An Apology for the Non-Conformists, Part 2

An Apology for the Non-Conformists · Part 2

p. 75PART 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 p. 76Toleration 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;

p. 77§ 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 Ʋniformity, 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 of the Pariſhes any more then the Non-Reſidents may plead that they cannot reſide with their own people, or perform Miniſterial duties to them, becauſe they muſt hold Communion with them amongſt whom they dwell.

Thus the Dr in all his book hath ſaid nothing directly to the queſtion in hand, but the Terms of Communion he ſaith are the ſame now as at the firſt Reformation, but as to the Miniſters, this is apparently otherwiſe, ſuch Subſcriptions and Declarations being required of them as no Hiſtory can match, except thoſe impoſed on the Janſenists in France, of which ours ſeem to be an immitation. The contrivers of our impoſitions being then in France, when the Janſenists were removed from all Eccleſiaſtical Places by a like artifice as we afterwards were: If he mean the Terms of Communion that concern the people, as he elſewhere expreſſeth himſelf, and reſtrains them to the Terms impoſed by Law, this is nothing to the purpoſe for the Miniſters, though they ſhould ſubmit to thoſe terms when they act as private men, may nevertheleſs be bound not to for ſake the exerciſe of their Miniſtry. Beſides there is a Fallacy in reſtraining the Terms to thoſe enjoyned by Law; what if neither Miniſters nor people can enjoy the benefit of the Law, but new terms are impoſed on them without Law, as were the ſubſcription to the Service Book, Can. 36. whereby ſo many worthy Miniſters were turned out in K. Jame's time, the Reading of the book for Soorts on the Lords Day, and the Reading of the Prayer againſt the Scots, and the order for Preaching but once a Sabbath, and then p. 78not to exceed an hour, for diſobeying which more were rejected in the late King's time, and many ſuch are ſtill continued, viz, the conſtant Reading of the Communion Service, though there be no Sacrament, which makes the Prayers more tedious, and fuller of Repitions then they need to be, and alſo ſtraitneth the Preacher, if it do not hinder the Sermon, the placeing the Communion Table and Railing it like an Altar, and compelling the Communicants to come up by parcels to kneel before it contrary to Q. Eliz. injunctions: muſt the people ſubmit ſtill, becauſe theſe things are impoſed by Law; do not innovations and corruptions come into the Church by degrees, and by connivance at firſt; and afterwards when their Authors are ſtrong enough, they are then eſtabliſhed by Laws and Canons: And yet the Argument holdeth not, the things impoſed might be ſubmitted to at the firſt Reformation, ergo they muſt be ſo ſtill.

The Jewiſh Ceremonies were tolerated and practiſed by the Apoſtle Paul in the beginning of the Goſpel, and yet when falſe teachers, and other peeviſh or timorous men contended for the obſervation of them ſtill, when the reaſon of it, viz, not offending the Jews was ceaſed, and they were an hindrance to the Goſpel then the ſame Apoſtle would not give place to them, no not for an hour, though Peter and Barnabas joyned with them, Gal. 2.3.4.5. and ver. 11. to the 18. Nor doth our practiſe reflect on our firſt Reformers, unleſs they had been extraordinarily inſpired to that work, then indeed to vary from them, or endeavour to correct them, would be to reproach the Spirit by whom they acted. But if they made that Reformation only as good and wiſe men, acting according to Principles of Piety and Prudence, as farr as they could in their circumſtances, it is no diſparagement to them, if others vary from them according to the times and circumſtanees they live in. My L. Bacon obſerves that in civil matters our Parliament does dayly alter our Laws,Bacon's Eſſays, and ſuit them to the preſent times and caſe of the people, yet this is thought no diſparagement to the Wiſdom or Juſtice of their Anceſtours in former Parliaments, but the Church …eth almoſt buried in the Rubbiſh of time, and this muſt not be removed out of Veneration, forſooth, to Antiquity.

The beſt men not inſpired can but do what is beſt for their own time, we ſhould therefore inquire not only whether the terms of Communion be the ſame now, that they were at the firſt Reformation, p. 79but alſo whether thoſe terms be as neceſſary as Tolerable, and as fit to be ſubmitted to now as they wre then; Nor did our Reformers expect that their endeavours ſhould be made an unalterable Standard to all poſterity.

The expreſt in their Preface to the Common-Prayer Book their mind this purpoſe, viz. That they had done what they could in reforming the Church and the Liturgy, according to their light, and as their times would bear, and that they hoped thoſe that came after would be able to do more, and go further: This I have heard from divers Ancient and Credible Perſons, who remembred they had read this paſſage in the ſaid Preface, though it be now left out: And it is the more unreaſonable to urge the platform of the firſt Reformation as a Rule not to be altered, though in diſputable and mutable things, becauſe ſome of theſe Reformers, both Miniſters and People of that time diſliked ſome things that were impoſed, and becauſe they were yoked with ſome Papiſts, who diſſembled their Religion that they might both keep their places, and more effectually hinder the Reformation, as Biſhop Cranmer is ſaid to have complained, How ever the thing was an unqueſtionable Truth: Nor is it altogether true, which he ſaith, that the diſlike of our Liturgy or Ceremonies was wholly brought from abroad by Hooper, Rogers, &c. ſuch as had travelled in Germany and Helvetia, where Cranmer himſelf had alſo been a conſiderable time; But it ſprang up at home alſo, together with the firſt ſeeds of the Reformation. Almongſt Wicklif's Opinion recited by Mr. Fox, and charged on him by his Adverſaries, there by many pieces of the preſent Non-Con-formity, relating to Diſcipline and Ceremonies,*Church Hiſt. Cont. and Dr. Fuller reports that in the latter end of K. Henry 8th. many Articles were complained of in the Convocation, as being now common among the People as againſt Lent, moſt of the Ceremonies and ſuch like. It is natural for Chriſtians not only to deſire to hear true Doctrine, and to have true Worſhip, but to have that Doctrine and worſhip maintained by ſuch Diſcipline, and expreſſed by ſuch Ceremonies or Circumſtances as are allowed by it, and agreeable to it, and not by exotick things of mans device, and humour, It is true, then, Conformity and Non-conformity were Twins, conceived and Born together in the Womb of our Church, and it is as true that Non-Conformity put forth its hand firſt, though Conformity had the hap firſt to break, and to be Midwifed into into the world by Law.

p. 80But indeed is it a Reflection on our firſt Reformers to deſire to mend, what they were not peremptory in, and ſome of them diſliked? And is it no diſhonour to them to change the Doctrine then eſtabliſht, in chief Articles of Faith, viz. the Pelagian and Arminian points, which have ſo long reigned amongſt us? And concerning the Divine right of Biſhops above Presbyters which they ſo expreſly diſavowed, both in their printed books, and in the Manuſcript of divers queſtions decided by them the account whereof we owe to this Learned man?Irenic p. 2. and laſt. All this therefore from the honour of our Reformers is but a flouriſh.

But now Sect. 3. We have three Reaſons given why our Reformers left ſuch Ceremonies in the Church.

1. He ſaith it was out of Reverence to Antiquity, they being of uſe in the Primitive times, long before Popery, and yet three of the chief Men, Peter Martyr, Martyn Bucer, Paulus Fagius, who were ſent from beyond Sea to aſſiſt in the Reformation, promoted no ſuch continuance of theſe venerable Antiquities in the Churches abroad, where they had been made uſe of before to help to reform: And how Ancient were theſe Ceremonies? Why? the Surplice he ſaith was uſed in Auguſtine, and Hieroms time, that was 400 years after Chriſt, and Superſtition came in apace, Images in Churches, and praying for and to the Dead, and ſuch like; And Ceremonies were ſo many that Auguſtine complained of the condition of the Church in his time in that regard, was worſe, then that of the Church under the Law.

The Sacrament he ſaith was received about Conſtantines time in a poſture of Adoration.

That was ſtanding Sc. from the time of Eaſter to Whitſuntide, as all other publick Worſhip was then performed in remembrance of Chriſts Reſurrection. But did they kneel? The Dr. will not ſay ſo, nor can he produce any evidence, that kneeling at the Communion was commonly uſed, till divers Hundred years after Popery had defiled the Weſtern Church. The Croſs he ſaith was much Ancienter, and uſed with much Superſtition even in Tertullian's time; but the Dr. ſaith not, it was uſed in Baptiſm, nor is there any proof of it, and that was only to our caſe. When he pleads that we need not reform beyond the example of the Primitive times, viz: thoſe ſoon after the Apostles, and ſaith it gives great advantage to the Papiſts, to p. 81to reject the Customs of thoſe times upon pretence that the Miſtery of Iniquity was working even in the Apoſtles daies. I deſire to know where we ſhall ſtop, and what Church ſhall we take for our pattern? Do all, did any, of the Churches for the firſt 300 years uſe our Ceremonies in their publick Church Service? or if they did, were not others alſo uſed in many Churches, now generally diſallowed by Papiſts and Proteſtants. As giving the Communion to Infants, ſending the Eulogies or conſecrated Bread to thoſe that were abſent from the Sacrament and the like. Mr. Mead no Non-Conformiſt, hath proved, that Saints and Image Worſhip in remoter and ſmaller degrees, began very early in the Church, amongſt which he reckons the moſt Ancient uſe of the Croſs in Tertullian's time, with which they uſe to fortifie themſelves againſt the Devil and all evil Accidents.

There were never more Hereſies and Diviſions in the Church,Apoſt. of the latter times. then in the Primitive times. Yea, before the Apoſtles were dead, there have been no Errours or Corruptions ſince, but the like were then, and muſt we not go beyond or paſs by all theſe times, and appeal only to Scripture as the only Rule for Conſtituring and Governing the Church? Did the Judges or Kings of Judah that reformed their Church before the Captivity, or Zerubbabel and Nehemiah after it, ever make former times their Preſident? Did they not alwaies appeal to the Law of Moſes? If we muſt ſuppoſe the times next the Apoſtles had their Cuſtoms, and Ceremonies from the Apoſtles, becauſe they lived ſo near them, This opens a door to all Popiſh Traditions, and overthrows the perfection of the Scripture; Or if we ſuppoſe the preſent Church in every Age hath not as much Power of ſelf-Government as the Primitive Church had, or to appoint and alter their own Cuſtomes and Ceremonies, we ſhall contradict our 20th. Artic. and bring our ſelves into unſupportable ſlavery to all the Cannons and Cuſtomes of all former times; and ſo the Chriſtians as well as the Jews will need a Talmud beſides their Bible. It is probable our firſt Reformers, ſeeing they muſt retain ſome Ceremonies, retained thoſe they thought moſt Ancient, and leaſt offenſive, and this was the Reaſon why they were retained, and not laid aſide.

2. The Dr. ſaith, Theſe Ceremonies were retained for fear of the Popiſh Biſhops, who were ſome of them Learned Men, leaſt they ſhould reproach the Reformers with innovation againſt the Primitive as well as the Popiſh Church.

Anſw. This was indeed the true and chief reaſon why our Reformations p. 82was no more compleat becauſe the Popiſh Biſhops that were joyned with the Reformers hindred them, and the Popiſh People would not endure a through Reformation: Mr. John Elliot a worthy Gentleman in the Parliament, Ann. 3. Car. 1. ſaid, That he had ſeen in a Diary written with K. Edw. 6th. own hand,Ruſhw. Colec. part. 1. pag. 661. theſe words. That the Biſhops at that time, ſome for Ignorance, ſome for Sloath, ſome for Pride and Luxury, and ſome for Popery, were unfit for Diſcipline: To which we muſt add, that ſome of the good Biſhops, Biſhop Ridley in particular, being but late Converts from Popery, had yet a Zeal for the old Cuſtomes and Ceremonies, thoſe that could be retained without manifeſt Superſtition. And ſo much they themſelues acknowledge in the Preface to the Service Book before cited; Now what Obligation is this upon us, not to endeavour a further Reformation?

3. He ſaith, They had reſpect to the Lutheran Churches, who retained the ſame and more Ceremonies.

Anſw. They might conſider that ſeeing they muſt retain ſome of the old Cuſtomes, it would be more excuſable to retain theſe, becauſe ſome other Proteſtant Churches did retain them: But that they did it in imitation of thoſe Churches there is no ground to believe; ſeeing till now our Church was alwaies charged to be too much addicted to Calvin, and influenced by him and Beza, both in K. Edw. and Queen Eliz. time. Nor is there any Reaſon why the Lutherans themſelves retained ſo much, many Popiſh Ceremonies, but becauſe Luther being almoſt wholy intent upon reforming the Doctrine of the Church, neglected matters of Diſcipline and Ceremonies, which his Followers interpret his judgment; So hard, is it to make any Progreſs in any good deſign, eſpecially in matters of Religion, beyond the firſt Efforts, when mens firſt Affections and Zeal are cooled, and the World with carnal ſelf doth afterwards intangle their minds.

It is ſtrange overlaſhing when the Dr. ſaith that our firſt Reformers dyed Martyrs for our Church. They dyed indeed for the Doctrine and Worſhip of our Church, as it is common to all Churches, and grounded on the Word of God, in oppoſition to the Idolatrv and Superſtitions of Rome, and particularly that Idol of the Maſs. But the diſputable things of our Lyturgy as to Government Rites and Ceremonies, were never in queſtion then; nor did they bear any Teſtimony to them. But ſome of thoſe Martyrs refuſed p. 83Conformity 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, p. 84(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 p. 85Deacons, 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 Ʋniformity, 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 p. 86under 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) p. 87would 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 p. 88to 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 p. 89Miniſters 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 p. 90Authority 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. 'Tis Will VVorſhip, therefore ſinful. Arg. 2. 'Tis a ſinful Compliance with the Papiſts p. 91in derogation from the honour of the Reformed Churches to uſe them.

Arg. 5. 'Tis 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 p. 92his 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, vnderunder 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 p. 93in 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 arroga…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 p. 94unlawful, and therefore though they continued in their Churches, yet none of them would uſe the Croſs in Baptiſm, few would wear the Surplice, none would compell the People to kneel at the Communion, and many gave it without kneeling, yea, many would not read the Common-Prayers, others but ſome pieces of them, contenting themſelves either with Lectures without charge of a Pariſh, or elſe having thoſe under them that could read to do it for them. All their Care of peace which the Dr. now magnifies after their Death, but was in their life time as little accounted of, as ours at this day, they being alwaies charged with breaking the peace of the Church. I ſay, all their deſire of peace did not oblige them to comply with thoſe things which they thought unlawful, either in themſelves, or at leaſt in their time and Circumſtances.

3. I infer, That when they were rejected for Non-Conformity, they ſtill reckoned themſelves the rightful Paſtors of their Congregations, and that their Right or Relation was not taken away, only that they were forcibly kept from the enjoyment of their right, and the diſcharge of the Duties of their Relation.

And thus much appears from Mr. Bradſhaw's Letter, cited by the Dr. giving the Reaſon why they muſt leave their People, and not Preach to them when deprived, becauſe this were to run upon the Sword of the Civil Magiſtrate, who would not ſuffer himſelf to be ſo deſpiſed, as that they whom he commanded to be ſilent, ſhould yet publickly preach in contradiction to his Command; there is nothing of fear of Schiſm in the caſe, but a prudent yielding to the times, and of two evils choſing the leſs, i. e. to do what good they could privately to their People and Neighbours, as their own words cited do ſhew, rather then by Preaching publickly to hazzard the bringing an open Perſecution upon themſelves, and their people.p. 1. Sec. Sect. 16, 17. All that the Dr. hath quoted, let it be conſidered, it proves no more then this, that they did not think it prudence in their Time, and Circumſtances, to Preach publickly when ſilenced for fear of provoking the Magiſtrate againſt them, and giving occaſion to thoſe that uſed to ſlander them, eſpecially to King James as Enemies to the Kings Supremacy; They alſo modeſtly added that the word might be Preached as well, yea, perhaps better by others, then by them; though their Pariſhes ſeldom found it ſo. All this was but a prudential Reaſon, proves no difference betwixt their Principles and Ours.

p. 95Let us next conſider their practice, The Dr. tells us,Ibid. That the Old Non-Conformiſts thought it unlawful for private Perſons to endeavour Reformation of the Church, contrary to the will of the civil Magiſtrate, this he thinks condemns the practice of the preſent Non-Conformiſts. But Biſhop Bancroft giveth another account of this matter, viz. That it was reſolved amongſt the Non-Conformiſts after many years waiting,Dang. poſit book 3. chap. 3. and chap. 8. and when they ſaw their admonitions to the Parliament 1570 had no effect, that then they ſhould endeavour to reform each one in their own places, yet ſo as by all means to preſerve the peace of the Kingdom, which accordingly they did purſue in their ſeveral Synods, Claſſical, Provincial and National, from the year 1572 and forward, having at length compoſed a Book of Diſcipline Ann. 1583, which was reviſed by ſeveral Synods, and at length perfected, and according to it they did order themſelves, and frame their Congregations till all was diſcovered, and ſtopt by Arch Biſhop Whitgift: let us hear their own words.Protest. poſ. 30. We hold it utterly unlawful for any Chriſtian Churches whatſoever, by any armed force or power againſt the will of the civil Magiſtracy, and State under which they live, to erect and ſet up in publick the true Worſhip and Service of God, or to beat down or ſuppreſs any Superſtition or Idolatry that ſhall be countenanced or maintained by the ſame, only every man is to look to himſelf, that he communicate not with the evils of the times, enduring what it ſhall pleaſe the State to inflict, and ſeeking by all honeſt and peaceable means all Reformation of publick abuſes only at the hands of civil publick perſons,Vid. 3B. ch. 1. chap. 10. and all practiſes contrary to theſe, we condemn as Seditious and ſinful. Biſhop Bancroft makes it the deſign of his whole 3d. Book, to ſhew that the Engliſh Non-conformiſt did after the example of the Scots, endeavour Reformation contrary to, or without the will of the civil Magiſtrate. By this it is manifeſt, that the attempts for Reformation which they condemned, were

(1.) Such as were by force and Armes. Do we defend any ſuch? The Goſpel was planted, and muſt be propagated by Preaching the VVord, and bearing the Croſs.

(2.) Attempts for publick reformation either throughout the Nation, or in other Churches beſides their own, or to bring their p. 96practiſe and way of worſhip into the publick view contrary to the will of the Magiſtrate, eſpecially if he were a Chriſtian. And this is all that the example of the Primitive Churches under Heathen Emperours doth prove; for they did keep their Aſſemblies and Worſhips in private, and maintain them to the death, againſt the Laws and will of thoſe Princes, but they did not ordinarily bring them into publick to affront the Magiſtrates to their faces, yet when they lived under mild Princes, and had a kind of tacite connivance they met publickly, as appears by the queſtion brought to Alexander Severus by the Cooks in Rome: who laid claim to a publick Hall, which the Chriſtians uſed for their Worſhip, and the Mild Emperour aſſigned it to the Chriſtians ſaying it was better that any God ſhould be worſhipped there, then that it ſhould be a place devoted to Exceſs and Riot,Euſeb. eccl. hiſt Lib. 1. Cap. 1.2. and by degrees the Chriſtians had many Beautifull Churches, which Diocleſian cauſed to be demoliſhed, and the Chriſtians much bewailed it, yea Mr. Mead contends that even from Nero's time the Chriſtians had Churches or publick places appointed for their Worſhip. And Mr. Nich. Fuller maintains the ſame opinion in his Miſcellanies grounding it on the fore-quoted place of Euſebius. Tract an 1 Cor. Ch. 11. ver. 22.They who maintained every Congregation to be a diſtinct Church, having full power within themſelves, and their Miniſters to be compleat Paſtours muſt needs allow that every Congregation muſt have an intrinſick power of reforming and regulating themſelves, though it ſhould be managed with all reverence and reſpect to the Magiſtrate and publick order. But the Non-Conformiſts judgment in this will better appear by their practiſe, under the reſtraints that were laid upon them by Laws and Canons, in the beginning of Q. Eliz. about 5 years Conformity was not preſſed, the Liturgy ſeemed to be put as a bound to extravagant humors, as many Civil Laws be, but not as a Snare to the Conſcientious. But when it was perceived that the Non-Conformiſts encreaſed in number, and power with the people, ſubſcription to the 39 Artic. without any limitation was urged 1562, and many who had been Sufferers and Exiles in Q. Maries Days, refuſed to ſubſcribe, amongſt whom was the pious Mr. Fox, as ſaith Dr. Fuller, and from this time Mr. Ball dates the Miſeries of our Church,Ball agſt. Can. ſaying, whilſt they walked in peace, God bleſſed: them p. 97with peace, there was no diviſion, Papiſts came to our Churches, and were dayly converted to the Truth, but when we came to bite and devour one another, the Papiſts were hardened, and forbore our Communion, the progreſs of the Goſpel was greatly hindred, and perpetual contentions amongſt our ſelves did preſently enſue, now many who did not ſubſcribe were turned out of there places, both in the Church and in the Univerſities, and thoſe who for ſpecial reſpect to their perſons, as Mr. Fox and ſome others were not turned out, yet were looked on with an evil eye, and accounted Puritans, and from this time ſaith Dr. Fuller, there was a difference even among the Non-Conformiſts, Mr. Whittingham and others on the one ſide,Ch. Hiſt. Cent. 15. held the Government of the Biſhops, and the order of the Church of England utterly unlawfull, and in no ways to be ſubmitted to, others were more moderate, and thought them tolerable, and Reformation in Ceremonies, and ſome other things only to be preſſed and deſired. And if this difference among Non-Conformiſts be found at this day, it cannot be fairly ſaid, they have forſaken the Principles of the Firſt Non-Conformiſts, ſeeing it was among them from the beginning, and that ſort of them have encreaſed all along much beyond the more moderate, through the obſtinacy of the Prelats, who in all this ſpace of 130 years ſince the Lyturgy was firſt eſtabliſhed, have not amended or abated any one material thing to gratifie the Non-Conformiſts, excepting that of late, that the Leſſons, Epiſtles and Goſpels ſhould be read in the New Tranſlation. The Non-Conformiſts that were turned out made a Separate Congregation in London, Preached and Adminiſtred all Sacraments in a Publick Hall about the year 1567.

Sect. 6. This the Dr. confeſſeth, and names three Miniſters as the chief Authors of it, but ſaith Beza, being adviſed with, diſliked it, why? as Schiſmatical? No, but for fear of giving offence to the State, which it was then hoped might have been prevailed with to moderate things; but did the reſt of the Non-conformiſts ſit down as lay men, and diſert their Miniſtry? No Biſhop Bancroft ſaith, (Book 3. cap. 1.) that for the firſt twelve years of her Majeſties reign, there were many ſecret meetings of the Non-conformiſts that came from beyond the Seas, both in private houſes, and alſo in the fields and woods, and ſome of thoſe meetings they called Churches; and Mr. Cartwright ſaith he, in part defended them, ſaying that Conventicles was too harſh a term for them.

p. 98The Miniſters, both thoſe that kept their places, as well as thoſe that were ejected, held frequent meetings amongſt themſelves, all Queen Elizabeths Reign, after the Parliament had rejected their admonitions, Biſhop Bancroft and Dr. Fuller ſays, the firſt of thoſe meetings that came to their knowledge was at Walmsworth in Surrey, 1572; and from that time divers others were held at Cooks-field in Eſſex, Mr. Knew-ſtubs. Parſonage, at London, in Northamptonſhire, yea at length there were three or four ſmall Claſſes formed in moſt Counties in England; there were alſo a kind of Provincial Synods held at Oxford, at the time of the Act, and at Cambridge at the Commencement, or at Sturbridge-fair, and at Coventry, (An. 1588 Likewiſe National Synods were by them agreed on to be held at London, at the time of the ſitting of Parliaments; and accordingly Biſhop Bancroft names one or two that was afterward held by them, Ann. 158…, they firſt compoſed a book of Diſcipline, wherein they layed down a platform of Church Government in moſt things like to that in Scotland; and after that book had been reviſed in their ſeveral meetings, and at length perfected and ſubſcribed by them, Biſhop Bancroft ſaith, they compoſed a book of Common Prayer, Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and Government of the Church, which they intended to preſent to the Parliament, in the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth, with the form of an Act prefixt for its Eſtabliſhment, and a petition to the Queen and Parliament, that it might be made the eſtabliſhed Lyturgy of the Land.

This and much more the Biſhop hath ſet down throughout his third book, which was learnt from the Confeſſions of Mr. Snape, Mr. Stone, Mr. Johnſon, Miniſters of North-hamptonſhire, who were impriſoned, and examined by the High-Commiſſion, and from the Papers of others ſeized in ſome of their ſtudies.

In Publick they held ſolemn meetings of Neighbour Miniſters, once in three weeks, which they called Propheſyings, wherein ſome prayed, others preached, or made Divinity Lectures. And Arch, Biſhop Grindal being commanded by the Queen to diſturb them, gave her a fair account of them, and refuſed to interrupt them, though he incurr'd her diſpleaſure for it, as may be ſeen in his petition in Dr. Fuller, with all the former paſſages, ibid.

Moreover in all their Congregations they uſed the Liturgy according to their own judgements, and omitted the Ceremonies as they thought fit; kneeling at the Sacrament was diſuſed, even at the Temple-Church, in the time of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Traverſe, p. 99as appears by their Petitions annext to Hookers Eccleſ. Polity: Yea kneeling was not ſtrictly enjoyned all Queen Elizabeths Reign. And Mr. Chadderton was blamed by the Biſhop of London at the Hampton-Court Conference, for that in Emmanuel Coll. Chappel in Cambridge, many did not kneel, what they did in other parts of Church Government may be gueſt by this, that Mr. Cartwright enjoyned his own Man-Servant, being convict of Fornication, a form of acknowledgment which he gave him in writing, which was charged againſt him in the High Commiſſion-Court. Biſhop Bancroft tells of a like inſtance of a man at North hampton Convict of the ſame offence, and how he was brought to ſubmiſſion and acknowledgment in the Congregation, and then abſolved by Mr. Snape. The Biſhop alſo gives account of their proceedings in their Claſſical Meetings, in their cenſures of their Brethren in the Miniſtry.

When the Canons were made, Ann. 1603, which were to thoſe Non-Conformiſts, as the late Act of Uniformity was to us, many were now turn'd out, and all liable to be ſo dealt with, but they that were ejected, ſtill accounted themſelves the Paſtors of their Flocks, though they were torn from them, and ſtill viſited them with Letters, and in perſon, Praying, Catechizing, expounding the Scriptures to them in private, ſome were received into Gentlemens Houſes, and Preached publickly in their Chappels, others found favour under Biſhops of other Dioceſſe's, and got Livings with them; they joyned together in publick and private Faſts, they adminiſtred the Sacraments privately, they contracted and married many, being reſorted too from far, for the good and grave Counſel they uſe to give at ſuch times, ſome taught Schools, others bred up young men in their houſes for their Miniſtry, Mr. Bernard Gilpin in Yorkſhire is noted by Dr. Fuller for this, that he was wont to have twenty young Scholers at a time in his houſe; when they were to be ordained themſelves, ſome went into Scotland, others beyond the Seas, and got Ordination, which was not refuſed by thoſe Biſhops, and ſome they Ordained amongſt themſelves at home; and as the number of Non-Conformiſts increaſed, by the increaſe of new Impoſitions, and more rigorous Proſecutions under the growing Arminian Faction in the Church, in the latter end of King James, and under Arch-Biſhop Lauds Government. So theſe practiſes of theirs encreaſed, and they were bold in them as the neceſſity was greater, and that this was their practiſe, will farther appear by the late Act of Uniformity, the Oxford Act, and the Act againſt Conventicles, p. 100which do cautiouſly in particular provide againſt all ſuch things for the future, which the Contrivers of them would never have thought on, had not experience taught them that thoſe were the private practiſes of former Non-Conformiſts, when caſt out of their places.

From all which, (which nothing but Ignorance can contradict it) it appears, that the old Non-Conformiſts, when ſilenc't and ejected by Law or Crnons, when forbidden by the magiſtrate and Biſhops, did not yet exerciſe all Miniſterial Acts and Offices, and did not count themſelves bound to be content with lay-Communion; they did them indeed in a way which they thought moſt proper to their Time and Circumſtances, and not ſo publickly as we do now; which is to be aſcribed to the difference of time and occaſions; which comes next to be conſidered.

It muſt therefore be remembred, (having been ſpoken more largely before,) that for a good part of Q. Eliz. Reign, Conformity was not urged with any ſtrictneſs, only Subſcription to the 39 Artic. and that too, moderate by the Statute of the 13 Eliz.

The firſt two Succeſſive Arch-Biſhops, Parker and Grindal were mild and moderate men, who governed the Church about 25 years, and ſuch were moſt of the other Biſhops, having been Confeſſors and fellow-Sufferers with the Non-Conformiſts in the Marian daies: they had alſo travelled abroad amongſt other Churches, and therefore were not ſo zealous in matters diſputable at home, of this we have a notable Teſtimonie from Mr. Cranmer, in his Letter to Mr. Hooker, neither of them to the Non-Conformiſts. At firſt the greateſt part of the Learned in the Land, were either eagerly affected, or favourablr inclined that way, the Books then written, for the moſt part ſavoured of the Diſciplinary Stile, it ſounded every where in Pulpits, and in common Phraſe of mens Speech, the contrary part began to fear they had taken a wrong courſe, many which impugned the Diſcipline, yet ſo impugned it, not as being the better form of Government; but as not being ſo convenient for our ſtate, in regard of dangerous innovations like to grow thereby, one man ſtood in the gap to oppoſe them, &c. which was Dr. Whitgift, the following Brch-Biſhop; here was yet no occaſion for their Preaching in private, while Whitgift was Arch-Biſhop. The laſt 20 years of the Queen. the Non-Conformiſts were more ſtraitly dealt with, the Lyturgy and Subſcription more rigorouſly impoſed, their private aſſociations ſearched into, yet proceedings p. 101then were leſs then the little Finger to the loins, compared to thoſe of our days. The Non-Conformiſts yet enjoyed their places, at leaſt ſome places, as Mr. Cartwright who was removed from being Profeſſor in Cambridge, yet was ſuffered quietly to Preach in an Hoſpital at Warwick till his death.

After the making of the Canons 1603 the Non-conformiſts were turned out of places in greater numbers, but yet theſe Canons did not reach all, the matter being left to the Biſhops hands, ſome did either conuive at the ſecret omiſſion of ſubſcription, or at the doing of it in their own ſence, ſo that many either kept their old places, or quickly got new ones in other Dioceſſes. Beſides the Non-conformiſts were then but few in compariſon of the other Miniſters, and the people much fewer, who had not ſo much Religion as to make any difference betwixt Miniſters, and Preaching, and Diſcipline, or to diſtinguiſh betwixt the good and bad, nor were there yet any footſteps of men going back again towards Rome, in Doctrine, Government or Ceremonies; and therefore thoſe Non-conformiſts might very well judge it was moſt advantagious to the Goſpel for them by quiet and private means to ſerve their people, then by appearing more publikely to occaſion greater contentions; but our caſe is far different. Till Whitgifts time there was hope that the acceptable things in the Liturgy and Church Government might have been mended, their greateſt defenders judging this their beſt plea, as the forecited Mr. Cranmer in his Letter ſaith, that the Government of Biſhops was not unlawful, and ſetting up of Elders was not neceſary, or as Mr. Hooker expreſſeth it in his Epiſtle Dedicatory to the Arch-Biſhop (which alſo is the drift of his book) that there was no great harm if things complained of were ſtill continued in the Church, but Whitgift and his Succeſſor Bancroft, put an end to theſe hopes by eſtabliſhing all the things in queſtion by their Canons, and requiring all the Clergy to ſubſcribe to the Lyturgy, but ſtill the Doctrine and worſhip was kept pure, and the bounds of our firſt Reformation maintained as ſacred, But Arch-Biſhop Laud extended Conformity to his new Arminian Doctrines, to his new Ceremonies, and to bring all men into ſuch ſubjection to himſelf under the name of the Church, that they muſt neither ſpeak nor do any thing in Religion but what he allowed and appointed, and now was hard to keep the ground which was gotten at the firſt Reformation. He and his deſigns were at length defeated, but civil broils hindred the ſettlement of the Church.

p. 102At length when almoſt all men weary of confuſions longed for peace and union, the ſame Laudenſian Arminian Faction influenced the State, to eſtabliſh Conformity in an higher degree then ever, viz. that all Miniſters ſhould not only practiſe, but approve by publick declaration, all that was enjoyned in the Lyturgy, without any conſiderable amendment, hereupon there is no favour to be ſhewed to any, no moderation nor no end, all being eſtabliſhed by a Law, nor were they content to deprive the Non-conformiſts of their Churches, but a ſecond Law is added to drive them above five miles from thoſe that were there people, or any Corporation, where people being more civilized, and having more leiſure, might be more likely to hear then preach; and a third law alſo, that they ſhould not exerciſe any worſhip of God other then what is preſcribed by the Liturgy in any private houſe, or in their own family, in the preſence of five other perſons, ſo that the preſent Non-conformiſts is this. They are all turn'd out as one man, and that for no reaſon given, only things deviſed to be laid on them as ſnares which the impoſers knew they could not ſubmit to. They were in number about 2000. The People alſo of the ſame perſwaſion with them very numerous in the 3 Nations, and in Scotland the whole people, there was not ſo much as leave to Petition for any moderation, nor is there any bound of time put to this Rigour, nor may they be ſuffered privately, and in Corners to Act as Miniſters, and help their People, and in the mean while Popery Arminianiſm, Atheiſm, and prophaneſs break in like a torrent, now whether there is as much reaſon that the preſent Non-Conformiſts ſhould keep as private as the former did, the Reader muſt judge.

Obj. But the Dr. ſaith the old Non-Conformiſts earneſtly oppoſed the Browniſts.

Anſw. And ſo do many of the preſent Non-Conformiſts alſo the Browniſts had two dangerous Poſitions or Principles peculiar to themſelves.

(1.) That there was no true Church in England, nor indeed in the whole world, but that all Churches in reſpect of their Doctrine Worſhip, Ceremonies, Conſtitution and Order, or ſome of theſe were Idolatrous, and Antichriſtian, and that therefore no man that minded his Salvation ought to continue a member of them, or to hold Communion with them as Churches, though they might Communicate with particular Members, or with the Society as a Company of private men, Praying or otherwiſe Worſhipping God together, p. 103provided nothing was then uſed or done, which they diſliked.

(2.) The Browniſts taught that the people had the whole power of Government of the Church, and that the Miniſters, were but the Peoples Deputies in Preaching the Word, Adminiſtring the Sacraments, or exerciſing of Diſcipline, and muſt be accountable to them. Theſe Principles deſtructive of all Churches, the Non-Conformiſts earneſtly oppoſed, eſpecially the firſt, ſc. ſeparation from all the Reformed Churches, as Antichriſtian. For by preventing of this, they would prevent the other miſchiefs; but in maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches, did they the Prelaticall, Nationall Church, in reſpect of the Eſtabliſhed conſtitution, which themſelves had ſo often called Antichriſtian?

It is manifeſt by their Books, and what is forequoted of their opinions, that they meant it of the ſeveral Pariſhes or Congregations in England, that they were true Churches, both in reſpect of their Conſtitution, and alſo in reſpect of their Doctrine and Worſhip; and that there was in them no ſuch intolerable corruptions, as that all Chriſtians ſhould fly from them; nevertheleſs when the Miniſters in particular Pariſhes were more then ordinary defective, and unprofitable, they allowed and encouraged the people to reſort to Neighbour Pariſhes for better means of edification; which Mr. Hilderſham defends to be Lawful, Lect. upon John, Page 227.

All this is the ſence of the preſent Non-Conformiſts; and I do verily believe there are no more Browniſts among the preſent Non-Conformiſts Miniſters, then there were amongſt them in thoſe days, for ſome there were then that went further then the reſt in Principles of Separation, and ſo it is in all times, and all matters of controverſie, and what conſiderable difference is there betwixt their allowing people to go to other Pariſhes or Gentlemens Chappels, and our allowing them to go to private Meetings, ſeeing one takes them off from their own Paſtor and Church as much as the other? The Dr. ſaith they ſtill kept the ſame Liturgy, and ſo they held Communion with the National Church, nay but many times they did not that; for ſome, the Old Puritan Preachers uſed it not in their Pariſhes or Chappels, others but little of it, others would Baptize without the Croſs, give the Sacrament without kneeling, Marry without the Ring, &c. which made people reſort to them, who could not have ſuch Liberty at home, and ſo they varified from, if not omitted the Liturgy of the Church, but can a man be a Member of the National Church of England and hold Communion with p. 104it, without being a Member of a particular Pariſh, and if they be allowed to continue members of their own Pariſhes, and not to make a Schiſm, who did in caſes of neceſſity, and pro tempore moſtly Communicate with Neighbour Pariſhes, why may not the ſame be ſaid now, yea it is ſaid and beleived by moſt of the Non-Conformiſts, that the Pariſhes are true Churches of Chriſt, and they do not ſeparate from them, or break off Memberſhip though pro tempere, and for the preſent neceſſity, they do ordinarily Communicate in private Meetings, where the ſame Doctrine and Worſhip is uſed, only ſome circumſtances and ceremonies omitted, but no contrary or new ones uſed in their room, or in oppoſition to thoſe in the Pariſhes, and thus much for the Old Non-Conformiſts, from whom I do not conceive thoſe that are now living do conſiderably differ in judgment or practiſe, but only as time and circumſtances do direct them, only they that are dead are out of the way, and ſo beſt ſpoken of, and they that are living, croſſing the humours or intereſts of their oppoſites are always ill ſpoken of.

Obj. 2. The Dr. next objects that we contradict the Principles of the Aſſembly of Divines, who did diſapprove and gave reaſons againſt the toleration deſired by the Congregational Brethren, as tending to endleſs Separation.

Anſw. The Toleration deſired was, that all men ſhould have liberty to joyn with what Congregation and Paſtor they pleaſed without reſpect to Pariſh or place of abode, or any other civil diſtribution or ſettlement of men amongſt us. Their chief reaſons was that Chriſtians being not originally bound to Nations, places, or any other Civil Diſtribution, but left free to joyn with thoſe Congregations, that they ſhould find moſt convenient and edifying, and now Epiſcopal Government in England being diſſolved and no other ſet up in its room, the People were again free, and therefore might make what Congregations or Societies they found moſt for their own edification, ſee Dr. Owen of Schiſm.

This the Aſſembly thought not reaſonable, that things ſhould be unravelled into their firſt Principles, and that we ſhould begin to lay the Foundation of Churches again, ſeeing our Pariſhes, at leaſt thoſe that have good Miniſters, have all things neceſſary to a Church, and it is moſt convenient for Chriſtians Living in a Vicinity, and under the ſame Civil Officers to make the ſame Congregation for Worſhip, nor did they think, the former Relation of Pariſhes to be diſſolved by the diſſolution of the Hierarchy, who were no eſſential p. 105parts of the Pariſhes, but general Superviſors, or Viſitors over them, of the ſame mind are the moſt part of the Non-Conformiſts ſtill, and all the Congregational men went not that way, ſome allowing all thoſe Pariſhes that had good Miniſters, and ſome Chriſtians fit for all acts of Church Communion to be true Churches. Mr. Cotten adds way of the Churches of New-England, that it is great preſumption to ſay that the Church of England was faulty in its firſt Conſtitution, and therefore to be pull'd to pieces, and new-built, ſeeing all Hiſtories agree that ſome of the Apoſtles, or Apoſtolical men, were the firſt Planters of the Goſpel in England, who did certainly conſtitute the Churches in a right manner. But where is the Conſequence to our purpoſe, that becauſe the Aſſembly, and we as well as they maintain that the Pariſhes of England are true Churches, and not to be ſubverted, therefore when Thouſands of their Miniſters are violently thruſt out from them without any cauſe given, (and if they had been all caſt out as it was in Scotland, the Argument is the ſame) and their People left either deſolate, or like to be betrayed to Ignorance and Superſtition, that it were unlawful for theſe Miniſters to Preach to this People in Temporary Aſſemblies, or Congregations, till this ſtorm may happily blow over. I find no force in the Argument, but each Reader muſt judge for himſelf.

CHAP. III. An Anſwer to the 3d. Argument from the Nature and Sinfulneſs of Separation.

THE Dr. ſpends the whole ſecond part of his Book in Examining, as he ſaith.

Sect. 1. The Principles of the preſent Separation, and thoſe are of two degrees.

(1.) Of ſome that hold no Communion with the Church of England lawful.

2. Thoſe that hold only occaſional Communion with them lawful, but not conſtant; and then proceeds to argue againſt Separation from Churches, whoſe Doctrine and Worſhip are for ſubſtance true, p. 106and good, and to ſhew many inconveniencies that will ariſe from ſuch Separation. Now though ſome of the Drs. Anſwerers have diverted to more general Queſtions about the Nature of Church Unity, Terms of Communion, and Cauſes of Separation, and its ſeveral degrees, and ſo have given him occaſion to follow them, yet I judge all this to be wide of our preſent Queſtion, in the ſence and apprehenſion of moſt Non-Conformiſts, for we are not diſputing about, much leſs erecting new Churches. The Queſtion only is, whether it be Schiſmatical and Unjuſtifiable for us to Preach and Exerciſe all Miniſterial Acts to the People in our Circumſtances, ſtill maintaining all the Peace and Communion we can, hoping in Gods due time this Wound of the Church may be healed. What further. Queſtions any particular Men have about the Conſtitution of Churches, belongs not to the Cauſe or Party of the Non-Conformiſts, whoſe ſence he wrongfully aſcribes to Mr. A, and Mr. B. when they only ſpeak of General Queſtions about Church Communion, and not our particular Caſe in hand. All the Arguments therefore, or force of this diſcourſe to our preſent purpoſe, lieth in this,

Obj. Separation from Churches granted to be ſound in Doctrine and Worſhip, is ſinful, and in its effects very evil, but ſuch Separation he would inſinuate, is the Non-Conformiſts Preaching, therefore ſinful.

Anſw. In Anſwer to this we ſay,

(1.) That the Non-Conformiſts do diſclaim, and are not conſtrained to own by this their Practiſe any Principle of Separation.

2. We ſhall ſhew wherein the great Evil of Separation lieth. And,

3. That the Dr. hath provided no better Remedy againſt it, then thoſe whom he oppoſeth.

1. The Non-Conformiſts diſclaim Separation, for they acknowledge the Pariſhes of England to be true Churches, and the Doctrine and Worſhip eſtabliſhed by Law amongſt them to be true and ſound; they acknowledge themſelves Members of thoſe Pariſhes, though wrongfully thruſt out, and evilly intreated by them. They did not Separate themſelves, nor withdraw from them, but firſt the Miniſters were caſt out by new deviſed terms impoſed on them, and afterwards many of the People were excommunicated (and more would have been, could the Pariſh Miniſters have had their wills) for non-communicating in doubtful, if not ſinful things.

p. 107They are alſo ready and deſirous to return to a full union with the Pariſhes when ever the obſtacles ſhall be removed. And as they own no ſeparation, ſo their practiſe doth not conſtrain them to acknowledge it, They hold Communion with the Pariſhes, not only in Faith and Doctrine, but alſo in acts of worſhip, where they think they can lawfully do it, and when they are not imployed elſewhere. But the Dr. thinks if it be lawful for us to communicate occaſionally or ſometimes with the Church we are bound to doe it alwayes, his reaſon is, becauſe if we be members of the Church, and the Church be in ſuch a condition, that we can ſometimes communicate with it, then we muſt do it upon all occaſions, or elſe we ſeparate and become members of a new Church; For Anſwer, I ſay, that there are many caſes wherein men ought to continue members of a Church, i. e. not totally to break off, but wait till abuſes may be amended, and breaches healed, and yet it not be their duty to hold conſtant communion in all or any acts of publick worſhip; This appears by the inſtance of the ten Tribes after Jeroboams Apoſtacy, they were ſtill members of the Church of Jeruſalem, and might not gather any other Church; there were many amongſt them who held Communion with Judah in Doctrine and Charity, but yet could not go up to Jeruſalem to all or any of the Feaſts or Sacrifices, which were there cheif Publick Worſhip. And that they ſinned not in forbearing, appears, becauſe the eminent Prophets Elijah, Eliſha, and their Schollars, who were ſo numerous that Obadiah alone ſaved an hundred from Jezabels cruelty, and they had four Seminaries, or Colledges wherein they were bred up, theſe I ſay lived amongſt them, and kept private meetings with them, but neither went themſelves, nor required the people to go up to Jeruſalem as things then ſtood, Hoſea blamed the Prieſts for laying ſnares and nets upon Mizpah and Tabor, Chap. 5.12. to entrap thoſe who out of zeal did go up to Jeruſalem, and thereby cauſed them to be put to death, but we do not find that this Prophet, or Jonas or Amos, who were all ſent to the ten Tribes, and preached to them, where they had opportunity, did ever preſs them to go up to all acts of Publick worſhip at Jeruſalem, becauſe they were Members of that Church.

Again, the people of Judah, who lived nearer to the Temple, and had free acceſs to it when it was open, thoſe that were upright whether, Prieſts or private perſons, went not up to it in the time of Idolatrous Kings, when the Publick Worſhip was corrupted, yet they continued members of the Church; they frequented the Synagogues p. 108or more private meetings at home, Malac. 3.16. and waited ſometimes many years, till Publick abuſes ſhould be redreſſed, I know it will be ſaid the caſe is not the ſame, Idolatry was here ſet up in Publick, and ſo it is not with us.

I Anſwer, The queſtion is not about the parrelling the caſe, but the truth of this propoſition, that where occaſional communion is lawful, conſtant is neceſſary, for here we ſee men continue members of a Church, yea the Prieſts and Levites continued officers in it, and the Prophets propheſied in it, and ſo held communion occaſionally when they could, and in thoſe things they could lawfully, but they did not communicate in all things, nor at all times, nor were bound to it. But let us go a little farther after the Captivity, the Jews being diſperſed through all Countreys, there continued, and ſet up their Synagogues and houſe of prayer where ever they could have leave. Thoſe Jews were ſtill members of the Church at Jeruſalem, and yet did not, could not (the farre greateſt part of them) go up thither, They therefore held communion in ſome things, as the expounding the Law and prayer, but 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. p. 109The 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 p. 110to 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 p. 111them, yet they were not troubled in Conſtantine's time, the Biſhops of theirs ſate in the Councel of Nice, they had their publick Churches, one in Conſtantinople, when it was the Imperial Seat, to which the people generally reſorted when Macedonius was Biſhop, and when their Church was commanded to be pull'd down, and they not to meet within the City the people aſſiſted in carrying the Materials, and ſetting up the Church in the Suburbs, yea, ſaith Socrates, the people would have been admitted into their Communion if the Novatians had been willing, and we may obſerve in Hiſtory, the Novatians never ceaſed till the clamours againſt them as dangerous and intollerable perſons were at end, and little or no notice were taken of them Indeed could it be proved that any particular Church under the Goſpel, whether National Dioceſan or Parochial was of the ſame conſtitution with the Church of the Jews, that all Chriſtians were bound to be Members of it, or all that live within their Precinct, or at leaſt all that once have been Members, are indiſpenſably bound to continue ſo, then it were a damning ſin to ſeparate from them. But when it is Originally, as free for every Chriſtian to chooſe his Church, as to chooſe the place of his abode, and nothing but the convenience of his own edification in the firſt place, and next the edification of the Neighbourhood obligeth him to joyn with, and to continue in this or that particular Church, it can be no ſin of ſo high a nature, though it be blame-worthy for him to withdraw without juſt reaſon.

3. Say, that all Separation is as great a ſin as our Author would inſinuate, what means doth he preſcribe to prevent it? why, he ſaith all men are bound to do, and ſubmit to all things that are lawfull, to preſerve the peace, and to prevent the dividing of the Church. True all things that are really Lawfull, but not to all that the impoſers ſay are lawfull, if men muſt judge for themſelves, what is Lawfull abſolutely and what not, and what is Lawfull or not in their circumſtances, will not this open a door for Separation, as much as any thing his oppoſites have ſaid, he blames them for allowing people to ſeparate upon pretence of their Miniſters inſufficiency or ſcandal, or interruption on them againiſt their wills, for doubtfull ceremonies for modes of Worſhip, for want of Diſcipline or right Conſtitution of the Church, and ſaith (which is his moſt plauſible arguments,) that ſome of theſe, the Papiſts might have retorted upon our firſt Reformers, and all ſuch pretences would juſtifie the Ancient Schiſmes, and make way to endleſs Separation p. 112for the future. But he wrongs theſe Authors, which is a common ſhift, almoſt to all that write on this ſubject, when he intimates that they allow Separation upon any pretence of ſuch cauſes. Is there no difference betwixt pretending and really proving the groſs inſufficiency, errours or ſcandals of a Miniſter, or groſs uſurpations over mens Conſciences and Liberty? do any prudent men allow Separation without good cauſe, full proof, all endeavours of amendment, patient waiting, and mature advice, and conſideration of all circumſtances? what then, is there no preventing endleſs Separation, but Tyranny over mens Conſciences, that they ſhall be compell'd to approve, and do whatſoever their Rulers pleaſe as the Papiſts teach? yes, the Dr's final determination is Page 208. A prudent and due ſubmiſſion in Lawfull things is a medium betwixt Tyranny over Mens Conſciences, and endleſs Separation, what is here more then any Browniſt will grant that underſtands himſelf, viz. that as Rulers muſt not Tyrannize over Mens Conſciences, ſo the people muſt not be given to endleſs Separation, and that the way to prevent both is, that the Rulers rule with due and prudent Diſcipline, and that the people yield prudent and due ſubmiſſion, and that this Government and ſubmiſſion be exerciſed only in Lawfull things. But ſtill muſt not the people in ſubmitting as well as the Governours in Ruling, judge whether things be Lawfull or not? whether ſubmiſſion be due, and how farr, and in what caſes it is prudent to yield, or to deny it? if the people muſt not judge, then you eſtabliſh a Tyranny over their Conſciences, that they muſt approve what ever their Rulers command, or Hobbiſme that they muſt do what ever their Rulers command, though they beleive it to be ſinfull or inconvenient, if the people muſt judge for themſelves in the things that concern them, then they muſt judge of the inſufficiency of their Miniſter, the Legallity of his call, and the like? but how then hath the Dr. put a ſtop to Separation more then they? may not men pretend things required to be unlawfull, ſubmiſſion not to be due nor prudent, and ſo without end? Their Arguments therefore are but Sophiſmes, like thoſe that plead againſt all certainty of ſenſe or reaſon, becauſe many men are certain, i. e. confident when they are miſtaken, that a man cannot be ſure he ſeeth, heareth or feeleth, becauſe he hath many times thought he did ſo in his dream, when it was no ſuch thing, as there is a certain way of proving, that men are awake and uſe their ſences, ſo there is as certain a way to prove by plain Scripture, when Miniſters are inſufficient, p. 113when impoſitions are unlawfull, when it is neceſſary to withſtand uſurpation on the Churches Priviledges, &c. what ever Sophiſters will cavil againſt it, and if men will pretend cauſe of Separation when there is none or manifeſtly inſufficient, or but dubious, they may be convicted, and if they ſeparate, bear their blame: but whilſt men are ſubject to miſtake, to paſſion and partiallity, which will be till our Lord come, what ſhall put a ſtop to Separation but neceſſary moderation in Rulers in impoſing? one reverence in the people in ſubmitting, and meekneſs towards thoſe, who notwithſtanding all care, weakly or peeviſhly may diſſent in things that are tolerable? This Learned man hath not ſhewed us, nor the experience of Fifteen Hundred Years, the Popiſh Cruelty could not prevent Separations, Epiſcopal Authority could not prevent them. The Donatiſts and Novatians had their Biſhops, impoſing Uniformity in Ceremonies could not, the Firſt Diviſion in the Chriſtian Church roſe about the keeping of Eaſter-day, if people offend againſt the plain Rule of Scripture, or the plain Rule of good Government and Order, let them be puniſhed according to their Offences, but not for things doubtfull in Scripture, or burthenſome in Government, if men offend in leſſer matters, and cannot be convinced, let them be born with till inconvenience be ſeen to ariſe from ſuch Clemency, and then it is time enough to retract or retrench it; if this were not dayly done in Nations and Families, no Civil Society could ſtand, how then ſhall the contrary ſeverity eſtabliſh the Church.

Obj: The Dr. objects, the Reformers taught, that where there is ſoundneſs in Doctrine and Worſhip people ought not to ſeparate from a Church for leſſer defects, real or apparent, and that they inſiſted on the corruption of Doctrine and Worſhip, as the only cauſe of their Separation from Rome.

Anſw. 1. Doctrine and Worſhip are indeed the chief things in a Church, for if God be truly worſhipped and his knowledge be truly taught, mens lives will be bettered, and their Souls ſaved by it, but then it muſt not lye dead in the Confeſſion of Faith, and in the Lyturgy, while men preach falſe Doctrine, and bring Superſtitions into the publick worſhip, or elſe neither Preach nor Worſhip God in the Congregation at all, or ſo ſeldom that the people can be little profited by them, the Reformers never thought of this myſtery.

2. It is not true that they ſeparated from Rome only, for the p. 114Corruptions 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 p. 115of 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 p. 116of 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 Ʋnion with Proteſtants, if we ſhould break for Ceremonies and Modes of Worſhip.

Anſw. He means the Lutherans, for whom our Arminian Church men have ſome kindneſs, but little for other Proteſtants, yet this will not follow, for a Chriſtian may ſubmit to thoſe Rights and Ceremonies in another Church where he occaſionally is, and communicates with them but as Brethren, which he may not do in his own Church, where he is a conſtant member, and ſo is guilty of the Corruptions, which according to his place he doth not oppoſe, even as every prudent man complies with the Orders and Cuſtomes of places and Families; he goes in abroad, though he will not ſuffer the ſame to be practiſed in his own houſe, but alas what hope of Union with Proteſtant Churches, when we teach, that where there are no Dioceſan Biſhops, there are no Churches, no Miniſtry, no Sacraments, ſome of his Majeſties Chaplains when they were with him in Paris, did hold no Communion with the French Churches, as they complained in publick Letters, to ſay nothing of many at home, that kept their own houſes 12 years or more, during the late troubles; going to no Church for want of Biſhops, and the Common-Prayer, finally our Act of Uniformity decrees. That no man ſhall Preach or Adminiſter the Lords Supper, much leſs have any Eccleſiaſtical Preferment that is not Epiſcopally Ordained, beſides all other Subſcriptions. Now the Communion of Churches lieth in admitting of Miniſters to officiate in each others Churches ſometimes, as well as in admitting the People to lay-Communion, as in the famous inſtance of Victor and Polycarpus at Rome, celebrating the Sacrament together, Let us unite at home, and then there may be hope we ſhall unite with our Neighbours.

p. 117CHAP. IV. The grounds of the Non-Conformiſts preſent practiſes.

THE Dr. ſpends the whole 3d. part of his Book in confuting the Pleas for Separation from the Church of England, and gathering new Churches, which I ſhall leave to thoſe whom it concerns, and ſhall only ſay, that all theſe diſputes do really increaſe, and not hinder Separation, by laying open the firſt Principles of Government to the People, and filling their heads with Notions and Diſputes about things, whereof they are not competent Judges: Moderation in Governing, and not diſputes about Governments doth moſt diſpoſe the People to Obedience and quiet Submiſſion, and as in Commonwealths, when People have not the Protection of their Governours, or the Benefit of their Laws and juſt Priviledges, rigorous proceedings diſpoſe them to defection, and to ſtudy Arguments to defend it from the natural principles of ſelf-preſervation, and the peoples intereſt in all Government by their Primitive conſent to it, and their ſucceſſive approbation of it: So, rigorous Impoſitions in the Church, without any condeſcention in Governours, upon juſt complaints, will at laſt make the People weary of forbearing, and ſearch for all pleas, whereby they may defend themſelves in ſhaking off the Yoke; and then it will little avail their Rulers, either to their profit, honour or peace of their Conſciences, to cry out upon Rebellion or Schiſm when they have loſt the people: Our preſent practiſe in Preaching, though ejected and forbidden, is not grounded on, nor need be ſupported by theſe, or any other pleas for Separation; The general ſence of the Non-Conformiſts, both Miniſters and People, (leaving to particular Perſons their particular ſentiments as the Church of England alſo doth to many of her Members,) is this:

1. That the Pariſhes of England generally are true Churches, both as to the matter of them, the People being Chriſtians, and not to be excluded from Church-Communion; and as to the form of them, their Miniſters being true Miniſters, ſuch as for their Doctrine or manners do not deſerve to be degraded.

2. That the Doctrine, Worſhip and Sacraments in theſe Pariſhes are for ſubſtance ſound and wholeſome, though there are ſome offenſive p. 118things mixed in them, and annexed to them.

3. That they are ſtill Members of theſe Pariſhes; the people of thoſe where they live, and the Miniſters ſo far, as not to be obliged to ſet up diſtinct and permanent Churches; nevertheleſs they think themſelves bound to joyn together for the Worſhip of God according to their own Conſciences, and publick allowance for ſome years paſt; deſiring and waiting for an opportunity to return fully to the Pariſh-Communion, when ever it ſhall pleaſe their Rulers to condeſcend to their reaſonable requeſt, in relaxing or removing thoſe things which are ſo offenſive to them; and in this their practiſe they judge they do no more then the Primitive Churches often did, when erroneous, or otherwiſe unfit Paſtours were obtruded on them, or other differences aroſe amongſt them, whereupon the Congregations were often divided, as in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, with divers other places, and then when thoſe offences and differences were removed, they returned to full eommunion again; or as did the Church of Iſrael, when by, Jeroboams Apoſtacy they could not go up to Jeruſalem with ſafety, or other times could not communicate there, becauſe of Corruptions under ſome Kings of Judah, who then held private Aſſemblies for the preſent neceſſity, and when all obſtacles were removed, again went up to Jeruſalem, even many of the Ten Tribes in Hezekiah and Joſiah's time, when their own Idolatrous Princes were removed, and they could do it without danger, though they were ſtill ſubject to Idolatrous Conquerors, but ſuch who lived remote, and gave them more Liberty of Religion then their own Princes did.

We judge our caſe to be like a caſe of neceſſary ſelf defence, where preſent neceſſity is the Guide and Law-giver, and ordinary Laws and orders which are proper for times of peace, are in a great meaſure ſuperſedent. When a Kingdom is invaded, or divided within it ſelf, all things threaten ruine; it is lawful for the people to gather into ſeveral Bodies, to poſſeſs Garriſons, to choſe them Leaders, and for fit men to undertake their conduct, though without, though contrary to ſome preſent commands that may be unduly obtained and given, yet they ſhall incur no guilt of Sedition nor Rebellion ſo long, as they deſign nothing but the preſervation of themſelves, and the whole as far as they can, and are ready to return to their own places ſo ſoon as peace ſhall give them leave.

When an Army is in danger to be betrayed by the falſehood or diviſion of the principal Officers, or when it hath loſt its Generals in p. 119ſome defeat, it would not be accounted mutiny for the Soldiers to run together as they can, and with the help of inferiour Officers to preſerve themſelves from being ſold or deſtroyed, provided they ſtill retain a reſolution of returning to the Body of the Army, when they may with ſafety to the whole, and to themſelves.

Thus the Non-Conformiſts lie under ſuch a neceſſity, they conceive for the Reaſons laid down in the former part, ch. 6, and 7. which it may not be amiſs for a concluſion briefly to ſum up.

1. There is now no reaſon to be pretended for the impoſed Conformity: In K. Edw. dayes, the Biſhops, their Clergy and People made it neceſſary to retain what was then retained, now 'tis not ſo generally deſired. In Queen Elizabeths days there was hopes of winning of the Papiſts by our moderation, now there is none, but more danger of their incroaching upon us by it.

2. The Diſſenters from this Conformity were heretofore but few, now they are a very conſiderable part of the Church; I will make no compariſon. Formerly the Miniſters were generally cenſured as Puritans, and were but few, the people likewiſe but two or three in a great Town, now they are Multitudes, and thoſe who are zealous for Conformity, appear fewer then thoſe, who would be glad to have it reproved, at leaſt in all places that are moſt civilized.

3. Conformity hath occaſioned a woful Diviſion and Scandal in our Church ever ſince the Reformation, and therefore ought not after ſo much Experience of the evil of it, and alſo after plain evidence of benefit and advantage to Religion, by the removal of it for ſome years, to have been again ſo rigorouſly enjoyned.

4. The things in Queſtion, though not of the higheſt nature in themſelves, yet by occaſion of the Diviſion they cauſe at home, and the advantage the Papiſts make of it have endangered our whole Religion, and will do, ſo long as they are continued. The Nation will not forget the alteration of Doctrine, and of the Lyturgie, innovations in Worſhip, and additions of Ceremonies that were brought in by Biſhop Laud, under the pretence of Uniformity, decency, and oppoſing the Puritanes, till matters were brought to that paſs, that the Papiſts wanted nothing to encourage their hopes of ſwallowing us up, but the proſpect of a Popiſh Succeſſor to the Crown; and his own Chaplains and dependents were not aſhamed to profeſs, that there was a deſign of Reconciliation with Rome; and whether the preſent growth of Popery and Confidence that the Papiſts are arrived to, had not its Riſe from the Act of Uniformity, its turning out ſo many p. 120Miniſters, and making ſo great a breach amongſt our ſelves, and whether it be not ſtill fomented chiefly by our diviſion, and under pretence of zeal againſt Diſſenters, let unprejudiced men judge.

5. A great part of the Nation both Miniſters and People have ingaged themſelves and their poſterity to the long deſired Reformation, and that not without authority, though not with full authority.

6. So great a number of Miniſters and Students were caſt out by the Act of Uniformity, that cannot but for one age at leaſt, greatly endanger the Church, which muſt needs be ſupplied with young ignorant and unlearned perſons, or be unprovided, the Univerſities being not able in many years to furniſh out ſuch a number of tolerable Miniſters, as were ejected, and the viſible effects do confirm this.

7. The Terms of Uniformity are moſt rigorous and intolerable; for not only all was enjoyned, that had been complained of 100 years and upwards, but alſo others added, ſo manifeſtly contrived to inſnare and offend thoſe that were concerned, that nothing could be more.

8. There was no hope left either of alteration of this Uniformity, or of relaxation in the execution of it, it being eſtabliſhed by Law, and the Biſhops made the Overſeers of the execution. It was alſo corroborated by two other ſubſequent acts, which hindred Miniſters from being of any uſe, yea from living amongſt or near their people. And to this againſt the Miniſters was added, that none of the ſame ſnares were put upon the people, all that bore office, civil or military, that ſo there might be no relief for the preſent, and no hope of redreſs for the future.

Now ſhould all this be quietly ſubmitted to, there would be no end of impoſition on the Church, ſeeing Rulers might when ever they pleaſed throw out both their Magiſtrates and Miniſters, and they muſt all quietly ſuffer whatever they will impoſe on them. We may add, there had been as patient forbearance, and as peaceable means for redreſs, during a 100 years, as ever was in any Church, inſomuch as we are now upbraided with it, but nothing was obtained at laſt, but adding to their Burthens, and that not without ſcorn and indignity; and that the blame may not be caſt on our Princes, on whom our adverſaries injuriouſly, as well as ungratefully, for the moſt part caſt it, 'tis not to be forgot, what attempts and endeavours his Majeſty made at his entrance on his Kingdoms, to moderate and accommodate things in the Church, both p. 121by his declarations, and granting a Commiſſion to a fit number on both ſides, to review the Liturgy, and to endeavour a compoſure; but the Commiſſioners for the Church would never vouchſafe a perſonal conference, and debate with the Non-Conformiſts about the things they deſired to be amended; and the Anſwers they returned in writing were ſcarce with common Civility; but once in all their replies, giving them the Title of Brethren, and at laſt yielding to amend nothing conſiderable.

Upon theſe accounts the Non-Conformiſts judge it their duty to help the diſtreſſed and oppreſſed people what they can, whilſt they live, praying and waiting that peace and order may at length be reſtored to theſe Churches, and verily believing that if theſe impoſitions be continued, they will unhinge and divide the people, that ſcarce any time or means will reduce them to due order, and then even we may be counted honeſt men when we are dead, and moderate in reſpect of thoſe that come after.

FINIS.

End of the text · John Troughton, An Apology for the Non-Conformists (1681)