The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 20 – Section 22
Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter; which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose, I shall reduce to these following heads, wherein the main difficulties lie.
1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom. 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church; which he calls the Constitutive regent part. 3. Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church.
1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church.Answ. p. 31, 32. A Christian Kingdom, he saith, they all own, but this is onelyonly equivocally called a Church, but, he saith, the Christian Bishops for 1300 years, were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church, or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys. If there be any such Christians in the world, that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church, let Mr. Baxter confute them; but I am none of them; for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes, that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes, and will be such, if there were none left. I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing, Difference between the Power of the Magistrates and Church Past…rs, 1…1.from the Office of the Civil Magistrate; and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion, he should have rather sent it to his learned, sincere, and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin; if he had been still living. But if I onelyonly mean a Christian Kingdom,p. …, 40. who denies it? saith he; If all this confused stir, be about a Christian Kingdom, be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command. Nay farther, …if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals, we deny it not. What is it then, that is so denied and disputed against, and such a flood of words is poured out about? It seems at last it is this, that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head, personal or collective, Monarchical or Aristocratical. Before I answer this Question, I hope, I may ask another; whence comes this zeal now against a National Church? For, when the Presbyterians were in power, they were then for National Churches, and thought they proved them out of Scriptures; and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex, or trouble them. Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches;… p. 12, 13, 14. and particularly the Church of England; in these words. And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church; let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England, be called the Church of England. But this you will say, is by association of equal Churches. No, they say, it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government, agreeing in Doctrine and Worship, are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies, and in this sense, say they, we assert a National Church.Hudson of the Church. p. 15. Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church. 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship. 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body, in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government. The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England, and thought they understood what was meant by it. Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter? Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly? But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions, and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples.
To give therefore a plain answer to the Question, what we mean by the National Church of England. By that is understood either (1) the Church of England diffusive. Or (2) The Church of England representative.
1. The National Church of England diffusive, is, the whole Body of Christians in this Nation, consisting of Pastours and People, agreeing in that Faith, Government and Worship, which are established by the Laws of this Realm. And by this description, any one may see, how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side, and the Dissenters on the other. Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say, they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England. For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth? Hath not the same Doctrine, the same Government, the same manner of Worship, continued in this Church? (bating onelyonly the interruption given by its Enemies.) How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy, so plain, so intelligible a thing? If all the Question be, how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church? I say, by unity of consent; as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church. If they ask, how it comes to be one National Church? I say, because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament, as other Laws of the Nation are; and is universally received by all that obey those Laws. And t…is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes, that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England.
2. 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. And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church.Can. 139. We do not say, that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England, as the Church of England is a National Church; for that is onelyonly representative of this Province, there being another Convocation in the other Province; but the Consent of both Convocations, is the representative National Church of England.
Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty, concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church. I say, 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition. 2. It is capable of a plain resolution.
1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition: which is, that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church, there must be a Constitutive Regent part, i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power, which is an essential part of it. Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself. He asserts, that there is one Catholick visible Church; and that all particular Churches,Christian Directory. Eccl. Cases Q. 5…. p. 830. which are headed by their particular Bishops, or Pastours, are parts of this Vniversal Church, as a Troop is of an Army, or a City of a Kingdom. If this Doctrine be true, Answer to my Sermon, p. 77.and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it, then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head, to a Catholick visible Church. And so Mr. Baxter's Constitutive Regent part of a Church, hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness, and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship. But there are some men in the world, who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery; so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England. But doth not Mr. Baxter say, that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself? I grant he doth; but this doth not remove the difficulty; for the Question is about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts; and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them; therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part, i. e. a visible Head of the Church; as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer, an Army must have a General; if a City hath a Mayor, a Kingdom must have a King, that is equally present and visible as the other is. This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks, by the help of which they may enter and take possession.
2. The plain resolution is, that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part, or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church. For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church; as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church. But if the Question be, by what way this National Consent is to be declared? then we answer farther; that by the Constitution of this Church, the Archbishops, Bishops, and Presbyters being summoned by the King's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion; which being received, allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom; there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law. And all Bishops, Ministers, and People, taken together, who pr…fess the Faith so established, and worship God according to the Rules so appointed, make up this National Church of England: which notion of a National Church being thus explained, I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter's Quaeries and Objections about this matter.
Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is (3.) concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church. For Mr. B. would know,Anws. p 34. whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule. If it be a Divine Rule, they are of the National Church as well as we; if it be a humane Rule, how comes consent in this to make a National Church? how come they not to be of it for not consenting? how can such a consent appear, when there are differences among our selves? This is the substance of what he objects. To which I answer (1.) Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule, viz. the Holy Scriptures, which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith; and according to which, all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable. (2.) Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it, as agreeable to the word of God. And so the Churches of New-England doe, to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches; and annex civil Privileges to them; and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them. And although they profess agreement in other things, yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches, they do not own them as members of their Churches. Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us, not to account those members of the Church of England, who contemn and disobey the Orders of it? (3.) There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church, or the duty of submission to them. If there be any other differences, they are not material, as to this business: and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things, which may happen in the best Society in the world, without breaking the Peace of it. As about the difference of Orders; the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed; the true explication of one or two Articles; which are the things he mentions.p. 39. A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us, as to make us not to be members of the same National Church.