Defense of Non-Conformity, Part 3 · Section 2
SECT. II. Of Parochial Churches.
IN the beginning of this third Part, the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation, to Four Heads, 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church. 2. To the Terms of Communion with it. 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters. 4. To the parity of Reason, as to our Separation from Rome: Under the First he ranketh, 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution. 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful. 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation. 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors. About these Four last mentioned, he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book; and a very small part of it upon the Second Head; which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on, and lay most weight on; but it is easiest going over the Hedge, where it is lowest.
Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches, because it is Separation from those, that is most Conspicuous. He saith, the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them. I have before disproved the Truth of this, and also given reasons, why the practice of them who did so, is not binding to us. He saith, Since the Congregational way prevailed in England, the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it; at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches. Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches, because of unlawful Terms of Communion, before the present Congregational way was either known, or prevailed; and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way (I suppose that he meaneth by it) is a mistake; it is true, indeed, the restraint (he will be angry if I say Persecution) that they are under, maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant; because they cannot associate for Discipline; but we have not quitted our principles for that.
Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches; or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them. But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity, in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation; which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies: They impose on us Terms of Communion, that they can pretend to no other warrant for, but their own Fancy and Will; and they exclude us, because we cannot yield to them: If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men, let any unbyassed Person judge; and if it be so judged to be, we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession.
Sect. 4. Our Author, Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question: whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place; or divers assemblies, that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship, be to be recko…ed divers Churches. This Question is stiffly debated on both sides, between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren; the reason of their so much concern in it, is, the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship; and so maketh that the highest ruling Church: The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop; and so maketh a Diocesan Church, to be the lowest ruling Church. The Presbyterians go a middle way; they stand not on the foreign, whether a Congregation should be called a Church, or only the Combination of more Congregations, for the Exercise of Discipline; they find the word used both ways in Scripture (and the Word it self, foreign, signifieth any Convention, Civil or Religious) as, 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth, with their Officers, are called the Church; and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily, that might bear each of them that name, of Church. When the Apostle forbiddeth, that their Women should speak in the Churches, foreign, he must mean the Churches in Corinth; for it is not to be thought, that he would particularly have mentioned their Women, foreign, if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth, where they were likest to usurp that Authority. The Dr. saith, p. 235. That it doth not once fail, that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number, they are the Churches of a Province: Here it faileth.
Sect. 5. But leaving the Word, let us understand the thing; which I shall set down in a few Assertions, 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body; whereof Christ is the head; to wit, his Vniversal Church; which if it could so meet together as to be taught, and ruled, ordinarily, by the same Officers, there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel; till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Compani…s, that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers. 2. The several Companies of Believers, with their several Officers (each of which in Scripture-sence, may be called a Church) are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place, for partaking of God's Ordinances. We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City, foreign sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together, that so they might usually meet together. 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors, and Elders have ruling Power within themselves; for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders, and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop; for at Philippi, Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons; a plurality of which were in that Church, tho' in one City; where our Brethren acknowledge, that more Diocesans than one could not be. 4. The Church power in single Congregations, is not Independant, but is to be subordinate to the power of them, associate together. This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth, being there also called a Church: If there were not divers religious Assemblies, ordinarily they could not be called Churches; if they were not Associate, they could not be called a Church; and wherein they could be Ass…ciate, except in the Exercise of Government, is not easy to guess. 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers, as their Convenience of meeting together for that end, giveth them opportunity: Hence particular Assemblies, lesser and greater Associations, have their Congregational, Classical, Provincial, and National Presbyteries, or Assemblies, for the Government of the Church; the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently, and duly assemble, all the rest should be subordinate to them, seeing every one of them should make a part of these.
Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers, and frequent clashings of them, in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable; therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies. And tho' I am far from the opinion of them, who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation; the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author (whom I now dispute with) yet in this particular, it not only may, but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government: This being no essential part of Church-Government, nor instituted; but a Circumstance of it, determinable by necessity and conveniency. On the same Score, where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with, it might act Independently, and be blameless. 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches, as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily; yet is not this meeting together, but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers, that maketh one particular Church: For, 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number, that one place cannot contain them; and yet continue one Congregation, till they be regularly divided: Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches. 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large, as all the People cannot always travel to one place; the Pastor or Pastors of the Church, may well have places more convenient for some of them, where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them, sometimes; as in Chapels of Ease; and yet they all continue one particular Church. 3. It is a frequent case with Families, that but a part of them at one time, can leave the House, to wait on publick Ordinances; and the rest at another time; yet are they one Congregation. 4. In a time of Persecution, where the Flock is but small, and might easily be contained in one House, the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such, as it may be needful, that but a part of them should come together at once, and that by turns; as we are necessitated at this time to do: This doth not make divers Congregations. All this considered we are little concerned; whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chu…ch in a City, or more? Whether those called Churches did meet in one place, or not; as long as the one Party cannot prove, that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self; nor the other, that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one, and over their Presbyters.
Sect. 7. Before I part with this d…scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches, I take notice of his confident Asserting, p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government, so suddenly from its first institution; even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon, yet this change could not be. The same thing he had asserted before, and I have answered it, Praef. S…ct. 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said, are not weighty; to wit, That Government is so nice and tender a Point, th…t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it, would certainly have complained. This he enlarge…h upon: But I answer, 1. It may be they did; that they did not, is not proved by the silen…e of History: A Negative Argument here is not concludent; especially considering the Lame…ess of the History of the first Centuries; and what we have of it, is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation. 2. He doth not consider, that Men might Sleep, while others were robbing them; as Christ foretold, Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church (which then was no Lordly Dominion, but a painful Ministery, or Servi…e; and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most) was not then so …ice and tender a Point, to honest and well-meaning Presbyters, as it is now to our aspiring Church-men; they were Men of another stamp; they were willing to lie by, if the work were done; and they might think, that others might do it better than they (this is not to justifie them, but to take off mens wonder at this) and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily, by degrees, wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves, who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been; nor so tinctured with Ambition as they; though other ways good, and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this, when we consider, that this thing was not done suddenly; but by insensible steps, in the space of three or four Hundred Years. Cyprian (whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter) lived in the third Century, & even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled. What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities, that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters, shall be answered foreign, in the next Section; where it is more proper: Also what he here saith against popular Election, is to be considered in its place; because I would not confound Subjects so divers.