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
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
the Sacraments and no other The Bishop knew that the Non-Conformists thought the Cross in Baptism prescribed in the Common Prayer Book unlawfull and against the Word of God and that some of them thought the order of Bishops unlawfull also and all of them the order of Deacons as prescribed by that Book and yet here they must subscribe not only that they will use the book and no other form in publick but that it contains nothing contrary to the Word of God This subscription was not only imposed on those that should hereafter be ordained but it is also decreed that no man shall be suffered to Preach or Catechize or be a Lecturer or read any Lecture in Divinity in the Universities Cathedral or Colligiate Churches or in City Market Town Church or Chappel whatsoever within this Realm unless he first subscribed to this Article with two others contained in this Cannon and by means hereof many worthy Ministers were quickly turned out of their Livings though the Lawyers generally declared that it was against the Laws of the Land that any man should be turned out of his Free-hold such as Ministers Livings are without an Act of Parliament and to make all sure they ordained Cannon 55 that Preachers before all Sermons Lectures or Homilies should only invite the people to pray naming a few heads of Prayer which respect the publick only and none concerning the people in particular so that now no other Prayer must be used in publick but those in the Service Book which made the Burthen more intolerable Moreover in this Book of Canons they ordain that Ministers shall admit none to the Lords Supper that will not kneel or that come not to the Prayers or that speak against the Book of Common Prayer or Ceremonies or the book of Consecration of Bishops Can. 27. c. Till they acknowledge their Fault in word or writing if they can That Fathers shall not be God-Fathers to their own Children nor so much as urged to be present at their Baptism In a word all that the Bishops knew that the Non-Conformists were dissatisfied with Can. 29. in the Service Book were established by these Cannons and they rigorously prosecuted upon them from that time viz 1603 to 1640. For the Government of the Church by Bishops and administration of that Government by Lay-Chancellours Commissaries c. in Q. Eliz. time the Governours were contented with a peaceable submission from the Non-Conformists but under K. James the Cannons fore-named enjoyned all Ministers to subscribe that there was nothing in the Book of Consecration of Bishops Priests and Deacons contrary to the Word of God And now B. Billson and B. Andrews pleaded for the Divine Right of Episcopacy and B. Laud imposed an Oath commonly called the Oath Caetera upon the Clergy whereby they should promise not to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church as it was established by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans c. And thus all the moderation that had been used by the former Bishops in pressing things scrupled was turned into the most rigorious imposition of them yea and of additions to them also as if Rohoboam's success should terrify no man from acting according to his answer to the People that he would add to their burthens and change their Whips into Scorpions and this leads to the next reason of the Dissent of those former Non-Conformists Rea. 6. The Tyrannical Imposition of the Lyturgy and all that belonged to it was a great means to increase their dissatisfaction There had been a passage in the Preface of the Common Prayer book that the first Reformers had gone as farr as they could in reforming the Church considering the times they lived in and they hoped those that came after them would as they better might do more And indeed this was the Ground of the submission and patience of the Non-Conformists viz a perswasion that the first Reformers at least the best of them did not intend their moddle as a ne plus ultra and therefore they still hoped that by Patience and peaceable endeavours things might by begrees be brought to a better pass accordingly they presented an admonition to the Parliament Anno 1570. And again a Petition to K. James called the Millinary Petition for ease and redress but alas as that passage of the Reformers is left out of the Preface to the service book so the expungers of it fixed a just contrary mark to themselves which they aim at to this day in all their proceedings viz that there was no necessity of any farther Reformation then what was established by Q. Eliz. and that all must be compelled to approve of that as sufficient and to submit to the Rules of it The better to prosecute this design they have ever laboured to set the Princes against the Non-conformists and themselves have used the Spiritual Sword chiefly against them they did what they could to prejudice that Excellent Princess Q. Eliz. against them so that in her Reign especially when Whitgift was Arch-Bishop the Non-Conformists were turned out of Universities as Dr Sampson Dean of Christs-Church in Oxford Mr Cartwright Margarite Professour at Cambridge and many others many were turned out of Livings some worthy men imprisoned and Mr John Vdall Minister of Kingston upon Thames was sentenced to dye for high Treason against the Queen in Defaming her Government which saith Dr Fuller was somewhat hard being but a remote consequence for all that was alledged against him was that in a Preface to a certain book he had sharply taxed the Remissness of the Bishops Government And now such was the Rigour of Prosecutions against the Non-Conformists and the remisness of Discipline toward the ignorant and scandalous both Ministers and People that it gave occasion to many to separate from and renounce the Church of England as no true Church who were then called Brownists when K. James came to the Crown the Bishops so quickly incensed him against the Dissenters that in the conference at Hampton-Court appointed on purpose to hear their exceptions he would scarce give them leave to speak he sent them away with taunts and threats and often declared that were men never so able and pious yet the Church had better want their labours then have her Orders broken by their Non-Conformity which maxime I am sorry to find Dr Stillingfleet to espouse Under K. Charles the 1st the Bishops had so wholly engaged the civil power in their cause that it was almost the only concern of the Government how to bring all the Non-Conformists in England to submit or to leave the Land and to bring Ireland to the same plat-form with England and to set up Bishops Lyturgies and Ceremonies in Scotland and now Ministers and People were driven many thousands into New-England Holland and other Forreign Parts they were suspended silenced deprived of their Livings imprisoned fined set in the Pillory stigmatized had their ears cut off banished into remote Islands and many
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
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
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
of the Parishes any more then the Non-Residents may plead that they cannot reside with their own people or perform Ministerial duties to them because they must hold Communion with them amongst whom they dwell Thus the Dr in all his book hath said nothing directly to the question in hand but the Terms of Communion he saith are the same now as at the first Reformation but as to the Ministers this is apparently otherwise such Subscriptions and Declarations being required of them as no History can match except those imposed on the Jansenists in France of which ours seem to be an immitation The contrivers of our impositions being then in France when the Jansenists were removed from all Ecclesiastical Places by a like artifice as we afterwards were If he mean the Terms of Communion that concern the people as he elsewhere expresseth himself and restrains them to the Terms imposed by Law this is nothing to the purpose for the Ministers though they should submit to those terms when they act as private men may nevertheless be bound not to for sake the exercise of their Ministry Besides there is a Fallacy in restraining the Terms to those enjoyned by Law what if neither Ministers nor people can enjoy the benefit of the Law but new terms are imposed on them without Law as were the subscription to the Service Book Can. 36. whereby so many worthy Ministers were turned out in K. Jame's time the Reading of the book for Soorts on the Lords Day and the Reading of the Prayer against the Scots and the order for Preaching but once a Sabbath and then not to exceed an hour for disobeying which more were rejected in the late King's time and many such are still continued viz the constant Reading of the Communion Service though there be no Sacrament which makes the Prayers more tedious and fuller of Repitions then they need to be and also straitneth the Preacher if it do not hinder the Sermon the placeing the Communion Table and Railing it like an Altar and compelling the Communicants to come up by parcels to kneel before it contrary to Q. Eliz. injunctions must the people submit still because these things are imposed by Law do not innovations and corruptions come into the Church by degrees and by connivance at first and afterwards when their Authors are strong enough they are then established by Laws and Canons And yet the Argument holdeth not the things imposed might be submitted to at the first Reformation ergo they must be so still The Jewish Ceremonies were tolerated and practised by the Apostle Paul in the beginning of the Gospel and yet when false teachers and other peevish or timorous men contended for the observation of them still when the reason of it viz not offending the Jews was ceased and they were an hindrance to the Gospel then the same Apostle would not give place to them no not for an hour though Peter and Barnabas joyned with them Gal. 2.3.4.5 and ver 11. to the 18. Nor doth our practise reflect on our first Reformers unless they had been extraordinarily inspired to that work then indeed to vary from them or endeavour to correct them would be to reproach the Spirit by whom they acted But if they made that Reformation only as good and wise men acting according to Principles of Piety and Prudence as farr as they could in their circumstances it is no disparagement to them if others vary from them according to the times and circumstanees they live in My L. Bacon observes that in civil matters our Parliament does dayly alter our Laws Bacon 's Essays and suit them to the present times and case of the people yet this is thought no disparagement to the Wisdom or Justice of their Ancestours in former Parliaments but the Church â—â—eth almost buried in the Rubbish of time and this must not be removed out of Veneration forsooth to Antiquity The best men not inspired can but do what is best for their own time we should therefore inquire not only whether the terms of Communion be the same now that they were at the first Reformation but also whether those terms be as necessary as Tolerable and as fit to be submitted to now as they wre then Nor did our Reformers expect that their endeavours should be made an unalterable Standard to all posterity The exprest in their Preface to the Common-Prayer Book their mind this purpose viz. That they had done what they could in reforming the Church and the Liturgy according to their light and as their times would bear and that they hoped those that came after would be able to do more and go further This I have heard from divers Ancient and Credible Persons who remembred they had read this passage in the said Preface though it be now left out And it is the more unreasonable to urge the platform of the first Reformation as a Rule not to be altered though in disputable and mutable things because some of these Reformers both Ministers and People of that time disliked some things that were imposed and because they were yoked with some Papists who dissembled their Religion that they might both keep their places and more effectually hinder the Reformation as Bishop Cranmer is said to have complained How ever the thing was an unquestionable Truth Nor is it altogether true which he saith that the dislike of our Liturgy or Ceremonies was wholly brought from abroad by Hooper Rogers c. such as had travelled in Germany and Helvetia where Cranmer himself had also been a considerable time But it sprang up at home also together with the first seeds of the Reformation Almongst Wicklif's Opinion recited by Mr. Fox and charged on him by his Adversaries there by many pieces of the present Non-Con-formity relating to Discipline and Ceremonies * Church Hist Cont. and Dr. Fuller reports that in the latter end of K. Henry 8th many Articles were complained of in the Convocation as being now common among the People as against Lent most of the Ceremonies and such like It is natural for Christians not only to desire to hear true Doctrine and to have true Worship but to have that Doctrine and worship maintained by such Discipline and expressed by such Ceremonies or Circumstances as are allowed by it and agreeable to it and not by exotick things of mans device and humour It is true then Conformity and Non-conformity were Twins conceived and Born together in the Womb of our Church and it is as true that Non-Conformity put forth its hand first though Conformity had the hap first to break and to be Midwifed into into the world by Law But indeed is it a Reflection on our first Reformers to desire to mend what they were not peremptory in and some of them disliked And is it no dishonour to them to change the Doctrine then establisht in chief Articles of Faith viz. the Pelagian and Arminian points which have so long reigned amongst us And