Spiritual and Ecclesiastical be appropriated to particular Congregations then all that Power exercised in Classical Diocesane Provincial National Patriarchal and Oecumenical Synods or Assemblies falls to the ground together with their having Authority to determine Controversies of Faith for sublato fundamento tollitur opus as has been already observed §. 8 This being for many Years after the Reformation began in this Land generally received the English Presbyterians took Advantage against that Part of the Church of England which retaining too much of the Catholick Church Leven would fain have preserved somewhat of the old Papal Power Some feeble Efforts were put forth in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and James the First but re infecta and in the Reign of Charles the First by the help of Archbishop Laud and his Followers great Advancements were made towards the Restoring this Power But §. 9 The general Vogue of the Episcopal as well as the Cry of the Nonconformists being against the Exercise of any such Power the Difficulties the Archbishop met with were next to insuperable especially upon the account of the Different Copies about the Twentieth Article of the Church of England for as some Copies begin thus The Church hath Power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith it is not Lawfull c. So others begin at It is not Lawfull c. Whereupon Laud's Party found it necessary to oppugn the old Doctrine about the Authority and Government of the Church and whereas the 20th Article in some Ancient Copies of the Queen's Reign began at It is not Lawfull for the Church to Ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word c. 't was such an obstacle in the way of their Designs that they were hard put to it and found it necessary if possible to remove it And accordingly §. 10 Dr. Heylin a chief Instrument in this Design did on the 24th day of April Ann. 1627. answer in the Divinity-Schools at Oxon upon these two Questions viz. 1. An Ecclesia unquam fuit invisibilis And 2. An Ecclesia possit errare Both which he determined in the Negative And in stating of the first he fell upon a different way from that of Dr. Prideaux in his Lecture De Visibilitate Ecclesiae and other Tractates of and about that time in which the Visibility of the Church was no otherwise proved than as scattered amongst the Waldenses Wickliffists Hussists c. For Heylin not liking this manner of Proceeding because it utterly discontinued the Succession in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy chose rather to look for a Continual Visible Church in Asia Ethiopia Greece Italy and Rome it self §. 11 In the Year 1633. Heylin was at Oxon to Answer for his Degree of Doctor and insisted on the Authority of the Church as formerly he did on the Infallibility and Visibility of it His Questions were 1. An Ecclesia habeat Authoritatem in Decernendis fidei Controversiis 2. Interpretandi Scripturas 3. Decernendi Ritus Ceremonias all which he held in the Affirmative declaring it to be the Plain and Positive Doctrine of the Church of England in the 20th Article which runs thus in terminis viz. Habet Ecclesia Ritus sive Ceremonias statuendi Jus in fidei Controversiis Authoritatem But §. 12 Dr. Prideaux then in the Chair expressed great Dissatisfaction with Heylin charging him with falsifying the Publick Doctrine of the Church as others accused Laud and other Bishops for making this Addition the better to support their Power and Tyranny But saith Heylin in his Examen Historicum Archbishop Laud in his Speech in the Star-Chamber June 15. 1637. made it appear that the said Clause was in a Printed Book of Articles published in the Year 1563. being but very few Months after they had passed in the Convocation which was on the 29th of January 1562. in the English Account and more than so he shewed unto the Lords a Copy of the 20th Article exemplified out of the Records and attested by the hands of a Publick Notary in which that very Clause was found which had been charged upon the Bishops for an Innovation And thus much I can say of my own Knowledge that having occasion to consult the Records of Convocation I found this controverted Clause verbatim in these following words Habet Ecclesia Ritus statuendi Jus in fidei Controversiis Authoritatem so far Dr. Heylin p. 144. who further adds That in the Year 1571 the Puritan Faction beginning to grow very strong the Articles were again Printed in Latin and English and this Clause left out Published according to those Copies in the Harmony of Confessions Printed at Geneva Ann. 1612. That the Archbishop in his Speech p. 71. was of this Opinion too §. 13 There was we see a great deal of stress laid on this Clause of the 20th Article because the Assertion that the Church hath Authority in Controversies of Faith is so necessary to National and larger Synods and Assemblies and the laying aside this Clause so accommodated to the Principles on which the Reformation was begun and carried on For which reason I will offer what I know of this matter and therein be very impartial §. 14 1. That this Clause is not either in the Latin or English Copies Printed Ann. 1571. is granted by Dr. Heylin and I have by me a Copy in Latin published by John Day Ann. 1575. in which 't is not 2. I have seen a Copy Ann. 1563. in which it is and so it may be in the Records of the Convocations as has been suggested for ought that I do know to the contrary However 3. I do affirm upon my own Knowledge and in most humble manner address my self to the present Archbishop of Canterbury who was of C. C. C. C. to Dr. Green Master and to the worthy Fellows of that Colledge for their concurrent Testimony that in the Manuscript Library given to that House by Archbishop Matthew Parker there are the Articles of the Church of England which I can't call thirty nine because they are more subscribed by the Bishops in the Year 1562. with the number of Pages and of every Line in each Page in which the Articles are and that the twentieth Article is exactly the same with the twenty first of Edward VI. without this Clause whence I conclude first That the leaving of it out being as is acknowledged by Archbishop Laud and Dr. Heylin most adjusted to the Principles of the Nonconformists the true and genuine Reason is because the first Reformers of the Church of England and the Nonconformists were of a mind in this Particular and opposed the Papal Tyranny upon the same Foundation Secondly That although in the beginning of the Queen there were some otherwise minded who added this Clause to the Copy of 1563. yet the Bishops unanimously adhered to the Copy which laid this Clause aside But to return It is manifest §. 15 That the Old Nonconformists whom I call
English Presbyterians being firm Adherers unto the first Reformers did in their Opposition to the Papal Tyranny hold first That there was no proper Visible Church but what was Particular secondly That Particular Churches were of the same Extent with Single Congregations and the Power of those in Office was confined to the Limits of a single Congregation §. 16 The Learned Mr. Cartwright a Person of that esteem amongst the Nonconformists in the Reign of the Queen as to be chosen by them to defend their Principles against Dr. Whtgift expressing their sense with much Freedom and Clearness I need insist on no other to prove what I affirm of them and who-ever is conversant with the Books then written will see that their Authors so generally and frequently refer'd themselves to his Writings and so constantly undertook his Defence as to be satisfied that the mentioning what was pressed by others is altogether unnecessary §. 17 This Learned Cartwright writing in Defence of the Admonition tot he Parliament Published in the Year 1572. Answered by Dr. Whitgift doth not only make a Reply to that Answer which was in the Year 1574. defended by Whitgift But in his Reply to this Defence of the Answer Anno 1575. expresseth himself fully to this effect I both mention Cartwright's Reply to Whitgift's Defence of the Answer and do inculcate it because Fuller Heylin and Walton have told the World that the Defence of the Answer kept the Field with all the Marks of an absolute Victory whereas it 's most manifest that Cartwright made a Reply thereunto in two Parts the First Anno 1575. and Anno 1577. he Published the rest And what is Remarkable Fuller in the same or very next Page where he so confidently avers that Cartwright never Replyed to the Second Answer doth himself refer to the first part of the Reply that was made unto it See his Church Hist Cent. 16. l. 9. p. 102. Now in the first Part of this second Reply Cartwright fully Confirms the Truth of my Assertion That every Particular Church should have her Bishop is manifest by Paul to Timothy For seeing the Discription of a Bishop which he gives doth Agree unto the Minister of every Congregation and nothing there requir'd in the one which is not in the other it follows that the Minister of every Congregation is the Bishop thereof For the Description agreeing with every of them the things described must likewise Secondly unless he do by this description of the Bishop set forth the nature of every Minister of the Word in his Congregation in describing the Offices of the Church he has left out the Principalest Members and was more careful in describing the Deacons Ministry not occupied in the Word than the teaching Ministries But that is absurd it must follow that he understood them by the name of Bishop Furthermore St. Paul's Bishop was appointed to the same Place whereunto his Deacons But his Deacons were assigned to a Particular Congregation St. Paul also there assigning the Charge and Care of the Bishop over the Church of God must either give him Charge over the Whole Body of the Catholick Church or over One Particular Congregation or of the Faithfull Company of one House But he extendeth not the Charge over all the Catholick Church for that were to make a Pope not a Bishop nor restraineth him to the Faithful of one Household considering that he opposeth the Government of his House to the Government of the Church It followeth therefore that he appointeth him to one Particular Church That by this Word Church must be understood one of these three Significations it standeth upon this Ground that in none of St. Paul's other Epistles or St. Luke's Writings that word Church is ever used otherwise and never signifieth the Church either of a Province or Diocese Rep. 2. Part. 1. p. 360. and in page 687. saith he I have shewed that Scripture useth not to call a Province or Diocese a Church but either the whole Vniversal or else a Particular Congregation Thus you see how Mr. Cartwright doth not only hold a Presbyter and a Bishop to be the same office but that the office of a Presbyter is Appropriated to a single Congregatio and that the Holy Scripture never speakes of a Diocesane or Provincial Church but only of the Vniversal which is Invisible and a Particular Church and therefore not of a Classical Church But §. 18 What I shall offer from the multitude of Nonconformists whose Sorrows encreased on James the First 's coming to the English Throne will evidence what I affirm to Persons of the meanest Capacities For Dr. Ames who gathered up the sence of these Old Nonconformists whom he styles in his Preface to his English Puritanism Rigid Presbyterians declared positively that they Hold and Maintain That every Company Congregation and Assembly of true Believers joining together according to the Order of the Gospel in the true Worship of God is a true Visible Church of Christ and that the same Title viz. of True Visible Church is Improperly given to other Societies Combinations or Assemblies whatsoever That Christ Jesus hath not Subjected any Church or Congregation of his to any other Superiour Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than unto that which is within it self So that if a whole Church or Congregation shall err in any Matter of Faith and Religion no other Churches or Spiritual Church-Officers have by any Warrant from the Word of God Power to Censure Punish or Controul the same But are only to Counsel or Advise the same and leave their Souls to the immediate Judgment of Christ and their Bodies to the Sword and Power of the CIVIL MAGISTRATE who alone upon Earth hath Power to Punish a whole Church or Congregation They hold that every Established Church ought as a special Prerogative wherewith she is endowed by Jesus ChrisT to have Power and Liberty to choose their own Spiritual and Ecclesaistical Officers They hold and believe the EQuality in Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Authority of Churches and Church-Ministers is no more Derogatory and Repugnant to the State and Glory of a Monarch than the Parity and Equality of School-Masters or Masters of Families Chap. 2. § 1. 5. 11. There was also about this time a Protestation of the Kings Supremacy made in the Name of the Afflicted Ministers in which they declare That they 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 PRINCELY Supremacy for any Ecclesaistical Person or Persons whosoever to take upon themselves Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over many Churches That it is utterly unlawful for any one Minister to take upon himself or accept of a sole Eclesiastical Jurisdiction over so much as one Congregation And therefore some of the most Honest and Godly in the Congregation ought to be adjoined to the Minister in the Spiritual Regiment of
the Souls of the Congregation of which he is a Pastor That those Ecclesiastical Persons that make claim to greater Power and Authority than this especially they that make claim Jure Divino of Power or Jurisdiction to meddle with other Churches than that one Congregation of which they are or ought to be Members do USURP UPON THE SUREMACY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE § 24 25 27. And a little before § 12. We hold that the King has Power to Remove out of the Churches all Scandalous Schismatical and Heretical Teachers And § 14. That the King only hath Power within his Dominions to Convene Synods or General Assemblies of Ministers §. 9 Soon after this Protestation a Christian and Modest Offer of a most Indifferent Conference or Disputation about the Main and Principal Controversies betwixt the Prelates and the late Silenced Ministers in England was made in which viz. P. 2 3. the Nonconforming Ministers undertook to prove That there is no true Visible Church of Christ but a Particular Ordinary Congregation only that every true Visible Church of Christ or Ordinary Assembly of the Faithful hath by Christ's Ordinance Power in it self immediately under Christ to Elect and Ordain Deprive and Depose their Ministers and to Execute all other Ecclesiastical Censures That the Pastor of a Particular Congregation is the Highest Ordinary Ecclesiastical Officer in any true Constituted Visible Church of Christ That the Civil Magistrates ought to be the Overseers of Provinces and Dioceses and of THE SEVERAL CHURCHES THEREIN And it is their Office and Duty injoyned them by God to take Knowledge to Punish and Redress all Misgoverning or ill Treating of any Church or Church-Officer §. 10 What is here affirm'd by these Deprived Ministers is so full not only against the Diocesan but Classical way that it may tempt some to take it for Granted That whilst I profess to set down the Principles of the English Presbyterians I am only describing the Brownists in which they will perhaps be confirm'd when they consider that in this same Offer it 's asserted That the Pastor alone ought not to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over his Church but others ought to be joyned to him by the Assignment of the same Church NEITHER OUGHT HE AND THEY TO PERFORM ANY Main and Material Ecclesiastical Act WITHOUT THE FREE CONSENT OF THE CONGREGATION However it 's very manifest that these Nonconformists were far from closing with Brownism as appears from what they Answer to the 11th Opposition in which 't is demanded Why do they not wholly with the Brownists separate and get them to Amsterdam to their Holy Brethren there Where they Protest that they are Persuaded that many of the Conforming Ministers are true Ministers of Jesus Christ indowed with Gifts from Heaven for that Holy Function And that the Holy Churches which they teach are true Churches which was sufficient to clear them from the Reproaches of being Brownists §. 11 And as they so freely express their own true Sense in these Matters so it is with an Assurance that none of the Conformable Clergy were so much against the above-mentioned Assertions which they undertook to maintain but would rather Close with them than Expose themselves to the Lash of such Penalties as the Deprived Ministers lay under Their Words are Pag. 16 17. The former Propositions are such that there will not be found as we are verily perswaded in our Consciences any one Conformable Minister except he be a Masked Papist that will Refuse to subscribe to ANY ONE OF THEM if so be it would please the King and State by Law to Urge them thereunto under such Penalties as the Ministers are urged to subscribe unto the Articles devised by the Prelates Yea we are out of all doubt that the Prelates themselves if the case stood but upon the saving of their Temporalities which else they should lose would with HEART and HAND subscribe to ANY ONE of the aforesaid Propositions Besides §. 12 These English Presbyterians were so fully convinced of the Truth of the aforesaid Propositions which they offered to defend that they were perswaded they were such that if the Ministers should not constantly hold and maintain the same against all Men they cannot see how possibly by the Rules of Divinity the SEPARATION of our Churches from the Church of Rome and from the Pope the Supream Head thereof can be Justified p. 11. But §. 13 As this offer for a Conference was made in the Year 1606 so 't was followed Anno 1609 with a Petition of the Deprived Ministers in which they declare themselves 〈◊〉 As we hold That your Majesty within your Dominions have Power to call Synods and to Dissolve them so we hold likewise that RULING Synods and UNITED Presbyteries exercising Government and Imposing Laws and Decrees upon several Churches and the Pastors of them are not only Humane Institutions but in regard of the said Government and Authority of Imposing Laws altogether UNLAWFUL and USURPING upon the SUPREMACY of the Civil MAGISTRATE We acknowledge as hath been above remembred no other Power and Authority for the OVERSEEING RULING and Censuring of Particular Churches how many soever in number in the Case of their Misgovernment than that which is Originally Invested in your Royal Person and from it derived to such of your Laity as you shall Judge Worthy to be Deputed to the Execution of the same under you so as the Favour humbly sollicited by us is That whereas our Lord Jesus hath given to each PARTICULAR CHURCH or ORDINARY CONGREGATION this Right and Priviledge viz. To Elect Ordain and Deprive her own Ministers and to Exercise all other Parts of Lawful Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under him So far the Petitioning Ministers P. 13 14. who in P. 18. say That in this Church speaking of a Particular Church and the Officers thereof which is confined within the Bounds of a Parish one is a Pastor another a Teacher others Elders and others Deacons §. 14 These Quotations out of the old English Presbyterians do sufficiently evince that they held that properly speaking there was no other Visible Church but what was Congregational that the Power of their Officers is not to be stretched beyond the Bounds of a single Congregation that what Power is needful besides this for Reforming Particular Churches is Invested in the Civil Magistrate to whom it doth also belong to Convene Synods c. And it must be also Remark'd §. 15 That in these Instances the English Presbyterian and the Congregationalist are most entirely Agreed as appears not only from what is in the Preface to the Savoy Confession where it 's Declared by them in these Words As for our selves we are able to trace the Footsteps of an Independent Congregational way in the Antientest Customs of the Churches as also in the WRITINGS of our soundest Protestant Divines and that which we are much satisfied in a full Concurrence throughout in all the Substantial Parts of Church-Government with our Reverend
Visible to be a Body Politick the first Seat of all Ordinances and that the Pastor's Office was with Relation to the whole Catholick Church that they might Administer all Ordinances of Worship and Discipline wheresoever they came The Congregational Presbyterian in opposition unto 'em denied the Catholick Church Visible to be a Body Politick or Governed Society that Visible Saints combin'd for Communion in all Odinances whilst without Officers were a particular Church Essential tha these Churches had Power to choose their own Officers and that the Ruling Power of these Officers was confined within the Bounds of Congregational Particular Churches §. 10 Well then let us in the next place compare these distinct Notions with the late Heads of Agreement and see whether the Vnited Brethren fell in with the English Presbyterian Principles in this Matter or not §. 11 1. If we do but impartially observe the Design of this Agreement we shall find it to be nothing else than an Improvement of our Liberty in such a way as may most effectually convince them of the Church of England that nothing is more Remote from our Thoughts than a making the least Incroachment upon or in any wise an Intermedling with the National Church Form and whereas the Congregational and English Presbyterian Principles are best adjusted to this end as well as most Conform to the Gospel Rule we took special care in drawing up the Agreement to Assert and Explain their Principles And therefore as we did in the Preface and in the Title of the first Page positively declare against Intermedling with the National Church Form So §. 12 2. We did express our Dislike of that Principle on which either a Diocesan or Classical Church Government is erected For by the first Article in the first Section the Catholick Churches being a Totum Integrale a Society under an External Polity or Government is Disclaimed in these Words viz. But as for the Notion of a Visible Catholick Church as it may signifie its having been collected into any Formed Society under a Visible Head on Earth whether one Person singly or many collectively we with the rest of Protestants do UNANIMOUSLY DISCLAIM IT §. 13 3. Agreeably hereunto a particular Church ESSENTIAL with its Rights and Liberties is Asserted and Described first more generally Art 2. We Agree that particular Societies of Visible Saints who under Christ their Head are statedly joyn'd together for ORDINARY COMMUNION with one another in ALL THE Ordinances of Christ are Particular Churches That is to say a Congregation of Visible Saints statedly joyn'd together for these Ends. So that here is a Particular Church Essential asserted that this particular Church Essential is Congregational also cleared and as such agreed unto for it 's said that they are statedly joyn'd together for ORDINARY Communion with one another in all the Ordinances of Christ which cannot be but in one single Congregation But §. 14 4. There is special care taken to secure this Principle by declaring in the second Article That these Societies are to be owned by each other for Instituted Churches of Christ than which nothing can be more plainly delivered in opposition to the Classical Government §. 15 5. This particular Congregational Church Essential is more particularly described as to its Matter and Form Art 3. and 4. Besides §. 16 The Right of this Church Essential to choose its own Officers is secured by Art 6. That each Particular Church hath Right to choose their own Officers and being furnished with such as are duly Qualified and Ordained according to Gospel Rule HATH AUTHORITY from Jesus Christ for EXERCISING GOVERNMENT and of Enjoying ALL the Ordinances of Worship WITHIN IT SELF This then being the Turning Point between those who are for a Catholick Church Government and these who are for a Particular Congregational Government I will be the more distinct in showing what depends on a Right or wrong stating it §. 17 1. If this Article contains not the Truth then indeed the Cause must be yielded to the Classical Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal and Papal Church Government For upon the same Reason the Government is stretched beyond a single Congregational to a Classical Church it must be carried to the outmost Bounds of the Catholick which is the Papal For it is impossible to carry it to a Classical or Diocesan upon any other Reason than as it is a Larger part of the Catholick Church Polity which still must pay a Deference unto a Larger until you come to a larger than that and at last to the Largest of all viz. the Papal which is a Truth that hath been so fully cleared by Mr. Baxter and is in its own Nature so very Plain and Obvious that a small Measure of Attention will help an ordinary Capacity to see into it §. 18 2. But if this Article of the Vnited Brethren DOTH contain the Truth and a particular Church Essential hath Power to choose its own Officers and being furnished with such hath received Authority from Christ to exercise Government and enjoy all Ordinances of Worship within it self then it unavoidably follows that Congregational Churches are in a Proper Sense Particular Churches that all Church Power doth firstly belong unto them and that Classical Provincial National Patriarchal Churches are not Properly Churches nor have they a Power over Particular Congregational Churches Besides §. 19 3. If the Vnited Brethren namely the English Presbyterian and Congregationalists do herein Assert no more than they are Authorized to do by the Gospel of our Lord Jesus then the First Reformers in their Separation from ROME and their setting up Churches of another sort than what were established by the Pope did no more than what they were empowered by Jesus Christ himself to do as will clearly appear by an Impartial Proposal of the Judgment of the Learned Gilbertus Voetius Meinardus Shottanus and Carolus de Maetz Divinity Professors at Vtrecht which upon such Mighty Considerations as relate to the Vitals of the Reformation they gave in the resolving some Cases proposed unto them on the Forming that Particular Church of which one Mr. Park was chosen Pastor who hath said enough to justifie what the Vnited Brethren have Asserted about a Particular Church ESSENTIAL and the Power of choosing her own Officers Consider then that the Questions proposed were 1. Whether such Faithful Persons as without the Authority of any Ecclesiastical Society either Classical or Presbyterial by Combination forming themselves into a Society for Communion in the Ordinances of the Gospel may be Acknowledged to be ESSENTIALLY a Church 2. Whether this Church ESSENTIAL hath Power to choose a Pastor To the first they answer That it is and may be said to be Essentially a True Church of Christ Distinguenda est say they Ecclesiae Particularis Essentia ab INTEGRITATE Perfectione ejus ORGANICA Voet. Pol. Eccles Part. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 3. to wit an External Visible Instituted Parochial Particular Church Their
fourth Reason for it is this If the contrary Opinion should be admitted we cannot say they see what may be the Consequences thereof with respect to those Difficult Controversies with the Papists about the Perpetual Succession of the Churches some Years before Luther about their Separation from Rome about the first Gathering and Constituting Reformed Churches and calling of Ministers before with at and since the Reformation §. 20 The Strength of what they offer on this Occasion lieth here namely in case Visible Saints combin'd for Communion in the Ordinances of the Gospel have Power by Virtue of Jesus Christ's Institution to call and choose their own Officers The first Reformers in combining thus and choosing their own Officers acted in pursuance of the Authority given 'em by Jesus Christ and are Justified But had they not such a Power their Case is not easily defended These Great Divines therefore in Answer to the second Enquiry affirm That a Church Essential has a Power belonging unto it to call a Pastor So that these Learned Men have urged Arguments sufficient to justifie what the Vnited Brethren have done in defining a Church Essential and in shewing how it becomes an Integral Organical Political Body And what they have urged from the Consideration of the Fatal Consequences of the contrary Doctrine with respect to the First Reformation hath enough in it to satisfie any considering Mind about the Reasons that have Influenced the Vnited Brethren to fix their Foot on this Principle about a Particular Church Essential in the framing the Heads of their Agreement Once more §. 21 As the Vnited Brethren have Asserted Particular Churches to be Congregational so it 's evident they have confined the Power of their Officers to their own Churches For in the Section of Communion with other Churches Art 2. it is agreed That none of our Particular Churches shall be Subordinate to one another each being endow'd with Equality of Power from Jesus Christ and that none of the said Particular Churches their Officer or Officers shall Exercise any Power or have any Superiority over any other Church or their Officers So clear it is that this Article by denying unto one Officer singly and to many Officers collectively any sort of Power or Superiority over one another doth lay an impregnable Bar against the setting up of Classical Provincial or National Assemblies invested with a Power to govern Congregational Churches For it must be acknowledged that in forming the late Heads of Agreement special care was taken to convince them of the Church of England that there was no place for us to make the least Incroachments on the Established National Church Form That the Mounds and Barriers we raised to keep all within the Confines of the Tolleration granted us were such that no sincere Approver of the Vnion can have any Hand in erecting any thing like a National Church Form and therefore can never be for Classical Provincial or National Assemblies of Ministers Their going about any such thing is a breaking down the strongest Mounds a violating the most Solemn Engagements and a tearing up the very Foundation on which the late Union was built which can never be answered to our Countrey Brethren nor to their own Consciences much less unto a Holy and Jealous God For §. 22 By the Heads of Agreement as all that Church Power we claim is confined to Particular Congregational Churches and a Superiority of Power denied to any one Officer or Officers of Churches so Particular Churches were no further concern'd to give any account of their own Actings beside what the Civil Magistrate requires but what on some special Occasions might be needful in a Brotherly way to Neighbour Congregations when desired and 't was for the removal of Scandals or the rectifying Mistakes But for stated Classical Provincial or Natural Assembles and the coming under the Obligation of making a Diligent Observation and a Faithful Report of the State of their Congregations unto any of those larger Assemblies there is not one Word in our Agreement Nor can any of our Number consent that our Ministers should take upon 'em the Office of stated Inquisitors or Informers For as such an Imploy is as likely to Ruine as it is to serve its chiefest Contrivers so it 's Vnworthy of Men in so Holy a Function and contrary to that Work Christ Jesus has called his Ministers unto which lying in strenuous Endeavours to further the Salvation of them committed to their care cannot be faithfully performed but by keeping within the Pale of their Single Congregations And seeing this is what is granted to us by the Toleration to which we have hitherto confined our selves we declare it to be our Firm Resolution always to do so being as much Dissatisfied with that Church-Form which endangers the Established Church as any in that Church can be For §. 23 That very Form of Church Government which alone can give just Ground of Suspicion is as Destructive of those Churches we believe to be of Divine Institution as it can be of the Established Church Form The Jure Divino Classical Government that Rivals it with the Episcopal doth as really destroy Congregational Churches by making them but Parts of a Proper Church as it would subvert the Diocesan were it set up amongst us Yea if we more closely look into this Matter we shall find the Classical Government more Hurtful to our Church way than it can be to theirs seeing it allows of Diocesan under the Name of Classical and strikes only at their Rulers and not at their Church-state whilst it Vn-churches all our Congregations and Divests the Officers of that Power which we think Christ has given them and are therefore more Formidable unto and Dreaded by us than by the Church it self which Consideration will we hope satisfie our Superiours and every thoughtful Person of the Church That they are in no Danger from us §. 24 That they destroy our Church way is farther evident in that they bring every Paroch and Congregation under the Government of their Classical and other Larger Assemblies by the Obligation of a Divine Law and that they may to their own greater Satisfaction prove thus much they make the Catholick Church Visible to be one Govern'd Society or Body Politick which must necessarily be under a Governed Head either of One single Person or of many Collectively whereby they run so far as to destroy not only Congregational Churches but to subvert that very Principle upon which the Reformation was begun in this Land and do lay a Foundation for that Papal Anti-christian Power which in its Exercise hath shed the Blood of Thousands who are now under the Altar crying How long Holy and True dost thou not Avenge c. and against which we have by the Oath of Supremacy Sworn So that tho' we agree with our Classical Brethren of Scotland in affirming Bishops and Presbyters to be of the same Order which only is against the Divine not
and their Subordination to the Civil Magistrate are briefly these 1. That a Governing Church is of no larger Extent than a Worshipping Congregation 2. That the Ruling Power of their Officers is not to be stretch'd beyond the Bounds and Limits of their Worshipping Congregation 3. That what Power besides this is requisite to reform the Disorders in Particular Churches such as the Removing Scandalous and Heretical Teachers c. is vested in the Civil Magistrate 4. That it belongs also to the Civil Magistrate to convene Synods or Assemblies of Ministers when there shall be an occasion for them whose Power when convened is only Persuasive not Coercive §. 2 The Principles which the Classical or Scotch Presbyterians who assert the Divine Right of a National Church-Government do advance are 1. That One Governing Church is made up of many worshipping Congregations 2. That the Ruling Power of their Officers is extended beyond the Bounds of a single Congregation For by asserting the Catholick Church Visible to be a Govern'd Society or Organnick Body they must necessarily and do professedly own that the Ministry Ordinances and Censures are given firstly to the Catholick Church Visible and secondarily to particular Churches which whether Congregational Classical Provincial c. are not properly Churches but only Parts or Members diversly combin'd of the Catholick Church which is the only proper Visible Church whereupon all Church-Power is habitually seated in the Officers of the Catholick Church Visible as such and therefore extended beyond the Bounds of single Congregations even to the utmost Limits of the Catholick Church Visible 3. That the Ruling Officers in their larger Assemblies viz. Classical Provincial National Patriarchal and Oecumenical have a Power inherent in them to reform the Disorders of particular Churches and to remove scandalous or Heretical Teachers 4. That it belongs to the Church and not to the Civil Magistrate to convene Synods or Assemblies of Ministers and other Ruling Officers §. 3 In these particular Instances you have a full though brief Account of what is embraced by the English and by the Classical Presbyterians And it 's now my Part to vindicate the former from those Reproaches unjustly cast upon them and shew that the Charge can not be fairly laid at the Door of any Presbyterian but the Classical §. 4 That I may do the English Presbyterians Justice in the representing their Principles I must consider what the miserable State of the Church was before Luther upon what Principles the Protestants went in their Endeavours to reform the Church and then evince that the English Presbyterians stuck firmly to those Principles upon which the Separation was made from the Church of Rome SECT II. The Miserable State of the Church before Luther the Principles on which the Reformation was begun and carryed on with a state of the Controversie between Papist and Protestant The English Presbyterians constantly adhered to the Reformed about Church-Government particularly Cartwright c. §. 1 ABout the time that Luther with many others endeavour'd a Reformation of the Church the Great Evil complained of was the Intolerable Tyranny of the Ecclesiasticks The People were then so very much under the Power of the Clergy that they were perfect Strangers to the least Part of Christian Liberty besides the Inferiour Clergy so grievously Oppressed by their Superiours and all so much Slaves to the Pleasure of the greatest that throughout all Europe the Miseries of the People were so great and pressing that none durst open their Mouths in favour of their Ancient Rights and Privileges Yea §. 2 The Domination and Tyranny of Popish Prelates who aimed more at Worldly Grandeur than at the advancing Christ's Glory was grown to such a Height that they did what-ever was good in their own Eyes and that they might do it with the greater Countenance they asserted that there was a Catholick Church Visible that this Catholick Visible Church was One Governed Corporation or Society under one supreme Governing Power to which they ascended by sundry steps from the Diocesane to the Provincial from thence to the Patriarchal §. 3 The first Reformers as many of their Fore-Fathers such as the Wickliffists Hussists c. groaning under these Insupportable Burdens and throughly understanding from whence they had their Rise laid the Ax to the Root of the Antichristian Tyranny denying that there was a Catholick Church Visible §. 4 Here the Reformed fix'd their Foot affirming that the Universal Church was made up only of Elect Believers and was Invisible that those special Privileges which the Papists appropriated to their Catholick Church Visible belonged only to the Invisible Church and hereby left no foundation for the raising a Catholick Church Government upon for Sublato Fundamento tollitur Opus and thus their Catholick Government fell to the Ground The Government in Controversie being External as well as Catholick must have a Visible as well as a Catholick Church for its State so that where no such Catholick Church there can be no such Catholick Government On the other hand §. 5 The Papists being fully convinced that the Reformers had taken the most effectual way to subvert their Church Government and divest them of that Authority they assumed to themselves over the Consciences of the People owned it and in Opposition unto them held that there was a Catholick Church Visible under an External Polity or Government So Alphonsus a Castro advers Haeres Lib. 1. The Wickliffists Hussists and Lutheranes do stifly insist on the Invisibility of the Catholick Church and is the strongest Shield they have to defend themselves against whatever is urged from the Church's Authority which is the sharpest Weapon we can use against them Gregory de Valentina Anal. Fid. Cathol lib. 6. Chap. 3. If the Vniversal Church be Composed only of those who are Predestinated and truly Righteous the Government of the Church of Rome can never be defended And Rodericus de Arriago confesseth de Divin sid Disp 7. § 1. Num. 3. That the true Reason why they lay so much stress upon this Part of the Controversie is because the Support of the Papall Power Depends upon it Many other Authorities may be at any time produced for the Confirmation of this Point but the thing it self is so clear that it 's not needful §. 6 The Reformed in this Kingdom agree'd with the Wickliffists Hussists and Lutheranes owning that the Catholick Church was no otherwise visible than as it might be seen in Particular Church-Assemblies which closely examined amounts to more than that there is no Church properly speaking Visible but what is Particular and no External Church-Government but what is seated in Particular Churches that the Reforming such Disorders as cannot be done by that Power which is Peculiar to Parochiall or Congregational Churches belongs to the Civil Magistrate viz. such as the convening the Assemblies of Ministers and the removing Scandalous Turbulent and Heretical Teachers But §. 7 If all that Power which is meerly