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 hardning 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 tendred 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 chuse 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 Naamans 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 Judg therein between them and us in this matter The Appendix BEING My Judgment 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 chuse the way wherein they go but though I think that Fear of God to be true I think it not pure and unmixt without Errour 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 Errour 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 Meeters who holds them for all that to be true Christians and counts it no sin to joyn with them in Communion if he hâ—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 justifie his refusing it or else his Separation being causless 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 Publick having a Call in Private he Preaches in a Meeting what is there in this which the Apostles own case does not justifie 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 judg the parish-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 Christs Commission preferring his Masters Authority before Mans 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 Publick Ministers or parish-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-Lay-communion which are sinful or intolerable As I am of Opinion that they can make no such plea good so must I heartily advise them to take heed because if they do stand upon such a one their Separation being without cause if the parish-Parish-Churches be true Churches and it be no sin to go to them they know the Charge lyes 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 our selves 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-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 no otherwise but so as they may and ought 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 Judgment 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 mans 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 Schismatick 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 causless must be Schism But what if it be Schism There are many such Ministers and such People who are rivetted 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 Errour 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 shun'd 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 meer local Separation from the Parish-Meeting when there is cause is so who am sensible what a Scare-crow 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 chuse 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
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 scandalizing 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 Supream 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 Supream Magistrates in his Sphear 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 judgment 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 ought 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 gain-say not but the open breakers of the Churches 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 judgment of some men which are not to others I apprehend both that the reasons of such ought 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 joyned under this Article doth contain a godly and wholsome 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 implicite 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 it self is superstitious and ungodly Art 36. I understand by Superstition and Ungodliness two perticular 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 it self 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 Authentick 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 Authentick 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 Lye 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 differ'd 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 Authentick 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 Law-giver is Magisterial or Imperative that constitutes duty and his will is uncontroulable but the Pastors 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 Gods 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