The Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3 · Section 3
Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now, the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches; concerning which,Serm. p. 26. these are my words. It is possible at first, there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship; but where doth it appear, that when they multiplied into more Congregations, they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government? Of this I am well assured, there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament, or the whole History of the Primitive Church. I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man, that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship; not, if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired: but if this were granted, where are the unalterable Rules, that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly, they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority? To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars.
1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution: which although at first it began in matters of small moment; yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy; Or as he after expresses it, leaving their Infant state, by degrees, they at last brought forth the Man of Sin. But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches; but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity, I shall not onelyonly so far take notice of it, as to let him know, that when that is done, I do not question, but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England: but I desire that undertaker to consider, what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion, if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution, not for one Age after the Apostles. I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after, if not in the Apostles days; but the question is not concerning these, but the purest and best Churches; and about them, not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise, and humane infirmities be discovered; but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ, and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church? This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others: That Government is so nice and tender a thing, that every one is so much concerned for his share in it, that men are not easily induced to part with it. Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first, as Dr. O. seems to doe; is it probable, that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it? Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage; Vindic p. 41.and others say, a great deal longer: there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after. And why should we imagin it otherwise, as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction? Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation; the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation, than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London, could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it; and appoint their several Teachers, and call them to an account for their proceedings. I appeal now to any man of consideration, whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance? Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more, think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights? And if they could be drawn into the design, would the People submit? Let us put the case, as to New-England. Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since, had planted such Congregational Churches there, as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth, Boston, Hereford, Newhaven, &c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys, the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships, within their own Congregation; but so, as not to have any Power or Authority, over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation: let us then suppose, that after the decease of the Apostles, these Churches gradually declined so far, that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys, and not onelyonly so, but appoint Pastours over other Congregations, and keep a great number of Elders under him, and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets, of which Boston is the chief Town, and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies; would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government? And is it possible to conceive, such a change should be brought about insensibly, without any complaint of the subordinate Elders, or the members of the Congregations, who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ, and so late an establishment by the Apostles? Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions, through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People: but in matters of Government, the meanest People are sensible, and look big with an opinion of it. If therefore it be not conceivable in this case, the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time; let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles.