becomes unfit to live among them the two great parts of the Catholick Church that in Heaven and this on Earth have a Communion in that they are both United to Christ both worship and serve him in those particular ways that are proper for the state they are in and both wait for that compleat Salvation which they shall have at their general meeting besides this we know of no Communion betwixt them viz that either part can be serviceable to each other at present only we that live on earth enjoy the benefit of the Prayers and Examples which they left us who are now in Heaven and of their endeavours to continue the Gospel to us and so we succeed them in the same offices and endeavour to transmit the Knowledge of Christ his Gospel and Ordinances to those that shall succeed us nor can here be any Separation of one of these parts from another without breaking of Christian Religion which is impossible to them that are in Heaven and if any on earth thus separate it is to their own damnation The Catholick Militant Church on Earth hath a Communion in some more particulars for besides their common acknowledgement of Christ and his Gospel and the common love they are to bear to all Christians on earth as their Brethren they are to perform all offices of love which in this their imperfect militant state they are able and may need from one another such as to pray for all to rejoyce in each others welfare to sympathize in each others afflictions to assist by councell charitable relief hospitallity c. and when ever there is occasion to receive each other to their worship as brethren leaving to every one the liberty of their particular rites or opinions and this is so indispensable a duty that no Separation can be lawfull or tolerable in those who separate from the Catholick Church who relinquish the profession of Christ or cast of all love to their Brethren or that will not joyn with them in the worship of God or concern themselves in their common concerns Now for Organized Churches that are associated for the exercise of their Religion and their edification under Government o Pastours and Guides their Communion must be that the Members of every such Church joyn with each other ordinarily and peaceably in the same Acts of Worship and perform all offices of love to each other in some tolerable measure that they be subject to their Governours and that their Governours do conscionably endeavour the edification of the people committed to their charge according to the Laws of Christ which are the general rules of these societies and according to any other particular rules which they shall agree on amongst themselves for their own edification as Circumstances may require and so that both parts Governours and Governed do joyntly promote the edification of the whole Body in Holiness and Peace Separation therefore from these Organized Churches is a Breach of this Political Communion and Order among themselves which is done either by breaking off from the Body to which they belonged as Members which is Separation properly so called or by disturbing the Communion of it or withdrawing from some parts or acts of that Communion though they do not wholly break off from the body such Seperation is in many cases Lawfull in some necessary and a duty and therefore must not be Universally Condemned but the causes of it be inquired into For though all Christians must be Members of Christ and of the Catholick Church under him for the general ends of their Salvation it doth not appear yet that they must be Members of the same Organized Society or that they may not upon just occasions leave those societies they were joyned with and go to others already in being or constitute new ones for their own edification even as in civil government men may not only compose divers Polities or Common-Wealths but may also make new confederacies or divide their Polities into lesser and particular persons may depart from them to others or constitute new ones yea may deny their concurrence with many things done in the society they joyn with and all this without the Crime of Sedition or defection till the causes and ends of such practise prove it so Now to descend to the particular forms of Organized Churches by what hath been said we may easily judge of their Communion and Separation from them And First For the Oecumenicall Church the Political Communion thereof must be that all Christians in the World be subject to the same Governours under Christ and live as Members of the same individual society either as a single Congregation or as of many united into one Separation from this Communion must therefore be either to interrupt the peace and order of this Communion or wholly to forbear joyning with them but such a Catholick unity of the Church under one Government being impracticable and inconsistent with the edification of the Church since it is inlarged and dispersed throughout the world it is needless to dispute about Communion with it or Separation from it All other Churches that exceed the bounds of a single Congregation and must be constituted of many are of the same nature with the Oecumenicall Church though not of the same latitude as to the matter of Communion which must therefore consist in the performance of all offices mutually betwixt Governours and Governed as Members of the same society whether it consists of several Nations as Patriarchial Churches or of the people of one Nation as National Churches or of the people of one Province one Diocess or Classis as Provincial Diocesan or Classical Churches Separation here must be either a disturbing of the peace and order of these Churches or a withdrawing from them as to the political duties due to them such Separation must often be lawfull and warrantable seeing no command of Christs binds men to particular Provinces or Diocesses nor always to continue in the same Finally The Communion of a Parish or Congregation consists in this that Pastours and People mutually perform their respective duties to each other and amongst themselves for their dayly edification Separation from such Congregations is either to interrupt their Government or Concord or to withdraw from them now seeing no man is immutably bound to one Congregation nor any Congregation to one Diocess or any larger combination and all these Churches are subject to corruptions which the Members must oppose and contend against separation from them must not be censured till it be known whether the cause be just or unjust And thus we are come at the last to enquire What are just causes of Separation whereby we may judge also what are not And that we may not speak too generally and confusedly we distinguish betwixt Separation of one Church from another and of particular Members from that Church whereto they did belong As all Churches are bound to Communion among themselves being all Members of the
been all cast out as it was in Scotland the Argument is the same and their People left either desolate or like to be betrayed to Ignorance and Superstition that it were unlawful for these Ministers to Preach to this People in Temporary Assemblies or Congregations till this storm may happily blow over I find no force in the Argument but each Reader must judge for himself CHAP. III. An Answer to the 3d. Argument from the Nature and Sinfulness of Separation THE Dr. spends the whole second part of his Book in Examining as he saith Sect. 1. The Principles of the present Separation and those are of two degrees 1. Of some that hold no Communion with the Church of England lawful 2. Those that hold only occasional Communion with them lawful but not constant and then proceeds to argue against Separation from Churches whose Doctrine and Worship are for substance true and good and to shew many inconveniencies that will arise from such Separation Now though some of the Drs. Answerers have diverted to more general Questions about the Nature of Church Unity Terms of Communion and Causes of Separation and its several degrees and so have given him occasion to follow them yet I judge all this to be wide of our present Question in the sence and apprehension of most Non-Conformists for we are not disputing about much less erecting new Churches The Question only is whether it be Schismatical and Unjustifiable for us to Preach and Exercise all Ministerial Acts to the People in our Circumstances still maintaining all the Peace and Communion we can hoping in Gods due time this Wound of the Church may be healed What further Questions any particular Men have about the Constitution of Churches belongs not to the Cause or Party of the Non-Conformists whose sence he wrongfully ascribes to Mr. A and Mr. B. when they only speak of General Questions about Church Communion and not our particular Case in hand All the Arguments therefore or force of this discourse to our present purpose lieth in this Obj. Separation from Churches granted to be sound in Doctrine and Worship is sinful and in its effects very evil but such Separation he would insinuate is the Non-Conformists Preaching therefore sinful Answ In Answer to this we say 1. That the Non-Conformists do disclaim and are not constrained to own by this their Practise any Principle of Separation 2. We shall shew wherein the great Evil of Separation lieth And 3. That the Dr. hath provided no better Remedy against it then those whom he opposeth 1. The Non-Conformists disclaim Separation for they acknowledge the Parishes of England to be true Churches and the Doctrine and Worship established by Law amongst them to be true and sound they acknowledge themselves Members of those Parishes though wrongfully thrust out and evilly intreated by them They did not Separate themselves nor withdraw from them but first the Ministers were cast out by new devised terms imposed on them and afterwards many of the People were excommunicated and more would have been could the Parish Ministers have had their wills for non-communicating in doubtful if not sinful things They are also ready and desirous to return to a full union with the Parishes when ever the obstacles shall be removed And as they own no separation so their practise doth not constrain them to acknowledge it They hold Communion with the Parishes not only in Faith and Doctrine but also in acts of worship where they think they can lawfully do it and when they are not imployed elsewhere But the Dr. thinks if it be lawful for us to communicate occasionally or sometimes with the Church we are bound to doe it alwayes his reason is because if we be members of the Church and the Church be in such a condition that we can sometimes communicate with it then we must do it upon all occasions or else we separate and become members of a new Church For Answer I say that there are many cases wherein men ought to continue members of a Church i. e. not totally to break off but wait till abuses may be amended and breaches healed and yet it not be their duty to hold constant communion in all or any acts of publick worship This appears by the instance of the ten Tribes after Jeroboams Apostacy they were still members of the Church of Jerusalem and might not gather any other Church there were many amongst them who held Communion with Judah in Doctrine and Charity but yet could not go up to Jerusalem to all or any of the Feasts or Sacrifices which were there cheif Publick Worship And that they sinned not in forbearing appears because the eminent Prophets Elijah Elisha and their Schollars who were so numerous that Obadiah alone saved an hundred from Jezabels cruelty and they had four Seminaries or Colledges wherein they were bred up these I say lived amongst them and kept private meetings with them but neither went themselves nor required the people to go up to Jerusalem as things then stood Hosea blamed the Priests for laying snares and nets upon Mizpah and Tabor Chap. 5.12 to entrap those who out of zeal did go up to Jerusalem and thereby caused them to be put to death but we do not find that this Prophet or Jonas or Amos who were all sent to the ten Tribes and preached to them where they had opportunity did ever press them to go up to all acts of Publick worship at Jerusalem because they were Members of that Church Again the people of Judah who lived nearer to the Temple and had free access to it when it was open those that were upright whether Priests or private persons went not up to it in the time of Idolatrous Kings when the Publick Worship was corrupted yet they continued members of the Church they frequented the Synagogues or more private meetings at home Malac. 3.16 and waited sometimes many years till Publick abuses should be redressed I know it will be said the case is not the same Idolatry was here set up in Publick and so it is not with us I Answer The question is not about the parrelling the case but the truth of this proposition that where occasional communion is lawful constant is necessary for here we see men continue members of a Church yea the Priests and Levites continued officers in it and the Prophets prophesied in it and so held communion occasionally when they could and in those things they could lawfully but they did not communicate in all things nor at all times nor were bound to it But let us go a little farther after the Captivity the Jews being dispersed through all Countreys there continued and set up their Synagogues and house of prayer where ever they could have leave Those Jews were still members of the Church at Jerusalem and yet did not could not the farre greatest part of them go up thither They therefore held communion in some things as the expounding the Law and prayer but
first Churches pretend to make new Officers or constitute any Government other then Christ appointed Presbyters and Deacons are the Church Officers which they owned indeed there is frequent mention of Bishops in Antient Authors but Augustine 400 years after Christ saith that a Bishop was but titulus honoris a name of honour given to one Minister above the rest but that they were all alike and his contemporary Hierome olim Ecclesiae Communi Presbyterorum concilio regebantur that Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbytery and of the practise of his own time he saith quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter nothing but Ordination was appropriated to the Bishop the Presbyters did every thing else as well as he Jerom. Epist ad Evag. divers learned men never yet answered have proved that all antiquity acknowledged Bishops and Presbyters to be but one order of Ministers and our Dr thought it once impossible certainly to state what was the Government of the Primitive Church but this is certain that in Cyprians time Anna Christi 250 the Bishop did nothing in the Government without the consent of his Clergy and approbation of the people and to them Cyprian ascribeth even to the common people the cheif power of choosing and refusing their Bishops Epist 4. and of withdrawing from them that were unworthy so that all that hath been said in the defence or excuse of our prelacy with sole power of government administred by Lay-men is nothing to the purpose when we dispute whether Christ appointed or the Primitive Church had Bishops seeing all sides agree that That Church never had such Bishops and such Discipline or any Bishops at all but what were chosen by the Clergy and people for near a Thousand years 3. Nor do the Reformed Churches retain those things which our Non-conformists scruple They all wholy laid aside both the substance and the Form of the Roman service Their Lyturgie Responses short prayers repetitions Ceremonies and use of the Apocryphal writings also their Government and Discipline except the Lutherans who retain many of their Ceremonies and Holy-dayes with some of their errours in Doctrine The Protestants have generally composed short Lyturgies of their own containing some few forms of Prayer together with a Method of Publick worship and directions for Visitation of the sick c. But they neither put in things that may be serupled nor imposed forms of words on their Ministers as our Lytourgy doth in all Offices Publick and Private The Waldenses our first Reformers and a Noble race of Confessors and Martyrs governed themselves by the Common consent of their Pastours and Elders chosen out of the People Hist Waldens lib. 2. cap. 2. 4. as do all the Reformed Churches at this day except the Lutherans The Bohemians indeed and some Waldenses in Austria thought a Bishop necessary by Divine Institution but that he was to doe nothing in the Church of himself but all by the consent of the Presbyters Commend Exhort and witthe approbation of the people which is Cyprians Bishop not an English Prelate The Lutherans have their Superintendents or Bishops but by humane Constitution and such as deprive not the Ministers of their Office Now seeing Scripture Antiquity and the practise of all Reformed Churches doe so much favour their cause The Non-conformists thought they had a great deal of reason to persist in their desire of further Reformation in the Church of England and in their dissent from those things for which nothing material can be soberly pleaded but the command of the Magistrate So that all the blame of want of Perfect Reformation and of keeping up divisions in our own Church and turning its Ceesures against many of its best members is from age to age laid wholly upon the Kings and Parliaments by those who would yet be taken for the greatest maintainers of reverence of Authority CHAP. V. The Reasons of the present Non-conformists in Particular for their dissent THe Non-conformists of the present Age viz. such as cannot conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England according to Act of Uniforty made 1662 have all the same reasons for their Non-conformity that their Predecessours had and some new ones peculiar to themselves for both all the same things in the Lyturgy and Government which were a burthen to their Fathers are imposed on them without the least abatement amendment or alteration and also new impositions are laid upon them to make the yoke more intollerable These are such as follow 1. That they were denyed all Reformation of the Lyturgy and Government of the Church It was now somewhat above an hundred years that there had been continued desires of amendment in the Lyturgy and Government but none could be obtained King James in the beginning of his Reign made a shew of hearing the Non-conformists objections in the Conference at Hampton-Court But the issue was only to make a greater pretence to enjoyn Conformity more strictly as having heard all their Reasons against it and found nothing worthy consideration in them In like manner the present Non-conformists were dealt with for as we are told in the Preface to the Act of Uniformity First some Divines both Conformists and Non-conformists were by Commission appointed to review the Service book and to make necessary amendments in it next a Convocation of the Conforming Clergy was called to re-view the book last of all his Majesty had seen and re-viewed what they had done and the issue of all this was that the Epistles and Gospels should be read in the new Translation and to amend two or three words which by the fault of the Printers had crept into the Book and spoiled the sence and nothing considerable and then the Book passed an Act of Parliament requiring more rigorous Conformity then ever before The Parliament not once reading the book but with an implicite faith as a Member of the House of Commons said passed and confirm'd under the highest penalties next to death it self that which they never saw nor examined And yet now the Reasons for Non-conformity were stronger then before There had been sufficient time to wean the people from the Modes and Ceremonies in dispute yea and the body of the people were now sufficiently weary of them and the greater number of Learned and pious Ministers desired they might be laid aside above all they had been laid aside about sixteen years and the people were well content nor was there any decay of knowledge or piety amongst them upon this alteration Now was there a fair occasion to have amended any thing amiss and for the Bishops to have there Non-conforming brethren gratified in any reasonable things who were now as considerable as themselves for Number and interest with the People and yet offered to consent to any reasonable terms of accomodation surely all this did neither encourage nor oblige the Non-conformists to submit to that new Act of Uniformity
2. But instead of amending any thing amiss or disliked in the Liturgy some things were added to make it more offensive viz Sundays are more expresly reckoned as Church-Feasts than in the former book the new book saith thus a Table of all the Feasts that are to be observed in the Church of England through the year all Sundays in the year The former book thus these holy days to be observed and no other all Sundays in the year The word Holy-day which was somewhat suspicious is now changed to Feast-day and Sundays put in the number of Feast-days without any distinction which makes it more evident that they are accounted but Church Festivals The 29 of September in the old book is appointed a Festival to Michael the Arch-Angel the new book adds and to all Angels so that this is a Festival in the honour of all the Angels as the First of Novemb. is in honour of all the Saints also two new Holy-days are added never before enjoyned by the former book viz St Pauls Conversion and St Barnabas Moreover in the book of Consecration several passages are added declaring Bishops to be a distinct order from the Presbyters and the 36th Artic. is appointed to be understood of this book herein they contradict the Law and the Judgment of all our first Reformers in K. Edw. and Q. Eliz. days and the very book of Consecration it self 3. Nevertheless all Ministers are to approve this book and that by a publick declaration in the Congregation when they first enter upon their Ministry in these words and no other I vid. Act. of unif Ann. 14 Can. 2. A B do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the book entituled the book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter of Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the form or manner of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priest and Deacons It is said in excuse of this imposition that it is only a consent to the use not an approbation of the truth and goodness of all contained in the book because the words immediate foregoing are that Ministers should declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in that book contained and prescribed Be it so and that the words Assent and Consent signifie the same things after the manner of Lawyers though some doubt it and those words to the use c. are not expressed in the form of a Declaration which they ought to have been yet we must observe First That this was a further alteration of the Case of Conformity to make it more intollerable Q. Eliz. Act of Uniformity only required that Ministers should be bound to read the book of Common Prayer and no other Liturgies or forms of prayer in publick The Canons went further and did require they should subscribe at their Ordination before the Bishop that the book of Common Prayer and of Ordination hath nothing in it contrary to the word of God that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use that and no other but this new Declaration is to be made publickly before the Congregation on forfeiture of their Ministry and place that so there may be no favour shewed to any Also it requireth unfeigned Assent and Consent which cannot mean less then an hearty approbation of the use of what is enjoyned which is much more then barely to judge that nothing is contrary to Gods word and that they may be Lawfully used This Assent and Consent is to be made to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the book of Common Prayer c. and then the particulars are specified viz the Prayers the Administration of Sacraments and of other Rites and Ceremonies and the book of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons and the Psalter or Psalms of David as they use to be said in the Church of England Here is nothing omitted of all those things the Non-Conformists used to object against some as unlawfull and others as inconvenient and not for edification yet now they must from their hearts allow the use of them each one in particular not omitting the corrupt translation of the Pslams contradicted by our own allowed Bibles which how they could do who long contended that many of these things ought to be reformed let all that have Conscience judg The Non-Conformists think no form of words could have been contrived more spitefully either to keep them from conforming or to make them lay wast their Consciences if they did conform besides that they know from the mouths of the compilers that they did design it for these ends that they might either root out every branch of Conformity out of mens judgments or every Non-Conformist out of the Church 4. The Act requires this Assent and Consent not only of all that should hereafter enter the Ministry but of all those likewise that were already Ministers and were either Pastours or Lecturers in any Congregation and this Declaration to be made together with the subscription hereafter to be mentioned by a certain day viz before the 24th of August Anno 1662 whereas it is generally known that the book of Common Prayer came not out of the press abroad till within two or three days of that said 24th of August so that it was impossible that it should be seen much more that it should be considered by half the Ministers in England before that day and those that were resolved to keep their Places did a great part of them subscribe before they had read the book which practise doth manifest a further design to root out all that made any Conscience of what they said or subscribed seeing they must doe it without consideration or loose their places however to devise and impose new Terms of Communion upon men that are in the quiet possession and practice of their ministry is very unjust and contrary to all peace and by this practise men shall never be at quiet for though they have conform'd to all things enjoyned they know not how soon a prevailing faction will enjoyn them more nor what that will be especially the things enjoyned in the Declaration and Subscription being such as was known before hand many of the Ministers in place could not subscribe to with safe Consciences It is apparent that their design was not the peace of the Church but to remove them out of the Church 5. It is further required that all should have Episcopal Ordination who should in any sort exercise the Ministry had this concerned only those that should thereafter come to be ordained it had been more tolerable though it would have been contrary to Q. Eliz. moderation and reflecting upon all other reformed Churches An. Eliz. 13. who have not Episcopal Ordination
just liberty is on the Non-Conformists side in these points 3. Whether the Non-Conformists both Ministers and People are not greatly strengthened both in their Non-Conformity to the Lyturgy and also in their practise of holding Communion together for self preservation by what hath followed in an un-interrupted course ever since the ejection of Ministers viz the horrible and general contempt of Religion general corruption of manners great neglect of preaching to the people most Dignitaries having many Parishes in their hands which they supply by ignorant boys the great growth of Popery with a certain and manifest design of bringing it into the Land again if his Majesty who now letteth were taken out of the way the great corruption of Doctrine as well as manners in our own Clergy neither of which are minded by the Rulers of our Church so as man be conformable that it is now in the Church of England as in that of Rome men may be of any opinion live in any vice or be of no Religion so they own the Pope and his Church and be no Protestants so here men may be Arminian Socinian Papists Atheists and what they will so they externally conform to the Lyturgy and be no Presbyterians so that it is now manifest that nothing was intended by the contrivers of the Act of Uniformity but to cast out of the Ministry those whom they knew could not then conform and for ever to keep out and intangle the most understanding and conscientious men and to let none into the Church who should scruple any of her commands or practises Are such things any motives to the Non-Conformists after 18 years suffering all the indignities and injuries that Julian's wit and malice thought fit to lay upon the Christians of his time and supposed them more intollerable to them then present death which would have been both honourable and an end of their miseries I say are these things motives that at last they should condemn their former practise and without any relaxation quietly take all the Burthen on their Shoulders no they are satisfied that whereas the Church of England hath given her self a mortal wound by her Act of Uniformity and hath layn bleeding of it ever since almost to death that they ought not to hasten her death by putting their hands and adding their helps to it 5. The Dr. thinks that Ministers are not now so indispensibly bound preach as the Apostes were who were immediately sent by God and Authorized by Miracles and therefore they must cease preaching if forbidden by the Magistrate justly or unjustly Answ There is the same necessity of the Ministry to preserve build up and continue the Church by adding new Members through the preaching of the word as there was of the Apostles to lay the foundation of the Church and therefore there lay's the same necessity upon every Minister to preach to his flock within his Compass as did on the Apostles in their Compass May Civil Magistrates be resisted or deposed by the people upon any pretence and they not seek redress because they are not anointed and immediately sent by God as Saul and David c. were if the standing order of Magistracy hath its immutable warrant and unalterable priviledges to enable it for the the discharge of that office surely the standing and ordinary Ministry hath as much warrant and provision for the execution of their office without expecting Miracles to give them new Authority Serm. p. 36. 6. The Dr. saith the Assembly of Divines gave many weighty Reasons against Toleration and were for Uniformity as much as the Church of England So that that Church is justified by them from all Tyranny in exacting Uniformity and the question is not whether there shall be a Uiniformity but who shall have the ordering of it Answ The present Non-conformists have opposed Toleration of all Sects and Opinions as much as the Assembly but this charge is a great injury both to the Assembly and to the Nonconformists now living for the Assembly never desired Uniformity in the same words of Prayer and all Divine Offices or in Rites and Ceremonies devised by men that might occasion scruple to any nor do their reasons tend to any such thing but only that men should not have liberty to withdraw from their Parishes upon every pretence and to constitute new Congregations The present Non-conformists desire no Uniformity but in Doctrine and the substantials of worship Discipline and Government leaving the wording and methoding of worship to particular mens prudence and the necessities of their people and leaving all Congregations to their liberties in Rites and Ceremonies not instituted by Christ supposing that Physitians may as well be tied to the same rules in administring Physick to all bodies as Ministers and people be obliged to the same words and things universally for their souls Let the late Act of Uniformity be abolished the Apocryphal books and Holidayes be left out of the Lyturgy and the Psalms read in the new Translation let the Cross and Surplice be taken away and kneeling at the Sacrament be left indifferent according to the discretion of Ministers and the desires of the people also let Parents stipulate for their own children and some few things in the Prayers be altered or so explained that they may give no offence let the book of Consecration of Bishops c be restored as it was in Queen Elizabeths dayes and Ministers be bound only in general words to a peaceable submission to the Lyturgy let them subscribe to the 39 Articles only in Doctrines of faith and Sacraments according to the Statute Eliz. 13. and this will make much more for Union then any thing the Dr. or his brethren have yet said Serm. p. 11 12. But the Dr. saith Phil. 3.16 Commands all to walk by the same Rule viz. the Rule of Uniformity formerly given them when the Apostle was with them as they were wont to do in all the Churches Be it so but did the Apostle intend any more then that they should be content with the same substantials of worship which were for common edification wherein all might and ought to agree without contending about the Ceremonies of the Law or particular opinions which some out of weakness might be zealous for and others that were more perfect knew were abolished This seems to be the plain meaning of the Text for both the perfect and the imperfect and otherwise minded were all to agree in the practise of this Rule which therefore could not be the imposition or limitation of disputable Doctrines or questionable Rites and Ceremonies but he would prove that this Uniformity was in Rites and Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 7.17 because some things the Apostle ordained in all Churches but the Text speaks only of the Co-habitation of Husbands and wives when one was an Infidel ver 15 16. Was this a Ceremony In 1 Cor. 11.34 The Apostle abolisheth the custom of Love-feasts before the Lords Supper because it was
abused and was of no necessity what then Ergo he ordained Uniformity of Ceremonies The Apostle adds the rest will I set in order when I come i. e. other disorders among them the Apostle would regulate And there is no way to reform abuses in the Church but by imposing un-necessary Ceremonies He saith Pag. 13. That the Apostles gave Rules concerning Rites and Customes wherein there was doubt and scruple Answ But what were they To impose Rites upon men who scruple the lawfulness of them if so the people might have took their word who were infallible what Rites were lawful and what not but no Church Governors have that Authority now but on the contrary the Apostles forbade those who were zealous for Ceremonies to impose them upon others and commanded those who knew their liberty in such Ceremonies not to use their liberty to the offence or disturbance of those who contended for them In a word The Apostles commanded that every man should use his own judgment and liberty in things indifferent privately and peaceably without imposing upon or censuring each other and that all things should be done for edifying Rom. 14. per totum and this is directly against the Uniformity of Ceremonies or the imposing of any uncommanded Ceremony upon the Church without apparent necessity general consent and a prospect of edification to arise thereby Thus we have exonerated our Consciences of the guilt of Schism at least voluntary and against our knowledge Let the Dr. seriously look to his Conscience for charging us with Schism or sinful Separation against our own professed principles before the Judges of the Land and the chief Magistrates of London without any proof and at a time when he knoweth the Papists hope to devour us and our Religion by turning the Magistrates sword and opening the peoples mouthes against the Non-conformists PART II. CAP. I. The Non-Conformists no Friends to General Toleration An Answer to the first Argument from the Honour and Authority of our first Reformers I Come now to consider what the Dr. hath further said in his large defence of his Sermon to make good the Charge of Schism or sinful Separation against the Non-Conformists The Dr. proceeds in an Historical way and therefore is prolix I shall according to my first intention which was to give the Reasons of the Non-Conformists practise in preaching though forbidden by Law proceed to examine what the Dr. hath further said to invalidate those Reasons and to vindicate them from such exceptions as he hath made against them and therefore I shall only take notice of such things as are matter of Argument which will be reduced to a few heads and pass by all personal matters as also his long Preface and all Reflections on times and persons which are forreign to the Argument in hand The Dispute being about a matter of practise and of a publick concern the only end of writing should be either to find out the Truth by debateing it calmly or else if neither side can change the others judgment yet to produce such probable Reasons for their Opinion and Practice as may satisfie impartial Men that they act not from rashness or for sinister ends but as becomes Men that consider conscientiously what they do and why they do it But before I come to his first Argument I think it of great moment to take notice of what he chargeth the Non-Conformists with in general viz. their approving an universal Toleration Toleration of all Sects and Opinions under the Notion of Liberty of Conscience which he proves by their accepting Lycenses to Preach according to the Kings Proclamation 1672. to which I answer We are not to take all that is written by men in distress for their setled Judgment much less for the Judgment of the whole Party The Dr. would think it hard that Bishop Tailors Book for Liberty of prophesying and others of that kind written by Episcopal men under oppression and restraint should be charged to be the judgment of the Church of England Toleration and Liberty of Conscience was the brat of Socinians and Libertines in Switzerland Poland and afterwards fostered by the Dutch-Arminians and was ever detested by the Non-Conformists It is their general sence that they would rather dye in silence and obscurity then Papists Quakers and other dangerous Sects should have immunity under pretence of favour to them But they were advized to accept of the Licenses granted by that Declaration because it straitly forbid all their private Meetings Commanded to set open their Doors and not to presume to Preach without such Licenses first obtained They Preached and did all the same things in private before which now the Declaration gave them leave to do in publick VVould it not have been look'd upon as a rude contempt of the Magistrates favour and a giving a just cause of jealousie to the State if they had still kept private Meetings when they are commanded to be publick and to receive the Magistrates allowance and protection We never pleaded for Liberty of thinking writing speaking or acting in Religion as every man pleaseth under the name of the Liberty of Conscience Conscience is bound to the revealed will of God at its only Rule and is only to be free where God hath left it free i. e. in things not clearly revealed or not commarided by him either directly or by just Consequence We plead for no Liberty but that wherewith Christ hath made us free that we may not be again intangled in a yoke of Bondage to those things which Christ hath neither commanded nor given men leave to command Gal. 5.1 Nor should it have been forgotten that the Non-Conformists Friends in the Parliament were the chief Instruments of recalling that Declaration which was no sign that the whole Party approved of Toleration But why do we still Preach The Reasons are given partly before and shall be more hereafter But come we now to the Arguments the first is this § 1. 2. The terms of Communion are the same now as they were at the first Reformation and if they were no just ground of Separation then neither are they now Ans We must Remember the question before us and the Dr proposed to handle in his Sermon and in his Letter to Mr Baxter is barely this whether the Non-conformist Ministers ejected by the Act of Vniformity are bound to sit down as Lay-men in the Parishes they live in and not to preach or act as Ministers on pain of incurring the guilt of Schism This he leaveth and runneth into the large Field of Separation from the Communion of the Church which is beside the business for if it were granted that the Non-Conformists were bound to all acts of Communion with the Parishes when they preach not themselves as the Non-Resident Conformists are in the places where they live yet it will not follow from hence that they must forbear all exercises of their Ministry and to be content with the Lay-Communion
Churches and were dayly converted to the Truth but when we came to bite and devour one another the Papists were hardened and forbore our Communion the progress of the Gospel was greatly hindred and perpetual contentions amongst our selves did presently ensue now many who did not subscribe were turned out of there places both in the Church and in the Universities and those who for special respect to their persons as Mr. Fox and some others were not turned out yet were looked on with an evil eye and accounted Puritans and from this time saith Dr. Fuller there was a difference even among the Non-Conformists Mr. Whittingham and others on the one side Ch. Hist Cent. 15. held the Government of the Bishops and the order of the Church of England utterly unlawfull and in no ways to be submitted to others were more moderate and thought them tolerable and Reformation in Ceremonies and some other things only to be pressed and desired And if this difference among Non-Conformists be found at this day it cannot be fairly said they have forsaken the Principles of the First Non-Conformists seeing it was among them from the beginning and that sort of them have encreased all along much beyond the more moderate through the obstinacy of the Prelats who in all this space of 130 years since the Lyturgy was first established have not amended or abated any one material thing to gratifie the Non-Conformists excepting that of late that the Lessons Epistles and Gospels should be read in the New Translation The Non-Conformists that were turned out made a Separate Congregation in London Preached and Administred all Sacraments in a Publick Hall about the year 1567. Sect. 6. This the Dr. confesseth and names three Ministers as the chief Authors of it but saith Beza being advised with disliked it why as Schismatical No but for fear of giving offence to the State which it was then hoped might have been prevailed with to moderate things but did the rest of the Non-conformists sit down as lay men and disert their Ministry No Bishop Bancroft saith Book 3. cap. 1. that for the first twelve years of her Majesties reign there were many secret meetings of the Non-conformists that came from beyond the Seas both in private houses and also in the fields and woods and some of those meetings they called Churches and Mr. Cartwright saith he in part defended them saying that Conventicles was too harsh a term for them The Ministers both those that kept their places as well as those that were ejected held frequent meetings amongst themselves all Queen Elizabeths Reign after the Parliament had rejected their admonitions Bishop Bancroft and Dr. Fuller says the first of those meetings that came to their knowledge was at Walmsworth in Surrey 1572 and from that time divers others were held at Cooks-field in Essex Mr. Knew-stubs Parsonage at London in Northamptonshire yea at length there were three or four small Classes formed in most Counties in England there were also a kind of Provincial Synods held at Oxford at the time of the Act and at Cambridge at the Commencement or at Sturbridge-fair and at Coventry An. 1588 Likewise National Synods were by them agreed on to be held at London at the time of the sitting of Parliaments and accordingly Bishop Bancroft names one or two that was afterward held by them Ann. 158â— they first composed a book of Discipline wherein they layed down a platform of Church Government in most things like to that in Scotland and after that book had been revised in their several meetings and at length perfected and subscribed by them Bishop Bancroft saith they composed a book of Common Prayer Administration of the Sacraments and Government of the Church which they intended to present to the Parliament in the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth with the form of an Act prefixt for its Establishment and a petition to the Queen and Parliament that it might be made the established Lyturgy of the Land This and much more the Bishop hath set down throughout his third book which was learnt from the Confessions of Mr. Snape Mr. Stone Mr. Johnson Ministers of North-hamptonshire who were imprisoned and examined by the High-Commission and from the Papers of others seized in some of their studies In Publick they held solemn meetings of Neighbour Ministers once in three weeks which they called Prophesyings wherein some prayed others preached or made Divinity Lectures And Arch Bishop Grindal being commanded by the Queen to disturb them gave her a fair account of them and refused to interrupt them though he incurr'd her displeasure for it as may be seen in his petition in Dr. Fuller with all the former passages ibid. Moreover in all their Congregations they used the Liturgy according to their own judgements and omitted the Ceremonies as they thought fit kneeling at the Sacrament was disused even at the Temple-Church in the time of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Traverse as appears by their Petitions annext to Hookers Eccles Polity Yea kneeling was not strictly enjoyned all Queen Elizabeths Reign And Mr. Chadderton was blamed by the Bishop of London at the Hampton-Court Conference for that in Emmanuel Coll. Chappel in Cambridge many did not kneel what they did in other parts of Church Government may be guest by this that Mr. Cartwright enjoyned his own Man-Servant being convict of Fornication a form of acknowledgment which he gave him in writing which was charged against him in the High Commission-Court Bishop Bancroft tells of a like instance of a man at North hampton Convict of the same offence and how he was brought to submission and acknowledgment in the Congregation and then absolved by Mr. Snape The Bishop also gives account of their proceedings in their Classical Meetings in their censures of their Brethren in the Ministry When the Canons were made Ann. 1603 which were to those Non-Conformists as the late Act of Uniformity was to us many were now turn'd out and all liable to be so dealt with but they that were ejected still accounted themselves the Pastors of their Flocks though they were torn from them and still visited them with Letters and in person Praying Catechizing expounding the Scriptures to them in private some were received into Gentlemens Houses and Preached publickly in their Chappels others found favour under Bishops of other Diocesse's and got Livings with them they joyned together in publick and private Fasts they administred the Sacraments privately they contracted and married many being resorted too from far for the good and grave Counsel they use to give at such times some taught Schools others bred up young men in their houses for their Ministry Mr. Bernard Gilpin in Yorkshire is noted by Dr. Fuller for this that he was wont to have twenty young Scholers at a time in his house when they were to be ordained themselves some went into Scotland others beyond the Seas and got Ordination which was not refused by those Bishops and some they Ordained amongst
themselves at home and as the number of Non-Conformists increased by the increase of new Impositions and more rigorous Prosecutions under the growing Arminian Faction in the Church in the latter end of King James and under Arch-Bishop Lauds Government So these practises of theirs encreased and they were bold in them as the necessity was greater and that this was their practise will farther appear by the late Act of Uniformity the Oxford Act and the Act against Conventicles which do cautiously in particular provide against all such things for the future which the Contrivers of them would never have thought on had not experience taught them that those were the private practises of former Non-Conformists when cast out of their places From all which which nothing but Ignorance can contradict it it appears that the old Non-Conformists when silenc't and ejected by Law or Crnons when forbidden by the magistrate and Bishops did not yet exercise all Ministerial Acts and Offices and did not count themselves bound to be content with lay-Communion they did them indeed in a way which they thought most proper to their Time and Circumstances and not so publickly as we do now which is to be ascribed to the difference of time and occasions which comes next to be considered It must therefore be remembred having been spoken more largely before that for a good part of Q. Eliz. Reign Conformity was not urged with any strictness only Subscription to the 39 Artic. and that too moderate by the Statute of the 13 Eliz. The first two Successive Arch-Bishops Parker and Grindal were mild and moderate men who governed the Church about 25 years and such were most of the other Bishops having been Confessors and fellow-Sufferers with the Non-Conformists in the Marian daies they had also travelled abroad amongst other Churches and therefore were not so zealous in matters disputable at home of this we have a notable Testimonie from Mr. Cranmer in his Letter to Mr. Hooker neither of them to the Non-Conformists At first the greatest part of the Learned in the Land were either eagerly affected or favourablr inclined that way the Books then written for the most part savoured of the Disciplinary Stile it sounded every where in Pulpits and in common Phrase of mens Speech the contrary part began to fear they had taken a wrong course many which impugned the Discipline yet so impugned it not as being the better form of Government but as not being so convenient for our state in regard of dangerous innovations like to grow thereby one man stood in the gap to oppose them c. which was Dr. Whitgift the following Brch-Bishop here was yet no occasion for their Preaching in private while Whitgift was Arch-Bishop The last 20 years of the Queen the Non-Conformists were more straitly dealt with the Lyturgy and Subscription more rigorously imposed their private associations searched into yet proceedings then were less then the little Finger to the loins compared to those of our days The Non-Conformists yet enjoyed their places at least some places as Mr. Cartwright who was removed from being Professor in Cambridge yet was suffered quietly to Preach in an Hospital at Warwick till his death After the making of the Canons 1603 the Non-conformists were turned out of places in greater numbers but yet these Canons did not reach all the matter being left to the Bishops hands some did either conuive at the secret omission of subscription or at the doing of it in their own sence so that many either kept their old places or quickly got new ones in other Diocesses Besides the Non-conformists were then but few in comparison of the other Ministers and the people much fewer who had not so much Religion as to make any difference betwixt Ministers and Preaching and Discipline or to distinguish betwixt the good and bad nor were there yet any footsteps of men going back again towards Rome in Doctrine Government or Ceremonies and therefore those Non-conformists might very well judge it was most advantagious to the Gospel for them by quiet and private means to serve their people then by appearing more publikely to occasion greater contentions but our case is far different Till Whitgifts time there was hope that the acceptable things in the Liturgy and Church Government might have been mended their greatest defenders judging this their best plea as the forecited Mr. Cranmer in his Letter saith that the Government of Bishops was not unlawful and setting up of Elders was not necesary or as Mr. Hooker expresseth it in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop which also is the drift of his book that there was no great harm if things complained of were still continued in the Church but Whitgift and his Successor Bancroft put an end to these hopes by establishing all the things in question by their Canons and requiring all the Clergy to subscribe to the Lyturgy but still the Doctrine and worship was kept pure and the bounds of our first Reformation maintained as sacred But Arch-Bishop Laud extended Conformity to his new Arminian Doctrines to his new Ceremonies and to bring all men into such subjection to himself under the name of the Church that they must neither speak nor do any thing in Religion but what he allowed and appointed and now was hard to keep the ground which was gotten at the first Reformation He and his designs were at length defeated but civil broils hindred the settlement of the Church At length when almost all men weary of confusions longed for peace and union the same Laudensian Arminian Faction influenced the State to establish Conformity in an higher degree then ever viz. that all Ministers should not only practise but approve by publick declaration all that was enjoyned in the Lyturgy without any considerable amendment hereupon there is no favour to be shewed to any no moderation nor no end all being established by a Law nor were they content to deprive the Non-conformists of their Churches but a second Law is added to drive them above five miles from those that were there people or any Corporation where people being more civilized and having more leisure might be more likely to hear then preach and a third law also that they should not exercise any worship of God other then what is prescribed by the Liturgy in any private house or in their own family in the presence of five other persons so that the present Non-conformists is this They are all turn'd out as one man and that for no reason given only things devised to be laid on them as snares which the imposers knew they could not submit to They were in number about 2000. The People also of the same perswasion with them very numerous in the 3 Nations and in Scotland the whole people there was not so much as leave to Petition for any moderation nor is there any bound of time put to this Rigour nor may they be suffered privately and in Corners to Act as Ministers and
not in the Passover or Sacrifices which were their Sacraments and the greatest ties of their Society and all this only for their Civil convenience because they were seated in other Countries and by reason of Trade or other occasions were loath to remove to Jewry if this will excuse them why may not other Cases arise where one part of a people may not think fit to break off from a Church wholly and yet not be bound to all acts of Communion or worship with it and such a case we have frequently in Ecclesiastical history when the people of some great City as Rome Antioch Alexandria c. differ'd about choosing a Bishop Suppose the better and sounder part chose a fit and worthy Person and the bigger and worse part chose a Person unsound in Doctrine or scandalons in Life and him they will have thrusting out the fiter Person and his People also if they will adhere to him what should be done in this case I know it was usual neither to Pray nor hear together though some of them might happen to be in the same Prison and in the same Room but this without doubt was Schism on both sides Should the better yield to the worse and quit their Election So they should betray Religion and their own Souls should they quite break off and forsake the others resolving never to have more to do with them So they should betray the others to utter ruine and the Church by degrees to destruction The good Wheat continually-leaving the Tares among whom yet it is very likely some good Wheat may be scattered it remains then that they keep to their Priviledge and adhere to him whom they have chosen and yet not dissert them who would cast them out but communicate with them as Brethren especially in such common Duties as do not contain a plain acknowledgment of their undue and Schismatical practise and so wait till Providence may find means to make up the Breach That this is our case shall be shewed in the last Chapter The Dr's other reason is grounded from Phil. 3.16 The sum of his arguing from that Text is this Men are to do all things Lawfull to maintain the Unity of the Church where they live therefore whatsoever is Lawfull for them to Communicate in sometimes they must do it always Answ Lawfull is either simply and absolutely so or Lawfull in those Circumstannces as the Apostle distinguisheth betwixt lawful and expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 i. e. lawful in it self or lawful in this or that case If every man be bound to do all that is simply and absolutely lawful to preserve the peace of the Church then he may be many times bound to yield to turbulent and irregular persons in unreasonable demands and impositions but if a man be bound only to do those things which are lawful in the present Circumstances then the Argument is of no force for it will be said they that held but occasional and partial Communion go as far as they judge lawful i e. expedient and fit in their Case and Circumstances and so they shall not be bound to constant and full Communion 2. The great sin and mischief of Separation lieth in judging and condemning others as no Churches having no Ministry no Sacraments and so not being in the ordinary way of Salvation not having Christs presence amongst them This indeed deserveth all the aggravations which the Dr. cites out of Mr. B. Sect. 24. and I am perswaded he intended no more and this was the meaning of the Old Non Conformists Severe reprehensions of the Brownists viz. that they dishonoured Christ reproached his Servants his gifts and Graces in them and slandered the footsteps of his anointed This indeed tends to the Subversion of the Church to expose it to the contempt of the world destroys all charity and brotherly Communion and is a great presumption for who shall dare to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People who shall profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his word though they do or are supposed to fail in Circumstances or lesser parts of their Duty And if the Fathers mentioned by the Dr. intended any other Separation by their high invectives against it as it is probable they did not at least those pious peaceable men Cyprian and Augustine when they said Schism is as bad as Idolatry c. we may say by their leave that they shew'd more zeal for themselves and their own Interest then for the honour of Christ and the peace of his Church Mr. Hales tract of Schism saith Heresie and Schism are the Theological Scare-Crows wherewith Men fright Children and men commonly use against all that differ from them when they cannot prove such a Crime against them and again he saith the Donatists might have been in the right for any thing that Augustine said against them and if he had extended it to Cyprian and Cornelius writings against the Navatians he might perhaps not have exceeded the Truth We do acknowledge all Un-necessary Separation from a Church is a sin let the ground be what it will the errour of Conscience in him who thinks it a duty will not make it a duty it doth impair Love it layeth the Church open to her Enemies reproaches and to endless contentions within her self but it is not such a sin as some men labour to make it to maintain their own greatness as if it would excuse men for the neglect of their Salvation or make them amends for the loss of Heaven that they have been scrupelously fearful of running into Schism Let the Church take care as Mr. Hales adviseth that the Terms of her Communion be no other then the Scripture will justifie and do concern all Christians and if any other be added let them be temporary and removed when inconveniencies arise greater then the Reasons for imposing them or equal to them Let the Ministers labour in publick and private with soft words and good Reasons to satisfie the People in all their doubts about things relating to the Church and if after all this some few as they will not be many are so far dissatisfied as that they they think they ought to withdraw let them withdraw provided they do not reproach and condemn the Church they depart from and let them nevertheless be owned as Brethren This certainly becomes the Gospel and will make more for the peace of the Church and send more towards reducing of those that separate then all corrections and hard words against Schism And thus did the Primitive Christians towards the Novatians for though some zealous of their own authority speak sharply against them yet they were not troubled in Constantine's time the Bishops of theirs sate in the Councel of Nice they had their publick Churches one in Constantinople when it was the Imperial Seat to which the people generally resorted when Macedonius was Bishop and when their Church was commanded to be pull'd down and they not to
lye dead in the Confession of Faith and in the Lyturgy while men preach false Doctrine and bring Superstitions into the publick worship or else neither Preach nor Worship God in the Congregation at all or so seldom that the people can be little profited by them the Reformers never thought of this mystery 2. It is not true that they separated from Rome only for the Corruptions of Doctrine and Worship it was for such Corruptions hat they counted her Antichristian a Rotten and Apostate Church with whom they might have no Church Communion but her usurpation and Tyranny over all other Churches was used also as an argument for our withdrawing from her for if the Church of Rome have no Authority over all or any other Churches and if the exercise of such power be an insufferable oppression and prejudice to the Churches then they might justly upon this account cast off her Yoak though for this alone they should not reject Communion with her as a Neighbour Church Dr. Hammond Dr. Bramhal and others of late insist upon this as the chief defence of our departure from Rome viz. because the Church of England was for the first 600 years independent on her never Subject to her but Dr. Reynolds conference with Hart and all other of the Reformers who wrote against the Popes Supremacy made this one Argument to justifie their secession and so it will be in lesser cases even a just ground of departure from constant Communion though not a ground of refusing Brotherly and occasional Communion unless there be corruptions in Doctrines and Worship allowed also 3. The first Reformers generally except Calvin were too negligent both of Worship and Discipline being wholly intent upon reforming the Doctrine of the Church gross Idolatry indeed in Worshiping the Mass Saints and Angels they did quickly espy but Images in Churches with other Superstitions Rites and Ceremonies they took little notice of to cause them to be reformed and hence the Lutherans to this day retain them as if they were approved of by Luther and his Companions perhaps they waited that the Princes should reform these things or it may be they thought if they could have liberty to Preach sound Doctrine that would of it self purge out these disorders in worship and ceremonies they also might think the people and especially the Princes would yet scarce bear strict Discipline but in time might be brought to it but they found they were mistaken and some of them saw their errour while they lived Bucer Oelochampadius and others complained as Comconius hath cited them in his Exhortation that they had not set up Discipline at first for now the people had got Knowledge and Notions and were used to Liberty they would not bear the Yoak of Discipline Bucer with Tears said to some Bohemians when he had read their Confession and former Discipline vos soli habetis regnum Christi interris none but you have the Kingdom of Christ on Earth In like manner do the best Helvetians and Germans complain in every Age of want of Discipline and Power in their Churches Obj. But we must not seperate for Ceremonies and for this the Synod of Sendomer in Poland is quoted Answ That same Synod also declares that Ceremonies ought not to be imposed and when they had recommended kneeling at the Sacrament to their People to distinguish them from the Socinians that lived amongst them they add that they would not enjoyn it for if they should then they might be necessitated to use the Ecclesiastical Censures against those who would not submit which ought not to be used for Rites and Ceremonies Vid. Consens Eccl. Polon in Corp. Confes Ceremonies many times pollute the Worship of Christ and he forbad Israel all the Rites and Customes of the Heathen as well as their Idols and their Worship but if the Ceremonies themselves be really inoffensive yet the usurpation of them that impose them without Authority may be a greater offence then the Ceremonies imposed and justly to be resisted and if they will maintain their Impositions to a division this breach must be upon them Obj. Amyraldus is quoted who saith Ceremonies are not a ground of Separation from a Church unless they be such as import false Doctrine or false Worship or are likely to introduce it Answ And are not these things objected against the Ceremonies of the Church of England even by the Old Non-Conformists viz. That the Surplice is a sign or badge of a Mass Priest that the Cross was a Popish Idol and the use of it Idolothisme i. e. like the meats offered to Idols very offensive and scandalous to the weak that kneeling at the Sacrament was a badge of Adoration of it and was never imposed nor generally practised in the Church till Transubstantiation was established and for the danger of bringing back Popery by these Ceremonies the Experience of this and the last Age since Bishop Laud new modled the Church is abundant proof I will only instance in kneeling at the Supper which turned the Table to an Altar set it at the East end of the Church railed it in made it Sacred and to be bowed to and that for this Reason as the Aoch Bishop delivered it in his Speech in the Star-Chamber because there it is hoc est Corpus meum this is my body whereas in the Pulpit it is but hoc est verbum meum this is my word And then Dr. Heylin writes a Book to prove that there was some kind of Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist which was answered by Dr. Hackwell and now how far were these Men from the Mass Obj. But this will hinder all Vnion with Protestants if we should break for Ceremonies and Modes of Worship Answ He means the Lutherans for whom our Arminian Church men have some kindness but little for other Protestants yet this will not follow for a Christian may submit to those Rights and Ceremonies in another Church where he occasionally is and communicates with them but as Brethren which he may not do in his own Church where he is a constant member and so is guilty of the Corruptions which according to his place he doth not oppose even as every prudent man complies with the Orders and Customes of places and Families he goes in abroad though he will not suffer the same to be practised in his own house but alas what hope of Union with Protestant Churches when we teach that where there are no Diocesan Bishops there are no Churches no Ministry no Sacraments some of his Majesties Chaplains when they were with him in Paris did hold no Communion with the French Churches as they complained in publick Letters to say nothing of many at home that kept their own houses 12 years or more during the late troubles going to no Church for want of Bishops and the Common-Prayer finally our Act of Uniformity decrees That no man shall Preach or Administer the Lords Supper much less have any Ecclesiastical
whole Religion and will do so long as they are continued The Nation will not forget the alteration of Doctrine and of the Lyturgie innovations in Worship and additions of Ceremonies that were brought in by Bishop Laud under the pretence of Uniformity decency and opposing the Puritanes till matters were brought to that pass that the Papists wanted nothing to encourage their hopes of swallowing us up but the prospect of a Popish Successor to the Crown and his own Chaplains and dependents were not ashamed to profess that there was a design of Reconciliation with Rome and whether the present growth of Popery and Confidence that the Papists are arrived to had not its Rise from the Act of Uniformity its turning out so many Ministers and making so great a breach amongst our selves and whether it be not still fomented chiefly by our division and under pretence of zeal against Dissenters let unprejudiced men judge 5. A great part of the Nation both Ministers and People have ingaged themselves and their posterity to the long desired Reformation and that not without authority though not with full authority 6. So great a number of Ministers and Students were cast out by the Act of Uniformity that cannot but for one age at least greatly endanger the Church which must needs be supplied with young ignorant and unlearned persons or be unprovided the Universities being not able in many years to furnish out such a number of tolerable Ministers as were ejected and the visible effects do confirm this 7. The Terms of Uniformity are most rigorous and intolerable for not only all was enjoyned that had been complained of 100 years and upwards but also others added so manifestly contrived to insnare and offend those that were concerned that nothing could be more 8. There was no hope left either of alteration of this Uniformity or of relaxation in the execution of it it being established by Law and the Bishops made the Overseers of the execution It was also corroborated by two other subsequent acts which hindred Ministers from being of any use yea from living amongst or near their people And to this against the Ministers was added that none of the same snares were put upon the people all that bore office civil or military that so there might be no relief for the present and no hope of redress for the future Now should all this be quietly submitted to there would be no end of imposition on the Church seeing Rulers might when ever they pleased throw out both their Magistrates and Ministers and they must all quietly suffer whatever they will impose on them We may add there had been as patient forbearance and as peaceable means for redress during a 100 years as ever was in any Church insomuch as we are now upbraided with it but nothing was obtained at last but adding to their Burthens and that not without scorn and indignity and that the blame may not be cast on our Princes on whom our adversaries injuriously as well as ungratefully for the most part cast it 't is not to be forgot what attempts and endeavours his Majesty made at his entrance on his Kingdoms to moderate and accommodate things in the Church both by his declarations and granting a Commission to a fit number on both sides to review the Liturgy and to endeavour a composure but the Commissioners for the Church would never vouchsafe a personal conference and debate with the Non-Conformists about the things they desired to be amended and the Answers they returned in writing were scarce with common Civility but once in all their replies giving them the Title of Brethren and at last yielding to amend nothing considerable Upon these accounts the Non-Conformists judge it their duty to help the distressed and oppressed people what they can whilst they live praying and waiting that peace and order may at length be restored to these Churches and verily believing that if these impositions be continued they will unhinge and divide the people that scarce any time or means will reduce them to due order and then even we may be counted honest men when we are dead and moderate in respect of those that come after FINIS
were indeed some appointed by K. Edward to collect a body of good and useful Rules out of the Canon Law to be the Rule of Discipline for this Church but he dying that work was never finished so that the Rule now is the whole Canon-Law or so much as every Bishop pleaseth to use in his own Diocess The Bishops made a few Canons of their own 1603. but they are such as only strengthen their own power in imposing and enforcing those things which the Non-Conformists had long desired might be amended As to the Officers that Administer the Discipline They are Chancellors and Commissaries and Civilians by Profession no Ecclesiastical Officers yet these Rule over the Ministers of Christ Admonish Suspend Deprive them of their places and Excommunicate both them and the People when they please This they have no power to do nor can the Bishop delegate his pewer of Governing to them any more then his power to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments both being parts of the Ministerial Office This they thought was to change the Constitution of Christs Church at pleasure They were also offended at the Administration or use of the Discipline That being such as the Officers were because the Church in its Constitution and frame kept so near the Roman model Therefore the Bishops have ever found it necessary to exercise Church Discipline mostly against those that disliked or dissented from the Liturgy and Government and to connive at the loose and prophane to hold them in some external obedience to them Hence it came to pass where one Minister hath been admonished suspended deprived for Heresie in Doctrine or Un-godliness of Life ten have been so dealt with for Non-Conformity and where one of the People have been censured for scandalous sins an hundred have been troubled and punished for going to hear a good Minister out of their own Parish when they had an ignorant drunkard at home for not having their Children Crossed in Baptism for scrupling to kneel at the Sacrament and such other great Crimes against the Liturgy What was this but to alienate the Church of Christ to the Governours and to make it to serve them more then him and only to use his Name and Authority to press their own Laws and maintain their own power R. 4. They were dissatisfied at the Ceremonies imposed in the Liturgy In the general they acknowledge that it was lawful for any Church to consent to and lay upon her self necessary Rites and Customs such as Circumstances of time and place and other emergencies might make necessary for the present time but that such Ceremonies should be such whose necessity was apparent to all and whose lawfulness might be scrupled justly by none of common understanding and that should be taken up by the general Consent of the People as well as commanded by Rulers as the Feast of Purim was by the Jews Esther 9.23.27 And those necessary things enjoyned Acts 15 23.25.28 And that when the necessity ceaseth those Customes should cease also But they thought it utterly unlawful to devise Rites or Ceremonies for which there was neither apparent necessity nor usefulness or to impose those upon the people which from the beginning were doubtful and offensive especially to make them parts of Divine Worship or additions to it as it were to render it more edifying beyond the natural and common Civil circumstances of Order Method or Decorum and such they thought it manifest our imposed Ceremonies were which are declared to be retained some because they served for decent order in the Church for which they were at first devised others for edification Pref. to the Common Prayer Book And again that the imposers were content with those Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and Godly Discipline and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified Three Ceremonies were at first imposed The Cross in Baptism The Surplice in Reading the Service And Kneeling in Receiving the Lords Supper Against these they excepted severally 1. Against the Crosse that it was abused to great superstition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome and particularly when it was used in Baptism having Divine power ascribed to it of driving away the Devils giving grace c. Therefore being neither commanded of God nor used in this manner in the primitive Church viz. To admit Members into the Church by it it ought to be rejected Also that it did reflect very dishonourably on Baptism it self as if that were not full and plain enough to set forth the blood of Christ and Remission of sins by it or our engagement to Christ and therefore it was needful to adde a more plain and direct sign of his death and suffering for us and of what we must be willing to suffer for him above all that the Cross was made and here used as a Sacrament being declared to be a token of the Childrens owning the Faith of Christ Obedience to him and perseverance to the end Is not this the nature and end of Receiving Baptism it self Why is not that sufficient but the Cross is presently added without any note of distinction as it were to signifie the same things more plainly and fully and to lay a greater obligation on the Child then what was laid on it in Baptism and this is a Sacrament as much as man can make Indeed it wanteth the promise of Divine Grace but this also is presumed upon forasmuch as this seems cheifly to be intended in those words of some of the Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty by some notable and special signification whereby hemight be edified 2. Against the Surplice they object that was a Ceremony on purpose devised to add decency and splendour to the Worship of God and therefore it must be used in that Worship only and such Ceremonies are unlawful additions to Gods Worship And those circumstances or accidents of the Service in their absolute nature yet relatively in as much as they better the Worship and increase Edification they are made moral parts of Worship even as it was a part of Worship for the Preists of old to put on their Sacred vestments to sacrifice in though the vestments themselves absolutely and naturally considered were but circumstances of the Worship Also that the Surplice seemed to be taken from the Ceremonial-Law and to be at least an imitation of those Preists Garments As many other Ceremonies used in the ancient Church were either taken from the Jews or devised to imitate and be like them Now our Saviour having abolished the old Ceremonies gave no leave to his Church to devise new ones neither did he abolish them as Types and Shadows of himself only but also as Yokes and Burthens as carnal Ordinances and servile Customs wherein his People were kept in great Bondage
till his coming in the flesh Gal. 5.1 Acts 15.10 Gal. 4.1 2 3. John 1.17 Therefore esuch Ceremonies were utterly unnecessary since the full discovery of the Gospel yea they disparage the Gospel as if that was not plain and sufficiently apt to teach Faith or Holiness without their help And besides they take off mens minds from the Worship of God partly by pleasing their eyes and fancies with an external shew and partly by busying their thoughts about the meaning of them and how to improve them if they be serious in the use of them They also bring the People again into bondage and fill the Church with carnal Ordinances and beggarly institutions and men are sensibly taught to content themselves with outward forms and modes of Service and to think God is content with them also and further the use of the Surplice in Divine Service kept up too much resemblance betwixt our Ministers and the Priests of Rome and the ignorant might be tempted to think there was very little difference betwixt our Church and Rome seeing we came so near them in their Service and in the manner and circumstances of the Service also Nevertheless they accounted it not unlawful to have continued the use of the Surplice till the People were weaned from it and accordingly many did use it it being not in it self unlawful as the use of the Crosse was 3. Against Kneeling at the Lords Supper they pleaded that it should by no means have been retained in our Church being brought into the Church at first only upon the opinion of Transubstantiation and worshiping the Sacrament and very apt to continue the same opinion in the People It is also certain our Saviour neither used nor appointed that gesture nor gave his Church Authority to enjoyn any other then what he used as a standing precept for thereby he and his practice should be taxed as not using the most fit gesture nor is this gesture at all proper to this Ordinance but thwarteth the two main ends of it viz. Free Communion with Christ in the participation of his benefits and the Renewing of Love and Strengthning Communion among the People for it is a gesture of great awe reverence and distance not fit for Meditation on the promises or consideration of the death of Christ or the incomprehensible love that he manifested theerein Also by Kneeling the People were severed from each other and could not be at the Table many together very unlike to a feast of Love nay the presence of many would be an hindrance and not a furtherance of Affection and Devotion Both these inconveniencies were greatly increased when the People were forced to come up to the Table at the upper end of the Chancel and there to kneel before the rails a few at a time for they must come to but one side of the Table for this was much more unlike a Supper of Love betwixt Christ and his Spouse and betwixt fellow Members of the same body yet they accounted not this gesture in it self unlawful but that they who would might use it and it might be retained in the Church till the People could freely leave it off but that it was unfit to be imposed and purposely kept up much more to be enforced with the highest penalty upon those that were dissatisfied with it The Non-conformists were much strengthened in their dissatisfaction with the Established Church way because instead of obtaining any redress and reformation all the impositions were continued and things made worse and the imposers went backward rather then forward notwithstanding the Non-conformists increased in number both in Ministers and People and at length became a very considerable part of the Church whose complaints ought therefore to have been considered and redressed There is a passage in the 20th Aritic to be subscribed by all Ministers that the Church hath power in matters of Faith This the Non-Conformists disliked unless more explained Therefore the Parliament in the 13 Eliz. which established those Articles by Law caused that passage to be left out Bishop Laud confesseth that it was not to be found in the Original of the Articles of that year B. Laud's Speech in the Star Chamber viz 1570 yet the Bishop continued the passage in the Articles and required subscription to it Also that Parliament ennacted that if any Minister was admitted into our Church having other Ordination than what was established amongst us he should declare his Assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Confession of the True Christian Faith 13 Eliz. Cap. 12. and the Doctrine of the Sacraments By this they gave indulgence to those that were not satisfied with the Episcopal Ordination and could not subscribe to the 39 Artic. absolutely because the approbation of the Homilies and Book of Consecration with the fore-mentioned passage were included in them being content that they subscribed to the Doctrine of Faith Artic. 35.36 and of the Sacraments contained in the Articles but the Bishops would not allow this indulgence at least not long nor generally but urged absolute subscription to the great trouble of many Non-conformists Nor could any amendment of the Liturgy ever be procured but on the contrary some passages left out that reflected much on the Papists as that Petition in the Letany from the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome good Lord deliver us and a whole Prayer in the office for Gun-powder Treason expung'd by B. Laud wherein it was said that the Religion of Papists is Rebellion their Faith faction and their practice the Murthering of Souls and Bodies Nor were any of the Ceremonies taken away or their imposition remitted but rather more added to them by the Bishops Cannons though not by Parliament The Cross in Baptism was confirmed and inforced Can. 30. Under K. James and the explication there given increased the suspition of the unlawfulness of it they also brought in bowing at the name of Jesus Can. 18. And their dipping of Children in Baptism turning the Communion Tables into Altars bowing towards them or towards the East for they agree not what it was they bowed toward were brought in by B. Laud and pressed with great Rigour though never established by Law In Q. Eliz. Reign they were content that Ministers Read the Service Book without declaring their judgment concerning it only it was said in the 39 Articles viz Artic. 36. That the Book of Consecration contained nothing that was in it self superstitious or ungodly But Arch Bishop Whitgift devised a subscription of his own and imposed it upon all to be ordained after that time which was at length turned into a Cannon Can. 36. Artic 2. In these words that the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and that it may Lawfully be used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and Administration of