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
first Churches pretend to make new Officers or constitute any Government other then Christ appointed Presbyters and Deacons are the Church Officers which they owned indeed there is frequent mention of Bishops in Antient Authors but Augustine 400 years after Christ saith that a Bishop was but titulus honoris a name of honour given to one Minister above the rest but that they were all alike and his contemporary Hierome olim Ecclesiae Communi Presbyterorum concilio regebantur that Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbytery and of the practise of his own time he saith quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter nothing but Ordination was appropriated to the Bishop the Presbyters did every thing else as well as he Jerom. Epist ad Evag. divers learned men never yet answered have proved that all antiquity acknowledged Bishops and Presbyters to be but one order of Ministers and our Dr thought it once impossible certainly to state what was the Government of the Primitive Church but this is certain that in Cyprians time Anna Christi 250 the Bishop did nothing in the Government without the consent of his Clergy and approbation of the people and to them Cyprian ascribeth even to the common people the cheif power of choosing and refusing their Bishops Epist 4. and of withdrawing from them that were unworthy so that all that hath been said in the defence or excuse of our prelacy with sole power of government administred by Lay-men is nothing to the purpose when we dispute whether Christ appointed or the Primitive Church had Bishops seeing all sides agree that That Church never had such Bishops and such Discipline or any Bishops at all but what were chosen by the Clergy and people for near a Thousand years 3. Nor do the Reformed Churches retain those things which our Non-conformists scruple They all wholy laid aside both the substance and the Form of the Roman service Their Lyturgie Responses short prayers repetitions Ceremonies and use of the Apocryphal writings also their Government and Discipline except the Lutherans who retain many of their Ceremonies and Holy-dayes with some of their errours in Doctrine The Protestants have generally composed short Lyturgies of their own containing some few forms of Prayer together with a Method of Publick worship and directions for Visitation of the sick c. But they neither put in things that may be serupled nor imposed forms of words on their Ministers as our Lytourgy doth in all Offices Publick and Private The Waldenses our first Reformers and a Noble race of Confessors and Martyrs governed themselves by the Common consent of their Pastours and Elders chosen out of the People Hist Waldens lib. 2. cap. 2. 4. as do all the Reformed Churches at this day except the Lutherans The Bohemians indeed and some Waldenses in Austria thought a Bishop necessary by Divine Institution but that he was to doe nothing in the Church of himself but all by the consent of the Presbyters Commend Exhort and witthe approbation of the people which is Cyprians Bishop not an English Prelate The Lutherans have their Superintendents or Bishops but by humane Constitution and such as deprive not the Ministers of their Office Now seeing Scripture Antiquity and the practise of all Reformed Churches doe so much favour their cause The Non-conformists thought they had a great deal of reason to persist in their desire of further Reformation in the Church of England and in their dissent from those things for which nothing material can be soberly pleaded but the command of the Magistrate So that all the blame of want of Perfect Reformation and of keeping up divisions in our own Church and turning its Ceesures against many of its best members is from age to age laid wholly upon the Kings and Parliaments by those who would yet be taken for the greatest maintainers of reverence of Authority CHAP. V. The Reasons of the present Non-conformists in Particular for their dissent THe Non-conformists of the present Age viz. such as cannot conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England according to Act of Uniforty made 1662 have all the same reasons for their Non-conformity that their Predecessours had and some new ones peculiar to themselves for both all the same things in the Lyturgy and Government which were a burthen to their Fathers are imposed on them without the least abatement amendment or alteration and also new impositions are laid upon them to make the yoke more intollerable These are such as follow 1. That they were denyed all Reformation of the Lyturgy and Government of the Church It was now somewhat above an hundred years that there had been continued desires of amendment in the Lyturgy and Government but none could be obtained King James in the beginning of his Reign made a shew of hearing the Non-conformists objections in the Conference at Hampton-Court But the issue was only to make a greater pretence to enjoyn Conformity more strictly as having heard all their Reasons against it and found nothing worthy consideration in them In like manner the present Non-conformists were dealt with for as we are told in the Preface to the Act of Uniformity First some Divines both Conformists and Non-conformists were by Commission appointed to review the Service book and to make necessary amendments in it next a Convocation of the Conforming Clergy was called to re-view the book last of all his Majesty had seen and re-viewed what they had done and the issue of all this was that the Epistles and Gospels should be read in the new Translation and to amend two or three words which by the fault of the Printers had crept into the Book and spoiled the sence and nothing considerable and then the Book passed an Act of Parliament requiring more rigorous Conformity then ever before The Parliament not once reading the book but with an implicite faith as a Member of the House of Commons said passed and confirm'd under the highest penalties next to death it self that which they never saw nor examined And yet now the Reasons for Non-conformity were stronger then before There had been sufficient time to wean the people from the Modes and Ceremonies in dispute yea and the body of the people were now sufficiently weary of them and the greater number of Learned and pious Ministers desired they might be laid aside above all they had been laid aside about sixteen years and the people were well content nor was there any decay of knowledge or piety amongst them upon this alteration Now was there a fair occasion to have amended any thing amiss and for the Bishops to have there Non-conforming brethren gratified in any reasonable things who were now as considerable as themselves for Number and interest with the People and yet offered to consent to any reasonable terms of accomodation surely all this did neither encourage nor oblige the Non-conformists to submit to that new Act of Uniformity
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
things 1. All particular Churches being but integral homogenious or equal parts of the Catholick Church they have all an equal intrinsecal power of forming themselves into Congregations or lesser bodies for their own spiritual edification according to the Laws which Christ hath prescribed to that purpose for being all Brethren equally and immediately related to Christ and the division betwixt them being meerly accidental and external from the place of their dwelling or other circumstances they must all have an equal right to all the ordinances and priviledges of a Church and equal authority to dispose of themselves for their own good 2. That the only end of Christians combining into several lesser societies is that they may serve Christ together and help each other in their Spiritual concerns for they are a spiritual Common-Wealth associated for Spiritual ends only when they are considered as one body under Christ therefore if they divide themselves into lesser bodies it must be only that they may more easily and conveniently attain the ends of the Whole Body and generall Association 3. And that the designs of civil governours Laws and interest with the conveniances of civil bodies greater or smaller ought to have no influence or concern upon the constitution of these particular Churches for if they imbody themselves in lesser companies only to serve Christ and edify each other with the best advantage to their Souls then they are still in such incorporating only to respect the honour of Christ their own edification and the best execution of Christs Laws among them leaving other governours to prosecute the ends of their Laws and Government in ways proper to themselves and distinct from theirs and therefore if civil Governours model these Churches in subserviency to their civil ends they do really alter the nature of Churches and take them out of their immediate subordination to Christ and his Spiritual Government or else they make Christ and his Government and Common-Wealth subservient to theirs and the concerns of Mens Souls to be not other ways regarded then as they may promote worldly and temporary designs But further that part of the Church which is on earth being absent from their King and Lord and in a state of imperfection hath therefore need of guides and helps that it may understand the Law of Christ and yield obedience to it though all are equally Members of Christ yet all are not able to guide and help themselves from whence ariseth the necessity of Guides and Governours in the Church whence it is called an Organical Church as a body consisting of different organs for different uses thus the Church is made up of governours and governed but 't is still the same Church under the same Head Christ and his word as its Law only the interpretation and application of this Law of Christ is committed to some for the better edification of all viz the preserving and perfecting those that are present Members and the continuing of the Church by bringing in more that shall be saved Church Governours therefore are in no wise supream Christ being still the immediate head both of power and influence both to make Laws and to make them effectual upon the hearts of men they are appointed only to expound and apply Christs Laws for the good of his People for his Glory only and to leave both the success and the account to Christ of themselves and of the people Hence ariseth a Fourth Division of the Church in respect of the Government and order of it into Oecumenical National Provincial Diocesan Classical Parochial or Congregational but all these and each one alike are taken in a double sence singularly or collectively singularly for one individual Church or Body under one Government whether of one or more persons and thus the Oecumenical or Vniversal Church on Earth must be but one great body of Christians associated with the same Governours for the edification of each other as Israel of old being one Family multiplyed into a People and these gathered into a great Assembly at Mount Sinai was there framed into one spiritual society under the Guidance and Government of the Tribe of Levi so that when they were afterwards dispersed over all Canaan they were yet but one polity and accordingly thrice a year at least all met to worship God together to testify their Unity this the Pope claimeth viz that the whole Church is one Congregation committed to him as the only Pastour or Head of all In like manner a National Church thus singularly understood is all the Christians of that Nation making up but one Congregation and Polity all immediately under the same Governour Also the Provincial Church is all the Christians of one Province the Diocesan of one Diocess or small circuit and the Parochial or Congregational the Christians of one small Neighbour-hood or that without respect of Neighbour-hood voluntarily gather into one small Assembly under the same Guides or Governours respectively The Church collectively taken if Oecumenical is the association of all Churches in all Nations under one general Head and Government the National Church is made by the Union of all the Churches of several lesser Divisions under the general National Officers the Diocesan is all the Churches of a Diocess or smaller circuit as the Provincial is those of a larger circuit under one Common Head or Bishop A Classis is the same thing with a Diocess saving that by common use the Diocess is appropriated to one Head or Bishop and a Classis to those Churches that are govern'd by the common Consent and Councell of the Ministers of the several Congregations And a Parochiall or Congregationall Church is a society of so many Christians as living in one Neighbour-hood or in some convenient nearness may ordinarily meet together for the worship of God and all other offices of a Church Here we must observe that if the Church be taken for one individual Congregation immediately under the same Governours then 1. The Oecumenical Church was never instituted by Christ he never gathered them into one Congregation as he did Israel nor ever appointed one Governour or Colledge of Governours over them For seeing the Church was to be called and gathered out of all Nations and that successively some at one time and in one place and some at another one Colledge of Governours much less one single person could not take charge of it to teach it or rule it nor could Christians so dispersed perform the duty of Fellow Members to each other 2. Nor did Christ ever constitute a National or Provincial Church Henever called a Nation or Province at one time to the Profession of his Gospel nor can one person or society of Governours teach such a body or administer the Sacraments to them or know their cases nor can the people know and help one another or come to their Governours upon every necessary occasion especially not in times of persecution which for the most part hath been the lot of
and Holyness elsewhere then foregoe our Edification to keep Peace with the Church The Dr hints at general Inconveniences that will follow if people find Fault with their Governours and withdraw from them and to such inconveniences all things in this world are subject and there ought to be the greater care to prevent them but must People bear always still there is nothing left but the name of a Church and their Communion with that be a hindrance to their Communion with Christ besides nothing would more awe both Pastours and People to their duty then if they knew that the soberest and most carefull Christians of their own Salvation would leave their company if they would not mend their manners and this would be a more Universal Benefit to the Church then the inconvenience of now and then one unseasonably withdrawing out of prejudice or finding too much Fault can do hurt to any Congregation 4. When a Church hath neither the exercise nor power of Government The Catholick Church is a Society under the Government of Christ by his Spirit and every particular Church is a part of the Chatholick gathered into a Politicall Body that it may edify and preserve it self which is done by Government and the exercise of Discipline as well as by preaching the word and administring the Sacraments and indeed the latter will be as ineffectual without the former as a Charge at an Assize or Sessions wherein the Laws are recited would be if there were neither presentment nor punishment of Offenders A Church without Power of Government is no Church but a Company of Neighbours that meet sometimes to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments together which Members of several Congregations may do for power of Government is the form of a Church as of a Civil Polity by which only it differeth from a confused accidental conventing or cohabitation of persons now it is no sin to separate from that which is no Church but a Duty as much as it is for every one to be a Member of some visible Church This case is too common with us where Ministers of Parishes are sometimes Deacons at least for a while who have no Ministerial power at all and if Presbyters yet such as pretend to no more then to preach and administer the Sacraments all power of Government as they say belonging to the Bishop and whatever their private Judgment may be of their power of Government we know they neither do nor dare exercise any solemn admonitions or suspension from the Sacrament much less Excommunication or Absolution when this is the case that the Church hath no power to govern her self hath long lost it and is out of hopes to recover it nothing can oblige men to live Members of it though there may be reasons why we should hear and receive with them occasionally as with Brethren If it be said that the Bishop hath a power of Government over all his Diocess I answer this shuts out all the Parish Ministers from Government and makes them but the Bishops Curates and makes all the Parishes cease to be distinct Churches and to become one general Church under a Bishop who is utterly uncapable to manage the charge of such a Congregation be it only to govern and not to preach as some men would have it and so it is still destructive of the end of a Church viz self-edification and preservation but moreover the Bishop himself is subject to the Metropolitane and all causes in his Diocess admit of an appeal to the arch-Arch-Bishops Court so that neither hath the Bishop supream and full power of Governing his Church and therefore neither is the Diocess a Church but a part of the whole province all under the Government of the Arch-Bishop alone the Bishops being but his Deputies and this still makes the Government more impossible and Separation more necessary 5. A 5th just eause of Separation is when men are certainly and constantly debarred of some Principal Ordinances of Christ necessary to their Edification and Communion with Christ The end of a Church is the joynt practice of all the Laws and Ordinances of Christ in their proper seasons It is possible there may not be occasion for the exercise of some of them as Church Censures for a considerable time and it is possible some Ordinances may be carelesly neglected or for some reasons for a time omitted as the Lords Supper This is no cause of withdrawing at least not properly but if there be constant Bars put that any of these Ordinances shall be excluded the Church as the Sacraments are with many Sectaries or that they shall be made unaccessable by sinfull or unnecessary additions alterations interpolations or any other Corruption so that the most conscientious Christians cannot Communicate in them this after a convenient waiting and seeking for redress will justify Separation for the people may not be contented with one part of the Worship of God and the means of their Salvation this is to betray the Gospel and their own Souls nor have Church Governours power to add any thing either essential or circumstantial to the Ordinances of Christ that may hinder the people from Communicating in them and if they have no such authority to enjoyn such things there is no obligation upon the people either to comply with them in obedience or to bear their usurpation by continuing in Union with them If it be pleaded that the Jews never separated from their Church when they could not Communicate in the Sacrifices at the Temple under Idolatrous Kings or when the Passover or other Ordinances were wholly neglected or little used I answer this is not the case of Christian Churches the Jews were one single though large Congregation instituted by Moses to continue till Christ should come who should have power to new moddle the Church as he should think fit they were all tyed to one Altar and one Temple and might Sacrifice no where else they were also obliged to one Priesthood the House of Aaron and therefore in what-place-soever they were they must hold Communion with this people and Priesthood at this Altar and if publick worship was neglected or corrupted they could in no case separate or gather New Congregations or chuse new Priests or build new Altars but must be content with private helps till things were reformed but Christians though of one Nation or City are not obliged to one Congregation indispensably for then men may not move to other Parishes nor to one place of publick worship nor to one Minister or company of Ministers the Christians Church being tyed to no Countrey as the Jews were nor to any particular people nor kindred nor having any promise to be continued to the end in any one place or amongst any one people it hath therefore power to distribute it self into diverse Congregations and consequently again to withdraw from any one of them when there is need 6. Gross infringement of Christian Liberty we are commanded
other such pressures were laid upon them which many living yet remember Nor were the Bishops ever ashamed to use their own power and to appear in person against these men in what danger soever Church or State was Conformity must be urged and Non-Conformists suppress'd In the very beginning of Reformation Mr Hooper was imprisoned by B. Cranmer and Ridley for refusing the use of some Ceremonies when he was to be consecrated Bishop and though the King by his Letter under his own hand commanded them to dispense with him yet they would not condescend when a Congregation of Exiles for Religion were setled at Franckford under Q. Mary because they had laid aside the English Liturgy and Ceremonies B. Cox of Ely and his Company coming afterwards to the same City first quarrelled with them and disturbed them in the Church and then incensed the Magistrates against them so that they were forced to leave the City to find other refuge The Mouths of all the Cannons almost are Levelled against the Non-Conformists none almost but they felt the Rigour of the High Commission and Star-Chamber Courts few were suspended sileneeed or fined or excommunicated but for not using the Cross not wearing the Surplice following Sermons abroad for not kneeling at the Sacrament c. Mr. Hildersham was suspended from preaching and benefice 12 years together and fined two thousand pound to the King only for giving the Lords Supper unto two of his Parish without kneeling and the Communicants Mr. Holt and Mr. Ditton were fined each of them 1000 pounds for receiving without kneeling And how Arch-Bishop Laud exceeded all before him in prosecuting the Non-Conformists is fresh in Memory Now the usage of them besides that it might exasperate the Spirits of men and alienate them from the things imposed which is incident to all men it did also add weight to their Reasons against Conformity because they saw that the Bishops pressed their own Laws and Constitutions more then the Laws of Christ That they usurped authority without and against the consent of the Church not only to enjoyn things on their practise but also to impose the approbation of them upon their judgments and consciences which they knew before hand were dissatisfied in those things and also that they were now become declared enemies to further reformation and thought they should rather abate of the First Reformation and go nearer to Rome then stir one Hairs breadth further from her This made Conformity justly more scrupled when after 90 years endeavours for reformation they had Pharoahs Answer and were beaten to their burthens and not ought of the tale of their brick to be diminished And now the case between the Conformists and Non-Conformists is quite altered viz after the making of the Cannons 1603. before the question was whether the things imposed as Liturgy Ceremonies c. might not be born with especially with help of some connivances of moderate Bishops in those things that they most scrupled because it was but the beginning of reformation and the Governours both Civil and Ecclesiastical were not yet weaned from the old Discipline and customs of their Fathers nor were the people likely to bear more purity and to part with all their old customs at once and upon these grounds the Non-Conformists kept the Communion of the Church of England and generally submitted to the practise of most things imposed but now since all things before complained of were turned into Cannons and standing Laws and must not only be practised but approved also under their hands to stand upon record in the Registers of the Bishops Courts and all that would not subscribe must be cast out or kept out of the Ministry and the People likewise were generally weary of the impositions as well as the Ministers and disliked them as too much symbolizing with Rome and therefore all the Church Censures must be bent against them whom the Cannons called Schismaticks for this cause only Now I say the question was whether the first reformation was not compleat Can 27. and we ought not to go any further from Rome in Liturgy Ceremonies Government and Discipline but take up with them as a perfect Church Moddle at least such as had no other imperfections in it then all Constitutions in this world are subject to This alteration of the state of the Question was much increased when the Court and our Princes took up new measures of Marrying with Popish Princes abroad and mixing interest with them whereby they were necessitated to desert the protection and assistance which they had hitherto given to Protestants abroad which the German and French Protestants in their wars quickly felt the effects of but also to remit their zeal against the Papists at home viz to suspend the execution of Laws against them to entertain them at Court to receive them into offices to suffer their Priests and Jesuits to come over in multitudes and quickly to seduce the people and that which was a necessary consequence of all this to discountenance and punish Zealous Ministers and People who found fault with these proceedings as Puritanes overhot indiscreet factious and enemies to the State for this practise of the Court drew the Church along with it as it usually doth and all men that had a mind to rise must plead for the Lawfulness of Protestants Marrying with Papists and allowing them their worship and of conniving at Papists amongst us and at last to study to gratifie and meet the Papists as farr as they could and to bring back more of their Doctrines and Ceremonies till at length it was become an indifferent thing whether a man was a Papist or a Protestant so he were not a Puritane and continued in that Church he was born and baptized in Vid Rushw Col. Part 1. p. 213 The Parliaments Censure of Mr. Mountagues Papers This temper did the Church men fall into immediately upon the publick attempt for the Spanish match and it spread more amongst them till Arch-Bishop Laud being made head of the party had almost made a second sort of Non-Conformists viz Puritane Conformists as they called them i. e. Those that conformed to the Liturgy and Discipline established by Law but could not approve of the new design of moderation toward and Union with the Papists which the Arch-Bishop and all his followers professed and owned And now the case was altered to purpose for it was now Puritanism and Faction to be an Anti-Arminian to be zealous against Popery to preach twice a Sabbath to pray before or after Sermon to keep the Sabbath Holy and in a word to be seriously religious in the people and for the Ministers to preach for it this was Puritanism and our Reformers were thought too nice and strait-laced our Articles and Homilies too strict and fit to be qualified and our Martyrs Fools and Rebels The Non-Conformists now thought they had great reason to stand off from Conformity seeing all their fears were verified before their eyes
Surely one company or a certain number of Families had full authority to remove and plant Colonies where they pleased as well as another yea we see God compelled them to it by confounding their Languages at Babel and farther when one colonie removed into another Country were they bound still to adhere to those they departed from as a part of their society if so then all Nations must still have been parts of that society from which they first descended and so at length the whole world must have been but one Common-wealth under one Government which was impossible and would overthrow all the ends of government if then the race of mankind which are one body in some sence more then the Church is viz linked by the indissoluble Bond of Nature whereas the Church is united by free consent I say if they having the general gift of the earth and all that is in it to possess have free liberty and authority to share the world amongst them to constitute various societies greater or smaller as they please for the end of civil Life provided they wrong not one another and so hinder the ends of civil government why may not the Church though it is one body as united to Christ it being too great to live in one society multiply it self into so many as are for it 's own edification and the ends it was made for and not be obliged still to adhere as parts to those first Congregations that were planted in every country as it were the first Families till they are a burthen to themselves till their very society makes them a disorderly confused multitude and their government degenerates into Anarchy especially when we have neither command or Scripture example to the contrary By this we may Answer the Dr's Question viz What necessity there is to reduce Churches to several Parishes or Congregations any more then to reduce Kingdoms to the several Families of which they were at first made up Answ Because Congregations have an original right of governing and preserving themselves even as Families have a natural and unalterable right of government within themselves which he that takes from them makes them slaves and deprives them of their Birth-right he himself saith upon the dissolution of the Roman Empire the Nations that before composed it resumed their antient rights and formed themselves into several Kingdoms and Common-wealths yea and as he would have it into National Churches also grant this have Nations such an immutable right to their civil liberties and government that they may lawfully resume them when they have opportunity without the guilt of Rebellion why then may not Parishes resume their right of government within themselves for their own edification when they have opportunity or necessity calls them to it also wanting the benefit of protection and government from them that undertake them why should this be Schism in them more then Rebellion in the other and that self Government is the right of euery Parish or Congregation he confesseth when he saith that antiently a Church and Diocess was all one under one Bishop and a company of Presbyters for those did officiate in common among the whole people and when by reason of Multitude they began to divide them into several companies for meeting together at the ordinary times of worship nevertheless they all met together at the same Sacrament and all made use of the same Ministers as occasion served they being not tyed to any one or any one to them so that this Diocess was but a great Parish or Congregation and if the original right of Government were in these it is so still in our lesser Congregations and to resume this right is no sinfull separation nevertheless we deny not but the Congregations may and ought to unite for their mutual help and defence especially in times of peace even as civil states combine for mutual defence and commerce but then this must be voluntary and not to impose a yoak on the several Congregations by taking away their several liberties or bringing them all to the same Liturgies or Ceremonies for this is all one as if confederate Nations or States must therefore oblige each other to the same form of Government and the same rights and customs of living and why may not all the Parishes in one County with us combine for their mutuall help and edification in certain times of meeting each other by their Ministers or Delegates yet every one reserving to themselves the Government of themselves in their own customs and usages according as they find most meet for themselves as well as the same County have their Quarter-Sessions for civil Affairs wherein the Governours and Countrey concerned have a generall meeting and yet every Town hath its own supreme Officers with several rites and custome without any Breach of Peace or Good Neighbour-hood among them CHAP. II. Of Church Communion and the Nature of Separation WE are in the next place to consider what Communion the Church is obliged to betwixt the severall parts of it and what Separation is contrary to that Communion and what is not For the First The Church is a sacred Common-wealth united to Christ now the end of every Common-wealth or Polity is common good that they all promote the good and welfare of that Body and every Member of it of which they are parts viz that particular good in those particular cases and things for which they did combine together this is meant by Communion for hereby all the actions and designs of that body are common i. e. for the good of all the Communion then of the Church which is associated only for spiritual ends consists in this that all design and endeavour the common good and welfare of all Christians in general and of themselves in particular in furthering the Salvation of their Souls the service of Christ in the use of those helps or means which Christ hath appointed to these ends this Communion hath diverse degrees and doth exercise it self several ways according to the several considerations of the Church and the Relations Christians have to each other more General or Remote or more particular and near The Communion therefore of the Catholick Church in Heaven and Earth is that they all hold the same Head Jesus Christ and own each other as Brethren in him that they love each other and all pursue and wait for that universal perfection which they shall all have when they are all gathered to Christ at the last day This Communion cannot be broken without renouncing the Head and his Religion and love to each other which are the Rule and Bonds of this Union and therefore there can be no Separation from the Catholick Church but what is not only sinfull but damnable as he that renounceth the common bonds of humane society justice love and all moral honesty and only pleaseth himself without regarding the good of any other he doth hereby break the Communion of mankind and
Dissent from the Church of England ever since the Reformation BEfore we come to apply the foregoing Rules concerning Churches their Communion and Separation to our particular case it is convenient to give the World a true Character of Non-conformists with the grounds of their Non-conformity that it may be the better judged whether they are guilty of sinful Separation or not and this I shall do First In general shewing what were the reasons whereupon all that have gone under the name of Non-conformists since K. Edw. 6th Reformation have dissented from the established way of the Church of England Secondly more particularly what is the case of the present Non-conformists and the Reasons of their Dissent and Suffering Of the First in this Chapter When Pious K. Edw. 6th by the advice of the Council and some Bishops about the Year of our Lord 1549 and 1550 renounced Popery and instituted a new Liturgy as a form of publick Prayers Administration of Sacraments with other Rites and Ceremonies as also of ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons in and for the Church of England immediately many good and learned men especially such as had Travelled in Germany and Switzerland among the First reformed Churches were dissatisfied with this Model of reformation as imperfect and short of what the Scriptures required and most other reformed Churches had attained to and also as symbolizing too much with Rome in the manner of publick Prayers in Ceremonies and Church Government they gladly embraced the good beginnings of reformation and heartily joyned in the endeavour of cleansing God's House but they were sorry the work stopped almost in the beginning and that some out of ignorance of the Truth and too much respect to the Romish Religion in which they were bred did strive to recede from it as little as might be with whom others joyned some for fear of Tumults thinking they had gone as far as the people at that time would bear others for reasons of State being willing to keep the publick Order and Government of the Church as much as might be under the command of the Civil Magistrate and some as it fares in all cases being Popish in Heart yet seemingly joyned with the Reformers in framing their Liturgy only that they might undermine and hinder them in making a through reformation The number of these who were dissatisfied with the present establishment dayly increased as the Protestants multiplyed so that in Q. Mary's Reign but seven years after there was a number of these at Franckford only enough to make up a Congregation and to have Ministers of their own and to keep publick Assemblies in a Church allowed them by the Magistrates who thinking themselves to be now at their own Liberty laid aside the Liturgy of the Church of England and composed a new short one for themselves after the manner of other reformed Churches In the Reign of Q. Elizabeth the Dissenters increased and were called Non-conformists and Puritans and now the Ecclesiastical State began to take notice of them to remove some of them from their preferments and imployments and to encense the Civil Magistrate against them nevertheless they increased in number and reverence with the People the Divinity-Professours of both Universities and many others eminent for piety and learning were then reckoned Puritanes and some suffered as such King James shewed himself more displeased with them and resolved to have Rooted them out of the Church yet in his time 750 Ministers subscribed a Petition to him for reformation of things yet amiss in the Church In his Sons Reign the Papists who were now got to Court and had both Favour and Power joyned their interests with the Bishops to Root out these Non-conformists as those that were most contrary to them seeing they disliked the Bishops and their Liturgy for coming so near to them and how many worthy Ministers and thousands of the best people were driven into Forreign Countries and those that stayed at home were severely treated for the space of 16 years and yet like Israel in Egypt the more they were oppressed the more they increased Nor have their numbers been diminished or their cause disparaged ever since notwithstanding the great endeavours to cast odium upon the one and suppress the other Dr Fuller wittily sums up this History thus Non-conformity was conceived and bred in King Edward s Dayâ— it was born at Franckford in the Reign of Q. Mary under Q. Elizabeth it was in its Child-hood in K. James s time it grew to be a good tall stripling and under Charles 1st it grew to be so strong a man as to unhorse its opposite prelacy and to get into the Saddle thus He and I add that the turning on t of 2000 Non-conformists out of the Ministry and Vniversities in 1662 was no argument that this man was past his full Strength or declining to deerepid age Now the reasons of the dissent of so many for serveral Generations have been principally these Rea. 1. The First taken from their dissatisfactions with and objections against the Liturgy they disallow not a Liturgy or Directory rather viz a prescribed order and rule for the exercise of publick worship in which all might agree and generally conform to prevent confusion yea and to satisfy their Episcopal Brethren they could be content with a short Liturgy prescribing the Form of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other publick offices provided nothing but an questionable doctrine and duty and necessary order might be thrust into it and Ministers especially after they come to some years and experience might be left to use it at their discretion so that the Liturgy may be a Rule of Concord a Testimony of the consent and agreement of the Churches in Doctrine and Worship and a Guide to young men entring into the Ministry but not a Snare to any much less to hinder the exercise of the gifts of the Spirit which are given to the Ministry on purpose to edify the Church with Eph. 4.11 12. c. And such as these are the Liturgies of most reformed Churches and to this purpose only But against our Liturgy they excepted 1. That it obliged all Ministers without limitation all the days of their lives to the same form of words in all publick worship whether it would suit with the condition of the people or the circumstances of providence or not also that it was so large as that it did mostly prevent the use of Ministers own Gifts or made them seem but superfluous additions this they conceived to be directly contrary to the institution and office of the Ministry which was appointed by Christ and furnished by him with his Spirit that they might to the worlds end administer all his Ordinances to his Church viva voce as the Spirit should give every man ability and particularly fit him for the people he was to take charge of they are indeed by their office obliged to the Holy Scriptures the words as well as sense as
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
that our nearness to Rome would endanger our returning to her again and seeing Conformity it self to Law and Canons would signify little unless a man would go beyond both in obedience to his Superiours to promote the new design This was the case of the old Non-Conformists till the long Parliament stopped the stream upon the whole we may observe the case betwixt our former Non-Conformists and the Church of England was the same in substance as betwixt the Brethren of Bohemiah and the Calixtines the Calvinists and Lutherans in Germany the Bohemian Calextines if the Pope would grant them the Cup in the Sacrament and three or four more reformations of abuses in the Roman Church they thought it reformation enough and that they need go no farther and they would compell the brethren who were for a total desertion of Rome to be of the same mind and practise with them and that by force of Arms. The Lutherans in Germany having only reformed the Doctrine of the Church and the Idolatry of the Mass and cast off the Popes Tyranny and some other corruptions of Rome yet retained Adoration of the Sacrament kneeling to it Surplices Images Holy days and could not be content to do this themselves unless they could perswade and inforce all Protestants to do so likewise Hence they will not own the Calvinists as brethren nor hold any Communion with them nor receed from any thing they had taken up but rather proceed to take in more of the Popish Doctrines as those we call Arminianism and have often treated seriously some of them about reconciliation with the Papists but always frustrated yea detested any endeavours of it with the Calvinists Thus the Conformists of England have contended so much for their Liturgy and Service and Government c. That they would compell all to be content with the same moddle with themselves and would not suffer any to be Ministers or Members of the Church that would desire any further reformation and at last come to this pitch that they would rather take in more of Rome yea reconcile with her upon some terms than abate any thing to their brethren Nor were these the actions of a few particular men but of all the Heads of the Church arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops generally age after age The worst of their principle and practises were never condemned by the Church but made the way to the highest preferments so that the moderation of a few amongst them will no more excuse the Church of England then a few sober Papists may excuse the Church of Rome CHAP. IV. The Non-conformists instified in their Principles by Scripture Antiquity and the Example of all Reformed Churches THe Non-conformists as they gave the forenamed reasons why they could not approve of or subscribe to the Constitutions of the Church of England so they supposed that this their dissent was not grounded upon meer scruples and weakness of judgement though their Opposites love to impute it to such Causes but they alleadged for themselves the Authority of Scripture and the Examples both of the Primitive and the late Reformed Churches 1. From the Scriptures they pleaded that there was neither command example nor shadow of any Liturgy i. e. prescript form of words wherein all the publick worship of God should be administred either in the Old or New Testament under the Law the externals and circumstances of Gods worship were much more prescribed and limitted than under the Gospel as the place the Tabernacle or Temple time Morning and Evening yet was it never commanded that all the Priests and People should use the same form of words in prayer when and where ever they met There is indeed a form of blessing the people when the Assembly was to be dismissed but that consisted in but a few words nor can it be proved that they used always those very words or that it was so intended in the command Num. 6.22 to the end the same words are often used in Scripture to signifie the same sence or to that purpose not the same Syllables and so it is in all Authors nor is there any form of words prescribed wherein men should confess their sins over the Sacrifices or wherein Circumcision or the Passover should be administred but on the contrary we find David Solomon Jehosaphat Hazekiah Ezra the Levites in Nehemiah's time and others prayed pro re nata according to the occasion as their own hearts directed them And therefore it seems as God did not command so neither did the Jewish Church make and enjoyn any stated Liturgie unless any shall unhappily take the Superstious and ridiculous Liturgy of the present Jews to have been used amongst them from the beginning Certainly there is no footsteps of any such thing in our Saviours time who duly kept to the rules of Gods worship and broke no good orders of the Church The Apostles also as long as they could frequented the Jewish Temple and Synagogues but of any Platforms of Prayer or Service other then the institutions of the Law we find no memorial Now if the Jewish Priesthood were able to discharge their Office without prescript forms of words and that people might be safely committed to their Priests in the exercise of each mans own gifts how much better may it be done and such liberty granted both to Ministers and People under the Gospel where the Spirit of God and the means of knowledge are given much more abundantly Nor are there more evidences of any Liturgy in the New Testament then their was in the old either prescribed by Christ or his Apostles or used by them or commanded to future Churches Nor any rule laid down whereupon Churches might ground their practise of framing and imposing such Lyturgies But we read that when our Lord Jesus ascended into Heaven he gave gifts to men Eph. 4.16 c. viz. Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to lay the foundation of his Church and Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting the Saints for the work of the Ministry till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature in Jesus Christ ver 12 13. from whence it seemeth plain that our Lord Jesus Christ thought it sufficient to appoint a standing Ministry to take care of his Church to the end of the world and to furnish them with the gifts of his Spirit to edifie the people and to keep the unity of the faith with out requiring or authorizing them to make Lyturgies whereby to fetter themselves or others Moreover the Scriptures give neither command example nor countenance to the peoples answering in Publick worship more then Amen only at the close of Publick Prayer It is probable that the Singers in the Temple standing Ward against Ward did sing alternately i. e. one rank one sentence and another rank another as they do in our Cathedrals but this was not the people and they were an Order
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
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
and yet do receive and permit our Ministers among them that are Episcopally ordained but to impose upon them that were Ministers already and had performed all offices as Ministers many years and many of them with good success and who could not if they would be ordained by Bishops for near twenty years before there being also no Law or Canon requiring all the Ministers of the Church of England to be ordained by a Bishop as necessary to their Ministry I say now to impose upon these men that they must leave their places or be ordained by the Bishop was purposely to cast a stumbling block before them not easily to be passed over for hereby they must acknowledge Presbyterian Ordination to be unlawfull contrary to the judgment and practise of all Ages and Churches Vid. Blandel Apol. C. 2. and Masons vind of the Ordin of Ref. Churches and particularly of our own till this time and also acknowledge themselves all this while to have been no Ministers and their Baptism to be no Baptism unless Lay-men may Baptize which is contrary to the Common Prayer book reformed by K. James in that point who could do this that have not consigned over their Conscience to the will of men 6. The Act further requires that all Ministers whether ordained or to be ordained should before the Ordinary make this following subscription I. A. B. do declare that it is not Lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King and that I do abhor that trayterous position of taking Arms by his authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him and than I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established and I do declare that I do hold there lies on Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an Vnlawfull Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The two first clauses of this subscription are meerly civil concerning Civil Government and some circumstances of that Government not the substance of it and things greatly controverted amongst Lawyers and Statesmen Now to impose such things upon Ministers of the Gospel that belong not to their office to know much less to determine is very unreasonable and to impose things concerning secular affairs as Conditions or Terms of being ordained Ministers of the Gospel is a great usurpation on the Authority of Chirst as if he must not have Ministers in his Church unless they engage at the same time to serve the particular ends of a State Besides the first caluse viz. That it is unlawfull to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever is doubtfull in the sence viz whether it respect the Law of the Land or the Law of God and therefore cannot with good Conscience be subscribed And if it be meant of the Law of God it is against the judgment of the best Lawyers as well as of the best Divines it hath no tolerable proof from Scripture They that abuse the 13th to the Romans to that purpose forget or are ignorant that Nero whom they say the Apostle meant was adjudged a publick Enemy of the Senate of Rome and sentenced to dye it is therefore a most unreasonable thing that this should be imposed to be subscribed by all young men entring into the Ministry which may by the Canons be at the Age of 24 years and by practise seldom exceeds before they can be fit to judge of such points The second clause viz. I abhorre c. in its full extent is against the known Lawes and practise of the Land in divers instances given by others and practised in several Causes in his now Majesties Reign And must Ministers be turned out and be debarred of the Ministry unless they will wound their own and their Countreys Rights and liberties and that for the most part before they understand what they doe Moreover that the true meaning of these two clauses is a snare to the people and dangerous to their Rights and Priviledges contrary to all the lax interpretations devised by some appeareth beyond contradiction by the sence that the House of Peers gave of them both the words and design of imposing when they so vigorously opposed its being made a Test for all Parliament men in all future Ages And let it be remembred that these were the Law-makers and most of them persons concerned in making this Law therefore best knew the meaning of those passages and also had Authority to declare the sence of them and were yet sitting in that same Parliament that made the law The third clause in this subscription is I will conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England This was to oblige the young Fellows of Colledges and Tutors in the Universities before they came to give Assent and Consent and to be a double cord upon the Ministry But many who could silently conform cannot solemnly subscribe a promise to conform whereby they pre-engage themselves against all change of their judgments There fourth clause is That I hold that there lies no obligation on me from the Covenant nor upon any other that took it to endeavour any alteration in Government in Church or State There is scarce a parallel in all History to this That a man should be compell'd to swear for others that they are not obliged by an Oath that they took The imposers might as well have said we will make you swear to any thing we please or else you shall not continue in the Church But the Non-conformists desire to be satisfied how the King to pass by all others who swore to prosecute the ends of the Covenant in a most Publick and solemn manner and that before he had sworn to maintain Episcopacy and agreed to take it upon mature deliberation and advice and that at Breda when he was under no fear or constraint how he should not be bound to the Reformation he then promised and what man can absolve him from that Oath especially an English Parliament when that Oath was made to the Stots it being an unquestionable rule That none can release another from a lawful Oath but those to whom the Oath was made and into whose power the Jurer hath put himself by that Oath This ought to have been first cleared and not rigorously imposed Lastly It must be subscribed That the Covenant in it self was an unlawful Oath which the Non-conformists dissallowing our English Prelacy can by no means assent to And that it was imposed against the known Lawes and Liberties of this land which few Ministers have law enough to know and therefore it ought not to be made a condition of the Ministry to subscribe it The Non-conformists find that this Act is wholly contrived to make them
owning of their sufferings and themselves in them when they are for the same general or more particular cause 9. They are sure that the Ministers and Peoples adhereing to each other in such a case is agreeable to Scripture which makes Mininisters the sole Governours of the Church as it is a spiritual Common-Wealth under Christ and gives the people the sole power of gathering themselves into Congregations for their own best edification and to chuse their own Ministers 10. And they are sure that the practise is agreeable to the practise of the Universal Church both before and after they were under Christian Magistrates till the Pope at once wrested from the Magistrates their supream power in their Dominions and from the Churches all their authority of Governing themselves and as the ruine of Religion followed thereupon in the Church all things being disposed of by the Lusts of the Bishop of Rome so there would be no way to prevent the like should all be left to the wills of the Civil Magistrate or a few Church men that guide and influence him 11. As a people under Usupers in their Civil-Rights may and ought to provide what they can for their own liberties and safety till they can recover their ancient priviledges and rightfull Governnours still doing nothing against the publick good so they think the people of England being under great usurpation and oppression in Ecclesiastical Government are bound to provide the best they can for their own Souls and the Principle Ends of a Church till Right and Truth may take place still having respect to the general good and peace of the Church Upon these principles many Non-conformists still keep to their own Congregations some gather new ones and become Pastors to them and some preach to Assemblies of people that voluntarily come to hear them without taking full pastoral charge of them yet all maintain a brotherly communion with the Parishes and Ministers of the Church of England not forbiding their people to hear and own them as brethren and occasionally at least to hold Communion with them in all things that are not against their Consciences Now if from these principles or this practise the Dr. can convince the Non-conformists of Schisme or sinful seperation or allowing that in the people which they are not satisfied in themselves They would gladly accept his endeavours herein but will not be concerned with such that have sold their Consciences to get a poor livelihood by defending what ever the Rulers say or do CHAP. VII An Answer to some passages in the Drs Sermon tending to prove the Non-conformists Preaching to be Schisme by their own Principles VVE will now briefly consider what the Dr. Rhetorically insinuates rather then argues against the Non conformists preaching in private though they are driven out of the Churches 1. To object That they acknowledge the Church of England to be true in Doctrine Sacraments and Worship Serm. p. 21. 2. That the Parishes of England at least some of them are true Churches 3. That it is lawful to hold Communion with them sometimes and upon occasion Answ 1. All this will prove no more than that the Non-conformists ought not to unchurch the Parishes of England or to account their Ministers and Sacraments Null or to disown the people to be their brethren as some of the Brownists are said to do 2. The Dr hath given much occasion in his Writings to many to think that he granteth as much of the Church of Rome as he here saith the Non-conformists do of the Church of England viz. that it is true in Doctrine Sacraments and Worship that the Parishes are true Churches and that it is simply lawful to hold occasional communinon with them for they have the true Doctrine Sacraments and worship for the substantials of them though defaced in circumstances and many corruptions added to them yet he will not say that it was not lawful yea necessary to break off from her and to oppose her 3. The question betwixt the Dr. and the Non-conformists is whether the Non-conforming Ministers and people are bound silently to bear the usurpation of the Bishops over them in imposing unlawful and un-necessary things upon them and casting them out of the Church for non submission and not rather both to assert their own Rights and Priviledges against such usurpation The Parishes being true Churches and occasional communion in unquestionable things being lawful is nothing to this purpose And if the Non-conformists are more charitable and fair towards the Conformists who are the great Schisme makers by their rigorous impositions of things they confess un-necessary than the Conformists are to them who are passive in the breach and yet they will hold no Communion with them They think this should not be made an argument against themselves Serm. p. 30. 4. The Dr. hath cited a pertinent example though he thought to anticipate us in it The people of Constantinople he saith when Chrysostome their Bishop was thrust out and banished for doing his duty and Arsaeius imposed on them in his room refused to joyn with him This is the Non-conformists case But saith he when Atticus restored Chrysostom's name to the Dipticks of the Church then they returned to their ancient Communion and Chrysostom advized them to it And when the Bishops will acknowledge as Atticus here did that the Non-conformists were wronged and those that were put in their places were intruders and consequently take off the yoke of Conformity then they will do as the people of Constantinople did till then this example justifies the Non-conformists 5. Though the Non-conformists allow Parish Congregations and the Parishes of England not to be disowned on that account from being true Churches yet the Dr. knows that those very men whom he quotes as most complying with him do deny those Parishes to be true Organical Churches whose Ministers have not power of Governing their people or ought for their Doctrines and lives to be expelled the Ministry 6. The Non-conformists do not say it is lawful to hold occasional Communion in all things with the Parishes but only in the substantials of worship nor with all Parishes but with those only where they may joyn with some edification And because wise and learned men can distinguish the good from the evil they may joyn with many Ministers occasionally when the people may not for fear of their errours or because of their railing and reproaches of their brethren or Godliness by which this people will either be infected or disturbed so that they can receive no benefit 2. The Dr. Argues If occasional Communion be Lawful it is hard to understand that constant Communion should not be a Duty Answ I allow him to mean amongst us who were once fellow Members of the same Parishes else his words have no force But the Non-Conformists allow of Occasional Communion to maintain Love and Peace amongst the People and Ministers that are peaceable and to shew that they do not
esteem the Impositions of the Church of England to be of so high a Nature as the Corruptions of Rome and that they should break off all Communion from them But if the ejected Ministers have still aright to their people and the people to them and both are bound to oppose in their places the Uniformity imposed with such Circumstances as it is and as they maintain it will not at all follow that from occasional Brotherly Communion they must become constant Members of the Parishes and be content with their Communion 3. The Dr. frequently hints Authority and Government to which we must be subject and therefore if they eject Ministers they must become Lay-men and not Preach In this he speaks sometimes of the Authority of the Church and sometimes of the Civil Magistrate Answ And because this is a snare to many mens Consciences We answer freely 1. That the Authority of the Church of England as a Church hath no Obligation on the Consciences of Non-Conformists any further then prudence and peace doth direct them for the Bishops Deans c. which are the Rulers of it supposing them Lawful yet being no way chosen by the People or Inferiour Clergy can have no Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority over this Church especially being alwaies protested against by a considerable part of the Ministers and People nor can the Lyturgy or any thing else they impose oblige the Ministers and People being not advized with in such Impositions nor heard speak for themselves Two Thousand Ministers as Orthodox diligent learned and every way considerable as their Opposites and pleading for no other things then many such Ministers have pleaded for from the beginning of our Reformation are not therefore bound in Conscience to submit to the Wills of the Bishops because they prevailed with the Civil Power to establish their Opinion 2. The Civil Magistrate hath Power to maintain and protect the Church and to see that she doth her Duty but to impose forms of Worship on her without the advice and against the consent of those who are most concern'd He hath no power given him of God much less to infringe her Priviledges and Liberties to rend away her Pastors at pleasure or to impose whom he please on her and the like And where there is no Authority to command that command cannot oblige to obedience Indeed where small things are enjoyned that are not sinful men may obey if prudential Reasons lead them to it But if small things will usher in great ones and obedience will make way for more imposition It was the Apostles Judgment in a like case concerning the practise of the Jewish Ceremonies that such Imposers should be resisted Gal. 2.11 12. Should our King of himself impose a Tax of a Farthing Pole would not many suspect it might if peaceably paid make way for greater Taxes and so undermine their Liberties in Parliament Why should not men be as jealous of the Liberties and Priuiledges of the Church which concern the Honour of Christ and their own Souls good especially knowing that the Western Church was ruined and defaced by the Pope meerly by yielding and patient bearing of gradual Impositions and encroachments in the better sort and the worser sort complying and crying for Obedience to the Authority of the Church and Governours Serm. p. 19. 4. The Dr. saith that we confess the case of the people is very different from that of the Ministers and therefore that they run into Schism in hearing us though we for some Sinister ends will not tell them of their errour Answ Interest and passion will not suffer men to speak of such things as they are concerned in without uncharitable and un-scholer like reflections sometimes which I will pity rather then retort And to the thing we answer That the Peoples case is indeed much different from the Ministers as to Active Conformity i. e. They are not to Assent or Consent to all in the Service Book nor to subscribe as the Ministers must in order to their holding Communion but passively the people are concerned as far as the Ministers i. e. They are to suffer all these things Their Ministers to be cast out and all Impositions which they and their Fathers groaned under to be enjoyned with the greatest rigour and not shew their dislike of any of them upon pain of being accounted Schismaticks according to the 27 Canon So that the people are as much wronged and imposed on in their Capacities as the Ministers are in theirs We grant that the People may hear and see those things done in Divine Service and so may Ministers also as private men which conscientious Ministers ought not to be active in As our Saviour was present at the Temple Worship though there were many Superstitions mixed by the Priests in those days but what men may do in some cases they are not obliged to do in all cases and people cannot be obliged to suffer any sinfull or doubtfull things in the worship they joyn in unless there be some great reason why they may not forsake that worship Now the Non-Conformists affirm that the people are obliged in their capacities to endeavour reformation of things amiss in the Church and to own that Reformation they had obtained and to withstand the unjust intolerable imposition of the last uniformity as much as the Ministers are to do all these in their places And therefore as it is no Schism for the Ministers to preach so neither is it any for the people to hear That we may plainly express the sence of the Non-Conformists in this point and that the Dr may no more mistake their Principles and so labour in vain to convince them They say as Harnbeck adviseth the Cabornist in reference to the Lutherans That good and peaceable men of each party should love each other and hold as much Brotherly Communion together as may be but no more to endeavour any publick Reconciliation or Union which the Heads and Leaders of the party have so often frustrated and opposed till God will give them a more Moderate Spirit and some fit reason may incline them to Union The Question betwixt them and the Dr plainly is 1. Whether a multitude of Ministers being turned out of the Church to her great and apparent damage without so much as alledging any Crime against them but only imposing new things on them on purpose to ensnare them whether these Ministers are bound to lay down their Ministry and live private and not rather to assert their own and the Churches Rights 2. Whether the People thus wrongfully deprived of their Ministers and imposed upon also against their own Judgments and Conscience in matters of Divine worship whether they are bound to submit to the Intruders and Imposers and not rather to joyn with their injured Ministers in asserting their own priviledges The Dr's candour is too great to deny that the reason of Scripture and the practise of the best antiquity before the Churches lost their
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
concerning the Divine right of Bishops above Presbyters which they so expresly disavowed both in their printed books and in the Manuscript of divers questions decided by them the account whereof we owe to this Learned man Irenic p. 2. and last All this therefore from the honour of our Reformers is but a flourish But now Sect. 3. We have three Reasons given why our Reformers left such Ceremonies in the Church 1. He saith it was out of Reverence to Antiquity they being of use in the Primitive times long before Popery and yet three of the chief Men Peter Martyr Martyn Bucer Paulus Fagius who were sent from beyond Sea to assist in the Reformation promoted no such continuance of these venerable Antiquities in the Churches abroad where they had been made use of before to help to reform And how Ancient were these Ceremonies Why the Surplice he saith was used in Augustine and Hieroms time that was 400 years after Christ and Superstition came in apace Images in Churches and praying for and to the Dead and such like And Ceremonies were so many that Augustine complained of the condition of the Church in his time in that regard was worse then that of the Church under the Law The Sacrament he saith was received about Constantines time in a posture of Adoration That was standing Sc. from the time of Easter to Whitsuntide as all other publick Worship was then performed in remembrance of Christs Resurrection But did they kneel The Dr. will not say so nor can he produce any evidence that kneeling at the Communion was commonly used till divers Hundred years after Popery had defiled the Western Church The Cross he saith was much Ancienter and used with much Superstition even in Tertullian 's time but the Dr. saith not it was used in Baptism nor is there any proof of it and that was only to our case When he pleads that we need not reform beyond the example of the Primitive times viz those soon after the Apostles and saith it gives great advantage to the Papists to to reject the Customs of those times upon pretence that the Mistery of Iniquity was working even in the Apostles daies I desire to know where we shall stop and what Church shall we take for our pattern Do all did any of the Churches for the first 300 years use our Ceremonies in their publick Church Service or if they did were not others also used in many Churches now generally disallowed by Papists and Protestants As giving the Communion to Infants sending the Eulogies or consecrated Bread to those that were absent from the Sacrament and the like Mr. Mead no Non-Conformist hath proved that Saints and Image Worship in remoter and smaller degrees began very early in the Church amongst which he reckons the most Ancient use of the Cross in Tertullian's time with which they use to fortifie themselves against the Devil and all evil Accidents There were never more Heresies and Divisions in the Church Apost of the latter times then in the Primitive times Yea before the Apostles were dead there have been no Errours or Corruptions since but the like were then and must we not go beyond or pass by all these times and appeal only to Scripture as the only Rule for Constituring and Governing the Church Did the Judges or Kings of Judah that reformed their Church before the Captivity or Zerubbabel and Nehemiah after it ever make former times their President Did they not alwaies appeal to the Law of Moses If we must suppose the times next the Apostles had their Customs and Ceremonies from the Apostles because they lived so near them This opens a door to all Popish Traditions and overthrows the perfection of the Scripture Or if we suppose the present Church in every Age hath not as much Power of self-Government as the Primitive Church had or to appoint and alter their own Customes and Ceremonies we shall contradict our 20th Artic. and bring our selves into unsupportable slavery to all the Cannons and Customes of all former times and so the Christians as well as the Jews will need a Talmud besides their Bible It is probable our first Reformers seeing they must retain some Ceremonies retained those they thought most Ancient and least offensive and this was the Reason why they were retained and not laid aside 2. The Dr. saith These Ceremonies were retained for fear of the Popish Bishops who were some of them Learned Men least they should reproach the Reformers with innovation against the Primitive as well as the Popish Church Answ This was indeed the true and chief reason why our Reformations was no more compleat because the Popish Bishops that were joyned with the Reformers hindred them and the Popish People would not endure a through Reformation Mr. John Elliot a worthy Gentleman in the Parliament Ann. 3. Car. 1. said That he had seen in a Diary written with K. Edw. 6th own hand Rushw Colec part 1. pag. 661. these words That the Bishops at that time some for Ignorance some for Sloath some for Pride and Luxury and some for Popery were unfit for Discipline To which we must add that some of the good Bishops Bishop Ridley in particular being but late Converts from Popery had yet a Zeal for the old Customes and Ceremonies those that could be retained without manifest Superstition And so much they themselues acknowledge in the Preface to the Service Book before cited Now what Obligation is this upon us not to endeavour a further Reformation 3. He saith They had respect to the Lutheran Churches who retained the same and more Ceremonies Answ They might consider that seeing they must retain some of the old Customes it would be more excusable to retain these because some other Protestant Churches did retain them But that they did it in imitation of those Churches there is no ground to believe seeing till now our Church was alwaies charged to be too much addicted to Calvin and influenced by him and Beza both in K. Edw. and Queen Eliz. time Nor is there any Reason why the Lutherans themselves retained so much many Popish Ceremonies but because Luther being almost wholy intent upon reforming the Doctrine of the Church neglected matters of Discipline and Ceremonies which his Followers interpret his judgment So hard is it to make any Progress in any good design especially in matters of Religion beyond the first Efforts when mens first Affections and Zeal are cooled and the World with carnal self doth afterwards intangle their minds It is strange overlashing when the Dr. saith that our first Reformers dyed Martyrs for our Church They dyed indeed for the Doctrine and Worship of our Church as it is common to all Churches and grounded on the Word of God in opposition to the Idolatrv and Superstitions of Rome and particularly that Idol of the Mass But the disputable things of our Lyturgy as to Government Rites and Ceremonies were never in question then nor did
their Judges who were their professed enemies and tell the King that So long as it shall please the King and Civil State to maintain in this Kingdom the State Hierarchy or Prelacy we can in honour to his Majesty and the State and in desire of peace be content without envy to suffer them to enjoy their State and Dignity and to live as brethren amongst those Ministers that shall acknowledge spiritual homage unto their spiritual Lordships paying unto them all temporal duties of Tenthes and such like yea and joyning with them in the service and worship of God so far as we may do it without our own particular communicating with them in those humane Traditions and Rites that in our Consciences we judge to be unlawful Thus we see it was only for respect to the State and for peace sake that they could give the Bishops any acknowledgment or reverence and that though they did acknowledge other Ministers for their brethren who did in Conscience ascribe spiritual Authority to the Bishops yet they did acknowledge the Bishops as such neither for Fathers nor brethren Mr. Robert Parker wrote in Latine de Ecclesiastica politia wherein he proves Presbyters to be the only Ministers and answereth Mr. Hooker and Bishop Bilson where they maintain or excuse Bishops or a power of imposing what government the Magistrate pleaseth upon the Church 2. They hold Congregations or Churches severally to be the only Gospel Churches and each one to have full power and jurisdiction within it self without being subject to any Ecclesiastical Officers but their own but all to be immediately subject to the Civil Magistrate and his inspection This is the Scope of Mr. Baine's Diocesan Tryal of Dr. Ames in his Medull Theol. Cap. 32. Part. 1. And thus they joyntly declare Engl. puritan Chap. 3. part 1. they hold that the Pastors of Particular Congregations are or ought to be the highest Spiritual Officers in the Church over whom by any Divine Ordinance there is no Superiour Pastour but only Jesus Christ And that they are led by the Spirit of Antichrist that Arrogate or take upon themselves to be Pastours of Pastours and to the same purpose position 2. before cited And Position 3. They hold that if there were a Supream National or Ecclesiastical Minister or Pastour that should be the Prince of Many thousand Pastors that then also Christ as he did in the Jewish Church would have appointed a solemn National or Provincial Lyturgy or worship unto which at sometimes of the year the whole body of the people should ascend and that unto the Metropolitan City as unto Jerusalem and that he would as he did in the Jewish Church more precisely and particularly have set down the manner of solemnization thereof then of his Parochial worship For as much therefore as they cannot read in the new Testament of any higher or more solemn worship then of that which is to be performed in a particular Congregation they cannot be perswaded that God hath appointed any higher Ministers of his service and worship under the new Testament then the Elect Ministers of Particular Congregations See Position 4th more to the same purpose And Protestation Position 24th We confine and bound all Ecclesiastical power within the limits only of one particular Congregation holding that the greatest Ecclesiastical power ought not to stretch beyond the same and that it is an arrogating of Princely Supremacy for any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over many Churches much more over whole Kingdoms aud Provinces of Christians 3. They held that the Officers of every Church or Congregation were Pastors teachers and Elders chosen out of the people and herein they agreed with all the Protestant Churches besides the Lutherans Engl. Purit ch 3. p. 13. They hold that by Gods Ordinance there should be in every Church a Doctor whose special Office should be to instruct by way of Catechizing the ignorant of the Congregation and that particularly in the main grounds and principles of Religion Chap. 4. Position 1. They held That by Gods Ordinance the Congregation should make choice of other officers as Assistants unto the Ministers in the spiritual Regiment of the Congregation who are by Office joyntly with the Ministers of the word to be as Monitors and Overseers of the Manners and Conversation of all the Congregation and one of another that so every one may be more wary of their waies and that the Pastours and Doctors may better attend prayer and doctrine and by their means may be made better acquainted with the state of the people when other eyes besides their own shall wake and watch over them Protestation Position 25. We hold it utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation and therefore we hold that some of the sufficientest and most honest and godly men in the Congregation ought to be chosen by the heads of families to be adjoyned in Commission as assistants to the Minister in the spiritual Regiment of the Souls of that Congregation of which he is the Pastor 4. They hold that every Church hath power to Elect her own Officers to censure or depose them as they shal deserve and that this power ought not to be taken from them though they grant also that the King or Supream Magistrate hath Authority to Command and by Civil Mulcts to compel them to make due Elections to amend undue ones and so to cause them to restore such Officers Engl. Purit ch 2. pag. 5. as may be unjustly rejected by them c. They hold that every established Church ought as a special Prerogative by which she is endowed by Christ to have power and liberty to elect and chuse their own spiritual and Ecclesiastical Officers and that it is a greater wrong to have any forced upon them against their wills then if they should force upon them wives and upon women husbands against their will and liking And Position 6. They hold that if in this choice any particular Churches shall erre that none upon earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to controle or correct them for it and that though it be not lawful for him to take away this power from them yet when they or any of them shall apparently abuse the same he stands bound by the Law of God and by vertue of his Office grounded upon the same to punish them severly for it and to force them under civil mulsts to make better choice Protest pos 26. We hold that these Ecclesiastical Officers being so chosen by the Church or congregation are to exercise over the said congregation only a spiritual jurisdiction and power c. Then they shew the manner of proceeding in censuring private Members when they offend and then adde If any one of the Ecclesiastical Officers themselves shall sin he is subject to the censures of
necessary to Salvation which he proves because they are imposed with greater Sanctions looked after with greater Vigilance and the neglect of them punished with greater Penalties then many things necessary to Salvation are and in all respects they are made equall with the most necessary things the greatest rewards being given and promised to the obedient even Heaven it self and the greatest punishments inflicted and threatned against the disobedient Hell it self not left out of the number It was said by one B. of Worcest Letter against Baxter that they do not punish the neglect of Ceremouies so heavily for the weight of the things themselves but for the breach of order and the contempt of the Church in such disobedience Ans Thus God himself punishing for the neglect or breach of any of his Positive Commands doth not punish for the weight or moment of the thing for he declares he values not Sacrifices nor Offerings but for Disobedience to and contempt of his Infinite Majesty and yet as he hath power to impose what he pleaseth on his Creatures so he hath that Infinite Wisdom and Goodness in his Nature that inclines him to impose nothing but for good reasons and the Creatures good what power then will the Church arrogate to her self Besides by this argument all offences against the State may be made Capital because they contemn the Magistrates Authority as well as all Offences in the Church are or may be by this Doctrine made punishable with Excommunication which depriving men of the ordinary means of Salvation doth what in them lies cast them to Hell Nor can it be conceived by impartial men that any Governours of the Church should make those things necessary and constant terms of their Communion from age to age which they do in their Conscience judge altogether indifferent and of no necessity to Salvation 8. The Non-Conformists desired that they might be excused from the Lyturgy and Government of the Church of England that they might have leave to Govern their own Churches according to that platform of Discipline that they should draw up and present to the King and that they might not be compelled to Communicate with other Parishes in things they were not satisfied in though they could own them for their Brethren who practised those things which they could not Protest pos 31. All that we crave of his Majesty and the State is that by his and there permission and under their protection and approbation it may be Lawfull for us to serve and worshiy God in all things according to his revealed will and the manner of all other Reformed Protestant Churches that have made separation from Rome that we may not be forced against our Consciences to stain and pollute the simple and sincere Worship of God prescribed in his Word with any humane Traditions and Rites whatsoever but that in Divine Worship we may be actors only of those things that may for matter or manner either in general or special be concluded out of the word of God also to this end that it may be Lawfull for us to exhibit unto them and unto their Censure a true and sincere confession of our Faith containing the main grounds of our Religion unto which all other Doctrines are to be Consonant as also a form of Divine Worship and Ecclesiastical Government in like manner warranted by the word and to be observed of us all under any Civil Punishment that it shall please the said Majesty and State to inflict vnder whose authority alone we desire to exercise the same and unto whose punishment alone we desire to be subject if we shall offend against any of these Laws and Canons that themselves shall approve in manner aforesaid and our desire is not to Worship God in Dark Corners but in such publick places and at such convenient times as it shall please them to assign to the intent that they and their Officers may be better take notice of our offences if any shall be committed in our Congregations and assemblies that they may punish the same accordingly And we desire we may be subject to no other Spiritual Lords but unto Christ nor unto any other Temporal Lords but unto themselves whom alone in this earth we desire to make our Judges and Supreame Governours and overseers in all causes Ecclesiastical whatsoever renouncing as Antichristian all such Ecclesiastical powers as arrogaâ—e and assume unto themselves under any pretence of the Law of God or man the said power which we acknowledge only to be due to the Civil Magistrate And Pos 32. We crave in all dutiful manner that which the very Law of nature yields unto us that for as much as they are most malicious enemies unto us and do apparently thirst either after our blood or shipwrack of our faith and Consciences that they may not henceforth be our Judges in these causes but that we may both of us stand as parties at the barre of the Civil Magistrate to be tryed in those differences that are between us and that when they shall Publickly malign or slander us or our cause it may be lawful for us in a dutiful sober peaceable and modest manner without personal reproach or disgrace in as publick manner to justifie our selves and then in stead of that silly mock service to the King of wearing a linnen rag upon our backs or making a Christless cross upon a babies face we shall be ready to perform and yield triple homage service and tribute unto him and shall think our lives and all that we have too vile to spend in the service of him and the civil State under him Thus much for their principles From all which we may fairly inferr 1. That the old Non-Conformists generally did not only allow of Separation from the Church of England in its National Constitution under arch-Arch-Bishops and their Officers as lawful but they did actually practise and maintain such Separation Forasmuch as they declared the Hierarchy to be Antichristian deragatory to Christs Government over his Church contrary to the Constitution and Nature of the Church under the Gospel and also thought it inconsistent with the Kings necessary and immediate Supremacy over all Churches and upon this account they insisted only upon their Parish Relations accounting Parishes the only Churches and the Ministers of them the only Pastors 2. That they did generally live in Non-Communion with the Church of England as to the Ceremonies and many parts of the Lyturgy This is evident because they thought the Ceremonies unlawful and therefore though they continued in their Churches yet none of them would use the Cross in Baptism few would wear the Surplice none would compell the People to kneel at the Communion and many gave it without kneeling yea many would not read the Common-Prayers others but some pieces of them contenting themselves either with Lectures without charge of a Parish or else having those under them that could read to do it for them All their Care
of peace which the Dr. now magnifies after their Death but was in their life time as little accounted of as ours at this day they being alwaies charged with breaking the peace of the Church I say all their desire of peace did not oblige them to comply with those things which they thought unlawful either in themselves or at least in their time and Circumstances 3. I infer That when they were rejected for Non-Conformity they still reckoned themselves the rightful Pastors of their Congregations and that their Right or Relation was not taken away only that they were forcibly kept from the enjoyment of their right and the discharge of the Duties of their Relation And thus much appears from Mr. Bradshaw's Letter cited by the Dr. giving the Reason why they must leave their People and not Preach to them when deprived because this were to run upon the Sword of the Civil Magistrate who would not suffer himself to be so despised as that they whom he commanded to be silent should yet publickly preach in contradiction to his Command there is nothing of fear of Schism in the case but a prudent yielding to the times and of two evils chosing the less i. e. to do what good they could privately to their People and Neighbours as their own words cited do shew rather then by Preaching publickly to hazzard the bringing an open Persecution upon themselves and their people p. 1. Sec. Sect. 16 17. All that the Dr. hath quoted let it be considered it proves no more then this that they did not think it prudence in their Time and Circumstances to Preach publickly when silenced for fear of provoking the Magistrate against them and giving occasion to those that used to slander them especially to King James as Enemies to the Kings Supremacy They also modestly added that the word might be Preached as well yea perhaps better by others then by them though their Parishes seldom found it so All this was but a prudential Reason proves no difference betwixt their Principles and Ours Let us next consider their practice The Dr. tells us Ibid. That the Old Non-Conformists thought it unlawful for private Persons to endeavour Reformation of the Church contrary to the will of the civil Magistrate this he thinks condemns the practice of the present Non-Conformists But Bishop Bancroft giveth another account of this matter viz. That it was resolved amongst the Non-Conformists after many years waiting Dang posit book 3. chap. 3. and chap. 8. and when they saw their admonitions to the Parliament 1570 had no effect that then they should endeavour to reform each one in their own places yet so as by all means to preserve the peace of the Kingdom which accordingly they did pursue in their several Synods Classical Provincial and National from the year 1572 and forward having at length composed a Book of Discipline Ann. 1583 which was revised by several Synods and at length perfected and according to it they did order themselves and frame their Congregations till all was discovered and stopt by Arch Bishop Whitgift let us hear their own words Protest pos 30. We hold it utterly unlawful for any Christian Churches whatsoever by any armed force or power against the will of the civil Magistracy and State under which they live to erect and set up in publick the true Worship and Service of God or to beat down or suppress any Superstition or Idolatry that shall be countenanced or maintained by the same only every man is to look to himself that he communicate not with the evils of the times enduring what it shall please the State to inflict and seeking by all honest and peaceable means all Reformation of publick abuses only at the hands of civil publick persons Vid. 3B ch 1. chap. 10. and all practises contrary to these we condemn as Seditious and sinful Bishop Bancroft makes it the design of his whole 3d. Book to shew that the English Non-conformist did after the example of the Scots endeavour Reformation contrary to or without the will of the civil Magistrate By this it is manifest that the attempts for Reformation which they condemned were 1. Such as were by force and Armes Do we defend any such The Gospel was planted and must be propagated by Preaching the VVord and bearing the Cross 2. Attempts for publick reformation either throughout the Nation or in other Churches besides their own or to bring their practise and way of worship into the publick view contrary to the will of the Magistrate especially if he were a Christian And this is all that the example of the Primitive Churches under Heathen Emperours doth prove for they did keep their Assemblies and Worships in private and maintain them to the death against the Laws and will of those Princes but they did not ordinarily bring them into publick to affront the Magistrates to their faces yet when they lived under mild Princes and had a kind of tacite connivance they met publickly as appears by the question brought to Alexander Severus by the Cooks in Rome who laid claim to a publick Hall which the Christians used for their Worship and the Mild Emperour assigned it to the Christians saying it was better that any God should be worshipped there then that it should be a place devoted to Excess and Riot Euseb eccl hist Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2 and by degrees the Christians had many Beautifull Churches which Dioclesian caused to be demolished and the Christians much bewailed it yea Mr. Mead contends that even from Nero's time the Christians had Churches or publick places appointed for their Worship And Mr. Nich. Fuller maintains the same opinion in his Miscellanies grounding it on the fore-quoted place of Eusebius Tract an 1 Cor. Ch. 11. ver 22. They who maintained every Congregation to be a distinct Church having full power within themselves and their Ministers to be compleat Pastours must needs allow that every Congregation must have an intrinsick power of reforming and regulating themselves though it should be managed with all reverence and respect to the Magistrate and publick order But the Non-Conformists judgment in this will better appear by their practise under the restraints that were laid upon them by Laws and Canons in the beginning of Q. Eliz. about 5 years Conformity was not pressed the Liturgy seemed to be put as a bound to extravagant humors as many Civil Laws be but not as a Snare to the Conscientious But when it was perceived that the Non-Conformists encreased in number and power with the people subscription to the 39 Artic. without any limitation was urged 1562 and many who had been Sufferers and Exiles in Q. Maries Days refused to subscribe amongst whom was the pious Mr. Fox as saith Dr. Fuller and from this time Mr. Ball dates the Miseries of our Church Ball agst Can. saying whilst they walked in peace God blessed them with peace there was no division Papists came to our
Churches and were dayly converted to the Truth but when we came to bite and devour one another the Papists were hardened and forbore our Communion the progress of the Gospel was greatly hindred and perpetual contentions amongst our selves did presently ensue now many who did not subscribe were turned out of there places both in the Church and in the Universities and those who for special respect to their persons as Mr. Fox and some others were not turned out yet were looked on with an evil eye and accounted Puritans and from this time saith Dr. Fuller there was a difference even among the Non-Conformists Mr. Whittingham and others on the one side Ch. Hist Cent. 15. held the Government of the Bishops and the order of the Church of England utterly unlawfull and in no ways to be submitted to others were more moderate and thought them tolerable and Reformation in Ceremonies and some other things only to be pressed and desired And if this difference among Non-Conformists be found at this day it cannot be fairly said they have forsaken the Principles of the First Non-Conformists seeing it was among them from the beginning and that sort of them have encreased all along much beyond the more moderate through the obstinacy of the Prelats who in all this space of 130 years since the Lyturgy was first established have not amended or abated any one material thing to gratifie the Non-Conformists excepting that of late that the Lessons Epistles and Gospels should be read in the New Translation The Non-Conformists that were turned out made a Separate Congregation in London Preached and Administred all Sacraments in a Publick Hall about the year 1567. Sect. 6. This the Dr. confesseth and names three Ministers as the chief Authors of it but saith Beza being advised with disliked it why as Schismatical No but for fear of giving offence to the State which it was then hoped might have been prevailed with to moderate things but did the rest of the Non-conformists sit down as lay men and disert their Ministry No Bishop Bancroft saith Book 3. cap. 1. that for the first twelve years of her Majesties reign there were many secret meetings of the Non-conformists that came from beyond the Seas both in private houses and also in the fields and woods and some of those meetings they called Churches and Mr. Cartwright saith he in part defended them saying that Conventicles was too harsh a term for them The Ministers both those that kept their places as well as those that were ejected held frequent meetings amongst themselves all Queen Elizabeths Reign after the Parliament had rejected their admonitions Bishop Bancroft and Dr. Fuller says the first of those meetings that came to their knowledge was at Walmsworth in Surrey 1572 and from that time divers others were held at Cooks-field in Essex Mr. Knew-stubs Parsonage at London in Northamptonshire yea at length there were three or four small Classes formed in most Counties in England there were also a kind of Provincial Synods held at Oxford at the time of the Act and at Cambridge at the Commencement or at Sturbridge-fair and at Coventry An. 1588 Likewise National Synods were by them agreed on to be held at London at the time of the sitting of Parliaments and accordingly Bishop Bancroft names one or two that was afterward held by them Ann. 158â— they first composed a book of Discipline wherein they layed down a platform of Church Government in most things like to that in Scotland and after that book had been revised in their several meetings and at length perfected and subscribed by them Bishop Bancroft saith they composed a book of Common Prayer Administration of the Sacraments and Government of the Church which they intended to present to the Parliament in the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth with the form of an Act prefixt for its Establishment and a petition to the Queen and Parliament that it might be made the established Lyturgy of the Land This and much more the Bishop hath set down throughout his third book which was learnt from the Confessions of Mr. Snape Mr. Stone Mr. Johnson Ministers of North-hamptonshire who were imprisoned and examined by the High-Commission and from the Papers of others seized in some of their studies In Publick they held solemn meetings of Neighbour Ministers once in three weeks which they called Prophesyings wherein some prayed others preached or made Divinity Lectures And Arch Bishop Grindal being commanded by the Queen to disturb them gave her a fair account of them and refused to interrupt them though he incurr'd her displeasure for it as may be seen in his petition in Dr. Fuller with all the former passages ibid. Moreover in all their Congregations they used the Liturgy according to their own judgements and omitted the Ceremonies as they thought fit kneeling at the Sacrament was disused even at the Temple-Church in the time of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Traverse as appears by their Petitions annext to Hookers Eccles Polity Yea kneeling was not strictly enjoyned all Queen Elizabeths Reign And Mr. Chadderton was blamed by the Bishop of London at the Hampton-Court Conference for that in Emmanuel Coll. Chappel in Cambridge many did not kneel what they did in other parts of Church Government may be guest by this that Mr. Cartwright enjoyned his own Man-Servant being convict of Fornication a form of acknowledgment which he gave him in writing which was charged against him in the High Commission-Court Bishop Bancroft tells of a like instance of a man at North hampton Convict of the same offence and how he was brought to submission and acknowledgment in the Congregation and then absolved by Mr. Snape The Bishop also gives account of their proceedings in their Classical Meetings in their censures of their Brethren in the Ministry When the Canons were made Ann. 1603 which were to those Non-Conformists as the late Act of Uniformity was to us many were now turn'd out and all liable to be so dealt with but they that were ejected still accounted themselves the Pastors of their Flocks though they were torn from them and still visited them with Letters and in person Praying Catechizing expounding the Scriptures to them in private some were received into Gentlemens Houses and Preached publickly in their Chappels others found favour under Bishops of other Diocesse's and got Livings with them they joyned together in publick and private Fasts they administred the Sacraments privately they contracted and married many being resorted too from far for the good and grave Counsel they use to give at such times some taught Schools others bred up young men in their houses for their Ministry Mr. Bernard Gilpin in Yorkshire is noted by Dr. Fuller for this that he was wont to have twenty young Scholers at a time in his house when they were to be ordained themselves some went into Scotland others beyond the Seas and got Ordination which was not refused by those Bishops and some they Ordained amongst
themselves at home and as the number of Non-Conformists increased by the increase of new Impositions and more rigorous Prosecutions under the growing Arminian Faction in the Church in the latter end of King James and under Arch-Bishop Lauds Government So these practises of theirs encreased and they were bold in them as the necessity was greater and that this was their practise will farther appear by the late Act of Uniformity the Oxford Act and the Act against Conventicles which do cautiously in particular provide against all such things for the future which the Contrivers of them would never have thought on had not experience taught them that those were the private practises of former Non-Conformists when cast out of their places From all which which nothing but Ignorance can contradict it it appears that the old Non-Conformists when silenc't and ejected by Law or Crnons when forbidden by the magistrate and Bishops did not yet exercise all Ministerial Acts and Offices and did not count themselves bound to be content with lay-Communion they did them indeed in a way which they thought most proper to their Time and Circumstances and not so publickly as we do now which is to be ascribed to the difference of time and occasions which comes next to be considered It must therefore be remembred having been spoken more largely before that for a good part of Q. Eliz. Reign Conformity was not urged with any strictness only Subscription to the 39 Artic. and that too moderate by the Statute of the 13 Eliz. The first two Successive arch-Arch-Bishops Parker and Grindal were mild and moderate men who governed the Church about 25 years and such were most of the other Bishops having been Confessors and fellow-Sufferers with the Non-Conformists in the Marian daies they had also travelled abroad amongst other Churches and therefore were not so zealous in matters disputable at home of this we have a notable Testimonie from Mr. Cranmer in his Letter to Mr. Hooker neither of them to the Non-Conformists At first the greatest part of the Learned in the Land were either eagerly affected or favourablr inclined that way the Books then written for the most part savoured of the Disciplinary Stile it sounded every where in Pulpits and in common Phrase of mens Speech the contrary part began to fear they had taken a wrong course many which impugned the Discipline yet so impugned it not as being the better form of Government but as not being so convenient for our state in regard of dangerous innovations like to grow thereby one man stood in the gap to oppose them c. which was Dr. Whitgift the following Brch-Bishop here was yet no occasion for their Preaching in private while Whitgift was Arch-Bishop The last 20 years of the Queen the Non-Conformists were more straitly dealt with the Lyturgy and Subscription more rigorously imposed their private associations searched into yet proceedings then were less then the little Finger to the loins compared to those of our days The Non-Conformists yet enjoyed their places at least some places as Mr. Cartwright who was removed from being Professor in Cambridge yet was suffered quietly to Preach in an Hospital at Warwick till his death After the making of the Canons 1603 the Non-conformists were turned out of places in greater numbers but yet these Canons did not reach all the matter being left to the Bishops hands some did either conuive at the secret omission of subscription or at the doing of it in their own sence so that many either kept their old places or quickly got new ones in other Diocesses Besides the Non-conformists were then but few in comparison of the other Ministers and the people much fewer who had not so much Religion as to make any difference betwixt Ministers and Preaching and Discipline or to distinguish betwixt the good and bad nor were there yet any footsteps of men going back again towards Rome in Doctrine Government or Ceremonies and therefore those Non-conformists might very well judge it was most advantagious to the Gospel for them by quiet and private means to serve their people then by appearing more publikely to occasion greater contentions but our case is far different Till Whitgifts time there was hope that the acceptable things in the Liturgy and Church Government might have been mended their greatest defenders judging this their best plea as the forecited Mr. Cranmer in his Letter saith that the Government of Bishops was not unlawful and setting up of Elders was not necesary or as Mr. Hooker expresseth it in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Arch-Bishop which also is the drift of his book that there was no great harm if things complained of were still continued in the Church but Whitgift and his Successor Bancroft put an end to these hopes by establishing all the things in question by their Canons and requiring all the Clergy to subscribe to the Lyturgy but still the Doctrine and worship was kept pure and the bounds of our first Reformation maintained as sacred But Arch-Bishop Laud extended Conformity to his new Arminian Doctrines to his new Ceremonies and to bring all men into such subjection to himself under the name of the Church that they must neither speak nor do any thing in Religion but what he allowed and appointed and now was hard to keep the ground which was gotten at the first Reformation He and his designs were at length defeated but civil broils hindred the settlement of the Church At length when almost all men weary of confusions longed for peace and union the same Laudensian Arminian Faction influenced the State to establish Conformity in an higher degree then ever viz. that all Ministers should not only practise but approve by publick declaration all that was enjoyned in the Lyturgy without any considerable amendment hereupon there is no favour to be shewed to any no moderation nor no end all being established by a Law nor were they content to deprive the Non-conformists of their Churches but a second Law is added to drive them above five miles from those that were there people or any Corporation where people being more civilized and having more leisure might be more likely to hear then preach and a third law also that they should not exercise any worship of God other then what is prescribed by the Liturgy in any private house or in their own family in the presence of five other persons so that the present Non-conformists is this They are all turn'd out as one man and that for no reason given only things devised to be laid on them as snares which the imposers knew they could not submit to They were in number about 2000. The People also of the same perswasion with them very numerous in the 3 Nations and in Scotland the whole people there was not so much as leave to Petition for any moderation nor is there any bound of time put to this Rigour nor may they be suffered privately and in Corners to Act as Ministers and
not in the Passover or Sacrifices which were their Sacraments and the greatest ties of their Society and all this only for their Civil convenience because they were seated in other Countries and by reason of Trade or other occasions were loath to remove to Jewry if this will excuse them why may not other Cases arise where one part of a people may not think fit to break off from a Church wholly and yet not be bound to all acts of Communion or worship with it and such a case we have frequently in Ecclesiastical history when the people of some great City as Rome Antioch Alexandria c. differ'd about choosing a Bishop Suppose the better and sounder part chose a fit and worthy Person and the bigger and worse part chose a Person unsound in Doctrine or scandalons in Life and him they will have thrusting out the fiter Person and his People also if they will adhere to him what should be done in this case I know it was usual neither to Pray nor hear together though some of them might happen to be in the same Prison and in the same Room but this without doubt was Schism on both sides Should the better yield to the worse and quit their Election So they should betray Religion and their own Souls should they quite break off and forsake the others resolving never to have more to do with them So they should betray the others to utter ruine and the Church by degrees to destruction The good Wheat continually-leaving the Tares among whom yet it is very likely some good Wheat may be scattered it remains then that they keep to their Priviledge and adhere to him whom they have chosen and yet not dissert them who would cast them out but communicate with them as Brethren especially in such common Duties as do not contain a plain acknowledgment of their undue and Schismatical practise and so wait till Providence may find means to make up the Breach That this is our case shall be shewed in the last Chapter The Dr's other reason is grounded from Phil. 3.16 The sum of his arguing from that Text is this Men are to do all things Lawfull to maintain the Unity of the Church where they live therefore whatsoever is Lawfull for them to Communicate in sometimes they must do it always Answ Lawfull is either simply and absolutely so or Lawfull in those Circumstannces as the Apostle distinguisheth betwixt lawful and expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 i. e. lawful in it self or lawful in this or that case If every man be bound to do all that is simply and absolutely lawful to preserve the peace of the Church then he may be many times bound to yield to turbulent and irregular persons in unreasonable demands and impositions but if a man be bound only to do those things which are lawful in the present Circumstances then the Argument is of no force for it will be said they that held but occasional and partial Communion go as far as they judge lawful i e. expedient and fit in their Case and Circumstances and so they shall not be bound to constant and full Communion 2. The great sin and mischief of Separation lieth in judging and condemning others as no Churches having no Ministry no Sacraments and so not being in the ordinary way of Salvation not having Christs presence amongst them This indeed deserveth all the aggravations which the Dr. cites out of Mr. B. Sect. 24. and I am perswaded he intended no more and this was the meaning of the Old Non Conformists Severe reprehensions of the Brownists viz. that they dishonoured Christ reproached his Servants his gifts and Graces in them and slandered the footsteps of his anointed This indeed tends to the Subversion of the Church to expose it to the contempt of the world destroys all charity and brotherly Communion and is a great presumption for who shall dare to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People who shall profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his word though they do or are supposed to fail in Circumstances or lesser parts of their Duty And if the Fathers mentioned by the Dr. intended any other Separation by their high invectives against it as it is probable they did not at least those pious peaceable men Cyprian and Augustine when they said Schism is as bad as Idolatry c. we may say by their leave that they shew'd more zeal for themselves and their own Interest then for the honour of Christ and the peace of his Church Mr. Hales tract of Schism saith Heresie and Schism are the Theological Scare-Crows wherewith Men fright Children and men commonly use against all that differ from them when they cannot prove such a Crime against them and again he saith the Donatists might have been in the right for any thing that Augustine said against them and if he had extended it to Cyprian and Cornelius writings against the Navatians he might perhaps not have exceeded the Truth We do acknowledge all Un-necessary Separation from a Church is a sin let the ground be what it will the errour of Conscience in him who thinks it a duty will not make it a duty it doth impair Love it layeth the Church open to her Enemies reproaches and to endless contentions within her self but it is not such a sin as some men labour to make it to maintain their own greatness as if it would excuse men for the neglect of their Salvation or make them amends for the loss of Heaven that they have been scrupelously fearful of running into Schism Let the Church take care as Mr. Hales adviseth that the Terms of her Communion be no other then the Scripture will justifie and do concern all Christians and if any other be added let them be temporary and removed when inconveniencies arise greater then the Reasons for imposing them or equal to them Let the Ministers labour in publick and private with soft words and good Reasons to satisfie the People in all their doubts about things relating to the Church and if after all this some few as they will not be many are so far dissatisfied as that they they think they ought to withdraw let them withdraw provided they do not reproach and condemn the Church they depart from and let them nevertheless be owned as Brethren This certainly becomes the Gospel and will make more for the peace of the Church and send more towards reducing of those that separate then all corrections and hard words against Schism And thus did the Primitive Christians towards the Novatians for though some zealous of their own authority speak sharply against them yet they were not troubled in Constantine's time the Bishops of theirs sate in the Councel of Nice they had their publick Churches one in Constantinople when it was the Imperial Seat to which the people generally resorted when Macedonius was Bishop and when their Church was commanded to be pull'd down and they not to
meet within the City the people assisted in carrying the Materials and setting up the Church in the Suburbs yea saith Socrates the people would have been admitted into their Communion if the Novatians had been willing and we may observe in History the Novatians never ceased till the clamours against them as dangerous and intollerable persons were at end and little or no notice were taken of them Indeed could it be proved that any particular Church under the Gospel whether National Diocesan or Parochial was of the same constitution with the Church of the Jews that all Christians were bound to be Members of it or all that live within their Precinct or at least all that once have been Members are indispensably bound to continue so then it were a damning sin to separate from them But when it is Originally as free for every Christian to choose his Church as to choose the place of his abode and nothing but the convenience of his own edification in the first place and next the edification of the Neighbourhood obligeth him to joyn with and to continue in this or that particular Church it can be no sin of so high a nature though it be blame-worthy for him to withdraw without just reason 3. Say that all Separation is as great a sin as our Author would insinuate what means doth he prescribe to prevent it why he saith all men are bound to do and submit to all things that are lawfull to preserve the peace and to prevent the dividing of the Church True all things that are really Lawfull but not to all that the imposers say are lawfull if men must judge for themselves what is Lawfull absolutely and what not and what is Lawfull or not in their circumstances will not this open a door for Separation as much as any thing his opposites have said he blames them for allowing people to separate upon pretence of their Ministers insufficiency or scandal or interruption on them againist their wills for doubtfull ceremonies for modes of Worship for want of Discipline or right Constitution of the Church and saith which is his most plausible arguments that some of these the Papists might have retorted upon our first Reformers and all such pretences would justifie the Ancient Schismes and make way to endless Separation for the future But he wrongs these Authors which is a common shift almost to all that write on this subject when he intimates that they allow Separation upon any pretence of such causes Is there no difference betwixt pretending and really proving the gross insufficiency errours or scandals of a Minister or gross usurpations over mens Consciences and Liberty do any prudent men allow Separation without good cause full proof all endeavours of amendment patient waiting and mature advice and consideration of all circumstances what then is there no preventing endless Separation but Tyranny over mens Consciences that they shall be compell'd to approve and do whatsoever their Rulers please as the Papists teach yes the Dr's final determination is Page 208. A prudent and due submission in Lawfull things is a medium betwixt Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation what is here more then any Brownist will grant that understands himself viz. that as Rulers must not Tyrannize over Mens Consciences so the people must not be given to endless Separation and that the way to prevent both is that the Rulers rule with due and prudent Discipline and that the people yield prudent and due submission and that this Government and submission be exercised only in Lawfull things But still must not the people in submitting as well as the Governours in Ruling judge whether things be Lawfull or not whether submission be due and how farr and in what cases it is prudent to yield or to deny it if the people must not judge then you establish a Tyranny over their Consciences that they must approve what ever their Rulers command or Hobbisme that they must do what ever their Rulers command though they beleive it to be sinfull or inconvenient if the people must judge for themselves in the things that concern them then they must judge of the insufficiency of their Minister the Legallity of his call and the like but how then hath the Dr. put a stop to Separation more then they may not men pretend things required to be unlawfull submission not to be due nor prudent and so without end Their Arguments therefore are but Sophismes like those that plead against all certainty of sense or reason because many men are certain i. e. confident when they are mistaken that a man cannot be sure he seeth heareth or feeleth because he hath many times thought he did so in his dream when it was no such thing as there is a certain way of proving that men are awake and use their sences so there is as certain a way to prove by plain Scripture when Ministers are insufficient when impositions are unlawfull when it is necessary to withstand usurpation on the Churches Priviledges c. what ever Sophisters will cavil against it and if men will pretend cause of Separation when there is none or manifestly insufficient or but dubious they may be convicted and if they separate bear their blame but whilst men are subject to mistake to passion and partiallity which will be till our Lord come what shall put a stop to Separation but necessary moderation in Rulers in imposing one reverence in the people in submitting and meekness towards those who notwithstanding all care weakly or peevishly may dissent in things that are tolerable This Learned man hath not shewed us nor the experience of Fifteen Hundred Years the Popish Cruelty could not prevent Separations Episcopal Authority could not prevent them The Donatists and Novatians had their Bishops imposing Uniformity in Ceremonies could not the First Division in the Christian Church rose about the keeping of Easter-day if people offend against the plain Rule of Scripture or the plain Rule of good Government and Order let them be punished according to their Offences but not for things doubtfull in Scripture or burthensome in Government if men offend in lesser matters and cannot be convinced let them be born with till inconvenience be seen to arise from such Clemency and then it is time enough to retract or retrench it if this were not dayly done in Nations and Families no Civil Society could stand how then shall the contrary severity establish the Church Obj The Dr. objects the Reformers taught that where there is soundness in Doctrine and Worship people ought not to separate from a Church for lesser defects real or apparent and that they insisted on the corruption of Doctrine and Worship as the only cause of their Separation from Rome Answ 1. Doctrine and Worship are indeed the chief things in a Church for if God be truly worshipped and his knowledge be truly taught mens lives will be bettered and their Souls saved by it but then it must not
lye dead in the Confession of Faith and in the Lyturgy while men preach false Doctrine and bring Superstitions into the publick worship or else neither Preach nor Worship God in the Congregation at all or so seldom that the people can be little profited by them the Reformers never thought of this mystery 2. It is not true that they separated from Rome only for the Corruptions of Doctrine and Worship it was for such Corruptions hat they counted her Antichristian a Rotten and Apostate Church with whom they might have no Church Communion but her usurpation and Tyranny over all other Churches was used also as an argument for our withdrawing from her for if the Church of Rome have no Authority over all or any other Churches and if the exercise of such power be an insufferable oppression and prejudice to the Churches then they might justly upon this account cast off her Yoak though for this alone they should not reject Communion with her as a Neighbour Church Dr. Hammond Dr. Bramhal and others of late insist upon this as the chief defence of our departure from Rome viz. because the Church of England was for the first 600 years independent on her never Subject to her but Dr. Reynolds conference with Hart and all other of the Reformers who wrote against the Popes Supremacy made this one Argument to justifie their secession and so it will be in lesser cases even a just ground of departure from constant Communion though not a ground of refusing Brotherly and occasional Communion unless there be corruptions in Doctrines and Worship allowed also 3. The first Reformers generally except Calvin were too negligent both of Worship and Discipline being wholly intent upon reforming the Doctrine of the Church gross Idolatry indeed in Worshiping the Mass Saints and Angels they did quickly espy but Images in Churches with other Superstitions Rites and Ceremonies they took little notice of to cause them to be reformed and hence the Lutherans to this day retain them as if they were approved of by Luther and his Companions perhaps they waited that the Princes should reform these things or it may be they thought if they could have liberty to Preach sound Doctrine that would of it self purge out these disorders in worship and ceremonies they also might think the people and especially the Princes would yet scarce bear strict Discipline but in time might be brought to it but they found they were mistaken and some of them saw their errour while they lived Bucer Oelochampadius and others complained as Comconius hath cited them in his Exhortation that they had not set up Discipline at first for now the people had got Knowledge and Notions and were used to Liberty they would not bear the Yoak of Discipline Bucer with Tears said to some Bohemians when he had read their Confession and former Discipline vos soli habetis regnum Christi interris none but you have the Kingdom of Christ on Earth In like manner do the best Helvetians and Germans complain in every Age of want of Discipline and Power in their Churches Obj. But we must not seperate for Ceremonies and for this the Synod of Sendomer in Poland is quoted Answ That same Synod also declares that Ceremonies ought not to be imposed and when they had recommended kneeling at the Sacrament to their People to distinguish them from the Socinians that lived amongst them they add that they would not enjoyn it for if they should then they might be necessitated to use the Ecclesiastical Censures against those who would not submit which ought not to be used for Rites and Ceremonies Vid. Consens Eccl. Polon in Corp. Confes Ceremonies many times pollute the Worship of Christ and he forbad Israel all the Rites and Customes of the Heathen as well as their Idols and their Worship but if the Ceremonies themselves be really inoffensive yet the usurpation of them that impose them without Authority may be a greater offence then the Ceremonies imposed and justly to be resisted and if they will maintain their Impositions to a division this breach must be upon them Obj. Amyraldus is quoted who saith Ceremonies are not a ground of Separation from a Church unless they be such as import false Doctrine or false Worship or are likely to introduce it Answ And are not these things objected against the Ceremonies of the Church of England even by the Old Non-Conformists viz. That the Surplice is a sign or badge of a Mass Priest that the Cross was a Popish Idol and the use of it Idolothisme i. e. like the meats offered to Idols very offensive and scandalous to the weak that kneeling at the Sacrament was a badge of Adoration of it and was never imposed nor generally practised in the Church till Transubstantiation was established and for the danger of bringing back Popery by these Ceremonies the Experience of this and the last Age since Bishop Laud new modled the Church is abundant proof I will only instance in kneeling at the Supper which turned the Table to an Altar set it at the East end of the Church railed it in made it Sacred and to be bowed to and that for this Reason as the Aoch Bishop delivered it in his Speech in the Star-Chamber because there it is hoc est Corpus meum this is my body whereas in the Pulpit it is but hoc est verbum meum this is my word And then Dr. Heylin writes a Book to prove that there was some kind of Sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist which was answered by Dr. Hackwell and now how far were these Men from the Mass Obj. But this will hinder all Vnion with Protestants if we should break for Ceremonies and Modes of Worship Answ He means the Lutherans for whom our Arminian Church men have some kindness but little for other Protestants yet this will not follow for a Christian may submit to those Rights and Ceremonies in another Church where he occasionally is and communicates with them but as Brethren which he may not do in his own Church where he is a constant member and so is guilty of the Corruptions which according to his place he doth not oppose even as every prudent man complies with the Orders and Customes of places and Families he goes in abroad though he will not suffer the same to be practised in his own house but alas what hope of Union with Protestant Churches when we teach that where there are no Diocesan Bishops there are no Churches no Ministry no Sacraments some of his Majesties Chaplains when they were with him in Paris did hold no Communion with the French Churches as they complained in publick Letters to say nothing of many at home that kept their own houses 12 years or more during the late troubles going to no Church for want of Bishops and the Common-Prayer finally our Act of Uniformity decrees That no man shall Preach or Administer the Lords Supper much less have any Ecclesiastical
Preferment that is not Episcopally Ordained besides all other Subscriptions Now the Communion of Churches lieth in admitting of Ministers to officiate in each others Churches sometimes as well as in admitting the People to lay-Communion as in the famous instance of Victor and Polycarpus at Rome celebrating the Sacrament together Let us unite at home and then there may be hope we shall unite with our Neighbours CHAP. IV. The grounds of the Non-Conformists present practises THE Dr. spends the whole 3d. part of his Book in confuting the Pleas for Separation from the Church of England and gathering new Churches which I shall leave to those whom it concerns and shall only say that all these disputes do really increase and not hinder Separation by laying open the first Principles of Government to the People and filling their heads with Notions and Disputes about things whereof they are not competent Judges Moderation in Governing and not disputes about Governments doth most dispose the People to Obedience and quiet Submission and as in Commonwealths when People have not the Protection of their Governours or the Benefit of their Laws and just Priviledges rigorous proceedings dispose them to defection and to study Arguments to defend it from the natural principles of self-preservation and the peoples interest in all Government by their Primitive consent to it and their successive approbation of it So rigorous Impositions in the Church without any condescention in Governours upon just complaints will at last make the People weary of forbearing and search for all pleas whereby they may defend themselves in shaking off the Yoke and then it will little avail their Rulers either to their profit honour or peace of their Consciences to cry out upon Rebellion or Schism when they have lost the people Our present practise in Preaching though ejected and forbidden is not grounded on nor need be supported by these or any other pleas for Separation The general sence of the Non-Conformists both Ministers and People leaving to particular Persons their particular sentiments as the Church of England also doth to many of her Members is this 1. That the Parishes of England generally are true Churches both as to the matter of them the People being Christians and not to be excluded from Church-Communion and as to the form of them their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine or manners do not deserve to be degraded 2. That the Doctrine Worship and Sacraments in these Parishes are for substance sound and wholesome though there are some offensive things mixed in them and annexed to them 3. That they are still Members of these Parishes the people of those where they live and the Ministers so far as not to be obliged to set up distinct and permanent Churches nevertheless they think themselves bound to joyn together for the Worship of God according to their own Consciences and publick allowance for some years past desiring and waiting for an opportunity to return fully to the Parish-Communion when ever it shall please their Rulers to condescend to their reasonable request in relaxing or removing those things which are so offensive to them and in this their practise they judge they do no more then the Primitive Churches often did when erroneous or otherwise unfit Pastours were obtruded on them or other differences arose amongst them whereupon the Congregations were often divided as in Rome Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople with divers other places and then when those offences and differences were removed they returned to full eommunion again or as did the Church of Israel when by Jeroboams Apostacy they could not go up to Jerusalem with safety or other times could not communicate there because of Corruptions under some Kings of Judah who then held private Assemblies for the present necessity and when all obstacles were removed again went up to Jerusalem even many of the Ten Tribes in Hezekiah and Josiah's time when their own Idolatrous Princes were removed and they could do it without danger though they were still subject to Idolatrous Conquerors but such who lived remote and gave them more Liberty of Religion then their own Princes did We judge our case to be like a case of necessary self defence where present necessity is the Guide and Law-giver and ordinary Laws and orders which are proper for times of peace are in a great measure supersedent When a Kingdom is invaded or divided within it self all things threaten ruine it is lawful for the people to gather into several Bodies to possess Garrisons to chose them Leaders and for fit men to undertake their conduct though without though contrary to some present commands that may be unduly obtained and given yet they shall incur no guilt of Sedition nor Rebellion so long as they design nothing but the preservation of themselves and the whole as far as they can and are ready to return to their own places so soon as peace shall give them leave When an Army is in danger to be betrayed by the falsehood or division of the principal Officers or when it hath lost its Generals in some defeat it would not be accounted mutiny for the Soldiers to run together as they can and with the help of inferiour Officers to preserve themselves from being sold or destroyed provided they still retain a resolution of returning to the Body of the Army when they may with safety to the whole and to themselves Thus the Non-Conformists lie under such a necessity they conceive for the Reasons laid down in the former part ch 6 and 7. which it may not be amiss for a conclusion briefly to sum up 1. There is now no reason to be pretended for the imposed Conformity In K. Edw. dayes the Bishops their Clergy and People made it necessary to retain what was then retained now 't is not so generally desired In Queen Elizabeths days there was hopes of winning of the Papists by our moderation now there is none but more danger of their incroaching upon us by it 2. The Dissenters from this Conformity were heretofore but few now they are a very considerable part of the Church I will make no comparison Formerly the Ministers were generally censured as Puritans and were but few the people likewise but two or three in a great Town now they are Multitudes and those who are zealous for Conformity appear fewer then those who would be glad to have it reproved at least in all places that are most civilized 3. Conformity hath occasioned a woful Division and Scandal in our Church ever since the Reformation and therefore ought not after so much Experience of the evil of it and also after plain evidence of benefit and advantage to Religion by the removal of it for some years to have been again so rigorously enjoyned 4. The things in Question though not of the highest nature in themselves yet by occasion of the Division they cause at home and the advantage the Papists make of it have endangered our