a Christian Civil Governour of a Christian People that are his Subjects We daily pray that the Kingdoms of the world may all be Christian and we believe that their Kings are the Governours by the sword of all the Clergy as well as others 3. Nor is the question whether Kings may call all their Kingdoms into a holy Covenant with God by lawful means giving them an example first themselves 4. Nor do we contend about an Equivocal Name whether a Christian Kingdom as such may be called a National Church 5. No nor whether a Christian Nation governed by a Heathen or Mahometan King may be called a Christian Church or Kingdom or a Protestant Nation ruled by a Papist King is to be called a Protestant Kingdom or Church for this is but about bare names 6. Nor do we question whether a Christian King may make such accidental disparity between the Pastors as we have before described 7. Nor yet whether the Pastors of one Kingdom may associate and hold Synods for Unity and Counsel and be named a National Church as they are such Associations obliged to Concord §4 But our doubts are these 1. Whether it be in it self specially instituted by God that every Kingdom or Nation of Christians shall have One summam Potestatem essentialiter Ecclesiasticam or one Priest-Head whether a single person or an Aristocracy or a Common Synod as a constitutive part of the National Church 2. Whether this Priest-Head whether High-Priest or Council stand in subordination to the King as part of the same formal Church as a General or a Vicerov that maketh not a distinct Kingdom though he may make a distinct subordinate Society as an Army City c or is he Head of a coordinate different species so as that the same Kingdom shall be two Policies formally viz. a Christian Kingdom or Royal Church and a Priestly Church each being supream in their proper species and both made coordinate by Christ and so they are formally two Churches National About the Jews the Controversie is made by Dissenters e. g. Galaspie Coleman Selden c. exceeding difficult 3. Whether the very Jewish Church Policy be established by Christ for the Christian Church or be repealed 4 Whether the said Ecclesiastical Head must be One as the High Priest or an Aristocracy of many or a Synod of the whole Clergy or whether it be left indifferent which 5. Or whether God hath ordained such a National Church-form only by the general Command of doing all things in Order and Unity and to Edification 6. Which is the Priestly-Head or highest Governour of the Church of England which is a constitutive part as a King in a Kingdom 7. Who is it that chooseth or authorizeth the National Priestly Head that we may know when we have a lawful Chief Pastor and when an Usurper 8. Whether the King or he is to be obeyed in Circumstances or matters Ecclesiastical if they differ and make contrary Laws Without the solution of these questions the name of a National Church will not be understood nor of any practical importance Our own thoughts of them are as followeth § 5. It is certain that the Mosaical Law made for the Jews peculiar republick as such is abrogate not only the Ceremonial part but all All that was not then made for all the world is ceased 1. Because the Common-wealth is ceased for which it was made 2. The Holy Ghost expresly and frequently determineth it so even of that Law that was written in stone as such 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9 10 11. Heb. 7. 12. 19. Gal. 4. 21 o. 3. 24. The natural part and that which was instituted positively long before for perpetuity were both of them God's Laws before Moses's time and as such obliged other Nations and so do still The matter written in stone except some few mutable particulars as the seventh day Sabbath c. is such as we are still obliged to 1. By Nature 2. By Christ But not as it was part of the Jews peculiar Mosaical Law Much less doth it bind all the world to its Policy § 6. If the Jewish Law either as such or as stablished by Christ for his Kingdom did bind all the world to this day then it would bind them to their Civil Policy as much at least as to their Ecclesiastical But few Christians think that it binds them to their Civil Policy For if it did then 1. All Nations that have varied from it to this day have sinned 2. No diversity of Governments could be lawful 3. Then it would perplex men to be sure whether it be the old Mosaical form by Judges or the later Regal form that bindeth 4. Then such a Civil Council or Sanhedrim as was appointed the Jews would be a Divine Establishment and not variable at the will of Kings or People Many other things would follow which Kings would not easily believe § 7. There may be much more said for the continuance of the Jews civil Policy than for their Ecclesiastical For there is much more forbidden of the latter than of the former Though all nations be not bound to their civil policie they may set it up if they please They are not prohibited For Christ hath not made new Laws for civil states as such But he hath made new Church Laws and thereby altered yea prohibited much of the old § 8. We know no more reason why the Jewish form should bind us than that which was before the Jews and particularily Melchezedeks who was a King and Priest God owned both and commandeth us neither at least as in conformity to them § 9. The Holy Ghost saith expresly Heb. 7. 11. 12. That perfection was not by the Levitical Priesthood and that the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change of the Law which is called the Law of a carnal Cammandment verse 16. and that there is a disanulling of the Commandement going before for the weakness and unprofitableness of it for the Law made nothing perfect v. 18 19. the Covenant or Law being not faultless a new one doth succeed it v. 7. 8. 9. 10. The first Tabernacle is not standing which had their ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary Heb. 9 1. 8. 11. He taketh away the first Law and Priesthood that he may establish the second Heb. 10. 8 9 11. 16. 17 c. § 10. Whilest it is agreed on that the essentials of the work or office of the Jewish Priests is ceased as Heb. 7. and 8 9 and 10 shew and their Title by birth and the appropriation to one Tribe c. it followeth that the Jewish Priesthood is ceased But yet we confess that Christ if he had pleased might have setled a High Priest and Council like theirs in every nation for his own work But if the old form bind us not we are left only to enquire what new one is setled by Christ and whether he have done so or not § 11.
prophesied to be Christian Nations never were distinct Christian Kingdoms but parts of the Empire nor had a National Church or Head being but parts of such a Church Nay when Rome got the National Primacy it had not such a Priestly Governing Soveraignty as the Jews High-Priest had § 25. Though there was no Christian King for three hundred years unless he of Edessa or Lucius of England of whom we have little certainty but it 's like that both were subjects to others yet if a Supream Church-Power had been necessary the Apostles would have before erected it which they never did For even Rome pretendeth to be by them made the Ruler of the whole world and not a meer National Head which Constantinople claimed but not as of Apostolical institution § 27. The question whether the Jews had they believed should have continued their High-Priest and Church Policy is vain as to our purpose 1. It being certain to Christ that they would be dissolved by unbelief And 2. he having setled another way and changed theirs 3. And if their Priesthood and Law except as it typified spiritual things had stood yet it would not have bound the Gentile Christians in other Nations § 28. When Emperours became Christians they did not set up the Jewish Policy nor thought themselves bound to it no nor any setled Priestly Supremacy for National Government For Councils were called but on rare accidents by the Emperours themselves and to decide particular cases about Heresies And the Pope had but the first voice in such Councils § 29. But if every Nation must have the Jewish Policy then the whole Empire must then have one High Priest and then the Pope hath a fair pretence to his claim of a Divine Institution as the Church Soveraign of the whole Empire which it 's like was then seven parts in eight of the whole Christian world at least unless Abassia were then generally Christians as now But then his power would change with the Empire and fall when it falleth § 30. III. But if the question be only whether a National Priestly Soveraignty be lawful or whether God's general Rules for Concord Order Edification do bind the Churches prudentially to erect such a form To this they sayas followeth 1. We will first lay hold on certainties and not prefer uncertainties before them We are sure that such a power of Apostles and Pastors as is before mentioned was established and that the junior Pastors were as Sons to the seniors ordained by them Whether the power of Ordaining and Governing Ministers was by Apostolical Establishment appropriated to men of a superiour degree in the sacred Ministry seemeth to us very dark 2. We are past doubt that all particular Churches by Apostolical order had Bishops and that a Church was as Hierom saith Plebs Episcopo adunata and as Ignatius the Unity of every Church was notified by this that to every Church there was one Altar and one Bishop at that time and as Cyprian Ubi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia 3. And we are satisfied that every Presbyter is Episcopus Gregis whoever claim to be Episcopi Episcoporum which the Carthage Council in Cyprian renounced 4. And we are satisfied that no Church-superiours have authority to destroy the particular Church form Ministry Doctrine Worship or Discipline which were setled by the Holy Ghost in the Apostles And that the priviledges and duties of these single particular Churches being plainest and surest in Scripture they must be continued whatever Canons or Commands of any superiour Priests should be against them 5. Nor can they force any man to sin 6. Nor have any Priests a forcing power by the sword or violence but only the power of the Word and Keys that is of taking in or putting out of the Church where they have power and binding men over on just cause to the judgment of God The power that they have is from Christ and for him and not against him and for the Churches edisication and not destruction and what is pretended contrary to this is none They cannot dispense with the Laws of God but preach and execute them 7. And these things being thus secured though in our doubts we dare not swear or subscribe that National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Powers are of God's institution yet we resolve to live in all Christian peaceableness and submission when such are over us § 31. And we must profess that when we find how anciently and commonly one Presbyter in each Church was peculiarly called the Bishop without whom there was no ordinary ordinations and against whom in matters of his power none was to resist and also how generally the Churches in the Roman Empire conformed themselves to an imitation of the civil power as to their limits in all the official part being all subject to the Emperour who set up no Ecclesiastical Peer we are not so singular or void of reverence to those Churches as not by such notices to be much the more inclined to the aforesaid submission and peaceableness under such a power nor are we so bold or rash as to reproach it or condemn the Churches and excellent persons that have practised it §32 Nay we have already said that securing the state worship doctrine and true discipline of the inferiour particular Parish Churches there are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have some oversight of many Churches with their Pastors are Lawful successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their work And such of us have long ago said that the Episcopal Government of the Bohemian Waldenses described by Commenius and Lascitius is most agreable to our judgment of any that we know excercised Therefore that which we humbly offered for our concord in England at His Majesties Restauration was Archbishop Ushers form of the Primitive Church Government not attempting any diminution of the Power wealth or honour of the Diocesanes or Archbishops but only a restauration of the Presbyters to their proper Office-work and some tolerable discipline to the particular Parish Churches §33 But we must ever much difference so much of Church order and Government as God himself hath instituted and is purely divine and unchangeable from those accidentals which men ordain though according to Gods general Rules For these are often various and mutable and are means to the former and never to be used against them And of these accidentals of Government we say as they that say no such form is fixed by God Concord order decency and edification are alwaies necessary But oft times it may be indifferent whether concord order and decency be expressed by this accidental way or that And that which is most congruous for order decency edification and concord in one Countrey Church or time may be incongruous in another Therefore if the question be but how far the giving one Bishop or Pastor power over others or making disparity of Cities in conformity to
Ministers usually to be as full as will consist with the peoples hearing the voice which in many places will not reach to a great part of the Congregation we find such Preachers whether Conformable or Nonconformable every where almost crouded after which shews that it is not meer faction that moveth the hearers and that worthy men have no cause of discouragement And if none of either side be valued much above their worth for the bare Office sake we cannot help it nor would it be helped if there were no Nonconformists Some of us well remembring the time 1632. till 1640. when we were troubled or threatned also for going out of our own Parishes to hear worthy able men that were very conformable XXXV It is very ordinary with Gentlemen and others that are zealous for the present Church State in London to go from their own Parishes though the Canon be against it so that it is not sure the breach of the Canon that they stick at XXXVI We shall never disswade men from making the strictest Laws to punish any Nonconformist that shall be proved guilty of Sedition Disloyalty Drunkenness Fornication Swearing and any other immorality but we know of none of them that was silenced ejected or punished on any such account Nay if they Preach against their Church Government Liturgy or Ceremonies we must expect that they should be restrained Our earnest desire is that the Magistrate would keep up Peace and Order in the Church that Popish Clergy men may not think that it belongeth to them alone to do it XXXVII Whereas there is a sort of ignorant or ill meaning men that still say we know not what the Nonconformists would have and why will they not tell us what would satisfie them While we offer to beg on our Knees for leave to do it we humbly intreat them to weary men awake no more with that canting 1. As long as the Kings Declaration about Ecclesiastical affairs is visible 2. And as long as our Reply and our Reformed additions to the Liturgy and our Petition for Peace which respected the old Conformity remain unanswered by those to whom in 1660 we did present them 3. And till we are once called or allowed to speak for our selves against the new conformity a favour which the justice of old Romane Heathens yea and splenetick Jews did grant to all that were accused before they punished them but since Popery prevailed in the world is become a thing among them not to be expected 4. And as long as men know that Bishop Wilkins and Dr. Burton appointed by the Lord Keeper Bridgman to treat with some of us of the terms of Union saying it was His Majesties Pleasure did come to a full agreement with us in terminis which was drawn up into the form of an Act by no worse a man than that PILLAR OF JUSTICE the excellent Judge Hale and the Parliament presently Voted that no such Act should be brought in and offered Dear Brethren God is the father of Lights and with him is no darkness Men may be mocked but God is not mocked If the day that will bring works of darkness to light and finally clear the Innocent be not the object of certain faith and hope let our cause be bad and let us as fools be judged such as have forsaken our best hopes But that it is otherwise we believe and therefore appeal to a righteous God from an unrighteous world XXXVIII What harm our Preaching the doctrine of salvation can do to the Bishops or people of the Land while they may punish us for any word that we speak amiss And why we should not rather speak openly where men may bear witness of our errours than in secret where men are tempted to too much boldness And what but a spirit of envy or a carnal interest cross to the interest of Christ and mens salvation should grudge at such Preaching while we are responsible for all that we say or do amiss we cannot tell XXXIX Nor can we tell if our not swearing or not entering into the Bishops National Covenant be as great a crime as our penalties import why no other mulct or penalty will serve turn to expiate such crimes but our ceasing to preach the Gospel of Salvation while we are willing to do it under the strictest Laws of Peace and Order XL. It is visible that the Parish-Churches of those Ministers caeteris paribus are fullest of Auditors who are most willing that the Nonconformists help them in due time and place and desire to live with them in Love and Concord For all that have the spirit of holy love and peace do love those that have the same spirit And such serious holy Conformists as Bolton Whately Fenner Preston Sibbs Stoughton Gouge and such other were formerly as much crouded after as Nonconformists But it is those that Preach against holy Love and Concord and wrangle with the most Religious sort whom they should encourage whose Congregations are thinest usually through the tepidity of their followers and the distaste of others XLI When we read in the Council of Calced the Egyptian Bishops crying so long miseremini miserimini lying prostrate on the earth even when they could say Non dissentimus and beging of their fellow Bishops for their lives and consciences and their Brethren crying against all Away with them They are Hereticks while they professed the same Faith while the men that with such out-crys were condemning those of their own confession had newly cryed Omnes peccavimus for condemning Flavianus and the Truth and saying that they did it for fear and owned that Eutychianism which yet these Egyptian Bishops now disowned it mindeth us that even Bishops had need to be remembred that while the wheel is turning the upper side should not tempt men to forget what side will be uppermost shortly and for ever Additions more particularly of National Churches §1 THere are some worthy persons who plead more specially for National Churches as of Divine Institution whose Doctrine calls us to a special consideration of it But though some of us have oft desired it we have not hitherto obtained any satisfaction what they mean by A National Church or any true definition which they agree in Some of them deride us for doubting and asking the question and some answer it to the increase of our doubt §2 It must be presupposed that we speak not of a meer Community that hath no Pastors but strictly of a Society called by some Political by others Organized constituted of Pastors and People mutually related which is the ordinary sense of the word Church And we must premise what being commonly agreed on is none of our doubt or question §3 The question is not whether any or all Nations and Kingdoms should be Christians and so be the Kingdoms of Christ That 's past doubt 2. Nor is it whether in such Kingdoms the King be the Head as to the power of the sword that is
State though not alwaies materially And that the King as King is but an Accidental Civil Head as he is over Physicians and Schoolmasters being neither himself and that the National Church must have a formal Clergy-head Personal or Collective which shall in suo genere be the highest though under the Magisttates Civil Government as Physicians are 4. The Papists say that all National Churches are under the Pope as Universal Pastor who may alter them as he seeth cause 5. Some moderate men say that only Diocesan and Metropolitical Churches are jure Divino and that they are called National only improperly from one King or concording association as ab accidente and not properly from any formal Clergy-head § 43. VI. Lastly which is the formal Head of the Church of England and so what that Church is we are left as much uncertain 1. If it be only a Civil Head that denominateth it One then it is but a Christian Kingdom which we never questioned And Dr. Rich. Cosins in his Tables of the English Church-Policy saith That the King hath Administrationem supremam magisque absolutam quae dicitur Primatus Regius And Tho. Crompton in his dedication of it to K. James saith Ecclesiastica Jurisdictio plane Regia est Coronae dignitatis vestrae Regiae prima praecipua indivisibilis pars Ecclesiasticae leges Regiae sunt neque alibi oriuntur aut aliunde sustentantur aut fulciuntur penes Ecclesiasticos judices per Archiepiscopos Episcopos derivata a Rege potestate jurisdictio Ecclesiastica consist it And yet our Kings and Church explaining the Oath of Allegiance declare that the King pretendeth not to the Priesthood or power to administer the Word and Sacraments but as Crompton adds from Constantine is extra Ecclesiam constitutus a Deo Episcopus alii intra Ecclesiam Episcopi This is plain If they hold to this and claim no power in the English-Policy but as the Kings Officers in that part which belongeth to Christian Magistrates who will oppose them But this reacheth not to the Keys Preaching or Sacraments 2. Some say that the King is partly a Clergy man as Melchizedek and so that he is the formal Head and might perform the Priestly Office if he would But this our Kings have themselves renounced 3. Some say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the formal Head but that cannot be because he is no Governour over the Arch-Bishop of York or his Province 4. Most say that the Convocation is the formal Church-Head which makes it One Political Church But 1. If so then why saith the Canon that the Convocation is the true Church of England by Representation and those excommunicate that deny it We enquire after the Church-Head or Governour And that which is but the Church it self by representation is not its Head unless the Head and Body be the same and the Church govern it self and so it be Democratical The governed and Governours sure are not the same 2. And the Supream Power is supposed by those that take Episcopacy for a distinct Order to be in the Supream Order only But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order Nay thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors and such like they decryed it as Presbytery and call us Presbyterians ever since And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self which obligeth all the Nation how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians which they so abhor § 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized or profess themselves Christians whether they are so or not For lying will not save men nor please God and even the Papists are against this 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom But that the Kings be Christians and the Laws countenance Christianity and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism and though they were for Infant-Baptism they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy or at Age but left it to free choice They baptized but twice a year ordinarily They kept many offenders many years from communion And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true they at Rome admitted not penitents till fourty years understand it as you see cause The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years and many till death and many absolutely as shewed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church And the Christian Emperours compelled none It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians In the daies of Valens the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians if any In France it self even in St. Martin's daies the Christians of his flock were not the most but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity where he dwelt c. § 1. There are two appendent Controversies handled by some that write for National Churches which need but a brief solution The first is whether it be not an Independent Errour to expect real holiness in Church-members as necessary in the judgment of charity The second Whether it be not such an Errour to require the bond of a Covenant beside the Baptismal Covenant § 2. To the first we say that so much is written on this point by one of us in a Treatise called Disputations of Right to Sacraments c. that we think meet to say no more The Opponents now confess that it must be saving Faith and Consent to the Baptismal Covenant that must be professed And Papists and Protestants agree with all the Ancient Church that Baptism putteth the true Consenter into a state of certain pardon and title to life And God maketh not known lying a condition of Church-communion He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is true that God hath not made Ministers Arbitrary Judges of mens secret thoughts but hath limited them in judging to take their tongues that profess Faith and Consent to be the Indices of their minds But sure the power of the Keys containeth a power of judging according to Christ's Law who is to be taken into the Church by Baptism and who not If only the seeker be made Judge it will be a new way of Church-Government and a bad And then the question is 1. Whether he that accepts ones profession seemingly serious of Faith and Consent and that de praesente is not bound to hope in charity that such