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-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
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
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
owning of their sufferings and themselves in them when they are for the same general or more particular cause 9. They are sure that the Ministers and Peoples adhereing to each other in such a case is agreeable to Scripture which makes Mininisters the sole Governours of the Church as it is a spiritual Common-Wealth under Christ and gives the people the sole power of gathering themselves into Congregations for their own best edification and to chuse their own Ministers 10. And they are sure that the practise is agreeable to the practise of the Universal Church both before and after they were under Christian Magistrates till the Pope at once wrested from the Magistrates their supream power in their Dominions and from the Churches all their authority of Governing themselves and as the ruine of Religion followed thereupon in the Church all things being disposed of by the Lusts of the Bishop of Rome so there would be no way to prevent the like should all be left to the wills of the Civil Magistrate or a few Church men that guide and influence him 11. As a people under Usupers in their Civil-Rights may and ought to provide what they can for their own liberties and safety till they can recover their ancient priviledges and rightfull Governnours still doing nothing against the publick good so they think the people of England being under great usurpation and oppression in Ecclesiastical Government are bound to provide the best they can for their own Souls and the Principle Ends of a Church till Right and Truth may take place still having respect to the general good and peace of the Church Upon these principles many Non-conformists still keep to their own Congregations some gather new ones and become Pastors to them and some preach to Assemblies of people that voluntarily come to hear them without taking full pastoral charge of them yet all maintain a brotherly communion with the Parishes and Ministers of the Church of England not forbiding their people to hear and own them as brethren and occasionally at least to hold Communion with them in all things that are not against their Consciences Now if from these principles or this practise the Dr. can convince the Non-conformists of Schisme or sinful seperation or allowing that in the people which they are not satisfied in themselves They would gladly accept his endeavours herein but will not be concerned with such that have sold their Consciences to get a poor livelihood by defending what ever the Rulers say or do CHAP. VII An Answer to some passages in the Drs Sermon tending to prove the Non-conformists Preaching to be Schisme by their own Principles VVE will now briefly consider what the Dr. Rhetorically insinuates rather then argues against the Non conformists preaching in private though they are driven out of the Churches 1. To object That they acknowledge the Church of England to be true in Doctrine Sacraments and Worship Serm. p. 21. 2. That the Parishes of England at least some of them are true Churches 3. That it is lawful to hold Communion with them sometimes and upon occasion Answ 1. All this will prove no more than that the Non-conformists ought not to unchurch the Parishes of England or to account their Ministers and Sacraments Null or to disown the people to be their brethren as some of the Brownists are said to do 2. The Dr hath given much occasion in his Writings to many to think that he granteth as much of the Church of Rome as he here saith the Non-conformists do of the Church of England viz. that it is true in Doctrine Sacraments and Worship that the Parishes are true Churches and that it is simply lawful to hold occasional communinon with them for they have the true Doctrine Sacraments and worship for the substantials of them though defaced in circumstances and many corruptions added to them yet he will not say that it was not lawful yea necessary to break off from her and to oppose her 3. The question betwixt the Dr. and the Non-conformists is whether the Non-conforming Ministers and people are bound silently to bear the usurpation of the Bishops over them in imposing unlawful and un-necessary things upon them and casting them out of the Church for non submission and not rather both to assert their own Rights and Priviledges against such usurpation The Parishes being true Churches and occasional communion in unquestionable things being lawful is nothing to this purpose And if the Non-conformists are more charitable and fair towards the Conformists who are the great Schisme makers by their rigorous impositions of things they confess un-necessary than the Conformists are to them who are passive in the breach and yet they will hold no Communion with them They think this should not be made an argument against themselves Serm. p. 30. 4. The Dr. hath cited a pertinent example though he thought to anticipate us in it The people of Constantinople he saith when Chrysostome their Bishop was thrust out and banished for doing his duty and Arsaeius imposed on them in his room refused to joyn with him This is the Non-conformists case But saith he when Atticus restored Chrysostom's name to the Dipticks of the Church then they returned to their ancient Communion and Chrysostom advized them to it And when the Bishops will acknowledge as Atticus here did that the Non-conformists were wronged and those that were put in their places were intruders and consequently take off the yoke of Conformity then they will do as the people of Constantinople did till then this example justifies the Non-conformists 5. Though the Non-conformists allow Parish Congregations and the Parishes of England not to be disowned on that account from being true Churches yet the Dr. knows that those very men whom he quotes as most complying with him do deny those Parishes to be true Organical Churches whose Ministers have not power of Governing their people or ought for their Doctrines and lives to be expelled the Ministry 6. The Non-conformists do not say it is lawful to hold occasional Communion in all things with the Parishes but only in the substantials of worship nor with all Parishes but with those only where they may joyn with some edification And because wise and learned men can distinguish the good from the evil they may joyn with many Ministers occasionally when the people may not for fear of their errours or because of their railing and reproaches of their brethren or Godliness by which this people will either be infected or disturbed so that they can receive no benefit 2. The Dr. Argues If occasional Communion be Lawful it is hard to understand that constant Communion should not be a Duty Answ I allow him to mean amongst us who were once fellow Members of the same Parishes else his words have no force But the Non-Conformists allow of Occasional Communion to maintain Love and Peace amongst the People and Ministers that are peaceable and to shew that they do not
esteem the Impositions of the Church of England to be of so high a Nature as the Corruptions of Rome and that they should break off all Communion from them But if the ejected Ministers have still aright to their people and the people to them and both are bound to oppose in their places the Uniformity imposed with such Circumstances as it is and as they maintain it will not at all follow that from occasional Brotherly Communion they must become constant Members of the Parishes and be content with their Communion 3. The Dr. frequently hints Authority and Government to which we must be subject and therefore if they eject Ministers they must become Lay-men and not Preach In this he speaks sometimes of the Authority of the Church and sometimes of the Civil Magistrate Answ And because this is a snare to many mens Consciences We answer freely 1. That the Authority of the Church of England as a Church hath no Obligation on the Consciences of Non-Conformists any further then prudence and peace doth direct them for the Bishops Deans c. which are the Rulers of it supposing them Lawful yet being no way chosen by the People or Inferiour Clergy can have no Lawful Ecclesiastical Authority over this Church especially being alwaies protested against by a considerable part of the Ministers and People nor can the Lyturgy or any thing else they impose oblige the Ministers and People being not advized with in such Impositions nor heard speak for themselves Two Thousand Ministers as Orthodox diligent learned and every way considerable as their Opposites and pleading for no other things then many such Ministers have pleaded for from the beginning of our Reformation are not therefore bound in Conscience to submit to the Wills of the Bishops because they prevailed with the Civil Power to establish their Opinion 2. The Civil Magistrate hath Power to maintain and protect the Church and to see that she doth her Duty but to impose forms of Worship on her without the advice and against the consent of those who are most concern'd He hath no power given him of God much less to infringe her Priviledges and Liberties to rend away her Pastors at pleasure or to impose whom he please on her and the like And where there is no Authority to command that command cannot oblige to obedience Indeed where small things are enjoyned that are not sinful men may obey if prudential Reasons lead them to it But if small things will usher in great ones and obedience will make way for more imposition It was the Apostles Judgment in a like case concerning the practise of the Jewish Ceremonies that such Imposers should be resisted Gal. 2.11 12. Should our King of himself impose a Tax of a Farthing Pole would not many suspect it might if peaceably paid make way for greater Taxes and so undermine their Liberties in Parliament Why should not men be as jealous of the Liberties and Priuiledges of the Church which concern the Honour of Christ and their own Souls good especially knowing that the Western Church was ruined and defaced by the Pope meerly by yielding and patient bearing of gradual Impositions and encroachments in the better sort and the worser sort complying and crying for Obedience to the Authority of the Church and Governours Serm. p. 19. 4. The Dr. saith that we confess the case of the people is very different from that of the Ministers and therefore that they run into Schism in hearing us though we for some Sinister ends will not tell them of their errour Answ Interest and passion will not suffer men to speak of such things as they are concerned in without uncharitable and un-scholer like reflections sometimes which I will pity rather then retort And to the thing we answer That the Peoples case is indeed much different from the Ministers as to Active Conformity i. e. They are not to Assent or Consent to all in the Service Book nor to subscribe as the Ministers must in order to their holding Communion but passively the people are concerned as far as the Ministers i. e. They are to suffer all these things Their Ministers to be cast out and all Impositions which they and their Fathers groaned under to be enjoyned with the greatest rigour and not shew their dislike of any of them upon pain of being accounted Schismaticks according to the 27 Canon So that the people are as much wronged and imposed on in their Capacities as the Ministers are in theirs We grant that the People may hear and see those things done in Divine Service and so may Ministers also as private men which conscientious Ministers ought not to be active in As our Saviour was present at the Temple Worship though there were many Superstitions mixed by the Priests in those days but what men may do in some cases they are not obliged to do in all cases and people cannot be obliged to suffer any sinfull or doubtfull things in the worship they joyn in unless there be some great reason why they may not forsake that worship Now the Non-Conformists affirm that the people are obliged in their capacities to endeavour reformation of things amiss in the Church and to own that Reformation they had obtained and to withstand the unjust intolerable imposition of the last uniformity as much as the Ministers are to do all these in their places And therefore as it is no Schism for the Ministers to preach so neither is it any for the people to hear That we may plainly express the sence of the Non-Conformists in this point and that the Dr may no more mistake their Principles and so labour in vain to convince them They say as Harnbeck adviseth the Cabornist in reference to the Lutherans That good and peaceable men of each party should love each other and hold as much Brotherly Communion together as may be but no more to endeavour any publick Reconciliation or Union which the Heads and Leaders of the party have so often frustrated and opposed till God will give them a more Moderate Spirit and some fit reason may incline them to Union The Question betwixt them and the Dr plainly is 1. Whether a multitude of Ministers being turned out of the Church to her great and apparent damage without so much as alledging any Crime against them but only imposing new things on them on purpose to ensnare them whether these Ministers are bound to lay down their Ministry and live private and not rather to assert their own and the Churches Rights 2. Whether the People thus wrongfully deprived of their Ministers and imposed upon also against their own Judgments and Conscience in matters of Divine worship whether they are bound to submit to the Intruders and Imposers and not rather to joyn with their injured Ministers in asserting their own priviledges The Dr's candour is too great to deny that the reason of Scripture and the practise of the best antiquity before the Churches lost their
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-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
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
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-Church-Communion and as to the form of them their Ministers being true Ministers such as for their Doctrine or manners do not deserve to be degraded 2. That the Doctrine Worship and Sacraments in these Parishes are for substance sound and wholesome though there are some offensive things mixed in them and annexed to them 3. That they are still Members of these Parishes the people of those where they live and the Ministers so far as not to be obliged to set up distinct and permanent Churches nevertheless they think themselves bound to joyn together for the Worship of God according to their own Consciences and publick allowance for some years past desiring and waiting for an opportunity to return fully to the Parish-Communion when ever it shall please their Rulers to condescend to their reasonable request in relaxing or removing those things which are so offensive to them and in this their practise they judge they do no more then the Primitive Churches often did when erroneous or otherwise unfit Pastours were obtruded on them or other differences arose amongst them whereupon the Congregations were often divided as in Rome Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople with divers other places and then when those offences and differences were removed they returned to full eommunion again or as did the Church of Israel when by Jeroboams Apostacy they could not go up to Jerusalem with safety or other times could not communicate there because of Corruptions under some Kings of Judah who then held private Assemblies for the present necessity and when all obstacles were removed again went up to Jerusalem even many of the Ten Tribes in Hezekiah and Josiah's time when their own Idolatrous Princes were removed and they could do it without danger though they were still subject to Idolatrous Conquerors but such who lived remote and gave them more Liberty of Religion then their own Princes did We judge our case to be like a case of necessary self defence where present necessity is the Guide and Law-giver and ordinary Laws and orders which are proper for times of peace are in a great measure supersedent When a Kingdom is invaded or divided within it self all things threaten ruine it is lawful for the people to gather into several Bodies to possess Garrisons to chose them Leaders and for fit men to undertake their conduct though without though contrary to some present commands that may be unduly obtained and given yet they shall incur no guilt of Sedition nor Rebellion so long as they design nothing but the preservation of themselves and the whole as far as they can and are ready to return to their own places so soon as peace shall give them leave When an Army is in danger to be betrayed by the falsehood or division of the principal Officers or when it hath lost its Generals in some defeat it would not be accounted mutiny for the Soldiers to run together as they can and with the help of inferiour Officers to preserve themselves from being sold or destroyed provided they still retain a resolution of returning to the Body of the Army when they may with safety to the whole and to themselves Thus the Non-Conformists lie under such a necessity they conceive for the Reasons laid down in the former part ch 6 and 7. which it may not be amiss for a conclusion briefly to sum up 1. There is now no reason to be pretended for the imposed Conformity In K. Edw. dayes the Bishops their Clergy and People made it necessary to retain what was then retained now 't is not so generally desired In Queen Elizabeths days there was hopes of winning of the Papists by our moderation now there is none but more danger of their incroaching upon us by it 2. The Dissenters from this Conformity were heretofore but few now they are a very considerable part of the Church I will make no comparison Formerly the Ministers were generally censured as Puritans and were but few the people likewise but two or three in a great Town now they are Multitudes and those who are zealous for Conformity appear fewer then those who would be glad to have it reproved at least in all places that are most civilized 3. Conformity hath occasioned a woful Division and Scandal in our Church ever since the Reformation and therefore ought not after so much Experience of the evil of it and also after plain evidence of benefit and advantage to Religion by the removal of it for some years to have been again so rigorously enjoyned 4. The things in Question though not of the highest nature in themselves yet by occasion of the Division they cause at home and the advantage the Papists make of it have endangered our
being the divinely inspired Law of the Church which they are to interpret and apply but seeing interpretation and application of the Scriptures is their work and every ordinance doth imply this more or less they ought not to be tyed generally and strictly to certain forms of words wherein to express themselves unless they were of divine inspiration and if all that Ministers were to say to the people was prescribed them as it might be in all as well as in those things wherein the Liturgy doth prescribe to them then the Ministry might be a calling as others are that men might in a common way take up to read all divine service but certainly there would need no solemn ordination or consecration to this office with Fasting Prayer and imposition of hands more then to any other calling 2. They object against our Liturgy that the matter of it and words also are generally taken out of the Service Books of Rome viz the Mass-book Ceremoniale Pontificale Romanum and that the form of it viz. the manner and order of the service is too much conformed to yea little different from the Popish Mass or Service now they say God in the Law refused to be served with any of the Forms Modes Ceremonies Customs Vessels or Utensils wherewith Idols had been served yea though the things were some indifferent Rites and Customs and which the idolatrous thought founded upon reason and nature and the vessels were of Materials of his own making It is true what is Scripture and from Scripture must be used though it was abused by Papists whatsoever is founded-upon divine institution comes from the word not from the Church of Rome but to keep to their Words Order Method c. seems too great respect to that Church and that service They knew very well there was no legal pollution upon the Words or Ceremonies because they had been used by the Papists as there was upon the Idols Utensils under the Law wherefore they might not be converted to mens private use but must be destroyed but to translate their service into our Church in things wherein we have the same liberty of composing forms and methods for our selves as any others have this seems too great a respect to that idolatrous Church from whence they came too easy a passing by all the Pollutions and Tyranny with which they had defiled and tormented the Church of Christ too great an acknowledgement of her as a worthy or eminent Church from whom we should take a pattern of our worship all which were certainly displeasing to God and by this symbolizing with Rome in our worship we harden the Papists as if we differed from them but in circumstantial things we keep in mind there ways and worship and so continually expose the people to the danger of returning to Popery and also reflect upon the reformed Churches chusing Rome for our Pattern keeping so near to her whereas they have all utterly cast her of and composed new forms of worship for themselves out of the Scripture nor can there be any other reason given why England above all other reformed Churches is so much sollicited to and in danger of relapsing into Popery from age to age but that her publick service and Church Government is so much like to that of Rome that the Papists think they may easily perswade us to receive all the rest seeing we are so zealous to retain so much of their Religion 3. They thought our Liturgy very defective in the publick Prayers partly in that there are very few things mentioned in them and those very generally either in the confessions of sinsor petitions for Mercies especially Spiritual and the Letany which is something more large and particular yet comes not near the secret wants of mens Souls mentioneth things so briefly and suddenly passeth over to others of a different nature that there is no time for mens thoughts to reflect on them or their Hearts to be affected with them which is one special end of Prayer and partly because of the abrupt breaking off and dividing one Petition from another into several Prayers most of the Collects containing but one single Petition or two at most this breaks off intention and affection neither is there any order among the Prayers or coherence of Petitions and some Petitions are repeated often in the same service yea some whole Prayers especially when the Letany is read there is a very needless repetition of almost all the Prayers for if that be comprehensive of all necessary things what need other Prayers be used at that time these defects viz confusedness incoherence tautologies in words or sence going backwards and forwards c. are objected as intolerable in the Prayers of particular Ministers who yet may out-grow such weakness and pray with better method and to better edification they are not then to be excused in the Church Liturgy where no man hath power to correct or alter any thing and Rulers are very unwilling to yield to amendments for fear of confessing something to have been amiss before 4. They were not satisfied with the Responses that the people should audibly speak after the Minister or alternately with him this lesseneth the gravity and seriousness of the Service hindreth the exercise of Thoughts and Affections in the people and makes the worship more like a Dramatick Action wherein every one acts their part and must wait for their Q. or time of speaking and silence rather then like the solemn service of God 5. They dislike the frequent repetitions of the Lord's Prayer which in every Morning and Evening service is twice used and once for every office that is added to them as when the Letany is read or the Communion Service or a woman Churched or a Child Baptized or a Marriage Solemnized or a Person buryed so that it is not unusual to rehearse the Lords Prayer five or six times before the Liturgy service be finished and yet the Minister must use it in the Pulpit after all They could not conceive any reason or excuse to be given for this custome but a superstitious conceit of that form of words almost turning them into the Nature of a Charm as if they could not be used too often and the very use of them made all other service the more acceptable 6. The corrupt Translations of the Scripture used in the Liturgy that there may and ever will be impersections in and doubts about Translation of Scripture whilst mens Knowledge is imperperfect and their Judgments diverse is granted by all but the Translations in the Liturgy in the Psalms Epistles and Gospels are grosly corrupt some contrary to the sence of the Text and in some places whole Verses omitted and the Titles of all Psalms are left out which in the Hebrew are the first verse of the Psalms and very necessary for the understanding of them therefore to oblige men to read these Translations only in the Church Service even when we have
a better and publickly authorized Translation they judg'd it a matter of no small Offence 7. The Reading of the Apochryphal Scriptures as parts of the publick worship and that without any distinction from the Canonical They accounted it an intolerable thing that Fables and Fictions should be solemnly Read to the People with the same Reverence as the Word of God and such are many of the Apocryphal Books and the rest being only of Humane Authority the reading of them ought not to be made a Solemn part of Divine Worship The Conformists say that Reading the Scripture is Preaching and the Non-conformists say it is not fit meer Humane or Fabulous writings should be preached to God's People when they meet to Worship him by hearing his word Above all they were offended that a great deal of the Holy Scriptures is left out of the Liturgy and so never to be Read in the Congregation and Apocryphal Chapters put in their Room 8. Holy-days or Festivals in the honour of Saints They would not deny but if the Church thought fit they might observe the days of Our Saviours Nativity Passion Resurrection Ascension and sending the Holy Ghost as other Protestant Churches do provided they might be kept seriously and not made of the same necessity with the Sabbath but when all divine worship of the Creatures is Idolatrous and the keeping of days in Honour of them as well as Building Temples to them was ever reckoned a part of Divine Honour and to be sure is more Honour then ever God commanded or allowed to any of his Servants They knew not how to excuse this practice that it should be a part of a Churches Liturgy 9. Nor could they approve the Doctrines of the certain Regeneration of all in Baptism and that Infants dying after Baptism before the Commission of actual sin are undoubtedly saved which are laid down in the Liturgies as undoubted Articles of Faith whereas there is no Scripture that clearly proveth either of them and at best they are points disputed on by Learned men on both sides Nor could they excuse the practice of refusing Parents to promise for their own Children in Baptism seeing it is upon their Account only and Gods Covenant with them that the Children are admitted to be Baptized and they are thereby engaged to breed them up in Faith and Obedience much less that Strangers should receive the charge of the Baptized who have no authority over them who neither care what they promise nor are ever called to account how they perform their promise for if they should few would undertake the charge and so this custom would fall to the ground 10. They excepted against the Ordination of Deacons to read Divine Service Baptize and Bury and to preach with special License this they say was to create a new fort of office in the Church which Christ never appointed nor gave his Ministers Authority to appoint it Deacons were to look after the poor and that was all their work and though the Primitive Christians sometimes used them to read the Scriptures in the Congregation yet they never ordained them to this as an office yea though they should be admitted to read Prayers to Marry or Bury yet this is no sacred office appointed by Christ that should constitute a distinct order of Ministers and if as grave and prudent persons they might be admitted to do these offices either for want of Ministers or to assist them yet may they by no means be suffered to Baptize it being as peculiar to the Ministry as to administer the Lords Supper and the admission of Members into the Church as sacred and solemn a work as to confirm and Build up the Members of it These were the principal objections of the Non-conformists against the Liturgy which were some of them at least exemplified and confirmed by many particulars of lesser moment in themselves but all tending to make their desire of a Reformation of the Service Book to seem reasonable and the work necessary Rea. 2. The Second thing the Old Non-conformists disliked in the Church of England was the Government of it by Prelates i. e. Bishops with sole power of Jurisdiction Many of the Old Non-conformists thought Episcopacy utterly unlawfull and an usurpation not to be born but the rest who looking upon it as a humane constitution as our Law doth thought it Lawfull and that it might be submitted to did yet dislike our Episcopacy partly because of the secular grandure power and imployments our Bishops were invested with which made them unable and unwilling to discharge the office of a Pastour in the Church partly because the Church hath nothing to do in their election except an empty shew and therefore persons were most commonly prefer'd not for true Episcopal Qualifications but because they could make interest with Superiours but principally because the Bishops arrogated to themselves the whole power of governing the Church and excluded all the Ministers from any share therein a thing most unexcusable in them who acknowledge themselves to be of the same order with the Presbyters and only in a degree of honour above them and that by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate Whereas even those that with any probability or sobriety maintain the Divine Right of Episcopacy do nevertheless acknowledge that he may neither ordain nor govern without the advice and consent of his Presbyters This was look'd upon as intollerable that the power of governing the Church which was committed by Christ to all his Ministers should be wrested from them generally by a few of their Brethren And that they who are thought fit to dispense the Word and Sacraments the cheif keys of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby men are brought to the Faith admitted into the Church and bnilt up in it should not have power to censure offenders and to receive the Penitent again to Communion which are things of lesser moment and depending on the former and yet without which the former could not be managed in a fit manner for Edification By this means Ministers are deprived of one half of their Office and Power and are both discouraged and hindered in the other half For who will regard their Preaching who have not Liberty to judge what persons are fit to be admitted into the Church or who in it deserves censure or to be cast out of it And the Bishops themselves in undertaking the whole work of Governing the Church took that upon them which they never could nor did manage for the Churches Edification R. 3d. The Non-Conformists were much dissatisfied about the Discipline of the Church both in respect of the Rule of it and the Officers that manage it The Rule they say is not taken out of the Scripture which is the only Rule and Law of Christ's Church but it is the Roman Civil and Canon Law which at best were suited to their own times and People in many things very defective and in others erroneous and superstitious There
the Sacraments and no other The Bishop knew that the Non-Conformists thought the Cross in Baptism prescribed in the Common Prayer Book unlawfull and against the Word of God and that some of them thought the order of Bishops unlawfull also and all of them the order of Deacons as prescribed by that Book and yet here they must subscribe not only that they will use the book and no other form in publick but that it contains nothing contrary to the Word of God This subscription was not only imposed on those that should hereafter be ordained but it is also decreed that no man shall be suffered to Preach or Catechize or be a Lecturer or read any Lecture in Divinity in the Universities Cathedral or Colligiate Churches or in City Market Town Church or Chappel whatsoever within this Realm unless he first subscribed to this Article with two others contained in this Cannon and by means hereof many worthy Ministers were quickly turned out of their Livings though the Lawyers generally declared that it was against the Laws of the Land that any man should be turned out of his Free-hold such as Ministers Livings are without an Act of Parliament and to make all sure they ordained Cannon 55 that Preachers before all Sermons Lectures or Homilies should only invite the people to pray naming a few heads of Prayer which respect the publick only and none concerning the people in particular so that now no other Prayer must be used in publick but those in the Service Book which made the Burthen more intolerable Moreover in this Book of Canons they ordain that Ministers shall admit none to the Lords Supper that will not kneel or that come not to the Prayers or that speak against the Book of Common Prayer or Ceremonies or the book of Consecration of Bishops Can. 27. c. Till they acknowledge their Fault in word or writing if they can That Fathers shall not be God-Fathers to their own Children nor so much as urged to be present at their Baptism In a word all that the Bishops knew that the Non-Conformists were dissatisfied with Can. 29. in the Service Book were established by these Cannons and they rigorously prosecuted upon them from that time viz 1603 to 1640. For the Government of the Church by Bishops and administration of that Government by Lay-Chancellours Commissaries c. in Q. Eliz. time the Governours were contented with a peaceable submission from the Non-Conformists but under K. James the Cannons fore-named enjoyned all Ministers to subscribe that there was nothing in the Book of Consecration of Bishops Priests and Deacons contrary to the Word of God And now B. Billson and B. Andrews pleaded for the Divine Right of Episcopacy and B. Laud imposed an Oath commonly called the Oath Caetera upon the Clergy whereby they should promise not to endeavour to alter the Government of the Church as it was established by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans c. And thus all the moderation that had been used by the former Bishops in pressing things scrupled was turned into the most rigorious imposition of them yea and of additions to them also as if Rohoboam's success should terrify no man from acting according to his answer to the People that he would add to their burthens and change their Whips into Scorpions and this leads to the next reason of the Dissent of those former Non-Conformists Rea. 6. The Tyrannical Imposition of the Lyturgy and all that belonged to it was a great means to increase their dissatisfaction There had been a passage in the Preface of the Common Prayer book that the first Reformers had gone as farr as they could in reforming the Church considering the times they lived in and they hoped those that came after them would as they better might do more And indeed this was the Ground of the submission and patience of the Non-Conformists viz a perswasion that the first Reformers at least the best of them did not intend their moddle as a ne plus ultra and therefore they still hoped that by Patience and peaceable endeavours things might by begrees be brought to a better pass accordingly they presented an admonition to the Parliament Anno 1570. And again a Petition to K. James called the Millinary Petition for ease and redress but alas as that passage of the Reformers is left out of the Preface to the service book so the expungers of it fixed a just contrary mark to themselves which they aim at to this day in all their proceedings viz that there was no necessity of any farther Reformation then what was established by Q. Eliz. and that all must be compelled to approve of that as sufficient and to submit to the Rules of it The better to prosecute this design they have ever laboured to set the Princes against the Non-conformists and themselves have used the Spiritual Sword chiefly against them they did what they could to prejudice that Excellent Princess Q. Eliz. against them so that in her Reign especially when Whitgift was Arch-Bishop the Non-Conformists were turned out of Universities as Dr Sampson Dean of Christs-Church in Oxford Mr Cartwright Margarite Professour at Cambridge and many others many were turned out of Livings some worthy men imprisoned and Mr John Vdall Minister of Kingston upon Thames was sentenced to dye for high Treason against the Queen in Defaming her Government which saith Dr Fuller was somewhat hard being but a remote consequence for all that was alledged against him was that in a Preface to a certain book he had sharply taxed the Remissness of the Bishops Government And now such was the Rigour of Prosecutions against the Non-Conformists and the remisness of Discipline toward the ignorant and scandalous both Ministers and People that it gave occasion to many to separate from and renounce the Church of England as no true Church who were then called Brownists when K. James came to the Crown the Bishops so quickly incensed him against the Dissenters that in the conference at Hampton-Court appointed on purpose to hear their exceptions he would scarce give them leave to speak he sent them away with taunts and threats and often declared that were men never so able and pious yet the Church had better want their labours then have her Orders broken by their Non-Conformity which maxime I am sorry to find Dr Stillingfleet to espouse Under K. Charles the 1st the Bishops had so wholly engaged the civil power in their cause that it was almost the only concern of the Government how to bring all the Non-Conformists in England to submit or to leave the Land and to bring Ireland to the same plat-form with England and to set up Bishops Lyturgies and Ceremonies in Scotland and now Ministers and People were driven many thousands into New-England Holland and other Forreign Parts they were suspended silenced deprived of their Livings imprisoned fined set in the Pillory stigmatized had their ears cut off banished into remote Islands and many
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
that our nearness to Rome would endanger our returning to her again and seeing Conformity it self to Law and Canons would signify little unless a man would go beyond both in obedience to his Superiours to promote the new design This was the case of the old Non-Conformists till the long Parliament stopped the stream upon the whole we may observe the case betwixt our former Non-Conformists and the Church of England was the same in substance as betwixt the Brethren of Bohemiah and the Calixtines the Calvinists and Lutherans in Germany the Bohemian Calextines if the Pope would grant them the Cup in the Sacrament and three or four more reformations of abuses in the Roman Church they thought it reformation enough and that they need go no farther and they would compell the brethren who were for a total desertion of Rome to be of the same mind and practise with them and that by force of Arms. The Lutherans in Germany having only reformed the Doctrine of the Church and the Idolatry of the Mass and cast off the Popes Tyranny and some other corruptions of Rome yet retained Adoration of the Sacrament kneeling to it Surplices Images Holy days and could not be content to do this themselves unless they could perswade and inforce all Protestants to do so likewise Hence they will not own the Calvinists as brethren nor hold any Communion with them nor receed from any thing they had taken up but rather proceed to take in more of the Popish Doctrines as those we call Arminianism and have often treated seriously some of them about reconciliation with the Papists but always frustrated yea detested any endeavours of it with the Calvinists Thus the Conformists of England have contended so much for their Liturgy and Service and Government c. That they would compell all to be content with the same moddle with themselves and would not suffer any to be Ministers or Members of the Church that would desire any further reformation and at last come to this pitch that they would rather take in more of Rome yea reconcile with her upon some terms than abate any thing to their brethren Nor were these the actions of a few particular men but of all the Heads of the Church Arch-Bishops and Bishops generally age after age The worst of their principle and practises were never condemned by the Church but made the way to the highest preferments so that the moderation of a few amongst them will no more excuse the Church of England then a few sober Papists may excuse the Church of Rome CHAP. IV. The Non-conformists instified in their Principles by Scripture Antiquity and the Example of all Reformed Churches THe Non-conformists as they gave the forenamed reasons why they could not approve of or subscribe to the Constitutions of the Church of England so they supposed that this their dissent was not grounded upon meer scruples and weakness of judgement though their Opposites love to impute it to such Causes but they alleadged for themselves the Authority of Scripture and the Examples both of the Primitive and the late Reformed Churches 1. From the Scriptures they pleaded that there was neither command example nor shadow of any Liturgy i. e. prescript form of words wherein all the publick worship of God should be administred either in the Old or New Testament under the Law the externals and circumstances of Gods worship were much more prescribed and limitted than under the Gospel as the place the Tabernacle or Temple time Morning and Evening yet was it never commanded that all the Priests and People should use the same form of words in prayer when and where ever they met There is indeed a form of blessing the people when the Assembly was to be dismissed but that consisted in but a few words nor can it be proved that they used always those very words or that it was so intended in the command Num. 6.22 to the end the same words are often used in Scripture to signifie the same sence or to that purpose not the same Syllables and so it is in all Authors nor is there any form of words prescribed wherein men should confess their sins over the Sacrifices or wherein Circumcision or the Passover should be administred but on the contrary we find David Solomon Jehosaphat Hazekiah Ezra the Levites in Nehemiah's time and others prayed pro re nata according to the occasion as their own hearts directed them And therefore it seems as God did not command so neither did the Jewish Church make and enjoyn any stated Liturgie unless any shall unhappily take the Superstious and ridiculous Liturgy of the present Jews to have been used amongst them from the beginning Certainly there is no footsteps of any such thing in our Saviours time who duly kept to the rules of Gods worship and broke no good orders of the Church The Apostles also as long as they could frequented the Jewish Temple and Synagogues but of any Platforms of Prayer or Service other then the institutions of the Law we find no memorial Now if the Jewish Priesthood were able to discharge their Office without prescript forms of words and that people might be safely committed to their Priests in the exercise of each mans own gifts how much better may it be done and such liberty granted both to Ministers and People under the Gospel where the Spirit of God and the means of knowledge are given much more abundantly Nor are there more evidences of any Liturgy in the New Testament then their was in the old either prescribed by Christ or his Apostles or used by them or commanded to future Churches Nor any rule laid down whereupon Churches might ground their practise of framing and imposing such Lyturgies But we read that when our Lord Jesus ascended into Heaven he gave gifts to men Eph. 4.16 c. viz. Apostles Prophets and Evangelists to lay the foundation of his Church and Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting the Saints for the work of the Ministry till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature in Jesus Christ ver 12 13. from whence it seemeth plain that our Lord Jesus Christ thought it sufficient to appoint a standing Ministry to take care of his Church to the end of the world and to furnish them with the gifts of his Spirit to edifie the people and to keep the unity of the faith with out requiring or authorizing them to make Lyturgies whereby to fetter themselves or others Moreover the Scriptures give neither command example nor countenance to the peoples answering in Publick worship more then Amen only at the close of Publick Prayer It is probable that the Singers in the Temple standing Ward against Ward did sing alternately i. e. one rank one sentence and another rank another as they do in our Cathedrals but this was not the people and they were an Order
first Churches pretend to make new Officers or constitute any Government other then Christ appointed Presbyters and Deacons are the Church Officers which they owned indeed there is frequent mention of Bishops in Antient Authors but Augustine 400 years after Christ saith that a Bishop was but titulus honoris a name of honour given to one Minister above the rest but that they were all alike and his contemporary Hierome olim Ecclesiae Communi Presbyterorum concilio regebantur that Churches were governed by the common consent of the Presbytery and of the practise of his own time he saith quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod non facit Presbyter nothing but Ordination was appropriated to the Bishop the Presbyters did every thing else as well as he Jerom. Epist ad Evag. divers learned men never yet answered have proved that all antiquity acknowledged Bishops and Presbyters to be but one order of Ministers and our Dr thought it once impossible certainly to state what was the Government of the Primitive Church but this is certain that in Cyprians time Anna Christi 250 the Bishop did nothing in the Government without the consent of his Clergy and approbation of the people and to them Cyprian ascribeth even to the common people the cheif power of choosing and refusing their Bishops Epist 4. and of withdrawing from them that were unworthy so that all that hath been said in the defence or excuse of our prelacy with sole power of government administred by Lay-men is nothing to the purpose when we dispute whether Christ appointed or the Primitive Church had Bishops seeing all sides agree that That Church never had such Bishops and such Discipline or any Bishops at all but what were chosen by the Clergy and people for near a Thousand years 3. Nor do the Reformed Churches retain those things which our Non-conformists scruple They all wholy laid aside both the substance and the Form of the Roman service Their Lyturgie Responses short prayers repetitions Ceremonies and use of the Apocryphal writings also their Government and Discipline except the Lutherans who retain many of their Ceremonies and Holy-dayes with some of their errours in Doctrine The Protestants have generally composed short Lyturgies of their own containing some few forms of Prayer together with a Method of Publick worship and directions for Visitation of the sick c. But they neither put in things that may be serupled nor imposed forms of words on their Ministers as our Lytourgy doth in all Offices Publick and Private The Waldenses our first Reformers and a Noble race of Confessors and Martyrs governed themselves by the Common consent of their Pastours and Elders chosen out of the People Hist Waldens lib. 2. cap. 2. 4. as do all the Reformed Churches at this day except the Lutherans The Bohemians indeed and some Waldenses in Austria thought a Bishop necessary by Divine Institution but that he was to doe nothing in the Church of himself but all by the consent of the Presbyters Commend Exhort and witthe approbation of the people which is Cyprians Bishop not an English Prelate The Lutherans have their Superintendents or Bishops but by humane Constitution and such as deprive not the Ministers of their Office Now seeing Scripture Antiquity and the practise of all Reformed Churches doe so much favour their cause The Non-conformists thought they had a great deal of reason to persist in their desire of further Reformation in the Church of England and in their dissent from those things for which nothing material can be soberly pleaded but the command of the Magistrate So that all the blame of want of Perfect Reformation and of keeping up divisions in our own Church and turning its Ceesures against many of its best members is from age to age laid wholly upon the Kings and Parliaments by those who would yet be taken for the greatest maintainers of reverence of Authority CHAP. V. The Reasons of the present Non-conformists in Particular for their dissent THe Non-conformists of the present Age viz. such as cannot conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England according to Act of Uniforty made 1662 have all the same reasons for their Non-conformity that their Predecessours had and some new ones peculiar to themselves for both all the same things in the Lyturgy and Government which were a burthen to their Fathers are imposed on them without the least abatement amendment or alteration and also new impositions are laid upon them to make the yoke more intollerable These are such as follow 1. That they were denyed all Reformation of the Lyturgy and Government of the Church It was now somewhat above an hundred years that there had been continued desires of amendment in the Lyturgy and Government but none could be obtained King James in the beginning of his Reign made a shew of hearing the Non-conformists objections in the Conference at Hampton-Court But the issue was only to make a greater pretence to enjoyn Conformity more strictly as having heard all their Reasons against it and found nothing worthy consideration in them In like manner the present Non-conformists were dealt with for as we are told in the Preface to the Act of Uniformity First some Divines both Conformists and Non-conformists were by Commission appointed to review the Service book and to make necessary amendments in it next a Convocation of the Conforming Clergy was called to re-view the book last of all his Majesty had seen and re-viewed what they had done and the issue of all this was that the Epistles and Gospels should be read in the new Translation and to amend two or three words which by the fault of the Printers had crept into the Book and spoiled the sence and nothing considerable and then the Book passed an Act of Parliament requiring more rigorous Conformity then ever before The Parliament not once reading the book but with an implicite faith as a Member of the House of Commons said passed and confirm'd under the highest penalties next to death it self that which they never saw nor examined And yet now the Reasons for Non-conformity were stronger then before There had been sufficient time to wean the people from the Modes and Ceremonies in dispute yea and the body of the people were now sufficiently weary of them and the greater number of Learned and pious Ministers desired they might be laid aside above all they had been laid aside about sixteen years and the people were well content nor was there any decay of knowledge or piety amongst them upon this alteration Now was there a fair occasion to have amended any thing amiss and for the Bishops to have there Non-conforming brethren gratified in any reasonable things who were now as considerable as themselves for Number and interest with the People and yet offered to consent to any reasonable terms of accomodation surely all this did neither encourage nor oblige the Non-conformists to submit to that new Act of Uniformity
2. But instead of amending any thing amiss or disliked in the Liturgy some things were added to make it more offensive viz Sundays are more expresly reckoned as Church-Feasts than in the former book the new book saith thus a Table of all the Feasts that are to be observed in the Church of England through the year all Sundays in the year The former book thus these holy days to be observed and no other all Sundays in the year The word Holy-day which was somewhat suspicious is now changed to Feast-day and Sundays put in the number of Feast-days without any distinction which makes it more evident that they are accounted but Church Festivals The 29 of September in the old book is appointed a Festival to Michael the Arch-Angel the new book adds and to all Angels so that this is a Festival in the honour of all the Angels as the First of Novemb. is in honour of all the Saints also two new Holy-days are added never before enjoyned by the former book viz St Pauls Conversion and St Barnabas Moreover in the book of Consecration several passages are added declaring Bishops to be a distinct order from the Presbyters and the 36th Artic. is appointed to be understood of this book herein they contradict the Law and the Judgment of all our first Reformers in K. Edw. and Q. Eliz. days and the very book of Consecration it self 3. Nevertheless all Ministers are to approve this book and that by a publick declaration in the Congregation when they first enter upon their Ministry in these words and no other I vid. Act. of unif Ann. 14 Can. 2. A B do here declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the book entituled the book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England together with the Psalter of Psalms of David pointed as they are to be sung or said in Churches and the form or manner of making ordaining and consecrating of Bishops Priest and Deacons It is said in excuse of this imposition that it is only a consent to the use not an approbation of the truth and goodness of all contained in the book because the words immediate foregoing are that Ministers should declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in that book contained and prescribed Be it so and that the words Assent and Consent signifie the same things after the manner of Lawyers though some doubt it and those words to the use c. are not expressed in the form of a Declaration which they ought to have been yet we must observe First That this was a further alteration of the Case of Conformity to make it more intollerable Q. Eliz. Act of Uniformity only required that Ministers should be bound to read the book of Common Prayer and no other Liturgies or forms of prayer in publick The Canons went further and did require they should subscribe at their Ordination before the Bishop that the book of Common Prayer and of Ordination hath nothing in it contrary to the word of God that it may be lawfully used and that he himself will use that and no other but this new Declaration is to be made publickly before the Congregation on forfeiture of their Ministry and place that so there may be no favour shewed to any Also it requireth unfeigned Assent and Consent which cannot mean less then an hearty approbation of the use of what is enjoyned which is much more then barely to judge that nothing is contrary to Gods word and that they may be Lawfully used This Assent and Consent is to be made to all and every thing contained in and prescribed by the book of Common Prayer c. and then the particulars are specified viz the Prayers the Administration of Sacraments and of other Rites and Ceremonies and the book of ordering Bishops Priests and Deacons and the Psalter or Psalms of David as they use to be said in the Church of England Here is nothing omitted of all those things the Non-Conformists used to object against some as unlawfull and others as inconvenient and not for edification yet now they must from their hearts allow the use of them each one in particular not omitting the corrupt translation of the Pslams contradicted by our own allowed Bibles which how they could do who long contended that many of these things ought to be reformed let all that have Conscience judg The Non-Conformists think no form of words could have been contrived more spitefully either to keep them from conforming or to make them lay wast their Consciences if they did conform besides that they know from the mouths of the compilers that they did design it for these ends that they might either root out every branch of Conformity out of mens judgments or every Non-Conformist out of the Church 4. The Act requires this Assent and Consent not only of all that should hereafter enter the Ministry but of all those likewise that were already Ministers and were either Pastours or Lecturers in any Congregation and this Declaration to be made together with the subscription hereafter to be mentioned by a certain day viz before the 24th of August Anno 1662 whereas it is generally known that the book of Common Prayer came not out of the press abroad till within two or three days of that said 24th of August so that it was impossible that it should be seen much more that it should be considered by half the Ministers in England before that day and those that were resolved to keep their Places did a great part of them subscribe before they had read the book which practise doth manifest a further design to root out all that made any Conscience of what they said or subscribed seeing they must doe it without consideration or loose their places however to devise and impose new Terms of Communion upon men that are in the quiet possession and practice of their ministry is very unjust and contrary to all peace and by this practise men shall never be at quiet for though they have conform'd to all things enjoyned they know not how soon a prevailing faction will enjoyn them more nor what that will be especially the things enjoyned in the Declaration and Subscription being such as was known before hand many of the Ministers in place could not subscribe to with safe Consciences It is apparent that their design was not the peace of the Church but to remove them out of the Church 5. It is further required that all should have Episcopal Ordination who should in any sort exercise the Ministry had this concerned only those that should thereafter come to be ordained it had been more tolerable though it would have been contrary to Q. Eliz. moderation and reflecting upon all other reformed Churches An. Eliz. 13. who have not Episcopal Ordination
and yet do receive and permit our Ministers among them that are Episcopally ordained but to impose upon them that were Ministers already and had performed all offices as Ministers many years and many of them with good success and who could not if they would be ordained by Bishops for near twenty years before there being also no Law or Canon requiring all the Ministers of the Church of England to be ordained by a Bishop as necessary to their Ministry I say now to impose upon these men that they must leave their places or be ordained by the Bishop was purposely to cast a stumbling block before them not easily to be passed over for hereby they must acknowledge Presbyterian Ordination to be unlawfull contrary to the judgment and practise of all Ages and Churches Vid. Blandel Apol. C. 2. and Masons vind of the Ordin of Ref. Churches and particularly of our own till this time and also acknowledge themselves all this while to have been no Ministers and their Baptism to be no Baptism unless Lay-men may Baptize which is contrary to the Common Prayer book reformed by K. James in that point who could do this that have not consigned over their Conscience to the will of men 6. The Act further requires that all Ministers whether ordained or to be ordained should before the Ordinary make this following subscription I. A. B. do declare that it is not Lawfull upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King and that I do abhor that trayterous position of taking Arms by his authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him and than I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law established and I do declare that I do hold there lies on Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an Vnlawfull Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The two first clauses of this subscription are meerly civil concerning Civil Government and some circumstances of that Government not the substance of it and things greatly controverted amongst Lawyers and Statesmen Now to impose such things upon Ministers of the Gospel that belong not to their office to know much less to determine is very unreasonable and to impose things concerning secular affairs as Conditions or Terms of being ordained Ministers of the Gospel is a great usurpation on the Authority of Chirst as if he must not have Ministers in his Church unless they engage at the same time to serve the particular ends of a State Besides the first caluse viz. That it is unlawfull to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever is doubtfull in the sence viz whether it respect the Law of the Land or the Law of God and therefore cannot with good Conscience be subscribed And if it be meant of the Law of God it is against the judgment of the best Lawyers as well as of the best Divines it hath no tolerable proof from Scripture They that abuse the 13th to the Romans to that purpose forget or are ignorant that Nero whom they say the Apostle meant was adjudged a publick Enemy of the Senate of Rome and sentenced to dye it is therefore a most unreasonable thing that this should be imposed to be subscribed by all young men entring into the Ministry which may by the Canons be at the Age of 24 years and by practise seldom exceeds before they can be fit to judge of such points The second clause viz. I abhorre c. in its full extent is against the known Lawes and practise of the Land in divers instances given by others and practised in several Causes in his now Majesties Reign And must Ministers be turned out and be debarred of the Ministry unless they will wound their own and their Countreys Rights and liberties and that for the most part before they understand what they doe Moreover that the true meaning of these two clauses is a snare to the people and dangerous to their Rights and Priviledges contrary to all the lax interpretations devised by some appeareth beyond contradiction by the sence that the House of Peers gave of them both the words and design of imposing when they so vigorously opposed its being made a Test for all Parliament men in all future Ages And let it be remembred that these were the Law-makers and most of them persons concerned in making this Law therefore best knew the meaning of those passages and also had Authority to declare the sence of them and were yet sitting in that same Parliament that made the law The third clause in this subscription is I will conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England This was to oblige the young Fellows of Colledges and Tutors in the Universities before they came to give Assent and Consent and to be a double cord upon the Ministry But many who could silently conform cannot solemnly subscribe a promise to conform whereby they pre-engage themselves against all change of their judgments There fourth clause is That I hold that there lies no obligation on me from the Covenant nor upon any other that took it to endeavour any alteration in Government in Church or State There is scarce a parallel in all History to this That a man should be compell'd to swear for others that they are not obliged by an Oath that they took The imposers might as well have said we will make you swear to any thing we please or else you shall not continue in the Church But the Non-conformists desire to be satisfied how the King to pass by all others who swore to prosecute the ends of the Covenant in a most Publick and solemn manner and that before he had sworn to maintain Episcopacy and agreed to take it upon mature deliberation and advice and that at Breda when he was under no fear or constraint how he should not be bound to the Reformation he then promised and what man can absolve him from that Oath especially an English Parliament when that Oath was made to the Stots it being an unquestionable rule That none can release another from a lawful Oath but those to whom the Oath was made and into whose power the Jurer hath put himself by that Oath This ought to have been first cleared and not rigorously imposed Lastly It must be subscribed That the Covenant in it self was an unlawful Oath which the Non-conformists dissallowing our English Prelacy can by no means assent to And that it was imposed against the known Lawes and Liberties of this land which few Ministers have law enough to know and therefore it ought not to be made a condition of the Ministry to subscribe it The Non-conformists find that this Act is wholly contrived to make them
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
just liberty is on the Non-Conformists side in these points 3. Whether the Non-Conformists both Ministers and People are not greatly strengthened both in their Non-Conformity to the Lyturgy and also in their practise of holding Communion together for self preservation by what hath followed in an un-interrupted course ever since the ejection of Ministers viz the horrible and general contempt of Religion general corruption of manners great neglect of preaching to the people most Dignitaries having many Parishes in their hands which they supply by ignorant boys the great growth of Popery with a certain and manifest design of bringing it into the Land again if his Majesty who now letteth were taken out of the way the great corruption of Doctrine as well as manners in our own Clergy neither of which are minded by the Rulers of our Church so as man be conformable that it is now in the Church of England as in that of Rome men may be of any opinion live in any vice or be of no Religion so they own the Pope and his Church and be no Protestants so here men may be Arminian Socinian Papists Atheists and what they will so they externally conform to the Lyturgy and be no Presbyterians so that it is now manifest that nothing was intended by the contrivers of the Act of Uniformity but to cast out of the Ministry those whom they knew could not then conform and for ever to keep out and intangle the most understanding and conscientious men and to let none into the Church who should scruple any of her commands or practises Are such things any motives to the Non-Conformists after 18 years suffering all the indignities and injuries that Julian's wit and malice thought fit to lay upon the Christians of his time and supposed them more intollerable to them then present death which would have been both honourable and an end of their miseries I say are these things motives that at last they should condemn their former practise and without any relaxation quietly take all the Burthen on their Shoulders no they are satisfied that whereas the Church of England hath given her self a mortal wound by her Act of Uniformity and hath layn bleeding of it ever since almost to death that they ought not to hasten her death by putting their hands and adding their helps to it 5. The Dr. thinks that Ministers are not now so indispensibly bound preach as the Apostes were who were immediately sent by God and Authorized by Miracles and therefore they must cease preaching if forbidden by the Magistrate justly or unjustly Answ There is the same necessity of the Ministry to preserve build up and continue the Church by adding new Members through the preaching of the word as there was of the Apostles to lay the foundation of the Church and therefore there lay's the same necessity upon every Minister to preach to his flock within his Compass as did on the Apostles in their Compass May Civil Magistrates be resisted or deposed by the people upon any pretence and they not seek redress because they are not anointed and immediately sent by God as Saul and David c. were if the standing order of Magistracy hath its immutable warrant and unalterable priviledges to enable it for the the discharge of that office surely the standing and ordinary Ministry hath as much warrant and provision for the execution of their office without expecting Miracles to give them new Authority Serm. p. 36. 6. The Dr. saith the Assembly of Divines gave many weighty Reasons against Toleration and were for Uniformity as much as the Church of England So that that Church is justified by them from all Tyranny in exacting Uniformity and the question is not whether there shall be a Uiniformity but who shall have the ordering of it Answ The present Non-conformists have opposed Toleration of all Sects and Opinions as much as the Assembly but this charge is a great injury both to the Assembly and to the Nonconformists now living for the Assembly never desired Uniformity in the same words of Prayer and all Divine Offices or in Rites and Ceremonies devised by men that might occasion scruple to any nor do their reasons tend to any such thing but only that men should not have liberty to withdraw from their Parishes upon every pretence and to constitute new Congregations The present Non-conformists desire no Uniformity but in Doctrine and the substantials of worship Discipline and Government leaving the wording and methoding of worship to particular mens prudence and the necessities of their people and leaving all Congregations to their liberties in Rites and Ceremonies not instituted by Christ supposing that Physitians may as well be tied to the same rules in administring Physick to all bodies as Ministers and people be obliged to the same words and things universally for their souls Let the late Act of Uniformity be abolished the Apocryphal books and Holidayes be left out of the Lyturgy and the Psalms read in the new Translation let the Cross and Surplice be taken away and kneeling at the Sacrament be left indifferent according to the discretion of Ministers and the desires of the people also let Parents stipulate for their own children and some few things in the Prayers be altered or so explained that they may give no offence let the book of Consecration of Bishops c be restored as it was in Queen Elizabeths dayes and Ministers be bound only in general words to a peaceable submission to the Lyturgy let them subscribe to the 39 Articles only in Doctrines of faith and Sacraments according to the Statute Eliz. 13. and this will make much more for Union then any thing the Dr. or his brethren have yet said Serm. p. 11 12. But the Dr. saith Phil. 3.16 Commands all to walk by the same Rule viz. the Rule of Uniformity formerly given them when the Apostle was with them as they were wont to do in all the Churches Be it so but did the Apostle intend any more then that they should be content with the same substantials of worship which were for common edification wherein all might and ought to agree without contending about the Ceremonies of the Law or particular opinions which some out of weakness might be zealous for and others that were more perfect knew were abolished This seems to be the plain meaning of the Text for both the perfect and the imperfect and otherwise minded were all to agree in the practise of this Rule which therefore could not be the imposition or limitation of disputable Doctrines or questionable Rites and Ceremonies but he would prove that this Uniformity was in Rites and Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 7.17 because some things the Apostle ordained in all Churches but the Text speaks only of the Co-habitation of Husbands and wives when one was an Infidel ver 15 16. Was this a Ceremony In 1 Cor. 11.34 The Apostle abolisheth the custom of Love-feasts before the Lords Supper because it was
abused and was of no necessity what then Ergo he ordained Uniformity of Ceremonies The Apostle adds the rest will I set in order when I come i. e. other disorders among them the Apostle would regulate And there is no way to reform abuses in the Church but by imposing un-necessary Ceremonies He saith Pag. 13. That the Apostles gave Rules concerning Rites and Customes wherein there was doubt and scruple Answ But what were they To impose Rites upon men who scruple the lawfulness of them if so the people might have took their word who were infallible what Rites were lawful and what not but no Church Governors have that Authority now but on the contrary the Apostles forbade those who were zealous for Ceremonies to impose them upon others and commanded those who knew their liberty in such Ceremonies not to use their liberty to the offence or disturbance of those who contended for them In a word The Apostles commanded that every man should use his own judgment and liberty in things indifferent privately and peaceably without imposing upon or censuring each other and that all things should be done for edifying Rom. 14. per totum and this is directly against the Uniformity of Ceremonies or the imposing of any uncommanded Ceremony upon the Church without apparent necessity general consent and a prospect of edification to arise thereby Thus we have exonerated our Consciences of the guilt of Schism at least voluntary and against our knowledge Let the Dr. seriously look to his Conscience for charging us with Schism or sinful Separation against our own professed principles before the Judges of the Land and the chief Magistrates of London without any proof and at a time when he knoweth the Papists hope to devour us and our Religion by turning the Magistrates sword and opening the peoples mouthes against the Non-conformists PART II. CAP. I. The Non-Conformists no Friends to General Toleration An Answer to the first Argument from the Honour and Authority of our first Reformers I Come now to consider what the Dr. hath further said in his large defence of his Sermon to make good the Charge of Schism or sinful Separation against the Non-Conformists The Dr. proceeds in an Historical way and therefore is prolix I shall according to my first intention which was to give the Reasons of the Non-Conformists practise in preaching though forbidden by Law proceed to examine what the Dr. hath further said to invalidate those Reasons and to vindicate them from such exceptions as he hath made against them and therefore I shall only take notice of such things as are matter of Argument which will be reduced to a few heads and pass by all personal matters as also his long Preface and all Reflections on times and persons which are forreign to the Argument in hand The Dispute being about a matter of practise and of a publick concern the only end of writing should be either to find out the Truth by debateing it calmly or else if neither side can change the others judgment yet to produce such probable Reasons for their Opinion and Practice as may satisfie impartial Men that they act not from rashness or for sinister ends but as becomes Men that consider conscientiously what they do and why they do it But before I come to his first Argument I think it of great moment to take notice of what he chargeth the Non-Conformists with in general viz. their approving an universal Toleration Toleration of all Sects and Opinions under the Notion of Liberty of Conscience which he proves by their accepting Lycenses to Preach according to the Kings Proclamation 1672. to which I answer We are not to take all that is written by men in distress for their setled Judgment much less for the Judgment of the whole Party The Dr. would think it hard that Bishop Tailors Book for Liberty of prophesying and others of that kind written by Episcopal men under oppression and restraint should be charged to be the judgment of the Church of England Toleration and Liberty of Conscience was the brat of Socinians and Libertines in Switzerland Poland and afterwards fostered by the Dutch-Arminians and was ever detested by the Non-Conformists It is their general sence that they would rather dye in silence and obscurity then Papists Quakers and other dangerous Sects should have immunity under pretence of favour to them But they were advized to accept of the Licenses granted by that Declaration because it straitly forbid all their private Meetings Commanded to set open their Doors and not to presume to Preach without such Licenses first obtained They Preached and did all the same things in private before which now the Declaration gave them leave to do in publick VVould it not have been look'd upon as a rude contempt of the Magistrates favour and a giving a just cause of jealousie to the State if they had still kept private Meetings when they are commanded to be publick and to receive the Magistrates allowance and protection We never pleaded for Liberty of thinking writing speaking or acting in Religion as every man pleaseth under the name of the Liberty of Conscience Conscience is bound to the revealed will of God at its only Rule and is only to be free where God hath left it free i. e. in things not clearly revealed or not commarided by him either directly or by just Consequence We plead for no Liberty but that wherewith Christ hath made us free that we may not be again intangled in a yoke of Bondage to those things which Christ hath neither commanded nor given men leave to command Gal. 5.1 Nor should it have been forgotten that the Non-Conformists Friends in the Parliament were the chief Instruments of recalling that Declaration which was no sign that the whole Party approved of Toleration But why do we still Preach The Reasons are given partly before and shall be more hereafter But come we now to the Arguments the first is this § 1. 2. The terms of Communion are the same now as they were at the first Reformation and if they were no just ground of Separation then neither are they now Ans We must Remember the question before us and the Dr proposed to handle in his Sermon and in his Letter to Mr Baxter is barely this whether the Non-conformist Ministers ejected by the Act of Vniformity are bound to sit down as Lay-men in the Parishes they live in and not to preach or act as Ministers on pain of incurring the guilt of Schism This he leaveth and runneth into the large Field of Separation from the Communion of the Church which is beside the business for if it were granted that the Non-Conformists were bound to all acts of Communion with the Parishes when they preach not themselves as the Non-Resident Conformists are in the places where they live yet it will not follow from hence that they must forbear all exercises of their Ministry and to be content with the Lay-Communion
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
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