Defense Doubts Hopes and Reasons for Refusal of the Oath Imposed

1. General Doubt. Whether this Oath (if it be tendered and taken) be not a taking the Name of God in vain, against the third Commandment?

THE REASON.

BEcause, as we suppose, there is no need of it (in respect of Ministers especially) for security either of Doctrine or Discipline against Innovation: for Doctrine (as against the Papists, the principal enemies unto it) the Laws of the Land, and Constitutions of the Church (without this Oath) sufficiently provide, if they be answerably executed: and for such, if they be conscionable, they will not take it; if unconscionable, (though they take it) they will not keep it: for they will easily be persuaded to slight this Oath, as they do the oath of Allegiance, whereof some of them show how the cautions of it against equivocation, mental reservation, and Papal dispensations may be eluded, and say, that the Oath, as unjust (so soon as it is taken) is presently nullified ipso facto.

But for Ministers especially, it seemeth unto us to be altogether needless; since they, having according to the Canons of the year 1603. subscribed to the Kings Supremacy, the Articles of Religion, and the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination, with all their contents (wherein the order of Bishops, and degree of Archbishops is contained; and which is compass enough for a well composed conscience) are sentenced (if they revolt from their subscription) first, to Suspension; secondly, to Excommunication; thirdly, to Deposition from the Ministry. Rigour enough for verbal commination, and (in respect of some degrees of offense recorded in the Canon) somewhat too much for real execution; so that there is no need of more security by assent to the things required, then the subscription to the three Articles of the 36. Canon, and the severity of the 38. Canon against such as revolt from that ratification.

And, by that we read in the Archbishops late reply to A.C. it seems confession and subscription are enough (for that we profess in point of faith) to give satisfaction and assurance of our sincerity, even to a professed adversary; for, when A.C. had said, that it is not fufficient to beget a confidence, in this case to say we believe the Scriptures, and the Creeds, he returneth him this answer:

But if we say it, you are bound in charity to believe us; for I know no other proof of faith, but confession of it, and subscription to it: and for these particulars, we have made the one, and done the other; so it is no bare saying, but you have all the proof that can be had, or that ever any Church required.

If his Lordship had remembered this, at the late Synod, it may be he would not have thought it meet to require us to swear beyond our confession and subscription formerly made; for why should he, or the rest of the Synod, have less faith and charity to entertain our testification, then we may justly expect from our Popish opposites, or require more of us then any Church ever did hitherto?

Long before these Canons were set forth, and soon after the reformation of Religion by Queen Elisabeth, there were (we confess) certain protestations to be made, promised, and subscribed by them that were afterwards to be admitted to any office, room, or cure in any Church, or other place Ecclesiastical.

But we conceive (besides other differences to be touched under another title) that neither these protestations are equivalent to such a solemn oath, as now is required of us, nor that there is such need of it now, as there was of them at that time.

Object. If it be said, that in these times there is such division and distraction among us, that there is need to fasten us together by such a sacred bond as that of the Canon:

Answ. We think it reasonable to reply, That neither the want of such an oath was the cause of the distemper of the times, nor that the urging of it will be a convenient cure thereof; but rather the contrary: since there is more agreement betwixt peace and love, which may best be preserved where offensive things are not urged; then betwixt love and compulsion, especially, if (as of this oath it is conceived) it encroach upon the conscience, without any great need (as from them that require it) or without sufficient ground to satisfy such as should receive it.

And we see by the operation of it already, daily producing more and more dislike of it, that it is not like to be a remedy against any malady already discovered; but rather a means to exasperate the disease (though this be besides the intention of them that propound it) whereof there was the less need: because, as our learned and religious brethren the Divines of Aberdeen have observed, There be other means more effectual for holding out of Popery (and so of any other unlawful Innovation) in which we ought to confide more then in all the vows & promises of men: yea also, more then in all the united forces of all the subjects of this Land: to wit, diligent preaching and teaching of the word, frequent prayer to God, humbling of our selves before him, and amendment of our lives and conversations, and arming ourselves against our adversaries, by diligent searching of the Scriptures, whereby we may increase in the knowledge of the truth, and in ability to defend it against the enemies of it.

These have been the chief means to advance both the Doctrine of truth, and the Discipline of manners; and they will be the best means to hold them up still: with them there will be no need, without them none aide by oaths of this kind.

There be some that say, This Oath was framed for trial how men stand affected to the present government, and whether they be inclined to such a change in the Ecclesiastical state for Doctrine or Discipline, as tendeth to disturbance of the civil government also, especially to derogation from his Majesty's Authority: this is partly implied in the Preface of the Oath, which beginneth thus; This present Synod, being desirous to declare their sincerity and constancy in the profession of the Doctrine and Discipline established in the Church of England, and to secure all men against suspicion of revolt to Popery, or any other superstition, decrees, &c. —and in this respect they conceive the Oath is of necessary use. To such as thus plead for it, we think it meet to make this answer,

1. Concerning the venerable Synod, that though some persons in it, being suspected of unsound Doctrine, of a Popish strain, might do very well to give all due and probable satisfaction, to acquit themselves of that imputation (wherein we are persuaded of some that they have been untruly traduced) yet we conceive this Oath not so pertinent to that purpose, as is alleged; because the third Canon, which insisteth much in the discovery and pursuit of Papists, and none else, importeth more opposition to Popery then this sixth Canon doth, which requireth the Oath; since (as we shall manifest in another place) it cometh with a deeper charge against those who are the greatest Adversaries of Popery, then against Papists themselves.

Secondly, for the other part of the Oath concerning Discipline, or the government by Archbishops, &c. we apprehend no need of an Oath, to declare the sincerity and constancy of the Synod in that respect; for who maketh doubt, but Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Archdeacons (who carry most sway in all our Synods) are willing enough to maintain their dignity and authority, and unwilling to subject either of them to Papal usurpations. He is a man of little faith who will not take their bare word for that, without an Oath, or will require so much; for no reasonable man can think otherwise of them, though they say nothing.

For we cannot imagine, if it were but for the Archbishops own sake, that he (sitting as President of the Synod) would ever submit to any usurpations of the See of Rome; since he knoweth, and would have others know from him (for he hath published it in print) that the Pope hath acknowledged Anselm, a worthy Predecessour of his in the See of Cant. for his own compeere, the Apostle and Patriarch of the other world.

And he showeth himself willing enough to take his Holiness at his word, and to keep him out from all command over the Britain Church, alleging that it was never subject to the See of Rome, having a Primate of its own; and that Primate for the present is himself.

Thirdly, for others, this Oath can be no good Criterion, to try men's sincerity to either Doctrine or Discipline; for many things by divers may be believed, liked, and preferred, before any other of that kind (so that they would be loath to change them) and yet may they be unwilling to take an Oath for constancy to them.

For instance, we believe kneeling at prayer to be lawful, laudable, and the best gesture wherein to present our devotions to God; yet we would not be put to swear never to consent to a constitution for standing at prayer, since for it there is, first, Scripture; secondly, a Decree in the first Nicene Council; thirdly, a continued practice of it in the Church for many hundred of years together.

Fourthly, many of those who, in regard of the manifold doubts involved in the Oath, are afraid to take it, have given better evidence of their sincerity concerning the state, both ecclesiastical & civil, then can be expected of most that take the oath (without any doubt or examination at all) & if yet there be doubt of them, they may be put to the trial of the first Canon concerning the Kings Authority, and the eight made for preaching for conformity, both decreed by this last Synod, which may be sufficient for full satisfaction without an Oath; and yet they that dare not be peremptory in every particular (in those Canons determined) may for all that be as far from all disposition to trouble either Church or State with any Innovation, as they who would set the seal of an Oath to every line of them.

Fifthly, though we doubt not, but divers who have taken the Oath be very learned, grave, and godly persons, and have done it (as they conceive) with due consideration, and good conscience; yet it cannot be denied, but many may be too forward to swear, without any care or use of either: either out of hope to be held very heartily affected to those who have means to promote them (the hope whereof, as Aeneas Silvius observed, made more to adhere to the Pope, who gave preferments, then to the Council, who had none to give) or out of fear of their dis-favor, who have power to lay heavy pressures upon them.

And in respect of such the Oath is of no use or force, since the same affections (not regulated by Reason and Religion) will incline (with the alteration of times) to quite contrary effects.

Lastly, so many of all sorts, both of the Clergy and Laity; yea, many of those who hold Episcopal imparity the best government of the Church, and are no way addicted to the Presbyterian Discipline, dislike this Oath so much, that howsoever this Canon may discover some difference betwixt those, whose lot the wise man showeth may be alike ( viz. betwixt him that sweareth, and him that feareth an oath, Eccles. 9.2.) yet not that difference which may be cause either of assurance of them that take it, to the doctrine or government of the Church, or of just jealousy or suspicion of them that refuse it.

2. General Doubt.

Whether this Oath may be taken in faith, without which the taking is sin. Rom. 14.23.

THE REASON.

BEcause it comprehendeth so many things of several kinds (and divers of them unknown unto most of us) that though we be ready to believe, and receive some of them fingle, our faith cannot fathom them altogether; and so we cannot swear without doubting: and if doubtful swearing be as dangerous as doubtful eating (as we conceive it is, and so may fear we may be damned for it by the doom of the Apostle in the fore-cited place) we can neither with confidence nor safety take this Oath, until we be better resolved of the true meaning thereof; and so (as it seemeth to us) a superfluous Oath, it may prove to the takers a perilous Oath.

3. General Doubt.

Whether the sixth Canon, as it is charged with this Oath and penalty, be not like to cross the chief end whereat his Majesty aimed in granting his Commission for a Convocation or Synod.

THE REASON.

BEcause in his Royal Declaration (which he was pleased to prefix before the late Canons) he faith he giveth leave for Ecclesiastics to assemble, and being assembled, to confer, treat, debate, consider, consult, and agree of, and upon Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, as they should think necessary and convenient to this end, viz. for the honor and service of Almighty God, and for the good and quiet of the Church, the end and purpose by his Majesty limited and prescribed to the Convocation or Synod; and how this Oath sorteth to this end, we appeal to the public report of most Counties in the Kingdom, wherein (besides the Ministry) the people neither of the worst sort for condition, nor for conversation; nor the fewest for number, express much discontent and trouble of mind at the proposal of it.

Hereby we impute no disobedience to the reverend Prelates and Clergy assembled; for we conceive they had no thought of opposition therein, to the pious purpose of his sacred Majesty; nor any imprudence, since, as they believed themselves of the Oath, they might probably hope of acceptance with others, and (if generally accepted) that such effects might follow as they projected.

But if they do not, their discretion will direct them to vary their course as times and occasions require. For, if the Church in this world be like unto a ship upon the sea (in which respect it is likened to Noah's Ark ) their Acts, and aims of Government of it, may be sometimes disappointed by the indisposition of the people to comply with them; as the purpose of the Pilot by the distemper of the weather, who, when he reasonably thinks it meet to hoise up sails, may be soon after induced to strike sails, for the avoidance of inconvenience or danger: of this prudent accommodation of the Acts of Authority to the times, and their uncertain inclinations and events, we find manifold examples, both in the Civil and Ecclesiastical estate. Thus much of the Doubts in general.

The Doubts hitherto proposed touch not upon any branch of the Oath in several, or of the appurtenances to it, but reach to the whole, as taken together; those that follow arise out of particular consideration, first, of the parts of the Oath; secondly, of the explication of it; thirdly, of the persons that are to take it; fourthly, of the penalty attending upon it.

THE DOUBT.

What is meant by Discipline or Government, whether the same things, or no; and, if the same, what they be?

THE REASON.

BEcause in divers Authors we find them many times distinguished; but there they seem to be the same. The word Policy is taken with them into society of the same signification by his Majesty, in his late large Declaration.

And all three signify (with reference to the Church) Ecclesiastical callings, ordinances, and the exercise and application of them, to such as are subject to them both: wherefore they that are best acquainted with them all, style their books of them indifferently, of Ecclesiastical Discipline, Church Government, and Ecclesiastical Policy: and in a large sense the term Discipline containeth them all. And so it is taken by Archbishop Whitgift, where he reduceth all that concerneth Religion to Doctrine and Discipline; and so it seemeth they do who composed the Oath, as appeareth by their entrance into it.

And though sometimes that word be strictly taken for the censure of manners, or correction of offenders (as in the Preface of the Communion Book usually read upon Ashwednesdaies) yet in a large sense (and that very familiar) it is put for the whole policy or government of the Church: whether Presbyterial, as in Geneva; or Episcopal, as with us; a principal part whereof is Hierarchical Imparity: in that sense it was said by Master Montague, That the Synod at Dort in some points condemneth the Discipline of the Church of England, meaning especially the Government by Bishops; and so also did the Bishop of Landaffe take it, when in answer to him, and confutation of him, he repeated the defense made by himself, for the Hierarchy of the English Church, in that Synod, noting in few words, concerning the Discipline, That the Church never had a parity of Ministers, no not in Christ's time, wherein there were the twelve Apostles, superiors to the 72. Disciples, which he showeth was not contradicted by that Synod. In the same sense it is used by others, who are not of the same mind in the point of Episcopacy.

The observation of this imparity, in giving precedence to Superiors, is called Discipline, in the thirteenth Canon of the Milevitan Council: the Ceremonies also in rule and practice, are reduced to Discipline in the prefatory Declaration before the Communion Book, under this title [Of Ceremonies, why some abolished, some retained] where it is said, that some of them do serve to decent order, and godly discipline: and again, without some ceremoni • s it is not possible to keep any order, or quiet discipline in the Church; which implieth both the constitution and observation of them: and to this acception of the words Discipline and Government in this Oath we rather incline; but cannot of ourselves so certainly resolve it, as that we dare swear it.

DOUBT 2.

What is meant by the Church of England?

THE REASON.

BEcause of the ambiguity of the term Church, which is variously distinguished; but especially, because the new Canons bring in a new acception of that word (new in respect of the language of Protestant Divines) for in the fourteenth Canon, where caution is given concerning commutation of penance, by the Bishop, or his Chancellor, there is this proviso, That if the crime be publicly complained of, and do appear notorious, that then the office shall signify to the place from whence the complaint came, that the Delinquent hath satisfied the Church for his offense.

The satisfaction is by the payment of a pecuniary mulct, that is made to the Bishop, or his Chancellor; either of them then, or both together seemeth to be called the Church in that Canon: and that contraction of a word of such a large comprehension (as the right acception of it requireth) might breed some suspicion of symbolizing with the Popish Dialect (though the sense be not Popish) wherein by an intensive Synecdoche, that which is most extensive, and diffused all over the world, is shrunk up into the person of one man, the Pope. But because the matter of commutation in that Canon, is of a narrower compass then either Doctrine or Discipline in this, we may take the word Church in a larger acception; and that may be either for the Clergy in general, when it is used by way of distinction from the Laity, or as the 139. Canon decreeth it [The Church representative in a Synod which Papists restrain to Episcopal Prelates] Or as the 19. Article taketh it, A visible congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered: Or as in the 35. Article, it may stand for the place where the people are assembled, and holy offices performed; but which of these, or whether any other sense of the word [Church] be meant in this place, we leave it to those, who have authority to interpret the Oath, to resolve.

DOUBT 3.

Why the Discipline is linked with the Doctrine of the Church of England for necessity of salvation.

THE REASON.

BEcause it seemeth to us, to coast somewhat towards the conceit of Franciscus à Sancta Clara, Provincial of the minorite Friars, who holdeth, That where Bishops do not rule, there are no Presbyters: where no Presbyters, no Sacraments. He excepteth (according to the tenet of his Church) Matrimony and Baptism; the former as a Sacrament, the later as a Sacrament, and (more then that in the Popish opinion) as necessary to salvation; and he so far enforceth this necessity, as to say, That to deny the necessity of Episcopacy, is nothing else, but to bring in the irritation of the passion of our Lord, and to evacuate the virtue of his redemption; which is in effect (as Doctor du Moulin wrote to Bishop Andrew's ) to damn the Reformed Churches of France and other Countries, to the pit of Hell: which being brought in (as a consequence of the Bishops Tenet of the Authority of Bishops) that reverend Prelate very wisely and religiously shunneth, saying, He wants his sight, that seeth not Churches standing without that Discipline: and hath an iron heart, that consenteth not that they may be saved: and therefore our late learned Sovereign King James, (lest he should be mistaken in some of his speeches, of some of those, who had no good conceit of the Discipline of the English Church) when his monitory Preface (wherein he toucheth most upon such matters) was published in Latin, that he might not be thought to condemn the Churches, whose Discipline is different from ours: he expressly professed, That by that he had said, therein he intended neither reproach nor reproof to the Reformed Churches, or to their form of Government—but left them free to their Christian liberty: And when the Bishop of Landaffe asserted the Ecclesiastical Imparity of the Church of England (at the Synod of Dort) he did not seek to obtrude it as necessary to salvation; but used this caution in the conclusion of his speech, This I say (said he) not to give offense to these Churches (scil. those whose Clergy assembled at that Synod ) but for the defense of our Church, the Church of England. And the Church of England surely at that time was far from the conceit of the Franciscan Friar fore-mentioned, when he and other learned Divines were sent to that Synod (the most general Synod of the Reformed side, that hath been held since the reformation of Religion) to assist with their consultations, and to confirm with their suffrages and subscriptions, the Decrees of that Synod, wherein (among many Presbyters) there was but one Bishop, and he not President of that Assembly. And when he who hath pleaded for Episcopacy, not only as a pinnacle of honor, but as a pillar of support to the Church, wrote thus against the Brownists, I reverence from my soul (so doth our Church, their dear Sister) those worthy foreign Churches, which have chosen and followed those forms of outward government, that are every way fittest for their own condition. It is enough for you to censure them, I touch nothing common to them with you; which we allege not against the government of Bishops, In a meet and moderate imparity (as the same Author stateth their preeminence) but only against the necessity of their superiority to salvation, which is the point we have now in hand.

Whereto agreeth that of Epiphanius, who conceived more necessity of a Deacon to a Bishop, then of a Bishop to a Church, saying, That where there was not a man of sufficient worth to be a Bishop, the place might be without one; but it is impossible (said he) that a Bishop should be without a Deacon. And the fifth Canon of the second Council of Carthage decreeth, That those places which never had Bishops, shall have none at all; and those that had them, should have them still: which they would not have done, if they had conceived Episcopacy to be of necessity to salvation, or of necessity to the being of a Church.

Quest. But is there any cause to conceive, that any of the late Synod imagined a necessity of Bishops, either to save a Chrisian, or to constitute a Church?

Answ. We take not upon us, confidently to impute that opinion to any, nor can we acquit the chiefest of them from such a conceit: for the Archbish. in his reply to A.C. having brought in a sentence out of Saint Jerome, which is this [ where there is no Priest, there is no Church ] he taketh the word Sacerdos, for one who hath the power of ordaining: which in Jerome's own judgment, is no mere Priest, but a Bishop only; and thence concludeth so, even with him [no Bishop, no Church] which he so approveth, as if some, who profess more good will to Bishops, then Jerome elsewhere doth, should say somewhat more, or the same that he did with more confidence; which to us seemeth little less, and not much better, then that we have noted of the Minorite Friar. For the saying of Jerome, That it is not a Church that hath not Sacerdotem, we that are Presbyters may as well conceive, that he meaneth a Presbyter, as he (a Bishop) that he meaneth a Bishop; and Jerome a Presbyter, as we are, if he were alive, would (as we verily believe) give sentence on our side: For,

First, it cannot be denied, that though there be more dignity in a Bishop, the is more necessity of a Presbyter; that is, of one to officiate in preaching the Word, and administration of the Sacraments (whereof there is continual use) then of a Bishop to ordain (if none could do it but a Bishop) which is required but sometimes: and though a Bishop perform the same acts, yet he doth them not as a Bishop, but as a Presbyter.

Secondly, if Jerome meant that there is no Church without an ordaining Bishop, and that is his opinion (as his Lordship expounds him) it is his error, an uncharitable error; which casteth not particular Christians only, but many Orthodox Churches out of the communion of Saints, and consequently out of the state of salvation; whereas, if some Bishops had been as remote non -residents from their Bishoprics, as the Pope from Rome, when he resided at Avinion in France: or had meddled no more with the Churches under their charges, then the Italian Priests did when they had Benefices in England, and knew only the names of them, and received tithes from them; but did nothing for them, or in them: yet there might for all that be true Churches, and salvation in them well enough. For, of what use is such a Bishop, or such a Priest either to the being of a Church, or the well being or salvation of a Christian?

Thirdly, if his words were true in that sense (wherein his Lordship taketh them) it would be necessary there should be as many Bishops as Churches; and so, that Bishops should be rather Parochial, then Diocesan.

Fourthly, if the place in Jerome be impartially perused, it will not make much for the necessity of Bishops: for Jerome (in his Dialogue against the Luciferians (whence the quotation is taken) speaketh of one Hilarius (a schismatical Deacon) who died in the schism, and his sect with him: because being but a Deacon, he could not ordain a Clerke to succeed him; upon this, saith Jerome, It is not a Church, which hath not a Priest.

The word is [Sacerdotem] which seemeth to be of the same sense with the word Clericum (a little before) and that is there meant of him who is next above a Deacon; and he is a Presbyter (not a Bishop) whose office in administration of the Sacraments is there particularly noted, which belongeth to a Presbyter, ut sic, as he is a Presbyter, not to a Bishop as he is a Bishop.

Object. But he speaketh of ordaining, and that in Jerome's judgment was proper to a Bishop.

Answ. 1. Jerome knew well enough, that of old (though it were otherwise in his time) Bishops alone did not ordain Church Ministers, but the Presbytery with them, 1 Timoth. 4.14. if not without them; for many hold, that at that time there were no Prelatical Bishops above their brethren; & even to this day there is a shadow of that sociable power (in ordination of Ministers of the Church of England) retained in practice, by the imposition of the hands of Presbyters with the Bishop; and required by constitution in the 35. Canon of the year 1603. And some learned Papists are of opinion (though it come too near the truth, to be common among them) that Bishops may delegate their power, both of Confirmation and of Ordination, to Presbyters or Priests.

Secondly, though (where there were Bishops anciently and usually) ordination was not conferred without them; yet where there were none, without them it might be lawfully and effectually done (as we shall note in another place) and therefore no such necessity either of them, or of ordination by them, as is pretended. And though the over-high exaltation of Prelates hath depressed Presbyters so far below the right and power of their order, that it is made (in some men's conceits) a strange thing, and a kind of presumption in any case to take upon them the ordination of Ministers; yet Jerome surely was not of their mind, when he gave them the honor (which some Episcopal parasites appropriate to Bishops) to be accounted the successors of the holy Apostles; as he doth in the first of all his Epistles, which is written to Heliodorus.

Thirdly, from Jerome's words in this place we may rather collect, that a Presbyter as well as a Bishop may ordain, since he denieth that faculty but to a Deacon; then that by the word Priest, a Bishop must be meant, and ordination peculiarly derived from him.

Fourthly, howsoever where he saith, that it is not a Church that hath not a Priest, he is in reason to be understood not of one that hath power to make a Priest, but of a Priest already made: for, such a one a particular Church cannot want; but of a Bishop unto it there is no such need.

Fifthly, if Jerome in this place, being zealous against schism, spoke somewhat too freely in favor of Bishops, which yet is doubtful (though more probable that he spoke on the Presbyters side, then of the Bishops.) It is certain, that in other places (which we shall observe afterward) he expresseth himself far from such fondness of affection to Bishops, as his Lordship deduceth out of his words. So much for the Testimonies of Jerome, wherein we crave his Lordships patience and pardon for our boldness, since his explication and application thereof for the necessity of Bishops, to the being of a Church; and so (by consequence) to salvation, hath put a necessity upon us, seriously to examine what he said and meant.

Object. There be some who, to assert a necessity of Discipline, say, that Discipline comprehendeth a preaching Ministry, and that's necessary to salvation.

Answ. 1. There is nearer affinity betwixt Preaching and Doctrine, then betwixt Preaching and Discipline, which is exercised more in matter of conversation and practice, then of preaching: and therefore a preaching Ministry is comprehended rather under the head of Doctrine, then of Discipline.

Secondly, the necessity of Discipline here meant, is not in respect of a preaching Ministry, but of a ruling Episcopacy; as is evident by that we now observed of the Speech of the now Archbishop of Canterbury, the most authentic Interpreter, because the most Architechtonicall (if not the only) composer of the late Canons.

But for the Adjuncts and Appendences to the calling of Bishops, which Bishop Hall calleth not necessary, for many particular Canons and Ceremonies, in constitution or practice (which yet come under the name of Discipline or Government, as hath been shown) they stand at a far greater distance from necessity to salvation: and therefore they are denied by the Doctrine and Liturgy of our Church, to be necessary to be in all places, and at all times, one and utterly alike: and if General Councils shall decree things to be necessary to salvation, which cannot be so declared by Scriptures, the same Doctrine teacheth, that they are not to be received: for that would conclude damnation on such Churches as are without them.

There be degrees of necessity we grant, as where it is said in the Catechism of the Communion book, That there be two Sacraments as generally necessary to salvation; Baptism, and the Lord's Supper [only two] Sacraments in a proper sense, though in a large acception there may be (as the Papists say) five more; as one saith, seventeen; as another, twenty seven [generally necessary] that is, necessary for the state of the Church in general; without which it cannot be a true saving Church; not necessary for every member of it in particular, or necessary for particular persons, if God give convenient opportunity for them: not that God cannot, or will not save without them, where his ordinance is by himself denied, not by men despised or slighted. Thus we avoid the acception against our Catechism, made by some mistaken (though wellminded) brethren; and so also shun the Popish necessity of that Sacrament which is injurious to the salvation of little children, departing this life before they have received the Sacrament of Baptism. But thus we cannot salve the necessity of Discipline: for, though Discipline be necessary for the Church, yet the particular Discipline of our Church is not necessary to salvation; so that they cannot be true Churches, and salvation in them, which have it not. For where there is a defect of Bishops, or Bishops make a defection from the faith, there an ordination by Presbyters is confessed to be valid, by those who are no friends unto the Presbytery: an Ordination not only of Presbyters, but of Bishops, as Doctor Field hath determined: For (saith he) in cases of necessity, as in revolt from the faith, or where Bishops will not ordain, but such as consent to their Heresies; when there is no hope of better, Presbyters may choose out one among themselves to be chief, and so add others to their numbers, by the imposition of his and their hands; which giveth us occasion rather to admire, then to believe, That Priests made at Rome or Reims, revolting from their Popish Religion, should be admitted to Benefices in our Church, without a new ordination: and that they who were made Ministers in Transmarine Churches, should not be admitted, unless first they were by Bishops ordained Deacons and Presbyters, as Didoclavius reporteth out of Johnson the Brownist. And some of us remember, that some of those who preferred Episcopacy above the Presbytery, as gold above silver, did yet allow it to be maintained in the Divinity School, That the ordination of Ministers in Outlandish Churches is lawful, though without Bishops. There was then no necessity, that they should be ordained again, to make them capable of Benefices (unless some positive Constitution of our Church required it) much less was it necessary to salvation, either their own or others, that Bishops should confer any new orders upon them. Doctor Willet mentioneth another necessity of the distinction of Bishops and Priests, and so of Episcopal Government, or Ecclesiastical Discipline; and that is for the avoiding of Schisms: for else (as Jerome saith) there would be as many Schisms as Priests; but this necessity will not serve to make the Crosier-staff of Discipline equal to the Marble Pillar of Doctrine, for support of salvation.

There is yet another necessity conceived of a contrary Discipline: For (in Scotland) a parity of Ministers is preferred (as God's ordinance) to Episcopacy, an human consuetude: and this ordinance of Discipline (without Bishops) was conceived by the Divines of Geneva as everlastingly required by the Law of the Lord of lords, against whose Statutes there is no exception to be taken: and of this we may suppose Master Cartwright spoke, when he said, The things that he and his party stood for were such, as that if every hair of their head were a life, they should lay all down for the defense thereof: And there are some so rigid to such Churches as want it, as to hold, they want a principal means of their salvation.

In opposition to these, it may be the meaning of the Oath is, That as for Doctrine, so for Discipline, our Church wanteth nothing that is needful to salvation; but because (by such an expression) the Composers of the Canon may seem to assume that necessity of Episcopal preeminence (such as it is in England and Ireland) which they condemn in the Discipline of Geneva, and other Reformed Churches, we fear a snare in these words of the Oath.

Object. But did not an Apostolical Council decree forbearance of things of different natures; as of meat offered to Idols, of things strangled, of blood, and of fornication, calling the abstinence from them all necessary thing? Act. 15.28, 29. yet was there more necessity of forbearance of the last, then of all the rest: for, to abstain from them, was not necessary, but in respect of the state of that time, that the Gentiles and the Jews might live more peaceably together, with less occasion of quarrel: but to forbear fornication, was and will be always necessary to salvation.

Answ. All this is true, yet many ways different from our case: For,

First, we are bound to embrace the Decrees of an Apostolical Council, without all doubt or suspicion of error; but we are not so to entertain any Constitutions of men, since their time, whether single, or assembled in Synods Diocesan, Provincial, National, or Ecumenical; since, as our Church resolveth in the 21. Article, they may err, and have erred in things pertaining to God: which the Apostles never did, nor could do in anything they taught, or decreed, to be received by the Church.

Secondly, the Apostles leave the word [necessary] at large, to be distributed by distinction and due application (according to the different nature of the things contained in their Apostolical Decree.) Of which, though they say they are necessary, yet do they not say, they are necessary to salvation, as this Oath hath it, both concerning Doctrine and Discipline.

Thirdly, the Apostles by their Decree required no Oath of such as were subject unto them, as the sixth Canon doth.

Fourthly, they laid no new burden on the consciences of Christians, but rather took off a great part of the old, Ver. 28. but this Oath is a new burden, and (if it should be urged) the heaviest (in respect of imposition and penalty to some) that ever was laid on the English Church, since it left off to be Romish: which the Imposers (though prudent) might the less apprehend, and take to heart, then their inferiors (in place and policy) because it was not like to be their own case, to be troubled at the taking, or to be censured, even to undoing, for the refusal of the Oath; since they liked it so well themselves, as to propound it to others.

If to mollify the rigor of this combination of Doctrine and Discipline for necessity to salvation, there be found out other distinctions, then such as have been touched, either concerning Discipline, or salvificall necessity, they may haply serve to salve an objection in Scholastical dispute, rather then to satisfy the conscience against all doubt, so as is necessary to the due and safe taking of an Oath; though Discipline in particular (as hath been shown) be not necessary to salvation: and if it be not, it seemeth to be set in the Oath as an Associat with the Doctrine (as to that effect) like Bibulus with Caesar in the Consulship, when Bibulus, as a single Cypher (standing for nothing) did nothing as a Consul, but Caesar did all; so that the saying was, Julius and Caesar were Consuls, not Caesar and Bibulus. And if so, it is too near a nonens, and so a kind of trifling, unmeet (as we think) for so serious and sacred a matter as an Oath.

DOUBT 4.

What is meant by Popish Doctrine?

THE REASON.

BEcause it is not yet determined in any satisfactory way (at least not so determined, that we may swear to it) what opinions are to be esteemed Popish, either for Doctrine or Discipline. Luther (as some report of him) was wont to say, That himself, and almost every man else, had a Pope in his belly, yet few have it in their heads, to tell what Popery is.

Many hold, that divers of the Arminians Tenets are nothing else but Popery, blanched over with a specious subtlety; and for holding them, have some been publicly censured as Popish: & there are, that make the Arminians brothers to the Socinians, in divers dangerous and damnable positions. On the contrary, it is affirmed by far higher Authority, That their Tenets could not be accounted Popish, concerning which (or the chief of which) as learned Papists as any in the world (viz. The Dominicans and Jesuits) did as much differ, as the Protestants did; and that those, who adhere to the Augustan confession, did hold that side of these Tenets, which the Arminians do hold: and therefore far from being Papists, being the first Protestants: and therefore it was against all sense, to condemn that for Popery, which was held by many Protestant Churches, and rejected by many learned Papists. And whereas the Socinians are severely, and that deservedly condemned by a particular Canon, there is nothing at all decreed against the Arminians, either in that or any other Canon of that late Synod: whereof they that make conjecture of the causes, bring in such as these:

It may be the Synod thought that it was a better way, for preservation of the Churches peace, to make no Decree concerning Arminian opinions; or that they were slandered, and made worse then they are, though the Socinian be not: or that enough was done against the Arminians at the Synod at Dort; and (if anything at all) a great deal too little against the Socinians: or that it was not for the honor of a Synod of Bishops, &c. to come after a Synod of mere Presbyters (one Bishop only excepted) and by their own Canons, as it were, to subscribe to Presbyterial determinations.

And this last Reason haply prevaileth most with some Episcopal Divines, who (conceiving the summoning, presiding, and voting in Synods by Presbyters, to be a presumptuous usurpation of the peculiar privileges) have in deep indignation and disdain called that Synod not the Synod of Dort, but the Synod of Dirt, as some of us have heard: which in part may give answer to the doubt, how it cometh to pass that, King James having been so zealous in the procuring and promoting the happy proceeding of that Synod, for the suppression of Arminianism, it hath for all that prevailed and advanced higher in England, then it did before that Synod had condemned it: which may be, because dis-affection disposeth many to contradictory Tenets, as we see in Maldonado the Jesuit, who taketh up a new Interpretation of his own (against another, which he confesseth to consist with most probability, and Saint Augustine's Authority) because it is more contrary to the sense of the Calvinists. But this by the way.

Proceeding directly forwards, we may further observe, that the Compilers of the pious Homilies (prescribed to be read to the people in the room of Sermons, when they are wanting) condemn pictures in Churches, as Popish and perilous: And in our days there be many of another mind, who profess the contrary, and would take it very ill to be taken for Papists. Our chief Protestants (with our English Solomon, King James ) have held the Pope to be Antichrist; and the principal Papists endeavor to defend the contrary; and their Apology is esteemed, by most, a main point of Popery.

But of late there have been some, who make themselves the Popes Compurgators against that criminal charge, and yet with many go for very good Protestants; and in divers other particulars (reputed Popish) Papists glory in our approaches towards them, and stick not to say of our Church, That Protestantism waxeth weary of it self, and that Calvinisme is accounted Heresy, and little less (and if we believe a late Author of some note, nothing less) then treason. In sum, these points of Images, and Antichrist, with others, as the lawfulness of some kind of prayers for the dead, the estate of the Fathers soul before Christ's ascension, free-will, predestination, universal grace, the possibility of keeping God's Commanments, which (for the most part of them) have been held as a partition wall betwixt Protestants and Papists, are taken by some (who show themselves in print as opposite to Popery) but for adiaphorall Problemes, disputed without breach of charity among Protestants themselves. And, as some of our learned Divines have shown, that divers of our Protestant Doctrines have been taught by some writers of the Romish Church: So on the contrary, have some Papists endeavored to retaliate, and to quit the objection, by bringing in a list of Doctrines accounted Popish; yet held by such as are reputed and acknowledged (by some Antipapists) for Protestants; and as of Doctrine, so concerning Discipline, there is doubt, what opinion may be reputed Popish: For Archbish. Whitgift, Bishop and Bishop Downham conclude Popery upon the Presbytery; and the Presbyterian Disciplinarians on the contrary condemn all Episcopal Jurisdiction as Papistical.

Here, though we conceive, that that should be held a Protestant or Popish Doctrine, which is carried by the common consent of allowed Divines of each Church, rather then the particular opinions of private men (which are to the other but as whisperings in the care, to a loud cry in the air) we cannot resolve of ourselves what they, who composed the Oath, did intend to discard as Papistical Doctrine.

Object. But the abjuration of Popery in the Oath is general, and so the fitter for such as are zealous Protestants to take it.

Answ. It is true, if zeal without knowledge were sufficient; but it is necessary, they should first know what Popery is, and what is not, before they renounce it by swearing: and the forswearing it, without knowing it, hath made some to abjure all Episcopacy, as taking (and therein mistaking) it, (as we conceive) to be no other then the Government of Popery.

Object. But do not the next words clearly discover what Doctrine is meant, viz. [contrary to that which is so established?]

Answ. We make no question but by these words, the mind of them who made the Canon, was to bring our Protestant Doctrine within the verge of the Sanctuary, and the circle of subscription; so that nothing should be received as Protestant, or not as ours, or not as necessary to salvation, which is not either expressly, or by consequence contained in that compass: And also to leave a latitude sufficient for particular opinions, wherein men might use freedom of judgment, without infringing of charity; and we think it a meet means to preserve the Churches peace, that the Doctrines be not too many, which are to be received and believed of all: and that these Doctrines are established in the Church; but what Tenets are rejected as properly Popish, doth not as yet appear unto us, and withal, we doubt.

DOUBT 5.

What establishment of Doctrine is here meant, and how far it may be said to be established.

THE REASON.

BEcause we conceive that the 35. Article, at least virtually, establisheth the Doctrine of the two Books of Homilies (the one set forth in King Edwards the sixth, the other in Queen Elizabeth's reign) as godly, wholesome, and necessary Doctrine; and as fit to be preached to the people in a Sermon, as read to them in an Homily.

But on the contrary, he that hath taken upon him to analyze the Articles into several propositions, and to confirm them by Scripture, and otherwise ( and this by allowance of public Authority, as the title page of his book doth testify) setteth this Note upon that Article, Touching this Article, the greatest matter (saith he) is not, Whether these Homilies meant and mentioned, do contain Doctrine, both godly, wholesome, and necessary: but whether Homilies, or any Apocrypha writings at all, may be read in the open Church, and before the Congregation: Whereof (in reason) there needs no more refutation then the reading of the Article, and the several Titles and Contents of the Homilies annexed to it.

And though we like it well enough, that his Testimony is sometimes excepted against, as proceeding from a private man; yet since his gloss upon that authentic Text, hath commonly passed in the name, and without the note of dislike of Authority, it induceth us to doubt, what Doctrine in those Books may be said to be established in our Church; and we are the more unsettled in our conceit thereof, because we see the Homily of the peril of Idolatry so little heeded, and so much liberty of late taken to control it, with new Pictures in Churches, that if the Homily were read in some of them, it might be doubted (by such as consider no more then what is presented to their senses) whether there were not one Religion for the ears, another for the eyes: or whether the Laymens books, or the Clergy men's were published with greater privilege: which hath been an occasion of Papists bragging, That our Churches begin to look with a new face, and their walls to speak a new language; the face out-facing, and the language contradicting the Doctrine of the Homilies.

We do not mean hereby to charge those with Idolatry, who have made it their care, and have been at great cost, to add the beauty of henour in the walls and windows of God's house, to the beauty of holiness in the Communion of Saints (who resort unto it, and perform their solemn devotions in it) we doubt not but they are too wise to worship the work of the pensill, or any work of man's hand: yet we beseech their wisdom to consider, that the world groweth old, and with age (according to the Proverb) becomes childish; and children delight more to look upon Babies, then on the letters of their books, or to learn their lessons: and so that which by them was meant but for adorning, the illiterate (with the mutilation of a letter) may turn to adoring; and what was intended but to be a memorandum of History, may be turned by some, and taken by others, as a memorial of the mystery of Iniquity: whereby the subtle may draw the simple from spiritual piety, to sensual superstition; which was the evil effect feared by those grave and godly Divines, who composed the Homily: and for which cause they so zealously contested against all Images in Churches: They had read, no doubt (with due regard) the saying of St. Hilary against Auxentius, Your love is fondly set upon fair walls; you do ill to make your respect of the Church, by the outward splendor or stateliness of structure: know you not that Antichrist will set his Throne in such as these? But this is his Quaere, none of ours; we go on.

We had thought, it had been the established Doctrine of the Church of England (in the Homily of the time and place of prayer) that it is a necessary and perpetual duty (by the fourth Commandment) to celebrate one day in seven with religious observances; but we find that Doctrine publicly gain-said by divers, and the Doctrine of the Popish Schoolmen as publicly maintained against it, in divers Treatises in print. And for the Articles of Religion themselves (wherein chiefly we conceive the Doctrine of our Church to be contained, and by Authority, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, to be established) they are much impeached in the power and vigor of their stability, by leaving such liberty for the points of free will, predestination, and possibility of keeping God's Commandments (as before hath been noted) which by the 10.15. and 17. Articles are resolved, against the opinions of the Papists: and much more are they wronged by him, who hath written a Book, and therein hath labored with much subtlety and diligence, so to mince them by manifold distinctions; and to wrench them from their proper, to a Popish construction; as if the Convocation that concluded them, had had no mind or meaning to contradict the Council of Trent: and that now our 39. Articles were patient, yea ambitious of some sense, wherein they may seem Catholic (i. in their sense, Popish ) as a late Papist with great boasting hath upbraided unto us: So in the book called Charity maintained.

By expounding and applying of these Articles in a new way, hath Franc. à Sanct. Clara trodden out a new track (though with many intricate turnings and windings) in which men of equivocal consciences may send their faith to Rome, while their affections keep close to their Interests in England; and hath taught them to play fast and loose (as to their Orthodox and Protestant sense) so that as Aristotle said to Alexander concerning his Physicks, they were published, and not published; their words being read, and their meanings not rought; the Articles might be said to be established, and not established: established as a sacred Text, but not established by means of an ambiguous Comment, turning the Interpretation (like a nose of wax) as easily to the left hand, as to the right: And how far this cunning stratagem hath prevailed with some, we cannot tell; but, as in charity we hope well of those of whom we know no ill; so in godly discretion, we dare not be so confident in our good opinion, as to swear what we but think, and wish to be true.

But, though we cannot make faith upon Oath, how far our Doctrine is established, as in opposition to Popery, we do not deny but that our reverend Fathers and Brethren of the Synod might intend hereby, more firmly to establish that Doctrine, which is most repugnant to such opinions as they believed to be properly Popish: and the rather, because we have been credibly informed, that the Oath was first proposed, and so passed in the house of Convocation, as an abjuration of Popery only.

But a second time tendered (as in a second edition) it was augmented, but (as we conceive) not amended, when the Discipline or Government was intwisted in it, as it followeth in the next words.

DOUBT 6.

Whether the degrees here specified be propounded to be allowed in the same, or in a different degree of assent and approbation.

THE REASON.

BEcause there is no distinction of them in the Oath, but in title and order; and yet there is so much difference betwixt them (in respect of approbation) that Deans and Archdeacons (before now) were never by attestation, or subscription so far approved, as Archbishops (but especially as Bishops) have been: how then can we be so certain of them, as now to give them (as it were per saltum ) the highest degree of ratification at once, viz. a solemn Oath, when hitherto we were never required to give our hands, or pass our words on their behalf: and if the assent be intended in a different degree, how can we compose our consciences in one and the same act of swearing, to approve further of the one, then of the other, the words of the Oath sounding the same degree of assurance to them both? If then we take them together, we cannot find how we should avow their approbation, in one joint and indistinct asseveration; especially upon Oath. But for Deans and Archdeacons we have particular Doubts.

First, of Deans The DOUBT is,

What Deans are here meant.

THE REASON.

BEcause in the whole Canon law there is no title of the degree of a Dean (saith Azorius ) and in divers Authors we find the name Dean of a different acception; for (besides the Military sense, wherein it signifieth a Captain of ten men, as Lindwood hath it: the Monastical sense, as it is taken and explained by Saint Augustine for him, who hath the Government of ten Monks: the Academical sense, whereby it signifieth the same, in some Colleges, which the word Censor doth in some others) there is an Ecclesiastical Dean, and ambiguity also in the word, with that restriction: for (as Duarenus, and others from him do distinguish) there is one sort which are called urban, another Vican: to speak in the phrase of the present age, the Urban we may call Cathedral Deans; the Vican, Deans Rurall: the more ancient name of such was Archipresbyter, that is, as the word importeth (and Onuphrius expounds it) the chief or principal Presbyter: and such a one is the Cathedral Dean, among the City Presbyters; and a Rurall Dean, among the Presbyters of the Country.

Whether Cathedral, or Rurall Deans, or both be intended in this Oath, is somewhat doubtful: That Cathedral Deans are meant, it is probable; because they are placed next after Bishops, and before Archdeacons: and though the Archdeacon be said to be next after the Bishop, and his Vicar (i. General, ) it is with reservation of the right of the Dean, in respect of the Cathedral Church: And that Rurall Deans should not be excluded, is probable also; because Bishop Downham brings them in as Church Governors, with those that are named in this Oath: and for that they are called Archipresbyters (which is a title above Archdeacons) and in some places have had more jurisdiction (as in this Diocese) until a very few years last past, then the Archdeacons have had. And if both be here meant, then first concerning the former sort.

DOUBT 8.

What is the Authority and Government of Cathedral Deans.

THE REASON.

1. BEcause Deans Cathedral and Rurall (being both comprehended under the title of Archipresbyters ) their office is so described by Lindwood and others, that it is difficult to discern what is proper or peculiar to them in several.

Secondly, where they are more distinctly set down, the Cathedral Dean is brought in as President of the Canonical College, for the government of the Cathedral Church, according to the Constitutions of their foundation; and so is said to be an assistant to the Bishop at home (that is, in the Cathedral City, as the Archdeacon is abroad in the Country;) but there cometh in much doubt and ambiguity, what Government is meant: for the Bishops and Deans are often at difference about their Authority; which is more or less, according as the Charters of their foundation do vary: which to some give a larger, some a lesser power and preeminence. For the Deans of Westminster and Windsor (as we have heard) have Episcopal Jurisdiction, which other Cathedrals (for the most part) have not. Some have Statutes, by which they govern; and some (as the Dean and Canons of Christ Church in Oxford) are leges loquentes, speaking laws; and therefore are very fitly called Canons, or Rules, governing according to the dictate of their own discretion and conscience; and so we cannot (in respect of such) apply Bishop Halls distinction betwixt Rules of government, and Errors of execution, to accept the one, and reject the other; nor can we swear to their Government, though with distinction (for that is uncertain to us both for rule and practice) much less with confusion, as in the Canon it is contained.

Thirdly, the Jurisdiction of Deans and Chapters may be much augmented by Synodical Constitutions: for in the late Grant of the Benevolence to his Majesty by the Provincial Synod at York (and we doubt not, but it is so also in that of the Province of Canterbury, though yet we have not seen it) during the vacancy of any Bishopric, they have granted unto them Authority to exercise the Ecclesiastical censures of suspension, excommunication, interdicts, and sequestration against such as deny, or delay to make payment of the Benevolence there concluded.

Fourthly, some Deans and Chapters have had so much Authority within themselves, as to be out of the reach of Archiepiscopall power; and therefore have refused to be visited by the Archbishop.

It was so betwixt the Dean and Chapter of Durham, and the Archbishop of York many years ago, which exemption (by some reluctant contestation of the Clerke sent from them to the last Convocation) seemed neither forgotten, nor forsaken by that Dean and Chapter.

Fifthly, in the Book of Reformation of Ecclesiastical Laws, made by King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth (which appeareth to be yet in force, and was very lately reprinted for better Information touching the Government of the Church) there is this rule set down for Cathedral Churches, They shall keep their Statutes of their foundation pure and entire, so far as they shall not be found adverse to the Word of God, nor to our Constitutions of Religion, either already published, or hereafter to be published.

Where (to conclude this Doubt) we see so much diversity, and in some respects contradiction, touching the Government of Cathedral Deans and Churches (for some have Episcopal Jurisdiction, some have not, some have Statutes, some have none;) and besides all, the doubt of that which already is in use, so much uncertainty of what may be hereafter (according to this Constitution) that we can find here no solid ground for a sacred Oath.

Of Deans Rurall. The 9. DOUBT is

What is the Authority or Government of a Dean Rurall.

THE REASON.

BEcause (under the name and title of Archpresbyters ) they have had much Authority in Government of the Church in former times; whereof the most observable particulars are collected by a very learned Doctor of our Church, and they are chiefly these:

These Archpresbyters, or Deans Rurall, were to be chosen by the Clergy, and not to be deposed by the Bishop; without the consent of those that chose them; they were to assist the Bishop in Government, and that of such necessity, that he must not be without them: Their office was to admonish both Laity and Clergy of their duty; and to see that they did it: They were to visit the Churches of their Precincts twice a year; and if any of the Laity were willfully minded against their admonitions, they were so long to be excommunicated out of the Church, until they were reformed. They were to have a Chapter of Parish Ministers, who (within a year after they were possessed of their Livings) were to swear to the Dean, and so to be admitted as brethren, to sit in the Chapiter with him and to be bound to come to the yearly Chapiter, and otherwise also, when upon urgent cause the Dean should call a Chapiter (which was ordinarily four times in the year) and to bear part of the charge. In these Chapiters, the Archipresbyters were to publish the Decrees of Provincial and Episcopal Synods; and to urge the execution of the same. The limits of their power in Government were, to suspend Laymen from the Sacrament, and Clergy men from execution of their office: hitherto they might proceed, but no further.

But in practice, partly by the connivence, partly by the corruption of the Bishop, they lashed out beyond their line: for, as a zealous Preacher complained in the Council of Reims, The Archipresbyter went about in visiting of his circuit, selling all sorts of sins, Murder, Adultery, Incest, Sacrilege, Perjury, and thereby filling his purse, the fame whereof coming to the ear of the Bishop, he sends for him, that he may have a share with him; upon demand he denieth, upon denial they wrangle: but at the last, he knowing that if the Bishop be against him, he must forgo his gain; he yieldeth him a part: and so, saith that Preacher, are Herod and Pilate reconciled against Christ.

In later times, especially in most Dioceses of England they have had less to do, and done less evil; Doctor Cousins the Civilian, setting down the Dean Ruralls office, maketh it to consist in little else, then in calling Classical Assemblies (that is, those who are to assemble within his Deanry) to signify the mind of the Ordinary, according to the tenor of letters received from him; and in absence of the Archdeacon, to induct into Benefices.

But in this Diocese, the Deans for many years past have had a great part of Episcopal Jurisdiction shared among them; and this by Patent for lives or years from the Bishops, allowing sometimes larger, sometimes less Authority unto them: Some have had power to censure all offenders, and offenses of the Laity; the crimes of Incest and Adultery alone excepted. And some have been limited to the correction of some few faults specified in their Patents; and of late, about (or not much above) three years since, have most of the Deanries been compounded together into one Patent, or two at the most: and assigned to the Archdeacons by your Lordship, and by them resigned for execution to the Chancellor (as their Officiall) for that Jurisdiction.

Now, if Deans Rurall be meant in the Oath (and considering what authority and power, both in former times, and of late they have had in this Diocese, and it may be, by the Constitutions of the Church yet in force ought to have, we know not why they should be left out of the Government of the Church; nor why they should not be contained under the title of Deans ) how can we, without being over-bold with our consciences, take them into such an Oath, there being so much diversity and uncertainty of their Authority?

Of Archdeacons The 10. DOUBT is,

What is the Authority and Government of Archdeacons.

THE REASON.

BEcause Deacons are inferior to Presbyters (so far inferior) that a Deacon, though dignified, should not presume to sit before a Presbyter, by the sixth Council of Constantinople; and so an Archpresbyter (as a Dean Rurall is usually styled) should be superior to an Archdeacon: but as Doctor Field observeth, notwithstanding all the Canons to the contrary (& they were many, as we may have occasion to note elsewhere) and the violent opposition of Jerome, and other Worthies of those times: they were lifted up, not only above Presbyters, but above Archpresbyters also, and that came to pass (as he observeth) for divers causes.

First, because there were fewer Deacons then Presbyters; and so paucity made the one sort to be honorable, and multitude the other rather contemptible.

Secondly, because Deacons had the charge of the treasure of the Church, which kind of employment is usually much set by.

Thirdly, because they were often used by the Bishop for viewing of such parts of his Diocese, as he could not conveniently visit himself; and we may conceive the reason of that to be, because the Deacon was a close adherent to the side of the Bishop, and that so necessarily, as Epiphanius conceived, that (as before we have noted under another title) he said, It was impossible for a Bishop to be without a Deacon; whereupon in tract of time, as the Cardinals by their propinquity to the Pope, overtopped the Bishops (who at first were so far inferior to them, That a Bishop would not be a Cardinal, because he would not submit to a diminution of dignity ) so the Archdeacons, by their nearness to the Bishops, came to be exalted above the Presbyters; which (as Doctor Field conceiveth) was in Saint Jerome's time.

But, though there were then an Archdeacon above the Deacons (who did not only officiate himself, but prescribed unto others what they should do) yet an Archdeacon, with allowed Jurisdiction over Presbyters, was of a later Institution. Bishop Andrew's saith, an Archdeaconship is a new degree, which (I suppose he would not have said if it had been authorized in Saint Jerome's time; when, if it were in use, it was without the approbation of the best, as hath been noted: we may well conceive then, that Saint Stephen the Protomartyr was not an Archdeacon, as he is called in the Decree of Pope Lucius.

For the Archdeacons Jurisdiction, it is so diversely set down in Ecclesiastical Constitutions, that it is very hard to tell, what by rule their Office or Government is, as will appear to him, who will take pains to peruse the quotations in the Margin; so that from Constitution their Authority flieth for refuge to Prescription: of which Doctor Field saith thus, The Archdeacons (which at first might not sit in the presence of a Presbyter, but being willed by him so to do) in the end became (by reason of their employment by the Bishop) to be greater, not only then the ordinary Presbyters, but then the Archpresbyters themselves; and therefore it is confessed by all, that the Archdeacon hath none Authority, or power of Jurisdiction, by virtue of his degree and order, but by prescription only: nor can he claim more then he can prescribe for; and it may be, he may prescribe for that which is not commendable haply, not lawful: as for that which the Council of Challons severely condemneth, It is reported by some (saith the Council) that Archdeacons use domination over the Presbyters and take tribute from them; which smelleth rather of tyranny, then of order.

Prescription and Custom may prevail against Right and Truth, as many times they do, as Tertullian saith, Whatsoever is set up against that, is Heresy, though it be an old custom. In this Diocese the Archdeacons have for the most part been but titular, since the foundation of the Bishopric, into which were incorporated two Archdeaconries; the one of Chester, the other of Richmond: and of late some Rurall Deanries (as before we have observed) were assigned unto them; and some of us have heard your Lordship say, That their Jurisdiction is such, and so much, as you are pleased to permit unto them: and what that is, who can tell but yourself? how then may it be safe to swear to the Government of the Church by Archdeacons, when we cannot know what their Government is; since the rules of that Office are very uncertain, and the prescription by practice more uncertain to us (especially) who have had no such Jurisdiction in use among us: and it may be, if we had, we should find more cause to except against it, then to swear for it; which we desire may not be interpreted to the prejudice of any worthy person of that denomination: and we doubt not, but there are many such, and some well known to many of us, for men of very eminent endowments, both intellectual and moral; whom we acknowledge for such, and so desire to enjoy them, as our dear brethren and friends.

Of the &c.

Our Doubts hitherto have been of the Governors expressed; our next Inquiries are to be made of the &c. and of such Governors as are concealed under it: and thereof our Doubts are divers, and so counting on, our

11. Particular DOUBT is,

Whether we may safely take a new Oath with an &c.

THE REASON.

BEcause in a new Oath we cannot be certain, without some express direction (which in this case we find not) how far the sense of the &c. reacheth: and so we cannot swear unto it in judgment (as the Prophet Jeremy directeth, Jerem. 4.2.) but at the most in opinion: There is no man would willingly seal a Bond with a blank for the sum, so that the Obligee might make the debt as large as he listed; and we conceive we should be more cautelous in engaging our souls by an Oath, then our estates by a Bond: since in this the tie is more vigorous, the breach more dangerous, then it is in that; and we verily think, that if we should return our deposition with some terms of the Oath, as I A. B. do swear, that I do approve the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, and presently break off with an &c. (though what followeth be well enough known) it would not be allowed for a lawful Oath, which yet seemeth to us more warrantable, then that which by this Canon is tendered unto us.

DOUBT 12.

How far the &c. is to be extended, when it is expressly declared.

THE REASON.

BEcause of the variety of opinions, which have been conceived of the Contents of it; some (who suppose they understand the Oath so well, as to be able to expound it to others) have said, that the Governors of the Church are expressed before the &c. and that under the &c. are implicitly comprised the Rules or Constitutions of Government, especially the Book of Canons of the year 1603. but most conceive this to be an impertinent interpretation; because the &c. importeth somewhat of the same sort that went before; and thus to expound it, is to make a groundless transition à personis ad res; but if we agree (as most do) that persons are meant under the &c. and those persons Governors (which is most probable) our Doubt is, what Governors they be.

DOUBT 13.

What Governors are included in the &c. whether the King, as Supreme, be altogether omitted, or implicitly contained in it.

THE REASON.

BEcause we do not know, why he should be wholly omitted; since he is supreme Governor over all persons, or causes, both Ecclesiastical and Temporal, and so to be acknowledged by all Preachers in their prayers before their Sermons, by the 55. Canon: nor can we conceive any just cause, why he should be but covertly implied in an &c. when inferior degrees are formally expressed.

Object. If it be said, that there is a peculiar Oath for his Supremacy to be taken at the Ordination of Ministers, and at other times by other persons, upon several occasions,

Answ. We conceive that should be no let to the asserting of his Sovereign Right in this Oath; because that Oath of Supremacy is expressly made (as the title of it showeth) to shut out the usurpation of foreign powers and Potentates; and so giveth no such security against those popular diminutions of his Ecclesiastical Authority: the jealousy whereof occasioned the reverend Prelates of the Church in the late Synod, to propose this Oath, as a Bond of assurance of their Episcopal preeminence.

They have shown themselves zealous (we confess) in pressing his Royal Right, both ecclesiastical and civil, against all popular, as well as Papal impeachments: and have annexed a penalty against such, as shall by word, or writing publicly maintain, or abett any position or conclusion, in opposition to their explication of the Kings Authority.

But yet there is no Oath required, to oblige any subject to a perpetual approbation of his Regal power, as supreme Governor of the Church, as there is for Archbishops and Bishops: nor is the penalty for public opposition thereof so dangerous, as for a private forbearance of the Oath (though with a timorous and tender conscience.) For, for not taking of the Oath, a Minister may forever be deprived of all he hath within three months; but for public opposition against the Kings power, he shall not suffer so much, unless he continue contumacious two years together, as they that read and mark the Canon shall observe.

It may be his Majesty's Supremacy was left out by accidental oblivion; or if by resolved intention, it was perhaps upon supposal, that the caution of the first Canon made it superfluous: and it may be, there may be some secret mystery in this omission, which (if we may not presume to know) some haply will imagine, it is to give some better color to the Bishops proceedings, in sending out the Processes of their Ecclesiastical Courts in their own names, which hath been often reproved by their opposites (as very prejudicial to the Royal Prerogative) though (of late years) for that particular there hath been an award procured and published on the Bishops behalf, according to the request of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury that now is.

Object. But howsoever if the mention of his Sovereign Authority be omitted, there is the less to swear to; and so the charge of the Oath is more light, and may for that the more heartily be taken.

Answ. It is true, if the omission give no occasion of timorous surmise; but to some it doth, and if in charity we hope the best of it in this case, there is cause yet to doubt of the &c. and therefore we further demand of the subordinate Governors implied in it.

The 14. DOUBT.

Who, and what Governors they be.

THE REASON.

BEcause (in the title of the seventh Canon) there is mention of Archbishops, and Bishops, with an &c. and in the body of the Canon, Deans and Archdeacons are added to them, and the next words are [and the rest that bear office in the same] that is, in the Government of the Church of England. And those that bear office, besides these that are named, are Guardians of Spiritualties, Suffragans, Chancellors, Vicars general, Commissaries, Officials, Surrogates. For the first:

Guardians of Spiritualties are those, to whom the spiritual Jurisdiction of any Bishopric, or Archbishopric is committed, during the vacancy of the See.

Suffragans are titular Bishops, ordained to assist the Bishop in his function, whose turn they supply now and then in Ordination of Ministers and Deacons, dedication of Churches, confirmation of children, that have been instructed in their Catechism.

Chancellors, who exercise ordinary Jurisdiction in the City of the Episcopal See, next to the Bishop, and by Authority derived from him.

Vicars general in some Dioceses are the same with the Chancellors, as we may see by the style of their Processes; but if the office be considered of it self (as some describe it) it is very large: for thus we find it in Azorius.

A Vicar general may excommunicate, suspend, interdict, confer Sacraments, or give faculty to others for that purpose, he may collate Benefices, visit, inquire, institute, elect, confirm, present, correct, punish, change vows, and dispense with Oaths.

Commissaries are such as exercise Jurisdiction afar off, over those who cannot well come to the Bishops Consistory in the City.

Officials are properly such as exercise Jurisdiction under Archdeacons, and are simply called Officials, without addition: and if the Commissary be called by that name (as many times he is) it should not be simply, but (as in Lindwood) with the addition of Foraneus.

Surrogates are such as are substituted by Chancellors, Commissaries, and Officials.

To which we may add Canons, or Prebendaries of Cathedral Churches, who are joined in Government with their Deans; and are with them to be à consiliis to the Bishop, Clerks of the Convocation: and, it may be, Parsons also may be reckoned among Ecclesiastical Governors: for they are called Rectors of their Churches, and Vicars; and other preaching Pastors may be so called, governing their Flocks as they do. And it may be, Registers, Proctors, and Apparitours of the Consistory Courts, and Church-wardens, and Sworn-men in particular Parishes may be brought into the Oath, by the Explication of the seventh Canon. And if no Officers be comprehended in it, but Governors; no Governors, but such as have a coercive or compulsive power, there are yet so many several sorts of them, so much diversity among them, and so great difficulty to know their Government what it is, and how far it reacheth, that very few, not only of the Laity, but of the Clergy also (who are not professed Civilians with all) can tell what he sweareth to, when he sweareth to them under their express titles, much less when under the ambiguous Intimation of &c. These are our Doubts of the degrees of Government; the next particular is their present state.

The 15. DOUBT.

Whether the establishment of the Adjuncts, or the not necessary Appendences of Bishops be to be sworn unto in this Oath.

THE REASON.

BEcause with them they now stand: Episcopacy is now honored and assisted by Baronries, and the Ecclesiastical Government by the high Commission; now there are but two Archbishoprickes: above the Archbishops no Patriarchs, and the Archbishops (of Canterbury especially) have many privileges and prerogatives; all which stand by the support, or fall by the weight of Royal Authority, from which their Jurisdiction is derived.

For first, as Bishop Godwin observeth, when Rich. Clifford was made Bishop of London by the Popes provision, against the Kings mind (it was King Edward the fourth) he denied to give him his Temporalties, and so made him desist from pursuit of that spiritual promotion; and the same power will be (we doubt not) confessed by all our Bishops, to be in all our Kings successively.

Secondly, for the high Commission, it was first set up (as some Lawyers have told us) but in the beginning of Queen Elisabeths reign; and is not so established, but that by Regal power it may be demolished.

Thirdly, there may be more Archbishops then two, if it please the King: for, by the same right, or better, that Offa King of Mercia erected a new Archbishopric in Lichfield (leaving to the Archbishop of Canterbury for his Province only London, Winchester, Rochester, and Sherbourne ) may his Majesty that now is erect new Archbishops in what Diocese he pleaseth, and may restore the old; and so not only Lincoln shall be an Archbishopric, but London and Glamorgan, or Saint David's: and for London, it continued so from the year 300. or thereabout (though Stowe say it was the same Archbishopric with Canterbury, only locally changed) until Gregory his time, who was Pope about the year 600. and the King may limit their Jurisdiction, as he shall conceive to be most convenient.

Fourthly, over the Archbishops of his dominions (for the calling and governing of a National Council) he may place a Patriarch; and King James shown himself well enough inclined to such a superiority, when he said, Patriarchs, I know, were in the time of the Primitive Church, and among them there was a contention for the first place: and for my self if that were yet the Question (and Papal Innovation in Religion put down; for that is his meaning, though he do not plainly express it) I would with all mine heart give my consent, that the Bishop of Rome should have the first seat: I being a Western King, would go with the Patriarch of the West, as the Churches of great Britain of courtesy, not of duty, in former times were wont to do.

And for each particular Prelate, whether Archbishop, or Bishop, he is to be regulated for his Courts, and other Jurisdiction, by Royal Authority: and how far they stand established in the Kings favor, purpose, or promise, we cannot tell, nor dare we swear; much less dare we be so peremptory concerning the power of Deans, or Archdeacons: for to Deans, which have not Episcopal Jurisdiction, he may grant as much privilege as the Deans of Westminster, or Windsor do enjoy; and by the same Authority that some may have more, may others have less.

And for Archdeacons, the doubt is more, since their establishment consists in prescription, as before hath been observed; and that prescription in some respects may be a prevarication, fitter to be abolished, then established: as appeareth by that of Spalatensis, saying, That the Archdeacons placing above the Archpresbyters is to be imputed to their pertinency, and to the Bishops connivence.

But in this Diocese (for many years past) Jurisdiction hath not been so much, as an unnecessary appendance to Archdeacons; (since all that while) it hath been no appendance at all: for until very lately they had no Jurisdiction at all; we cannot then say, much less swear, their Government is established, since it was but newly erected, and made up out of Rurall Deanries, which is a fabric, like a Tent or Tabernacle newly set up, and may be quickly taken down again.

The 16. DOUBT. What this Right is,

by which the Government is meant to stand.

THE REASON.

BEcause there be some, that think these words a limitation or restriction of the former: as if the meaning were, that we ought to approve of the establishment of this Government, so far as of right it ought to stand, and no further: but concerning that, they that framed the Oath, could make no doubt of any ones dissent, and therefore in that sense would call for none assurance upon Oath.

It is more consonant to reason to conceive, that they meant to have an acknowledgement, not only that the Government de facto is indeed established, but that de jure also, of right it ought to be so; but then, Quo jure will be the Question, whether the same, or a diverse right? If the same, whether shall Bishops come down to Deans and Archdeacons, and claim no better warrant for their dignity then they? or shall Deans and Archdeacons advance the Tenure of their Authority as high as Bishops do, to claim their preeminence and power by divine right? that as in the case of the Boemians (concerning the use of the Communion cup, at the Council of Basil, but more justly then so) may be denied to them all, when under some other title, preeminence may be allowed unto them.

Some conceive the word Right was left at large in favor to Deponents, that there might be a latitude for such as are of a scrupulous conscience, to conceive such right as they could best approve of: and especially that right which agreeth to them all, to wit, a Positive and Ecclesiastical right by human constitution or prescription. But those that have better means to know the minds of the Composers of the Canons, will have the Right diversified, according to that to which it is applied; as, that Bishops stand by divine Right, the rest by Right Ecclesiastical.

To this purpose we may bring in the saying of our Savior, Lo, Lam with you to the end of the world, Mat. 28.20. which is not to be understood in person, but by assistance (for neither he, nor they his Apostles, to whom he spake, were to be in the world, until the worlds end) and this assistance is divers: infallible, as to the Apostles, but sufficient only to their successors; so the Right may be conceived to be divine in respect of Bishops; but human to all the rest. But of this tenet of divine Right, though it be held by very great Prelates of our Church, and by some said to be the Doctrine of our Church, such a Doctrine, and so fully delivered by the Apostles, That there is not the tenth part of the Plea for the Lord's day from their writings, which Bishops have for their Episcopacy (which comparison, God willing, shall be examined else-where) and that there be divers points of faith (weighty points) which have not so strong evidence in Scripture; so strong evidence, that heaven may as soon fall, as that fail the Bishops.

And though some (who have been approved for their very great and faithful labors in the Church, and for extraordinary zeal against all Popish opinions) have acknowledged somewhat in the calling of Bishops to be Divine and Apostolical; yet there is much said on the contrary side: which, if it serve not to induce a denial of that high and holy claim, may occasion at least a doubting thereof. And very doubtful it was (in the Council of Trent) by reason of the diversity of opinions there proposed: for though the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters were de facto confessed, de jure it was doubted, whether it were by a Divine, or by a Pontifical right; that is, whether by a right derived from the Scripture, or from the Pope? and we may add (according to the Augustan confession) or neither: for that alloweth no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, but by custom and constitution Ecclesiastical; and so doubtful was their Tenure, that some (in that Council) were willing to avoid the discussion of that doubt; and the chiefest of the Prelates (the Cardinal of Loraine) when he discoursed of that Question, spake still ambiguously; and at last concluded, That the Question was boundless: and though they made it more intricate, then with us it can be, by their erroneous opinion of the Papal power and prelation over Bishops (whereof we conceive no scruple at all, since we reject it, as a Paradox in our Church) yet there is doubt for all that of the Authority of Bishops by divine right; and just ground for that doubt: for

First, Saint Paul in his Epistles useth the words Bishop and Presbyter in a promiscuous manner; as Chrysostom, August. Jerome, and others have observed: and all three have spoken somewhat to bring Presbyters nearer to an equality with Bishops, then the Tenet of such superiority (by Divine Right ) as is pleaded for, will admit: for, Chrysostom speaking of Saint Paul's naming of Bishops and Deacons, without mention of Presbyters: as to all the Saints which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1.1. giveth this reason of their omission, Because (saith he) there is in a manner no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter: only in Ordination Bishops have the preeminence: the same saith Jerome in his Epistle to Evagrius; and commenting upon S. Paul's Epistle to Titus, He would have Bishops to know, that they are greater then Presbyters, rather by custom, then by truth of any constitution or disposition of the Lord; and that they ought (in common) to govern the Church. Saint Augustine to the same purpose saith, That the phrase of the Church makes Episcopacy greater then Presbytery, which Bishop Jewell rendereth thus: The office of a Bishop is above the office of a Priest (not by authority of Scriptures) but after the names of honor, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained.

The Parenthesis is his, brought in to make up the sentence of Saint Augustine; and as now the distinction of Bishops and Priests is received, it cannot (as some, who yet approve of Episcopal preeminence, have written) be directly proved out of Scriptures: and whereas Archbishop Whitgift saith, the reason why Bishops and Presbyters are taken for the same, is, because every Bishop is a Presbyter; but not on the contrary, every Presbyter a Bishop: that reason for the Affirmative part is contradicted by divers Instances; and for the Negative, it will not pass without exception, at least for the Apostles time: of which Saint Jerome saith, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop, and so was taken, until by the Devils instinct some turned Religion into faction.

And though Arius (when his ambitious desire to be a Bishop was disappointed) in emulation and anger fell to contemptuous comparisons of Bishops with Presbyters; and therefore was noted by Epiphanius in his Catalogue of Heretics: and since him Michael Medina made it material heresy, to deny the distinction of Divine Right betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, and the Council of Trent formally decreed it, with an Anathema to those that deny it. Yet was not Jerome (though a vehement Advocate in the behalf of the Presbyterial dignity) much less Chrysostom and Augustine for such sayings as these ever taxed for heresy. Nor is Arius left without a probable Apology, which may serve with some, not only to expunge his name out of the Catalogue of Heretics, but to enroll it in the Register of Orthodox Doctors.

And for the Tridentine Decree, it is the less to be regarded, because we may say, as Bishop Jewel doth of Leo, The words of the Bishops of that Council are of no great weight, because they make a Decree in their own cause.

But Chrysostom and Augustine were Bishops though Jerome was none; and yet they spake of Bishops and Presbyters so equally as hath been said; and if untruly, indiscreetly also: because both against the truth, and themselves. We may say the same of Bishop Jewel, whose judgment is plain against the opinion of Divine Right, by his exposition of Saint Augustine fore-alleged. Besides, Panormitan and Pacianus (very famous men in their faculties; the one for a Canonist, the other for a Civilian, and divers more, to say nothing of the learned men of the Reformed Churches in foreign parts) will not admit of any preeminence of a Bishop above a Presbyter by Divine Right. All which we allege not to contest with the reverend Prelates in point of Authority, but to show, that if an acknowledgement of Episcopal preeminence (as of Divine Right) be required in this Canon (and by that we have shown, we have cause to suppose it) it is too problematicall an opinion for such confidence as should accompany an Oath.

The 17. DOUBT.

How far this perpetuity propounded is to be applied to the Discipline or Government of the Church.

THE REASON.

BEcause, as before hath been observed, Discipline and Government seem (at the beginning of the Oath) to be the same; and in this part of it, we find no cause to divide them: and then our Doubt is, Why, a great part of the Discipline and Government consisting in Constitutions concerning Ceremonies, and other things of alterable nature (as Archbish. Whitgift acknowledgeth) we should swear to a perpetuity: whereby we conceive we shall cross, at least the intent of the 34. Article (to which the Clergy have subscribed) which saith, Every particular, or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by man's Authority, so that all things be done to edifying: and withal, shall much impeach the freedom of future Synods: for they that are forestalled with an Oath against change, cannot be so free to change (when just occasion requireth) as they should be.

It is an exception made by the Divines of Aberdeen, against the Oath of the Covenant in Scotland, That it taketh away all hope of a free Assembly or Parliament, to judge of the matter presently debated: for how can those (say they) vote freely of any matter propounded to decision, and deliberation of the Church and State, who have already sworn to adhere to one part of the Question.

And our dread Sovereign in his large Declaration showeth, That points of Discipline, Government, and Policy of the Church (even in Scotland) are declared by Act of Parliament, Act. 20.21. to be alterable at the will of the Church it self, and so repealable by succeeding Acts, if the Church shall see cause. And our Church to this day doth profess a purpose and desire of alteration of Discipline; for, in the beginning of the Commination in our Service Book, these are her words: Brethren, in the Primitive Church, there was a godly Discipline, that at the beginning of Lent, such persons as were notorious sinners, were put to open penance, &c. Instead whereof, until the said Discipline may be restored again (which thing is much to be wished) it is thought good, &c. the same desire appeareth in the Synod at Challons, decreeing an entreaty to be presented to the Emperor, That the ancient Discipline may be restored again; and that they who sin publicly, may be brought to public repentance, and every man (according as he deserveth) may either be excommunicated, or reconciled.

And for Excommunication (in particular) which is a chief point of Discipline or Government (of which King James propounded an alteration both for the name and thing, &c. we conceive it not only alterable from that which is now, but (being more frequently inflicted for non-appearance, then for the foulness of the offense, when it doth appear) meet to be altered and reformed, according to the Constitutions and Orders published by King Henry the eighth, and King Edward the sixth; and in the last Synod the case is much altered with Bishops in their Government: for, whereas formerly they were free to propound what Articles they thought good in their visitations, Now (to prevent just aggrievances, which may be laid upon Church-wardens, and other Sworn-men, by impertinent, inconvenient, or illegal inquiries) this last Synod hath caused a summary, or collection of Visitatory Articles (out of the Rubric of the Service Book, and the Canons, and warrantable Rules of the Church) to be made: which Bishops, and other Ordinaries, are to follow in their Visitations, and none other. And in divers particulars the Authority of Chancellors is altered, as may appear by the 11, 13, 14, 15, 17. Canons of the late Synod. And why another Synod may not (if there be cause) make other alterations, we know not, and we believe they may; and that there may be need they should do so: and therefore that we may not take an Oath that we will not consent to alter that, which is of an alterable nature.

Object. If it be said, that Government is here taken as distinguished from Discipline; and that Discipline may be altered, while the Government is not: we say,

Answ. 1. That we find no ground in the Oath for that distinction; and we have shown before, that in the former part, they signify (as Synonyma ) the same things.

Secondly, if we take the Government for that of the Bishops preeminence over the Presbyters, though Bishop Hall aver with a confidence belonging to the Creed, That the Government by Bishops is both universal and unalterable: and so was intended by the Apostles in their ordinance of them; and therefore is utterly indispensable, and must so continue to the worlds end: yet some, who have been more exercised in the controversy of Episcopal Authority then he (if we may make our comparison by what is published in print) and who think so well of that Prelation, as to hold it as of Apostolical Institution, confess, That the Government by Bishops is not generally, perpetually, and immutably necessary: and it may be that which the Archbishop of Canterbury that now is, hath said of Government in general, may have an application to this point in particular (though he meant it not so) This (saith he) I shall be bold to say, and your Majesty may consider of it in your wisdom, that one way of Government is not always fit, or safe, when the humors of the people are in a continual change.

Thirdly, there is an alteration in Government, when they that govern have less Authority then they have had, as by the last Canons we have observed, both of Bishops and Chancellors.

Fourthly, there may be yet a further alteration for the better, without digression from the old way to Novelty, or from the high way (the right road way of such as are truly religious) to Schism; which (if the reverend Fathers will give us leave) we will undertake to show by such evidence, as in this case is of greatest weight.

We dare not then take an Oath against alteration, lest therewith we should forswear a meet Reformation of the Church; which any Church may need, that hath less assistance of the Spirit then the Prophets of the Old Testament, and the Apostles of the New; and of all of them we must hold, as the Archbishop hath very well said in his answer to the Jesuit, Such an assistance of Christ and the holy Spirit, the Prophets under the Old Testament had, and the Apostles under the New; as neither the high Priest with his Clergy in the Old, nor any company of Prelates or Priests in the New (since the Apostles) ever had.

The one DOUBT is,

Why we should swear against consent, to alter the Government of the Church.

THE REASON.

BEcause so the Government seemeth to be preferred before the Doctrine: for, for the Doctrine we must swear only, that we will not bring in, or be the Inventers or Leaders in the promoting of Popish Doctrine; but for the Government, we must swear, that we will not consent, though but as followers, for what others bring in: Now, as it is a less offense to be a Follower, then a Captain in whatsoever is evil; so it seemeth to show a greater care of preservation of the Government of the Church by Archbishops, &c. then of the Doctrine of Religion; by requiring as strict an Oath, not to be second in the change of the one, as not to be first in corrupting the other.

The other DOUBT is,

Whether, if we should thus swear, we should not be entangled with contradiction to our Governors, and to ourselves.

THE REASON.

BEcause, first, for our Governors, we are bound in duty to yield our consents to their lawful Constitutions, though with some alteration of Government, which we can have no heart to do, if we have sworn to the contrary.

Hereto some except and say, If they alter, we may alter with them; but this we conceive to be too much fickleness and levity, and liker to the Gipsie play of fast and loose, then to the grave and solid Asseveration, which belongeth to an Oath; which is neither lightly to be taken, nor to be slighted, when it is taken: for, so it would give none assurance to those that tender it, who meant (as we see in the Preface of the Oath) to give security by Oath for constancy to the Doctrine and Discipline established against Innovation: but there would be little assurance of that, if their meaning were this, That they that swear should not change, till their superiors had changed before them.

Besides, the chiefest of them hold the Discipline and Government by Bishops immutable; and therefore some of them have said, they would rather die, then yield to an alteration of Episcopal Government: but we believe it would be more easy for a Logician to convince them, that Episcopacy is not of Divine Right (but of an alterable nature) then for a Rhetorician to persuade them to change life for death, this world for the next, rather then to consent to an alteration of that Government.

There be that tell us (and we must not take their saying for a Papal dispensation, which opens so wide a window, that it is in vain to shut the door) of many cases of conscience, wherein though we have sworn, we may be discharged of our Oaths; and show us a postern gate for an out-let of perjury: but we cannot come to that gate, but by the wicket of inconsiderate swearing; and if we apprehend any probable occasions of change beforehand, we must not make Median or Persian Protestations, that we will not change.

Object. But we have in effect done as much already (say some) in subscribing to the Book of Common Prayer, wherein we promise to use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, Can. 36.

Answ. 1. To which we may answer many ways: as,

First, that it is not put upon us, as of Divine Right; and being but human, it is implied to be changeable.

Secondly, the fore-cited Preface concerning the Ceremonies, and the 34. Article profess a mutable condition in such Institutions.

Thirdly, experience hath divers times explained that clause: for, other forms of prayer have been imposed upon especial occasions.

Fourthly, to leave us at more liberty, if there should be a change, our word is taken without an Oath; for which Master Rogers commendeth the moderation of our Governors.

Object. But in refusing of the Oath now, for fear of future disobedience, we disobey for the present. To which we say:

Answ. 1. That our not swearing is no present disobedience; because our consciences cannot consent to swear; and they that require the Oath would not have us to swear against our consciences, nor against our good wills: for, one condition expressed in it is, That we do it heartily, and willingly: nor do we conceive, that, the premises duly considered, they would have us to swear.

Secondly, our not swearing in this case, is rather an obedience to our Superiors; because we have already sworn to their Authority and Power for such alterations, both for the present, and for their heirs and successors: and so our promissory Oath in this case (if we should take it) would be with certain prejudice to another man's right; and consequently could not be attended with justice: and the prejudice would be more unjust, because done to the right of public and sovereign Authority, as Bishop Hall observeth in his Irrefragable propositions.

And thirdly, for ourselves, we doubt it is not safe to swear that we will not consent to any alteration in Government; since we cannot but like it well enough, if in some particulars it were more conformable to the condition of the ancient Church: as if it should please his sacred Majesty, in the election of Bishops, to have respect to the suffrage of the Clergy of the vacant Diocese, as the Emperor Charles the Great had, when he published a Decree to that purpose, according to the ancient practice of the Church.

And if, when Bishops are elected, that either love, or some law of Authority might restore Presbyters to their ancient Rights, and participation of the Government of the Church, which they had in the Primitive times: whereof St. Jerome saith, That the Church was governed by the common Council of the Presbyters: which Baronius acknowledgeth, and Bishop Downham saith, no man denieth; and this, not only until there was a Schism, and the people divided themselves, under the names of Paul, Apollo, and Cephas; but afterwards, as is plain by several testimonies of Saint Cyprian (besides others) for he (writing to the Priests and Deacons) calleth them Brethren, and telleth them, That it is his desire, for those things that concern the government of the Church, that (as the public benefit requireth) they treat of them with common Counsel: and in their absence he professeth, That he did nothing, but what was concluded before by their common advice: and that it was his resolution from the first time of his being Bishop, to do nothing of his own private conceit, but by their counsel.

Bishop Downham bringing in a sentence of Ambrose sounding to the same sense, maketh this answer unto it, Ambrose, and others thought it needful, that a Presbytery of grave and ancient Ministers, should with their counsel, advise and assist the Bishops in cases of doubt (as Doctor Bilson saith) in cases of danger and importance; when as yet neither Synod could assemble, nor Christian Magistrate was found to assist the Church.

But when Synods were assembled, then Presbyters were assembled with the Bishops; and, as Presbyters had decisive voices with them, as Doctor Field confesseth: observing withal, concerning the number of Bishops, and those that were not Bishops in such Ecclesiastical Assemblies, that in a Council of Lateran, there were present 482. Bishops, and 800. Abbots, who (saith he) have less to do then Presbyters in the government of the Church.

Wherein he implieth, that there should be many more then two Convocation Clerks in a Diocese, to advise and vote at a Synod: And in our Diocesan Synods, which are yearly called (according to the ancient Canon and Custom) we are all summoned to appear in the Consistory, as in the name of a Synod. But when we come thither, we have so little power and liberty allowed us, either for discussion or determination of any matter (wherein Presbyters, both in right and fact, have had a freedom heretofore) that most of us appear rather as Delinquents, standing at the Consistoriall Barre, or (at the best) as Clients, or Tenants paying a tribute of suit and service at the Courts of their Landlord. So that we may take up the complaint of Duarenus the famous Civilian, O fold Synods were called, that the Bishops and Presbyters should treat of the Discipline of the Clergy, of Ecclesiastical causes, and of divine Doctrine: for there was no matter of any great weight, which the Bishops without that Senate would determine: but now (saith he) we can scarce discern so much as a shadow of that most honest institution.

In the fourth Council of Carthage, about the year 401. (besides many other Constitutions in the behalf and in honor of Presbyters) it was decreed, That a Bishop should not determine any man's cause, but in presence of his Clergy: That the Bishop, though in the Church, and in the Assemblies of the Presbyters, he should sit in an higher place; yet privately should use his Presbyters as Colleagues: and sitting himself, should not suffer a Presbyter to stand.

And as Presbyters were not to be disdained by the Bishops, but to be taken into a respective society with them (for the name of a Bishop was anciently rather a name of labor, then of honor; rather of duty, then of dignity; ) so were they so much to be honored by the Deacons below them (as subordinate to them as well as to the Bishops) That a Deacon might not sit among those that were Presbyters, as was decreed in the first Council of Nice: And so it was observed at Rome (as Jerome hath noted) until vice increased; And then (saith he) in the absence of the Bishop, I have seen Deacons to sit in the presence of Presbyters.

And though in later times one Bishop hath had power enough to undo many Presbyters for small matters; yet heretofore, in a criminal cause, A Presbyter could not be condemned by fewer then six Bishops. A Bishop indeed, as an elder brother, had a double portion to censure him; (for twelve were requisite for a doom against a Bishop: and the Deacon (as a younger brother to a Presbyter) had but half so many to give judgment of him as the Presbyter had.

Now, if with security of the public peace, and the favor of our Superiors, there should be any alteration in the Ecclesiastical Government; wherein we might be assured to be dealt withal, if not as Brethren (as some of the Episcopal order have professed, and pleaded on our behalf) yet rather as sons to reverend Fathers, then as servants to imperious Lord's, we dare not be such hypocrites, as to forswear a consent to that which we conceive to be our right, and cannot but be willing to enjoy.

The 20. DOUBT is,

Why in this part of the Oath mention is made rather of the See of Rome, then of the Church of Rome.

THE REASON.

BEcause, though an ordinary Reader observe no material difference betwixt them, yet we are taught by a judicious Lawyer, that there is as much difference betwixt the See of Rome, and the Church of Rome, as betwixt treason and trespass: and he proveth his position by the 23. of Eli’s. cap. 1. where it is said, That to be reconciled to the See of Rome is treason; but to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is not treason: For then (saith he) every Papist of the Church of Rome should be a Traitour (being a member of that Church, and therefore reconciled to it.) Now the See of Rome (saith he) is nothing else but the Papacy, or Supremacy of the Pope, whereby, by virtue of the Canon [unam Sanctam] made by Pope Boniface the eighth, he challengeth a superiority of Jurisdiction and coercion over all Kings and Princes upon earth; and those persons which take Juramentum fidei contained in the Council of Trent, (which acknowledgeth this Supremacy) are said to be reconciled to the See of Rome.

But the Church of Rome is nothing else but a number of men within the Popes Dominions, or elsewhere, professing the Religion of Popery. So the meaning of the Oath in this clause of it, as he conceiveth, may be this, You must not subject the Church of England to the See of Rome; but you may subject it to the Church of Rome.

That there might be some such subtle meaning in the choice of that phrase, I have some reason (saith he) to imagine, since I find in their late Books, that they say the Church of Rome is a true Church, and salvation to be had in it.

Because this Doubt hath Law for its ground (the knowledge whereof properly belongeth to another profession) we would not take upon us to deliver it in our own names, but in the name of that learned Lawyer, to whom we are beholding for the distinction of those terms; and if they should not be rightly applied to the words of the Canon, or to the meaning of those that made it (wherein he engageth himself no further, then probable conjecture; and so far reacheth the reason he alledgeth for it) yet that may be unto us a further occasion of doubt; and the more we doubt, the less warrant we have for the taking of the Oath.

The 21. DOUBT.

How we can swear to a plain and common sense and understanding of the Oath.

THE REASON.

BEcause we do not find the words plain, but very ambiguous, as is already evident by the precedent Doubts: nor do we know, what sense or understanding of them we can call common; since the Oath is new, and is in many particulars so variously expounded, that yet it is not apparent to us, what construction beareth away the plurality of voices. The Oath then must be well expounded before it can be taken, else equivocation will hardly be avoided.

The 22. DOUBT.

What willingness is required in the taking of this Oath.

THE REASON.

BEcause the words [heartily, and willingly] in conformity to the form of subscription, set down in the 36. Canon, import a plenary consent, without any grudging or reluctancy of the heart, or will: as, when a man hath a mind to take it, with a freedom to refuse it; according to the saying of Seneca, If you would know whether I be willing or no, leave me at liberty to be unwilling: but we conceive it cannot be so in this case, at least with many of the Ministry, who would by no means take it, but for fear of the penalty annexed to the not taking of it: and so their willingness is no more then such as this, I am willing to take the Oath, because I am unwilling to be deprived of my Ministry and Means; and so to be undone for refusal of it: As a man casts his goods into the Sea in a Tempest, lest himself and they should perish together.

And then, whether should we not rather be absolved from such a timorous Oath, according to the Canon Law (if we had taken it) then pressed to take it, when having no heart or good will unto it, we cannot say we swear heartily and willingly in any other sense then hath been said, without hypocrisy: and consequently, not without perjury also.

Thus much of the first part proposed, which concerneth the Oath it self; the second part is of the Interpretation of the Oath.

The 23. DOUBT.

How the Doubts of the Oath may be resolved and cleared.

THE REASON.

BEcause in this case it will not satisfy to say, as the Casuists on both sides (we mean Protestant and Popish) resolve, That the words of an Oath must be taken (as this Oath conformable to the Oath of Allegiance hath it) according to the plain and common sense, and understanding; for what that is, is not yet discovered: And we believe the Divines of Aberdeen said well, That the words of an Oath should be clear and plain; and if they be any way ambiguous, the true sense of them should be so declared and manifested, that all may know it.

As to satisfy the Doubt, which many made concerning the sign of the Cross in Baptism: Or (as Bishop Morton more warily writeth) the Cross after Baptism was a particular Canon set forth for declaration thereof, and for removal of all such scruples as might any way trouble the consciences of them, who are indeed rightly religious.

Some think it sufficient, according to the dictate of charity, to take the words of the Oath in the most favorable sense, which is expounded by some, as having reference to those who impose it, of whose intention we are bound to make the fairest, and most favorable construction.

Some take the favor to themselves, and make such a sense of them, as may most conduce to their own Interests, whether for advantage, or for avoidance of damage or danger: and so cometh in the Collusion of the Jesuits by equivocation, or mental reservation, to save themselves from being discovered in their dangerous designs.

This is somewhat like that, which some say of Manna, that it was that to every man's taste, wherewith it was most delighted. So that shall be the meaning of the Oath, which best pleaseth any that is to take it.

Azorius, a famous Casuist of the Ignatian order, determineth, That in a Judicial Court an Oath must be taken according to the common sense of the words: but in the Court of conscience all men hold (saith he) that it must be understood according to the mind of him that sweareth: as if Justice and Conscience held contrary Tribunalls in the soul, as Justice and Equity in the state; and the same Oath might be right in the one, and wrong in the other.

An absurdity like that, which our dread Sovereign derideth in his large Declaration, viz. That the same confession of faith, consisting of the same words and syllables sworn without Authority, if it shall be commanded by Authority, becometh a new and different confession of the faith.

There is a third opinion (concerning the sense of an Oath) to augment the doubt, though so much less doubtful, as it bringeth with it the better Authority; and the Authority for it is no less then Royal, the sentence of a great and gracious King (and, which is more to us, our King) who resolveth, That an Oath must be either taken, or refused, according to the known intention of him that doth minister it, especially, if it be a new Oath.

To the same sense, though in different words, say the Aberdeen Divines: An Oath is to be given according to the mind and judgment of him that requireth it: which words [ministereth and requireth] make up the meaning to be, That he that ministereth an Oath (who may be some subordinate Officer) must give it in that sense, which he that requireth (that is, he from whose Authority and Power it proceedeth) doth intend.

That construction we are taught to make, by the explanation of the Oath in Scotland, published by the right Honorable the L Marquess Hamiltoun his Majesty's high Commissioner there, in these words: Oaths must be taken, according to the mind, intention, and commandment of that Authority which exacteth the Oath: For (as we conceive) it rests not in the power of an inferior (whether he be the taker or minister of the Oath) to put his private conceit for the sense (which is the soul) of a public constitution: and if he do so, we cannot but doubt of it (though it seem never so plausible) unless it be allowed by the Authority, which chargeth the Oath upon the conscience: For,

First, as Bishop Hall well saith, The Church (which makes the Canon, and by the Canon decrees the Oath) as it is a collective body, so it hath a tongue of her own, speaking by the common voice of her Synods, Confessions, Articles, Constitutions, Catechisms, Liturgies: a tongue not only to speak the text of her determination; but to make a Comment (if need be) to clear it: and, if any single person shall take upon him to be the mouth of the Church, his insolency is justly censureable: So he.

Secondly, Oaths are imposed for matter of caution and security to those that impose them, that they may rely upon them without doubt or distrust: and how can that be, when we take them in another sense then they that require them do mean, or will admit of. The old rule (which is a maxim) saith, He offends against the law, who cleaving to the words of the law, leaveth the will of the law, that is, of the Law-maker: For, the law it self is a dead letter, and hath no will at all.

There are some of our Brethren, who (in good will to themselves and us) have undertaken to expound the Oath so as that they and we, without scruple, may take it: and we take kindly their good intention, and, in good will to them again, request them to consider, That a private interpretation of a public act can give no satisfaction, unless it be either expressly, or virtually allowed by the highest Authority that doth impose it; and then it is made public: but why they should expect such an approbation of their private opinions, we cannot imagine; and if that would serve the turn, we could find in our hearts (and it may be in our heads too) to make as mollifying a gloss on the Oath, as they have done: and such a one, as might be more satisfactory to our consciences, then theirs can be.

But the Authority of interpretation of any doubt (in such a public act) belongeth properly not to private, but to public persons, especially, if they be Authorized by the Synod for such a purpose: as in the late Synod we see, where the Doubts concerning the benevolence of the Clergy granted to his Majesty, are ordered, to be determined by the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of Chester, and the Bishop of Carlisle, or by two of them at the least, whereof the Archbishop is to be one: and in other Doubts (whereof there is no certain rule of Resolution set) it is probable, the decision should be given by the sentence of the same, or such like Judges.

For private men, though learned, if they take upon them the Interpretation of public Dictats, may be more like to light on mutual contradictions of each other, then on the true and proper construction of the Text they interpret. So did Vega and Soto, Soto and Catherinus, who wrote against each other contrary Comments upon the Council of Trent. In which respect it was a wise advice given to the Pope by the Bishop of Bestice, viz. To appoint a Congregation for the expounding of the Council; and well followed by him, when he forbade all sorts of persons, Clerks, or Laics (being private men) to make any Commentaries, Glosses, Annotations, or any Interpretation whatsoever upon the Decrees of that Council.

Doctor Burgess indeed made an Interpretation of his own subscription; but there had been no validity in it (as we conceive) unless it had been allowed by the superior powers; and so it was: for (as he saith) It was accepted by King James, and the Archbishop of Canterbury affirmed it to be the true sense and meaning of the Church of England.

And if we should take the Oath, and a Notary public record it, unless our exposition of it were publicly and lawfully (for favourably is not sufficient) both allowed and recorded also, we may haply be charged with the crime of perjury: and unable fairly and effectually to free ourselves from that charge, unless by Authority we were permitted to conclude our Oath with the ancient clause of limitation, viz. so far as agreeth with the sacred Scripture, with the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Kingdom, and as far as our abilities will afford.

The 24. DOUBT.

Why the sons of Noblemen are excepted, and privileged from taking this Oath, when they take the degree of Masters of Arts.

THE REASON.

BEfore we render it, we profess that we take this Doubt to be of a different kind from those which hitherto we have proposed, since it is without the compass both of the words and explication of the Oath, from whence all our scruples of conscience hitherto have been derived.

Yet because we have heard this Quaere put forth by many, and not well answered by any, we crave leave to propose it, and to deliver some probable conjectures upon it; leaving the certain Resolution to those who are better acquainted with the true causes thereof.

Object. That exception of the sons of Noblemen hath been excepted against by some for this reason:

Reas. Because their example in swearing to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, would be of great moment to the maintenance of both: and therefore they think it more meet, that they should begin this sacred attestation (whom others would be most ready and forward to follow) then that they should have a particular exception to free them from it.

Object. If it be said, When others take Oath, they take none, but make their protestations and promises in verbo honoris:

Answ. That is true, but neither is so much required of them in this case; or, if it were, two particulars would be returned by way of reply: The one,

That Archbishops and Bishops are to take the Oath, who take place of their right Honorable Fathers, both Earls and Lord's; and so it can be no dishonor to their sons, to do as such reverend, and so much honored Prelates have done, especially, since Bishops have been matched with Kings in the prerogative of irrefragable regard and belief of their words without an Oath: The other,

That as the sons of Noblemen were to be believed, when they testified anything in verbo honoris; so were the Clergy to be believed, when they did the like in verbo Sacerdotis. And by Justinians Code (if we may take it upon the word of a Popish Priest; for we have not met with it in the original) The word of a Priest was rated to the Testimonies of twelve of the Laity. But the privilege of the Nobility yet remaineth, and that of the Clergy now is lost: which may give us just occasion to examine, whether they have not been more true to their honor, then most of us to the sincerity of our sacred Profession; and if they have, they may be privileged from the taking of this Oath, though we be not.

It is probable also, that they were exempted upon especial respects, both of ingenuity and prudence: of ingenuity, by those Clergy men, who were bound to all honorable observance of such noble Families, as had been means to prefer them; and of prudence, in preventing a repulse to their purpose: for it was not like that the Nobility would suffer their sons to be entangled with such an Oath, as is prejudicial to the conscience: and (as many Lawyers allege) to the obedience due to his most excellent Majesty, and his Royal Successors.

That which we read in the Conference at Hampton Court, gives us just occasion so to conceive; which is, That when there was speech of the Oath ex officio, one of the Lord's compared it to the course of the Spanish Inquisition; and if the Nobility had distasted it, and renounced it, it would have given the greater encour agement to others to stand out against it.

Howsoever, God's providence hath most wisely ordered their exemption from swearing; for, since the Nobility are not required to take this Oath, their desire and endeavor to have the aggrievance of it removed from others (as their petition to his Majesty before the Parliament showeth) doth evidence their noble, religious, and charitable minds towards all such, as by their mediation may be secured from suffering in their consciences by taking, or in their liberties and estates for refusal thereof.

For which pious compassion many thousands, especially we of the Tribe of Levi, are deeply obliged to praise God for their Honors, and to pray to him for his vigilant providence and potent protection, both over them and their honorable Progeny.

Of this, our 25. DOUBT is,

Concerning the difference betwixt the command and commination of the Canon.

THE REASON.

BEcause, where a law is rightly grounded, and a penalty for breach of it imposed, there the offenders are legally censured, with an equal and impartial justice; but here it seemeth to us to be much otherwise: for, of all those persons of several callings, professions, or degrees, before rehearsed, and required to take the Oath, only Clergy men are upon their refusal of it to be punished: and that, though gradually, yet with as much severity as any Ecclesiastical Authority can inflict: for, they within three months are to be put out both of their ministry and means; while all others (though they refuse the Oath as well as they) are by the Canon not to be the worse for their refusal.

It may be, the Bishops may prohibit some to practice Physic, others to teach School, that will not swear; and they that will not take the Oath, perhaps shall take no orders at their hands: and for Registers, Actuaries, and Proctors of their Courts, if they refuse it, it may be they will refuse them, and put them out of their offices; but the Canon concludeth nothing against any one, but Ecclesiastics, especially Beneficed Preachers; which, whether it may more incline such to love, or fear those who lay these heavy penalties upon them, there is none so simple, but may soon perceive; nor is any so wise, as in this to see either the compassion of the reverend Prelates, as their fathers; or the charity of inferior Clerks, as their brethren: for, by this Canon they are necessarily cast upon one part of this dangerous Dilemma:

If they take the Oath (besides the scruples of conscience before observed) their taking of it (as we have touched before) must be recorded by a Notary public; and then, if they do anything, which they that are their Judges will call a breach of the Oath they have taken, they may be called in question for the crime of perjury.

About the year 1164. Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, was at a Council (held at Northampton) accused and condemned of perjury; because he had sworn to the English customs, and had not observed them. And it is an easy matter (out of an Oath of such copious contents, as this of the sixth Canon) to frame an accusation against him that hath taken it; especially, if what lieth in ambush under the &c. be brought into the charge: hereof our fear may be the more; because some of us have observed, how forward some of our superiors have been to lay an imputation of perjury upon the inferior Clergy; because (having taken the Oath of Canonical obedience) they have not been so ready (as they would have them) to perform what they imposed by uncanonicall Commands.

On the contrary, if they take not the Oath, and thereupon the penalty of the Canon be laid upon them, they must take leave of their Pastoral charges; and no more be allowed to feed their Flocks, nor to be clothed with their fleece: which is like (in respect of many Parishes) to be a great calamity both to the Pastors and People.

Thus much for our Doubts: which if any think too much, it may be he thinks too little of the peace of conscience, the price of our Ministry in danger to be lost, and the pressure and misery, which by many may be felt by occasion of that Oath: which, though we dare not take, yet we dare swear, and can do it heartily, willingly, and truly, that (as yet we conceive of the Oath) we cannot with sound faith, and safe conscience yield unto it.

And if most of these Doubts, before proposed, should be found to be frivolous (which we do not conceive of any one of them) and but one of them contain a just ground of ambiguity, (which some that have taken the Oath, and some that have written for the Oath, have since confessed: and not only by speech, but by their handwriting have acknowledged) that one is enough, while we are in suspense concerning the meaning of the Oath, to suspend our assent from the taking thereof: For, the comparison (brought in by the prudent Composer of the History of the Council of Trent) we take to be true, and of much importance to this purpose, which is, As one particular maketh false the contradictory universal; so one ambiguous particular, makes the universal to be ambiguous.

If any man, but of a private condition (like unto ourselves) have a mind to make answer to our Doubts or Reasons, we wish him to consider at what he aimeth in that undertaking: If to engratiate himself into the favor of those who approve of the Oath; we desire not to cast in any prejudice to his expectation: If to satisfy us, we fear his endeavors are like to be fruitless; since he cannot advance his discourse above probability, and for that we may return upon him with like topicall Arguments: and so the consistence of the cause (at the best) will be but a problem; which will administer but weak encouragement for a sincere, willing, and hearty taking of an Oath.

1. On Piety.

For the first: As your Lordship and the rest of the reverend Prelates are men of God, you stand especially engaged (as much as in you lieth) to secure your inferiors from the peril of sin, whether Preachers, or People: and first, for Preachers, to take care that they do not take any dangerous Oaths.

For which cause, Saint Basil was very zealous in behalf of Bishops (as Baronius showeth) that they might not be put to swear, in respect of the peril of an Oath: and he prevailed so far as to free them from that peril. And the Council of Challons was as respective of Presbyters, decreeing thus; It is reported of some, that they compel the persons who are admitted (in time of their Ordination) to swear that they are worthy, and that they shall do nothing repugnant to the Canons: and that they shall be obedient to the Bishops, who ordained them; and to the Church, into which they are ordained: which Oath, in regard it is perilous, we all inhibit, and discharge.

And the Triburiensian Council, having a respect both to their credits and consciences, made a cautelous Constitution, That a Presbyter should not be compelled to swear; but, instead of an Oath, he should be questioned upon his holy consecration (i. as it is probable) in verbo Sacerdotis; because (as the Reason is there rendered) our Lord forbade his Disciples to swear.

Object. But say some, Did not all, both minister, and people in the City of Geneva (which many magnify as the Metropolis of Piety ) take an Oath for shutting out of Popery, and setting up of the Presbytery without all this ado?

Answ. They did indeed swear to banish the one, and to establish the other (as Master Hooker observeth) but

First, Is it any good Argument, that because they have sworn against the Prelacy, that we must swear for it? men by law are not allowed to take contradictory Oaths; and if there be any Authority in their example, it may serve rather to make us doubtful, then resolute to swear: though we think it might be more reasonable to require Geneva to receive some Doctrines from us, then we Discipline from them.

As concerning the Sabbath, they of Geneva might have learned founder Instruction from our Homilies, then we from Calvin's Institutions (though otherwise an excellent book) or from the common practice of that City.

Secondly, their Oath was not in ambiguity like ours, nor is ours (as theirs was) regulated by Scripture: For,

First, they sware in plain terms, never to admit of the Papacy among them again; and among them it was not so ambiguous, what points should be reputed Popish, as with us it is.

Secondly, to live in obedience to such orders (concerning the exercise of their Religion, and the form of Ecclesiastical Government) as the true and faithful Ministers of God's Word, had, agreeably to Scripture, set down for that end and purpose.

Thirdly, for the abandoning of Popery, they might safely and heartily swear; and so could we (if an Oath were tendered against it, which were not otherwise liable to exception) and for the Discipline or Government, the Clergy made no scruple of it: for, they propounded it as a certain preservative to the purity of Religion; and the people were induced to receive it, because it made them partakers of a new privilege; and that a great one: for, to one Pastor were joined two Lay-elders in the Government of the Church; and so their swearing was (as the taking of this Oath) by Archbishops, Bishops, &c. a confirmation of their own Interests.

Fourthly, as they made no doubt of the lawfulness of the Oath, so were they not urged unto it by any commination of danger: and so their swearing might be with a free will, not mixed either with reluctancy of conscience, or with fear of penalty.

Fifthly, the Discipline of Geneva is said to be a new-fangled Discipline, of Calvin's devising: and it is further delivered, as an undoubted truth, That no man living, no record of History, can show any Laypresbyter, that ever was in the whole Christian Church, until this present age. But the Government by Bishops is held (by those who propound this Oath) to be of divine right, and to have continued in the Church, ever since the time of Christ, and his Apostles, until this present age.

If so, they of Geneva had need of an Oath, to give strength to their new invented Government; and we (without an Oath) might be confident of the continuance of ours, according to the sound resolution of the renowned Doctor of the Law, Gamaliel, in the fifth of the Acts of the Apostles: If this counsel, or this work (said he) be of men, it will come to naught; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God, Act. 5. v. 38, 39.

Pope Clement the seventh, upon this ground (though mistaken as in application to the Papacy) grew very confident against the fear of a future Council, as the Author of the History of the Council of Trent reporteth, in these words: There was a fame spread, the Pope would have no Council, for fear his Authority should be restrained: areason which maketh no impression at all in him, having his Authority immediately from Christ, with promise, that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it: and the experience of former times hath shown, that the Papal Authority hath never been diminished by any Council; but according to the words of our Lord, the Fathers have ever confessed it to be absolute and unlimited, as it is indeed.

In word rather, or in conceit at the best: and it was conceit, and no more, that upheld his heart against all oppositions of his power; And our reverend Prelates have so much less cause to fear their state (though it be not supported by swearing) as they have more warrant to build their hopes upon the oraculous sentence of that famous Doctor.

The other particular more especially respecteth the piety of the people, whose consciences are like to be carefully guided by such Divines, as are chary of their own. Of whose Ministry (if they should be deprived) it is not like, that generally there would be found a supply to countervail the loss of their religious labors, and exemplary practice, the two chief helps to holiness of life: and we conceive it a point of Piety, and a case of conscience, worthy of the grave and godly consideration of the reverend Prelates to resolve, whether, because in this case we dare not swear, God will reject our service in his Sanctuary; if not, why should they?

The saying of Wycliffe (though condemned as heretical in the Popish Council of Constance) may (as we conceive, with a little correction) be made a very Orthodox position, and pertinent to this purpose: Thus, None should be excommunicated by any Prelate, unless he know him (or rather thus, unless he conceive him) excommunicated by God: And if so, while God is pleased (as we hope he is) to accept our endeavors to glorify his Name, and edify his Flock, we trust it will not be held any part of godliness with the Pastoral staff, to drive any faithful Pastor from the fold of Christ.

2. On Charity.

Secondly, we ground our Hopes upon your Lordships Charity, whereof the fundamental Rule in the Affirmative part is, To do unto all men as we would they should do unto us: and in the Negative, not to offer that to others, which in the like case ourselves would not suffer. And we doubt not, but your Lordship would be loath that your fear of offense against God, and your conscience, should be so severely punished, as by the Canon is threatened to such as are afraid to take this Oath: and if you look but upon us without reflecting upon your Lordships, we trust that for this, after our long and studious endeavors in the University, wherein some of us have spent our Patrimonies (which might have maintained us in another course, without Ecclesiastical means) after our constant and painful employment in our Pastoral charges (even to the tyring out of our strength) after our families are increased beyond our abilities to support them, without the means we receive from the Church (and for many of us, we may say but poorly with it) you will not by the discharge of this Canon upon us, put us upon the poor refuge of the Canon of the Council of Carthage (made for inferior and single Clerks) to labor in husbandry, or manufactures (which your Canons precisely prohibit) for our maintenance; swear we dare not, dignity we cannot: we were no Fishermen, nor Tent-makers, or other Artificers, before we entered upon this holy calling, and to beg we are ashamed: and we may be also afraid, since by the Law, begging Scholars are no better then Rogues, and so to be severely punished, rather then charitably relieved; what then shall we do?

It is a good Rule given to Visiters by Gavant (saith a reverend Writer of your own rank) that they should be sparing in making Decrees: and no less profitable to spiritual Governors, which Erasmus relates (out of Gershon ) that they should not rashly throw about the Thunderbolts of their censures, lest they should not take time sufficient to distinguish betwixt such as are more capable of pity, then of severity; and those who are more worthy of the rod, then of the spirit of meekness, to spare the one, though they punish the other: And we look for no less moderation and mercy from your Lordship, since a Council adviseth you thus: It becometh them, who are in eminent rooms, to deal mercifully with their inferiors, knowing that they are brethren.

And while we accompt you (in regard of the gravity, and eminency of your parts and places) Fathers, we cannot but hope that you will deal with us as with your sons, with a fatherly moderation, and not think us worthy to be dis-inherited, or cast off, while we desire and endeavor faithfully to hold on in our course of the service of God, and his Church: And we doubt not, but you will remember the godly and gracious words of your own Ordination, That you have your Authority not to destroy, but to save; not to hurt, but to help: And that you are to be to your Flocks shepherds, and not wolves; to be so merciful, as not to be remiss: so to administer Discipline, as not to forget mercy: and to be so far from oppressing of us, that if we were oppressed by others, you should be ready to succor us. This is one end of Episcopal Visitations, for which there is a Decree in a Council of Arles to this effect:

Let every Bishep visit his bounds once every ye are, and if he find the poor to be oppressed by the violence of the mighty, then let him with wholesome admonition exhort them to desist from such oppression: and in case they will not desist from their violence, then let the Bishop bring the cause to the ears of the Prince.

Nor do we conceive our different persuasion concerning this Oath, doth represent us unto you, as unworthy of your fatherly Compassion, since he that of late hath shown himself a most zealous Patron of Episcopal preeminence, expresseth a pitiful affection towards the Divines of the Reformed Churches (notwithstanding many greater differences then this of the Oath) in this sort, We heartily pity (saith he) the incompetent provision of our foreign brethren, whose parts are as eminent as their maintenance is poor.

He whose charity reacheth so far off, in commiserating the poverty of foreign Divines, would not surely (and we trust, many of the reverend Prelates are as pitiful as he) be a means to make such miserable objects here at home, by depriving of so many conscionable Ministers, as make scruple of the Oath, of the due provision whereof they are lawfully possessed: especially, if he remember the Canon of the Matiscon Council, which saith, That a Bishops house is purposely appointed to afford hospitality to all that need, without respect of persons.

And that other Canon of Charity, which goeth under the name of the Apostles, in these words: If any Bishop or Presbyter do not minister to the necessities of a Clerke that is in want, let him be debarred from the communion: and if he persevere in his want of pity, let him be deposed as guilty of his brothers death, in withholding from him brotherly relief. Which not only by the general duty of Christianity, but by especial promise, the Bishops of England are bound in conscience to consider and beware of, since at their consecration the Archbishop asketh them, Will you show yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ's sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help? and their answer is, I will so show myself by God's help. Wherein their bare word for beneficence to strangers is virtually a double bond of security to their own, against such excessive severity, as by that Apostolical Canon is condemned.

3. On Equity.

Thirdly, we are confident in the Equitable Justice of our reverend Governors, that the Commination in the words of the Canon is more severe, then the execution of it will be: for, if we do offend in forbearing of the Oath, distinction must be made by the Decree of a general Council, betwixt those that of set purpose offend, and those that offend by a kind of necessity: as, where our consciences put in exceptions as bars, at least as demurs to obedience: and if we deserve any censure in such a case, it is not deprivation, which our Ecclesiastical Laws call cruel, and an horrible weapon, which destroyethor undoeth the whole man: for, that is reserved for heinous crimes of greatest and foulest guilt: which in particular are noted by Duarenus the Civilian to be these, Simonaicall ambition, Incontinency, keeping of a Concubine so pertinaciously, that the offender being duly admonished, will not forsake her; Perjury, Murder, Treason, or some other grievous offense (as herefie) which is followed by infamy: where, by Infamy, he meaneth not that, which ariseth from the mis-cenceipt of men, but that which proceedeth from the sentence of the Law: None of all which can (with any color of truth) be imputed to our doubting, or final denial of the Oath, while the dictate of our consciences induceth us to do so; and, if we should confidently affirm (which some of us believe) that a Presbyter is equal with a Bishop by God's Law, we could not for that incur the condemnation of Heretics: for, though Augustine and Epiphanius accounted Arius an Heretic for that, yet (as D ^r . Whitaker saith) few of the ancient Fathers (besides them) did so: and therein (saith he) was Jerome altogether of his mind.

Besides, we presume your goodness will take notice, that in Equity and Justice they should not suffer most, who offend least against a penal law; and they least, or rather nothing at all, who are most refractory to it: which would come to pass, if the penalty should proceed, as in the Canon is expressed; for, all Papists, who are adverse to our Doctrine in general (except some few egregious Ecclesiastical hypocrites) may pass unpunished, notwithstanding this Canon: while Protestant Ministers may be undone, for refusing to swear to some particulars of Discipline.

But that we shall not fear, if you please to look upon the most reverend and religious Bishops of the Primitive times, who (as your own Apologist hath testified of them) were made all of meekness, humility, and patience: if you be like unto them (and while you take them for your Ancestors, you should not be unlike them) you will never make us feel the rigor of this ruinating Canon.

4. On Policy.

Fourthly, in religious Policy you may (with as much advantage to yourselves as to us) forbear the urging of this Oath; for, give us leave, we beseech you, to tell you the truth (though such, as hope to help forward some ambitious design by your favor, say otherwise) the Bishops (if they have not added to the number of the enemies they had before) have yet lost more friends by proposal of this Oath, and Penalty, then by any Act that is known to be theirs: and withal, have thereby raised a suspicion, that themselves do doubt their dignity is not set upon a sure foundation. It is cause of jealousy to many, when such as are reputed political, are too cautelous in their own cause; and for that was Novatianus, the father of the Puritans (though a Bishop) the worse thought of (for good Bishops used to exact no such unreasonable security for themselves) because he caused his Adherents to put their hands betwixt his, and to swear by the body and blood of the Lord, they would not forsake him, and turn to Cornelius: And this he did, before he would give them the Sacrament; but besides that, such a forced confederacy is but frail: By this his Episcopacy was the more suspected, to be both unlawful and schismatical. It hath fallen out so (whether justly, or unjustly we will not say) in many men's conceits of the Right and Authority of Bishops, both since, and by occasion of this swearing Canon. And they cannot more readily redeem their reputation, then by a speedy procuring of a repeal or revocation thereof (as we doubt not but they may) by public Authority.

Wherein, if they appear and prevail, they need not fear any disparagement to their prudence, by withdrawing that they have decreed, since the wisest Statesmen, and greatest Governors have used many times, to comply so far with popular dispositions, as to vary their own Acts with relation to their liking, as the Pilot doth his sails, to comply with the winds.

And you cannot have a more Authentic example, both to induce you to this, and to defend you in it (from all imputations) then that of our sacred Sovereign; who, rather then he would give any color of complaint for aggrievances to his people, was pleased to dispense with the five Articles of Perths Assembly, and to discharge all persons from urging the practice thereof upon any, either Laic, or Ecclesiastical person whatsoever: and to free all his subjects from all censures and pains, whether Ecclesiastical, or Secular, for not urging, practicing, or obeying any of them: though they were established, both by a general Assembly, and by Act of Parliament, as this Canon was not.

And for his own Acts (for these Articles of Perth were propounded and ratified in the reign of his Royal Father) he imposed the Service book, the book of Canons, and high Commission, upon his subjects in Scotland; and upon their humble supplication, was content graciously to grant a discharge from them, passing his Princely promise, that he would neither then, nor afterwards press the practice of them, nor anything of that nature; but in such a fair and legal way, as should satisfy all his Majesty's loving Subjects.

Wherein, wise men (who judge of Consultations and Acts by their probable effects, and not by unexpected events) cannot but highly commend his Majesty's mildness and clemency; which, we doubt not, would condescend to your requests, for a removal of this great aggrievance, if you would be pleased to interpose your mediations to so acceptable a purpose: and upon our humble suit (which in all submissive manner we tender) to your Lordship (and, by you, to the rest of your reverend order) we hope you will do so, since we have it upon his word (his Royal Majesty's word) which neither in duty, nor discretion we may distrust, That the Prelates were their greatest friends (i. of his Scottish Subjects) their counsels were always counsels of peace, and their solicitations vehement and earnest, for granting those unexpected favors, which we were pleased to bestow upon our people.

Bestow (we beseech your Lordship) some of these vehement and serious solicitations on our behalf in this cause, and you shall not more free us from the fear of this Canon, then bind us in love, the best love (which casteth out fear) to remain