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
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
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
the rest as any other member of the Congregation if they shall all sin scandalously either in the execution of their Office or in any other ordinary manner then the Congregation that chose themfreely hath as free power to depose them and to place others in their room if the Congregation shall erre either in choosing or deposing of her spiritual Officers then hath the Civil Magistrate alone power and authority to punish them for their fault to compel them to better choice or to defend against them those officers that without just causes they shall depose or deprive The same Doctrine is desended by Dr. Ames Medul Theol p. 1. cap. 35. 5. They hold that insufficient Ministers obtruded upon Churches were not to be acknowledged for Ministers and if their lawful Ministers were without just cause ejected by any Superiour Powers Engl. purit ch 2. pos 8. they did still retain the Right and Honour of being their Pastors They hold that the Congregation having once made choice of their Spiritual Officers unto whom they commit the Regiment of their Souls they ought not without just cause and that which is apparently warrantable by the word of God to discharge deprive or depose them but ought to live in all Canonical Obedience and Subjection unto them agreeable unto the word of God and if by permission of the civil Magistrate they shall by other Ecclesiastical Officers be suspended or deprived for any cause in their apprehension good and justifiable by the word of God then they hold it the bounden duty of the Congregation to be continual Suppliants to God and humble Suitors unto Civil Authority for the restauration of them unto their Administrations which if it cannot be obtained yet this much honour they are to give unto them as to acknowledge them unto the Death their Spiritual Guides and Governours though they be rigorously deprived of their Ministry and Service And Chap. 3. pos 9. They hold that the People of God ought not to acknowledge any such for their Pastors as are not able by Preaching to interpret and apply the word of God unto them aud therefore that no ignorant and Sole-reading Priests are to be reputed the Ministers of Jesus Christ who sendeth none into his Ministry and Service but such as he adorneth in some Measurewith Spiritual gifts and they cannot be perswaded that the faculty of reading in ones Mother Tongue the Scriptures c. which any ordinary Turk or Infidel hath can be called in any Congruity of Speech a Ministerial gift of Christ And posit 12. They hold that it is as great an injury to force a Congregation or Church to maintain as their Pastor with Tythes and such like Donations that Person that either is not able to instruct them or that refuseth in his own Person ordinarily to do it as to force a man to maintain one for his wife that either is not a Woman or that refuseth in her own person to do the dutios of a Wife unto him 6. They hold that the Holy Scriptures are a perfect Rule of Doctrine Worship Discipline and Ceremonies and that to add new Ceremonies of mens own invention was a breach of the second Commandment With this Mr. Parker begins his Book of Ecclesiastical polity that we are to deduce from Scripture all that concerns the Church of Christ Thus the Protestation We deny no Authority to the King in matters Ecclesiastical but only that which Christ Jesus the only head of the Church hath directly and precisely appropriated unto himself Protest pos 22. and hath denied to communicate to any other Creature or Creatures in the world for we hold that Christ alone is the Doctor of the Church in matters of Religion and that the word of Christ which he hath given unto his Church is of absolute perfection containing in it all parts of the true Religion both for substance and Ceremony and a perfect Direction in all Ecclesiastical matters whatsoever unto and from which it is not lawful for any Man or Angel to add or detract Thus Mr. Bradshaw in his Addition to the 12th Argument against Ceremonies argues All Inventions and Devises of man grounded only upon the will of man and not upon any necessity of Nature or Civility set apart to Gods outward Worship are contrary to the second Commandment These Ceremonies are such Ergo See more in the place 7. They held Ceremonies enjoyned by our Lyturgy unlawful The Cross in Baptism was condemned by all Mr. Parker and Mr. Bradshaw in particular wrote against it The Surplice was rejected by most Kneeling at the Lords Supper was disliked by all but yet thought Tolerable and that it might be submitted unto by some of the most Learned The Protestours declare themselves thus We refuse Obedience only to such Canons as require the performance of such Acts and Rites of Religion as are rejected and abandoned of all other Reformed Churches as Superstitious disorders Protest pos 21. such as are special Mysteries of the Romish Antichristian Idolatry such as have been controverted in the Church ever since the last breaking forth of the Light of the Gospel out of the Cloud of Popery in Luthers time such as all Protestant writers and defenders of our Faith beyond the Seas and most of our own Countrey-men have either in general or particular condemned as vain idle and unprofitable such as all the faithful and painful Pastors of this Realm and in a manner all States and Degrees of the same would be content were removed and swept out of the Church and for which few or none are zealous but the Prelates and their Adherents Mr. Bradshaw wrote Twelve Arguments against the Ceremonies with as much vehemency as any have done since 12 Gen. Arg. against Cerem Arg. 1 'T is Will VVorship therefore sinful Arg. 2. 'T is a sinful Compliance with the Papists in derogation from the honour of the Reformed Churches to use them Arg. 5. 'T is Schismatical maintaining differences at home and abroad when the Authors acknowledge the things imposed indifferent and that they might without sin or inconvenience be let alone Arg. 6. That it is Communicating with the Papists in Idolatrous and Superstitious worship especially those Papists that live amongst us and see how much we symbolize with them Arg. 9. Because these Ceremonies are Sacraments of humane institution Arg. 10. Because they that use them do thereby acknowledge homage to an usurped authority in the Church Arg. 12. Because they are the occasion of the damnation of great numbers viz. the Papists who are hardened by them and ignorant Protestants who place all their Religion in them and because the usual excuse for these and all other humane impositions which the Dr. also makes frequent use of is that they are not imposed as things necessary to Salvation but as matters of Order Decency and the like Mr. Bradshaw draws his Eleventh Argument from hence That the Ceremonies are therefore unlawfull because made