the Puritans on the other, were indeed very dif- CENT. ferent.

For, in the first place, The former maintained, that the right of reformation, that is, the privilege of removing the corruptions, and of correcting the errors that may have been introduced into the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the church, is lodged in the sovereign, or civil magistrate alone; while the latter denied, that the power of the magistrate extended so far: and maintained, that it was rather the business of the clergy to restore religion to its native dignity and lustre. This was the opinion of Calvin, as has been already observed.

Secondly, The Queen's commissioners maintained, that the rule of proceeding, in reforming the doctrine or discipline of the church, was not to be derived from the sacred writings alone, but also from the writings and decisions of the fathers in the primitive ages. The Puritans, on the contrary, affirmed, that the inspired word of God being the pure and only fountain of wisdom and truth, it was from thence alone that the rules and directions were to be drawn, which were to guide the measures of those who undertook to purify the faith, or to rectify the discipline and worship, of the church; and that the ecclesiastical institutions of the early ages, as also the writings of the ancient doctors, were absolutely destitute of all sort of authority.

Thirdly, The Queen's commissioners ventured to assert, that the church of Rome was a true church, though corrupt and erroneous in many points of doctrine and government; that the Roman pontiff, though chargeable with temerity and arrogance in assuming to himself the title and jurisdiction of head of the whole church, was, nevertheless, to be esteemed a true and lawful bishop; and, consequently, that the ministers

ordained

XVI. SECT. III.

PART II.

SECT. III.

PART II.

CENT. ordained by him were qualified for performing XVI. the pastoral duties. This was a point which the English bishops thought it absolutely necessary to maintain, since they could not otherwise claim the honour of deriving their dignities, in an uninterrupted line of succession, from the apostles. But the Puritans entertained very different notions of this matter; they considered the Romish hierarchy as a system of political and spiritual tyranny, that had justly forfeited the title and privileges of a true church; they looked upon its pontiff as Antichrist, and its discipline as vain, superstitious, idolatrous, and diametrically opposite to the injunctions of the gospel; and in consequence of this they renounced its communion, and regarded all approaches to its discipline and worship as highly dangerous to the cause of true religion.

Fourthly, The court commissioners considered as the best and most perfect form of ecclesiastical government, that which took place during the first four or five centuries; they even preferred it to that which had been instituted by the apostles, because, as they alleged, our Saviour and his apostles had accommodated the Form, mentioned in Scripture, to the feeble and infant state of the church, and left it to the wisdom and discretion of future ages to modify it in such a manner as might be suitable to the triumphant progress of Christianity, the grandeur of a national establishment, and also to the ends of civil policy. The Puritans asserted, in opposition to this, that the rules of church government were clearly laid down in the Holy Scriptures, the only standard of spiritual discipline [s]; and that the apostles, in establishing

[s] By this they meant, at least, that nothing should be imposed as necessary, but what was expressly contained in the holy scriptures, or deduced from them by necessary consequence.

XVI.

establishing the first Christian church on the Aris-CENT. tocratical plan that was then observed in the Jewish Sanhedrim, designed it as an unchangeable model to be followed in all times, and in all places.

Lastly, The court reformers were of opinion, that things indifferent, which are neither commanded nor forbidden by the authority of Scripture, such as the external rites of public worship, the kind of vestments that are to be used by the clergy, religious festivals, and the like, might be ordered, determined, and rendered a matter of obligation by the authority of the civil magistrate; and that, in such a case, the violation of his commands would be no less criminal than an act of rebellion against the laws of the state. The Puritans alleged, in answer to this assertion, that it was an indecent prostitution of power to impose, as necessary and indispensible, those things which Christ had left in the class of matters indifferent ; since this was a manifest encroachment upon that liberty with which the divine Saviour had made us free. To this they added, that such rites and ceremonies as had been abused to idolatrous purposes, and had a manifest tendency to revive the impressions of superstition and popery in the minds of men, could by no means be considered as indifferent, but deserved to be rejected without hesitation as impious and profane. Such, in their estimation, were the religious ceremonies of ancient times, whose abrogation was refused by the queen and her council [t].

XXI. This

quence. They maintained still farther, that supposing it proved, that all things necessary to the good government of the church could not be deduced from holy scripture, yet that the discretionary power of supplying this defect was not vested in the civil magistrate, but in the spiritual officers of the church.

[t] Dr. Mosheim, in these five articles, has followed the account of this controversy given by Mr. Neal, in his History

SECT. III.

PART II.

PART II.

a sect of

tans.

CENT. XXI. This contest between the commissioners XVI. of the court, and their opponents, who desired a SECT. III. more complete reformation than had yet taken place, would have been much more dangerous in The its consequences, had that party, that was distinBrownists guished by the general denomination of Puritans, the Puri- been united in their sentiments, views, and measures. But the case was quite otherwise. For this large body, composed of persons of different ranks, characters, opinions, and intentions, and unanimous in nothing but their antipathy against the forms of doctrine and discipline that were established by law, was, all of a sudden, divided into a variety of sects; of which some spread abroad the delusions of enthusiasm, which had turned their own brains; while others displayed their folly in inventing new and whimsical plans of church-government. The most famous of all these sects was that which was formed, about the year 1581, by Robert Brown, an insinuating man, but very unsettled and inconsistent in his views and notions of things. This innovator did not differ, in point of doctrine, either from the church of England, or from the rest of the Puritans; but he had formed new and singular notions concerning the nature of the church, and the rules

of

History of the Puritans. This latter adds a sixth article, not of debate, but of union, "Both parties (says he) agreed too well in asserting the necessity of an uniformity of public worship, and of calling in the sword of the magistrate for the support and defence of their several principles, which they made an ill use of in their turns, as they could grasp the power into their hands. The standard of uniformity, according to the bishops, was the Queen's supremacy, and the laws of the land; according to the Puritans, the decrees of provincial and national synods, allowed and enforced by the civil magistrate: but neither party were for admitting that liberty of conscience, and freedom of profession, which is every man's right, as far as is consistent with the peace of the government under which he lives."

T

XVI. SECT. III.

PART II.

of ecclesiastical government. He was for divid- CENT. ing the whole body of the faithful into separate societies or congregations, not larger than those which were formed by the apostles in the infancy of Christianity; and maintained, that such a number of persons, as could be contained in an ordinary place of worship, ought to be considered as a church, and enjoy all the rights and privileges that are competent to an ecclesiastical community. These small societies he pronounced independent, jure divino, and entirely exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishops, in whose hands the court placed the reins of spiritual government; and also from that of synods, which the Puritans regarded as the supreme visible sources of ecclesiastical authority. He also maintained, that the power of governing each congregation, and providing for its welfare, resided in the people; and that each member had an equal share in this direction, and an equal right to order matters for the good of the whole society [u]. Hence all points both of doctrine and discipline were submitted to the discussion of the whole congregation, and whatever was supported by a majority of votes passed into a law. It was the congregation also that elected certain of the brethren to the office of pastors, to perform the duty of public instruction, and the several branches of divine worship, reserving, however, to themselves the power of dismissing D d these

VOL. IV.

[u] It is farther to be observed, that, according to this system, one church was not entitled to exercise jurisdiction over another; but each might give the other counsel or admonition, if they walked in a disorderly manner, or abandoned the capital truths of religion; and if the offending church did not receive the admonition, the others were to withdraw and publicly disown them as a church of Christ. On the other hand, the powers of their church officers were confined within the narrow limits of their own society. The pastor of a church might not administer the sacrament of baptism, or the Lord's supper, to any but those of his own communion.