A Just Defense of Hearing the Sermons, Answer to preface · Section 15
Sect. 15. The first Querie about a National Instituted Church answered.
His first Querie is, Whether since the Apotomy or Unchurching the Nation of the Jews, the Lord hath ever since so espoused a Nation or People to himself, as that upon the account thereof, the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his Church? Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomie of the Gospel? If so, Let it be shewed when, and where it was instituted by the Lord: What is produced by some to this purpose, is (but upon a slight view thereof) of no moment, it is Isa. 49.21. Kings shall be your Nursing Fathers, &c. which Prophesie waits the time of its accomplishment: hitherto, both before and since the rise of Antichrist (being made drunk by the Whores intoxicating Cup) they have been, for the most part, cruel Butchers of the Saints: and were we under its accomplishment, a National Church would be far enough from being its result. Of a Nations being born at once, we shall not sure hear pleaded in this matter, it being a Prophesie expresly relating to the Jews, and their miraculous conversion: if there be no such thing as a National Church of the Institution of Christ, as most certain it is there is not (the assertion whereof is wholly destructive of Gospel Administrations) then,
Answ. As King James in his Remonstrance against Cardinal Perons Oration, saith, that the appellation and name of the Church serveth in this corrupt Age, as a Cloak to cover a thousand new inventions; meaning this of the Popish party: so may we say also of others, that by reason of the ambiguous use of the appellation and name of the Church, and the dictates of men about it, the minds of many are perplexed and perverted. Wherefore in answering this first Querie (which the Separatists do so much harp upon) it is necessary that there be a distinct understanding of the notion of the Church, and its Institution. The Greek word foreign, which by use is now almost appropriated to the Christian Church, hath been variously used, both in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, in the Apocryphal Writings, and in the New Testament. It seems to me of little concernment in the present question to collect them all, the Queries to be answered be…ng of the New Testament use. Now in the New Testament, excepting what I find Act. 19.32, 39, 40. where it is applied to Assemblies of Unbelievers, whether tumultuary or orderly, and Act. 7.38. where it is applied to the Congregation of Israel in the Wilderness, in all places in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of the Apostles, and Revelation of St. John, it is meant (so far as I discern) of the Christians, or People of God, or their Meeting or Assembly▪ As it notes the Christian Believers, or People of God, so it is taken sometimes for the Universal Church, whether invisible or visible, as 1 Cor. 12.28. Heb. 12.23. Ephes. 1.22. sometimes for the visible Church indefinitely, but not universally, as 1 Cor. 15.9. sometimes for the Church Topical, and then it is taken for the Church of a City, or Town, or House; and so we read of the Church at Jerusalem, Act 8.1. of Corinth, Ephesus, &c. in Philemons house, Philem. 2. or of a Country or Nation, and then it is put in the Plural number, as the Churches of Asia, Galatia, Judaea. In the Evangelists History of the doings, sufferings, and sayings of our Lord Christ, I find the Word [Church] used but in two places, Mat. 16.18. and 18.17. Of the extent and meaning of both which Texts there is so much controversie, not only between the Protestants and Papists, but also among the Protestants themselves of different persuasions about Church Government, that it would require a Treatise by it self to make a thorough discussion of those two Texts in order to the clearing of the Controversies that are started about them. That Mat. 16.18. is undoubtedly meant of the Christian Church, but whether Oecumenical, visible or invisible, or indefinite, or topical, is doubted. It is without any proof appropriated to the Church of Rome, or any particular Church as ordered under this or that peculiar form of Government; but is to be taken for the number of Believers in Christ, whether of Jews or Gentiles, more or fewer, abstractively from any political considerations, and such external adjuncts and denominations, as whereby usually Churches are in common speeches diversified. In the other place, Mat. 18.17. in as much as it is not said [tell my Church] but [tell the Church] and the term [thy brother] may as well be meant of a Brother, as by birth, or proselytism adjoyned to the Jews, as St. Paul calls the Jews by birth his brethren, kinsmen according to the flesh, Rom. 9.3. (in which sense it may seem to be taken in that place, Mat. 5.23, 24. which is a precept like to this, for the reconciling of particular differences, and righting of wrongs, and the expression [let him be to thee as a Heathen] seems to intimate) as of a Brother in Christian profession; it may not without reason be doubted whether by [the Church] there, be meant the Christian Church, or an Assembly of the Jews in their Synedrium, whether greater or lesser, and if it be extended as a direction to Christian Brethren; whether it be meant of their Assembly under an Ecclesiastical Consideration or Political, that is the Christian Magistrate. Institution of a Church by Preception or Command I find not: neither Christ nor his Apostles (that I know) have given us any rule or law of bounding, modelling, or numbring Churches. There is a precept Heb. 10.25. that Christians should not forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was. But none about the defining how many should go to a Church, or be accounted to belong to one Church; no determination by any precept concerning Members belonging to a Church, whether they should be fixed to one Meeting, or ambulatory, and moveable; sometimes belonging to one Assembly, sometimes to another of the same profession. Nor do we find any Institution of Churches, whether they ought to be Domestick, Congregational, Parochial, Classi…al, Diocesan, Provincial, Patriarchical, or Oecumenical. The ordering of such distinctions Christ and his Apostles (so far as I deprehend) have left to Divine Providence, and Humane Prudence, allowing more or fewer to a Church, as the imes will permit, the increase or diminution of Believers should be, as Pastors may be had, and their Partitions and Meetings be convenient for their edification and government. It is true, the Romanists would infer from Christs promise to Peter, Mat. 16.18. Upon this Rock will I build my Church, that St. Peter, and after h…m the Bishop of Rome was made universal Bishop. But that by [Christs Church] is meant the universal Church, and by [Christs building] it is meant constituting an universal Bishop, is an assertion without proof. In some of the Ancients the Bishops of Rome have been stiled Oecumenical; but so also have other Patriarchs. We believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church; but so denominated from their common confession or the same Faith; not from union to, and subjection under one visible Church head. Mr. Paul Bayne (as I remember) long since disputed against Diocesan Churches for Parochial: and in the Assembly at Westminster the dissenters against this proposition, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial government, from such distinction of Churches as the New Testament yields. But the Arguments seem not to me to be cogent, they declaring only what was done de facto, not what was necessary to be done de jure. That Text Mat. 18.17. is much urged by sundry sorts of Pleaders, for their several wayes of Church-government. But it is uncertain whether by [Brother] and [Church] be meant Christian Believers, and the Christian Church; and if Christian Believers and Church be meant, whether the Church be meant of the Christian Civil Judicatory, or Ecclesiastical Consistory, or Congregational Assembly of Believers of all ranks: or some select Arbitrators, that of which the Church is to have cognizance, being there no other than the sin of one Brother against another, which v. 21, 22. Luk. 17▪ 3, 4. shew to be meant only of private trespasses or injuries done by one to another, who might remit or forgive them; nor is any other act ascribed to the Church, than an admonition to the injurious Brother, to do right to him whom he hath wronged; whereupon it is then allowed, or appointed upon non-satisfaction to him, or disobedience to the Church, without any other juridical sentence mentioned, that he that is thus disobedient should be to him that complained, as a Heathen or Publican, with whom the Jews would not have familiarity. Nothing is said of being such to the Church, or by vertue of its sentence juridical, or being excluded à sacris, which we are sure the Publicans were not, Luk. 18.10. These things seem to me to evince, that neither is here that instituted Church, which the Assertors of Congregational Churches and Church-government urge, as the only Churches and Church-government of the New Testament, and inculcate as the pattern in the Mount, and any other way to be as the setting of mans posts by Gods posts, and separate from a National Church as a humane Invention. Nor is here that Church-government instituted (which they make the only Government appointed by Christ) that the Congregation, or the major part are to cast out, exclude from Communion in Holy things in every Church, though but of seven or eight, every member that sins and will not obey the monition of the rest of the Congregation. These things being premised, I answer to the Questions in the first Querie fore-mentioned.
1. That it is granted, That since the Unchurching of the Nation of the Jews, the Lord hath not yet (that we know of) so espoused a Nation, or People to himself, as that upon the account thereof, the whole Body of that People or Nation may be accounted his. We say that Christ hath redeemed us to God by his bloud, out of every Kindred, and Tongue, and People, and Nation, and hath made us unto our God, Kings, and Priests, Revel. 5.9, 10. We own no Church visible now, but of Believers, by their own personal profession. We approve the 19. Article of the Church of England, that the visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christs Ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. The addition in the Confession of Faith of the Assembly, Ch. 25. Art. 2. that the visible Church universal under the Gospel, consists of all those throughout the World that profess the true Religion, and of their Children, is not found in the Writings of the New Testament, and those Texts that are alledged for it, Ezek. 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. Gen. 3.15. Gen. 17.7. if they were pertinent, would as well prove a whole Nation to be Gods visible Church, yea, all mankind descended from Eve, as the visible Church to consist of the children of them that profess the true Religion. And the same may be said of them that assert an Ordinance of Infants visible Church-membership unrepealed, that alledge Mat. 28.19. as proving Christs appointing Nations as such to be baptized, that alledge the Jewish Proselytism as a pattern to us. How far this Quaerist agrees with these, may be discerned by other passages. If he concur with those of the Congregational way about Church-members, and their proof from the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. as made to his natural seed, and so to all Believers natural seed, I see not how he can avoid the asserting of a National Church like the Jewish; which I grant is not agreeable to the Gospel, according to which, the visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithful men, as the definition of the Church of England, Art. 19. expresseth it, and hath been fully proved by me in the third part of my Review, Sect. 52. &c.
2. In answer to the Question, Whether there be any National Church under the Oeconomy of the Gospel? I say, that though there be no National Church, so as that the whole Nation, and every member of the Nation be to be accounted of the visible Church of Christ, by vertue of their Generation, or Proselytism, and such Covenant as was made to Abraham concerning his natural seed, or to Israel at Mount Sinai, or elsewhere; yet the whole number of Believers of a Nation, may by reason of their common profession, be called a National Church, as well as the whole Body of men throughout the World, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience to God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errours everting the foundation, or unholiness of Conversation, are and may be called the visible Catholick Church of Christ, as the Congregational men speak in their Declarat. ch. 20. Wherefore it is no more against the Gospel to term the Believers of England or Scotland, the Church of England or Scotland, than it is to term the Believers throughout the World, the Catholick Church; nor is it more unfit for us to term our selves Members of the Church of England in this respect, than to term our selves Members of the Catholick Church; nor is there need to shew any institution of the Lord more for the one than for the other. Nor is there need to alledge Isa. 49.20. or Isa. 66.8. for such an Institution. Nevertheless, that the Prophesie, Isa 49.23. Kings shall be your Nu…sing Fathers, &c. waits the time of its accomplishment, is said with more Confidence than Evidence. Many learned Interpreters think otherwise, among whom Mr. Gataker (in my judgment inferiour to none in his Exposition of Holy Scripture) hath these words Annot. on Isa. 49.23. And Kings shall be thy Nursing Fathers, and Queens thy Nursing Mothers] fulfilled in those Persian Potentates, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, Darius, Aha…uerus,; with the Queens also of some of them, that patronised and protected Gods people, and promoted Gods work with them, Ezra 1.1, 4. and 63.12. and 7.12, 26. Neh. 2.6, 8. Esth. 8.3, 8. and much more in other Emperours and Kings, together with their Queens; as Constantine, Theodosius, and the like, who both embraced the Christian faith themselves, and maintained the profession of it. Of some whereof, see Rev. 17.12, 16, 17. And Mr. Mede on Rev. 16.17. hath these words; For truly out of the same ten horns, or Kings, they shall be, who at length shall hate the Whore whom they have so long born, (which partly we perceive to be fulfilled) shall make her desolate, and naked, shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. Nor is it to be denied without ingratitude to God and Men, that Kings and Queens since the rise of Antichrist (though many of them made drunk by the Whores intoxicating cup, have been cruel Butcherers of the Saints) both before the Reformation, and since, even in our dayes have been nursing Fathers, and nursing Mothers to the Church of Christ, and that a National Church, in the sense fore-mentioned, hath been the result of its accomplishment; and we hope in more ample manner, will be the result of its fuller accomplishment. As for the Text, Isa. 66.8. that it is a prophesie expresly relating to the Jews, and their miraculous conversion, is not certain. Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on Isa. 66.8. hath these words, The most Interpreters, both Jew and Christian, understand these words, of the strange, sudden, and unexpected delivery of the remainders of Gods people out of the Babylonian bondage by Cyrus. Howbeit, divers Interpreters understand them of the restitution and restauration of the Church under the Ministry of the Gospel, when so many thousands were so soon, and so suddenly converted, without any great labour, or pains-taking about them, of those by whom they were converted, Act. 2.41. & 4.4. and both these Expositions conceived, as subordinate the one to the other, may very well be admitted. And therefore if the Author hear it not pleaded in this matter, yet he may find another Exposition than that which he imagines, that it expresly relates to a future miraculous Conversion of the Jews. However if it did, sith it is said Rom. 11.25, 26. When the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, all Israel shall be saved; he might find something for a National Church in that Prophesie, Isa. 66.8. As for those words in his Parenthesis, [that the assertion of a National Church of the institution of Christ, is wholly destructive of Gospel administrations,] they are said with no more truth than proof, though we should say, a National Church, in respect of its Government, or Officers, is of the Institution of Christ. For suppose it were asserted, that Christ had instituted Patriarchs or Arch-bishops, and Bishops, and the Government of the Church of England or Scotland under them, yet this might be without total destruction of Gospel Administrations. The preaching of the Gospel, administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper with other administrations of Christian Worship and Discipline, have been, and may be continued even where Archbishops and Bishops have been over a National Church as instituted by Christ. But let us attend his motions: thus he goes on. If there be no such thing as a National Church of the institution of Christ, as most certain it is there is not; then 2. Whether National Ministers are the Ministers of Christ, or whether there can be a true Ministry in a false Church, as a National Church must be, if not of Divine Institution, upon what pretence soever it be so denominated?