4. Therefore they mean it is not a true church as it is a National Church, combined together of all in the land promiscuously under the hierarchical government of archbishops, their courts and canons, so far differing from the primitive pattern in the Gospel.
Young men.—Wherein do they differ then from the judgment or practice of our churches here in New England?
Ancient men.—Truly, for matter of practice, nothing at all that is in any thing material; these being rather more strict and rigid in some proceedings about admission of members, and things of such nature, than the other; and for matter of judgment, it is more, as we conceive, in words and terms, than matter of any great substance; for the churches and chief of the ministers here hold that the National Church, so constituted and governed as before is said, is not allowable according to the primitive order of the Gospel; but that there are some parish assemblies that are true churches by virtue of an implicit covenant amongst themselves, in which regard the Church of England may be held and called a true church.
Where any such are evident, we suppose the other will not disagree about an implicit covenant, if they mean by an implicit covenant that which hath the substance of a covenant in it some way discernible, though it be not so formal or orderly as it should be. But such an implicit [covenant] as is no way explicit is no better than a Popish implicit faith (as some of us conceive) and a mere fiction, or as that which should be a marriage covenant which is no way explicit.
Young men.—Wherein standeth the difference between the rigid Brownists and Separatists and others, as we observe our ministers in their writings and sermons to distinguish them?
Ancient men.—The name of Brownists is but a nickname, as Puritan and Huguenot, &c., and therefore they do not amiss to decline the odium of it in what they may. But by the rigidness of Separation they do not so much mean the difference, for our churches here in New England do the same thing under the name of secession from the corruptions found amongst them, as the other did under the name or term of separation from them. Only this declines the odium the better. See Reverend Mr. Cotton’s Answer to Mr. Baylie, page the 14th.
That some which were termed Separatists, out of some mistake and heat of zeal, forbore communion in lawful things with other godly persons, as prayer and hearing of the word, may be seen in what that worthy man, Mr. Robinson, hath published in dislike thereof.
Young men.—We are well satisfied in what you have said. But they differ also about synods.
Ancient men.—It is true we do not know that ever they had any solemn Synodical Assembly. And the reason may be, that those in England living dispersed and[2] could not meet in their ordinary meetings without danger, much less in synods. Neither in Holland, where they might have more liberty, were they of any considerable number, being but those two churches, that of Amsterdam and that of Leyden. Yet some of us know that the church [of Leyden] sent messengers to those of Amsterdam, at the request of some of the chief of them, both elders and brethren, when in their dissensions they had deposed Mr. Ainsworth and some other both of their elders and brethren, Mr. Robinson being the chief of the messengers sent; which had that good effect, as that they revoked the said deposition, and confessed their rashness and error, and lived together in peace some good time after. But when the churches want neither peace nor light to exercise the power which the Lord hath given them, Christ doth not direct them to gather into synods or classical meetings, for removing of known offences either in doctrine or manners; but only sendeth to the pastors or presbyters of each church to reform within themselves what is amongst them. “A plain pattern,” saith Mr. Cotton in his Answer to Mr. Baylie, page 95, “in case of public offences tolerated in neighbour churches, not forthwith to gather into a synod or classical meeting, for redress thereof, but by letters and messengers to admonish one another of what is behooveful; unless upon such admonition they refuse to hearken to the wholesome counsel of their brethren.” And of this matter Mr. Robinson thus writeth in his book, Just. page 200, “The officers of one or many churches may meet together to discuss and consider of matters for the good of the church or churches, and so be called a Church Synod, or the like, so they infringe no order of Christ or liberty of the brethren;” not differing herein from Mr. Davenport and the principal of our ministers.
Young men.—But they seem to differ about the exercise of prophecy, that is, that men out of office, having gifts, may upon occasion edify the church publicly and openly, and applying the Scriptures; which seems to be a new practice.