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
becomes unfit to live among them the two great parts of the Catholick Church that in Heaven and this on Earth have a Communion in that they are both United to Christ both worship and serve him in those particular ways that are proper for the state they are in and both wait for that compleat Salvation which they shall have at their general meeting besides this we know of no Communion betwixt them viz that either part can be serviceable to each other at present only we that live on earth enjoy the benefit of the Prayers and Examples which they left us who are now in Heaven and of their endeavours to continue the Gospel to us and so we succeed them in the same offices and endeavour to transmit the Knowledge of Christ his Gospel and Ordinances to those that shall succeed us nor can here be any Separation of one of these parts from another without breaking of Christian Religion which is impossible to them that are in Heaven and if any on earth thus separate it is to their own damnation The Catholick Militant Church on Earth hath a Communion in some more particulars for besides their common acknowledgement of Christ and his Gospel and the common love they are to bear to all Christians on earth as their Brethren they are to perform all offices of love which in this their imperfect militant state they are able and may need from one another such as to pray for all to rejoyce in each others welfare to sympathize in each others afflictions to assist by councell charitable relief hospitallity c. and when ever there is occasion to receive each other to their worship as brethren leaving to every one the liberty of their particular rites or opinions and this is so indispensable a duty that no Separation can be lawfull or tolerable in those who separate from the Catholick Church who relinquish the profession of Christ or cast of all love to their Brethren or that will not joyn with them in the worship of God or concern themselves in their common concerns Now for Organized Churches that are associated for the exercise of their Religion and their edification under Government o Pastours and Guides their Communion must be that the Members of every such Church joyn with each other ordinarily and peaceably in the same Acts of Worship and perform all offices of love to each other in some tolerable measure that they be subject to their Governours and that their Governours do conscionably endeavour the edification of the people committed to their charge according to the Laws of Christ which are the general rules of these societies and according to any other particular rules which they shall agree on amongst themselves for their own edification as Circumstances may require and so that both parts Governours and Governed do joyntly promote the edification of the whole Body in Holiness and Peace Separation therefore from these Organized Churches is a Breach of this Political Communion and Order among themselves which is done either by breaking off from the Body to which they belonged as Members which is Separation properly so called or by disturbing the Communion of it or withdrawing from some parts or acts of that Communion though they do not wholly break off from the body such Seperation is in many cases Lawfull in some necessary and a duty and therefore must not be Universally Condemned but the causes of it be inquired into For though all Christians must be Members of Christ and of the Catholick Church under him for the general ends of their Salvation it doth not appear yet that they must be Members of the same Organized Society or that they may not upon just occasions leave those societies they were joyned with and go to others already in being or constitute new ones for their own edification even as in civil government men may not only compose divers Polities or Common-Wealths but may also make new confederacies or divide their Polities into lesser and particular persons may depart from them to others or constitute new ones yea may deny their concurrence with many things done in the society they joyn with and all this without the Crime of Sedition or defection till the causes and ends of such practise prove it so Now to descend to the particular forms of Organized Churches by what hath been said we may easily judge of their Communion and Separation from them And First For the Oecumenicall Church the Political Communion thereof must be that all Christians in the World be subject to the same Governours under Christ and live as Members of the same individual society either as a single Congregation or as of many united into one Separation from this Communion must therefore be either to interrupt the peace and order of this Communion or wholly to forbear joyning with them but such a Catholick unity of the Church under one Government being impracticable and inconsistent with the edification of the Church since it is inlarged and dispersed throughout the world it is needless to dispute about Communion with it or Separation from it All other Churches that exceed the bounds of a single Congregation and must be constituted of many are of the same nature with the Oecumenicall Church though not of the same latitude as to the matter of Communion which must therefore consist in the performance of all offices mutually betwixt Governours and Governed as Members of the same society whether it consists of several Nations as Patriarchial Churches or of the people of one Nation as National Churches or of the people of one Province one Diocess or Classis as Provincial Diocesan or Classical Churches Separation here must be either a disturbing of the peace and order of these Churches or a withdrawing from them as to the political duties due to them such Separation must often be lawfull and warrantable seeing no command of Christs binds men to particular Provinces or Diocesses nor always to continue in the same Finally The Communion of a Parish or Congregation consists in this that Pastours and People mutually perform their respective duties to each other and amongst themselves for their dayly edification Separation from such Congregations is either to interrupt their Government or Concord or to withdraw from them now seeing no man is immutably bound to one Congregation nor any Congregation to one Diocess or any larger combination and all these Churches are subject to corruptions which the Members must oppose and contend against separation from them must not be censured till it be known whether the cause be just or unjust And thus we are come at the last to enquire What are just causes of Separation whereby we may judge also what are not And that we may not speak too generally and confusedly we distinguish betwixt Separation of one Church from another and of particular Members from that Church whereto they did belong As all Churches are bound to Communion among themselves being all Members of the
Catholick Church of Christ though gathered into smaller bodies for their own conveniency and this Communion consisteth in acknowledging each other as Brethren in performing brotherly offices of Love and Kindness and especially in admitting each other to their worship upon occasions so Sepetation betwixt Churches is a Breach of this Communion when one Church disowneth another to be a Church of Christ excludes them from her Ordinances and from all Offices of Christian Love This is just when 't is upon great and just causes such whereupon we refuse Communion with the Papists and Socinians if upon lighter causes it is Unlawfull and a great breach of Charity yet not to be aggravated as an unpardonable sin or as that which deserves more animadversion then those sins which destroy all Religion and Humane Society seeing men may be good Christians in Doctrine and practise good Subjects and good Neighbours though they conceived such a mistaken opinion concerning another Church but this is not the Separation I shall insist on the causes that make this just will make the other just also but all the causes that make Separation from a particular Congregation just will not reach our Comunion with other Churches or concern our Separation from them We shall therefore enquire for what causes Members of a Church may Lawfully separate from it i. e. contend for the reformation of the Church and if they cannot attain it withdraw from and either joyn to other Churches or make new ones themselves And to clear this point let us always Remember that the Church is a Common-Wealth United to Christ as the Head First and but secondarily to each other Faith and Obedience to God in Christ with the Salvation of their own Souls is the end why men become Christians and give up themselves to Christ and next they give up themselves to the Church as a Society that profess to design the same end and to have given up themselves to the same Lord and therefore they hope and intend by the Friendship of this Church to be assisted and furthered towards the attaining of their great ends if therefore the Church prove otherwise i. e. to be no help but an hindrance to their serving of Christ and furthering their Salvation Separation from it is not contrary to their Obligation as Christians they are still Members of Christ yea may and ought to seek another Society wherein they may attain those great ends it is true men are bound to bear with many things amiss in a Church because there will be always some things amiss in one kind or other and also for publick peace least by unseasonable reforming some lesser things amiss or withdrawing from the Church while there is any reasonable hope of amendment they should make things worse yet when they cannot worship Christ aright or can have no tolerable edification in the Church the end of the Church Society is destroyed and Separation from it become necessary and the peace of a Church is subordinate to the great end of a Church viz that Religion may be preserved and promoted among them but when this is not intended but betrayed peace then is no duty but a conspiracy against Christ and the good of his Church Even as in civil Government the end being the good of the whole Society so long as that end is tollerably pursued in the preservation of publick justice and honesty many things must be born with rather then to endanger the whole by unseasonable endeavours to mend lesser things but when the publick good is not minded or those conditions broken upon which men did associate and there is no hope of redress in this case peace and quietness is to betray the Government The causes therefore which make Seperation Lawfull are in generall when men cannot worship Christ aright in the chief parts of his worship or edify their own Souls in the Church whereto they are joyned and when there is no reasonable hope of the redress of these things Particular causes are such as these 1. When a Church is idolatrous for now it forsakes Christ the Head for whose sake and service we became Members of the Church and therefore must now forsake it for him what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols 2 Cor. 6.16 Ye are the Temple of the Living God c. ver 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing c. 2. When any known sin is made the condition of Communion i. e. when a man shall not be admitted or continued to be a Member of the Church unless he approve some errour in Doctrine corruption in worship or himself commit some sin in practise or at least consent to it in the Church For also this destroys the end of a Church which is to edify us in Faith and Obedience whereas here something against Faith or Obedience is to be the very entrance into the Church Upon these 2 cases all agree that Separation is Lawfull and necessary and they both hold strongly against the Church of Rome for she is manifestly idolatrous and imposes both False Doctrines Superstitious Worship and wicked practises upon all her Members nor will it serve to say that that Church denies her worship to be idolatrous or the Terms of her Communion to be sinfull but she must clearly prove it from Scripture which is the Law of a Church and that to the capacity of every Christian concerned for if there be any reasonable grounds to suspect the Terms imposed to be Unlawfull a Christian cannot with safe Conscience submit to them till he is satisfied to the contrary and the Church having no Authority from Christ to impose any doubtfull much less sinfull Terms of Communion in this case the Church is guilty of the breach and not those who refuse to joyn with her or withdraw from her 3. When there is no tolerable means of edification in the Church though no evil is imposed upon the Members As when the teachers are Hereticall in the chief points that concern our Salvation or so contentious and such railers at any that differ from them that they cannot be heard with peace and composure For this cause the Dutch both Ministers and People and the then Prince of Orange also forsook their Parishes because their Arminian Preachers spent so much time railing on the Calvinists that they could neither hear them with profit nor bear them with Patience Also when Ministers are grosly ignorant and unable to explain the necessary Doctrines of Salvation to the People or when they do not or will not ordinarily preach to them or endeavour their instruction or when their Lives are greatly contrary to Religion and Godliness or when the People are almost all corrupt in Doctrines or wicked manners and will not be reformed For all these cases are directly contrary to the ends of a Church and we must rather forsake the Church that we may be edified in Faith
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
help their People and in the mean while Popery Arminianism Atheism and prophaness break in like a torrent now whether there is as much reason that the present Non-Conformists should keep as private as the former did the Reader must judge Obj. But the Dr. saith the old Non-Conformists earnestly opposed the Brownists Answ And so do many of the present Non-Conformists also the Brownists had two dangerous Positions or Principles peculiar to themselves 1. That there was no true Church in England nor indeed in the whole world but that all Churches in respect of their Doctrine Worship Ceremonies Constitution and Order or some of these were Idolatrous and Antichristian and that therefore no man that minded his Salvation ought to continue a member of them or to hold Communion with them as Churches though they might Communicate with particular Members or with the Society as a Company of private men Praying or otherwise Worshipping God together provided nothing was then used or done which they disliked 2. The Brownists taught that the people had the whole power of Government of the Church and that the Ministers were but the Peoples Deputies in Preaching the Word Administring the Sacraments or exercising of Discipline and must be accountable to them These Principles destructive of all Churches the Non-Conformists earnestly opposed especially the first sc separation from all the Reformed Churches as Antichristian For by preventing of this they would prevent the other mischiefs but in maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches did they the Prelaticall Nationall Church in respect of the Established constitution which themselves had so often called Antichristian It is manifest by their Books and what is forequoted of their opinions that they meant it of the several Parishes or Congregations in England that they were true Churches both in respect of their Constitution and also in respect of their Doctrine and Worship and that there was in them no such intolerable corruptions as that all Christians should fly from them nevertheless when the Ministers in particular Parishes were more then ordinary defective and unprofitable they allowed and encouraged the people to resort to Neighbour Parishes for better means of edification which Mr. Hildersham defends to be Lawful Lect. upon John Page 227. All this is the sence of the present Non-Conformists and I do verily believe there are no more Brownists among the present Non-Conformists Ministers then there were amongst them in those days for some there were then that went further then the rest in Principles of Separation and so it is in all times and all matters of controversie and what considerable difference is there betwixt their allowing people to go to other Parishes or Gentlemens Chappels and our allowing them to go to private Meetings seeing one takes them off from their own Pastor and Church as much as the other The Dr. saith they still kept the same Liturgy and so they held Communion with the National Church nay but many times they did not that for some the Old Puritan Preachers used it not in their Parishes or Chappels others but little of it others would Baptize without the Cross give the Sacrament without kneeling Marry without the Ring c. which made people resort to them who could not have such Liberty at home and so they varified from if not omitted the Liturgy of the Church but can a man be a Member of the National Church of England and hold Communion with it without being a Member of a particular Parish and if they be allowed to continue members of their own Parishes and not to make a Schism who did in cases of necessity and pro tempore mostly Communicate with Neighbour Parishes why may not the same be said now yea it is said and beleived by most of the Non-Conformists that the Parishes are true Churches of Christ and they do not separate from them or break off Membership though pro tempere and for the present necessity they do ordinarily Communicate in private Meetings where the same Doctrine and Worship is used only some circumstances and ceremonies omitted but no contrary or new ones used in their room or in opposition to those in the Parishes and thus much for the Old Non-Conformists from whom I do not conceive those that are now living do considerably differ in judgment or practise but only as time and circumstances do direct them only they that are dead are out of the way and so best spoken of and they that are living crossing the humours or interests of their opposites are always ill spoken of Obj. 2. The Dr. next objects that we contradict the Principles of the Assembly of Divines who did disapprove and gave reasons against the toleration desired by the Congregational Brethren as tending to endless Separation Answ The Toleration desired was that all men should have liberty to joyn with what Congregation and Pastor they pleased without respect to Parish or place of abode or any other civil distribution or settlement of men amongst us Their chief reasons was that Christians being not originally bound to Nations places or any other Civil Distribution but left free to joyn with those Congregations that they should find most convenient and edifying and now Episcopal Government in England being dissolved and no other set up in its room the People were again free and therefore might make what Congregations or Societies they found most for their own edification see Dr. Owen of Schism This the Assembly thought not reasonable that things should be unravelled into their first Principles and that we should begin to lay the Foundation of Churches again seeing our Parishes at least those that have good Ministers have all things necessary to a Church and it is most convenient for Christians Living in a Vicinity and under the same Civil Officers to make the same Congregation for Worship nor did they think the former Relation of Parishes to be dissolved by the dissolution of the Hierarchy who were no essential parts of the Parishes but general Supervisors or Visitors over them of the same mind are the most part of the Non-Conformists still and all the Congregational men went not that way some allowing all those Parishes that had good Ministers and some Christians fit for all acts of Church Communion to be true Churches Mr. Cotten adds way of the Churches of New-England that it is great presumption to say that the Church of England was faulty in its first Constitution and therefore to be pull'd to pieces and new-built seeing all Histories agree that some of the Apostles or Apostolical men were the first Planters of the Gospel in England who did certainly constitute the Churches in a right manner But where is the Consequence to our purpose that because the Assembly and we as well as they maintain that the Parishes of England are true Churches and not to be subverted therefore when Thousands of their Ministers are violently thrust out from them without any cause given and if they had
been all cast out as it was in Scotland the Argument is the same and their People left either desolate or like to be betrayed to Ignorance and Superstition that it were unlawful for these Ministers to Preach to this People in Temporary Assemblies or Congregations till this storm may happily blow over I find no force in the Argument but each Reader must judge for himself CHAP. III. An Answer to the 3d. Argument from the Nature and Sinfulness of Separation THE Dr. spends the whole second part of his Book in Examining as he saith Sect. 1. The Principles of the present Separation and those are of two degrees 1. Of some that hold no Communion with the Church of England lawful 2. Those that hold only occasional Communion with them lawful but not constant and then proceeds to argue against Separation from Churches whose Doctrine and Worship are for substance true and good and to shew many inconveniencies that will arise from such Separation Now though some of the Drs. Answerers have diverted to more general Questions about the Nature of Church Unity Terms of Communion and Causes of Separation and its several degrees and so have given him occasion to follow them yet I judge all this to be wide of our present Question in the sence and apprehension of most Non-Conformists for we are not disputing about much less erecting new Churches The Question only is whether it be Schismatical and Unjustifiable for us to Preach and Exercise all Ministerial Acts to the People in our Circumstances still maintaining all the Peace and Communion we can hoping in Gods due time this Wound of the Church may be healed What further Questions any particular Men have about the Constitution of Churches belongs not to the Cause or Party of the Non-Conformists whose sence he wrongfully ascribes to Mr. A and Mr. B. when they only speak of General Questions about Church Communion and not our particular Case in hand All the Arguments therefore or force of this discourse to our present purpose lieth in this Obj. Separation from Churches granted to be sound in Doctrine and Worship is sinful and in its effects very evil but such Separation he would insinuate is the Non-Conformists Preaching therefore sinful Answ In Answer to this we say 1. That the Non-Conformists do disclaim and are not constrained to own by this their Practise any Principle of Separation 2. We shall shew wherein the great Evil of Separation lieth And 3. That the Dr. hath provided no better Remedy against it then those whom he opposeth 1. The Non-Conformists disclaim Separation for they acknowledge the Parishes of England to be true Churches and the Doctrine and Worship established by Law amongst them to be true and sound they acknowledge themselves Members of those Parishes though wrongfully thrust out and evilly intreated by them They did not Separate themselves nor withdraw from them but first the Ministers were cast out by new devised terms imposed on them and afterwards many of the People were excommunicated and more would have been could the Parish Ministers have had their wills for non-communicating in doubtful if not sinful things They are also ready and desirous to return to a full union with the Parishes when ever the obstacles shall be removed And as they own no separation so their practise doth not constrain them to acknowledge it They hold Communion with the Parishes not only in Faith and Doctrine but also in acts of worship where they think they can lawfully do it and when they are not imployed elsewhere But the Dr. thinks if it be lawful for us to communicate occasionally or sometimes with the Church we are bound to doe it alwayes his reason is because if we be members of the Church and the Church be in such a condition that we can sometimes communicate with it then we must do it upon all occasions or else we separate and become members of a new Church For Answer I say that there are many cases wherein men ought to continue members of a Church i. e. not totally to break off but wait till abuses may be amended and breaches healed and yet it not be their duty to hold constant communion in all or any acts of publick worship This appears by the instance of the ten Tribes after Jeroboams Apostacy they were still members of the Church of Jerusalem and might not gather any other Church there were many amongst them who held Communion with Judah in Doctrine and Charity but yet could not go up to Jerusalem to all or any of the Feasts or Sacrifices which were there cheif Publick Worship And that they sinned not in forbearing appears because the eminent Prophets Elijah Elisha and their Schollars who were so numerous that Obadiah alone saved an hundred from Jezabels cruelty and they had four Seminaries or Colledges wherein they were bred up these I say lived amongst them and kept private meetings with them but neither went themselves nor required the people to go up to Jerusalem as things then stood Hosea blamed the Priests for laying snares and nets upon Mizpah and Tabor Chap. 5.12 to entrap those who out of zeal did go up to Jerusalem and thereby caused them to be put to death but we do not find that this Prophet or Jonas or Amos who were all sent to the ten Tribes and preached to them where they had opportunity did ever press them to go up to all acts of Publick worship at Jerusalem because they were Members of that Church Again the people of Judah who lived nearer to the Temple and had free access to it when it was open those that were upright whether Priests or private persons went not up to it in the time of Idolatrous Kings when the Publick Worship was corrupted yet they continued members of the Church they frequented the Synagogues or more private meetings at home Malac. 3.16 and waited sometimes many years till Publick abuses should be redressed I know it will be said the case is not the same Idolatry was here set up in Publick and so it is not with us I Answer The question is not about the parrelling the case but the truth of this proposition that where occasional communion is lawful constant is necessary for here we see men continue members of a Church yea the Priests and Levites continued officers in it and the Prophets prophesied in it and so held communion occasionally when they could and in those things they could lawfully but they did not communicate in all things nor at all times nor were bound to it But let us go a little farther after the Captivity the Jews being dispersed through all Countreys there continued and set up their Synagogues and house of prayer where ever they could have leave Those Jews were still members of the Church at Jerusalem and yet did not could not the farre greatest part of them go up thither They therefore held communion in some things as the expounding the Law and prayer but
AN APOLOGY FOR THE NON-CONFORMISTS SHEWING Their Reasons both for their not Conforming and for their Preaching PUBLICKLY though forbidden by LAW WITH AN Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon and his Defence of It. So much as concerneth the Non-Conformists PREACHING By John Troughton Minister of the Gospel Gal. 5. v. 15. But if ye bite and devour one another take heed that ye be not consumed one of another LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst and are to be sold at the Bible and three Crowns in Cheap-side 1681. THE EPISTLE TO THE READER Good Reader THE first part of this Discourse was written last Summer occasioned by Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon but so many Answers to it came forth and there was so much discourse of his Reply long before it appeared that it was laid aside till We might know what further strength the Dr. had to bring into the field which when I had considered I found no reason to alter any thing considerable of what was writ before but only to add something in answer to a few things suggested in the Drs. second Book which therefore I have made a second Part. I must beg pardon for some Repetitions especially in the Historical Parts the Drs. Discourse inforcing me to them I do not meddle with the many Questions about Church Government and Ceremonies which the Dr. and his other Opponents have started my design is only to shew the most plain and the most generally prevailing Reasons of the Non-Conformists for their practice in dissenting from the Liturgy and in exercising their Ministry though ejected and this I do because the Dr. hath endeavoured to represent Vs especially in the latter of these as acting against our own Principles and Consciences as if we knew it was Schism but dare not tell the People so Therefore I have plainly given our Sense of things and shall leave it to the Judgement of the Readers What the Dr. hath said against our practice I have considered being unconcerned with all the rest and if He please at any time hereafter to give us his Arguments directly to this Question which he first proposed viz. Whether the Non-Conformists Preaching to their own People when forcibly cast out or to other People that call them in this time of Confusion and Oppression of the Church be Schisme or Sinful I say if He shall give us his Arguments which He may do in a few sheets they shall be examined with as much impartiallity and Candour as He shall please to write them In the mean time our Adversaries may here see we have some Reason for what We do and our Friends may see that we do not own the Principles of Separation and Confusion Farewel Part First CHAP. I. Of the Nature and end of a Church with the several sorts of Churches THat we may the more distinctly set forth the Persons and causes of our Dissent and Separation from them who appropriate to themselves the name of the Church of England as well as its revenues and preferments it will be needfull by way of preparative briefly to consider what is the nature and end of the Church what the several sorts of Churches be what Communion we must have with them and what Separation from them is Lawfull or Unlawfull First Then for the nature and end of the Church It is a sacred Society or Common-Wealth whereof Jesus Christ is the Head King and Governour vnited unto him first and then to each other for these two great ends viz to Glorifie God in him and that they may be saved from sin and Satan and at last glorified with him I call it a sacred Common-Wealth to distinguish it from all other assemblies civil or military or natural which may and often and signified by the Hebrew Greek and Latin Names of a Church The Church is a society or Common-Wealth i. e. ordered and consisting of governour and governed not an accidentall confused Congregation of men Christ is the head King and Governour of this Society hence it is called his body and his fullness as a People be to their King Eph. 1.24 His Kingdome his People yea his House and Temple Eph. 2.21.22 And he is also cal'd the Head of the Church or King Prince Lawgiver Lord c. As Union is the bond of all society so the Church also is an united policy the Union of societies is voluntary consent and agreement among themselves but whereas men in civil societies may first unite among themselves and then chuse a common Head or Governour and unite with him this society is made up of singular Members of whom each one singly and for himself doth first unite with Christ his Head and Governour by agreement and consent and then secondly doth joyn with all those that have or shall subject themselves to the same Governour order is good for ends and orderly societies do combine for proper ends to be attain'd by such combination and as those ends are good or bad so is that Corporation of men to be adjudged good or evil The Church is United for sacred and holy ends and therefore it is a sacred Common-wealth the proper ends which this combination of Christ and his Church respect are that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ viz immediately and directly in acknowledging him worshipping and honouring him seeking his Love favour and blessing c. In those ways and by those means which he the head and Lawgiver shall prescribe natural and civil societies if combined for honest ends are for the Glory of God remotely in lower things but the Church is immediately concerned in gloryfiing him and that not as a Creatour only but as a Redeemer also by Jesus Christ and as the end of all good society is the good of the community and of every person in it as far as can be attained and not of one part only so the Church is united to Christ and every Member to the Church for their own spiritual good immediately and directly viz that they may be every one everlastingly happy in serving and enjoying him which must be brought about by recovering them out of the misery that they are in by sin which is their Salvation and putting them into the possession of the Kingdom of Heaven which will be their Glorification civil and natural societies are for civil and natural good and advantage but the Church is a spiritual Common-Wealth for spiritual ends only hence it hath its name in the New Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a company of men called out for some special end called whence out of this world not out of the place presently but out of the concerns and designs of this world they are not of this World as I am not of this world John 17.16 And to whom are they called to Jesus Christ as their Head and King to serve him and be subject to him and that not in managing the business and interest of this world but in obeying and honouring him immediately in order to
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-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
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
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-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-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
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
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-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
Gal. 5.1 To stand fast in the Liberty with which Christ hath made us free and not to be intangled again in the Yoke of Bondage this was Liberty from the Ceremonial Law which being dissolved by Christ the Church might suffer no man to impose on them again consequently the Church was freed from all Rites and Ceremonies but those which Christ had appointed in his Gospel and she must maintain this Liberty now if the Governours of the Church either by themselves alone or with one part of the people will impose Rites and Ceremonies on the Church against the consent of the whole or part of the People without shewing sufficient reason for such imposition or any necessity from present urgent circumstances for such Rites and Customs this is a great usurpation and the people are deprived of the Liberty Christ purchased for them and bequeathed to them as a singular priviledge and therefore it doth greatly obstruct edification the end of a Church Now though every such imposition will not warrant separation presently yet when they are multiplyed and inforced with Rigour it overthroweth the Peace of a Church and so their edification and also tends to enslave the people to their Rulers and to open a Door for all the Rites and Ceremonies that Superstition or Tyranny can invent and therefore this is to be timely withstood enslaving the people destroys the end of Church Government and therefore frees men from a necessary Obligation to that Government To these causes of Separation which are the principal and most weighty we may add that when Parishes are grown so populous that no one place will hold them to hear the word and receive the Sacraments together that they cannot know each other generally much less perform the mutual offices of Fellow Members they may Lawfully divide themselves into more Congregations and if it can be done with general consent it is most for peace but if not men are not bound to hazard their Souls to gratify the Pride of others who had rather Thousands should perish Eternally for want of the necessary means of Instruction then their Dominion be lessened This we see sometimes done by the civil Magistrate viz large Parishes divided and if he will not do it when there is need the want of his concurrence cannot make it a Schism for the people to divide themselves These are the most ordinary and obvious causes of Separation from Churches and which will be most usefull for the ensuing discourse It is true Church Governours are as unwilling the people should have any liberty without them to provide for the edification of their Souls as Secular Powers are jealous of such a claim in their Subjects and they tell us as this Dr doth what confusion it leads to if the people should be judges of their Ministers Doctrines or Lives or of the commands of their Governours if they may in every case and according to their own fancies withdraw from them c. But here they fight with a Shadow no judicious man ever affirmed that the people may according to their fancies prejudices suspitions or light scruples withdraw from their Churches but what then must they withdraw in no case they gave themselves to Christ and not to their Ministers any further then as they dispense the Laws and Ordinances of Christ some inconveniencies will sometimes happen upon just separation it may be always as there is no publick change in any state though from worse to better but it is attended with some inconveniencies for a time especially to particular persons but if it be for the lasting good of the whole those inconveniences must be over-looked It was this Notion of not withdrawing from Churches and Governours almost upon any account that suffred so many errors corruptions and usurpations to grow upon the antient Church till at last they were all formed into the body of Popery for good men in those days complained of multitudes of Ceremonies pride and ignorance of Church Governours and such like growing evils but for fear of being accounted Novations or Donatists and out of an overweaning reverence of the Church they were afraid to make any effectual opposition against them and the same notion set's very fair to produce the same effect again we grant they must be very weighty cases that warrant Separation and such as do directly and necessarily overthrow the edificaion of a Church we grant also that people must wait a convenient time and use all peaceable means for reformation with all due respect and reverence of their Governours but if after all no reformation can be had people must not hazard the Salvation of their own Souls and the honour of Christ to please men and the greatest inconvenience that is like to follow upon such Separations is that it is like to make Church Governours more diligent in feeding the Flock and more cautious of imposing upon them and of ruling them with Rigour it will also make the people more carefull of their practises least they often offend their Brethren by their Scandals and cause them to avoid them for disorderly walking but what if the people having great offences and stumbling blocks laid in the way and great obstructions of their edification and instead of any Redress have Rehoboams Answer that more Burthens shall be added or Pharoahs Compassion that it is want of more severity in Laws and Government that makes people cry out for Indulgence and Relaxation what if in such cases the people sometimes withdraw from a Church either in part or wholly sooner then in strictness they should or then the wisest men who can bear longest would allow yet if this be really done for the edification of their Souls that they may enjoy the Ordinances with more profit and peace and they do not un-church those they withdraw from or refuse to own them as Brethren or to hold Brotherly Communion with them on just occasions certainly this can be accounted but an infirmity incident to the generallity of men for all have not patience or prudence alike nor do all understand the rules of Government and Societies yet all serious Christians have so much sence and prudence as to love their own Souls and to feel when they want Spiritual Food themselves and to pity and love all their true Christian Brethren and if God approved the defection of the Ten-Tribes from Rehoboam and forbad him to endeavour to reduce them by violence though they offended in the manner of their withdrawing he will not certainly condemn those who conscientiously withdraw from those Churhes where they cannot have edification or Christian Liberty though they may fail in some circumstances of their withdrawing And how they will Answer it who would have them reduced by the Sword and giving them over to the Devil when in the mean time they will remove none of their stumbling blocks themselves cast in their way let them seriously consider CHAP. III. The general Reasons of the Non-conformists for their
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
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
disown and disparage that Reformation which they had been engaged in for twenty year and to make themselves transgressors to reproach their Brethren that were dead to disparage all the Providences of God in their behalf and to villifie the success of their own Ministry and the growth of Religion and Sobriety in the Nation which they had seen and been instruments of and moreover to engage them against all endeavor of Reformation for the future and all those principles which their pious Predecessors had delivered to them And therefore they think he that can do this is a servant of men and not of Christ They do not justifie all proceedings in the endeavours for Reformation never any such thing was attempted without many infirmities in the best and transvers designs in selfish men There were never more Heresies Schismes and Superstitions in the Church then were in the Apostles dayes and those that immediately succeeded proportionable to the number of Christians the Gospel being then but setting up in the world But the Reformation it self being good and necessary and the effects of it as to Religion manifest they cannot revile or renounce without condemning those principles which animated them to bring in the King without regard of their own peersonal peace or interest It is said that Reformation wanted Authority it did so such as should make it National but selves and Rulers ought to protect them in it and not to trouble them for it or force them from it CHAP. VI. The Judgment and Practise of the present Non-conformists concerning Communion with and Separation from the Church of England HAving given the Principle Reasons why many Ministers both formerly and in this present Age cannot conform i. e. approve and subscribe to the Lyttergy of the Church of England as it contains all things belonging to Publick Worship It is needful that we set down what are their thoughts concerning their present case and what their practise ought to be in reference to the Church of England that their friends may not mistake and think they maintain principles of Anarchy and Confusion which if they did they would long since have come to nought and that their ill-willers may not have oportunity to slander them by misrepresenting them as enemies to all Government and as inconsistent with themselves as this Dr. hath done Therefore 1. The Non conformists conceive the case betwixt them and the Conformists Clergy to be much the same as betwixt the Lutherans and Calvinists in Germany or betwixt the Papists and Protestants since the Council of PTrent i. e. differences are come to the highest extremity under blood and that only because it is not in Clergy mens power and are utterly irreconcileable The Lutherans formerly had some men amongst them of some moderation and the things in question betwixt them and the Calvinists wer disputed and debated and men left to their liberty both in judgment and practice but when they got strength enough then they imposed their subscriptions deposed and imprissoned the Calvinists enveighed against them with all bitterness will admit of no treaties of Reconciliation and finally are so obstinately fixed in their own way as that they will much rather go three steps backwards to Rome then come one forwards toward the Calvinists the Papists also though they earnestly opposed the Reformation yet they maintained disputes and debates held conferences and consultations with our first Reformers and forbore violence at least by means of the Princes a good while so that there was hopes the Church might have been reformed without any fatal breach hCharles 5th then Emperour and Francis the 1st K. of France and others carnestly endeavouring to bring it about but when after all the Councill that had been desired on both sides met at Trent and excluded the Protestants from voting amongst them and established all the errours and corruptions of the Church of Rome which the Protestants condemned and cursed all the Doctrines and Practises of the Protestants point by point that they should have heard and examined And finally ordered all that should be ordained to the Ministry to subscribe to this Council There was now no more hope of Reformation of the Church or of pacification betwixt dissenting parties Thus the Non-conformist being of the same date with the Conformists Bishop Hooper Bish Coverdale Mr. Rogers Mr. Bradford with others of the first Reformers being dissatisfied with the established Lyturgy and still more and more successively in after Ages were at first treated like brethren and though the Lyturgy was established by Law by K. Edw. and Q. Eliz. yet they required not subcriptions to sit or approbation of it being content with a silent practise of what was enjoyned and very frequently passed over with silence the omission or non-practise of the Ceremonies and other things enjoined till Arch-Bishop Whitgifts dayes all which time the Non-comformists had still hopes things might have been accommodated and they appplied themselves to Princes and Parliaments to that end At length the Canons in 1605 made by the whole Convocation but with as fair play as those at Trent and ratified by the King established all things that the Non-comformists complained of and that not in the gross but point by point and fortified them with the Censures of the Church against all Dissenters and finally required all Ministers to approve the Lyturgy by subscription Whereupon many werer turned out at present and many kept from the Ministry nevertheless these subscriptions were private before the Bishops and Ordinaries who might and did frequently either omit the subscription or qualifie it with such interpretations that many who were in their Judgments Nonconformists could and did still get into and continue in places and those who were driven out of one Diocess were frequently suffered to preach in another and they who could not be ordained by Bishops would procure Ordination in other Protestant Countreys so that here was a little alleviation There was also one ground of hope elft viz. these Canons were not Law another King yea the same that approved them might have altered them and therefore the Non-conformists stretched their patience to the utmost hoping that at last their afflictions might be looked on by them that had power to remedy them and some appearance of it there was under the long Parliament especially when the King and they were upon terms of pacification But behold the Conclusion We have at length the private subscription to the Common prayer Book turned into a Publick solemn Declaration in the Congregation and that in prescript form of words that there may be no moderation And this to extend to the unfeigned approbation of the use of every thing contained in the Book And these Episcopal Canons turned into a standing law which equally extends to all parts of the Realm and to all times and ages successively as much as men can oblige them so that there can easily be no alteration And besides all this they must not only
of the Parishes any more then the Non-Residents may plead that they cannot reside with their own people or perform Ministerial duties to them because they must hold Communion with them amongst whom they dwell Thus the Dr in all his book hath said nothing directly to the question in hand but the Terms of Communion he saith are the same now as at the first Reformation but as to the Ministers this is apparently otherwise such Subscriptions and Declarations being required of them as no History can match except those imposed on the Jansenists in France of which ours seem to be an immitation The contrivers of our impositions being then in France when the Jansenists were removed from all Ecclesiastical Places by a like artifice as we afterwards were If he mean the Terms of Communion that concern the people as he elsewhere expresseth himself and restrains them to the Terms imposed by Law this is nothing to the purpose for the Ministers though they should submit to those terms when they act as private men may nevertheless be bound not to for sake the exercise of their Ministry Besides there is a Fallacy in restraining the Terms to those enjoyned by Law what if neither Ministers nor people can enjoy the benefit of the Law but new terms are imposed on them without Law as were the subscription to the Service Book Can. 36. whereby so many worthy Ministers were turned out in K. Jame's time the Reading of the book for Soorts on the Lords Day and the Reading of the Prayer against the Scots and the order for Preaching but once a Sabbath and then not to exceed an hour for disobeying which more were rejected in the late King's time and many such are still continued viz the constant Reading of the Communion Service though there be no Sacrament which makes the Prayers more tedious and fuller of Repitions then they need to be and also straitneth the Preacher if it do not hinder the Sermon the placeing the Communion Table and Railing it like an Altar and compelling the Communicants to come up by parcels to kneel before it contrary to Q. Eliz. injunctions must the people submit still because these things are imposed by Law do not innovations and corruptions come into the Church by degrees and by connivance at first and afterwards when their Authors are strong enough they are then established by Laws and Canons And yet the Argument holdeth not the things imposed might be submitted to at the first Reformation ergo they must be so still The Jewish Ceremonies were tolerated and practised by the Apostle Paul in the beginning of the Gospel and yet when false teachers and other peevish or timorous men contended for the observation of them still when the reason of it viz not offending the Jews was ceased and they were an hindrance to the Gospel then the same Apostle would not give place to them no not for an hour though Peter and Barnabas joyned with them Gal. 2.3.4.5 and ver 11. to the 18. Nor doth our practise reflect on our first Reformers unless they had been extraordinarily inspired to that work then indeed to vary from them or endeavour to correct them would be to reproach the Spirit by whom they acted But if they made that Reformation only as good and wise men acting according to Principles of Piety and Prudence as farr as they could in their circumstances it is no disparagement to them if others vary from them according to the times and circumstanees they live in My L. Bacon observes that in civil matters our Parliament does dayly alter our Laws Bacon 's Essays and suit them to the present times and case of the people yet this is thought no disparagement to the Wisdom or Justice of their Ancestours in former Parliaments but the Church â—â—eth almost buried in the Rubbish of time and this must not be removed out of Veneration forsooth to Antiquity The best men not inspired can but do what is best for their own time we should therefore inquire not only whether the terms of Communion be the same now that they were at the first Reformation but also whether those terms be as necessary as Tolerable and as fit to be submitted to now as they wre then Nor did our Reformers expect that their endeavours should be made an unalterable Standard to all posterity The exprest in their Preface to the Common-Prayer Book their mind this purpose viz. That they had done what they could in reforming the Church and the Liturgy according to their light and as their times would bear and that they hoped those that came after would be able to do more and go further This I have heard from divers Ancient and Credible Persons who remembred they had read this passage in the said Preface though it be now left out And it is the more unreasonable to urge the platform of the first Reformation as a Rule not to be altered though in disputable and mutable things because some of these Reformers both Ministers and People of that time disliked some things that were imposed and because they were yoked with some Papists who dissembled their Religion that they might both keep their places and more effectually hinder the Reformation as Bishop Cranmer is said to have complained How ever the thing was an unquestionable Truth Nor is it altogether true which he saith that the dislike of our Liturgy or Ceremonies was wholly brought from abroad by Hooper Rogers c. such as had travelled in Germany and Helvetia where Cranmer himself had also been a considerable time But it sprang up at home also together with the first seeds of the Reformation Almongst Wicklif's Opinion recited by Mr. Fox and charged on him by his Adversaries there by many pieces of the present Non-Con-formity relating to Discipline and Ceremonies * Church Hist Cont. and Dr. Fuller reports that in the latter end of K. Henry 8th many Articles were complained of in the Convocation as being now common among the People as against Lent most of the Ceremonies and such like It is natural for Christians not only to desire to hear true Doctrine and to have true Worship but to have that Doctrine and worship maintained by such Discipline and expressed by such Ceremonies or Circumstances as are allowed by it and agreeable to it and not by exotick things of mans device and humour It is true then Conformity and Non-conformity were Twins conceived and Born together in the Womb of our Church and it is as true that Non-Conformity put forth its hand first though Conformity had the hap first to break and to be Midwifed into into the world by Law But indeed is it a Reflection on our first Reformers to desire to mend what they were not peremptory in and some of them disliked And is it no dishonour to them to change the Doctrine then establisht in chief Articles of Faith viz. the Pelagian and Arminian points which have so long reigned amongst us And
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
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
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
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
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