The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 18
Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church. Serm. p. 19.By the Church of England, I said, we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith, the same Laws of Government, and Rules of Divine Worship. And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church, I proved from the first notion of a Church, which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion. And since, the lowest kind of that Society, viz. Congregations for Worship, are called Churches; since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church; and both from their union and consent in some common thing; I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith, and under the same Government and Discipline, might not be as truly and properly a Church, as any particular Congregations? Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing: the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom, as the small Kingdom of Ivetot: and as several Families make one Kingdom, so several lesser Churches make one National. And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word foreign, I shewed, that at Athens, from whence the word was taken, it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together, although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an foreign too; and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church, the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities, and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion. This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject; against which all my Adversaries have something to say, though not with equal strength, clearness, or temper. Dr. Owen saith (1.) That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire, Vindicat. of Non-conform. p. 16.it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches, and therefore they are not concerned in it: because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution, and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves, independently as to any National Constitution. To which I answer, that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations, as I have already proved, then the gradual increase of Churches, till they came to be National, doth not alter any Institution of Christ; and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations; or else nothing but disorder and confusion will follow, if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith, without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority. Which is all one, as to suppose that every Family may govern it self, because a Kingdom is made up of Families, without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom. No,p. 17. saith Dr. O. the case is not the same. For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families. And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations? But God by the Light and Law of Nature, by the ends and use of the Creation of man, by express Revelation in his Word, hath by his own Authority, appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government. So say I, that God by the Light and Law of Reason, by the ends and use of a Christian Society, by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare, that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations. For, if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud, had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions, it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves; but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment; so in the case of Churches; since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant, settle and govern Churches, and set up Rulers in them, but still under their Authority, can any thing be plainer, than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves? But as in the former case, if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions, and to have placed them in convenient Seats, and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint, and as they found themselves decaying, should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies, were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours? Without breaking in pieces into so many Families, every Master governing his family by himself; which would certainly ruin and destroy them all; because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves. So it is again in the case of Churches, The Apostles planted them, and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them, still reserving the main care of Government to themselves; but giving excellent Rules of Charity, Peace, Obedience and Submission to Governours; and as they withdrew from particular Churches (within such a precinct, as Crete was) they appointed some, whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches, and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them; and therefore in this case, here is no more independency in particular Congregations; than in the other, as to private Families; which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians, and their mutual preservation and defence, as in the former case. In which, we believe the civil Government to be from God, although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion; and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles, when the matter of fact is attested by the most early, knowing, honest and impartial Witnesses? Lastly, as in the former case, several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security, and become one Kingdom: so in the latter case; several Bishops with the Churches under them, might for promoting the common ends of Christianity, and the Peace and establishment of their Churches, joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church: which being intended for the good of the whole so united, and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution, and not usurping upon the Rights of others, nor assuming more than can be managed, as an universal Pastour must doe; will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel, as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is. Which I therefore mention that any one may see, that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations.
But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution,p. 17. before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction;p. 42. for the Nature of the thing it self, and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches, is sufficient for it. And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches, viz. What the nature of a Christian Society, and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require. For, whatever tends to the support of Religion, to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians, to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions, from the very nature of the thing, and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty. For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it. It being then taken for granted among all Christians, 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church; 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it; 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it; provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it: We may reasonably infer, that whatever tends to promote this Vnion, and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it, is within the design of the first Institution; although it be not contained in express words.