tian member of the Church that denieth it: as if the perfection of their works were an article of the creed, and necessary to salvation to be believed. Is not this puritanism, pharisaical, and a justification of works ?"

It were a much modester question, to ask, whether this be not such a rant, and run of boisterous style, as any good man that had looked over his writings in sober thoughts a second time, would have thought fit to have softened and corrected? But be the charge what it will, it holds no more against the Church of England, than it does against the Reformed Church of France, and it may be all other settled Protestant Churches. So that at this rate of arguing, all National Reformed Churches shall be pharisees, puritans and papists together.

As to the Church of France, I have already proved, that they oblige every minister not only to subscribe, but many times swear to their Liturgy, or Book of Common Prayer, catechism, administration of sacraments, &c. Now I hope they would not make men swear to that which they did not at least believe to be agreeable to the word of God, and were satisfied that it contained nothing in it repugnant to the Scriptures. But if so, then they were puritans, pharisees, and papists in Mr. Baxter's account, for forcing men to justify a large volume of forms, orders, rubricks, &c. all as sinless. But the Church of England forces the people as well as the ministers to be modest, and not rail at the Liturgy as a corrupt, superstitious, unlawful worship, repugnant to the word of God, under pain of excommunication. And is it not fit such men's mouths should be stopped, who traduce and speak evil of the worship of God, to the disturbance of the peace of the Church, and detriment of piety and religion? Such were the continued declamations of Goodman, Gilby, Penry, and the rest of that strain, which may be seen collected by Bishop Bancroft, in his Book called Dangerous Positions, &c. Lib. 2. and which probably might give occasion to the making of this very Canon. But whatever was the occasion of it, it is the very same in substance with a Canon of the French Church in their Book of Discipline, cap. 5. art. 31. which is in these words: "If one or more of

the people stir up contention, and do thereby break the Church's union in any point of doctrine or discipline, or about the form of catechizing, or administration of sacraments, or public prayers, or the celebration of marriage, and that private admonitions have not been effectual remedies to appease them; the Consistory of that place shall endeavour to compose the whole affair; and in case the dissenters do not acquiesce therein, the Consistory shall intreat the Classis to assemble at a convenient time and place, they having first engaged the said dissenters in express terms, and upon record, to promise, that they will not spread their opinions in any manner or way till the meeting of the Classis, upon pain of being censured as schismatics. And if they refuse to give the said promises, they shall be censured for rebels, according to our discipline. Then it is ordered, that if the Classis cannot bring them to be quiet and conform, they shall be referred to a Provincial Synod, and from that to a National Synod; unto which if they refuse to yield full obedience, and in express terms to disclaim their recorded errors, they shall be cut off by excommunication from the body of our Church."

Does not this Canon denounce excommunication against obstinate traducers of the French Liturgy, in as full terms as the Canon of the Church of England? The only difference is, that the one orders a long process against them, the other proceeds more summarily with them, as supposing the things in controversy to have been sufficiently argued and handled already, and that there need not be recourse to a Provincial or National Synod upon every such occasion. Mean while all proper methods may be used to instruct or convince gainsayers, notwithstanding this excommunication ipso facto denounced against them. And it is further to be observed, that this Canon is not intended against those, who have scruples in their own minds, or modestly propose their scruples to their spiritual guides, in order to obtain satisfaction: but against such only as speak evil of the Liturgy with scandal and offence, and with a malicious design to vilify and disparage it.

CHAP. III.

That the French Church censures Impugners of her Articles, and Discipline, and Rights, and Ceremonies, according to the 5th and 6th Canons of the Church of England.

The 5th Canon is in these words: "Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that any of the nine and thirty articles are in any part superstititious, or erroneous, or such as may not with a good conscience be subscribed: let him be excommunicated," &c.

The 6th is this, "Whoever shall affirm, that the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England by law established, are wicked, antichristian, or superstitious, or such as being commanded by lawful authority, men who are zealously and Godly affected, may not with any good conscience approve them, use them, or as occasion requireth, subscribe unto them: let them be excommunicated ipso facto," &c.

These Canons are to be understood in the same sense and latitude as the former. Every man does not deserve excommunication that has any scruples about any of the Articles or ceremonies, or modestly and seasonably proposes his scruples for information: but the factious and turbulent may deserve it, who declaim against every thing they like not, as wicked, superstitious and antichristian, and thereby scandalize the weak, and disturb the peace of the Church, and destroy its union. Admit that some things in the Articles and ceremonies are matters of small moment: yet it is not a thing of small moment to break the Church's peace by raising contention about them. Suppose they be not articles of faith, nor necessary to salvation, yet peace is a necessary duty, and strife and contention great sins, be the matters never so small which men contend about. Therefore, though men should not deserve to be cast out of the Church for their bare dissent, yet they may for their factious and turbulent spirits, for their bitterness and

clamours, and evil speakings, for their strifes and seditions and contentious humours: for these things will exclude them from the kingdom of heaven. And it can be no crime to excommunicate such, who first by their strife and contention excommunicate themselves. Or if it be a crime, it is such a one as the National Church of France has always been guilty of, who by that Canon of their Book of Discipline which I but now mentioned, decree," that if one or more of the people stir up contention, and do thereby break the Church's union in any point of doctrine or discipline, or about the form of catechising, or administration of sacraments, or public prayers, &c. and cannot be wrought upon in express terms to disclaim their errors, they shall be cut off by excommunication from the body of the Church."

Is not this to make matters of small moment and dubious, Articles of the creed, and necessary to church communion, as much as the Church of England does? Are not all men cast out of the Church that dissent from them? Does not this excommunication extend to laymen in France as well as England? Is it not as harsh there, to lay so great stress on every ceremony of the Church, as to excommunicate every one that calleth any one of them unlawful? Does the Church of England equal her constitutions to the ten commandments and the creed, any more than the Church of France does? And yet thus Mr. Baxter argues against these two Canons of our Church, Chap. 24 and 25 of his Eng. Nonconform. and then cries out, what is pharisaical if this be not?

He might as well have said, it was Turcism, Popery, and Paganism. For what is calumny, if this be not? The Church of England requires all her members, as the Church of France does, to raise no contentions about her doctrine or ceremonies, not to impugn or traduce them as antichristian or unlawful, and thereby raise schisms and divisions about them. And this he calls equalling them to the creed and ten commandments, as if the Church of England required men to take them all for necessary points of faith and terms of salvation; when yet she does not forbid a modest dissent from them, but only men's expressing their

dissent in such a way as tends to create divisions, and draw them off from her commmunion. It is one thing to dissent and err in opinion, and another to express that dissent with contempt and disdain either by word or action. The one may deserve pity, whilst the other calls for censures and rebuke. And if the Church censure such with excommunication, she does no more than what the Primitive Church did and all other settled Churches now do, and what she seems authorized to do by an Apostolical Canon, "Mark those that cause divisions among you, and avoid them."

Dr. Sutcliff observed long ago, before our Canons were made, that the practice of France and Geneva was very severe in this particular. "For that John Morelly disputed in a certain treatise, that the words 'Tell the Church' belonged not to the consistory; his book was burnt, and the man excommunicated. Two ministers at Geneva were deposed and banished for speaking against usury allowed in that state. And another was glad to fly, for speaking against unleavened bread." Sutcliff. of Eccl. Discipl. c. 7. sect. 5. P. 132.

Monsieur Amyraut, Professor of divinity at Saumur, delivers it as his opinion from the chair, "That that man is not to be reputed a Christian, who despises and tramples on the laws of the Church. Forasmuch as they derogate nothing from christian liberty, and ought not to be esteemed a slavery, being but few in number, where the Church is rightly governed, and such as recommend themselves to the consciences of men; so that the faithful observe them with a willing mind." Amyrald. Thes. de Libert. Christ. n. 13. inter Thes. Salmur.

By this rule then, to rail at the doctrine of the 20th Article, which speaks of the Church's power to decree rites and ceremonies, may be a crime deserving excommunication.

Calvin in one of his epistles to Viret, p. 61. speaks of a certain petulant preacher, called Maurisius, who was used to vent in his sermons bitter invectives against the ministers of Geneva, and more especially Calvin himself; saying, that they were worse than the papists, and taught false doctrine contrary to the word of God, &c. Now it came to be