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
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-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
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
People could be entirely for it nor could the Shadow of it find acceptance amongst us the Sober Party who Dissented from the Diocesans being for the most part English Presbyterians and Congregationalists SECT IV. The ENGLISH PRESBYTERY after the Restauration of Charles II. prevail'd again and so continued till the late Vnion commenced These things shewn out of the Writings of Dr. Collings and Mr. Baxter §. 1 WHen Charles II. was Restored soon after the Presbyterians were cast out and the Episcopal put into their Places whereupon the Nonconformists who were not of the Independent way did soon by their Practice and the several Books written in Defence of their Nonconformity convince their closest Observers that they were for those Principles which the English Presbyterians had from time to time Asserted And that thus much may with the greatest Clearness and to the most satisfaction be evinced I will refer to what Dr. Collings and Mr. Baxter have offered on this Occasion §. 2 1. Dr. Collings who laboured much and wrote well in the Controversie about Church-Government gives an Account of the main Opinions of those Ministers and People in England who go under the Name of Presbyterians and calls his Book ENGLISH PRESBYTERY §. 3 2. In the Account he gives of their Opinions he tells us That they were for a Catholick Church Visible which the Old English Presbyterians would never own but the it must be observ'd that he doth not represent them as Asserters of a Catholick Church Visible form'd into one Govern'd Society or an Organick Body For he carefully appropriates the Governing Power to fixed single Congregations in which the Ruling Officers may have the Knowledge of every Member under his Care His Words are They Believe that Christ hath Appropriated Ministers of the Gospel to this Visible Church who may Preach the Gospel and Baptize in any Parts of it but CAN ONLY Exercise an ordinary Jurisdiction in those particular Parts of it over which God hath given them a particular Oversight as Pastors and Teachers The Exercise of Acts of Jurisdiction REQUIRING A PARTICULAR KNOWLEDGE of PERSONS OPINIONS KNOWLEDGE and CONVERSATION which no single Person can have as to all the Members of the Visible Church P. 6. § 4. and in the same Page § 6. 't is added They Believe Persons thus set apart as in a foregogoing Paragraph to the Ministry are fully Authorized to Preach the Gospel and to Baptize in any Place where they are called to it AND TO ADMINISTER THE LORD'S SUPPER when they shall be FIXED IN ANY CONGREGATION that they may Administer it knowingly to Persons that are able to discern the Lord's Body and to EXERCISE ACTS OF JURISDICTION in THEIR FIXED CONGREGATION And P. 10. § 2. An Admonition which is a Church Censure is the Act of the whole Congregation or the officers of it as well in the Name of Christ as IN THEIR NAMES shewing a Person Offending his Errour from the Word of God and Exhorting and Warning him to Reform This they say may be often Repeated 4. Excommuniation being the Highest Censure they Believe ought not to be Denounced by any Persons but those whom God's Word hath appointed thereunto The Persons Decreating it must be the Church by its Officr or Officers they agreeing thereunto §. 4 3. The Doctor in these Paragraphs as he truly Represents the English Presbyterians to be of Opinion that Christ's Ministers may Preach and Baptize whenever in the Visible Church they are called so He adds That they say the Exercise of Jurisdiction belongs to the Minister as he is fixed to a Congregation that he is to Admonish Ecclesiastically in Christ's and the Churches Names that the Persons decreeing to Excommunicate must be the Church by the Officer or Officers allowwing unto the Christian Magistrate more Power in these Matters than Classical Presbyterians as in P. 8 9 and so far from making the Catholick Church Visible a Governed Society or Organnick Body that you see they Appropriate the Power of Jurisdiction unto a fixed a Congregation without mentioning a Subordination of Classical or Provincial Assemblies of the Ruling Officers unto a National or other Greater Synods But §. 5 1. The Learned Mr. Baxter who about the Nature and Constitution of Particular Churches hath been more Elaborate and Convincing than most in Desending their Non-conformity unto the Church of England doth most exactly describe the English Presbyterians fetching his Arguments from the Inconsistency there is between the Diocesan Government and the Specific Nature of Christ's Instituted Churches Ministry and Discipline And §. 6 2. That he may the more clearly shew where the Strength of his Arguments doth lie he distinguisheth between particular Instituted Churches and the Catholick Church Visible affirming that they are Specifically Distinct from each other upon the account of the different sorts of Communion that are had in a Particular and in the Catholick Church For saith he §. 7 3. Communion which is the Essentiating End of these Societies is twofold The One sort is in the same Species or kind of Worship only and the other in the same Individual Acts of Worship Adding that the Communion which is in the same kind of Worship only may be between them who are at the greatest distance from each other and consequently with every Member of the Catholick Church Visible which therefore he calleth Catholick Communion and seeing it can be only in kind it cannot be more visible as such than the Species of things are But Communion in the same Individual Acts of Worship is by joyning in the same Ordinances of the Word Prayer and Lord's Supper and they who have Communion with each other in this way must meet in the same Place at one and the same time and 't is therefore called Personal-Presential or Local Communion which is therefore Proper and Adaequate to a particular Congregational-Church This is a thing that must be Inculcated viz. Communion in the same Individual Acts can be had only in a single Congregation because there alone they can actually joyn in the same Worship whence it necessarily follows §. 8 4. That that Communion which is stretched beyond the Bounds of one single Congregation being only in the same kind of Worship is of the same sort with Catholick Communion And seeing the Members of a Diocesan or Classical Church can have no other Communion with each other than what is Catholick they want that Communion which is Essential unto those particular Churches which are of Divine Institution and specifically distinguished from the Catholick Church And on the other Hand the Asserting Diocesan or Classical to be particular Churches of the Lowest Rank and Order is quantum in se a destroying Parish or Congregational Churches and as stretching particular Churches to a larger Extent is to make the Ends of their Constitution impossible to be attained As Mr. Alsop in his Misch of Impos It is very Lawful to build a Ship or a Man of War as big as two or
we would speak exactly neither a Classis of Officers Assembled nor a Company of Visible Saints combined can properly be called a Church They viz. the Independents deny a Classis of Officers to be a Church and We who are for Classes deny a Company of Saints combined without Officers to be a Church being both of them but PARTS of a Church part of the Matter of a Church and therefore PROPERLY no Church The Truth is tho' both a Classis and a Company of Saints combined without Officers have by Custom obtained to be called Churches yet PROPERLY they are but Parts or Members of the whole Church diversly combined But we add If we will speak exactly a Particular Congregation consisting of Officers and Members is not PROPERLY a Church but a Member of the Catholick Visible POLITICAL Church And if they much more some Members of that Member Visible Saints without Officers are Improperly called a Church Again here lies one of the great Mistakes in the Independent way That they imagine a Church without and before any Officers and then give them Power to make Officers So far the Learned Mr. Cawdrey §. 5 2. The Judicious Mr. Hudson states the Controversie after the same manner but more elaborately and with greater Logical Exactness and expresly affirms the Catholick Church Visible to be a Totum Integrale or POLITICAL Society to be a Corporation or Body Politick in which there is a Governing and Governed Part. And on the Supposition that the Catholick Church Visible is a Totum Integrale 't will unavoidably follow as Learned Mr. Calamy hath happily expressed it in his Preface to Mr. Hudson that the Congregational Government is not right The Truth is saith he the Position there held forth would utterly overthrow the Grounds and Pillars of the Congregational Government for if there be a Catholick Church Visible and this Church be not only a Church Entitive but a Church Organical and a Totum Integrale having all Church Powers habitually seated in the Officers of it which they have Commissions from Christ to Exert and put into Act upon a Lawful Call and if particular Congregations are Integral Parts and Members of the Church Catholick as the Jewish Synagogues were of the Jewish Church and if the Ministry Orders and Censures were given by Christ first to the Church General Visible and secondarily to the Church Particular then 't will follow that the particular Congregation is not the First Receptacle of Church Power and that all Church Power is not Entirely and Independently in a particular Congregation So far Mr. Calamy to whom I add That according to this Notion Visible Saints combined for Church Communion without Officers are not a Church Essential and have not a Power to choose Officers c. For upon this Principle it 's manifest yea 't is owned That to the Catholick Church Visible which is a Totum Integrale or an Organized Body a POLITICAL Church the Administration and Immediate Participation of Government and all other Ordinances are firstly and immediately given yea further it must be granted that particular Churches whether Congregational or Classical Provincial or National are not Properly Churches but Integral Parts of the Catholick Visible POLITICAL Church that whoever is a Visible Christian has an Immediate Right to all Ordinances and that the Relation of every Minister is firstly and habitually unto the Catholick Church Visible and secondarily to this or that Particular Church which is not Properly a Church that where-ever any single Christian comes he is a Member of the Particular Church in that Place and has a Right to all Ordinances tho he never joyn'd himself to any and whoever is ordained he is a Pastor of the Catholick Church may Administer all Ordinances whither soever he comes and Excommunicate Delinquents Tho' for Order sake his Power is not exercised yet the Power remains Entire in every Ordained Minister even in them who are called to take the Charge of any particular Church §. 6 1. On the other hand the First Reformers of all Perswasions subverted this Notion in their Opposition unto the Papists by denying such a thing as a Visible Catholick Church Sublato Fundamento tollitur opus And they who now own that the many Visible Christians scattered through the World may be called the Catholick Church Visible yet do strenuously oppugn its being a Political Church And these Congregationalists affirm the Church Catholick Visible to be Totum Vniversale Genericum or as they sometimes express it a Totum Essentiale that this Totum Genericum gives Essence unto its Species or Parts and is its Cause and in order of Nature before its Species as a Cause is before its Effects But then it must to prevent mistake be carefully observ'd that by Church Universal Visible they mean a Congregational or a Particular Church Essential which including the General Nature of a Church they call General or Vniversal but such as hath where the Combination is its Essentials existent antecedently to the Consideration of its being an Integrum or a Body Politick and as such is dressed with a Power of choosing its Officers and of becoming thereby a Totum Integrale or an Organick Body §. 7 2. Fit Matter Combined before formed into an Organick Body is with them the Church Essential the only immediate Seat of Church Power or to express it in the Words of Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard Def. of the Nine Proposit p. 88. The true Form of all Church Societies Instituted by Christ to which he hath given the actual Administration and Immediate Participation of Church Government and all other Instituted Ordinances as the Subject thereof is Congregational §. 8 These two Reverend Brethren do not I confess think themselves obliged to encumber this Controversie with those Logical Niceties of a Totum Genericum a Totum Integrale yet do they hold That the true State of this Controversie lies here concerning the NATURE ORDER and FORM of such Visible Societies as Christ Jesus by Divine Institution in the Gospel hath reduced his Visible Members unto for the Actual and Immediate Injoyment of all his Instituted Ordinances And the Chain of their Principles lies thus First There is a Particular Church Essential which is Congregational this Congregation is made up of Visible Saints who upon their Mutual Consent and Agreement to walk together according to Gospel Rule have an Immediate Right to Stated Communion in all the Special Ordinances of the Gospel that as they have Power to Combine together as aforesaid so being combined they have a Power of choosing their own Officers as being furnished with such have received Authority from Jesus Christ to Exercise Government and of enjoying all Ordinances of Worship within themselves §. 9 These then are the Points wherein Mr. Cawdrey Hudson and others who were for the Classical Churches and Government differed from the old Nonconformists and the English Presbyterian and Congregationalist For the Ecclesiastical Presbyterians held the Catholick Church
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
AN APOLOGY FOR THE English Presbyterians WITH A DEFENCE OF THE Heads of Agreement Assented to by the Vnited Ministers in the Year 91. LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster 1699. TO THE READER IN the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James the First the English Presbyterians were represented to be for such a Church-Government as was Inconsistent with and Destructive of the King's Supremacy in Matters Ecclesiastical as well as of the Diocesan Form And that the Civil Magistrate might be induc'd to Believe it Three Articles were proposed to be Subscribed unto the First about the Supremacy the other Two about the Government Liturgy and Ceremonies of the Church whereupon they who refused Subscription only to the Second and Third were said to do so because they would not Allow of the First This Accusation was the more generally Receiv'd because the English Presbyterians Corresponded with their Brethren in Scotland who deny the Supremacy about Episcopacy the Liturgy and the Ceremonies and among the Conforming Clergy there were some who would have introduced the Classical Government under the Name of Diocesan which moved Archbishop Bancroft to Publish his Scotizing Dangerous Positions and Survey Besides the Classical National Government being founded on a Divine Right was the more frightful to the Queen her Nobility and Gentry who would never suffer the Divine Right of the Diocesan Government knowing that the Divine Right of a National Church Government of any sort and the Regal Supremacy can never simul semel dwell in the same Kingdom the Setting up of the One being a Subversion of the other The English Presbyterians Observing the Nature of the Accusation and the Arts used to insinuate the Belief of it into the Minds of their Governours judg'd it necessary to do their Part to clear themselves from those Imputations which they did in their Protestations Petitions and other Writings by a Free Open and Vndisguised Representation of their Principles about the Nature and Constitution and Power of Particular Churches and also about the King 's Supremacy making it Evident that in all these Points they agreed entirely with the first Reformers even with them who sate up a Church at Franckfort in Queen Mary's day and had a Chief hand in Reforming the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth who settled Parochian Churches which for their Form are the same with Congregational as the only Churches of Divine Institution recognizing all the Superiorities and Preheminences which the Diocesan Bishop hath above the Presbyter to be only Jure Regio or Parliamentario so that as the Parochian Presbyters are of God's Institution the Diocesan Bishop is of the Prince's making and accordingly as every Creator takes care of his own Creature as God has Provided a Maintainance for the Presbyter the King hath also Endowed the Bishop which is as I take it the true reason why Sr. Thomas Ridley a Person Zealous for the Church in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws Par. 3. Cap. 5. Affirms That God hath by his Word made Tythes due to Parochian Churches but not to Diocesan Bishops whose Indowments stood in good Temporal and Finable Lands which Gratious Princes and other good Benefactors of former Ages bestowed upon them The English Presbyterians keeping tightly to those Principles on which the Reformation began were Esteemed by the Nobility and Gentry to be Men of such Peaceable Principles as might be safely Indulg'd who therefore oft in Parliaments made Application to the Prince on their behalf On these Principles the late Union between the Congregational and Presbyterian was entered into giving so much Security to the Church of England that no Sincere Approver of it can have any hand in setting up that Government which endangers it Their being for any such Model is a being for what destroys those Churches which they themselves Believe to be of God's Appointment Nor Indeed can they be for the Divine Institution of any other Particular Churches than what are Congregational unless upon this Principle That the Catholick-Church-Visible is a Govern'd Society that hath a Supreme Power under Christ Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Authorized to Govern the Whole by Legislation and Judgment Which is a Notion so contrary to what not only all true Protestants in general but the English Presbyterians as well as the Congregationalists in particular are for that they detest and abhor it A Clear Conviction of these things upon mature Deliberation and a serious Observation of the Sentiments of our Wisest and most kind Friends with a sincere Desire that my Brethren may be cleared from those Aspersions which either through the Inadvertency of some of themselves or the Crafty Insinuations of their Adversaries hath been cast upon them and that they may continue in the Peaceable Injoyment of that Liberty which through the Auspicious influence of the Government they are Possessed of hath moved me to make this Apologetical Representation of their Genuine Principles Being strongly Perswaded that as our Governours will consider the Real difference there is between the Principles of the English and CLASSICAL Presbyterians and notwithstanding their Indignation against the Latter will always extend their Generous and Christian Compassions towards the Former So my Brethren of the Presbyterian Denomination will give some Evident Demonstrations of their sincere and Constant adherence to those Principles of the English Presbyterians as Delivered long ago in their Protestations c. and lately in the Heads of Agreement and Particularly to those Articles of it by which they are set at the greatest Distance from Intermedling with the National Church Form Farewel ERRATA PAge 49. line 20. for Especially read Specifically p. 61. l. 6. for as read and l. 16. for Ecclesiastical read Classical AN APOLOGY FOR THE English Presbyterians THE Prejudices which are in the minds of many against the Presbyterians in this Kingdom arising from some mistaken Notions entertain'd about the Principles which Men of that Denomination are said to embrace there can't be I think a more Effectual Apology made for them than what is done by an Impartial Representation of those Principles they do really own and what tho' laid to their Charge they do with the most Indignation and Abhorrence disavow I will therefore faithfully propose what the English Presbyterians for whom alone I make this Plea do and do not hold And for the greater satisfaction of my Reader I will set in the clearest Light I can the Notions espoused by the Classical or Scotch Presbyterians with which the English could never comply though upon the Supposal that they are zealous Defenders of that Classical Government they have fall'n under the Displeasure and Contempt of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Gonours SECT I. What are the Principles about Church-Government held by the English Presbyterians wherein they do differ from the Classical-Scotch-Presbyterians §. 1 THE Principles held by the English Presbyterians about the Constitution and Power of Particular Churches
Brethren the Old Puritan Nonconformists See Puritanis Angl. by Dr. Ames as the Opinions of Whitehead Gilbe Fox Dearing Greenham Cartwright Venner Fulk Whitaker Rainolds Perkins c. But also from what is in the Preface to the English Presbytery of which more in due place where the Author mentioning Dr. Ames his Puritanism adds To which Presbytery is at least a Piece of a Successor And thus it continued till the Meeting of the Assembly of Divines at Westminister in the Year 1641 without the putting forth of any Efforts for the Classical by Nonconformists SECT III. The Setting up of the Classical Presbytery in this Land Attempted by the Scots and by their Interests in the Assembly at Westminister but met with so much Opposition not only from the INDEPENDENTS but from sundry others that it could never take amongst us §. 1 THE English Presbyterians considered in Contradistinction unto the Brownists and other Dissenters from the Church of England prevailing from the beginning of the Reformation till the Assembly at Westminister met with some Check from the Attempts made upon them as well as upon the Church of England by the Scots and their Influence on the Assembly but the English Presbyterians were so powerful in this Nation at that time and the Independents who in the above-mention'd particulars Agreed with the English Presbyterians had obtain'd so great an Interest in the Parliament and Army and the Multitude of them who Dissented from the Church of England DOING SO upon a Principle that did set 'em as much against the Classical Church Government the Obstacles which lay in the way of the Assemblies setting up the Classical Presbytery were so many that they never adventured to Assert the Divine Right of that Form and the Parliament would never allow of all the Assembly presented to ' em And what was by an Ordinance of both Houses Established could never get Reputation enough amongst the People to be generally Received §. 2 This being a Point of extraordinary Importance in the present Case I will be the more Distinct in my Attempt to clear it And seeing 't is Granted on all hands that notwithstanding the most the Scots and their Friends either in the Parliament or Assembly could do the People of this Nation could never be Prevailed with to Submit to the Classical Church-Government I will only shew what were the True Reasons why it could gain no more amongsts us and the rather because not only Mr. Robert Bayly in his Disswasive from Errour but also the Learned Mr. Baxter in the Narrative he gives of his own Life p. 73. do charge the Independents for being the only hinderers Mr. Bayly with Unchristian bitterness and sundry false and Rayling Accusations saith that all the Prelates and the Papists cannot nor do hinder so much the work of Reformation as the five Dissenting Members viz. the Independents But Mr. Baxter with more temper saith that the five Dissenting Bretheren Joyned with the Rest till they had Drawn up a CONFESSION OF FAITH a Larger and Shorter Catechism but when they came to Church Government they engaged them in many long Debates and kept that Business as long as possibly they could Undetermined and after that kept it so long Vnexecuted in almost all Parts of the Land saving London and Lancashire that their Party had time to strengthen themselves in the Army and the Parliament and hinder the Execution after all and keep the Government determined of a stranger to most of the People of this Land who know it but by hearsay as it was Represented by Reporters So far Mr. Baxter who to the shame of Mr. Bayly whose Classical Zeal transported him him beyond all Bounds of Truth when he Accused the Independents for Patronizing all manner of Abominable Errours and Heresies hath confuted him and done them the Justice of Leaving it on Record that they Joyned with the Assembly in the Confession of Faith larger and shorter Catechism But §. 3 My design is cheifly to clear the Truth and show that as the Independents did undoubtedly their Part to hinder the setting up of a National Church-Government which would have Ruined those Churches which are of Christ's Institution so there were others who attempted the same that the Independents did for both the Prelatists and the English Presbyterians had upon different Reasons their hands in the Opposition and also the Body of the People §. 4 1. That the Prelatists had their share in the hindring it is Apparent from what is in the Letter sent by the Assembly to the Belgick and other Reformed Churches p. 7. in which they declare That in those Troublesome times the Honourable Houses of Parliament called the Assembly to give them their best Counsels for the Reformation of the Church c. And in this Work say they we are now excercised tho' the Enemy hath stirred up the Heart of our Dear and Dread Sovereign AGAINST us Now it 's well known that none so Powerful with the King as the Church of England who did you see their most to prevent the Assemblies erecting the Classical Government by setting his Majesty against them But §. 5 2. The great Impediment that lay in their way was the Power of the English Presbyterians who had Leaven'd the Gentry as well as the Common People with Principles opposite unto the Scotch Church Government and most conform to the Rule settled by the first Reformers in Defence of their Separation from Rome And whoever will consider what the Parliament did in Calling and Directing their Synod and in Approving and Rejecting what was Presented to them by the Assembly will see reason enough to conclude I am in the Right For §. 6 1. This Synod was not called either in the Diocesan or Classical way as Mr. Baxter observes but the Parliament as if Resolv'd to take the English Presbyterians for their Conduct chose the Assembly themselves The Parliament saith Mr. Baxter ubi seq not intending to call an Assembly which should pretend a Divine Right to make Obliging Laws or Canons to bind their Brethren but an Ecclesiastical Council to be Advisers to themselves did think they best knew who were the fittest to give them Advice and therefore chose them all themselve Thus touching their Calling which was most Remote from the Scotch-Classical way and conform to the English-Presbyterian Principles who are only for Perswasive Synods §. 7 2. This Assembly when thus called could not proceed by virtue of any Inherent Power in themselves but in all their Debates were confined by the Parliament so Mr. B. This Assembly was confined by Parliament to Debate only such things as they Proposed to them And many Lords and Commons were joyned in Commission with them to see that they did not go beyond their Commission So far was this Synod from being formed according to the Classical Model Whence I infer §. 8 3. That one Reason why the Assembly never adventur'd upon the settling the Divine Right of their Government
was because the Parliament would never endure it I say that this is one Reason for they had another which moved them to wave the Jus Divinum namely their getting the greater Advantage against their Dissenting Brethren by putting 'em on the Proof of divers other General Propositions as necessary to evince that the Presbyterial Government over many Congregations might not be Whereas if the Assembly had Asserted the Divine Right of the Classical Government or that it rather should be the Debate might have much sooner come to an Issue but their putting it only on a may be left it in such Ambiguous and Incomprehensive Terms as to necessitate their Opponents to those Delays that were in this Debate But as this was one Reason so the Parliaments being against the must be had some Influence on the Assembly and greatly Distressed them And that the Parliament was against their Divine Right is manifest from their Rejecting what did in the least look that way as it 's related in the Preface to the Savoy-Confession where 't is thus The Honourable Houses of Parliament thought it not convenient to have Matters of Discipline and Church-Government put into a Confession of Faith especially such Particulars thereof as then were and still are Controverted and and under Dispute by Men Orthodox and sound in Faith The 30th Chapter therefore of that Confession as it was presented to them by the Assembly which is of Church Censures as also Cap. 31. of Synods and Councils by whom to be called of what Force in their Decrees and Determinations These were such Doubtful Assertions and so Unsuitable to a Confession of Faith as the Honourable Houses in their Great Wisdom thought fit to lay them aside So manifest it is that the Parliament would never allow of the Church Government according to the Scotch Modell nor suffer any thing to look like their Synods having an Obliging Power over their Brethren and considering the State of Affairs in that juncture nothing but a Conviction that the English Presbytery was more agreeable to the Scripture Rule than the Classical could have hindered their Complyance with the Scots in this Matter It is also further to be observed §. 9 4. That the Author of certain Considerations tending to Peace amongst Protestants Printed by Parkhurst Anno 1674 doth express himself thus viz. The late Presbyterian Assembly if you will have it called so DIFFERED MUCH FROM THE ASSEMBLIES OF THE CHURCH of Scotland They at Westminster saith Heylin Attribute Power to the Civil Magistrate not only of calling Synods and Church Assemblies but also of being Present at them and to Provide that whatever is therein concluded be done agreeably to the Mind and Will of God As to the Matter of Church-Government the Divine Right of their Presbyteries not a Word delivered Besides their National-Assemblies were to be Subordinate to the Power of the Parliament by the Ordinance of the 14th of March which makes it quite ANOTHER THING from the SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIES and other Assemblies of the KIRK which hold themselves to be SUPREME and UNACCOUNTABLE in THEIR ACTINGS without respect to the KING the PARLIAMENT and the Courts of Justice So Heylin in his History of Presbyt p. 476. So that tho the Scotch and Classical-Presbyterians laboured hard to set up their Government yet could they not do it Something of the Shadow of it they had but not the Thing and what they had gave not satisfaction to the London Presbyterians For §. 10 5. The Presbyterians of the Province of London considering the Church-Government Established by the Ordinance of March 14. 1645 did in their Considerations and Cautions from Sion-Colledge June 19. 1646. declare That there is not a Compleat Rule of these ORDINANCES That there are many Necessary things NOT YET ESTABLISHED and some things WHEREIN their Consciences are NOT SO FULLY SATISFIED And at this time they Published in the same Paper Their Joynt Resolution to Practise in all things according to the Rule of the Word and according to these Ordinances SO FAR AS THEY CONCEIVE THEM CORRESPONDENT TO IT Besides S. 11 6. That Part of the Assemblies Confession which gave most Countenance to the Classical way as it was Rejected by the Parliament so was it hastily Published from the Scotch Copy where it had an Approbation and such is the Integrity of Zealots for the Classical Government as to conceal the Approved Copy from the World and Publish what never had an Imprimatur from that Government which called the Assembly §. 12 These Considerations may convince the Impartial Reader that how much soever the English Presbytery took in this Nation from the Beginning of the Reformation yet the Classical way would not go down either with the Gentry or Common People tho Episcopacy was laid aside and Scottish Influences very powerful yet could not the Parliament be prevailed with to Establish the Classical Government and that their having somewhat like it was enough to frighten the Sober People of England from a Closure with it For §. 13 Tho in many Places the Ministers were for it yet as Dr. Du-Moulin When the Presbyterian Government came to the Execution and Practice there was not one of ten Thousand of the People that wuld submit unto it And one of the Ministers who was the most Eminent confessed to me that being Pastor of the Greatest Parish in London he was never able to establish in it a Consistory nor find any that would be of it but a Pitiful Scotch Taylor Vid. Confor of the Independent Government with that of the Primitive p. 36. §. 14 The Cheshire Ministers in their Attestation to the Testimony of the Reverend Brethren of the Province of London express their Grief because so much of the Classical Presbytery as was Established prevailed so little in most Places and impute the true Reasons of it Partly to the Mis-representations of it to those that should submit unto it For to some it is say they rendered FORMIDABLE as if it were MORE OPPRESSIVE than ever the Prelacy was to others DESPICABLE for want of a Competent Power to proceed to Effectual Reformation of Offenders That is the Parliament annexed no Penalties to be Inflicted on them who could not in Conscience conform to this National-Church-Constitution Moreover §. 15 There were amongst the Ministers a considerable Number who entered into Associations and set up another sort of Government comprehending the Moderate Episcopal and the Independents upon the Principles maintain'd by the English Presbyterians For Mr. Baxter who was an English Presbyterian was the Great Promoter of it who freely declared he could not agree with the Assembly in every Point of Government ubi sup P. 73. and in P. 97. he mentions the Progress made of their Associating Design §. 16 Thus great Endeavours were during the time the Assembly sate for the bringing in the Classical Church Government but 't was so contrary to the Genius of the Nation that no sort neither the Magistrate nor
three Yachts which may do better Service but it 's folly to make one that would reach from Calais to Dover which must lie like a Log unmeet for Sailing and the Ends for which all Ships are Built Which he mentions to shew that the extending a particular Church beyond the Bounds of a single Congregation doth frustrate the End of its Institution or as Mr. Baxter has it makes the Impossibility of Christ's Discipline in our Churches undeniable §. 9 5. This Point being with much earnestness stated by this Learned Person he declares in the Narrative he wrote of his own Life P. 339. That one Charge which the Nonconformists brought against our Prelacy is That it destroyeth the Species or Form of Particular Churches Instituted by Christ The Churches Instituted by Christ are Holy Societies Associated for PERSONAL Communion under their Particular Pastors But all such Societies are Destroyed by the Diocesan Frame Ergo It is destructive of the Form of Particular Churches Instituted by Christ They viz. the Nonconformists distinguish between Personal Local Communion of Saints by Pastors and their Flocks and Communion of Heat only we have Heart-Communion with all the Catholick Church throughout the World But a Holy Communion of Souls or Individual Persons as Members of the same Particular Church for Publick Worship and a Holy Life is ESPECIALLY distinct from the former as is apparent by the Distinct End 2. The Distinct Manner of Communion yea and the Matter of it And in his Treatise of Episcopacy more fully We cannot Subscribe to that Form of Church Government as God or Lawful which in its Nature Excludeth or Destroyeth the ver Specifical Nature of the Particular Churches which were Instituted by the Holy Ghost and settled in the Primitive Times But such we take the present Diocesan Form to be Ergo The Major will be denied by very few that we have to do with The Minor I thus prove The Species of a Particular Church which the Holy Ghost did Institute was One Society of Christians united under one or more Bishops for PERSONAL COMMUNIONâ—… in Publick Worship and Holy Living The Diocesan English Frame is Destructive of or Inconsistent with the Species of a Particular Church Ergo The Diocesan English Frame is Inconsistent with or Destructive of the Species of the Holy Ghost's Institution In the Major 1. By Bishops I mean Sacred Ministers Authorized by Divine Appointment to be the STATED Guides of the Church by Doctrine Worship and Discipline By Personal Communion I mean That the said Churches were no more numerous than our English Parishes nor had more Assemblies or no more than could have the same Personal Communion and that there were never any Churches Infimae vel primae Speciei which consisted of many such Stated Assemblies I shall therefore now Prove That the Churches of the Holy Ghost's Institution were no more Numerous or were such Single Congregations 1. From the Holy Scriptures 2. From the Confession of the Diocesans 3. From the Testimony of Antiquity All proving fully That the Ancient Episcopal Churches were but such single Societies or Congregations as I have described §. 10 6. What Mr. B. here affirms respects chiefly the Communion of the Church and upon this account he doth from the Specifical Difference there is between Catholick and Particular Church Communion and from the Inconsistence there is between Diocesan and Parish or Congregational Churches and the Destructive Nature of the Diocesan Government as 't is framed to destroy Congregational Churches from these Topicks he brings those Arguments by which he defends our Non-conformity to the Church of England which he could never have done were he not full well assured that the Nonconformists generally held Particular Churches to be Congregational And §. 11 7. That he was satisfied his Arguments were as much against Classical as they were against Diocesan Churches evidently appears by what he hath in his Treatise of Episcopacy Part 1. C. 7. P. 120. when he saith That by a Diocesan Church WE mean all the Christians within that Circuit who have but one Bishop over them tho' they be of MANY PARISH CHURCHES yea FEW PRESBYTERIANS take the Word so Narrow as this For I think too many of them do with Rutherford Distinguish between a Worshipping Church and a Governing Church and SADLING THE HORSE FOR PRELACY TO MOUNT ON do Affirm that many about Twelve usually of these Worshiping Churches like our Parishes may make but one Governed or Presbyterial Church §. 12 What more directly belongs to the Government of the Church we shall consider if God will elsewhere and will only Note in this place That whoever will consult Mr. Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy and what he saith of the Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Instituted Churches will find that the English Presbyterians whom he describes were as much against the Classical Presbytery as the Congregationalists are We will in the next propose the Sentiments of those English Presbyterians who entered into an Union with their Congregational Brethren SECT V. The Difference between the Classical Presbyterian and the Congregationalist stated The Design of the late Union and the Principles upon which 't was founded consistent with the Established National Chuch Form and such as Justifie the Separation of the First Reformers from Rome The Classical odel Destructive of them and therefore Rejected §. 1 THAT it may be the more easily understood what Principles the Presbyterians who were Men of Sense and Integrity must be supposed to be of when they Vnited with their Congregational Brethren I will give an Impartial State of the Controversie about the Nature and Power of Instituted Churches as discuss'd by them who were for the Classical Church Government and by the Independents forty or fifty Years ago §. 2 This Controversie as to that part of it which concerns my present Purpose may be reduced to these Heads 1. Whether there be a catholick-visible-political-Catholick-Visible-Political-Church 2. Whether there be a Particular Church Essential Vnorganiz'd vested with a Power to choose their own Officers Or An Ecclesia Institute sit Genus An Integrum §. 3 In the Writings of Cawdrey Hudson Hooker Stone Allen Sheppard and the Dissenting Brethren of the Westminster Assembly there being an Impartial State of this Controversie I will out of their Writings set it in as clear a Light as I can §. 4 1. The Learned Mr. Cawdrey who agreeth in Opinion with the Judicious Mr. Hudson and the London Ministers in their Jus Divinum doth in his Vindiciae Vindiciarum and Review of Mr. Hooker's Survey declare not only for a Visible Catholick Church but That this Visible Catholick Church may in a fair and candid Sense be said to be POLITICAL and that the Notion of CHURCH-ESSENTIAL or HOMOGENOUS is but the Modus or State of a Church applicable both to the whole Chuch and every compleat Congregation consisting of Visible Saints and Officers But it is not possible there should be an Essential-Church existing without Officers If
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