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
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-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
and their Subordination to the Civil Magistrate are briefly these 1. That a Governing Church is of no larger Extent than a Worshipping Congregation 2. That the Ruling Power of their Officers is not to be stretch'd beyond the Bounds and Limits of their Worshipping Congregation 3. That what Power besides this is requisite to reform the Disorders in Particular Churches such as the Removing Scandalous and Heretical Teachers c. is vested in the Civil Magistrate 4. That it belongs also to the Civil Magistrate to convene Synods or Assemblies of Ministers when there shall be an occasion for them whose Power when convened is only Persuasive not Coercive §. 2 The Principles which the Classical or Scotch Presbyterians who assert the Divine Right of a National Church-Government do advance are 1. That One Governing Church is made up of many worshipping Congregations 2. That the Ruling Power of their Officers is extended beyond the Bounds of a single Congregation For by asserting the Catholick Church Visible to be a Govern'd Society or Organnick Body they must necessarily and do professedly own that the Ministry Ordinances and Censures are given firstly to the Catholick Church Visible and secondarily to particular Churches which whether Congregational Classical Provincial c. are not properly Churches but only Parts or Members diversly combin'd of the Catholick Church which is the only proper Visible Church whereupon all Church-Power is habitually seated in the Officers of the Catholick Church Visible as such and therefore extended beyond the Bounds of single Congregations even to the utmost Limits of the Catholick Church Visible 3. That the Ruling Officers in their larger Assemblies viz. Classical Provincial National Patriarchal and Oecumenical have a Power inherent in them to reform the Disorders of particular Churches and to remove scandalous or Heretical Teachers 4. That it belongs to the Church and not to the Civil Magistrate to convene Synods or Assemblies of Ministers and other Ruling Officers §. 3 In these particular Instances you have a full though brief Account of what is embraced by the English and by the Classical Presbyterians And it 's now my Part to vindicate the former from those Reproaches unjustly cast upon them and shew that the Charge can not be fairly laid at the Door of any Presbyterian but the Classical §. 4 That I may do the English Presbyterians Justice in the representing their Principles I must consider what the miserable State of the Church was before Luther upon what Principles the Protestants went in their Endeavours to reform the Church and then evince that the English Presbyterians stuck firmly to those Principles upon which the Separation was made from the Church of Rome SECT II. The Miserable State of the Church before Luther the Principles on which the Reformation was begun and carryed on with a state of the Controversie between Papist and Protestant The English Presbyterians constantly adhered to the Reformed about Church-Government particularly Cartwright c. §. 1 ABout the time that Luther with many others endeavour'd a Reformation of the Church the Great Evil complained of was the Intolerable Tyranny of the Ecclesiasticks The People were then so very much under the Power of the Clergy that they were perfect Strangers to the least Part of Christian Liberty besides the Inferiour Clergy so grievously Oppressed by their Superiours and all so much Slaves to the Pleasure of the greatest that throughout all Europe the Miseries of the People were so great and pressing that none durst open their Mouths in favour of their Ancient Rights and Privileges Yea §. 2 The Domination and Tyranny of Popish Prelates who aimed more at Worldly Grandeur than at the advancing Christ's Glory was grown to such a Height that they did what-ever was good in their own Eyes and that they might do it with the greater Countenance they asserted that there was a Catholick Church Visible that this Catholick Visible Church was One Governed Corporation or Society under one supreme Governing Power to which they ascended by sundry steps from the Diocesane to the Provincial from thence to the Patriarchal §. 3 The first Reformers as many of their Fore-Fathers such as the Wickliffists Hussists c. groaning under these Insupportable Burdens and throughly understanding from whence they had their Rise laid the Ax to the Root of the Antichristian Tyranny denying that there was a Catholick Church Visible §. 4 Here the Reformed fix'd their Foot affirming that the Universal Church was made up only of Elect Believers and was Invisible that those special Privileges which the Papists appropriated to their Catholick Church Visible belonged only to the Invisible Church and hereby left no foundation for the raising a Catholick Church Government upon for Sublato Fundamento tollitur Opus and thus their Catholick Government fell to the Ground The Government in Controversie being External as well as Catholick must have a Visible as well as a Catholick Church for its State so that where no such Catholick Church there can be no such Catholick Government On the other hand §. 5 The Papists being fully convinced that the Reformers had taken the most effectual way to subvert their Church Government and divest them of that Authority they assumed to themselves over the Consciences of the People owned it and in Opposition unto them held that there was a Catholick Church Visible under an External Polity or Government So Alphonsus a Castro advers Haeres Lib. 1. The Wickliffists Hussists and Lutheranes do stifly insist on the Invisibility of the Catholick Church and is the strongest Shield they have to defend themselves against whatever is urged from the Church's Authority which is the sharpest Weapon we can use against them Gregory de Valentina Anal. Fid. Cathol lib. 6. Chap. 3. If the Vniversal Church be Composed only of those who are Predestinated and truly Righteous the Government of the Church of Rome can never be defended And Rodericus de Arriago confesseth de Divin sid Disp 7. § 1. Num. 3. That the true Reason why they lay so much stress upon this Part of the Controversie is because the Support of the Papall Power Depends upon it Many other Authorities may be at any time produced for the Confirmation of this Point but the thing it self is so clear that it 's not needful §. 6 The Reformed in this Kingdom agree'd with the Wickliffists Hussists and Lutheranes owning that the Catholick Church was no otherwise visible than as it might be seen in Particular Church-Assemblies which closely examined amounts to more than that there is no Church properly speaking Visible but what is Particular and no External Church-Government but what is seated in Particular Churches that the Reforming such Disorders as cannot be done by that Power which is Peculiar to Parochiall or Congregational Churches belongs to the Civil Magistrate viz. such as the convening the Assemblies of Ministers and the removing Scandalous Turbulent and Heretical Teachers But §. 7 If all that Power which is meerly
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
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
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-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