The cause of change in opinion concerning the discipline is proper to the learned, or to such as by them have been instructed. Another cause there is more open, and more apparent to the view of all, namely, the course of practice, which the Reformers have had with us from the beginning. The first degree was only some small difference about the cap and surplice; but not such as either bred division in the Church, or tended to the ruin of the government established. This was peaceable; the next degree more stirring. Admonitions were directed to the Parliament in peremptory sort against our whole form of regiment. In defence of them, volumes were published in English and in Latin: yet this was no more than writing. Devices were set on foot to erect the practice of the discipline without authority; yet herein some regard of modesty, some moderation was used. Behold at length it brake forth into open outrage, first in writing by Martin;[2] in whose kind of dealing these things may be observed: 1. That whereas Thomas Cartwright and others his great masters, had always before set out the discipline as a Queen, and as the daughter of God; he contrariwise, to make her more acceptable to the people, brought her forth as a Vice[3] upon the stage. 2. This conceit of his was grounded—as may be supposed—upon this rare policy, that seeing the discipline was by writing refuted, in Parliament rejected, in secret corners hunted out and decried, it was imagined that by open railing,—which to the vulgar is commonly most plausible,—the State Ecclesiastical might have been drawn into such contempt and hatred, as the overthrow thereof should have been most grateful to all men, and in a manner desired by all the common people. 3. It may be noted—and this I know myself to be true—how some of them, although they could not for shame approve so lewd an action, yet were content to lay hold on it to the advancement of their cause, by acknowledging therein the secret judgments of God against the Bishops, and hoping that some good might be wrought thereby for his Church; as indeed there was, though not according to their construction. For 4thly, contrary to their expectation, that railing spirit did not only not further, but extremely disgrace and prejudice their cause, when it was once perceived from how low degrees of contradiction, at first, to what outrage of contumely and slander, they were at length proceeded; and were also likely to proceed further.
[Sidenote: Hacket and Coppinger]
A further degree of outrage was also in fact: certain [Hacket and Coppinger] prophets did arise, who deeming it not possible that God should suffer that to be undone, which they did so fiercely desire to have done, namely, that his holy saints, the favourers and fathers of the discipline, should be enlarged and delivered from persecution; and seeing no means of deliverance ordinary, were fain to persuade themselves that God must needs raise some extraordinary means; and being persuaded of none so well as of themselves, they forthwith must needs be the instruments of this great work. Hereupon they framed unto themselves an assured hope, that, upon their preaching out of a peascart in Cheapside, all the multitude would have presently joined unto them, and in amazement of mind have asked them, Viri fratres, quid agimus? whereunto it is likely they would have returned an answer far unlike to that of St. Peter: "Such and such are men unworthy to govern; pluck them down: such and such are the dear children of God; let them be advanced."
Of two of these men it is meet to speak with all commiseration; yet so, that others by their example may receive instruction, and withal some light may appear, what stirring affections the discipline is like to inspire, if it light upon apt and prepared minds.
[Sidenote: Bancroft's book]
Now if any man doubt of what society they were; or if the Reformers disclaim them, pretending that by them they were condemned; let these points be considered. 1. Whose associates were they before they entered into this frantic passion? Whose sermons did they frequent? Whom did they admire? 2. Even when they were entering into it, Whose advice did they require? and when they were in, Whose approbation? Whom advertised they of their purpose? Whose assistance by prayer did they request? But we deal injuriously with them to lay this to their charge; for they reproved and condemned it. How! did they disclose it to the Magistrate, that it might be suppressed? or were they not rather content to stand aloof off, and see the end of it, as being loath to quench that spirit? No doubt these mad practitioners were of their society, with whom before, and in the practice of their madness, they had most affinity. Hereof read Dr. Bancroft's book.[4]
[Sidenote: Brownists and Barrowists]
A third inducement may be to dislike of the discipline, if we consider not only how far the Reformers themselves have proceeded, but what others upon their foundations have built. Here come the Brownists[5] in the first rank, their lineal descendants, who have seized upon a number of strange opinions; whereof, although their ancestors, the Reformers, were never actually possessed, yet, by right and interest from them derived, the Brownists and Barrowists[6] have taken possession of them: for if the positions of the Reformers be true, I cannot see how the main and general conclusions of Brownism should be false; for upon these two points, as I conceive, they stand.
[Sidenote: Their two points]
1. That, because we have no Church, they are to sever themselves from us. 2. That without Civil authority they are to erect a Church of their own. And if the former of these be true, the latter, I suppose, will follow: for if above all things men be to regard their salvation; and if out of the Church there be no salvation; it followeth, that, if we have no Church, we have no means of salvation; and therefore separation from us in that respect is both lawful and necessary; as also, that men, so separated from the false and counterfeit Church, are to associate themselves unto some Church; not to ours; to the Popish much less; therefore to one of their own making. Now the ground of all these inferences being this, That in our Church there is no means of salvation, is out of the Reformers' principles most clearly to be proved. For wheresoever any matter of faith unto salvation necessary is denied, there can be no means of salvation; but in the Church of England, the discipline, by them accounted a matter of faith, and necessary to salvation, is not only denied, but impugned, and the professors thereof oppressed. Ergo.