THE CONCLUSION.

CONTAINING A SERIOUS ADDRESS TO DISSENTERS, AND TO THE REFUGEES OF THE FRENCH CHURCH, TO JOIN IN CONSTANT, AND FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

I HAVE nothing more to do, but to close this discourse with a serious exhortation to such persons as are concerned in it, who are chiefly such dissenters, as make use of the arguments I have examined in this Book, to justify their separation from the Church of England. To these, whether laymen, or teachers, I must take leave to say, and here once more remind them of it, that they act, and go upon such principles, as would oblige them to separate from the French Church, and perhaps all other Protestant Churches.

As to what concerns the communion of laymen in particular, I have plainly made it appear, that scarce any conditions are required of them in the English Church, but what are as much insisted on in the Church of France, as well in the offices of baptism, and the Lord's supper, as other parts of divine service. If the English Church challenge to herself a power to decree rites and ceremonies, requiring all her. members peaceably to use and submit to them; the French Church does the same in her Councils, and Synods, making laws about indifferent things, and obliging the people conscientiously to obey them. By virtue of this power, she commands all men to pray kneeling, to receive the Communion standing, to baptize their children in the church only on sermon days, to give them no heathen names, nor the names of Angel, Baptist, Emanuel, &c. To receive the Lord's supper in leavened, and common bread only,

consecrated by a form, delivered with a form, and taken from the minister's hands only: with many other ceremonies of the like nature, of which I have given a particular account in the foregoing treatise. Now either men must say, that the Church of England uses but a lawful power, in prescribing such rites as these, and that all men ought peaceably to comply with her rules, and join Christianly in full communion with her; or else that the French Church abuses her power likewise, and that there is as great a necessity to separate from her communion, as from the communion of the Church of England. But if they cannot consent to condemn the French Church, then neither, in justice, ought they to condemn the English: since the reasons of communion, and separation are the very same in both, and he that forsakes the communion of the one, is by his principles obliged to forsake the other also. When men will take time to consider this impartially, as here they are called upon to do, and directed also in this discourse how to make a true judgment of the practice of both Churches compared together, it may then be hoped they will lay aside their prejudices against the Church of England, and quit those principles, which, if truly followed, will lead them to separate from the French Church, and, it may be, all the Churches of the reformation.

I say the same, with respect to the teachers also: the very same reasons and principles that make them keep up, and maintain separate meetings in England, would oblige them to do the like in France, were they resolved to pursue the same measures that they do here. For, conformity, and uniformity is no less strictly required by the rules of the French Church, than it is by the English. The same subscriptions and oaths, and assent and consent, and vows and covenants, and Canonical obedience are exacted of the French ministers, as are of us here, and he that will not, or cannot comply with those conditions, can regularly be no minister of the French Church. He must either be debarred from entering into the ministry at first, or be censured, silenced, and deposed; if after his subscription to their Articles, Liturgy, Discipline, or Canons, he acts contrary to

his subscription, or raises any contention about them. When he is thus deposed, he must peaceably submit to the deposition, and leave off officiating as a minister; not set up a separate meeting, and preach (when silenced) against the will of his superiors. The first is agreeable to the rules both of the French and English Church, but non-conformists in England call it sacrilegious desertion: and therefore they take the other way, and set up separate meetings, and preach when silenced by the law, though that be as contrary to the rules and discipline of the French Church, as it is to those of the Church of England. Hence it is plain, that they who set up, and maintain separate meetings in England, must, upon the same reasons and principles think themselves obliged to do the same in the French Church also. For it cannot now be pretended, that the conditions of the ministry in the English Church are so vastly different from the French, that ministers are forced to set up separate meetings here, which they should not be compelled to do there since I have shewn this plea to be groundless, by examining the particular exceptions made against subscription in England; and proving that the very same, if not much greater difficulties occur in the subscriptions of the French Church.

Nor do I see what can be urged further in this case, unless it be the business of re-ordination, which some reckon so great a charge against the act of uniformity; because it obliges every beneficiary to receive episcopal ordination, according to the form, and rites of the Church of England. But what harm there is in this, I confess, I never yet could see, and I am sure there is nothing in it contrary to the principles or practice of Geneva, nor perhaps, of the whole French Church. For 1. At Geneva it is their common practice, whenever they remove a minister from one church to another, to give him a new and solemn ordination by imposition of hands, and prayer. This we learn from an epistle of the pastors of Geneva to those of Berne, which is among Calvin's Epistles, p. 264. Where speaking of one Camperel, a minister of Geneva, who was translated to a

country parish, they say," he suffered himself to be ordained there by our brother Calvin, &c. And we do not think that to be a childish pageantry, when a minister is assigned to any church by a solemn rite, with public invocation of the name of God." Now if it be lawful by the rules of the Church of Geneva, for a minister to receive a new solemn ordination, when he is translated from one church to another: why cannot men in England consent to receive a new ordination, when the law requires it, in order to settle themselves regularly in any church? Especially when it is for the sake of peace and union, and to take off all manner of doubtfulness, and scruples from the people. I dispute not now, whether their former ordinations were valid: it is certain, they are not more valid than those of Geneva; nor can they themselves think them more valid, than the ministers of Geneva think theirs: wherefore, if it be lawful at Geneva, for a minister to receive a new ordination, because the laws require it: I do not see what can make it unlawful in England to submit to the same thing, in compliance with the law, when men have no other regular way to settle themselves in any cure; let their opinion of their former ordination be what it will, which comes not into the present dispute. For, even supposing their former ordination to be valid, I shew, they may submit to a new ordination, without sin: and if they will be peaceable they ought to do it, after the example of Geneva, rather than set up separate meetings, and preach against the will of their superiors, to the disturbance of the peace of the Church.

2. Whether the same thing be practised all over France that is at Geneva, I have not yet observed: but this we are certain of, which is more to the purpose, that generally the French ministers who come over into England, are ready to receive episcopal ordination, when they can have it. Which is an argument, that they are neither enemies to episcopal

Passus est se ordinari illic a fratre nostro Calvino.-Ludum puerilem esse non putamus, quum solenni ritu addicitur uni Ecclesiæ minister, cum publicâ nominis Dei invocatione.

power and jurisdiction itself, nor think it contrary to the rules of their Church, or the rules of the Gospel, to receive a new ordination. And if those I am speaking to, will prove to the world, that they are willing to imitate the practice, and walk by the rules of the French Church, they must imitate their ministers in this particular, as well as conform in all other points, wherein I have shewn the agreement of the two Churches. They are here called upon once more to shew their conformity, by imitating the practice of the French Church, where it is agreeable to the Church of England. And sure, they that are peaceable cannot refuse to do this, which is according to their own rule of reformation. To them, therefore, I address this discourse, not to men who are wholly governed by interest, or passion (on whom it is not likely to make any great impression) but to the reasonable and the peaceable, who, it is to be hoped, will take it into their most serious consideration.

My last address, is to those gentlemen of the French Church, who are fled hither for sanctuary, from the heat and fury of the late persecution. What I have to say to them, is, that as they regard the venerable authority of their own National Synods, and the avowed principles of that Church, into which they were baptized; whose doctrine they profess, and by whose discipline they are willing to be governed; they should vigorously maintain, and assert the cause of the Church of England, against all that set up distinct communions, and unreasonably divide themselves from her. The French Church, it is certain, by her principles, is no friend to separation : all her sons, whofmay be supposed to understand her principles, must needs here join with me: therefore, if there be any who act otherwise, and either secretly, or openly encourage separation, or any principles tending thereto, they must be concluded to act as much against the true interest, and principles of their own Church as they do against the Church of England. I do not, in saying this, intend to accuse any, but only warn them against the force, and subtlety of a dangerous temptation, which they may be liable to, for want of a right apprehension of the principles, and constitution of their own Church, or