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 Whether the very Jewish Church Policy be established by Christ for the Christian Church or be repealed 4 Whether the said Ecclesiastical Head must be One as the High Priest or an Aristocracy of many or a Synod of the whole Clergy or whether it be left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.
We justly maintain against the Anabaptists that Infants relation to the Covenant and the universal Church as members was not repealed by Christ because it was not founded only on the Law of Moses which if it had it were as such repealed § 12. The Holy Ghost by the Apostles Acts 15. hath declared to all the Churches of the Gentiles that they are not bound to keep the Law of Moses and hath absolved us from all saving things antecedently and on other reasons necessary verse 28. § 13 If the Jews form of Government be ours then the High-Priest must have the power of the Sword or sit in judgment for life or death as Deut. 17. 12 13. and other places shew But many Papists and Protestants are agreed that the clergy have no power of the Sword or force unless the King make them also Magistrates § 14. It is a matter of so great importance to the Church to know whom we must obey that it is not to be thought that any way is made necessary by Christ which he hath not made intelligible and certain to be indeed his will Especially when the Apostles strove who should be the chief and two of them made it their request and when the Corinthians and others were ready to set up one before another and say I am of Cephas c. § 15. Yea Christ on this occasion expresly forbad them to seek to be one above another and told them that though Kings exercise authority and have magnifying Titles with them it should not be so but their preeminence should consist as that of a servant in humility and service unto others Luk. 22. which will not stand as we suppose with establishing the Jewish order § 16. And Pauls reproof of their making a Church head of Cephas Paul or Apollo or taking them to be other than helps of their faith and not Lords of it and Ministers by whom they believed even then when Schisms made it necessary to have known to whom they must appeal and adhere if that had been the way doth further confirm what we say § 17. The argument that some worthy persons bring from the Prophesies that Nations should be converted unto Christ and that the Kingdom should be taken from the Jews and given to a Nation that would bring forth the fruits of it Matth. 21. 43. and that the Kingdomes of the world are made the Kingdoms of Christ and that Egypt and Assyria should be converted and equalled with the Jews c. do ineeed shew that there should be Christian Kings and Kingdoms which the Apostles were sent to endeavour Mat. 28. 19. to convert Nations But here is nothing that we can perceive to prove that these Christian Nations must have the Jewish Church Policy § 18. Nay contrary the Church is said to be built on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and not of the Mosaical Policy of Priesthood Rev. 21. 14. It hath twelve foundations § 19. It is said Zech. 2. 11. Many Nations shall be joyned to the Lord and shall be my people So Zech. 8. 22. Isa 65. 1. Rom. 10. 20. Isa 2. 2. 55. 5. Hos 2. 23. Isa 60. 3. 49. 22. But not a word in all this of the old form of Policy or Priesthood but Contrarily that the Law should come out of Zion and a new Covenant should be made And it is certain that so large a history as we have of Christ's performances is a far clearer light than obscure Prophecies and darker texts must be explained by the plainer and not contrarily § 20. We see not how the Synod Act. 15. maketh any thing for a National High Priest or Sanedrim or any like Policy For 1. It appeareth to be no act of proper National Government but did bind other Churches as well as those within the Empire 2. It was an arbitration at the request of doubting persons and it was not the Relation of the Arbitrators to one seat of National Power as the Metropolis that was respected but the quality of the persons sent to who would have been equally obeyed had they dwelt in the least Village of another Land 1. There were the Apostles that had the promise of the Holy Ghost 2. There were many whom the people must needs more confide in than in one especially whose power was questioned by gainsayers 3. Both Apostles Elders and Brethren there were such as had seen or were neer to Christ and his works and therefore likeliest to know his mind 4. They were Jews themselves and therefore most impartial Judges in the point that Jewish Teachers troubled them about so far as that they might well acquiesce when Jews themselves resolved them And when the Apostles were dispersed we find not any more Jerusalem-Councils Governing the Imperial Churches § 21. If that Councils Authority were properly National and arose from the prerogative of Jerusalem then 1. All the Apostles when scattered would have been subject to James the first Bishop of Jerusalem thought to be no Apostle 2. Then Jerusalem might have after claimed the Supremacy as of Divine right before Alexandria Antioch or Rome But it is certain by experience that the whole Church was of another mind when Jerusalem had not so much as the fifth or lowest Patriarchate till long after by another grant But if the Power was not fixed to the place but the Itinerant Apostles then it is nothing to prove any Governing Church over others as being affixed to such a place Nor shall we easily find the Apostles Itinerant Successours in that power § 22. II. It is certain that Christ chose twelve Apostles besides Paul who had a preeminence before other Ministers and that he joyned with them some Prophets and Evangelists appointing them all to gather Churches through the world discipling and baptizing Nations and teaching them all things that he commanded a work to be still done and to which he promised his presence to the end of the world And that these having gathered Converts set over them fixed Bishops or Pastors or Elders to be their constant Guides in Teaching Publick Worship and Discipline under Christ the great Prophet Priest and King of the Church And that to the Apostles first and by them to others he gave them the Keys that is the Judging Power of reception and rejection and the Official Power of pronouncing God's reception or rejection of them according to his Word § 23. There is not the least evidence that these Apostles did affix a Superiour Power over the other Churches to any particular seats Patriarchal or Metropolitan much less National or that any of them exercised Government over the rest or that they themselves did fix themselves as Bishops to any twelve or thirteen Cities in the world much less to twelve Kingdoms § 24. There is no notice in Church history of any one National Church-power Priest or Synod setled asserted or exercised under Heaven of above three hundred years Egypt and Assyria that were
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