acknowledgment of the fault, and a promise of amendment for the future. And if so; if the same conditions be required of separatists in the French Church, before they are to be admitted to the communion, wherein does their discipline differ from that of the Church of England?

Calvin says in general, "Of all such as fall off from the Church, either through rigor of discipline, or scandal of the cross, if they make an open separation from the Church, they are by no means to be admitted to the holy supper. Sin palam discessionem ab ecclesia faciunt, ac eos Evangelii pudet vel tædet, nullo modo admittendi sunt ad sacram cœnam." Ep. to Menso Poppius, p. 205, 327.

If it be said, these are only private authorities; I answer, they are such as are agreeable to the Canons in the Book of Discipline; one of which says, "Such as care not to come to our public Christian congregations, but only upon those days when the sacrament of the Lord's supper is celebrated, shail be censured, and admonished of their duty; and to this purpose, they shall join themselves to one certain particular church." Discipl. cap. xii. art. 12.

And the next Canon says, "They who make a trade of hearing the Word of God in one church, and of receiving the sacraments in another, shall be censured; and by the advice of the classis or provincial Synod, they shall be appointed to join themselves to that church which is nearest and most convenient for them." Ibid, art. 13.

These Canons not only prohibit occasional communion to such as absent themselves from the service of the Church, but also to such as frequent not their own Parochial churches. Which justifies another Canon of our Church, which Mr. B. also excepts against; that is, the 28th can. which says, "Ministers shall not admit strangers to the Lord's table among others, but forbid them, and remit such home to their own parish churches and ministers, there to receive the communion with the rest of their neighbours." I can see no difference between this Canon, and that last mentioned of the French discipline: and yet Mr. B. makes this point also a sufficient reason for ministers nonconformity. Eng. Noncon. c. 30.

He says, "Parish bounds are but an human order for conveniency." As if parish bounds in France were not the same thing that they are in England! "But the benefit of an able faithful minister, and the choice and use of such, where they may be had, is of Divine appointment." Then at least the French Church sins as much as the Church of England, in remanding every one back to his own parish, against a Divine appointment. "But some parishes have ministers, that cannot, or may not, be suffered to preach." And I shall shew in due time that this was the case of the Church of France too; which defect they supplied, by ordering Calvin's Homilies* to be read: and yet they did not think this a sufficient reason to allow men to go for communion from their own parish churches. But he says, "Every Christian is related to all the Catholic Church, and as he hath need, hath right to the communion of saints out of his parish." There is no question but that both the French and English Church knew this as well as Mr. B. But what is this to those that have no need to go out of their parish for communion? Is there no difference between ordinary and extraordinary cases? Then all ordinary rules may be broken, because they do not bind in extraordinary cases. have occasion to travel to other parishes or countries, it is fitting they should be allowed to communicate in those places, whither necessity calls them: but it does not hence follow, that it is unlawful to bind men by a canon to communicate in their own parish churches, who have no necessity to do otherwise. And yet thus Mr. B. argues, both against the French and English Churches; though he designed it only against the Church of England.

If men

I observe two things further in the practice and discipline of the French Church, relating to this matter; 1. That no stranger can be admitted to communion in any church, without testimonials from his own church; which was an old rule of the primitive Church, revived by the second Synod of Paris, 1565, cap. xi. art. 26. which says, " Ministers are

*See below, Book II. chap. 2. and Book IV. chap. 10.

advised not to receive the members of any other churches to the Lord's supper, without a sufficient attestation produced by them, under the hands of their pastors or elders, if it may be had." And Beza says, they observe a like rule at Geneva, unless either the persons be otherwise sufficiently known, or will submit to a private examination. Beza, Ep. xx. p. 140.

The other thing I observe in their constitution, is something more remarkable, being an instance of power that the Church of England could never yet lay claim to; which was, that no protestant could enjoy any such civil offices among them, as were particularly specified by the edict of Nantz, unless he was recommended by the public testimonials of the Church. For so the Synod of Tonneins deereed, with a menace of excommunication to them that should do otherwise. "This assembly ordained, that such persons who get themselves preferred to the government of our cautionary towns, or unto the office of counsellors in the mixed courts, or shall obtain any other places granted to gentlemen professing our religion, without taking the necessary testimonials, according to the letter and import of the king's writ for governors, and the particular articles for counsellors in sovereign courts; they shall be declared deserters of the union of our churches, and prosecuted with all Church-censures." Synod of Tonneins, 1614, cap. viii.

art. 11.

The ground of this Canon was the 49th Article of those which are called the secret articles of the edict of Nantz ; which says, "The vacant offices, of which those of the said religion shall be provided in the chambers of the edict, shall be supplied with persons capable; who shall bring a certificate from the Synod or classis unto which they do belong, that they are of the said religion, and honest men." See this art. in the I vol, of the Synodicon, p. 93.

This is a plain evidence, that to qualify men for those civil offices, the testimonials of the Church were required; and it is not to be supposed that they would give their testimonials to any that were not of their Church, or made a separation from it. Whence it appears, that they not only

prohibited occassional communion, but had power to deny those that were not of their communion, the privilege of civil offices; which none could regularly obtain, without testimonials from the Church: which is something more than is now exacted in the Church of England.

If it be said notwithstanding all this, that men had not the same reasons for scrupling conformity in the French Church, or separating from it, that they have in the Church of England: though I have already taken off the main force of this plea in the fourth chapter of this book; by shewing, that subscription is rather more difficult in many cases in the French Church, than it is in the Church of England; yet, to answer it more fully, I will proceed to examine the several particular objections that are made against our Church, relating either, 1. To her articles and homilies. Or, 2. To her liturgy. Or, 3. To her ordinations, government, and canons; and shew, that all such objections may be answered, and the things excepted against be fairly justified, upon the principles and practice of the reformed Church of France. I will begin with the objections made against the Articles and Homilies; which shall be the subject of the next book.

BOOK II.

THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE ARTICLES AND HOMILIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, CONSIDERED, AND ANSWERED UPON THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF FRANCE.

CHAP I.

That approved Writers of the French Church, allow the Articles of the Church of England, as lawful to be subscribed.

WHAT is meant by subscription to the Articles of our Church, is not exactly agreed by those that subscribe them. Some take them only for articles of peace; and they by subscription mean no more than this; that they will so far own and submit to them, as not publicly to dissent from them, or teach any doctrine that is contrary to any thing contained in them. This seems to have been the judgment of archbishop Bramhall, bishop Fowler, and others. But generally, subscription is considered in a stricter sense; as implying a declaration of our own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to silence only and this seems rather to have been the intent and meaning of the Church. But now in