Medina himself doth assert that a man must rather obey an erroneous Conscience than the command of any Prelate that is contradictory thereunto Supposing these Dissenters do err yet they must not act contrary unto an erroneous Conscience the whole that can be justly desir'd is that they use all regular means to depose and shake off the error of Conscience which must be done by a sincere seeking God for more light that they may come to the knowledge of the truth and by a diligent and impartial enquiry into the true State of the controversie Moreover there must be if possible a consulting the writings of the Learned on both sides or a conversing with 'em with a readyness to weigh all things with deliberation and a resolution to embrace the truth where ever 't is found But if after all their old convictions are rather strengthned than otherwise they must beware they act not contrary to their Conscience They must not resign up their reason their Conscience nor their Religion unto the pleasure of the greatest Potentate on Earth This I take to be the Doctrine of all sound Protestants of the Church of England yea I can when there shall be an occasion prove it to be so by a Collection of the several Arguments of the Learned Drs. of the Church which they have urg'd for the confirmation of this truth in the opposition they make to the blind obedience of the Papist Whence I inferr That these Dissenters in refusing to joyn with the Church of England in the Liturgy do but discharge their duty unto God Their not joyning with the Church is not the sin of Schism Schism is asserted by Protestants to be a causless separation whence if there be a good cause why they separate 't is not causeless and can there be a better cause than the avoiding sin They separate because they should sin if they did not separate But though this be enough to clear the Dissenter who is fully convinc'd of the unlawfulness of those Termes of Communion that are imposed on the people yet 't is not enough to justifie the separation of those who do not only think it lawfull but expedient to joyn with the Church of England in their Prayers and Ceremonies c. who if they will separate from the Church of England and justifie their separation they must argue from other Topicks for certainly the peace of the Church and the authority of the Magistrate cannot but engage a people to do what is both lawfull and expedient These therefore I think deny that they separate from the Communion of the Church Although they worship God in Meetings locally distant from the Parish Church yet their Meetings are but as Chappels of Ease and the Preachers but as Curates to the Parish Churches That the Episcopal Party may effectually demonstrate a Religious Assembly locally distant from the Parish Church to be Schismatical they must prove 1. That the people of this Assembly were once actually Members of the Parish Churches 2. That these people do ordinarily separate themselves from the external Communion of their Parish Churches 3. That their separation is causless First They must prove that the people of this Assembly that is locally distant from the Parish Church were once Members of the Parish Church that they were under an obligation of holding external Communion with their Parishes 1. All External Communion must be in Parish Assemblys or single Congregational Churches For a Diocesan Provincial or National Assembly of all the Members of those Societies for External Communion is on the account of the multitude of the people impossible 't is impossible they should meet in one and the same Assembly and hold Communion with each other in Prayers in the Word and in the Sacrament Their External Communion in Prayers c. must be in lesser Assemblies or not at all 2. Those who are under any Obligations of holding external Communion with this or the other Parish must be Members of this or the other Parish Church Such as are not Members of this or the other Parish Church cannot be said to separate from it tho' they meet in places locally distant because they not being Members of the Parish Church are not under any Obligation of holding external Communion with that Parish A Man saies Dr. Stilling fleet is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it This sufficiently evinces That unless the Conformists can prove that the Dissenters were oblig'd to hold Communion as Members of the Parish Churches they cannot prove a Separation To separate from a Church doth suppose that person to have been once of that Church But the Quaerie is how the Conformists will prove all the Dissenters to be Members of some particular Parish Church Will they say that they were all made Members of some particular Parish Church by their Baptisme That cannot be because by Baptism we are only made Members of the Catholick Church Doth our being born English Men and our Inhabiting in such a Parish make us Members of the Parish Church No for there are no Grounds in Scripture for this Our Lord Jesus Christ nor his Apostles did not leave any Intimations concerning such a Rule neither can any precept but what is fetch from God's word fasten any such Obligation on the Conscience that whoever lives within such a precinct must be a Member of such a Church How then must it be The Answer of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles and the Primitive Christians for the first 300 years and of most Protestants is full for this which is That it must be by the peoples consent For as the people are invested with a Right to chose their own Pastor and the Church with which they would hold Communion Even so they cannot be Members nor under any Obligation of holding Ordinary Communion with this or the other particular Church without their own consent Consent is as absolutely necessary to the constituting a particular Parish Church as a National which consent may be discovered not only Expresly but also implicitly which is when a people do ordinarily joyn with some particular Church in all Ordinances as many Parishioners who by their Ordinary holding Communion with the Parish Church in all Ordinances do practically and interpretatively though not expresly discover their consent to be of that Church whereby I think they are under an Obligation to constant Communion with that Parish Church so long as they find it lawful Tho' these may Occasionally hold Communion elsewhere yet their ordinary and constant Communion must be with their Parish Church For which reason if they do ordinarily forbear or cease to have Communion with their Parish-Church it may be justly said that they do separate from it But there are many an Inhabitant in most Parishes who as they were not made Members of the Parish
Church by Baptism nor can be by meer Cohabitation even so they never were by their own Consent either expresly or interpretatively They never held Communion with the Church of England in all Ordinances were never confirm'd by the Bishops nor ever did participate of the Lord's Supper and therefore I think it cannot be truly said That they Separate How can they cease that Communion which they never had For which reason to prove these Schismatical Separatists who never separated from the Church seems an Impossibility Surely their exercise of that Right and Power with which they are invested as Christians in chosing their own Pastor cannot be an Act Schismatical By this 't is manifest That those who never expresly nor implicitly consenting to hold communion with any parish-Parish-Church in all Ordinances were never actually obliged to hold Communion with such particular Parishes and consequently their forbearing such Communion or their Assembling in places distant from the Parish Church cannot be a Separation and if not a Separation it cannot be a Schism Thus the Reader may easily perceive how necessary 't is that the Conformists prove that those Dissenters who now meet in Assemblies locally distant from the Parish Churches were once Members and under an Obligation of holding external Communion with the Parish Churches if they will prove 'em Separatists Furthermore they must prove 2. That this people do ordinarily Separate themselves from the external Communion of their Parish Church For seeing the Sin of Schism consists in causeless Separation there must be a Separation or there can be no causeless Separation that is there can be no Schism but how the Conformist can prove a Separation any otherwise than by insisting on the people's not holding Communion in the same manner or same place with the Church is difficult to suppose And if they take either of their ways without the Addition of some other Consideration they must either make many of their own Meetings Separate which are in places locally distant from the Parish Church where their Modes of Administration are different or clear many Dissenters from the Reproach of Separation what do they think of such Meetings in which the Common Prayer is read are they Separate and Schismatical But after they have prov'd both these they cannot prove all Dissenters Schismatical unless they can also evince 3. That the Separation is Causeless and Sinful But how they can prove that those who if they separate do so on no other Account than that they may forsake Sin is a point worthy of Consideration If there be any sinful Imposition made the term of Communion 't is sufficient to justifie the Separation of those who withdraw themselves from the external Communion of that Church If a Church that is sound in the Doctrine of Religion though it detests an Idolatrous Worship yet if it make the least Sin the Term of Communion whereby the people cannnot have Communion with that Church but by a deliberate committing that Sin Separation from the Communion of this Church is justifiable For whatever some may suggest we must not commit the least Sin that good may come thereof To insist then so much on the Peace and Vnity of the Church as if it were a Good for the Obtaining which we might venture on a little Sin is a Notion of a very dangerous Tendency giving too great Countenance to a Doctrine of the Papists whereby they justifie all their Villanies A Little evil say they may be done for the Obtaining a great Good for instance The Salvation of the many Souls in Three Kingdoms is a great a very great Good the Killing One Two or Three Hereticks in order thereunto at most is but a little evil which may be done for so great a good Moreover this justifies all their Officious Lying and Equivocating they tell a Lye that some great good may come thereof But this is so contrary to the pure Nature of a Holy God and his Holy Good and Just Command that whoever will indulge himself in a practical embraceing such a Notion doth but prepare the greater Damnation for his own Soul God is a great God and the least Sin being an Offence to his Dread Majesty cannot knowingly with deliberation and allowance be committed but the person that does it exposeth himself to Divine Indignation who ever breaketh the least of these my Commands says Christ Matth. 5. 19. is in danger of loosing Heaven for though a man keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all James 2. 10. We must not speak nor act wickedly for God he is not glorified by Mans lye and therefore Wo unto them that will do evil that good may come thereof Rom. 3. 8. If the least sin be made the Term of Communion no Consideration of Peace and Vnity or of Obedience to the Magistrate can excuse those from guilt that will venture on that sin Whence 't is evident That all those who by the Reasons insisted on in this Treatise are fully convinc'd That somewhat sinful is imposed as a Term of Communion with the Church of England they do but discharge their Duty and keep a good Conscience in separating and yet by separation do not accuse the Church as if she had been no true Church or as if Salvation could not by others be had in it A Church that is sound in the Faith that 't is a true Church in a Theological Sense being lyable to Error may even while Sound in the great things of Religion impose some Error as a Term of Communion from which those who are convinc'd of the Sin must separate A sound Church in the great things may err in lesser matters and may Impose Assent and Consent unto that Error as a Term of Communion with the which these Dissenters durst not comply but seeing they cannot have Communion on easier Terms must separate There is a great Difference between the Errors or Corruptions of a Church which are made Terms of Communion and those which are not 'T is not to be question'd but that a man may joyn with a Church that is less pure than another even with a Church that hath several Spots in it or he must joyn with none and may be under an Obligation of continuing with that Church although he may go elsewhere and be better edifyed otherwise there being variety of Gifts those who are more eminent than the rest among the Ministery must have most of the people round when other honest though not so able Preachers have few or none However if they make the least Spot or Impurity a Term of Communion he dares not comply As long as he may may continue Communion without being made a partaker of the impurities as in many instances he may he must not separate but when they impose their corruptions as Termes of Communion so that he cannot have Communion but by complying with the corruption he must not sin for the sake of Communion nor on any
other consideration whatsoever But seeing they cannot hold Communion with the Parish-Churches The next great quaerie is what they must do whether live without some Ordinances all the dayes of their Life or Assemble themselves together for Communion in all Ordinances in such a way as they are fully convinc'd is agreable to the Sacred Scriptures That they must not constantly neglect any Ordinance of God nor the publick attendance on his worship somewhere is so clearly reveal'd in the word of God that whoever is not so far in love with Quakerism as to neglect the Testimony of God's written Word cannot but acknowledge it That the Lord Jesus who has instituted a Ministry and made it the peculiar work of some men in special to preach the Word not only for conversion of sinners but for the edisication of the converted for the help and benefit of whom there is instituted not the Ordinance of Baptism alone but that of the Lord's Supper which is design'd for the strength and encrease of Grace in Christians I say this Lord Jesus who hath so graciously instituted a Ministry and Ordinances hath made it the duty of Christians to assemble themselves together to the end they may be made partakers of the Blessings of his Institutions and Ordinances And such is the Relation between Minister and People that is between a Gospel Minister and an orderly Christian Assembly that the one cannot be without the other neither can the one ordinarily perform some Relational Duties but in an Assembly with the other and therefore must assemble themselves together 't is their duty I cannot at present enlarge on this head and therefore as to this I can only add that the sense of all Protestants generally is that all Christians ought to assemble themselves together for publick worship Viz. for Prayer the Word and Sacraments and that 't is the duty of a Pastor to take heed to himself and the Flock over which he is made over-seer and that 't is the peoples duty to attend Ordinarily on the Ministry of their own Pastor The great difference between the Church of England and Dissenters is not so much about the peoples duty of assembling themselves together for publique worship as about the place where and the Minister with whom The Church of England sayes it must be in the Parish Church with the Minister of the Parish but the Dissenter asserts that every Christian is invested with a right to choose his own Pastor and that therefore he must go where he finds the worship to be in a way most agreable to God's Holy word but when he is once fix'd he is under those Obligations of Duty unto his Pastor that the Church of England do say a Parishioner is unto the Minister of the Parish But seeing on these things I cannot now enlarge I will conclude with an humble and affectionate request to all good Christians whether Episcopal or Dissenter I beseech you to consider that conscience is a tender thing its wounds unsupportable frequently accompanied with such horror as is very like unto the pains and torments of the damned No man therefore must act contrary to the plain convictions thereof What man soever does what he is convinc'd in Conscience is a sin does greatly dishonour and provoke Almighty God All care must be taken to obtain the knowledge of the truth and gain a freedom from error but there must not be an acting against the plain convictions of conscience though erroneous On this I insist as a sound part of the Protestant Doctrine strenuously defended against the many feeble assaults of the Papist by several worthies of the Church of England And really this is a Rule all good Christians must walk by in doing which seeing there are almost as many different perswasions of conscience about some lesser things as there are considering mindes there will be as many different practices where there are different Sentiments about matters of practice there the practice will be different for which reason the strong must take heed that they despise not the weak and the weak look to it that they judge not the strong For whether we conform or conform not if we do what we do conscientiously to the Lord we shall be accepted of him I verily believe that many do think themselves bound in conscience to conform the which they would not do to gain a world if they did think it a sin and 't is as true that many among the Dissenters are as conscientiously Non-conformists and would really have conform'd did they not think that so conforming they should sin against God Both these must be tenderly regarded by such as will walk by the Christian Rule A Non-conformists censuring a conformist as one that acts against his conscience is unchristian and a Conformist's censuring all Dissenters as Hypocrites looking on their conscience to be but fancy their Religion to be faction is no less unchristian than the former But to be more particular my humble desire is 1. That those who are of the Communion of the Church of England would continue it so long as they can with a safe conscience Let not every little dissatisfaction with some men drive you off from those wayes you have nothing beside the miscarriage of some men of that profession to object against 't is true your duty is to mind the glory of God in the edification of your own Soul and if your Parish Minister be one whose incapacity for the Ministerial work is such as not to answer the end of the Ministry you must look out for a better and be where you may have more than the shadow of a Minister even one who is competently qualified for the workes But do this in a way as little offensive to the Church of England as your conscience will permit Why will you separate from that Communion where you may be without sin especially seeing by doing so you do what you cannot justifie But if you cannot continue your Communion without complying with sin you must rather withdraw than sin 2. That such as are not actually of any Communion i. e. neither joyn'd with the Church of England nor with the Dissenter of which fort there are many especially among the younger people would remember that they have as Christians a right to choose their own Pastor in the exercise of which right 't is their duty to have a special regard to the Glory of God the good of their own Soul and the peace of the Church and therefore if you may have all these ends answer'd by joyning your selves to the Church of England and you can with a safe Conscience do it you do well in joyning with that Church but if you can't with a safe Conscience joyn with the Church of England but can with the Non-conformists you must apply your selves to those of the Non-conformists who do in your judgments keep most exactly to the rule of the Gospel You must regard God's Glory as your ultimate
and design of Whitgift as one who acted rather like a Spanish Inquisitor than a good Protestant imposing Articles that were of an ensnaring tendency is what I find in the Letters of the Lord Cecil unto the Arch-bishop with Arch bishops reply Numb 4. 5 6. The which is more generally suggested in Cambden who mentions the dissatisfaction of several noble men with the Bishops proceedings but more expresly by a moderate writer in Queen Elizabeths who in his plea of the innocent doth in the name of the Non-Conformists speak thus of the Lords of the Councill And this is not all that bindes us to their honours for in our private troubles about the Ceremonies and Subscription we the poor and faithfull Ministers of Christ whensoever we have opened our cause and humbled our selves unto them we have found great justice and equity and divers times great relief and ease from our troubles No doubt they seeing our innocency that of meer Conscience without any the least inclination to disloyalty to our Sovereign we did forbear to do those things they have tendered our cause and lovingly effected that we might not be too much over-burdened Moreover concerning the Bishops they say What could we do less or better than to repair to the Reverend Bishops for Counsell and Comfort which for the space of ten years or the most part thereof they did in some good measure afford unto us till as I take it by the relation of some in the same broyles the Papists had cunningly wrested our good Fathers from us that they could and would do no further for us Then yet complaining of our case and opening our doubts unto them we did as the Law affordeth that the cause should be brought before the Ordinary in all doubts about ceremonies of the Church Established by Law and finding not our selves resolv'd by our ordinaries alas what could we do less than quietly to suffer our selves with great grief bewailing our flocks to be suspended imprisoned and deprived And this hath been the cause of all them which have not used the Ceremonies so fully as some other of their Brethren By this 't is evident that as Queen Elizabeth's Education natural temper Interest of State and I verily believe Conscience of Duty unto God inclin'd her to such an establishment in the Ecclesiastical Constitution as might be most gratefull unto the Papist even so some of the Clergy who by Heylin are called Melancthonians of whom Whitgift and Bancroft were principal in their times did their utmost by insisting so very much on the Ceremonies Subscription c. to the same end the Queens Majesty did whereby to the great grief of many Sound Protestants the Service of our Church was made to resemble as much as possible that of the Church of Rome But 3. I 'll now consider the reasonings of some Protestant Dissenters from this similitude likeness and agrement there is between these two service books against the ordinary use of the English Liturgy Whoever will make a due enquiry into the History of the Reformation will find that in Edward the 6th his dayes Hooper Lord Bishop elect for Glocester scrupled the Episcopal Vestments because they had been invented cheifly for celebrating the Mass with much pomp and had been consecrated for that effect In Queen Maries time the exil'd Protestants at Frankford such as Knox and those of his perswasion refused to Minister the Communion by the book of England for that there were some things in it placed only by warrant of man's Authority or no ground of God's word for the same and had also a long time very Superstitiously in the Mass been wickedly abused See discourse of the troubles at Franckford Moreover in Queen Elizabeth's and King James's dayes several manifested their dislike of our Liturgy for this very reason because 't was so like unto the Romish Service I 'll give some particular instances with those reasons that were by 'em urg'd against a complyance with a Service Book so like that of the Papists In a part of the Register you have the sense of Mr. Edward Deering who sayes that The similitude that this book has with the form of Prayer which the Papists used I think declineth from the equity of these Lawes Deut. 7. 25. Deut. 12. 30. Deut. 18. 9. which things our fathers so much regarded in the Primitive Church that their books are full of great complaints against all similitude to be had with the Gentiles Yea the second Councill of Bracca made a decree that no Christian should have either Bay-Leaves or Green Boughes in their houses because the Gentiles so accustomed And at this day all Reformed Churches in France Polonia Helvetia Scotland and other places have changed that form of Prayer which prudence of all ages if we shall condemn the rebuke of the Apostle I think will touch us 1 Cor. 14. 36. Came the word of God out from you or came it else to you only Secondarily we have the Psalmes Venite Benedictus Magnificat nunc dimittis usual in our Ministry of which we can give no good reason Nor I see no cause why we should more leave out the Ave Maria. And because of parting the Scriptures again into the Epistles and Gospels which was not heard of before the dayes of Popery I dare not avow that this is that reverent handling of the Scripture and the right dividing of the word of truth which St. Paul requireth 2 Tim. 2. 15. But the Abridgment is much more full on this Subject shewing what are the many Scriptural Arguments against all complyances with the Superstitions the which is farther confirm'd not only from the Fathers the Transmarine Protetestant Divines but also by our own Old Protestant Doctors of the Church of England Take it as in the Abridgment where 't is asserted that 't is contrary to the word of God to use such ceremonies in the worship of God as man has devised if they be notoriously known to have been of old and still to be abused unto Idolatry or Superstition by the Papists especially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church Where note that the Ceremonial part of the English Service that is like unto that of the Romish is what has been abused by the Papists to Idolatry or Superstition but yet are not so necessary to Divine Worship but that the worship may be compleat decent and orderly without em but to their reasons this may appear say they 1. By the Second Commandment which forbids all provocation unto spiritual fornication as the 7th doth unto that which is Carnal 2. By the Commandment and direction God hath given us in his word to separate our selves from Idolaters and be as unlike to them as may be especially in their Religious Observations and Ceremonies to abolish not only all Idols but also all the Ceremonies and Instruments of Idolatry and that so as we may best shew our utmost detestation to them and root out the very
memory of them to cast away even such things as had a good Original and use if they be not still necessary or commanded of God when once they are known to have been defiled by Idolatry or abused unto it 3. By the equity and reasons of these Commandments which we find set down in Holy Scripture viz. 1. The detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto Idolatry and all the Instruments and Tokens thereof as unto Spiritual Whoredom 2. That we cannot be said sincerely to have repented of the Idolatry or Superstition whereby we or our Fore-fathers have provoked the Lord unless we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the Instruments and Monuments of it 3. That we shall be in danger to be corrupted in the Substance of Religion and purity of Doctrine and even to fall back again unto idolatry if we conform our selves to Idolaters in their Ceremonies and retain the Monuments of their Superstition yea if we shew not all detestation unto them 4. That our holding of Conformity with Idolaters in their Ceremonies wherein they repose the greatest part of their Religion will be a special mean to harden them in their Superstition 5. That seeing the Pope is reveiled to be that great Antichrist and his Idolatry troubleth the Church at this day more than any other and our people converse more with Papists than with any other Idolaters there is more danger in the retaining of the Ceremonies and Relicks of Popery than of any other Idolatry whatsoever 4. By the judgment of the Godly Learned of all Churches and Ages who have constantly taught and given Testimony to this Truth that Christians are bound to cast off the Ceremonies and Religious Customes of Pagans Jewes Idolaters and Hereticks and carefully to shun all Conformity with them therein In the Councell of Nice it was decreed that Christians might not keep the Feast of Easter at that time nor in that manner as the Jewes did Let us say they in nothing agree with that most detestable rout of the Jewes And in another Councill that none should fast on the Lord's day because the Manichees had taken up that day to fast on which also Augustine alledgeth and approveth of in another That such Altars as were set up in the Country and High-ways in memory of the Martyrs should be abolished although they were pretended to be set by Revelations or Visions and that solemn request should be made to the Emperour that all Reliques and Monuments of Idolatry might be utterly destroyed And this decree we find cited by Dr. Fulk In another Councill it was decreed that none of the Clergy should forbear or make scruple to eat Flesh that they might shew themselves to differ from the Priscillianists In another that Christians should not deck their houses with Bay leaves and Green Boughs because the Pagans did use so to do That they should not rest from their labours those dayes that the Pagans did and that they should not keep the first day of every Month as they did In another that Christians should not celebrate Feasts on the Birth dayes of Martyrs because that was the manner of the Heathen Tertullian is large and vehement in this point as saith he we may give nothing to the service of an Idol So may we borrow nothing from the service of an Idol If it be against Religion to sit at Table in an Idols Temple what is it to be seen in the habit of an Idol Again no habit or apparel is esteemed Lawfull amongst us that hath been dedicated or appointed to so unlawfull an Act. Thou that art a Christian must hate those things the Authors and Inventors whereof thou canst not choose but hate In another place he affirmeth that Christians might not wash their hands nor lay aside their Cloakes before Prayer nor sit upon their Beds after Prayer because the Heathen used so to do Melchiades Bishop of Rome decreed that no Christians should fast on the Lord's day or on the Friday because it was a known custom of the Pagans to fast on those dayes Ambrose taught Monica the Mother of Augustine as Augustine himself reporteth it which is also alleadged by Bishop Jewel to leave bringing of Wine and Cakes to the Church as she was wont to do because she might not Lawfully give such a shew of Conformity with the Gentiles Augustine himself also prescribing a direction how to winn the Pagans hath these words if you ask how the Pagans may be won how they may be enlightned how they may be called to Salvation leave all their Solemnities forsake their Toyes Gregory as we find him cited by Bishop Jewel alleadgeth and approveth of a decree of the Councell of Toledo which forbade the Ceremony of thrice dipping in Baptism because it was the custom of certain Hereticks Leo adviseth all Christians to shun the viperous conference of Hereticks and that in nothing they would be like unto them who in name only are Christians The judgment of the Church of Scotland appeareth in a Letter written from a general Assembly held at Edenborough 1566. unto the Bishops of England In which besides many other sentences to this purpose thus they write If Surplice Corner Cap and Tippet have been badges of Idolaters in the very Act of Idolatry what have the Preachers of Christian Liberty and the open Rebukers of Superstition to do with the dregs of the Romish Beast And more plainly in the confession of their Faith whereunto his right excellent Majesty with others of the cheif states of that Kingdom did solemnly swear and subscribe where we find these words We detest all the Ceremonies and false Doctrine of the Roman Antichrist added to the ministration of the true Sacraments We detest all his vain Allegories Rites Signes and Traditions brought into the Church without the Word of God Thus have such as have been chief Pillars in our own Church judg'd of the Monuments of Idolatry aâ—d all Conformity with Papists in their Ceremonies Mr. Rogers that Holy Martyr would not consent to a Canon that was to be made in King Edward's dayes for the Clergies Uniformity in Cap Tippet and the rest of the Apparel unless it might be decreed that the Papists for a difference between them and others might be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a Challice with an Host upon it Our late Queens injunctions require that all Monuments of Idolatry and Superstition be so utterly extinguished and destroyed that there may remain no memory of them either in our Churches or Houses And the Book of Canons made Anno Dom. 1571. That no man wear the grey Amice or any other garment defiled with the like Superstition Bishop Jewel in one place approveth the judgment of Tertullian and the Fathers of that Age who forbade Christians to wear Garlands of Bay not for that saith he the thing was ill of it self but for that they would not seem to follow Idolaters It had some appearance of
under the Gospel that he thought good to teach that by other mystical Ceremonies besides the ordinary Sacraments and not this And of this Judgment is Calvin Bullenger Chemnitius Danaeus Hospinian Arucularius our book of Homilies Dr. Humfrey Dr. Rainolds Dr. Willet and others All which Divines do teach that to bring insignificant Ceremonies into the Church of Christ is plain Judaism Besides this 't is a special part of that Christian Liberty which Christ hath purchased for us by his death and that which all Christians are bound to stand for that the Service we are to do unto God now is not mystical Ceremonial and Carnal as it was then but plain and spiritual And of this Judgment were the Divines within the Territories of Hamborough in an Epistle they wrote to Mèlancthon and Virel Piscator Dr. Rainolds and others 6. This will open a Gap to Images Oyl Lights and Spittle Cream and all other Popish Ceremonies especially if they shall be judged as fit to Teach and Admonish by their signification as these which we retain And indeed this is a chief Reason whereby both Papists and Lutherans justifie the Use of Images and whereby Bellarmine commendeth all other their Ceremonies that they are fit to teach and put men in remembrance of good things The Popish Custome of the Priests sprinkling men with Holy Water and using with all these words Remember thy Baptism as their manner was in some Countries can with no reason be held for Unlawful if such significant Ceremonies as ours are to be defended With such Respects and Relations Remembrances and Apprehensions saith Dr. Fulke all Idolatry and false Worship may be defended 7. VVe are further confirmed in this our Argument by the Judgment of the Godly Learned who besides the Testimony they have given to every several proof we have brought for it do also speak directly with us in this General That no Mystical and significant Ceremony devised by Man and appropriated to Gods Service may be retained in the Church of Christ Of this judgment is the Church of Wittenberg the Churches of France and the Low Countries in their Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions Mr. Calvin Mr. Beza Mr. Perkins and others Yea Dr. Whitgift himself professeth that he did not like that any prescript Apparel should be used in Gods Service for Signification And no good reason can be given why the Church may not as well enjoyn a prescript Apparel for signification as any other Ceremony To all which I 'le add one Argumentative Consideration which the Church of England doth afford us which is given in their Discourse of Ceremonies before the Common-Prayer-Book as a reason why they did put away any of those many Ceremonies with which the Church was burthen'd which reason is distinct from that of their Multitudes and 't is taken from their significancy and the likeness they had with those in use among the Jewes on which account they were not suited to the Gospel Dispensation After mention is made of the great excess and Multitude of Ceremonies in the dayes of Popery they add And besides this Christ's Gospel is not a Ceremonial Law as much of Moses Law was but it is a Religion to serve God not in Bondage of the Figure i. e. significant Ceremony or Shadow but in the Freedom of the Spirit As if it had been said a great part of Gospel Liberty consists in being freed from those significant Ceremonies which are not now of Gods appointment These words do seem to suggest that one reason of the abolishing the significant Ceremonies of the Papists was because they being significant were so like unto the Jewish Service and so different from the Gospel State and such as have been so much abus'd to Superstition that 't was not easie to retain the Ceremony and abandon the Superstition This being the Sense of the Church of England seeing the Ceremonies retained are of the same significant or Jewish Nature with those abolished that have been as much abus'd to Superstition as others and have no other Foundation than Mans VVit and VVill for their support why were not these that are left rejected for the same reason those still retained by the Papists have been If you 'l argue from the significancy the likeness that is between Popish Ceremonies and the Jewish and therefore reject 'em seeing the English are of the same kind is not the Argument as strong against them Is not a Surplice as like the Jewish Garment as some of the Popish Rights are to the Jewish Ceremonies why then shall the one be abolished because of that likeness and the other kept or if their being abus'd to superstition and the Difficulty of separating the Superstitious abuse from the useing 'em be sufficient to abolish the Rites of Salt and Spittle Lights c. why not as sufficient for the abolishing the Surplice the Sign of the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Lords Supper Bowing at the name of Jesus Have not all these been as much abus'd to Superstition and still are as any of the rest especially considering what Divisions they have made in the Church why not then abolish'd Or if it be a sin to conform to the Popish Rites How a Duty to Conform to these that of the same kind with ' em Or if these without Sin may be appropriated to Gods VVorship by Protestants which may not the Papists where they have Authority by their Impositions impose 'em on the people as in France c. and appropriate 'em to God's VVorship Methinks Mr. Greenham expresseth himself very full on this particular in his Answer unto the Bishops of Ely as 't is in the Register If your VVisdom think says he that I deceive my self in my Supposition for that in Lutheranism more and worse abuses be maintained I answer that Consubstantiation excepted they be all ejusdem generis of the like kind This he speaks of the Ceremonies of the Lutherans who keep up Images comparing 'em with our Ceremonies seeing they are not retained ad Cultum Dei to the VVorship of God but as they say Ad Aedificationem Decorum et Ordinem Ecclesiae to Edification c. and differ only from us secundum Majus Minus as great things and less Therefore as more and worse Ceremonies are less to be tolerated so no more are the fewer or lesser evils to be allowed and as you and other good men have great Consciences in the Multitude of Ceremonies I beseech you to think that I and others may have some Consciences in the fewer sort when they be of the like nature with others Seeing what has been said doth sufficiently prove the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies in the judgment of many a Dissenter they are afraid to Comply with or joyn with any in the use of those Ceremonies They are fully convinc'd they should sin if they did the which they durst not do least they provoke God to jealousie There are in the VVritings of the Old Non-Conformists
such fondness of his own Composures But left it to Austine the Monk whom he sent over into England when he consulted him in it either to use the Roman or the French Rituals or any other as he should find they were most likely to edifie the people But After this there were great variations for as any Prelate came to be Canonized or held in high esteem by the people some private Collects or particular Forms that he had used were practised in his or perhaps as his Fame spread in the Neighbouring Diocess Thus the Liturgie as it's first rise was in Austine's time or thereabout which was occasioned by the Errors that then did infest the Churches at which time the Ministers would vent their Errors in their very Prayers even so by degrees it received remarkable Additions some part brought in at one time and some at another So says Dr. Burnet In every Age there were notable Additions made and all Writers allmost in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries employed their Fancies to find out Mystical Significations for every Rite that was then used and so as a new Rite was added it was no hard matter to add some Mystery to it This had made the Office swell out of measure and there was a great variety of them Missals Breviaries Rituals Pontificals Portoises Pies Graduals Antiphorals Psalteries Hours and a great many more Out of these was the English Service taken which as it had no higher Rise than that of Gregorie's or at most Ambrose's Liturgy in like manner it was a Composition of time the Remaining parts having different Fathers some hundred years younger than the Apostles This I 'le evince particularly out of Bellarmine who as his Interest prompted him made diligent search after the Antiquity of the several parts of the Romish Service Book 1. The Versicle Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost was as Alcuinus thought Composed by St. Hierome at the request of Pope Damasus But as Walfrid Strabo 't was composed by the Nycene Council sometime before Hierome it may be to shew their Detestation to the Arrian Heresie which was some hundred years after Christ 2. The Kyrie Eleison i. e. Lord have mercy on us is foolishly supposed to be us'd ever since the Apostles days because 't is found in St. James's feigned Liturgy but Bellarmine cannot say that 't was us'd in the Roman Liturgy Two Hundred years before Gregory the Great who liv'd about the year 600. 3. Dominus Vobiscum or the Lord be with you An ancient Salutation us'd by Believers in the Old Testament times about which Petrus Damianus wrote a Book with this Title Dominus vobiscum Tho' this was an ancient Salutation in use among old Believers when they met one another yet we have no evidence that 't was brought into the Liturgie as a part of solemn and set Worship until the first Council at Bracca Can. 21. enjoyn'd it the Bishops and Priests 4. The Collects which were the short Prayers of several Popes and others Cannoniz'd for Saints were brought into the Liturgy by Pope Gregory almost 600 years after Christ 5. The Te Deum Laudamus or that Hymn which begins thus We praise thee O God tho' it be not found in the Sacred Scriptures yet 't was saith Bellarmine given the Church by Inspiration at the Baptism of St. Austine at which time St. Ambrose and St. Austine did extempore and alternately to the Astonishment of the people sing this Hymne as Dacius Episcopus Mediolanensis reports 6. After the Lessons the Responses which are so call'd saies Rabanus because one who begins is answer'd by the rest were first invented by the Italian Churches was not within several hundred years after Christ By these Intimations concerning the Antiquity of some parts of the English Service 't is evident That as all stinted Liturgies compared with the most primitive practices are new so our Liturgie which was taken out of Gregories A Liturgie not so ancient as that of Ambrose and which in process of time was strangely alter'd is much more new unto which the Dissenters cannot firmly adhere if they will as they think they ought make the most Primitive Practice the pattern and Rule of theirs What need any other Impositions on the Ministers of the Gospel or on the people now than were on 'em the first 300 years And why shall we be wiser than our first Fore-Fathers Is it not a duty to have a just respect to Antiquity Why not then to that Antiquity that comes nearest unto the Apostles days Whatever some may think there are many among the Dissenters who are fully perswaded that untill all things in Religion be reduc'd to the ancient Constitution established by the Lord Christ and his Apostles adher'd unto by those who for some hundred years followed 'em the Church of God will never flourish This is the Rule they must walk by c. or Sin against God to avoid which Sin they refuse to joyn with the Church of England in her Liturgie that is so beside the practice of the Primitive Christians Let these few of the many Arguments which the Dissenters have offered against the lawfulness of the English Liturgy satisfie the Reader On this I have the more fully insisted to the end those Sober Conformists who it may be have not considered the Reasons why the Dissenters cannot conform to the English Liturgie may see thas 't is not Honnour nor Fancy but Conscience that is the ground of their Non-Conformity I 'm very Confident that a great part of the Dissenters I speak not of all because I know 'em not would with all their Hearts Conform to all is requir'd of 'em by the Church of England could they do it with a safe Conscience and surely such among the Conformists who will consider these Reasonings of the Dissenters and who do not measure the Consciences of other Men by the Light and Latitude of their own cannot but conclude that there are some Nonconformists who cannot with a safe conscience conform but should they do it 't would be against the plain convictions of consciences As 't is not humour nor fancy that occasions their Dissent from the Church so 't is more than meer scruple of conscience These Dissenters are under strong convictions of Conscience that they sin if they conform This is certainly the case of many who are as fully perswaded that the Conformists do err as the Conformist can be that they do so This being their case the question is whether notwithstanding these plain convictions of Conscience they must conform and act contrary to their convictions Whether they may safely sin against God to the end they may render the Obedience required by man It hath been heretofore asserted by all sorts of Christians whether Protestant or Papist 1. That God must be obeyed rather than man And 2. That no authority is sufficient to oblige any to act contrary to the plain convictions of Conscience Yea