A charming word! (for the thing itself is yet to be fought for, even among themselves, who caft them out.) But certainly, 'tis an odd fort of uniformity which hinders unity, by dividing the church into parties. What was the aim of all, but to fettle impofitions, which in all ages have been greedily fwallowed by men of loofer principles, while they have been fnares to the moft confcientious; who will look carefully about them, and are not for wriggling themselves either in or out by distinctions and evafions, (which yet they were as able to have framed as their neighbours) but would do all in fimplicity and godly fincerity, without equivocations or referves; thereby endeavouring to maintain and fpread a principle of honesty in the world.

It has been pleaded that the Puritanical party set the pattern, by bearing fo hard on the fequeftered minifters in the parliament-times. But whatever that pattern was, we must go farther backward for the original. Yet I would not thence pretend to justify any rigorous methods, which chriftianity does neither require nor allow. But certainly they who fo much exclaimed against them, fhould better have known the heart of a stranger, than to have imitated, much less out-done them, in ejecting a number fo very far fuperior, without any allowance towards their fupport from the livings whence they were ejected; whereas the parliament allotted a fifth part to those who were fequeftered, whatever were the caufe; tho' infufficiency or scandal. Many things were done in the parliament-times, which the agents in them lived to fee reason to with undone. But yet when matters were at the utmost heighth, many epifcopal perfons kept their places; things in their own nature indifferent, and acknowledged to be fuch, were not grounds of filencing and driving into corners; nor were the stiffeft of the High Church party, (Gunning and others of his stamp) denied their liberty, provided they gave the Public fecurity of their good behaviour.

"It is but like for like," was a plea in the mouth of all forward perfons. But was not the fcore paid before-hand by the rigor of K. Charles I's reign, to look no further back. It cannot indeed be denied, but that all parties among us, when they have had the afcendant, have borne too hard upon those who lay at their mercy; and it is much to be lamented. But is fuch hereditary revenge as Hannibal's, who was fworn at the altar never to be reconciled, a thing agreeable to Christian principles, or becoming ambaffadors of the Prince of Peace?

It hath been faid by fome, that "they were intolerably hu"mourfome." But why should it be imagined, that for humour-fake they fhould facrifice their all, and expose themfelves and their families to want and beggary? Was not a comfortable life as defirable to them as to others? Can it be supposed, they were fo blind as not to fee where their own intereft lay, which is a charm few are able to refift? Were they not as capable of preferments as their neighbours? Why then should they refufe them, and embrace poverty and difgrace, imprisonment and other hardfhips, which could not in themselves appear eligible to any man? Can any account be given of this, if confcience did not fway them? Should they not then have been confidered ?-How much good might they have done, if they had been kept in the establishment? [or tolerated out of it?] And to whom must the land ascribe the lofs of their valuable labours, but to the eager efpousers of rites and ceremonies? And in what did the heat of these zealots iffue? Did they gain their point and fix uniformity? Did they not rather run things to fuch an heighth, that prophaneness had at length over-run us, and all that was dear to us was in danger, when bare-faced Popery afcended the throne, trampling at once on our religion and liberties? Who can boaft of their gain in the ftrife for uniformity? Were the bufy informers beloved and advanced? Were they not generally infamous? And did not many of them come to a tragical end? Will it be found that they who were fierceft, when in commiffion of the peace, in profecuting the poor Diffenters, have profpered most in their families and estates? Or is the memory of those statesmen who were most active in this service, moft grateful to true-hearted Englishmen?

Did God difown these worthies, when the great ones caft them off? Let any perfons obferve and judge. They and their families were fupplied by an invifible hand. A noted man among them (who himself had a good eftate) reckoned up as many who were ejected within a few miles round him, as with their wives and children made up above a hundred, who were all turned out to the wide world, and lived upon Providence; concerning whom he obferved, that tho' they were oft in ftraits, yet they were not forfaken. The fame perfon (when he was old) obferved, that tho' many of the ejected minifters were brought very low, had many children, were greatly harraffed by perfecution, and their friends generally poor, and unable to fupport them, he never knew nor

heard

heard of any Nonconformist minifter in prifon for debt. Providence was inftead of livings to thofe who left their livings for the fake of their confciences. They were driven first out of their freeholds, and afterwards from all corporations, on purpose that they might be separated from their kind neighbours. Cautions were entered against them, in all ways of livelihood they were capable of; and yet they lived comfortably, and maintained their families creditably; many of them bred up their fons to the miniftry, in which they were ufeful; and they at last died in peace, and were laid in their graves with honour.

Did nonconformity die with them? Would to God it had, provided the causes of it had been removed! Would to God it had, if there were nothing in it but humour and fancy, and prejudice, as fome will have it. But as long as it is founded upon such stable principles, [as the fucceeding fection will give an account of] it must be expected that nonconformity will continue. And tho' we, who come after those who were ejected in the ministry, have our authority called into queftion by fome, if we can approve ourselves to God, we need not be uneasy. If we, who rife up in the room of those who in fo noble a manner adhered to the old Puritanical principle (which was indeed that of the first Reformers) as to venture all that was dear to them rather than do violence to their consciences; do but imitate their faith and patience, piety and purity; if we do but partake of the same divine spirit whereby they were acted; and have but the fame prefence of God with us, to guide and affift us, to prosper and fucceed us, to comfort and support us, which they had, we need not envy any their preferments, nor be afraid of the iffue. We may reft fatisfied with the goodness of our caufe, and need not fear being able to approve ourselves to our governors, the christian world, to all impartial judges, to our own confciences, and to our God.

S.V. The Grounds of the Nonconformity of the ejected Minifters. IT is not to be fuppofed that two thousand men should be

all of a mind. Among the excluded minifters there was a diverfity of fentiments, fo that the grounds of their nonconformity were different. The following abstract contains the reasons of those who were the most moderate, and least fond of feparation, and which, for the most part, were common to I. They

them all

D 3

I. They were required by the act of uniformity to be reordained, if not epifcopally ordained before. This was what they could not fubmit to, because it would, in their apprehenfion, be a nullifying their paft ordination, which feemed not to them a light matter, as the credit of the Reformed Churches abroad, and the peace of their people, were nearly concerned in it: nor would their confciences allow them to trifle with holy things, in pretending to be moved by the Holy Ghoft, to take upon them the office of a Deacon, when they knew themfelves already fixed fufficiently in the higher office of Prefbyters, and folemnly to pray to him for what they were affured they had already.

II. They were required to declare their unfeigned affent and confent to all, and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the book, intitled, The Book of Common Prayer, and adminiftration of the facraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the church; together with the pfalter or pfalms of David, and the form or manner of making or ordaining and confecrating of bifhops, priefts and deacons. And they must alfo, ex animo, fubfcribe these words: " that the book of "common prayer, and of ordaining bishops, priests and dea

cons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of "God; and that it may lawfully be ufed: and that they "themselves would use the form in the faid books prescribed "in public prayer, and adminiftration of the facraments, "and no other." But they could not do this for the following reasons :

1. Very few of them could see the book, to which they were to declare their affent and confent, before the time limited by the act was expired: For the Common Prayer Book with the alterations made by the convocation, did not come out of the prefs till a few days before the 24th of August, when the act took place. So that of the feven thousand minifters in England who kept their livings, few but thofe in 'or near London, could have a fight of it till after they had declared their aflent and confent to it. On which account it is rather to be wondered at, that fo many could act in fo weighty á matter, upon an implicit fa th, than that fuch a number fhould in fuch circumftances ftand out. But,

In fome cafes, an exprefs renunciation of their former ordination was required.

2. When they had opportunity to perufe the book, they met with feveral things there, which, after the ftricteft fearch they could make, appeared to them not agreeable to the word of God. They obferved that there must be not only confent, but affent too; and that to every thing in particular contained in this book. Words could scarce be devised more full and fignificant to teftify their highest commendation of every rite and ceremony, every point and fyllable, in every page and line. So that one might imagine the framers of this declaration and fubfcription were of the mind of the famous Dr. Swadlin, who very roundly afferts, "that there was not a tittle of it, but "was by the dictate of the Holy Ghoft." Such a declaration as was required was, in their apprehenfion, as much as could be defired concerning the Bible itself; and more than ought to be made concerning any copy of it now extant. But as for the Book of Common Prayer, &c. they found feveral exceptions to it, which appeared to them of great confequence, viz.

66

(1.) That it teaches the doctrine of real baptifinal regeneration, and certain falvation confequent thereupon: "We yield thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy fpirit." "It is certain "by God's word, that children which are baptized, &c. are "faved:" whereas the word of God fays nothing about it. The fenfe of the church in this point is fufficiently clear from the office for confirmation, "Almighty and everliving "God, who haft vouchfafed to regenerate these thy fervants "by water, and the Holy Ghoft, and haft given unto them "forgivenefs of all their fins," &c. This was a thing that appeared to our minifters of fuch dangerous confequence, that they durft not concur in it, or any way approve it, for fear of contributing to the hardening of a multitude of vain, loofe, carelefs, fecure creatures, in a fatal mistake about the fafety of their ftate; neither could they see how they could anfwer for it to God another day.

(2.) That it prescribes the use of godfathers and godmothers, în baptifm, to the exclufion of parents. This they esteemed finful, not only because it justled out the parents right to devote their children to God in baptifm, but also opened a wide door to the profaning one of the folemnities of cur holy religion; inasmuch as fponfers are not required to be chofen with due care and caution; and in many cafes it is really impoffible to procure ferious perfons to undertake the office.

D 4

And