not in the Passover or Sacrifices which were their Sacraments and the greatest ties of their Society and all this only for their Civil convenience because they were seated in other Countries and by reason of Trade or other occasions were loath to remove to Jewry if this will excuse them why may not other Cases arise where one part of a people may not think fit to break off from a Church wholly and yet not be bound to all acts of Communion or worship with it and such a case we have frequently in Ecclesiastical history when the people of some great City as Rome Antioch Alexandria c. differ'd about choosing a Bishop Suppose the better and sounder part chose a fit and worthy Person and the bigger and worse part chose a Person unsound in Doctrine or scandalons in Life and him they will have thrusting out the fiter Person and his People also if they will adhere to him what should be done in this case I know it was usual neither to Pray nor hear together though some of them might happen to be in the same Prison and in the same Room but this without doubt was Schism on both sides Should the better yield to the worse and quit their Election So they should betray Religion and their own Souls should they quite break off and forsake the others resolving never to have more to do with them So they should betray the others to utter ruine and the Church by degrees to destruction The good Wheat continually-leaving the Tares among whom yet it is very likely some good Wheat may be scattered it remains then that they keep to their Priviledge and adhere to him whom they have chosen and yet not dissert them who would cast them out but communicate with them as Brethren especially in such common Duties as do not contain a plain acknowledgment of their undue and Schismatical practise and so wait till Providence may find means to make up the Breach That this is our case shall be shewed in the last Chapter The Dr's other reason is grounded from Phil. 3.16 The sum of his arguing from that Text is this Men are to do all things Lawfull to maintain the Unity of the Church where they live therefore whatsoever is Lawfull for them to Communicate in sometimes they must do it always Answ Lawfull is either simply and absolutely so or Lawfull in those Circumstannces as the Apostle distinguisheth betwixt lawful and expedient 1 Cor. 6.12 i. e. lawful in it self or lawful in this or that case If every man be bound to do all that is simply and absolutely lawful to preserve the peace of the Church then he may be many times bound to yield to turbulent and irregular persons in unreasonable demands and impositions but if a man be bound only to do those things which are lawful in the present Circumstances then the Argument is of no force for it will be said they that held but occasional and partial Communion go as far as they judge lawful i e. expedient and fit in their Case and Circumstances and so they shall not be bound to constant and full Communion 2. The great sin and mischief of Separation lieth in judging and condemning others as no Churches having no Ministry no Sacraments and so not being in the ordinary way of Salvation not having Christs presence amongst them This indeed deserveth all the aggravations which the Dr. cites out of Mr. B. Sect. 24. and I am perswaded he intended no more and this was the meaning of the Old Non Conformists Severe reprehensions of the Brownists viz. that they dishonoured Christ reproached his Servants his gifts and Graces in them and slandered the footsteps of his anointed This indeed tends to the Subversion of the Church to expose it to the contempt of the world destroys all charity and brotherly Communion and is a great presumption for who shall dare to judge when Christ hath forsaken a People who shall profess his Name and keep up his Worship for substance according to his word though they do or are supposed to fail in Circumstances or lesser parts of their Duty And if the Fathers mentioned by the Dr. intended any other Separation by their high invectives against it as it is probable they did not at least those pious peaceable men Cyprian and Augustine when they said Schism is as bad as Idolatry c. we may say by their leave that they shew'd more zeal for themselves and their own Interest then for the honour of Christ and the peace of his Church Mr. Hales tract of Schism saith Heresie and Schism are the Theological Scare-Crows wherewith Men fright Children and men commonly use against all that differ from them when they cannot prove such a Crime against them and again he saith the Donatists might have been in the right for any thing that Augustine said against them and if he had extended it to Cyprian and Cornelius writings against the Navatians he might perhaps not have exceeded the Truth We do acknowledge all Un-necessary Separation from a Church is a sin let the ground be what it will the errour of Conscience in him who thinks it a duty will not make it a duty it doth impair Love it layeth the Church open to her Enemies reproaches and to endless contentions within her self but it is not such a sin as some men labour to make it to maintain their own greatness as if it would excuse men for the neglect of their Salvation or make them amends for the loss of Heaven that they have been scrupelously fearful of running into Schism Let the Church take care as Mr. Hales adviseth that the Terms of her Communion be no other then the Scripture will justifie and do concern all Christians and if any other be added let them be temporary and removed when inconveniencies arise greater then the Reasons for imposing them or equal to them Let the Ministers labour in publick and private with soft words and good Reasons to satisfie the People in all their doubts about things relating to the Church and if after all this some few as they will not be many are so far dissatisfied as that they they think they ought to withdraw let them withdraw provided they do not reproach and condemn the Church they depart from and let them nevertheless be owned as Brethren This certainly becomes the Gospel and will make more for the peace of the Church and send more towards reducing of those that separate then all corrections and hard words against Schism And thus did the Primitive Christians towards the Novatians for though some zealous of their own authority speak sharply against them yet they were not troubled in Constantine's time the Bishops of theirs sate in the Councel of Nice they had their publick Churches one in Constantinople when it was the Imperial Seat to which the people generally resorted when Macedonius was Bishop and when their Church was commanded to be pull'd down and they not to
and Holyness elsewhere then foregoe our Edification to keep Peace with the Church The Dr hints at general Inconveniences that will follow if people find Fault with their Governours and withdraw from them and to such inconveniences all things in this world are subject and there ought to be the greater care to prevent them but must People bear always still there is nothing left but the name of a Church and their Communion with that be a hindrance to their Communion with Christ besides nothing would more awe both Pastours and People to their duty then if they knew that the soberest and most carefull Christians of their own Salvation would leave their company if they would not mend their manners and this would be a more Universal Benefit to the Church then the inconvenience of now and then one unseasonably withdrawing out of prejudice or finding too much Fault can do hurt to any Congregation 4. When a Church hath neither the exercise nor power of Government The Catholick Church is a Society under the Government of Christ by his Spirit and every particular Church is a part of the Chatholick gathered into a Politicall Body that it may edify and preserve it self which is done by Government and the exercise of Discipline as well as by preaching the word and administring the Sacraments and indeed the latter will be as ineffectual without the former as a Charge at an Assize or Sessions wherein the Laws are recited would be if there were neither presentment nor punishment of Offenders A Church without Power of Government is no Church but a Company of Neighbours that meet sometimes to hear the Word and receive the Sacraments together which Members of several Congregations may do for power of Government is the form of a Church as of a Civil Polity by which only it differeth from a confused accidental conventing or cohabitation of persons now it is no sin to separate from that which is no Church but a Duty as much as it is for every one to be a Member of some visible Church This case is too common with us where Ministers of Parishes are sometimes Deacons at least for a while who have no Ministerial power at all and if Presbyters yet such as pretend to no more then to preach and administer the Sacraments all power of Government as they say belonging to the Bishop and whatever their private Judgment may be of their power of Government we know they neither do nor dare exercise any solemn admonitions or suspension from the Sacrament much less Excommunication or Absolution when this is the case that the Church hath no power to govern her self hath long lost it and is out of hopes to recover it nothing can oblige men to live Members of it though there may be reasons why we should hear and receive with them occasionally as with Brethren If it be said that the Bishop hath a power of Government over all his Diocess I answer this shuts out all the Parish Ministers from Government and makes them but the Bishops Curates and makes all the Parishes cease to be distinct Churches and to become one general Church under a Bishop who is utterly uncapable to manage the charge of such a Congregation be it only to govern and not to preach as some men would have it and so it is still destructive of the end of a Church viz self-edification and preservation but moreover the Bishop himself is subject to the Metropolitane and all causes in his Diocess admit of an appeal to the Arch-Bishops Court so that neither hath the Bishop supream and full power of Governing his Church and therefore neither is the Diocess a Church but a part of the whole province all under the Government of the Arch-Bishop alone the Bishops being but his Deputies and this still makes the Government more impossible and Separation more necessary 5. A 5th just eause of Separation is when men are certainly and constantly debarred of some Principal Ordinances of Christ necessary to their Edification and Communion with Christ The end of a Church is the joynt practice of all the Laws and Ordinances of Christ in their proper seasons It is possible there may not be occasion for the exercise of some of them as Church Censures for a considerable time and it is possible some Ordinances may be carelesly neglected or for some reasons for a time omitted as the Lords Supper This is no cause of withdrawing at least not properly but if there be constant Bars put that any of these Ordinances shall be excluded the Church as the Sacraments are with many Sectaries or that they shall be made unaccessable by sinfull or unnecessary additions alterations interpolations or any other Corruption so that the most conscientious Christians cannot Communicate in them this after a convenient waiting and seeking for redress will justify Separation for the people may not be contented with one part of the Worship of God and the means of their Salvation this is to betray the Gospel and their own Souls nor have Church Governours power to add any thing either essential or circumstantial to the Ordinances of Christ that may hinder the people from Communicating in them and if they have no such authority to enjoyn such things there is no obligation upon the people either to comply with them in obedience or to bear their usurpation by continuing in Union with them If it be pleaded that the Jews never separated from their Church when they could not Communicate in the Sacrifices at the Temple under Idolatrous Kings or when the Passover or other Ordinances were wholly neglected or little used I answer this is not the case of Christian Churches the Jews were one single though large Congregation instituted by Moses to continue till Christ should come who should have power to new moddle the Church as he should think fit they were all tyed to one Altar and one Temple and might Sacrifice no where else they were also obliged to one Priesthood the House of Aaron and therefore in what-place-soever they were they must hold Communion with this people and Priesthood at this Altar and if publick worship was neglected or corrupted they could in no case separate or gather New Congregations or chuse new Priests or build new Altars but must be content with private helps till things were reformed but Christians though of one Nation or City are not obliged to one Congregation indispensably for then men may not move to other Parishes nor to one place of publick worship nor to one Minister or company of Ministers the Christians Church being tyed to no Countrey as the Jews were nor to any particular people nor kindred nor having any promise to be continued to the end in any one place or amongst any one people it hath therefore power to distribute it self into diverse Congregations and consequently again to withdraw from any one of them when there is need 6. Gross infringement of Christian Liberty we are commanded
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
of men appointed by David by Divine inspiration for this work and so the manner and method also was appointed by God and Art and rules of Musick were then acceptable and part of the Ceremonial worship But there being such Offices nor such service appointed in the Christian Church this is no warrant for our Responses Neither do the Scriptures give any warrant or example for observing dayes as sacred in the honour of Saints Or of instituting new Offices in the Church or new Ceremonies of worship but on the contrary our Saviour declares that men worship in vain that teach for Doctriens the Commandements of men Matth. 15.9 It seems then That Decency and Order which men purposely devise to add significancy or comliness to gods worship is abominable in his sight he hath no need of mans service and therefore will accept of nothing but what is appointed and carried on by his own Spirit Neither do the Scriptures appoint or warrant any superiority of Bishops above ordinary Ministers at least not such as that they should have sole power of governing the Church The high Priests of old had no such power of the Priests as this Learned Doctor hath proved in his Irenicum They had some peculiar things appropriated to their office but were themselves subject to the Sanhedrim The Apostles were all of one Order and had no authority over each other and governed the Church only by consent Gal. 2.9 Nor is there any distinction made betwixt ordinary Ministers except what they see needful to make amongst themselves for the good of the Church This all our old Bishops acknowledged and therefore pleaded for Episcopacy only as an humane constitution And those who of late wrote for its Divine-right do yet the most learned of them acknowledge that it cannot be proved from Scripture unless perhaps from the angels of the Church of Asia which this Dr. hath solidly confuted It was alwaies objected to the Non-conformists that the Scriptures do not forbid those things though they do not command them But they replyed that the Non-command of any thing in Gods worship and Church is a prohibition except of those things only that occasionally become necessary or that are naturally necessary circumstances of such actions as are commanded for it would argue great imperfection in the Law if it should omit things that are constantly or generally necessary for the good of the Church And as Moses closed his Law with this command that none should adde or diminish it so Christ having given his Law to his Church and appointed Officers with power to make govern and cast members out of it as there was need without giving them liberty to adde or alter He also did virtually prohibit such additions or alterations till he shall come again and their Commission being only to teach baptize and to teach all that Christ commands to the end of the world Mat. 28.18.19 This doth sufficiently restrain them from making or teaching cammands of their own all their authority being grounded on that Commission 2. From Antiquity the Non-Conformists alledge that the primitive Churches for many hundred years had no stated Liturgies prescribing the words as well as method of worship Justin Martyr in his second Apoligy designedly gives an account of the Christian worship viz the order and method of praying preaching admitting of Members administring both Sacraments but hath no word of a prescribed form but he saith the Minister prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was able Tertullian giving the same account in his Apol. Cap. 39. saith likewise sine monitore quia de pectore oramus they prayed by heart and therefore had no prompter much less a book We read that Constantine the great Euseb de vit constant l. 4. cap 19.20 having abolished idolatry composed a form of Prayer for his Heathen Souldiers wherein t hey should pray to one God the Creatour of all things but we read of no form imposed on Christians There are indeed Lyturgies that goe under the names of the Apostle James Basil Chrysostome and Ambrose but they convince themselves to be forged by later men and so are an argument that there were no such things in the primitive times but when the Church was over-run with errours and superstitions it was appointed in Africa that the Ministers should either receive a form of Prayer from their Bishops Cansil Milevet 2 dum Can. 12. or shew their own Prayer to them for their approbation but this was above 400 years after Christ the usurpation of Bishops Lazines and ambition of Ministers ignorance and superstition in the people bred Liturgies and they grew up together Nor is their any mention of Responses in the Antient Church a superstitions story of a vision of Angels singing an Hymn in that manner by turns is pretended to be seen by Ignatius dead long before nor had the antient Church days holy to Saints for 300 years and upward we find only mention amongst them of Easter-day and yet that caused such division and contentions that it might have been a warning to after ages for contending about things that God hath not commanded The Apocryphal Books were indeed read in the Christian Church very antiently though they never were amongst the Jews but it was more excusable in them then in us because it was long e're the books of the Scripture especially the books of the New Testament were gathered into one Volumn or it was agreed among the Churches which were Canonical and which Apocryphal for some of the Apocryphal were read in some Churches as Canonical and some of the Canonical were by some Churches rejected The Cross in Baptism was so long unknown to the Church that it is hard to say when it came in though the sign of the Cross was commonly used amongst them upon their Cloaths in their Hats to distinguish them from Heathens and as a token that they were Christians the Montanists began to make a superstititious use of the Cross and so did many others soon after Constantine himself can scarce be excused if Eusebius be credited but that it was annexed to Baptism and made a symbole of mens embracing Christianity there is no record Kneeling at the Lords Supper was not enjoyned till transubstantion was established above 1200 years after Christ nor is any general example for it pretneded in former ages The Surplice was much Elder then the Cross in Baptism or kneeling at the Supper yet for 200 years and upwards there is no mention of it nor is it known when or how it came in many Rites Customs and Ceremonies were used in the Primitive Churches some being derived from the Jews some from the Heathens by the converts of both sorts yet not imposed upon others the Apostles Rule being yet observed that no man should judge another in meats or drinks Col. 2.16 Rom. 14. or in respect of an holy day i. e. the Jewish Festivals which were once of divine institution Nor did the
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
the world to come leaving the management of worldly things to other societies or combinations of men under other Governours and other Laws The Kingdom of Christ is not of this World i. e. as Mediatour and Head of the Church this Kingdom cometh not with observation but is within us Luke 17.20 21. Hence it follows that Christ doth not cannot delegate this Power to any other neither in whole nor in part and who shall presume without his appointment to usurp hâ—s dominion he call's the Church to himself immediately and not to men and they give themselves immiedately to him and not to deputies they first gave themselves to the hLord and unto us by the will of God 2 Cor. 8. ver 5. And as Christ is the only Head of the Church so he only gives Laws to it whereby it shall be governed and by his Spirit procureth and maintaineth love and obedience to himself and to his Laws It followeth also that all other Governments and their Laws with the designs and ends of them are extrinsecal to the Church as such and must not intermeddle in the spiritual peculiar ends and government thereof they may joyn their persons to the Church by giving up themselves to Christ the King thereof for the Spiritual ends of his Kingdom but they may not mix or interweave the interest and ends of their Kingdoms or governments with those of Christs in his Church for so it would become a Kingdom of this world and the concerns of this world would greatly hinder if not swallow up those of the World to come which the Church is designed for Moreover the Church consists of Members called indifferently out of all Nations Kindreds Sexes Ages diversities of worldly interests through the succession of all Generations from the beginning to the end of the World whereof one part is in Heaven already the Church of the first born which are written in Heaven Heb. 12.23 for they yet wait for the coming up of their Brethren till when they do not receive the compleat benefit of their association and union to Christ and each other the other part is yet on Earth pursuing the same general design of their Common-Wealth the Glory of their King and their own Happiness yea among these some are yet Infaunts and Children capable only of the immediate influence government and protection of their Heavenly King without being able to do any thing for themselves and others there are yet unborn who though they are not actuall Members of this society yet are known to the King of it and their names contained in his Role and he will not reckon his Kingdom compleat or the ends of it accomplished till these also are brought into it even to the last man John 10.16 what then are the Intrests and designs of this world or the Princes of this world or the Laws Methods and Instruments by which they pursue those designs to this Kingdom of Christ they are diverse in every age this is one throughout all ages they are contrary to and do subvert each other and one succeeds another this is one uniform most consistant government they are temporary but for the present for the short lives of Governours or for the uncertain continuance of their Families and then they pass to others perhaps their enemies but the dominion of Christ is an everlasting dominion and his Kingdom an overlasting Kingdome Dan. 2.24 Thus we have the true definition of the Church of Christ which is but one in Heaven and Earth dispersed throughout all Countreys and Ages from the beginning to the end of the world Ruled by his Laws contained in the Scripture influenced by his Spirit according to those Laws and protected by his power against all their enemies to this we must reduce all Discourses and Notions of a Church and examine them by it as by the first truth in that kind the Rule and standard of the rest Wee are next to consider the distributions or several sorts of Churches And First the Church is distinguished into Triumphant and Militant as a whole into integral parts the Church Triumphant is that part of the Church of Christ which is already in Heaven having got the victory over sin and Satan yet not fully Triumphant because it waits for deliverance from Death or the Redemption of the Body the Church Militant is that other part which is yet on Earth contesting with all her Spiritual Enemies both these make up the Catholick Church which we profess in the Creed and is immediately subject to Christ and immediately govern'd by his Word and Spirit and all the Members of it as Members of this Church are equal none having authority over others being all equally and immediately united to Christ and guided by him to the proper ends of this Society Secondly The Church Militant is Vniversal or Catholick on earth sc all the Christian Members of the Catholick Church that live on Earth dispersed through all Countreys mixed with all societies of Civil Government with whom also are mixed many persons who profess Christ but are not really united to him by consent and real subjection of the heart and therefore are not living Members of the Church but accidental accessions to it as Forreigners that live in any state or Common-Wealth in some general things conformable to their Laws seem to be Members of that Society but indeed have their Relation and Union to another Or else this Church is particular as 't is distributed into several lesser societies for their convenience and edification now these are not distinct Churches but distinct Considerations of the Church on Earth either as collectively considered as one Company united by the same Bond to Christ the Governour of all though divided and dispersed in place or distributively in respect of place only being divided into several lesser Companies these also thus considered have all an equall Relation to Christ as their Governour to his Law as their Rule to his Spirit as there Internal Living Guide and to each other as Brethren without any authority over each other Thirdly These particular Churches if they be considered only in respect of place and vicinity may be and are by some distinguished into National viz all the Christians that live in one Nation or under one constitution or form of civil government or provincial viz the Christians that live in one Province or County or City Churches those that live in one City or Parish Churches viz the Christians that live in a lesser Neighbourhood yea thus Churches may be distinguished or divided into as many sorts as there be societies of men any way divided or distinguished from each other but all these divisions are but accidentall and extrinsecall differences of the several parts of the same Church thus divided into diverse lesser parts which are all equally Churches and that upon no other account then their Relation to Christ and to the universal Common-Wealth to which he is Head From hence we infer 3
things 1. All particular Churches being but integral homogenious or equal parts of the Catholick Church they have all an equal intrinsecal power of forming themselves into Congregations or lesser bodies for their own spiritual edification according to the Laws which Christ hath prescribed to that purpose for being all Brethren equally and immediately related to Christ and the division betwixt them being meerly accidental and external from the place of their dwelling or other circumstances they must all have an equal right to all the ordinances and priviledges of a Church and equal authority to dispose of themselves for their own good 2. That the only end of Christians combining into several lesser societies is that they may serve Christ together and help each other in their Spiritual concerns for they are a spiritual Common-Wealth associated for Spiritual ends only when they are considered as one body under Christ therefore if they divide themselves into lesser bodies it must be only that they may more easily and conveniently attain the ends of the Whole Body and generall Association 3. And that the designs of civil governours Laws and interest with the conveniances of civil bodies greater or smaller ought to have no influence or concern upon the constitution of these particular Churches for if they imbody themselves in lesser companies only to serve Christ and edify each other with the best advantage to their Souls then they are still in such incorporating only to respect the honour of Christ their own edification and the best execution of Christs Laws among them leaving other governours to prosecute the ends of their Laws and Government in ways proper to themselves and distinct from theirs and therefore if civil Governours model these Churches in subserviency to their civil ends they do really alter the nature of Churches and take them out of their immediate subordination to Christ and his Spiritual Government or else they make Christ and his Government and Common-Wealth subservient to theirs and the concerns of Mens Souls to be not other ways regarded then as they may promote worldly and temporary designs But further that part of the Church which is on earth being absent from their King and Lord and in a state of imperfection hath therefore need of guides and helps that it may understand the Law of Christ and yield obedience to it though all are equally Members of Christ yet all are not able to guide and help themselves from whence ariseth the necessity of Guides and Governours in the Church whence it is called an Organical Church as a body consisting of different organs for different uses thus the Church is made up of governours and governed but 't is still the same Church under the same Head Christ and his word as its Law only the interpretation and application of this Law of Christ is committed to some for the better edification of all viz the preserving and perfecting those that are present Members and the continuing of the Church by bringing in more that shall be saved Church Governours therefore are in no wise supream Christ being still the immediate head both of power and influence both to make Laws and to make them effectual upon the hearts of men they are appointed only to expound and apply Christs Laws for the good of his People for his Glory only and to leave both the success and the account to Christ of themselves and of the people Hence ariseth a Fourth Division of the Church in respect of the Government and order of it into Oecumenical National Provincial Diocesan Classical Parochial or Congregational but all these and each one alike are taken in a double sence singularly or collectively singularly for one individual Church or Body under one Government whether of one or more persons and thus the Oecumenical or Vniversal Church on Earth must be but one great body of Christians associated with the same Governours for the edification of each other as Israel of old being one Family multiplyed into a People and these gathered into a great Assembly at Mount Sinai was there framed into one spiritual society under the Guidance and Government of the Tribe of Levi so that when they were afterwards dispersed over all Canaan they were yet but one polity and accordingly thrice a year at least all met to worship God together to testify their Unity this the Pope claimeth viz that the whole Church is one Congregation committed to him as the only Pastour or Head of all In like manner a National Church thus singularly understood is all the Christians of that Nation making up but one Congregation and Polity all immediately under the same Governour Also the Provincial Church is all the Christians of one Province the Diocesan of one Diocess or small circuit and the Parochial or Congregational the Christians of one small Neighbour-hood or that without respect of Neighbour-hood voluntarily gather into one small Assembly under the same Guides or Governours respectively The Church collectively taken if Oecumenical is the association of all Churches in all Nations under one general Head and Government the National Church is made by the Union of all the Churches of several lesser Divisions under the general National Officers the Diocesan is all the Churches of a Diocess or smaller circuit as the Provincial is those of a larger circuit under one Common Head or Bishop A Classis is the same thing with a Diocess saving that by common use the Diocess is appropriated to one Head or Bishop and a Classis to those Churches that are govern'd by the common Consent and Councell of the Ministers of the several Congregations And a Parochiall or Congregationall Church is a society of so many Christians as living in one Neighbour-hood or in some convenient nearness may ordinarily meet together for the worship of God and all other offices of a Church Here we must observe that if the Church be taken for one individual Congregation immediately under the same Governours then 1. The Oecumenical Church was never instituted by Christ he never gathered them into one Congregation as he did Israel nor ever appointed one Governour or Colledge of Governours over them For seeing the Church was to be called and gathered out of all Nations and that successively some at one time and in one place and some at another one Colledge of Governours much less one single person could not take charge of it to teach it or rule it nor could Christians so dispersed perform the duty of Fellow Members to each other 2. Nor did Christ ever constitute a National or Provincial Church Henever called a Nation or Province at one time to the Profession of his Gospel nor can one person or society of Governours teach such a body or administer the Sacraments to them or know their cases nor can the people know and help one another or come to their Governours upon every necessary occasion especially not in times of persecution which for the most part hath been the lot of
the Christian Church and should such a thing be necessary our Bondage would be greater and means of edification much less then they were to the Jews who were confin'd to a little countrey and were an intire people among themselves and all tyed to each other by the Bonds of nature as one great Family descending naturally from one man and woman 3. Nor did Christ institute Diocesan Churches viz that all the Christians in some considerable circuit less then a Nation or great province should be one Congregation ruled by one or more Governours immediately There were no such companies or associations of men called converted or formed into Churches by Christ and his Apostles but the first Believers were scattered and independent persons called as God pleased besides such a flock cannot ordinarily meet together know and help each other or repair to their Governours or be acquainted with them as they ought nor can the Governours know teach and feed them and when we have once exceeded the bounds of a regular assembly to make up one Church of many Towns of a whole County or more we may by the same reason extend it without end to a whole Province a whole Nation or Empire and so make the duties of Pastours and People impossible and the ends of the Church impossible to be attained which is contrary to the nature of it 4. A Parochial or Congregational Church is the only Organical Church directly and immediately appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ For thus the Apostles collected the Believers in every City and place where they had preached into one Church or Society ordaining them Elders in every Church Acts 14. ver 23. If these Churches were companies of Believers in several Cities and Towns as the History in the 13 and 14 Chap. shews and the Apostles ordained them Elders in every Church then they did constitute them several Congregations and no common Governours over them all nor have we any command to do so when the Churches should be increased into multitudes of Members It must be remembred that the whole Church in Heaven and Earth is one Common-wealth because of its Union to Christ and the same general end of that Union in like manner every particular Church being but a part of the whole must unite only to attain the special ends of the whole Church with more ease and convenience and therefore they must be no more then the same Governours may exercise a true pastoral care over and as may perform the Offices of Brethren ordinarily to each other and also may assemble together in one place ordinarily for the worship of God and their mutual edification To what purpose is the name of a Church or Society to serve Christ together and edify each other when the persons are so numerous or so distant that they cannot possibly perform these offices such combinations are useless yea burthens and snares Even our opposites confess this viz that the first Churches and those for 200 years after Christ at least were but several Congregations which when the number of Christians were multiplyed they say were called Diocesses be it so yet what warrant had they to keep the Christians of one city or place to one Congregation and one Pastour personall or collective when the number was so increased that the ends of that society could not be attained 't is the best construction we can make of the proceedings of those antient Churches in this ease that out of desire to keep up the unity of those Congregations which the Apostles planted in great Cities they still obliged all that were afterwards converted in those Cities to be Members of the same Congregation and then the converts in the Villages about And lastly all the Christians that were within the civil jurisdiction of those Cities whether it was lesser or greater provinces or whole Countreys till they made government impossible to themselves and to the edification of the People and made way at last for Primates Patriarks and the Pope and turned the spiritual government of Christ by his Ministers and Word into a civil government of their own maintaining what they had gotten by their own Cannons and the Laws of Princes and why must we not take warning by them now if the Churches appointed by Christ are only the Congregations of such Christians that can ordinarily meet together and with their Pastours for the proper ends of a Church it follows that they must judge for themselves what Congregation and how large or small is for their own edification it is their own choice and consent that makes them Members of the Catholick Church and this Congregation is but a part of that to prosecute the same ends therefore it is their business and concern to frame their own society also these Congregations have the sole right of chusing their own Pastours admitting their own Members and altogether of governing themselves else they have not the power of a Church but are a company of Christians subject by right or wrong to those that exercise this power over and amongst them it also follows that Congregations cannot be justly compelled to combine or unite into larger associations as Diocesses Provinces Nations or the like for the ends of civil governours for this alters the nature and design of a Church and is a great dishonour to Christ that he must not Reign among his people but as men please but if several Congregations do associate for mutual help and strength into smaller or greater Congregations as Classes Diocesses Provinces or even all that are of one Nation yet they must unite but as formerly the Cities of Achajah or at present the United Netherlands for great and common cases and for generall defence leaving the self preserving and governing power intire to every Congregation and they also are to be judges how far 't is for the good and edification of the Church to inlarge or contract such associations how long to continue them and when to break them off for those associated assemblies govern only by assent and have not other authority over particular Congregations farther then as they approve of it we may illustrate this by the civil governments of the world There was at first but one Family and but a small one all mankind was made of one blood to dwell on all the face of the Earth Acts 17. ver 26. was there any obligation when they were multiplyed that they should still continue in one Family or was it consistent with the ends of Family Government other Families had the same intire authority within themselves as the first had and authority to sever themselves from the first when that was too numerous and they a sufficient number to make distinct families again when families were multiplyed were they obliged to live all in one Country and to continue in one civil society what then must have become of all the other parts of the earth which they were commanded to replenish and possess Gen. 1.28
Surely one company or a certain number of Families had full authority to remove and plant Colonies where they pleased as well as another yea we see God compelled them to it by confounding their Languages at Babel and farther when one colonie removed into another Country were they bound still to adhere to those they departed from as a part of their society if so then all Nations must still have been parts of that society from which they first descended and so at length the whole world must have been but one Common-wealth under one Government which was impossible and would overthrow all the ends of government if then the race of mankind which are one body in some sence more then the Church is viz linked by the indissoluble Bond of Nature whereas the Church is united by free consent I say if they having the general gift of the earth and all that is in it to possess have free liberty and authority to share the world amongst them to constitute various societies greater or smaller as they please for the end of civil Life provided they wrong not one another and so hinder the ends of civil government why may not the Church though it is one body as united to Christ it being too great to live in one society multiply it self into so many as are for it 's own edification and the ends it was made for and not be obliged still to adhere as parts to those first Congregations that were planted in every country as it were the first Families till they are a burthen to themselves till their very society makes them a disorderly confused multitude and their government degenerates into Anarchy especially when we have neither command or Scripture example to the contrary By this we may Answer the Dr's Question viz What necessity there is to reduce Churches to several Parishes or Congregations any more then to reduce Kingdoms to the several Families of which they were at first made up Answ Because Congregations have an original right of governing and preserving themselves even as Families have a natural and unalterable right of government within themselves which he that takes from them makes them slaves and deprives them of their Birth-right he himself saith upon the dissolution of the Roman Empire the Nations that before composed it resumed their antient rights and formed themselves into several Kingdoms and Common-wealths yea and as he would have it into National Churches also grant this have Nations such an immutable right to their civil liberties and government that they may lawfully resume them when they have opportunity without the guilt of Rebellion why then may not Parishes resume their right of government within themselves for their own edification when they have opportunity or necessity calls them to it also wanting the benefit of protection and government from them that undertake them why should this be Schism in them more then Rebellion in the other and that self Government is the right of euery Parish or Congregation he confesseth when he saith that antiently a Church and Diocess was all one under one Bishop and a company of Presbyters for those did officiate in common among the whole people and when by reason of Multitude they began to divide them into several companies for meeting together at the ordinary times of worship nevertheless they all met together at the same Sacrament and all made use of the same Ministers as occasion served they being not tyed to any one or any one to them so that this Diocess was but a great Parish or Congregation and if the original right of Government were in these it is so still in our lesser Congregations and to resume this right is no sinfull separation nevertheless we deny not but the Congregations may and ought to unite for their mutual help and defence especially in times of peace even as civil states combine for mutual defence and commerce but then this must be voluntary and not to impose a yoak on the several Congregations by taking away their several liberties or bringing them all to the same Liturgies or Ceremonies for this is all one as if confederate Nations or States must therefore oblige each other to the same form of Government and the same rights and customs of living and why may not all the Parishes in one County with us combine for their mutuall help and edification in certain times of meeting each other by their Ministers or Delegates yet every one reserving to themselves the Government of themselves in their own customs and usages according as they find most meet for themselves as well as the same County have their Quarter-Sessions for civil Affairs wherein the Governours and Countrey concerned have a generall meeting and yet every Town hath its own supreme Officers with several rites and custome without any Breach of Peace or Good Neighbour-hood among them CHAP. II. Of Church Communion and the Nature of Separation WE are in the next place to consider what Communion the Church is obliged to betwixt the severall parts of it and what Separation is contrary to that Communion and what is not For the First The Church is a sacred Common-wealth united to Christ now the end of every Common-wealth or Polity is common good that they all promote the good and welfare of that Body and every Member of it of which they are parts viz that particular good in those particular cases and things for which they did combine together this is meant by Communion for hereby all the actions and designs of that body are common i. e. for the good of all the Communion then of the Church which is associated only for spiritual ends consists in this that all design and endeavour the common good and welfare of all Christians in general and of themselves in particular in furthering the Salvation of their Souls the service of Christ in the use of those helps or means which Christ hath appointed to these ends this Communion hath diverse degrees and doth exercise it self several ways according to the several considerations of the Church and the Relations Christians have to each other more General or Remote or more particular and near The Communion therefore of the Catholick Church in Heaven and Earth is that they all hold the same Head Jesus Christ and own each other as Brethren in him that they love each other and all pursue and wait for that universal perfection which they shall all have when they are all gathered to Christ at the last day This Communion cannot be broken without renouncing the Head and his Religion and love to each other which are the Rule and Bonds of this Union and therefore there can be no Separation from the Catholick Church but what is not only sinfull but damnable as he that renounceth the common bonds of humane society justice love and all moral honesty and only pleaseth himself without regarding the good of any other he doth hereby break the Communion of mankind and
Catholick Church of Christ though gathered into smaller bodies for their own conveniency and this Communion consisteth in acknowledging each other as Brethren in performing brotherly offices of Love and Kindness and especially in admitting each other to their worship upon occasions so Sepetation betwixt Churches is a Breach of this Communion when one Church disowneth another to be a Church of Christ excludes them from her Ordinances and from all Offices of Christian Love This is just when 't is upon great and just causes such whereupon we refuse Communion with the Papists and Socinians if upon lighter causes it is Unlawfull and a great breach of Charity yet not to be aggravated as an unpardonable sin or as that which deserves more animadversion then those sins which destroy all Religion and Humane Society seeing men may be good Christians in Doctrine and practise good Subjects and good Neighbours though they conceived such a mistaken opinion concerning another Church but this is not the Separation I shall insist on the causes that make this just will make the other just also but all the causes that make Separation from a particular Congregation just will not reach our Comunion with other Churches or concern our Separation from them We shall therefore enquire for what causes Members of a Church may Lawfully separate from it i. e. contend for the reformation of the Church and if they cannot attain it withdraw from and either joyn to other Churches or make new ones themselves And to clear this point let us always Remember that the Church is a Common-Wealth United to Christ as the Head First and but secondarily to each other Faith and Obedience to God in Christ with the Salvation of their own Souls is the end why men become Christians and give up themselves to Christ and next they give up themselves to the Church as a Society that profess to design the same end and to have given up themselves to the same Lord and therefore they hope and intend by the Friendship of this Church to be assisted and furthered towards the attaining of their great ends if therefore the Church prove otherwise i. e. to be no help but an hindrance to their serving of Christ and furthering their Salvation Separation from it is not contrary to their Obligation as Christians they are still Members of Christ yea may and ought to seek another Society wherein they may attain those great ends it is true men are bound to bear with many things amiss in a Church because there will be always some things amiss in one kind or other and also for publick peace least by unseasonable reforming some lesser things amiss or withdrawing from the Church while there is any reasonable hope of amendment they should make things worse yet when they cannot worship Christ aright or can have no tolerable edification in the Church the end of the Church Society is destroyed and Separation from it become necessary and the peace of a Church is subordinate to the great end of a Church viz that Religion may be preserved and promoted among them but when this is not intended but betrayed peace then is no duty but a conspiracy against Christ and the good of his Church Even as in civil Government the end being the good of the whole Society so long as that end is tollerably pursued in the preservation of publick justice and honesty many things must be born with rather then to endanger the whole by unseasonable endeavours to mend lesser things but when the publick good is not minded or those conditions broken upon which men did associate and there is no hope of redress in this case peace and quietness is to betray the Government The causes therefore which make Seperation Lawfull are in generall when men cannot worship Christ aright in the chief parts of his worship or edify their own Souls in the Church whereto they are joyned and when there is no reasonable hope of the redress of these things Particular causes are such as these 1. When a Church is idolatrous for now it forsakes Christ the Head for whose sake and service we became Members of the Church and therefore must now forsake it for him what agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols 2 Cor. 6.16 Ye are the Temple of the Living God c. ver 17. Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing c. 2. When any known sin is made the condition of Communion i. e. when a man shall not be admitted or continued to be a Member of the Church unless he approve some errour in Doctrine corruption in worship or himself commit some sin in practise or at least consent to it in the Church For also this destroys the end of a Church which is to edify us in Faith and Obedience whereas here something against Faith or Obedience is to be the very entrance into the Church Upon these 2 cases all agree that Separation is Lawfull and necessary and they both hold strongly against the Church of Rome for she is manifestly idolatrous and imposes both False Doctrines Superstitious Worship and wicked practises upon all her Members nor will it serve to say that that Church denies her worship to be idolatrous or the Terms of her Communion to be sinfull but she must clearly prove it from Scripture which is the Law of a Church and that to the capacity of every Christian concerned for if there be any reasonable grounds to suspect the Terms imposed to be Unlawfull a Christian cannot with safe Conscience submit to them till he is satisfied to the contrary and the Church having no Authority from Christ to impose any doubtfull much less sinfull Terms of Communion in this case the Church is guilty of the breach and not those who refuse to joyn with her or withdraw from her 3. When there is no tolerable means of edification in the Church though no evil is imposed upon the Members As when the teachers are Hereticall in the chief points that concern our Salvation or so contentious and such railers at any that differ from them that they cannot be heard with peace and composure For this cause the Dutch both Ministers and People and the then Prince of Orange also forsook their Parishes because their Arminian Preachers spent so much time railing on the Calvinists that they could neither hear them with profit nor bear them with Patience Also when Ministers are grosly ignorant and unable to explain the necessary Doctrines of Salvation to the People or when they do not or will not ordinarily preach to them or endeavour their instruction or when their Lives are greatly contrary to Religion and Godliness or when the People are almost all corrupt in Doctrines or wicked manners and will not be reformed For all these cases are directly contrary to the ends of a Church and we must rather forsake the Church that we may be edified in Faith
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
were indeed some appointed by K. Edward to collect a body of good and useful Rules out of the Canon Law to be the Rule of Discipline for this Church but he dying that work was never finished so that the Rule now is the whole Canon-Law or so much as every Bishop pleaseth to use in his own Diocess The Bishops made a few Canons of their own 1603. but they are such as only strengthen their own power in imposing and enforcing those things which the Non-Conformists had long desired might be amended As to the Officers that Administer the Discipline They are Chancellors and Commissaries and Civilians by Profession no Ecclesiastical Officers yet these Rule over the Ministers of Christ Admonish Suspend Deprive them of their places and Excommunicate both them and the People when they please This they have no power to do nor can the Bishop delegate his pewer of Governing to them any more then his power to Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments both being parts of the Ministerial Office This they thought was to change the Constitution of Christs Church at pleasure They were also offended at the Administration or use of the Discipline That being such as the Officers were because the Church in its Constitution and frame kept so near the Roman model Therefore the Bishops have ever found it necessary to exercise Church Discipline mostly against those that disliked or dissented from the Liturgy and Government and to connive at the loose and prophane to hold them in some external obedience to them Hence it came to pass where one Minister hath been admonished suspended deprived for Heresie in Doctrine or Un-godliness of Life ten have been so dealt with for Non-Conformity and where one of the People have been censured for scandalous sins an hundred have been troubled and punished for going to hear a good Minister out of their own Parish when they had an ignorant drunkard at home for not having their Children Crossed in Baptism for scrupling to kneel at the Sacrament and such other great Crimes against the Liturgy What was this but to alienate the Church of Christ to the Governours and to make it to serve them more then him and only to use his Name and Authority to press their own Laws and maintain their own power R. 4. They were dissatisfied at the Ceremonies imposed in the Liturgy In the general they acknowledge that it was lawful for any Church to consent to and lay upon her self necessary Rites and Customs such as Circumstances of time and place and other emergencies might make necessary for the present time but that such Ceremonies should be such whose necessity was apparent to all and whose lawfulness might be scrupled justly by none of common understanding and that should be taken up by the general Consent of the People as well as commanded by Rulers as the Feast of Purim was by the Jews Esther 9.23.27 And those necessary things enjoyned Acts 15 23.25.28 And that when the necessity ceaseth those Customes should cease also But they thought it utterly unlawful to devise Rites or Ceremonies for which there was neither apparent necessity nor usefulness or to impose those upon the people which from the beginning were doubtful and offensive especially to make them parts of Divine Worship or additions to it as it were to render it more edifying beyond the natural and common Civil circumstances of Order Method or Decorum and such they thought it manifest our imposed Ceremonies were which are declared to be retained some because they served for decent order in the Church for which they were at first devised others for edification Pref. to the Common Prayer Book And again that the imposers were content with those Ceremonies which do serve to a decent order and Godly Discipline and such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God by some notable and special signification whereby he might be edified Three Ceremonies were at first imposed The Cross in Baptism The Surplice in Reading the Service And Kneeling in Receiving the Lords Supper Against these they excepted severally 1. Against the Crosse that it was abused to great superstition and Idolatry in the Church of Rome and particularly when it was used in Baptism having Divine power ascribed to it of driving away the Devils giving grace c. Therefore being neither commanded of God nor used in this manner in the primitive Church viz. To admit Members into the Church by it it ought to be rejected Also that it did reflect very dishonourably on Baptism it self as if that were not full and plain enough to set forth the blood of Christ and Remission of sins by it or our engagement to Christ and therefore it was needful to adde a more plain and direct sign of his death and suffering for us and of what we must be willing to suffer for him above all that the Cross was made and here used as a Sacrament being declared to be a token of the Childrens owning the Faith of Christ Obedience to him and perseverance to the end Is not this the nature and end of Receiving Baptism it self Why is not that sufficient but the Cross is presently added without any note of distinction as it were to signifie the same things more plainly and fully and to lay a greater obligation on the Child then what was laid on it in Baptism and this is a Sacrament as much as man can make Indeed it wanteth the promise of Divine Grace but this also is presumed upon forasmuch as this seems cheifly to be intended in those words of some of the Ceremonies being apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty by some notable and special signification whereby hemight be edified 2. Against the Surplice they object that was a Ceremony on purpose devised to add decency and splendour to the Worship of God and therefore it must be used in that Worship only and such Ceremonies are unlawful additions to Gods Worship And those circumstances or accidents of the Service in their absolute nature yet relatively in as much as they better the Worship and increase Edification they are made moral parts of Worship even as it was a part of Worship for the Preists of old to put on their Sacred vestments to sacrifice in though the vestments themselves absolutely and naturally considered were but circumstances of the Worship Also that the Surplice seemed to be taken from the Ceremonial-Law and to be at least an imitation of those Preists Garments As many other Ceremonies used in the ancient Church were either taken from the Jews or devised to imitate and be like them Now our Saviour having abolished the old Ceremonies gave no leave to his Church to devise new ones neither did he abolish them as Types and Shadows of himself only but also as Yokes and Burthens as carnal Ordinances and servile Customs wherein his People were kept in great Bondage
till his coming in the flesh Gal. 5.1 Acts 15.10 Gal. 4.1 2 3. John 1.17 Therefore esuch Ceremonies were utterly unnecessary since the full discovery of the Gospel yea they disparage the Gospel as if that was not plain and sufficiently apt to teach Faith or Holiness without their help And besides they take off mens minds from the Worship of God partly by pleasing their eyes and fancies with an external shew and partly by busying their thoughts about the meaning of them and how to improve them if they be serious in the use of them They also bring the People again into bondage and fill the Church with carnal Ordinances and beggarly institutions and men are sensibly taught to content themselves with outward forms and modes of Service and to think God is content with them also and further the use of the Surplice in Divine Service kept up too much resemblance betwixt our Ministers and the Priests of Rome and the ignorant might be tempted to think there was very little difference betwixt our Church and Rome seeing we came so near them in their Service and in the manner and circumstances of the Service also Nevertheless they accounted it not unlawful to have continued the use of the Surplice till the People were weaned from it and accordingly many did use it it being not in it self unlawful as the use of the Crosse was 3. Against Kneeling at the Lords Supper they pleaded that it should by no means have been retained in our Church being brought into the Church at first only upon the opinion of Transubstantiation and worshiping the Sacrament and very apt to continue the same opinion in the People It is also certain our Saviour neither used nor appointed that gesture nor gave his Church Authority to enjoyn any other then what he used as a standing precept for thereby he and his practice should be taxed as not using the most fit gesture nor is this gesture at all proper to this Ordinance but thwarteth the two main ends of it viz. Free Communion with Christ in the participation of his benefits and the Renewing of Love and Strengthning Communion among the People for it is a gesture of great awe reverence and distance not fit for Meditation on the promises or consideration of the death of Christ or the incomprehensible love that he manifested theerein Also by Kneeling the People were severed from each other and could not be at the Table many together very unlike to a feast of Love nay the presence of many would be an hindrance and not a furtherance of Affection and Devotion Both these inconveniencies were greatly increased when the People were forced to come up to the Table at the upper end of the Chancel and there to kneel before the rails a few at a time for they must come to but one side of the Table for this was much more unlike a Supper of Love betwixt Christ and his Spouse and betwixt fellow Members of the same body yet they accounted not this gesture in it self unlawful but that they who would might use it and it might be retained in the Church till the People could freely leave it off but that it was unfit to be imposed and purposely kept up much more to be enforced with the highest penalty upon those that were dissatisfied with it The Non-conformists were much strengthened in their dissatisfaction with the Established Church way because instead of obtaining any redress and reformation all the impositions were continued and things made worse and the imposers went backward rather then forward notwithstanding the Non-conformists increased in number both in Ministers and People and at length became a very considerable part of the Church whose complaints ought therefore to have been considered and redressed There is a passage in the 20th Aritic to be subscribed by all Ministers that the Church hath power in matters of Faith This the Non-Conformists disliked unless more explained Therefore the Parliament in the 13 Eliz. which established those Articles by Law caused that passage to be left out Bishop Laud confesseth that it was not to be found in the Original of the Articles of that year B. Laud's Speech in the Star Chamber viz 1570 yet the Bishop continued the passage in the Articles and required subscription to it Also that Parliament ennacted that if any Minister was admitted into our Church having other Ordination than what was established amongst us he should declare his Assent and subscribe to all the Articles of Religion which only concern the Confession of the True Christian Faith 13 Eliz. Cap. 12. and the Doctrine of the Sacraments By this they gave indulgence to those that were not satisfied with the Episcopal Ordination and could not subscribe to the 39 Artic. absolutely because the approbation of the Homilies and Book of Consecration with the fore-mentioned passage were included in them being content that they subscribed to the Doctrine of Faith Artic. 35.36 and of the Sacraments contained in the Articles but the Bishops would not allow this indulgence at least not long nor generally but urged absolute subscription to the great trouble of many Non-conformists Nor could any amendment of the Liturgy ever be procured but on the contrary some passages left out that reflected much on the Papists as that Petition in the Letany from the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome good Lord deliver us and a whole Prayer in the office for Gun-powder Treason expung'd by B. Laud wherein it was said that the Religion of Papists is Rebellion their Faith faction and their practice the Murthering of Souls and Bodies Nor were any of the Ceremonies taken away or their imposition remitted but rather more added to them by the Bishops Cannons though not by Parliament The Cross in Baptism was confirmed and inforced Can. 30. Under K. James and the explication there given increased the suspition of the unlawfulness of it they also brought in bowing at the name of Jesus Can. 18. And their dipping of Children in Baptism turning the Communion Tables into Altars bowing towards them or towards the East for they agree not what it was they bowed toward were brought in by B. Laud and pressed with great Rigour though never established by Law In Q. Eliz. Reign they were content that Ministers Read the Service Book without declaring their judgment concerning it only it was said in the 39 Articles viz Artic. 36. That the Book of Consecration contained nothing that was in it self superstitious or ungodly But Arch Bishop Whitgift devised a subscription of his own and imposed it upon all to be ordained after that time which was at length turned into a Cannon Can. 36. Artic 2. In these words that the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God and that it may Lawfully be used and that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayers and Administration of
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
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
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
their Judges who were their professed enemies and tell the King that So long as it shall please the King and Civil State to maintain in this Kingdom the State Hierarchy or Prelacy we can in honour to his Majesty and the State and in desire of peace be content without envy to suffer them to enjoy their State and Dignity and to live as brethren amongst those Ministers that shall acknowledge spiritual homage unto their spiritual Lordships paying unto them all temporal duties of Tenthes and such like yea and joyning with them in the service and worship of God so far as we may do it without our own particular communicating with them in those humane Traditions and Rites that in our Consciences we judge to be unlawful Thus we see it was only for respect to the State and for peace sake that they could give the Bishops any acknowledgment or reverence and that though they did acknowledge other Ministers for their brethren who did in Conscience ascribe spiritual Authority to the Bishops yet they did acknowledge the Bishops as such neither for Fathers nor brethren Mr. Robert Parker wrote in Latine de Ecclesiastica politia wherein he proves Presbyters to be the only Ministers and answereth Mr. Hooker and Bishop Bilson where they maintain or excuse Bishops or a power of imposing what government the Magistrate pleaseth upon the Church 2. They hold Congregations or Churches severally to be the only Gospel Churches and each one to have full power and jurisdiction within it self without being subject to any Ecclesiastical Officers but their own but all to be immediately subject to the Civil Magistrate and his inspection This is the Scope of Mr. Baine's Diocesan Tryal of Dr. Ames in his Medull Theol. Cap. 32. Part. 1. And thus they joyntly declare Engl. puritan Chap. 3. part 1. they hold that the Pastors of Particular Congregations are or ought to be the highest Spiritual Officers in the Church over whom by any Divine Ordinance there is no Superiour Pastour but only Jesus Christ And that they are led by the Spirit of Antichrist that Arrogate or take upon themselves to be Pastours of Pastours and to the same purpose position 2. before cited And Position 3. They hold that if there were a Supream National or Ecclesiastical Minister or Pastour that should be the Prince of Many thousand Pastors that then also Christ as he did in the Jewish Church would have appointed a solemn National or Provincial Lyturgy or worship unto which at sometimes of the year the whole body of the people should ascend and that unto the Metropolitan City as unto Jerusalem and that he would as he did in the Jewish Church more precisely and particularly have set down the manner of solemnization thereof then of his Parochial worship For as much therefore as they cannot read in the new Testament of any higher or more solemn worship then of that which is to be performed in a particular Congregation they cannot be perswaded that God hath appointed any higher Ministers of his service and worship under the new Testament then the Elect Ministers of Particular Congregations See Position 4th more to the same purpose And Protestation Position 24th We confine and bound all Ecclesiastical power within the limits only of one particular Congregation holding that the greatest Ecclesiastical power ought not to stretch beyond the same and that it is an arrogating of Princely Supremacy for any Ecclesiastical person or persons whatsoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over many Churches much more over whole Kingdoms aud Provinces of Christians 3. They held that the Officers of every Church or Congregation were Pastors teachers and Elders chosen out of the people and herein they agreed with all the Protestant Churches besides the Lutherans Engl. Purit ch 3. p. 13. They hold that by Gods Ordinance there should be in every Church a Doctor whose special Office should be to instruct by way of Catechizing the ignorant of the Congregation and that particularly in the main grounds and principles of Religion Chap. 4. Position 1. They held That by Gods Ordinance the Congregation should make choice of other officers as Assistants unto the Ministers in the spiritual Regiment of the Congregation who are by Office joyntly with the Ministers of the word to be as Monitors and Overseers of the Manners and Conversation of all the Congregation and one of another that so every one may be more wary of their waies and that the Pastours and Doctors may better attend prayer and doctrine and by their means may be made better acquainted with the state of the people when other eyes besides their own shall wake and watch over them Protestation Position 25. We hold it utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Ecclesiastical jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation and therefore we hold that some of the sufficientest and most honest and godly men in the Congregation ought to be chosen by the heads of families to be adjoyned in Commission as assistants to the Minister in the spiritual Regiment of the Souls of that Congregation of which he is the Pastor 4. They hold that every Church hath power to Elect her own Officers to censure or depose them as they shal deserve and that this power ought not to be taken from them though they grant also that the King or Supream Magistrate hath Authority to Command and by Civil Mulcts to compel them to make due Elections to amend undue ones and so to cause them to restore such Officers Engl. Purit ch 2. pag. 5. as may be unjustly rejected by them c. They hold that every established Church ought as a special Prerogative by which she is endowed by Christ to have power and liberty to elect and chuse their own spiritual and Ecclesiastical Officers and that it is a greater wrong to have any forced upon them against their wills then if they should force upon them wives and upon women husbands against their will and liking And Position 6. They hold that if in this choice any particular Churches shall erre that none upon earth but the Civil Magistrate hath power to controle or correct them for it and that though it be not lawful for him to take away this power from them yet when they or any of them shall apparently abuse the same he stands bound by the Law of God and by vertue of his Office grounded upon the same to punish them severly for it and to force them under civil mulsts to make better choice Protest pos 26. We hold that these Ecclesiastical Officers being so chosen by the Church or congregation are to exercise over the said congregation only a spiritual jurisdiction and power c. Then they shew the manner of proceeding in censuring private Members when they offend and then adde If any one of the Ecclesiastical Officers themselves shall sin he is subject to the censures of
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
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
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