Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 5
SECT. V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated.
HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy, I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some; to wit, the National Constitution of the Church of England. I have above declared, that I look on this as no ground for Separation; yea, nor cause of complaint, if it be taken sano sensu. Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self; yet this power is not Independent, but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches. These Associations may be greater or smaller; one contained in another, and so subordinate to it, as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow; and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation, containeth all the Churches in it, and may all meet in their representatives, for the governing them all in common. This we own as a National Church; wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is, for National, and Provincial Officers in this National Church, Arch…bishops, and Bishops, put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these, and I shall contend no further. I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse; but only note a few things.
Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of, is, p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men, to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves. This proveth nothing; for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed, which is an abiding thing; not by their own governing the Church, which ceased with them. Next, p. 290. he saith, the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, is, Matter of Fa…t, attested by the most early, knowing, honest, and impartial Witnesses; which I deny and have disproved. The next remark shall be upon, p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together, and becoming one National Church (he shuneth mentioning a Primate under, and in whom they unite) and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation, and and Universal Head of the Christian Church; by its being intended for the good of the whole so united, and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution, and not usurping the rights of others, nor assuming more than can be managed. This, he saith, an Vniversal Pastor must do; and he therefore mentioneth this, that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation. I cannot, for all this, see, that it is more justifiable, or consistent with Christ's Institution, to unite a National Church under a Primate, than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope: Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted, and so a greater Evil, than the other; but magis & minus non variant speciem, To clear this, I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth, in their uniting under a Primate; and consider whether they do agree better to him, than to a Pope. The First is, it is intended for the good of the Whole, so Vnited. If we judge by Intentions; no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also; and is de facto as much pleaded by them, and with as specious pretences. And if we consider the reallity of the thing; sad experience sheweth, that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole; but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences; and Rending, and Harassing the Church, for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men.
Sect. 3. The Second, This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution. This he should have proved; we deny it: Let him shew us more Institution, or warrant for a Metropolitan, than for a Pope. If we should own. Bishops as Successors to the Apostles; yet an Arch-bishop, a Metropolitan, a Patriarch, a Pope, must still be beside Institution, except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles, and so be for Peters Supremacy. The Third is, That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others. I say, there is, as really as there is in the Papacy; for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers, to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest; this is taken from them, and put into the hand of a Bishop; and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters, the Primate usurpeth from him, and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, that they had usurped from these under them. The 4th. is, not assuming more than can be managed. Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding, to see, that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage, as really as the Primate or the Patriarch; yea, or the Pope doth. For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments, and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person, no more can a Primate to a whole Nation, nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People, and hundreds of Congregations. And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy, for Word, and Sacraments, and by his Chancellors, Archdeacons, &c. for his Discipline, such as it is: And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church, by his and the Bishops Courts: So can the Pope rule all Christian people (ut cunque) by Cardinals, Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, by his Legate, or other Officers of his appointment. I challenge the Doctor, or any man, to shew such a difference between a National Officer, and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church, as maketh one lawful, and the other unlawful. The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power, and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power, will not make this difference. For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such, abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church.
Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much, to the reason, or rather fansie, of Men; when he saith, That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church, (the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution) we may reasonably infer, that whatever tendeth to promote this union, and to prevent notable inconveniences, is within the design of the first Institution, tho' it be not contained in express words. The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope, as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop, or Arch-Bishop: This Inference as thus loosly set down, is no way to be admitted; because Christ hath not provided for the unity, and preservation of his Church, by leaving it to Mens will, or wholly to their reason either; but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers, that he hath appointed in his house. Unity is then to be preserved, Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christs Ministers in their several particular Charges, by private, and publick Instructions, and Admonitions: By their joynt Concurrence in censuring, and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders: These are Christs Institutions, and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them; and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means, not on mens Devices: But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit, and particularly, that it is to be preserved by setting up Arch-Bishops, and Bishops in the Church: These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end. It is often seen that means thus devised of Men, by Crossing of Christ's Institution, either fail of their end, or by mending one evil make a worse: Peace, and Unity is sometim…s (and in the case in hand) procured to the Church, with the bearing down of Piety, and shutting out of Purity.
Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive, p. 299. to wit, he saith, It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation, consisting of pastors, and people, agreeing in that Faith, Government, and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm. Had he put the word of God inste…d of the Laws of this Realm, I should have fully assented to this description. But against that Particle I have two Exceptions. 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church, and is neither a constituent part of its essence, nor a necessary adjunct of it: The Church hath been without it, and I hope he will not say, That if the Laws were taken away, the Church is unchurched for that. 2. This make…h the Church of England, a variable and mutable thing, as the Laws of men are, for if Presbytery, if Anabaptism, If Independency, Popery, Socinianism, and what sort of Religion you can name, either as to Faith, or Worship, or Government, were established by Law: They that are of that way should then be the Church of England; which is not only absurd, but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this (I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this) if Popery (which God forbid) should come to be establi…hed by Law: The Papists were the Church of England, and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England, by the…r Oaths, and Subscriptions, should oblige them to be Papists; and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law, as the Weather-cock doth with the Wind: This is like to be pleasing Doctrin to many. But I p…rceive the Doctors design by this fine new notion is, To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side, and Dissenters on the other; which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England. If Men wondred much before, they may wonder far more now, what is meant by the Church of England, when they see her painted in so changeable colours, as that she may be one thing now, and another next year, and another the third year, and so on. The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Churches Feet, and the Twelve Stars, Apostolick Doctrine, on her Head, as her cognizance and Glory, but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head, that she must be known by it; what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not. He is more favourable to the Papists, and Dissenters, they are to be known by their Conformity, or Nonconformity to Scripture; not to the Laws of the Land: But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side, what will that party be that is now the Church of England? It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion, for he hath it up again, p. 300. to the question, how comes it to be one National Church: He answereth, because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament, as other Laws of the Nation are, and is universally received by all that obey these Laws. And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England. He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom, but not a National Church; but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said, for the Parliament owning the Faith, maketh a Christian Kingdom, but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church, to wit, the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith, and Worship, and Government, as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say, thi… leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church; for all pretend to have the Word on their side. I answer, This is not to be denied; for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth, and about his Ordinances, we are not like to come to a decision of that question, Who is the Church? For all Congregations are parts of the Church; and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church: The Apostle decided that Controversie, who is the Circumcision, (the Dialect of some in that time, for who is the Church) not by the Laws of men; but by the truth of God that they owned, Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that B…llarmine hath not, (though he hath more than enough) to wit, They that have the Law on their side are the Church.
Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is, the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult, and advise about matters of Religion. This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster; but of the Consent of both Convocations. Here I observe, 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author, that without it there is neither diffusive, nor representative Church. Then what becometh of the Apostolick Church, and that of the first 300 years, and of the Greek Churches under the Turk; yea, and of the Protestant Church of France, where their Prince is not only Christian, but most Christian? And yet his Law does not favour that Church. 2. I have shewed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative: The Presbyters, and Churches of the Nation being so insufficiently represented there. 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations, that never meet personally together, can be called a Church, or National representative Church: I thought a Church had been a Me…ting, not a consent of men: A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts; not a mental consent about them: Bodies are requisite to make a Church, as well as Souls.
Sect. 7. I ple…d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church; though an Oecumenick Counsel, if it could be had, might better challenge that Name than the Pope; and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church d…th not answer to what is debated about, to wit, a visible power, super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth. We own a Catholick, diffusive, visible Church; but wish, rather than hope for one representative; for we are perswaded, the Pope hath no title to such a headship. But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England: I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room; and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ, whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament. Against this National Head I object, 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation; of which before. 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations, and so there must either be two Churches of England, or the one Church of England must be Biceps, and so a Monster. 3. This consent or Convocation (call it what you will) is not a regent head of the Church of England, it medleth only with makeing rules for Government (which is none of the Churches work, she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws) but doth not govern; by receiving Appeals, censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches, inflicting Censures, &c.
Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England, be Divine, or Humane. The Dr. answereth, Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule; but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed, as agreeable to the Word of God. This, I conceive is not to answer the question; he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth: We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England, (which he mentioneth) if the Magistrate own them, have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders, but that is still wide from the question, whether these Orders be Divine, or Humane. Doth the Church, or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship, devised by Man, and place their unity in that? It remaineth then still, that if the National Unity of the Church of England, be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly, or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it, and will in all these joyn with it; but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture; if we cannot joyn with them in so doing, we do not separate from them, but they in so far separate from us, and from all the pure Churches of Christ.
Sect. 9. He maintaineth, p. 305. against one of his Opponents, who had objected, That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules, teaching Signs, and Symbols, &c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order, and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God, and that all setled Churches are for this, I reply. 1. He doth not answer to the Objection: I hope all Rules for Order, and Decency are not about Foederal Rites, and teaching Symbols: Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one, but not the other. 2. It is false. that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order, and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies, teaching Symbols, and such like. 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order, and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion; so as to exclude all from their Priviledges, and to incite the Magistrate to punish them, who do not conform to these Rules (as he alledgeth) other Churches use to rule by holding forth light, and Perswasives, not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men: Nor do they concern the Magistrate, but where some notable violations of the Law of God, otherwise not to be restrained, doth require it. 4. It is a false supposition, that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones, are not repugnant to the Word of God; but this is not the place of that Debate.