? I freely profess I find Melancthon the better learned, and the more Christian spirit. But the Church of England, which in divers points differeth from both, why should it be thought to follow either for any reason, but, as either agrees with the Catholic Church? And for that, I prefer the Unity of Bohemia before both; For, they had the rule of Vincentius given them, to take their measure by the consent of the Catholic Church, and these things which have always and every where been professed and practised in it; And, had they done nothing but what is justifiable by that Rule, I should not blame them for that which I blame in them most. But where they agree not with Luther and Calvine, wherein do they not agree with the Church of England?  
In particular, they sent all over the World, to inform themselves of a visible succession of Bishops, whose profession was such, that they might derive the Ordination of Bishops, for their Churches, from their hands. They took the superstitions of the Greeks' to be such, that they could not own it from them. In that I think they were in the wrong. For, I doubt not, the Greeks' would have granted them Ordination only under the profession of the Catholic Church; and that had been enough. But, thinking themselves in a straight of necessity, they chose twelve by lots; And hearing that the Waldenses lived in Austria under Bishops, deriving their succession from the time of Constantine (and therefore from the Apostles) they sent them thither to be Ordained, protesting against their weakness, in going to Mass for fear. The protestation was admitted, and the persons ordained Bishops. Now, I take not upon me to maintain the truth of that information, concerning the succession of these Bishops, whereupon they proceeded. But, they being reasonably persuaded of it, and not knowing how to proceed otherwise, (through a mistake which they could not overcome) and settling themselves upon an innocent presumption, why should the effect of these Ordinations seem questionable? For, under these Bishops they have subsisted from that day to this.  
And, with what conscience is it demanded; for conformity to the Reformation, that we acknowledge them Priests who are ordained against Bishops? If we do not, we shall condemn those Reformed Churches, which have no Bishops. Is it the fashion, that a man quit his Cloak, because his fellow hath none? Or is it any thing else, to renounce a good Title, because they cannot plead it? There was a good expedient in the ancient Church, to refer things to God, which could not be decided without a breach in the Church. Let their zeal against the abuses of the Church of Rome be counted pardonable with God, which caused them to think the Order of Bishops a support of Antichrist; when as the Papacy is visibly raised upon the rights of Bishops which it engrosseth. Let the difficulty of procuring Ordinations, and having Bishops, render them excusable to God. Those that are ordained by Presbyters against Bishops, on purpose to set up Altar against Altar, how can we count them ordained refusing the concurrence of the Church to their Ordinations? They that would tie us to comply with the Reformation, are first to show us, that the Unity of Bohemia is no part of it, And, that their Reformation is not to be preferred, either before that of Luther, or that of Calvine. For, can we acknowledge the Ordinations of Presbyters against their Bishops, and not condemn them, that sought all over the World for Bishops to ordain them Bishops, that the Bishops so ordained might ordain them Presbyters?  
But, not only in this prime point of our differences, but also in the difference of the Clergy from the people, in the three Orders, of Bishop's Presbyters and Deacons, in the matter of Justification and the Eucharist, of Confirmation, and Penance of the Festivals and Fasts of the Church, one of divers Orders and institutions of less consequence, their profession agreeth with the ancient Church, and the Church of England, where it departeth from both Luther and Calvine. In the matter of Penance (though with much humility) they tell the Lutherans roundly, they have but one of the keys, viz. that of losing, but bind not; as pronouncing absolution without enjoining of Penance. The discipline of Geneva they magnify indeed, as they find it described by Bodine, in his method of Histories; But they distinguish not, whither they mean the civil discipline, which the Laws of that State enforce, or that which the Power of the Keys, exercised there according to Calvine, doth constitute. For, the Civil Law of a Christian State (especially, no bigger than that of Geneva) may settle such a discipline over the outward man, as may restrain from the outward act of sin, without mortifying the inward man to the inward love of it. The late Usurpers Army we have seen well disciplined, against the ordinary vices of the Camp; Who, appearing now to have been then enemies to their Country, are thereby discovered, not to have followed the reward of Christians, but of Soldiers. And the Laws of Christian States, by the means of Christianity which they maintain, may reach to the mortifying of sin, and the quickening of righteousness at the heart; But of themselves, being Civil Laws, and proposing no further reward or punishment, than that good which a man's Country signifies, they reach no futther then the outward man, for the better or for the worse. Nor is it of any greater consequence to Christianity, that the outward act of sin or virtue is repressed or encouraged, by the rewards and penalties of Civil Laws. But, when the discipline of the Church takes place, he who forfeiteth his Christianity by gross sin that is notorious, forfeiteth also Communion with the Church; and recovereth it not, till the presumption be no less notorious, that he hath recovered his Christianity. Now, Communion with the Church is the consequence of our Baptism, which intitleth us to life everlasting. Therefore it is not duly forfeited, without forfeiting the effect of Baptism, our right to life everlasting. So, our right to heaven depending upon the Communion of the Church; the discipline of the Church, must needs reach the inward man as effectually, as any outward application can reach the heart, which is invisible. For, the presumption is grounded upon visible works of Penance, the effects of that invisible disposition, without which they could not be constantly brought forth. Whither or no this discipline be visible at Geneva, I will not pronounce. This I undertake, that, comparing the Doctrine of Calvine with their Orders, they need not set a value upon the Power of the Keys exercised according to his Doctrine, in comparison of the same exercised according to their own Orders. So that supposing, not granting, that the Laws of the Church of England, (being the Laws of the primitive Catholic Church) are to be changed for conformity with the Reformed Churches; it followeth not therefore, that they are to be changed, for those of the Churches reform according to Calvine. Certainly, the receiving of the Communion kneeling, having been one of the Adores of their Reformation from the beginning, and so stiffly insisted upon by them in Poland, they that pretend to change the Law of England, in that point for conformity with the Reformation, think they have not men but beasts to to deal with.  
The Church of England, in the Commination against sinners, hath declared a great zeal for the renouncing of that ancient discipline of Penance, which was in force in the primitive Church. And certainly, the Church of England is not the Church of England but in Name, till the power of excommunication be restored unto it, which there was not, nor ever can be sufficient cause to take from any Church. But, the discipline of Penance, though depending upon the Power of excommunication, is as much to be preferred before it, as it is more desirable to bring men to the Church, then to shut them out of it. If prejudice & faction have not more to do in the pretences of this sin, than the truth of Christianity, and zeal to advance it; it is a point that cannot be neglected in any deliberation of Reforming the Church. I cannot render a more visible reason, why so godly a zeal, in these that first prescribed our Reformation, to the restoring of penance, hath now been improved by their successors, than the partialities which sprung up in it like tares in the wheat, and have now prevailed to choke even the power of excommunication, wherein the being of a Church consisteth. And though many sins of this Nation may be alleged, for the cause why God hath taken this sharp revenge upon us; yet can no reason be so proper, why he should permit the hedge of the Church to be cast down, (for all Sects to devour, and tread his vineyard under foot) by suffering the power of excommunication to be taken from it; as the neglect of improving it, in and to the discipline of penance. True it is, not only all capital, but all infamous crimes, whereof men are convicted by Law, are thereby notorious, and require this discipline, no less than those which the Law of this Land punisheth not otherwise then by penance. And if the Church did make a difference among those that die by public Justice; owning only these, who approve their desire to undergo regular penance, in case they might survive; then were this discipline visible, no visible crime escaping it. For, all capital and infamous crimes, that are not actually punished with death, must by that reason remain unreconciled to the Church, though free of the Law, till penance be done. And seeing crimes that are not known cannot be cured upon easier terms than those that are; would ●o● the judgement of the Law, authorising the Church in the cure of known sins, move even them that believe their Christianity, no further than it is authorized by Law, to submit invisible sins to the same cure? For, what is it, but the slighting of this cure, that makes men's sins fester and rankle inwardly, and break out into greater and greater excesses? And therefore, to debate of Ceremonies, and words in the service, and Maypoles, and Sabbath days journeys, not considering the Power of the Keys, upon which the Church is founded, and the restoring of the same; is to neglect a consumption at the heart, pretending only to cure the hair or the nails.  
Now if any of our Sects insist upon a pretence that deserves to be insisted upon, far be it from us to cast off the consideration of it, because they have unduly separated from the Church for it. Our Anabaptists, it is known insist upon two points; The baptising of Infants, and that, by sprinkling, not by dipping. In both, they have neglected S. Peter's Doctrine, That Baptism saveth us, not the laying aside of the filth of our flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to God. For, were the profession of Christianity, celebrated by the Sacrament of Baptism, believed to be that which saveth us, men would not go to baptise them, as not baptised, who by their profession (which they acknowledge by seeking the Communion of the Church) are under that bond, which intitleth them to the Salvation of Christians. Nor can there be any greater presumption, than the voiding of Baptism so celebrated, that they expect Salvation upon other terms. But, in making void Baptism ministered by sprinkling alone, without dipping, they neglect S. Peter again, when he maketh the Baptism that saveth not to consist in cleansing the flesh, but in a due profession of Christianity; signifying this to be the principal, that only the accessary Ceremony, which it is solemnised with. And therefore, they are to acknowledge this difference by acknowledging Baptism so ministered to be good and valid, not void. But, this being acknowledged, well may they insist, that it is unduly ministered. For it is evident, that, neither the Scripture, nor the practice of the whole Church, can by any means allow the sprinkling of water for Baptism, though the pouring on of water in case of necessity, be allowed. Nor doth the Law of the Church of England allow any more than pouring water upon a Child that is weak, commanding therefore dipping otherwise. And therefore this Law, being much weakened by the tenderness of Mothers and friends, (supposing all Infants weak, which the Law supposeth not) and by undue zeal for foreign fashions ought to be revived and brought into use by all Ordinances, that there may remain no colour for such an offence. And therefore, reparation is to be made for the sacrilege of the late Wars, in destroying the Fonts of Baptism in Churches, and bringing in Christening out of Basins by force.  
I cannot say that I have touched all that is fit to be touched. But I hope I have said nothing, but that which followeth upon the ground, which I have justified. That which is proposed, and is not so justified, seems to demand the consent of those who propose it, as able to hold the Church divided, if they be not contented; But that calls to mind a reason on the other side, that men use to get a stomach with eating in such cases. The due measure is not the satisfying of men's appetites, but the improvement of our common Christianity.  
FINIS.