submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which 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 onely 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 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 onely 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 Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
preach notwithstanding the Laws can excuse them from Separation for this lies at the bottom of all 1. As to the Original inherent Right and Power of the People Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way he quotes a saying of F. Paul out of a Book of his lately translated into English that in the beginning the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end Where was the Church power then lodged Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them And if they had such Power and Authority over the People how came their Power to be derived from them as it must be if the Church Government then were Democratical Besides Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers and convey the Power of the Keys to them which never were in their hands And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons no more is required as to the People than barely their Testimony therefore it is said they must be blameless and men of good report But where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys must meet together and choose their Pastour and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves to them If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury for they have said no more of their Power in the Church than they have done of the Pope's It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle but were not the Women so too And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too Suppose not doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power which I do not think any man would say much less F. Paul As to the election of Deacons it was no properly Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock and was there not then all the reason in the world the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith he gave an account of it to all the Church And what then Must he therefore derive his power from it Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds But here is not all the Church mentioned onely those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert And what is this to the power of the Church But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders Apostles Priests and faithfull Brethren I grant it but is it not expresly said that the Question was sent up from the Churches to the Apostles and Presbyters Is it not said that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it and that the multitude was silent Is it not said that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters without any mention of the People And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power but in the other place it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made In success of time it is added when the Church increased in number the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families and having left those of the Congregation the Government was retained onely in the Ministers and so became Aristocratical saving the election which was Popular Which account is neither agreeable to Reason nor to Antiquity For was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times How came it to be changed from that to a Democratical Form Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches and charged the People to obey them And was this an argument the Power was then in the People It was not then the People's withdrawing of which there can be no evidence if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power in Antiquity but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity but yet not such as to fix any inherent or unalterable Right in the People As I shall make appear by these following observations 1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church 3. That to prevent these many Bishops were appointed without their choice and Canons made for the better regulating of them 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose as they thought fit notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State 5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons 6. That things being thus settled by established Laws there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws If I can make good these Observations I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded concerning the Right and Power of the People which my Adversaries build so much upon 1. That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How much rather of the Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
agreeably to their present practice although least for the honor of the Assembly who confess That they were transported with undue heats and animosities against their Brethren which deserve to be lamented and not to be imitated that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said nor to be concluded by their Determinations that it is to be hoped the Party is become wiser since This is plain dealing and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side But hereby we see that those who justifie the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists as to this point of Separation Sect. 17. It remains now that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church and setting up new Churches against the consent of the Magistrate in a Reformed Church and particularly as to the Preaching of their Ministers when Silenced by our Law 's This I am the more obliged to do because when I said That I was certain that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times Mr. B. is pleased to say That my Assertion is so rash and false in matters of notorious Fact that it weakeneth his Reverence of my Iudgment in matters of right I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact and if what I said be true and notoriously true I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism That Churches are to be set up and Discipline reformed without the consent of the Christian Magistrate Brown maketh many Arguments saith he to prove that Princes are not to be stayed for nor yet to have to do by Publick Power to establish Religion Which Opinion of his is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes and such horribâ— Injury to the Church contrary to the manifest Word of God that if there were nothing else it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretick untill he shew Repentance But to clear this matter he distinguishes 1. of Princes that are enemies to Christianity as they were in the time of the Apostles to what end saith he should they having Authority from Christ to establish Discipline sue unto the Courts of such Princes or attend their pleasure 2. Of such who profess Christianity but are Idolaters In this case he saith they are neither â—ound to forbear Preaching nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it 3. Of such Princes who own the true Doctrine of Christianity but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline In this case he determines That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform which he there proves and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary In Answer to this Barrow saith That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God upon any restraint or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion if Princes had been to be stayed for or their restraint been a sufficient let and adds That they only according to Gods Commandment refrained from their Idolatry and other Publick Evils and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner to Worship the Lord our God and to joyn our selves together in the Faith unto mutual Duties and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church and for the Church to erect the same To the Instance of the Apostles Giffard had Answered That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ to set up his Kingdom but ye have no Commission from God it is the Devil that hath set you forward And will ye in such vile and wretched manner pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches Barrow replies If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work though all the Princes of the World resisted then must the Commandment of the same God be of the same effect to all other Instruments whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also though all the Princes in the World should withstand and forbid the same By this we see this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with whom they called the forward Preachers these are two 1. That the planting or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants except they have Authority from Earthly Princes which Doctrine saith he is against the Kingly Power of Christ and three whole Lines of Scripture which he there puts together 2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching and to forsake his Flock at the commandment of a Lord Bishop Which Doctrine he saith is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse But lest it should be supposed that these two were among those which Iacob saith he falsly laid to their charge we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists For say they As to the Peoples power of Reforming First We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture for them that are private Members of any Church to erect the Discipline no not though the Magistrate and Ministers who should deal in this work were altogether profane and ungodly Secondly We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ and therefore we are justly afraid that by enterprising a publick Reformation not only without but contrary to the direction and liking of them who by God's word ought to have if not the onely yet the principal hand in that work we should highly offend God Thirdly That for the want of Publick Reformation the Magistrate is every where blamed and no where the Church for ought we can find Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry but never for that they plucked it not down when their Princes had set it up neither can we find whether ever the Church under a
Christian Magistrate was by any Prophet either commanded to deal otherwise than by perswasion in publick Reformation when the Magistrate neglected it or reproved for the contrary Fourthly To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave yet not contrary to his liking or when he opposed his Authority directly and inhibited it they never erected the Discipline when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then yet would it not follow that we may do so now for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church as the Christian Magistrate is neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power to pull down and set up Orders in the Church as the Apostles those wise Master-builders had Fifthly As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced they declare 1. So long as the Bishops Suspend and Deprive according to the Law of the Land we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them If it be said the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient We Answer That it lieth on them to Depose who may Ordain and they may shut that may open And as he may with a good Conscience execute a Ministery by the Ordination and Calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministery when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And if a guiltless person put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it What proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment That they are called of God and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops 2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects First They that Inhibited the Apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel Secondly The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Gospel which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto than this of our Bishops who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government and Reformation of the Church yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached but are also Preachers of it themselves Thirdly The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men nor by the hands of Men but immediately from God himself and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery To this which I had referred Mr. B. to he gives this Answer If Mr. Rathband hath denied this it had been no proof Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof My words are That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband Can any thing be plainer than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it This way of Answering is just as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament and another should reply If Curcellaeus said so it had been no proof Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers When Fr. Iohnson said That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery no not by Lawful Magistrates Mr. Bradshaw Answered This Assertion is false and seditious And when Iohnson saith That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal but this that they ought to obey God rather than Man which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians Bradshaw a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson gives this Answer 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God as the Ground of their refusal in so many Letters and Syllables yet that which they do assign is by Implication and in effect the same with it For it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us and not Man and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us For opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man they therein plead a Calling from God and not from Man otherwise if they had received a Calling from Man there had been incongruity in the Answer considering that in common sense and reason they ought so far forth to obey Men forbidding them to exercise a Calling as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling Else by this reason a Minister should not cease to Preach upon the Commandment of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to give them also the same Answer which the Apostles gave which were absurd So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery 2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to Sedition we are to know that though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists Preached Publickly where they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority or Commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate whether they would or no or in despite of them but such in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly
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 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 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 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 Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more
the Infidels Children in the world And his next is whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers and Gods general promise I answer 1. The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism and so whatever right the Parents have that is challenged when the Child is brought to be baptized 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's and hath so continued ever since but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it 3. In their own capacity when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith in the charge given to them after Baptism So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another they all succeeding each other there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents 2 If the Parents be supposed to have no right yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children Not as though their Sponsion gave the right but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance To make this clear we must consider that administration of Baptism is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys which Christ first gave to the Apostles and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church By vertue of this Power they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects The Church of Christ as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church but lest the Church should fail of its end and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty it required Sponsors for them who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle ad Bonifacium where he saith 1. That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism not for any spiritual benefit but for corporal health notwithstanding this saith S. Augustine if the due form of Baptism be observed the spiritual effect of it is obtained 2. That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants For saith he the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby not so much by those in whose arms they are carried for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms as by the whole Society of the Faithful Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit quia tota omnes tota singulos parit so that it is by the Churches right that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it 3. That there is no necessity that the Parents themselves offer their Children For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism as to the remission of Original Guilt or the account of their Parents offering them For many are offered to Baptism by strangers and slaves sometimes by their Masters And when Parents are dead Children are offered by such as take pity upon them and sometimes Children exposed by Parents and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins which neither have Children nor intend to have any 4. That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism Not as though the Child did really believe yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them do carry the name of the things represented as saith he the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood so the Sacrament of faith is called faith i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors which cannot be performed by the Children Thence he saith ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works and in another place he declares that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil and turn to God and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins 3. Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered For 1. They are not well agreed what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient or a justifying faith be necessary If saving faith be necessary whether the outward profession of it be sufficient Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind or that only which is really so Whether profession be required for it self or as a discovery of something further Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient or real serioâ—sness be required What we must judge real seriousness in profession as distinct from inward sincerity What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary And whether besides all these actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary And if it be whether the Children of confederated Parents
intended in Silencing of them But our Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State but are publick professing their Worship and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his Countenance Authority and Protection and we are set over those Churches not only by a Calling of our People but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some If therefore after our publick calling to Minister to such a known and Publick Church not by the Church only but by the Magistrate also the Magistrate shall have matter against us whether just or unjust it skilleth not and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or to oppose Sword to Sword And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserving soever to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow his Ministery in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy 4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favor of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another and except he have a calling to Minister in some Church he is to be content to live as a private member till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him and to call him again to his own Church labouring mean while privately upon particular occasions offered to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God those People that are deprived of his publick Labour And I take it to be the duty of the People in such a Case if they will approve themselves faithful Christians and good Subjects so to submit to the Ministery of another as that by Prayer and all other good dutiful and loyal means they may do their best endeavor to obtain him of whom against their will they have been deprived and still to affect and love him as their Pastor now if the People do thus then is that Minister called to be Silent not only by the Magistrate but by them also though with much grief To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw all that Mr. B. saith is That Bradshaw thought we should submit to a Silencing Law where our Ministery was unnecessary and so doth he If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes he would never have given such an Answer as this For Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity or no necessity of their Preaching but upon the allowance or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time than there is now when himself confesseth several years since That Thirty years ago there were many bare Reading not Preaching Ministers for one that there is now And what was there which the old Non-conformists more complained of than the want of a more Preaching Ministery This then could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason and Mr. Baxter upon second thoughts cannot be of that opinion I have yet one Argument more to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation Which is that where two Duties do meet a greater and a less whereof both cannot be done at the same time the lesser duty must yield unto the greater but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming teacheth and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine and a Sin in Practice The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose That Ministers deprived by Law are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law 's And to confirm this several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument and to give an account of the disparity of the case as to the Apostles times and ours For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground to which they Answer That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do because their Ministery was of far greater excellency and usefulness and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles than it could be with them For say they What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare be so presumptuous as to say That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity and use for the Glory of God and good of his Church as was the Ministery of his Apostles The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles viz. the planting of the Church and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity there is no such danger and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined though they Preach not the Gospel is Preached still and that soundly and fruitfully Did these Men think the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel did reach to their case Can Mr. B. imagine that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach although they were silenced by our Laws And now I hope I have proved that to be evidently True which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false But if after all this Mr. B. will persist in saying That he knew those who did otherwise all that I have to say to it is That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance both of the one and the other Party if they were such as he represents are not to be the Standard for all the rest for it seems he was not very happy in either PART
Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom So it is said concerning Timothy himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist So in the choice of the Deacons the Apostles bid them find out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of good reputation among them And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose where he gives an account how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe Here it is plain that they were of the Apostles appointment and not of the Peoples choice and that their Authority could not be from them whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern and although their number was but small at first yet as they increased though into many Congregations they were still to be under the Government of those whom the Apostles appointed over them And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others and he brings the Instance of Moses when there was an emulation among the Tribes what method he took for putting an end to it by the blossoming of Aarons Rod which saith he Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel and thereby to bring Glory to God now saith he the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church which the sense shews to be his meaning therefore foreseeing these things perfectly they appointed the persons before mentioned and left the distribution of their Offices with this instruction that as some died other approved men should be chosen into their Office Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith well-pleased discharging their Office with humility quietness readiness and unblameableness being men of a long time of good report we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office It seems some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal not onely on themselves but the Christian Church which made Clemens write this Epistle to them wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves than to continue making such a disturbance in it and if they were good Christians they would do so and bring more glory to God by it than by all their heat and contentions Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain 1. That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People but appointed by the Apostles or other great Men according to their Order 2. That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church about those who should bear Office in it 3. That all that the People had to doe was to give Testimony or to express their approbation of those who were so appointed For he could not allow their power of choosing since he saith the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it And it seems very probable to me that this was one great reason of the faction among them viz. that those few Popular men in that Church who caused all the disturbance represented this as a great grievance to them that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others and not chosen by themselves For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves being allowed to be men of unblameable lives yet a contention there was and that about casting them out and such a contention as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordainâ—d and therefore it is very â—ikely they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen But it seems the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church took 〈…〉 them leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained And this is plain even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis to which Mr. Baxter refers me For the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony therefore saith he God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ in the Presence of the People for what reason that they might give them Power no that was never done under the Law nor then imagined when S. Cyprian wrote but he gives the account of it himself that by their presence either their faults might be published or their good acts commended that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all The People here had a share in the Election but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person And therefore he saith it was almost a general Custom among them and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice that when any People wanted a Bishop the neighbour Bishops met together in that place and the new Bishop was chosen plebe praesente the People being present not by the Votes of the People quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit which best understands every mans Conversation and this he saith was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus who was put into the place of Basilides Where he doth express the Consent of the People but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops which being thus performed he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus For Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry and joyned blasphemy with it had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick and desired onely to be received to Lay-Communion upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf that he might be restored Sabinus finding this makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power and yet here we are to consider 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned 2. Another Bishop was put into his room not by the Power of the People but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops 3. They