a better and publickly authorized Translation they judg'd it a matter of no small Offence 7. The Reading of the Apochryphal Scriptures as parts of the publick worship and that without any distinction from the Canonical They accounted it an intolerable thing that Fables and Fictions should be solemnly Read to the People with the same Reverence as the Word of God and such are many of the Apocryphal Books and the rest being only of Humane Authority the reading of them ought not to be made a Solemn part of Divine Worship The Conformists say that Reading the Scripture is Preaching and the Non-conformists say it is not fit meer Humane or Fabulous writings should be preached to God's People when they meet to Worship him by hearing his word Above all they were offended that a great deal of the Holy Scriptures is left out of the Liturgy and so never to be Read in the Congregation and Apocryphal Chapters put in their Room 8. Holy-days or Festivals in the honour of Saints They would not deny but if the Church thought fit they might observe the days of Our Saviours Nativity Passion Resurrection Ascension and sending the Holy Ghost as other Protestant Churches do provided they might be kept seriously and not made of the same necessity with the Sabbath but when all divine worship of the Creatures is Idolatrous and the keeping of days in Honour of them as well as Building Temples to them was ever reckoned a part of Divine Honour and to be sure is more Honour then ever God commanded or allowed to any of his Servants They knew not how to excuse this practice that it should be a part of a Churches Liturgy 9. Nor could they approve the Doctrines of the certain Regeneration of all in Baptism and that Infants dying after Baptism before the Commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved which are laid down in the Liturgies as undoubted Articles of Faith whereas there is no Scripture that clearly proveth either of them and at best they are points disputed on by Learned men on both sides Nor could they excuse the practice of refusing Parents to promise for their own Children in Baptism seeing it is upon their Account only and Gods Covenant with them that the Children are admitted to be Baptized and they are thereby engaged to breed them up in Faith and Obedience much less that Strangers should receive the charge of the Baptized who have no authority over them who neither care what they promise nor are ever called to account how they perform their promise for if they should few would undertake the charge and so this custom would fall to the ground 10. They excepted against the Ordination of Deacons to read Divine Service Baptize and Bury and to preach with special License this they say was to create a new fort of office in the Church which Christ never appointed nor gave his Ministers Authority to appoint it Deacons were to look after the poor and that was all their work and though the Primitive Christians sometimes used them to read the Scriptures in the Congregation yet they never ordained them to this as an office yea though they should be admitted to read Prayers to Marry or Bury yet this is no sacred office appointed by Christ that should constitute a distinct order of Ministers and if as grave and prudent persons they might be admitted to do these offices either for want of Ministers or to assist them yet may they by no means be suffered to Baptize it being as peculiar to the Ministry as to administer the Lords Supper and the admission of Members into the Church as sacred and solemn a work as to confirm and Build up the Members of it These were the principal objections of the Non-conformists against the Liturgy which were some of them at least exemplified and confirmed by many particulars of lesser moment in themselves but all tending to make their desire of a Reformation of the Service Book to seem reasonable and the work necessary Rea. 2. The Second thing the Old Non-conformists disliked in the Church of England was the Government of it by Prelates i. e. Bishops with sole power of Jurisdiction Many of the Old Non-conformists thought Episcopacy utterly unlawfull and an usurpation not to be born but the rest who looking upon it as a humane constitution as our Law doth thought it Lawfull and that it might be submitted to did yet dislike our Episcopacy partly because of the secular grandure power and imployments our Bishops were invested with which made them unable and unwilling to discharge the office of a Pastour in the Church partly because the Church hath nothing to do in their election except an empty shew and therefore persons were most commonly prefer'd not for true Episcopal Qualifications but because they could make interest with Superiours but principally because the Bishops arrogated to themselves the whole power of governing the Church and excluded all the Ministers from any share therein a thing most unexcusable in them who acknowledge themselves to be of the same order with the Presbyters and only in a degree of honour above them and that by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate Whereas even those that with any probability or sobriety maintain the Divine Right of Episcopacy do nevertheless acknowledge that he may neither ordain nor govern without the advice and consent of his Presbyters This was look'd upon as intollerable that the power of governing the Church which was committed by Christ to all his Ministers should be wrested from them generally by a few of their Brethren And that they who are thought fit to dispense the Word and Sacraments the cheif keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby men are brought to the Faith admitted into the Church and bnilt up in it should not have power to censure offenders and to receive the Penitent again to Communion which are things of lesser moment and depending on the former and yet without which the former could not be managed in a fit manner for Edification By this means Ministers are deprived of one half of their Office and Power and are both discouraged and hindered in the other half For who will regard their Preaching who have not Liberty to judge what persons are fit to be admitted into the Church or who in it deserves censure or to be cast out of it And the Bishops themselves in undertaking the whole work of Governing the Church took that upon them which they never could nor did manage for the Churches Edification R. 3d. The Non-Conformists were much dissatisfied about the Discipline of the Church both in respect of the Rule of it and the Officers that manage it The Rule they say is not taken out of the Scripture which is the only Rule and Law of Christ's Church but it is the Roman Civil and Canon Law which at best were suited to their own times and People in many things very defective and in others erroneous and superstitious There
of men appointed by David by Divine inspiration for this work and so the manner and method also was appointed by God and Art and rules of Musick were then acceptable and part of the Ceremonial worship But there being such Offices nor such service appointed in the Christian Church this is no warrant for our Responses Neither do the Scriptures give any warrant or example for observing dayes as sacred in the honour of Saints Or of instituting new Offices in the Church or new Ceremonies of worship but on the contrary our Saviour declares that men worship in vain that teach for Doctriens the Commandements of men Matth. 15.9 It seems then That Decency and Order which men purposely devise to add significancy or comliness to gods worship is abominable in his sight he hath no need of mans service and therefore will accept of nothing but what is appointed and carried on by his own Spirit Neither do the Scriptures appoint or warrant any superiority of Bishops above ordinary Ministers at least not such as that they should have sole power of governing the Church The high Priests of old had no such power of the Priests as this Learned Doctor hath proved in his Irenicum They had some peculiar things appropriated to their office but were themselves subject to the Sanhedrim The Apostles were all of one Order and had no authority over each other and governed the Church only by consent Gal. 2.9 Nor is there any distinction made betwixt ordinary Ministers except what they see needful to make amongst themselves for the good of the Church This all our old Bishops acknowledged and therefore pleaded for Episcopacy only as an humane constitution And those who of late wrote for its Divine-right do yet the most learned of them acknowledge that it cannot be proved from Scripture unless perhaps from the angels of the Church of Asia which this Dr. hath solidly confuted It was alwaies objected to the Non-conformists that the Scriptures do not forbid those things though they do not command them But they replyed that the Non-command of any thing in Gods worship and Church is a prohibition except of those things only that occasionally become necessary or that are naturally necessary circumstances of such actions as are commanded for it would argue great imperfection in the Law if it should omit things that are constantly or generally necessary for the good of the Church And as Moses closed his Law with this command that none should adde or diminish it so Christ having given his Law to his Church and appointed Officers with power to make govern and cast members out of it as there was need without giving them liberty to adde or alter He also did virtually prohibit such additions or alterations till he shall come again and their Commission being only to teach baptize and to teach all that Christ commands to the end of the world Mat. 28.18.19 This doth sufficiently restrain them from making or teaching cammands of their own all their authority being grounded on that Commission 2. From Antiquity the Non-Conformists alledge that the primitive Churches for many hundred years had no stated Liturgies prescribing the words as well as method of worship Justin Martyr in his second Apoligy designedly gives an account of the Christian worship viz the order and method of praying preaching admitting of Members administring both Sacraments but hath no word of a prescribed form but he saith the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was able Tertullian giving the same account in his Apol. Cap. 39. saith likewise sine monitore quia de pectore oramus they prayed by heart and therefore had no prompter much less a book We read that Constantine the great Euseb de vit constant l. 4. cap 19.20 having abolished idolatry composed a form of Prayer for his Heathen Souldiers wherein t hey should pray to one God the Creatour of all things but we read of no form imposed on Christians There are indeed Lyturgies that goe under the names of the Apostle James Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but they convince themselves to be forged by later men and so are an argument that there were no such things in the primitive times but when the Church was over-run with errours and superstitions it was appointed in Africa that the Ministers should either receive a form of Prayer from their Bishops Cansil Milevet 2 dum Can. 12. or shew their own Prayer to them for their approbation but this was above 400 years after Christ the usurpation of Bishops Lazines and ambition of Ministers ignorance and superstition in the people bred Liturgies and they grew up together Nor is their any mention of Responses in the Antient Church a superstitions story of a vision of Angels singing an Hymn in that manner by turns is pretended to be seen by Ignatius dead long before nor had the antient Church days holy to Saints for 300 years and upward we find only mention amongst them of Easter-day and yet that caused such division and contentions that it might have been a warning to after ages for contending about things that God hath not commanded The Apocryphal Books were indeed read in the Christian Church very antiently though they never were amongst the Jews but it was more excusable in them then in us because it was long e're the books of the Scripture especially the books of the New Testament were gathered into one Volumn or it was agreed among the Churches which were Canonical and which Apocryphal for some of the Apocryphal were read in some Churches as Canonical and some of the Canonical were by some Churches rejected The Cross in Baptism was so long unknown to the Church that it is hard to say when it came in though the sign of the Cross was commonly used amongst them upon their Cloaths in their Hats to distinguish them from Heathens and as a token that they were Christians the Montanists began to make a superstititious use of the Cross and so did many others soon after Constantine himself can scarce be excused if Eusebius be credited but that it was annexed to Baptism and made a symbole of mens embracing Christianity there is no record Kneeling at the Lords Supper was not enjoyned till transubstantion was established above 1200 years after Christ nor is any general example for it pretneded in former ages The Surplice was much Elder then the Cross in Baptism or kneeling at the Supper yet for 200 years and upwards there is no mention of it nor is it known when or how it came in many Rites Customs and Ceremonies were used in the Primitive Churches some being derived from the Jews some from the Heathens by the converts of both sorts yet not imposed upon others the Apostles Rule being yet observed that no man should judge another in meats or drinks Col. 2.16 Rom. 14. or in respect of an holy day i. e. the Jewish Festivals which were once of divine institution Nor did the
esteem the Impositions of the Church of England to be of so high a Nature as the Corruptions of Rome and that they should break off all Communion from them But if the ejected Ministers have still aright to their people and the people to them and both are bound to oppose in their places the Uniformity imposed with such Circumstances as it is and as they maintain it will not at all follow that from occasional Brotherly Communion they must become constant Members of the Parishes and be content with their Communion 3. The Dr. frequently hints Authority and Government to which we must be subject and therefore if they eject Ministers they must become Lay-men and not Preach In this he speaks sometimes of the Authority of the Church and sometimes of the Civil Magistrate Answ And because this is a snare to many mens Consciences We answer freely 1. That the Authority of the Church of England as a Church hath no Obligation on the Consciences of Non-Conformists any further then prudence and peace doth direct them for the Bishops Deans c. which are the Rulers of it supposing them Lawful yet being no way chosen by the People or Inferiour Clergy can have no Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority over this Church especially being alwaies protested against by a considerable part of the Ministers and People nor can the Lyturgy or any thing else they impose oblige the Ministers and People being not advized with in such Impositions nor heard speak for themselves Two Thousand Ministers as Orthodox diligent learned and every way considerable as their Opposites and pleading for no other things then many such Ministers have pleaded for from the beginning of our Reformation are not therefore bound in Conscience to submit to the Wills of the Bishops because they prevailed with the Civil Power to establish their Opinion 2. The Civil Magistrate hath Power to maintain and protect the Church and to see that she doth her Duty but to impose forms of Worship on her without the advice and against the consent of those who are most concern'd He hath no power given him of God much less to infringe her Priviledges and Liberties to rend away her Pastors at pleasure or to impose whom he please on her and the like And where there is no Authority to command that command cannot oblige to obedience Indeed where small things are enjoyned that are not sinful men may obey if prudential Reasons lead them to it But if small things will usher in great ones and obedience will make way for more imposition It was the Apostles Judgment in a like case concerning the practise of the Jewish Ceremonies that such Imposers should be resisted Gal. 2.11 12. Should our King of himself impose a Tax of a Farthing Pole would not many suspect it might if peaceably paid make way for greater Taxes and so undermine their Liberties in Parliament Why should not men be as jealous of the Liberties and Priuiledges of the Church which concern the Honour of Christ and their own Souls good especially knowing that the Western Church was ruined and defaced by the Pope meerly by yielding and patient bearing of gradual Impositions and encroachments in the better sort and the worser sort complying and crying for Obedience to the Authority of the Church and Governours Serm. p. 19. 4. The Dr. saith that we confess the case of the people is very different from that of the Ministers and therefore that they run into Schism in hearing us though we for some Sinister ends will not tell them of their errour Answ Interest and passion will not suffer men to speak of such things as they are concerned in without uncharitable and un-scholer like reflections sometimes which I will pity rather then retort And to the thing we answer That the Peoples case is indeed much different from the Ministers as to Active Conformity i. e. They are not to Assent or Consent to all in the Service Book nor to subscribe as the Ministers must in order to their holding Communion but passively the people are concerned as far as the Ministers i. e. They are to suffer all these things Their Ministers to be cast out and all Impositions which they and their Fathers groaned under to be enjoyned with the greatest rigour and not shew their dislike of any of them upon pain of being accounted Schismaticks according to the 27 Canon So that the people are as much wronged and imposed on in their Capacities as the Ministers are in theirs We grant that the People may hear and see those things done in Divine Service and so may Ministers also as private men which conscientious Ministers ought not to be active in As our Saviour was present at the Temple Worship though there were many Superstitions mixed by the Priests in those days but what men may do in some cases they are not obliged to do in all cases and people cannot be obliged to suffer any sinfull or doubtfull things in the worship they joyn in unless there be some great reason why they may not forsake that worship Now the Non-Conformists affirm that the people are obliged in their capacities to endeavour reformation of things amiss in the Church and to own that Reformation they had obtained and to withstand the unjust intolerable imposition of the last uniformity as much as the Ministers are to do all these in their places And therefore as it is no Schism for the Ministers to preach so neither is it any for the people to hear That we may plainly express the sence of the Non-Conformists in this point and that the Dr may no more mistake their Principles and so labour in vain to convince them They say as Harnbeck adviseth the Cabornist in reference to the Lutherans That good and peaceable men of each party should love each other and hold as much Brotherly Communion together as may be but no more to endeavour any publick Reconciliation or Union which the Heads and Leaders of the party have so often frustrated and opposed till God will give them a more Moderate Spirit and some fit reason may incline them to Union The Question betwixt them and the Dr plainly is 1. Whether a multitude of Ministers being turned out of the Church to her great and apparent damage without so much as alledging any Crime against them but only imposing new things on them on purpose to ensnare them whether these Ministers are bound to lay down their Ministry and live private and not rather to assert their own and the Churches Rights 2. Whether the People thus wrongfully deprived of their Ministers and imposed upon also against their own Judgments and Conscience in matters of Divine worship whether they are bound to submit to the Intruders and Imposers and not rather to joyn with their injured Ministers in asserting their own priviledges The Dr's candour is too great to deny that the reason of Scripture and the practise of the best antiquity before the Churches lost their
they bear any Testimony to them But some of those Martyrs refused Conformity to them themselves as was shewed before and those who were the chief occasions of retaining that form of Worship and those Ceremonies and to pleas whom the better men consented to them turned Papists again as Gardiner and Tunstall by Name and were the Persecutors of the rest CHAP. II. The Second Argument from the Principles and Practise of the Old Non-Conformists considered Their Principles and Practise the same with ours so farr as their circumstances did bear The Difference of Circumstances betwixt them and us THE Dr's Second Argument is taken from the Principles and Practise of the Old Non-Conformists and largly prosecuted from § 6 unto 17 shewing That they condemned Separation from the Church of England did not like of gathering separate Congregations wrote earnestly against the Separation of the Brownists and when silenced themselves pleaded for quiet submission hoping that others might teach the people better then themselves ' Ans An Argument from Authority and Example especially in a matter of practise as this is is of great force though not to convince yet to induce mens mind to further consideration of what they do especially when it hath been proved by reason before as farr as the nature of the thing will bear but the Dr. having not given any direct argument either in his Sermon or this Book to prove the Preaching of the Non-Conformists Unlawfull which was the thing in question and from which I will not wander the Judgment of former men is of much less weight when it is brought instead of Scripture and Reason but we shall examine the force of it such as it is to remove the prejudice or Calumny that may be Created by it though it be no argument for what if the former Non-Conformists thought it unlawfull to preach when silenced by Law which yet by the way they generally were not but by the new impositions of Arch-Bishop Whitgift and the Canons of K. James which were not Law is it therefore certainly so indeed what if they thought it unlawfull for them in their circumstances is it therefore unlawfull for us in our present case or doth it follow that they would have thought it so had they lived under the same circumstances The circumstances of every Generation vary things and make many actions Lawfull or Unlawfull expedient or not expedient prudent or imprudent and of this none but the persons living and concerned in them are competent Judges Spectators can see but the outside of things Ancestors know nothing of them only they whose business and duty it is to consider what they ought to do in the present case are able throughly to judge what is meet for them to do or forbear But the Old Non-Conformists direct all their Zeal against Separation from the Church of England as it was practised by the Brownists and what hence can be inferr'd against the present Non-Conformists Preaching the Reader must judge For the further clearing of this matter I will briefly consider what were the general and avowed Principles of the old Non-Conformists in Ecclesiastical Matters what was their practise and what is peculiar in the present case beyond theirs 1. For their Principles 1. The Old Non-Conformists generally held the National Constitution of the Church of England as it is Collected into one body under the Bishops as the general Heads and Spiritual Officers of it to be unlawfull yea Antichristian injurious to the several Congregations or Parishes and contrary to the King 's unquestionable Supremacy The Dr. Confesseth this of those that presented the Admonition to the Parliament 1570 Part 1 Sect. 7. viz That they condemned the Government of Bishops as Antichristian and that they disliked the Ministry of the Church of England as ordained by and derived from the Bishops Now this Admonition was written by Mr. Cartwright in the name and by the consent of most Non-conformists then living Doctor Fuller saith that the Non-conformists in the latter end of Queen Elizabeth Church Hist Cent. 16. had a kind of Synod met in Coventry Ann. 588 agreed upon divers things as Canons some whereof were That Christ had appointed no Ministers in his Church but Presbyters and Deacons that the Bishops pretending themselves to be neither Presbyters nor Deacons but Officers distinct from them both were no Ministers of Christ nor to be acknowledged as such in his Church and that none ought to receive Ordination from them because they Ordained not as Presbyters but as Bishops i. e. by a power not derived from Christ This and much more he took from Bishop Bancroft Dr. Ames the supposed Author of the English Puritanism delivers this Dang posit Book 3. cap. 6. for the Judgment of the Puritans in those dayes They hold that there are not by any divine institution in the word any ordinary National Provincial or Diocesan Pastours Eng. Purit chap. 3. pag. 2. or Ministers under which the Pastours of particular Congregations are to be subject as Inferiour Officers and that if there were any such that when the word of God would have set them down mored istinctly and precisely then any of the rest for the higher place that one Occupies in the Church of the more necessity he is to the Church the more carefully would Christ the head of the Church have been in pointing him out and distinguishing him from other c. The same thing Dr. Ames layes down and proves as his own Judgment There is a Treatise written in the Name of all the Non-conformists directed to King james Medul Theol. cap. 32. de Eccl. instit item 35. called a Protestation of the King's Supremacy wherein they say pos 27. We hold that these Ecclesiastical persons that make claim to greater power and authority than this i. e. in particular Congregations as in the former position especially they that make claim jure Divino of power and Jurisdiction to meddle with other Churches then that one Congregation of which they are or ought to be members do usurp upon the Supremacy of the Civil Magistrate who alone hath and ought to have as we hold and maintain a power over the several Congregations in his Dominions and who alone ought by his Authority not only to prescribe Common Lawes and Canons of Vniformity and consent in Religion and worship of God unto them all but also to punish the offences of the several Congregations that they shall commit against the Lawes of God the Policy of this Realm and the Ecclesiastical Constitutions Enacted by his Authority and pos 28. We hold that the King ought not to give this Authority away or to commit it to any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever but ought himself to be as it were Arch-Bishop and general Over-sear of all the Churches within his Dominions and ought to imploy under him his honourable Council his Judges Lieutenants c. and Pos 32. They crave that the Bishops may not be
other such pressures were laid upon them which many living yet remember Nor were the Bishops ever ashamed to use their own power and to appear in person against these men in what danger soever Church or State was Conformity must be urged and Non-Conformists suppress'd In the very beginning of Reformation Mr Hooper was imprisoned by B. Cranmer and Ridley for refusing the use of some Ceremonies when he was to be consecrated Bishop and though the King by his Letter under his own hand commanded them to dispense with him yet they would not condescend when a Congregation of Exiles for Religion were setled at Franckford under Q. Mary because they had laid aside the English Liturgy and Ceremonies B. Cox of Ely and his Company coming afterwards to the same City first quarrelled with them and disturbed them in the Church and then incensed the Magistrates against them so that they were forced to leave the City to find other refuge The Mouths of all the Cannons almost are Levelled against the Non-Conformists none almost but they felt the Rigour of the High Commission and Star-Chamber Courts few were suspended sileneeed or fined or excommunicated but for not using the Cross not wearing the Surplice following Sermons abroad for not kneeling at the Sacrament c. Mr. Hildersham was suspended from preaching and benefice 12 years together and fined two thousand pound to the King only for giving the Lords Supper unto two of his Parish without kneeling and the Communicants Mr. Holt and Mr. Ditton were fined each of them 1000 pounds for receiving without kneeling And how Arch-Bishop Laud exceeded all before him in prosecuting the Non-Conformists is fresh in Memory Now the usage of them besides that it might exasperate the Spirits of men and alienate them from the things imposed which is incident to all men it did also add weight to their Reasons against Conformity because they saw that the Bishops pressed their own Laws and Constitutions more then the Laws of Christ That they usurped authority without and against the consent of the Church not only to enjoyn things on their practise but also to impose the approbation of them upon their judgments and consciences which they knew before hand were dissatisfied in those things and also that they were now become declared enemies to further reformation and thought they should rather abate of the First Reformation and go nearer to Rome then stir one Hairs breadth further from her This made Conformity justly more scrupled when after 90 years endeavours for reformation they had Pharoahs Answer and were beaten to their burthens and not ought of the tale of their brick to be diminished And now the case between the Conformists and Non-Conformists is quite altered viz after the making of the Cannons 1603. before the question was whether the things imposed as Liturgy Ceremonies c. might not be born with especially with help of some connivances of moderate Bishops in those things that they most scrupled because it was but the beginning of reformation and the Governours both Civil and Ecclesiastical were not yet weaned from the old Discipline and customs of their Fathers nor were the people likely to bear more purity and to part with all their old customs at once and upon these grounds the Non-Conformists kept the Communion of the Church of England and generally submitted to the practise of most things imposed but now since all things before complained of were turned into Cannons and standing Laws and must not only be practised but approved also under their hands to stand upon record in the Registers of the Bishops Courts and all that would not subscribe must be cast out or kept out of the Ministry and the People likewise were generally weary of the impositions as well as the Ministers and disliked them as too much symbolizing with Rome and therefore all the Church Censures must be bent against them whom the Cannons called Schismaticks for this cause only Now I say the question was whether the first reformation was not compleat Can 27. and we ought not to go any further from Rome in Liturgy Ceremonies Government and Discipline but take up with them as a perfect Church Moddle at least such as had no other imperfections in it then all Constitutions in this world are subject to This alteration of the state of the Question was much increased when the Court and our Princes took up new measures of Marrying with Popish Princes abroad and mixing interest with them whereby they were necessitated to desert the protection and assistance which they had hitherto given to Protestants abroad which the German and French Protestants in their wars quickly felt the effects of but also to remit their zeal against the Papists at home viz to suspend the execution of Laws against them to entertain them at Court to receive them into offices to suffer their Priests and Jesuits to come over in multitudes and quickly to seduce the people and that which was a necessary consequence of all this to discountenance and punish Zealous Ministers and People who found fault with these proceedings as Puritanes overhot indiscreet factious and enemies to the State for this practise of the Court drew the Church along with it as it usually doth and all men that had a mind to rise must plead for the Lawfulness of Protestants Marrying with Papists and allowing them their worship and of conniving at Papists amongst us and at last to study to gratifie and meet the Papists as farr as they could and to bring back more of their Doctrines and Ceremonies till at length it was become an indifferent thing whether a man was a Papist or a Protestant so he were not a Puritane and continued in that Church he was born and baptized in Vid Rushw Col. Part 1. p. 213 The Parliaments Censure of Mr. Mountagues Papers This temper did the Church men fall into immediately upon the publick attempt for the Spanish match and it spread more amongst them till Arch-Bishop Laud being made head of the party had almost made a second sort of Non-Conformists viz Puritane Conformists as they called them i. e. Those that conformed to the Liturgy and Discipline established by Law but could not approve of the new design of moderation toward and Union with the Papists which the Arch-Bishop and all his followers professed and owned And now the case was altered to purpose for it was now Puritanism and Faction to be an Anti-Arminian to be zealous against Popery to preach twice a Sabbath to pray before or after Sermon to keep the Sabbath Holy and in a word to be seriously religious in the people and for the Ministers to preach for it this was Puritanism and our Reformers were thought too nice and strait-laced our Articles and Homilies too strict and fit to be qualified and our Martyrs Fools and Rebels The Non-Conformists now thought they had great reason to stand off from Conformity seeing all their fears were verified before their eyes
their Judges who were their professed enemies and tell the King that So long as it shall please the King and Civil State to maintain in this Kingdom the State Hierarchy or Prelacy we can in honour to his Majesty and the State and in desire of peace be content without envy to suffer them to enjoy their State and Dignity and to live as brethren amongst those Ministers that shall acknowledge spiritual homage unto their spiritual Lordships paying unto them all temporal duties of Tenthes and such like yea and joyning with them in the service and worship of God so far as we may do it without our own particular communicating with them in those humane Traditions and Rites that in our Consciences we judge to be unlawful Thus we see it was only for respect to the State and for peace sake that they could give the Bishops any acknowledgment or reverence and that though they did acknowledge other Ministers for their brethren who did in Conscience ascribe spiritual Authority to the Bishops yet they did acknowledge the Bishops as such neither for Fathers nor brethren Mr. Robert Parker wrote in Latine de Ecclesiastica politia wherein he proves Presbyters to be the only Ministers and answereth Mr. Hooker and Bishop Bilson where they maintain or excuse Bishops or a power of imposing what government the Magistrate pleaseth upon the Church 2. They hold Congregations or Churches severally to be the only Gospel Churches and each one to have full power and jurisdiction within it self without being subject to any Ecclesiastical Officers but their own but all to be immediately subject to the Civil Magistrate and his inspection This is the Scope of Mr. Baine's Diocesan Tryal of Dr. Ames in his Medull Theol. Cap. 32. Part. 1. And thus they joyntly declare Engl. puritan Chap. 3. part 1. they hold that the Pastors of Particular Congregations are or ought to be the highest Spiritual Officers in the Church over whom by any Divine Ordinance there is no Superiour Pastour but only Jesus Christ And that they are led by the Spirit of Antichrist that Arrogate or take upon themselves to be Pastours of Pastours and to the same purpose position 2. before cited And Position 3. They hold that if there were a Supream National or Ecclesiastical Minister or Pastour that should be the Prince of Many thousand Pastors that then also Christ as he did in the Jewish Church would have appointed a solemn National or Provincial Lyturgy or worship unto which at sometimes of the year the whole body of the people should ascend and that unto the Metropolitan City as unto Jerusalem and that he would as he did in the Jewish Church more precisely and particularly have set down the manner of solemnization thereof then of his Parochial worship For as much therefore as they cannot read in the new Testament of any higher or more solemn worship then of that which is to be performed in a particular Congregation they cannot be perswaded that God hath appointed any higher Ministers of his service and worship under the new Testament then the Elect Ministers of Particular Congregations See Position 4th more to the same purpose And Protestation Position 24th We confine and bound all Ecclesiastical power within the limits only of one particular Congregation holding that the greatest Ecclesiastical power ought not to stretch beyond the same and that it is an arrogating of Princely Supremacy for any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over many Churches much more over whole Kingdoms aud Provinces of Christians 3. They held that the Officers of every Church or Congregation were Pastors teachers and Elders chosen out of the people and herein they agreed with all the Protestant Churches besides the Lutherans Engl. Purit ch 3. p. 13. They hold that by Gods Ordinance there should be in every Church a Doctor whose special Office should be to instruct by way of Catechizing the ignorant of the Congregation and that particularly in the main grounds and principles of Religion Chap. 4. Position 1. They held That by Gods Ordinance the Congregation should make choice of other officers as Assistants unto the Ministers in the spiritual Regiment of the Congregation who are by Office joyntly with the Ministers of the word to be as Monitors and Overseers of the Manners and Conversation of all the Congregation and one of another that so every one may be more wary of their waies and that the Pastours and Doctors may better attend prayer and doctrine and by their means may be made better acquainted with the state of the people when other eyes besides their own shall wake and watch over them Protestation Position 25. We hold it utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation and therefore we hold that some of the sufficientest and most honest and godly men in the Congregation ought to be chosen by the heads of families to be adjoyned in Commission as assistants to the Minister in the spiritual Regiment of the Souls of that Congregation of which he is the Pastor 4. They hold that every Church hath power to Elect her own Officers to censure or depose them as they shal deserve and that this power ought not to be taken from them though they grant also that the King or Supream Magistrate hath Authority to Command and by Civil Mulcts to compel them to make due Elections to amend undue ones and so to cause them to restore such Officers Engl. Purit ch 2. pag. 5. as may be unjustly rejected by them c. They hold that every established Church ought as a special Prerogative by which she is endowed by Christ to have power and liberty to elect and chuse their own spiritual and Ecclesiastical Officers and that it is a greater wrong to have any forced upon them against their wills then if they should force upon them wives and upon women husbands against their will and liking And Position 6. They hold that if in this choice any particular Churches shall erre that none upon earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to controle or correct them for it and that though it be not lawful for him to take away this power from them yet when they or any of them shall apparently abuse the same he stands bound by the Law of God and by vertue of his Office grounded upon the same to punish them severly for it and to force them under civil mulsts to make better choice Protest pos 26. We hold that these Ecclesiastical Officers being so chosen by the Church or congregation are to exercise over the said congregation only a spiritual jurisdiction and power c. Then they shew the manner of proceeding in censuring private Members when they offend and then adde If any one of the Ecclesiastical Officers themselves shall sin he is subject to the censures of