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
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
the rest as any other member of the Congregation if they shall all sin scandalously either in the execution of their Office or in any other ordinary manner then the Congregation that chose themfreely hath as free power to depose them and to place others in their room if the Congregation shall erre either in choosing or deposing of her spiritual Officers then hath the Civil Magistrate alone power and authority to punish them for their fault to compel them to better choice or to defend against them those officers that without just causes they shall depose or deprive The same Doctrine is desended by Dr. Ames Medul Theol p. 1. cap. 35. 5. They hold that insufficient Ministers obtruded upon Churches were not to be acknowledged for Ministers and if their lawful Ministers were without just cause ejected by any Superiour Powers Engl. purit ch 2. pos 8. they did still retain the Right and Honour of being their Pastors They hold that the Congregation having once made choice of their Spiritual Officers unto whom they commit the Regiment of their Souls they ought not without just cause and that which is apparently warrantable by the word of God to discharge deprive or depose them but ought to live in all Canonical Obedience and Subjection unto them agreeable unto the word of God and if by permission of the civil Magistrate they shall by other Ecclesiastical Officers be suspended or deprived for any cause in their apprehension good and justifiable by the word of God then they hold it the bounden duty of the Congregation to be continual Suppliants to God and humble Suitors unto Civil Authority for the restauration of them unto their Administrations which if it cannot be obtained yet this much honour they are to give unto them as to acknowledge them unto the Death their Spiritual Guides and Governours though they be rigorously deprived of their Ministry and Service And Chap. 3. pos 9. They hold that the People of God ought not to acknowledge any such for their Pastors as are not able by Preaching to interpret and apply the word of God unto them aud therefore that no ignorant and Sole-reading Priests are to be reputed the Ministers of Jesus Christ who sendeth none into his Ministry and Service but such as he adorneth in some Measurewith Spiritual gifts and they cannot be perswaded that the faculty of reading in ones Mother Tongue the Scriptures c. which any ordinary Turk or Infidel hath can be called in any Congruity of Speech a Ministerial gift of Christ And posit 12. They hold that it is as great an injury to force a Congregation or Church to maintain as their Pastor with Tythes and such like Donations that Person that either is not able to instruct them or that refuseth in his own Person ordinarily to do it as to force a man to maintain one for his wife that either is not a Woman or that refuseth in her own person to do the dutios of a Wife unto him 6. They hold that the Holy Scriptures are a perfect Rule of Doctrine Worship Discipline and Ceremonies and that to add new Ceremonies of mens own invention was a breach of the second Commandment With this Mr. Parker begins his Book of Ecclesiastical polity that we are to deduce from Scripture all that concerns the Church of Christ Thus the Protestation We deny no Authority to the King in matters Ecclesiastical but only that which Christ Jesus the only head of the Church hath directly and precisely appropriated unto himself Protest pos 22. and hath denied to communicate to any other Creature or Creatures in the world for we hold that Christ alone is the Doctor of the Church in matters of Religion and that the word of Christ which he hath given unto his Church is of absolute perfection containing in it all parts of the true Religion both for substance and Ceremony and a perfect Direction in all Ecclesiastical matters whatsoever unto and from which it is not lawful for any Man or Angel to add or detract Thus Mr. Bradshaw in his Addition to the 12th Argument against Ceremonies argues All Inventions and Devises of man grounded only upon the will of man and not upon any necessity of Nature or Civility set apart to Gods outward Worship are contrary to the second Commandment These Ceremonies are such Ergo See more in the place 7. They held Ceremonies enjoyned by our Lyturgy unlawful The Cross in Baptism was condemned by all Mr. Parker and Mr. Bradshaw in particular wrote against it The Surplice was rejected by most Kneeling at the Lords Supper was disliked by all but yet thought Tolerable and that it might be submitted unto by some of the most Learned The Protestours declare themselves thus We refuse Obedience only to such Canons as require the performance of such Acts and Rites of Religion as are rejected and abandoned of all other Reformed Churches as Superstitious disorders Protest pos 21. such as are special Mysteries of the Romish Antichristian Idolatry such as have been controverted in the Church ever since the last breaking forth of the Light of the Gospel out of the Cloud of Popery in Luthers time such as all Protestant writers and defenders of our Faith beyond the Seas and most of our own Countrey-men have either in general or particular condemned as vain idle and unprofitable such as all the faithful and painful Pastors of this Realm and in a manner all States and Degrees of the same would be content were removed and swept out of the Church and for which few or none are zealous but the Prelates and their Adherents Mr. Bradshaw wrote Twelve Arguments against the Ceremonies with as much vehemency as any have done since 12 Gen. Arg. against Cerem Arg. 1 'T is Will VVorship therefore sinful Arg. 2. 'T is a sinful Compliance with the Papists in derogation from the honour of the Reformed Churches to use them Arg. 5. 'T is Schismatical maintaining differences at home and abroad when the Authors acknowledge the things imposed indifferent and that they might without sin or inconvenience be let alone Arg. 6. That it is Communicating with the Papists in Idolatrous and Superstitious worship especially those Papists that live amongst us and see how much we symbolize with them Arg. 9. Because these Ceremonies are Sacraments of humane institution Arg. 10. Because they that use them do thereby acknowledge homage to an usurped authority in the Church Arg. 12. Because they are the occasion of the damnation of great numbers viz. the Papists who are hardened by them and ignorant Protestants who place all their Religion in them and because the usual excuse for these and all other humane impositions which the Dr. also makes frequent use of is that they are not imposed as things necessary to Salvation but as matters of Order Decency and the like Mr. Bradshaw draws his Eleventh Argument from hence That the Ceremonies are therefore unlawfull because made
meet within the City the people assisted in carrying the Materials and setting up the Church in the Suburbs yea saith Socrates the people would have been admitted into their Communion if the Novatians had been willing and we may observe in History the Novatians never ceased till the clamours against them as dangerous and intollerable persons were at end and little or no notice were taken of them Indeed could it be proved that any particular Church under the Gospel whether National Diocesan or Parochial was of the same constitution with the Church of the Jews that all Christians were bound to be Members of it or all that live within their Precinct or at least all that once have been Members are indispensably bound to continue so then it were a damning sin to separate from them But when it is Originally as free for every Christian to choose his Church as to choose the place of his abode and nothing but the convenience of his own edification in the first place and next the edification of the Neighbourhood obligeth him to joyn with and to continue in this or that particular Church it can be no sin of so high a nature though it be blame-worthy for him to withdraw without just reason 3. Say that all Separation is as great a sin as our Author would insinuate what means doth he prescribe to prevent it why he saith all men are bound to do and submit to all things that are lawfull to preserve the peace and to prevent the dividing of the Church True all things that are really Lawfull but not to all that the imposers say are lawfull if men must judge for themselves what is Lawfull absolutely and what not and what is Lawfull or not in their circumstances will not this open a door for Separation as much as any thing his opposites have said he blames them for allowing people to separate upon pretence of their Ministers insufficiency or scandal or interruption on them againist their wills for doubtfull ceremonies for modes of Worship for want of Discipline or right Constitution of the Church and saith which is his most plausible arguments that some of these the Papists might have retorted upon our first Reformers and all such pretences would justifie the Ancient Schismes and make way to endless Separation for the future But he wrongs these Authors which is a common shift almost to all that write on this subject when he intimates that they allow Separation upon any pretence of such causes Is there no difference betwixt pretending and really proving the gross insufficiency errours or scandals of a Minister or gross usurpations over mens Consciences and Liberty do any prudent men allow Separation without good cause full proof all endeavours of amendment patient waiting and mature advice and consideration of all circumstances what then is there no preventing endless Separation but Tyranny over mens Consciences that they shall be compell'd to approve and do whatsoever their Rulers please as the Papists teach yes the Dr's final determination is Page 208. A prudent and due submission in Lawfull things is a medium betwixt Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation what is here more then any Brownist will grant that understands himself viz. that as Rulers must not Tyrannize over Mens Consciences so the people must not be given to endless Separation and that the way to prevent both is that the Rulers rule with due and prudent Discipline and that the people yield prudent and due submission and that this Government and submission be exercised only in Lawfull things But still must not the people in submitting as well as the Governours in Ruling judge whether things be Lawfull or not whether submission be due and how farr and in what cases it is prudent to yield or to deny it if the people must not judge then you establish a Tyranny over their Consciences that they must approve what ever their Rulers command or Hobbisme that they must do what ever their Rulers command though they beleive it to be sinfull or inconvenient if the people must judge for themselves in the things that concern them then they must judge of the insufficiency of their Minister the Legallity of his call and the like but how then hath the Dr. put a stop to Separation more then they may not men pretend things required to be unlawfull submission not to be due nor prudent and so without end Their Arguments therefore are but Sophismes like those that plead against all certainty of sense or reason because many men are certain i. e. confident when they are mistaken that a man cannot be sure he seeth heareth or feeleth because he hath many times thought he did so in his dream when it was no such thing as there is a certain way of proving that men are awake and use their sences so there is as certain a way to prove by plain Scripture when Ministers are insufficient when impositions are unlawfull when it is necessary to withstand usurpation on the Churches Priviledges c. what ever Sophisters will cavil against it and if men will pretend cause of Separation when there is none or manifestly insufficient or but dubious they may be convicted and if they separate bear their blame but whilst men are subject to mistake to passion and partiallity which will be till our Lord come what shall put a stop to Separation but necessary moderation in Rulers in imposing one reverence in the people in submitting and meekness towards those who notwithstanding all care weakly or peevishly may dissent in things that are tolerable This Learned man hath not shewed us nor the experience of Fifteen Hundred Years the Popish Cruelty could not prevent Separations Episcopal Authority could not prevent them The Donatists and Novatians had their Bishops imposing Uniformity in Ceremonies could not the First Division in the Christian Church rose about the keeping of Easter-day if people offend against the plain Rule of Scripture or the plain Rule of good Government and Order let them be punished according to their Offences but not for things doubtfull in Scripture or burthensome in Government if men offend in lesser matters and cannot be convinced let them be born with till inconvenience be seen to arise from such Clemency and then it is time enough to retract or retrench it if this were not dayly done in Nations and Families no Civil Society could stand how then shall the contrary severity establish the Church Obj The Dr. objects the Reformers taught that where there is soundness in Doctrine and Worship people ought not to separate from a Church for lesser defects real or apparent and that they insisted on the corruption of Doctrine and Worship as the only cause of their Separation from Rome Answ 1. Doctrine and Worship are indeed the chief things in a Church for if God be truly worshipped and his knowledge be truly taught mens lives will be bettered and their Souls saved by it but then it must not