A Second True Defense of the Nonconformists, Definition – Publishers advertisement
A Premiſed explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH.
THE word [CHURCH] being Equivocal, is unfit for our diſputation, till explained: It ſignifieth (being a Relative) ſeveral ſorts of related Aſſemblies: which are diſtinct. I. In their Matter: A Church of Jews, Turks, Chriſtians, of Orthodox, and of Hereticks, being not one thing.
II. In the Efficient: A Church of Gods inſtituting, or a Church of mans.
III. In the Fnds. 1. A Chriſtian Aſſembly at a Fair, or Market, or Court, or Army, &c. is not the ſame with an Aſſembly for Religious exerciſes. 2. Nor an Aſſembly for Legiſlation about Religion (in Parliament), or Conſultation in Synods, or Diſputation in Schools, the ſame thing as an Aſſembly for ſtated worſhip. &c.
IV. In the Form, or Conſtitutive Relation to the Correlate: And ſo the great difference which now concerneth us to note is, that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing, and a Political Society, related as Governours, and governed, is another.
The firſt, is either an accidental Aſſembly, or elſe a deſigned Aſſemby by conſent.
This laſt is either an Aſſembly of Lay-men, which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government; and may meet to worſhip God without a Paſtor; and this in Politicks is uſually called, a meer Community. 2. Or an Aſſembly of Rulers or Paſtors in equality (as to Government there): And this is called, a Council, Synod, Dyet, Parliament, Convention, &c.
V. A Governed▪ or Political Church is of Three ſeveral Species (at leaſt) as there are three Species of ſuch Government.
I. A Chriſtian Family, conſiſting of the Family-Government, and Governed, living together in holy faith, love, worſhip, and obedience to God; the Maſter being their Teacher, Ruler, and Guide in worſhip.
II. A Paſtoral-Church, conſiſting of one, or more Paſtors, and Chriſtian people correlated as his flock, for the benefit of his Paſtoral office, which eſſentially containeth a power to teach them, lead them in worſhip, and govern them by the Keys, as a Miniſterial Judg, who is fit for that Commmunion. All together is called alſo, the Power of the Keys, and is ſubordinate to Chriſts Teaching, Prieſtly, and Ruling Office.
III. A Royal, or Magiſtratical Church, conſiſting of a Chriſtian Soveraign, and Chriſtian Subjects, to be ruled by his ſword, or forcing power under Chriſt, and his Laws, for the ſpiritual and temporal welfare of the ſociety, and the glorifying, and pleaſing the Lord Redeemer.
And IV. The Univerſal Church comprehendeth all theſe three as parts, and is moſt excellently, properly, and fully called, the Church, conſiſting of Jeſus Chriſt the chief Paſtor (Teacher, Prieſt, and King, an eminent perfect Policy) with all Chriſtians, as the ſubject part: It is viſible in that the ſubjects, and their profeſſion, and worſhip are viſible; aod Chriſt was viſible on earth, is viſible in the Court of Heaven, his Laws, and Providence are viſible, and he will viſibly judg the world, and reign for ever: And it is no further viſible. The conſtitutive, eſſential parts, are only Chriſt and his ſubject-body: The nobleſt, organical parts of that body, are Prophets, Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, Paſtors, and Teachers.
In all this, note 1. That we have no difference, that I know of, about the Church in any of theſe ſenſes before mentioned, except,
1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods ſervice (without Gods particular preſcript, or inſtitution).
2. Whether it be true, that the King is ſo perſona mixta, as ſome hold, as to be King and Prieſt, and to have the power of Church-Keys, and Word, and Sacraments.
3. Whether over and above the loweſt Paſtoral Churches Chriſt hath inſtituted a direct, ſuperior Paſtoral ſort of Churches, to rule the inferior, in Faith, Worſhip, and the Keys of Diſcipline, over Paſtors and people? And if ſo, what are theſe ſuperior Paſtoral Churches, wh…ther Dioceſan, Provincial, National, Patriarchal, Papal, or all? And if Chriſt made no ſuch, whether men may make them?
2. And note, that we are certainly agreed, that the Magiſtratical form of forcing power, and the Paſtoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys, are two, though the ſubjects ſhould be the ſame (though uſually the Church is in the Commonwealth, as part): And none of us deny a Chriſtian Commonwealth, Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, or Democratical; and though this power be over the Paſtoral Church, it is but Accidental, and not Eſſential to it.
3. And note, that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this, were, 1. What is the Paſtoral ſpecifying form of the Church of England? And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Inſtitution: And I have brought him to maintain, that there is no ſuch Church of England at all. And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he.
4. And Laſtly, Note, that as to a Paſtoral Church, we agree, I ſuppoſe, in diſtinguiſhing a Tranſient, and a fixed relation. And as he that is a Licenſed Phyſician, acteth as ſuch where he cometh, though related fixedly to no Hoſpital; ſo if a lawful Miniſter of Chriſt, either fixed in another Church, or in none but the Univerſal, be called, pro tempore, for a day, to do his office in another Church, he acteth as Chriſts Miniſter, and their Paſtor for that day…: And if a travelling Chriſtian joyn with them, he is a Member for that day: Yea, if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the ſame relations, to the ſame ends, it is a temporary, tranſient Paſtoral Church. But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification, ought to fix their relation and practice.
Though moſt of this be ſaid after, where he calls me to it, I thought meet here to premiſe the Explication of the word [Church] (as in divers books largely I have done of the word [Separation] leſt I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part, and we ſhould diſpute about a word, which the Reader, and perhaps our ſelves underſtand not.
But we have a greater controverſie than this, riſen ſince A. Biſhop Laud's, and Grotius's Reconciling deſign, v z. what the Catholick viſible Church is?
1. Proteſtants have hitherto held, as the first point of difference from the Papiſts, that the Univerſal Church hath no conſtitutive Head, or ſupreme regent Power but Chriſt. He hath ſetled no one, Vicarious, or deputed ſupreme, Monarchical, Ariſtocratical, or Democratical.
2. Accordingly they noted the difference of two ſorts of Papiſts, ſome that ſet the Pope as ſuperior, above Councils; others (as the Councils of Conſtance, and Baſil, and the French, that make the General Council ſupreme, the Pope being Preſident, as the chief of the Patriarchs, and having many priviledges, as Primate to the Univerſal Church.
3. But that in truth, the Catholick governing power of Pope, and the other four Patriarchs, was but a humane form of Church Policy ſetled in one Empire as a National kind of Church, and the Councils were Univerſal as to the Empire, but not to all the Chriſtian world (which I have proved againſt W. Johnſon fully) called by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations, and ſubſcribed by his ſubjects.
4. That the grand cheat that hath ſet up Popery, is the turning this National Church into an Univerſal Government of all the Chriſtian world; and pretending that Chriſt, or his Apoſtles ſet up that power over all, which Emperours, and Imperial Councils ſet up only over one Empire.
5. We are ſworn againſt Forreign Juriſdiction by the Oath of Supremacy. For the Roman Empire is diſſolved, and if it were not, we are no ſubjects of it.
6. Yet we hold that all Chriſtians ſhould live in all poſſible love and concord, counſelling, and helping one another for the edification of the Church; and that ſuch Councils are uſeful thereto, as may be had without more hurt than good. But that no Univerſal governing power beſides Chriſts (for Legiſlation, Judgment, or Execution) is needful to that concord; nor is a Government of the whole Chriſtian world by any one Political ſupreme, Pope or Council, or Colledg of Paſtors, or Cardinals, any more poſſible or lawful to be ſought, than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Soveraign; though all Kings, as well as all Biſhops, are bound to ſerve God with the greateſt concord that they can attain.
But now he that will read many late Divines of England, will find, that they are come to this, 1. To take the foreſaid Conciliar, and French Papiſts to be no Papiſts; and ſo to make it a controverſie, de nomine (in which, for me, let them have their liberty). 2 To take it for a neceſſary thing, to believe that the Univerſal Church in the world hath one ſupreme governing power under Chriſt, and is a Society, that is, therein viſibly one. And 3. That this one ruling power is either a General Council, or the Colledg of all Biſhops on earth. 4. And that the Imperial Church-form was, and is to be the true Univerſal Church form, viz. a General Council, where the five Patriarchs are by themſelves, or by conſent. 5. And that the Pope is Preſident, and Principium unitatis, and chief Patriarch, and ſo to be obeyed by us. 6. And that there is no true way to Univerſal concord but by being of this one Church, ſo formed, and obeying its Univerſal Laws, which they ſay, chriſt hath given them power to make. 7. And that they are Schiſmaticks, and not to be tolerated that do not ſo conſent and obey. 8. Yea, ſay ſome to us in England, it is compelled obedience to all the preſent Impoſitions, which only muſt cure our diviſions, without abatement for Union, or any Tolerations.
A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle, that the Church in all the earth is one, as under one humane ſupreme Government, under Chriſt, and that all are Schiſmaticks that are not of it, and obey it not. I am not for diſgracing any by the name of Papiſts that refuſe it; whether the French, and the councils of Piſa, Conſtance and Baſil ſhall be called Papiſts I contend not: But whether thoſe falſe principles be the only terms of concord, wiſe men will cautelouſly conſider.
ADVERTISEMENT.
THere is lately Publiſhed a Book of the ſame Authors, called, A Search for the Engliſh schiſmatick, by the Caſe and Characters 1. Of the Dioceſan Canoneers. 2. Of the Preſent Meer Nonconformiſts. Not as an Accuſation of the former, but a neceſſary Defence of the latter, ſo far as they are wrongfully accuſed and perſecuted by them. And is to be ſold by Nevill Simmons, at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the Weſt-end of St. Pauls.