still is the case of the Church of England: whether the sects and schisms that are among us do not greatly hinder the exercise of discipline; and whether a formal excommunication of all that deserve it, might not raise a greater and more dangerous schism than any yet among us, and instead of purging the bad from the good, only enrage a party to contrive her ruin and destruction: whether in such a case, it be not better to suffer the tares to grow among the wheat, and patiently bear with some corrupt members of the Church, rather than expose her to so great inconveniencies; remembering that saying of St. Augustine's and the Synod of Nismes, "That when medicines will do more harm than good, they are to be forborne." Whether this be actually the case of the Church of England, I leave wiser men to determine: if it be, her practice is her prudence, and what others call her fault, is, properly speaking, the effect of her charity and discretion: but if it be otherwise, if she might have an exact discipline, and will not, though that be a fault, yet it will not justify a separation from her, as I have proved from the principles of the French Church. And so I think I have fully answered this objection about want of discipline in the Church of England.

As to the commination office, which was appointed to be used, till discipline could happily be restored, it is so useful and innocent, that I do not find many persons that have any thing to object against it. Only the authors of the Necessity of Reformation in 1660, bring some railing accusations against it. They say, p. 31, "it is a necessitating people to curse themselves, and employing ministers of the Gospel, whose office is to be the messengers of peace, in cursing the people, as part of their office; which is an inhuman and unchristianlike invention, that has no warrant from the Word of God, nor from the practice of the Primitive Church, but is a latter spawn of Antichrist in his popish services."

Some men have used their tongues and pens so much to opprobrious language, that they can scarce speak of any thing they dislike, but under the reviling names of popish

and antichristian. I would ask such men, whether it be not part of the minister's office to declare God's threatenings, as well as his promises? or whether the Gospel be all promises, and no revelation of the wrath of God against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? as St. Paul says it is, Rom. i. 18. If there be declarations of God's judgments in the Gospel, as well as promises of pardon and peace, how comes the one to be the minister's duty more than the other? Or why must the declaration of God's judgments be called cursing the people, or the people's consenting to the truthi and equity of them be called cursing themselves, as cursing signifies imprecation of evil upon men? concerning which there is not one word in the commination office. But if by cursing, they mean only denunciation of God's judgments against unrepenting sinners, then their charge of popish and antichristian is not so much against our office, as the Gospel itself. Perhaps the Primitive Church had no such set form in her Liturgy, nor has the French Church any that I know of: but doubtless the ministers both of the one and the other did frequently do the same thing in their sermons and homilies; notwithstanding that they were ministers of the Gospel of Peace. And I challenge any person to shew us any passage in a French writer, where such an office is called popish and antichristian.

Besides the office of thanksgiving after childbirth, (which I remember not any objection made against,) there remains but one office more in the Liturgy to be spoken to, which is the form of ordaining bishops, priests, and deacons ; against which Mr. Baxter has a great many objections, in speaking of the eighth Canon of our Church; which, because they will be more properly cousidered under that title, I refer the reader to the next Book, and here put an end to this part of my discourse; having made it appear, that there is no office in our Liturgy, in ordinary use among us, nor any particular Rubrick or prescription in any office, but may be assented to, and justified upon the principles and practice of the Reformed Church of France. In some things our Liturgy exceeds theirs, as in the form of absolution and communion of

the sick, the want of which Calvin confesses to be defects in his Liturgy, which he could not help: in other forms they exactly agree, and in such forms as we have more than they, or they more than we, it is so far agreed, that there is nothing repugnant to the word of God in either. Whence it follows, that they are unreasonable, who separate from our Church upon account of the Liturgy, because it is not reformed according to the example of the best Reformed

Church.

BOOK IV.

THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE CANONS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED UPON THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF FRANCE.

CHAP. I.

Of Ordinaries and Chancellors, and that as strict an Oath of Canonical Obedience is required in the French Church, as in the Church of England.

BEFORE I speak of the Canons in particular, it will be necessary to say something of the promise and oath of canonical obedience, which refers to them all in general. In the form of ordination, this question is put to every priest and deacon: "Will you reverently obey your ordinary, and other chief ministers, to whom is committed the charge and government over you; following with a glad mind and will their Godly admonitions, and submitting yourselves to their Godly judgments?" And the answer is, "I will do so, the Lord being my help!" In like manner every beneficiary, when he is instituted into any benefice, swears, that he will pay true and canonical obedience to the bishop and his successors in omnibus licitis et honestis. Now we have no controversy with dissenters, about the meaning of this promise or oath: it is agreed on both sides, that canonical obedience in effect, is no more than obedience to the orders and Canons of the Church, and does not subject men to any unlimited power, or require any new duty from

them, but such as the bishop may require by virtue of the Canons so that if the Canons be lawful, one would think the oath of canonical obedience should be lawful also. Yet Mr. Baxter has several objections against it. Eng. Nonform. Cap. 6.

1. He likes not the word successors: "Little know we of what religion their successors will be, or who will have the choosing of them. I'll not swear to I know not who." But here he forgot what was just now said and agreed upon, that canonical obedience in effect, is obedience to the Canons, and the bishop's successors are as much obliged to rule by the Canons, as the bishop in being; so that if obedience be due to the one, ruling by the Canons, it is with the same proviso due to the other also. In the French Church, their oath of canonical obedience is taken to the Canons, or Book of Discipline, and decrees of their national Synods, of which I have given a full account in the first Book, chap. 3. Where the reader may observe, that though neither consistories, classes, nor provincial synods be expressly mentioned in the oath, yet obedience to them and their successors is implied: for they are the ordinaries, which are to see the Canons executed by every particular minister, and have power to punish delinquents, which they could not have, unless by their rules canonical obedience was due to them. Nor is the minister's oath supposed to be taken only to the present consistories, classes, or synods, but to all that shall succeed in their place and office, during the minister's whole life, so long as they exact no other obedience from him but what is due by the Canons. So that, for ought I can see, the word successors does not at all make our oath of canonical obedience difficult to any, but such as are willing to make a stumbling-block of disobedience of it. If Mr. Baxter could not swear to he knew not who, how would he have done in the French Church, to have sworn to he knew not what? I mean to the decrees and Canons of their national Synods before they were made, as I have shewn, the French ministers did;* when they

*See Book I. chap. 3.