DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.
A particular Church consists of officers and members: the Lord Christ having given to His called ones—united in Church order—liberty and power to choose persons fitted by the Holy Ghost to be over them in the Lord. The officers appointed by Christ to be chosen, and set apart by the Church, are pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person unto the office of pastor, teacher, or elder, in a Church, is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the Church itself, and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with the imposition of hands of the eldership of that Church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon, that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands; and those who are so chosen, though not set apart after that manner, are rightly constituted ministers of Jesus. The work of preaching is not so peculiarly confined to pastors and teachers, but that others also, gifted and fitted by the Holy Ghost, and approved by the people, may publicly, ordinarily, and constantly perform it. Ordination alone, without election or consent of the Church, doth not constitute any person a Church officer. A Church furnished with officers, according to the mind of Christ, hath full power to administer all His ordinances; and where there is want of any one or more officers, those that are in the Church may administer all the ordinances proper to those officers whom they do not possess; but where there are no teaching-officers at all, none may administer the seals, nor can the Church authorize any so to do. Whereas the Lord Jesus Christ hath appointed and instituted, as a means of edification, that those who walk not according to the rules and laws appointed by Him be censured in His name and authority: every Church hath power in itself to exercise and execute all those censures appointed by Him. The censures appointed by Christ are admonition and excommunication; and whereas some offences may be known only to some, those to whom they are so known must first admonish the offender in private; in public offences, and in case of non-amendment upon private admonition, the offence being related to the Church, the offender is to be duly admonished, in the name of Christ, by the whole Church through the elders, and if this censure prevail not for his repentance, then he is to be cast out by excommunication, with the consent of the members.
These particulars respecting a Declaration of Faith but little known, indicate the opinions entertained by the Independents, not only at the time of the Restoration, but, with some modification, afterwards; and here it may be added that if, in the theory of Presbyterianism, the minister, as to the order of existence, precedes the Church, in the theory of Congregationalism, the Church, in that same order, precedes the minister; and in this significant fact may be found a key to some important differences between the two systems.
Besides those rules, which had reference to the internal order of the Churches, there were these three, relative to their dimensions, their co-operation, and the catholicity of their fellowship. For the avoiding of differences, for the greater solemnity in the celebration of ordinances, and for the larger usefulness of the gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, saints, living within such distances as that they can conveniently assemble for Divine worship, ought rather to join in one Church for their mutual strengthening and edification than to set up many distinct societies. In cases of difficulties or differences, it is according to the mind of Christ, that many Churches holding communion together do by their managers meet in a synod or council, to consider and give advice; howbeit, these synods are not intrusted with any Church power, properly so called, or with any jurisdiction over the Churches. Such reforming Churches as consist of persons sound in the faith, and of conversation becoming the Gospel, ought not to refuse the communion of each other, so far as may consist with their own principles respectively, though they walk not in all things according to the same rules of Church order.[236]
DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.
It will be seen upon comparing the account of Independency with the account just given of Presbyterianism, that the Independents differed from their brethren (1) in their mode of admitting members,—for the Presbyterians left that responsibility entirely in the hands of the minister, and the Independents placed it entirely in the hands of the Church; (2) in their method of exercising discipline,—for, in the one case, such exercise followed the minister’s authority, and, in the other case, it followed the popular voice;[237] (3) in the relation of pastor and people,—for Presbyterians considered the first to be placed over the second by the presbyters engaged in ordination, but the Independents looked upon the second as validly appointing the first to office, the essence of the call, according to their judgments, consisting in the election of the Church; and (4) in the manner of ordination,—fasting, and prayer, and imposition of hands were recognized by Presbyterians as parts of the one rite, but though fasting and prayer were generally observed in the ordination of Independent ministers, the imposition of hands was omitted in some cases.
The conclusions at the Savoy were not ecclesiastical canons, but simply united opinions. They had no binding force. They aspired to no higher character than that of counsel and advice. How far they were studied, or how frequently they guided the proceedings of Congregationalists, I cannot say, but they may be considered as embodying the ideas of Congregationalism, which were most common amongst the early advocates of the system. The principle laid down with regard to the extent of a Church is in conformity with the practice adopted under the Commonwealth, when the multiplication of distinct societies was avoided as much as possible, and, except when the number of worshippers demanded a different course, it was the rule not to have more than one Congregational community in one place; and it would seem that the multiplication of small assemblies, which afterwards became frequent, resulted from the pressure of circumstances—persecution, or inability to obtain extensive accommodation rendering division absolutely necessary. Conferences in the form, but without the authority, of synods were held by Congregationalists under the Protectorate, and the cessation of them afterwards, except upon a small scale, may be easily accounted for, without supposing the occurrence of any change of opinion upon the subject. Willingness to receive Presbyterians into communion, and a disposition to unite with Presbyterian fellowships, distinctly appear in the history of those times. It is recorded, respecting Heywood’s Church, in the year 1672, that Independents were willing to acknowledge Presbyterians, and Presbyterians were willing to acknowledge Independents; “and a special season was appointed for communicating together in the Lord’s Supper. Both parties went away abundantly satisfied.”[238]
Both Presbyterians and Independents adopted the practice of adult and of pædo-baptism by sprinkling. According to the Westminster Confession, “not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.” John Owen remarks, as to the subjects of the rite—“The question is not whether all infants are to be baptized or not. For, according to the will of God, some are not to be baptized, even such whose parents are strangers from the covenant.”[239] Baxter adopted the same view.[240] So did Goodwin, but he considered that the child of a godly person, though not in fellowship with any Church, was entitled to the ordinance.[241]
DEVELOPMENT OF NONCONFORMITY.
Of the importance of a baptismal dedication of infants, Presbyterians and Independents held decided views. Some of the former spoke of the nature and advantages of the sacrament in terms which would be greatly modified by their successors,[242] even as the latter confined its administration within narrower limits than many of the former.