Five Disputations of Church Government, Notice

Five Disputations of Church Government · Notice

p. 1An Advertisement to prevent misunderstanding.

MY exceeding scarcity of time, constraining me to write these Papers in much haste, and allowing me but a cursory perusal of them when written, and the like after the printing, for the collecting the Errata of the Press, I find by this hasty review, and by some observation of mens readiness to misunderstand me, that it is necessary to speak a little more about the following particulars, that I may be understood by such as are willing to understand me: and the mistakes of others I shall easily bear.

Sect. 1. Pag. 89. There is somewhat that requireth correction of the pen, and somewhat that requireth explication. In translating that passage of Ignatius, [Unus panis qui pro omnibus fractus est] must be written next [effusus est] before [& unus Calix.] And for the following objection, though it was made by a discreet person, yet I know no ground for it: unless Is. Vossius his Edition leave out [foreign] (which I have not now at hand, but is likelyest) I know not of any Greek copy that leaves it out. Indeed Bishop Ushers Latine doth, and the Vulgar Latine leaves out the translation of the next words before it [foreign] of which saith Bishop Usher [Ex interpretatione hac excidisse videantur.] And noting the corruption of the Vulgar Translation in this very place, I there premised to my Answer, p. 2that it might occasion a change in the Text: that it hath done so in many places, I think is easie to prove; but that it hath done so here, there is no probability, (if any Greek Copy be as is objected:) and the Reasons of my conjecture of the possibility, are so little for a probability, that as I express them not, so I think them not worth the expressing, but rather bid you take that as non dictum. Though of the general I find Bishop Usher himself saying, both of his Latine Version [Ex eâ solâ integritati suae restitui posse Ignatium, polliceri non ausim,] and of the first Greek Edition [Hanc reliqui sequuti sunt editores; non ex Graco aliquo codice alio, sed partim ex ingenio, partim ex vetere Vulgato Latino Interprete, non paucis in locis eandem corrigentes] Epist. ad Lect. ante Annot. & pag. 26. Dissert.

Sect. 2. I must intreat the Reader to observe that my drift in this writing is not so much to oppose any form of Government meerly as contrary to the Institution or Apostolical Rule, as to plead against that which I take to be destructive to the Ends of Government: Not that I desire not a careful adhering to the sacred Rule, but 1. Because I suppose that many circumstantials of Discipline undetermined in the Word are feigned by some to be substanstantial necessary things: and that many matters are indifferent that some lay the Peace if not the being of the Church upon. 2. Because I so far hate contention, that if any Government contrary to my Iudgement were set up, that did not apparently in the nature of it wrong the Church, I would silently live under it in peace and quietness: and accordingly would be now loth to enter a quarrel with any Writers that differ from us in tolerable things: But if I know that their judgement reduced to practice is like to be the undoing of many souls, and to cast Discipline almost wholly out of the Church, I think it better to displease p. 3them, then let them undo the Church without contradiction. The best is, the serious Christians of this age have experience to help them to understand the case, and I suppose my Disputation to be unto them as if I Disputed before a man that is restored from want, or banishment or sickness, whether he should be reduced to the Condition from which he is restored?

Sect. 3. Some passages here will occasion the Question (as p. 5.) Whether and how far Church Government is jure Divino?] But of this, in the main I am agreed with them that I dispute. To speak further, my own judgement is, 1. That the Spirit of God hath established all the Officers and worship-Ordinances of his Church; and that no new Church-office or Ordinance of worship (as to the substance) may be instituted by man; 2. But that there are many Circumstantials about the Exercise of those Offices and Ordinances, that are not determined particularly by a Law, but are left to humane prudence to determine of, by the General directions of the Law. And so I suppose that Bishops and Presbyters are but one Office, of Gods institution; but in the exercise of this Office if one for order be made a Moderator or President of the rest, or by agreement (upon a disparity of parts or interest) do unequally divide their work between them, in the exercise, it is a thing that may be done, and is fit where the Edification of the Church requireth it, but not a thing that always must be done, nor is of it self a Duty, but a thing indifferent. The following Case therefore I hence resolve.

Sect. 4. Quest. [Whether the Order of subject Presbyters might lawfully be created by Bishops or any humane Power? and whether the Order of Bishops might lawfully be created for the avoiding of Schism by the consent of Presbyters? or Metropolitans by Bishops?]

p. 4Answ. If you understand by the word [Order] a distinct Office, none may create any of these but God. But if by [Subject Presbyters] be meant only men of the same Office with Bishops, that do for the Churches benefit subject themselves to the direction or Presidency of another, (upon some disparity in their gifts or the like) in the exercise of that Office, I suppose that this is a thing that by Consent may be lawfully done. And so I verily believe that betimes in the Church it was done, (of which anon.) So if by [Bishops] be meant no distinct Office, but one of the Presbyters chosen from among the rest, to exercise his Ministery in some eminency above the rest, by reason of his greater Gifts, or for Peace and Order, I doubt not but it is a thing that consent may do: (And accordingly the Canon Law defines a Bishop that he is [Unus è Presbyteris, &c.] So if by [a Metropolitan] be not meant another Office, but one in the same Office, by reason of the advantage of his Seat, chosen to some acts of Order for the common benefit, I doubt not but it may be done: but every such Indifferent thing, is not to be made Necessary, statedly and universally to the Church.

Sect. 5. When I do in these Papers plead that the Order of Subject Presbyters was not instituted in Scripture times, and consequently that it is not of Divine Institution, I mean as aforesaid, that as a distinct Office, or Species of Church ministers, as to the Power from God, it is not of Divine Institution, nor a lawful Institution of man; but that among men, in the same Office, some might Prudentially be chosen to an eminency of degree as to the exercise; and that according to the difference of their advantages there might be a disparity in the use of their authority and gifts, I think was done in Scripture times, and might have been after, if it had not then. And my judgement is, that ordinarily every particular Church p. 5(such as our Parish Churches are) had more Elders then One, but not such store of men of eminent gifts as that all these Elders could be such. But as if half a dozen of the most judicious persons of this Parish were Ordained to be Elders, of the same Office with my self, but because they are not equally fit for publick preaching, should most imploy themselves in the rest of the Oversight, consenting that the publick preaching lie most upon me, and that I be the Moderator of them for Order in Circumstantials: This I think was the true Episcopacy and Presbytery of the first times. From the mistake of which, two contrary Errors have arisen: The one of those that think this Moderator was of another Office in specie, having certain work assigned him by God, which is above the reach of the Office of Presbyters to perform; and that he had many fixed Churches for his charge. The other of them that think these Elders were such as are called now Lay-elders, that is, Vnordained men, authorized to Govern, without Authority to Preach, Baptize, or Administer the Lords Supper. And so both the Prelatical on one side, and the Presbyterians and Independents on the other side, run out, and mistake the ancient form, and then contend against each other. (This was the substance of what I wrote to Mr. Vines, which his subjoyned Letter refers to, where he signifieth that his judgement was the same.) When Paul and Barnabas were together, Paul was the chief speaker, and yet Barnabas by the Idolaters called Jupiter. Nature teacheth us that men in the same Office should yet have the preheminence that's due to them by their Age, and Parts, and Interests, &c. and that Order should be kept among them, as in Colledges and all Societies is usual. The most excellent part of our work is publick preaching, but the most of it for quantity is the rest of the Oversight of the Church (in Instructing personally, admonishing, reproving, enquiring into the truth of accusations, p. 4duplicate page p. 5duplicate page p. 6comforting, visiting the sick, stablishing the weak, looking to the poor, absolving, answering doubts, excommunicating, and much more.) And therefore as there is a necessity (as the experienced know) of many Elders in a particular Church of any great number, so it is fit that most hands should be most imployed about the said works of Oversight, yet so as that they may preach as need and occasion requireth (and administer Sacraments) and that the eminent Speakers be most employed in publick preaching, yet so as to do their part of the rest as occasion requireth: And so the former Elders that Rule well shall be worthy of double honour, but especially these that labour in the Word and Doctrine, by more ordinary publick preaching: And such kind of seldom-preaching Ministers as the former, were in the first times, and should be in most Churches yet that are numerous.

Sect. 6. When I speak in these Papers therefore of other mens Concessions that there were de facto in Scripture times, but One Bishop without any subject Presbyters to a particular Church, remember that I speak not my own judgement, but urge against them their own Concessions: And when I profess my Agreement with them, it is not in this, much less in all things, (for then I needed not disspute against them,) but it is in this much, that in Scripture times there was de facto, 1. No meer Bishop of many particular Churches (or stated worshipping Congregations,) 2. Nor any distinct Office or Order of Presbyters, that radically had no Power to Ordain, or Govern, or Confirm, &c. (which are the subject Presbyters I mean.)

Sect. 7. Specially remember that by [Bishops] in that dispute, I mean, according to the Modern use, one that is no Archbishop, and yet no meer Presbyter, but one supposed to be between both, that is, a Superior to meer Presbyters in Order or Office, and not only in degree or modification p. 7of the exercise; but below Archbishops (whether in Order or Degree:) These are they that I dispute against; excluding Metropolitans, or Archbishops from the question, and that for many Reasons.

Sect. 8. If it were proved or granted that there were Archbishops in those times, of Divine Institution, it would no whit weaken my Arguments; For it is only the lowest sort of Bishops that I dispute about: yea it confirmeth them. For if every combination of many particular Churches had an Archbishop, then the Governors of such Combinations were not meer Bishops, and then the meer Bishops were Parish Bishops, or Bishops of single Churches only: and that is it that I plead for, against Diocesan Bishops, that have many of these Churches (perhaps some hundreds) under one Bishop of the lowest rank, having only Presbyters under him of another Order.

Sect. 9. If any think that I should have answered all that is written for an Apostolical Institution of Metropolitans, or of Archbishops, or of the subject sort of Presbyters, or other points here toucht, I answer them, 1. In the former my work was not much concerned; nor can any man prove me engaged to do all that he fancieth me concerned to do. 2. Few men love to be contradicted and confuted, and I have no reason to provoke them further then necessity requireth it. 3. I take not all that I read for an argument so considerable, as to need Replyes. If any value the Arguments that I took not to need an Answer, let them make their best of them: I have taken none of them out of their hands by robbing them of their Books; if they think them valid, let them be so to them. Every Book that we write must not be in folio; and if it were, we should leave some body unanswered still. I have not been a contemner or neglecter of the writings of the contrary-minded. But voluminously to tell the world of that I p. 8think they abuse or are abused in, is unpleasing and unprofitable.

Sect. 10. And as to the Jus Divinum of limited Diocesses to the Apostles as Bishops, and of Archbishops, Metropolitans, &c. I shall say but this: 1. That I take not all for currant in matter of fact, that two, or three, or twice so many say was done, when I have either cross testimony, or valid Reasons of the improbability: I believe such Historians but with a humane faith, and allow them such a degree of that, as the probability of their report, and credibility of the persons doth require. 2. I take it for no proof that all that was done in all the Churches, that I am told was done in some. 3. I take the Law of Nature and Scripture to be the entire Divine Law, for the Government of the Church and World. 4. And therefore if any Father or Historian tell me, that this was delivered by the Apostles as a Law to the Vniversal Church, which is not contained in Scriptures, nor to be proved by them, I will not believe them; no more then I would have believed Papius and all his Millenary followers, that pretended Tradition from Saint John; nor any more then I would have believed the Asians or Romans that pretended different times for Easter, as a Tradition Apostolical binding the whole Church. 5. If it were proved that de facto the Apostles did thus or thus dispose of a circumstance of Government or Worship, which yet is undetermined in Scripture, I take it not for a sufficient proof, that they intended that Fact for an Universal Law, or that they meant to bind all the Churches in all ages to do the like: no more then Christ intended at the Institution of his Supper to tie all ages to do it after Supper, in an upper room, but with twelve, and sitting, &c. 6. Yea if I had found a Direction or Command from the Apostles, as Prudential determiners of a Circumstance pro tempore & p. 9loco only (as of the kiss of love, hair, covering, eating things strangled, and blood, &c.) I take it not for a proof that this is an universal standing Law. One or two of these exceptions wil shake off the proofs that some count strong for the universal obligation of the Church to Diocesans or Metropolitans.

Sect. 11. That the Apostles had Episcopal Power (I mean such in each Church where they came, as the fixed Bishops had) I doubt not. And because they founded Churches according to the success of their labors, and setled them, and if they could, again visited them, therefore I blame not the Ancients for calling them the Bishops of those Churches. But that each man of them was really a fixed Metropolitan, or Patriarch, or had his proper Diocess, in which he was Governor in chief, and into which no other Apostle might come as an equal Governor without his leave, this and such like is as well proved by silence as by all that I have read for it of Reason or History, that is, the Testimonies of the Ancients. I find them sometime claiming a special interest in the Children that they have begotten by their Ministry: But doubtless when Paul & Barnabas or Silas went together, some might be converted by one, and some by another within the same Diocess or City. If any man shall convince me, that any great stress doth lie upon this questiō, I shal be willing to give him more of my reasons for what I say.

Sect. 12. And as to them that confidently teach that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiastical Government to the Politick, and that as by a Law, for the Church universally to obey: All the confutation at present that I will trouble them with, shall be to tell them, that I never saw any thing like a proof of it, to my understanding, among all the words that are brought to that purpose: and to tell them, 1. That if Paul chose Ephesus, Corinth, and other the most populous places to preach in, it was but a prudential circumstantiating of his work, according to that General Law of doing all to Edification: and not an obligation p. 10on all the Pastors or Preachers of the Gospel to do the same where the case is not the same. 2. And if Paul having converted many in these Cities do there plant Churches (and no other can be proved in Scripture times) it follows not that we may plant no Churches but in Cities. 3. And if the greatest Cities had then the most numerous Churches and the most eminent Pastors fitted to them, and therefore are named with some note of excellency above the rest, it followeth not that the rest about them were under them by subjection. 4. Yea if the Bishops of the chief Cities for order sake were to call Provincial Assemblies, and the meetings to be in their Cities, and they were to be the Presidents of the rest in Synods, with such like circumstantial difference, it followeth not that they were proper Governours of the rest, and the rest to obey them in the Government of their proper charges. Nor that they had power to place and displace them. 5. Much less will it prove that these Metropolitans▪ taking the name of Diocesans, might put down all the Bishops of two hundred Churches under them, and set up none but Presbyters (in order distinct from Bishops) over the flocks, besides themselves; and so the Archbishops having extinguished all the first Order of Bishops of single Churches, to take the sole Government of so many Churches, even people as well as Presbyters into their own hands. 6. And I do not think that they can prove that the Apostles did institute as many sorts of Church-Government then, as there were of civil …olicy in the world. All the world had not the Roman form of Government: Nor had lesser Cities the same dependence upon greater, in all other Countryes. 7. Was it in one degree of subordination of Officers only, or in all, that the Apostles suited the Ecclesiasticall Government to the Civil? If in One, how is it proved that they intended it in that one, and not in the rest? If in all, then we must p. 11have many degrees of Officers, more then yet we have▪ Inferiors very many, and Superiors some of all conscience too high: then we must have some to answer the Correctors, the Consular Presidents, and the Vicars, and Lieutenants, the Pro-consuls and Prefects, and the Emperor himself: Even one to be Vniversal in the Empire (thats yet some Limit to the Pope, and will hazzard the removing of the Supremacy to Constantinople, by the Rule that the Apostles are supposed to go by.) And great variety must there be in the several Diocesses of the Empire (which Blondell hath punctually described de primatu in Eccles. pag. 511. to 519. shewing the causes of the inequality of Bishopricks and Churches.) 8. According to this Opinion the form of Church must alter as oft as Emperours will change their Policy, or Wars shall change them: And upon every change of the Priviledges of a City, the Churches Preheminence must change, and so we shall be in a mutable frame: Which if Basil and Anthymius had understood, might have quicklier decided their controversie. Yea according to this opinion, Princes may quite take down Metropolitans at pleasure, by equalling the priviledges of their Cities. The best is then, that it is in the power of our Civil Governours to dissolve our obligation to Metropolitans, yea and to all Bishops too, if Cities must be their only residence, as I have shewed.

Sect. 13. As for them that pretend humane Laws for their form of Government, that is, the decrees of General Councils; I answer, 1. I disown and deny all humane Laws as obligatory to the Church Vniversal: It is the prerogative of God, yea the greatest point of the exercise of his Soraignty to be the Law-giver to his Vniversal Church. There can be no Vniversal Laws without an Vniversal Law-giver: and there is no Vniversal Law-giver under Christ in the world. 2. And for General Councils (since p. 12Scripture times at least) there have beeen no such things nor any thing like them, unless the Roman Empire, yea a piece of it, be the whole world. I know therfore no humane Vniversal Laws, whether it be for forms of Government, Liturgies, Holy dayes, or any thing else.

Sect. 14. But the principal matter that tends to end our d…fference, is, the right understanding of the Nature of that Government that is properly Ecclesiastical: What is it that we must have Diocesans and Metropolitans to do? (besides what I have granted to Apostolical Bishops in the third Dispute?) Is it to Teach or Rule the people of the particular Churches? They cannot do it at so great distance, not knowing them nor conversing with them; at least so well as they that are on the place, as the ancient Bishops were. Is it to Rule the Presbyters only? Why then hath not every Church a Bishop to Rule the flock, but a Presbyter that is forbidden to Rule them (in all that which they call Iurisdiction themselves)? And how is it that Presbyters shall be Ruled by Diocesans, and the Diocesans by Provincials? not by force: For the Pastors have no coercive power by violence, or touching mens bodies or estates. Is it by bare commanding? Why what will that do on dissenters that disobey? shall they depose the Bishops or Presbyters that disobey them? But how? Not by any force, but command, or exhortation, or Excommunication. They can do no more that I know of. And what if they excommunicate a Pastor! Let the case be supposed as now it is among us: What if a Bishop with the few that adhere to him, excommunicated all the Pastors in the County that are not satisfied of the Divine Right of Diocesans, or of the lawfulness of all his imposed Ceremonies and Forms? The people will take it to be their duty (most generally where the Ministry hath been savingly effectual) to own their Pastors notwithstanding such an Excommunication, and the Pastors will take it to p. 13be their duty to go on with their work: and the excommunication will do no good (unless perhaps to make some Division, and make both parties the scorn of the ungodly, or procure the rabble to rail more bitterly at their Pastors, and hate all their advice, be a desireable good.) And as when the Pope excommunicated them, some Bishops again excommunicated the Pope; so some of these Pastors its like would excommunicate their Metropolitans: And why a Bishop, or at least a Synod of Bishops may not cast a wicked Metropolitan out of their communion, is past my understanding to conceive.

Synods are for Communion of Churches; and if we had a Monarchical, National Church in conformity to the Common-wealth, I know not how it would stand with the Law of God, for the whole Nation to hold Communion with an Heretical Primate. A Roman Synod deposed John the thirteenth, and other Popes have been deposed by Councils. I conclude therefore, that what ever power men claim, if the Magistate interpose not (which is extrinsick to the Church-Government in question) it will work but on mens Judgements, call it Deposing, Excommunicating, or what you please: and this power no man can take from you but by hindring you to speak. You may now depose thus and excommunicate whom you please, and when they have sleighted it, or excommunicated you again, you will have done. Nay I think you do excommunicate us already: For you withdraw from our Communion, and draw many with you, and so you exercise your power (I mean it of that party that in the second Disputation I have to do with.)

Sect 15. Much of my Opposition to the English Prelacy dependeth on the supposition, that they took all the people, and not only the Presbyters for the objects of their Government, or for their charge: And I find some of the younger sort that are sprung up since their fall, do doubt of this. But 1. all men in England that knew p. 14but twenty year ago what belonged to these matters, are past doubt of it. And I have no mind to dispute against them that contradict the common knowledge of the Nation: as if they should doubt whether we had ever a King in England. 2. Read over the Canons, and the yearly Visitation Articles (which the Church-wardens ordinarily sware to present by, before they had ever read the Book, or heard what was in it) and then judge. 3. Their arguing for the sole Iurisdiction of Bishops, and that they only were properly Pastors, and that Presbyters had not the Key of Discipline, but of Doctrine, is some evidence. 4. It is known to the Nation, that the Pastors of the Parish Churches had no power by their Laws (or sufferance) to cast out any the most enormous sinner or Heretick from the Church, nor to bring them to open confession of their sin, nor to Absolve the penitent, but by Reading of their Sentence, and publishing what they sent from their Courts; and consequently could do nothing of all the means in order hereto: (For the means cannot be used where the end is known to be impossible.) All the obstinate scandalous persons, and scorners at a holy life, we must take as members of our Churches, having no power to cast them out. Indeed we had the same power as the Church-wardens, to put our names to their presentments. But a power of accusing to a Chancellors Court is not a Power of Governing; especially when Piety under the name of Preciseness and Puritanism, was so hated and persecuted, that to have accused a man for meer prophaness would have been so far from obtaining the end, as that it was like to have been the undoing of the accuser, except he had been out of the suspicion of Preciseness (as they called it) himself. But I need not dispute the with any but those that being bred i… better times (though far from what we desire) are unacquainted with the cas… of their Predecessor.

Sect. 16. Object. But do you not contradict your p. 15self, in saying the Pastors were degraded or suspended, as to the exercise of so great a part of their work, and yet say here, & Pref. to the Reformed Pastor, that the Power of Discipline was given them?] Answ. 1. In their Ordination the Bishops said to them [Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit they are remitted; whose sins thou dost retain they are detained.] And in the Book of Ordination it was asked of them [Whether they would give their faithful diligence always to administer the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandements of God?] And the Rubrick of the Common Prayer Book enableth the Curate to admonish open and notorious evil livers by whom the Congregation is offended, and those that have wronged their neighbors, that they come not till they have openly declared that they have repented and amended.] But 1. This doth but serve to leave them unexcusable, that acknowledged Discipline to belong to the Office of a Presbyter, when yet he might not exercise it. The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to preach the Gospel: And yet they were after that forbidden to preach till they had a License; and it was put into the Visitation Articles, to present those Ministers that preached without License. If they will deny us the exercise of the Power that they first confess belongeth to our Office, we are not answerable for their self-contradictions. 2. By Discipline I suppose they mean but our Instruction, and our publishing their Orders for Penance, Excommunication, or Absolution. 3. They were the Judges of the sense of the Laws, as far as the execut…on required: And the Vniversal Practice of England, with their writings, shewed us, to our cost, their judgement. What good would it do us, if the Law had been on our side, while the Concurrent p. 16Iudgement and Practice of the Governors denyed it, and went against it. 4. He that had kept a man from the Sacrament, according to the plain words of the Rubrick, was to have been accountable for it at their Courts, and so likely (if he had been a man of serious piety, and not a persecutor of Puritans) to have been undone by it, and was like to make so little of it, as to the Ends of Discipline (all men being compelled by the Presentments to receive the Sacrament) that I never knew one (to my best remembrance) in 25 years time that I lived under the Bishops, that was kept from the Sacrament, except a Puritan that scrupled to take it kneeling. And what was this to true Church-Government?

Sect. 17. Object. But either they did it according to the established Law, or not: If they did, the fault was in the Law, and not in them: If they did transgress the Law, then the fault was in mens abuse, and the Law and Order cannot be blamed. Answ. A sad case to poor ignorant miserable souls, that they must be left in obstinacy, and deprived of Gods means of Reformation without Remedy, because either the Law or Iudges must be excused. The Iudges are the mouth of the Law to us: that is Law in the issue to us which they unanimously call Law. If the fault were in the Law, it was time it should be altered: if it was in the Bishops universally, it was time they should be altered. Let us but have a Remedy, and enjoy Gods Ordinances, which he that is the Churches Head and King hath appointed for our benefit, and we have done.

Sect. 18. Object. But may not Bishops when they Ordain, Delegate what measure of Ministerial Power they please? and if you never received more, why should you use it?] Answ. A poor relief to the forsaken Church: Deprive her of Government, and then tell us that p. 17we had no power! Is the Power desirable to us, if the Ordinance were not desirable to the Church? 2. What Power have Bishops, and whence did they receive it, to change the Office of Christs institution, or his Apostles? If so, they may turn the three Orders (which the Papists themselves say the Pope cannot alter) into as many more. Then they may create an Office for Baptizing only, and another for the Lords Supper only, and another for praying only, and so of the rest; which is worse then making Lay-elders, or then taking away the Cup in the Sacrament. Hath Christ by his Spirit instituted Church-offices, and are they now at the Bishops power to transform them? 3. If they had power to distribute the work in the exercise, part to one, and part to another, yet they have no power to deprive the particular Churches of the whole or any part; but one or more must do it, and the Office must be the same, and the power exercised to the edification, and not the confusion and corruption of the Church.

Sect. 19. Object. But the Keys were given only to the Apostles, and not to the seventy Disciples nor to Presbyters.] Answ. 1. If the seventy were only Disciples, and not Church-officers, the Ancients and the English Bishops have been much mistaken, that have so much urged it, that Presbyters succeed them as Bishops do the Apostles: But if they be Officers, then they have the Keys. 2. The Episcopal Divines, even the Papists, commonly confess that part of the Keys are given to the Presbyters: and Christ gave them together. 3. Were they given only to Apostles for themselves, or to convey to others? If to themselves only, then no one hath them now. If to convey to others, then either to Apostles only as their Successors (but there's none such) or to Patriarchs or Primates, or Metropolitans, or Archbishops only: (but none of this will please the Bishops) or to Bishops only; which I grant, taking Bishops p. 18in the Scripture sense. And I desire to see it proved, that it was not a presumptuous Innovation in them whosoever they were, that after the days of the Apostles Ordained a new sort of Presbyters in the Church that should have no power of the Keys. 4. They that must use the Keys, must have Power to use them. But Parish Bishops must use them (as the nature and necessity of the work doth prove:) Therefore Parish Bishops must have the Power. If only one man in a Diocess of an hundred or two hundred Churches shall have the power of the Keys, we may know after all the talk of Discipline, what Discipline to expect.

Sect. 20. Object. Why blame you Lay-chancellors, Registers, Proctors, &c. when you set up Lay-elders? we are as well able to call Chancellors Ecclesiastical, as you can call Lay-elders so.] Answ. I never pleaded for Lay-elders: If other men erre, will it justifie your error? But I must tell you, an unordained man in a single Parish, having power only to assist the Pastor in Government, is far unlike a Lay-Court to Govern all the Churches of a Diocess.

Sect. 21. Object. Do not your Arguments against Bishops for excluding Discipline, make as much for the casting out of Ministers, of whom you complain in your Reformed Pastor for neglect of Discipline?] Ans. 1. The Nature of Prelacy as set up in England, …here only one man had the Government of so many Churches, unavoidably excludeth it, if the best men were Bishops (till it be otherwise formed:) But the nature of a Parochial Episcopacy is fitted to promote it. 2. Those Presbyters that I blamed for neglecting the higher acts of Discipline, do yet keep away more prophane persons from the Lords Supper in some one Church, then ever I knew kept away in all places under the Prelates. 3. If Ministers sinfully neglect Discipline, yet as Preachers and Guides, in publick worship, &c. they are of unspeakable need and value to the Church: But few Bishops of England p. 19preached ordinarily: And 4. We are desirous that Bishops shall continue as Preachers, but not as Diocesan excluders of Parochial Church-Discipline.

Sect. 22. Object. By pretending to agree with them that say there were no Presbyters in Scripture times, you would put down Presbyters, and then the Government of the Church will be such as you blame. Ans. It is the thing I plead for, that every Church may have such Bishops as they had in the Apostles days, and not meer (new devised Presbyters) that are of another Office and Order.

Sect. 23. Object. Bishops had Deacons to attend them in the Scripture times, though not Presbyters; therefore it follows not that Bishops had then but One Congregation. Answ. Yes beyond doubt: For Deacons could not, and did not perform the Pastoral part in the whole publick worship of any stated Churches. They did not preach (as Deacons) and pray and praise God in the publick Assemblies, and administer the Sacraments: It's not affirmed by them that are against us: therefore there were no more Churches then Bishops.

Sect. 24. Object. But what doth your Arguing make against the other Episcopal Divines that are not of the opinion that there were no meer Presbyters in Scripture times? Answ. 1. Other Arguments here are as much against them, though this be not (if they maintain that sort of Episcopacy which I oppose.) 2. They also confess the smalness of Churches in Scripture times: (as I have shewed out of Bishop Downam;) and that is it that I plead for.

Sect. 25. Object. But if you would have all reduced to the state that de facto the Church Government was in in Scripture times, you would have (as but one Church to a Bishop, so) but One Bishop to a Church; as D^r. H. Dissert. 4 c. 19, 20, 21, 22. hath proved copiously, that is, p. 20that Scripture mentioneth no assistant Presbyters with the Bishop: and would that please you, that think a single Congregation should have a Presbyterie? You should rather as he teacheth you, c. 21. p. 237. be thankful to Ignatius, and acknowledge the dignity of your Office, ab …o primario defensore astrui & propugnari.] Answ. As we make no doubt from plain Scripture to prove, (and have proved it) that single Churches had then many Presbyters (some of them at least:) So having the greatest part of Fathers and Episcopal Divines of our mind herein, (even Epiphanius himself) we need not be very solicitous about the point of Testimony o… Authority. 2. We had rather of the two have but one Pastor to a Congregation, then one to a hundred or two hundred Congregations, having a Presbyter under him in each, authorized only to a part of the work. 3. Either the distinct Office of the Presbyters is of Divine Institution, to be continued in the Church, or not. If not, Bishops or some body it seems may put down the Office. If it be, then it seems all Gods Vniversal standing Laws (even for the species of Church Officers) are not contained in Scripture. And if not in Scripture, where then? If in the Fathers, 1. How shall we know which are they, and worthy of that name and honor? 2. And what shall we do to reconcile their contradictions? 3. And what number of them must go to be the true witnesses of a Divine Law? 4. And by what note may we know what points so to receive from them, and what not?

But if it be from Councils that we must have the rest of the Laws of God (not contained in the Scripture.) 1. Is it from all or some only? If from all, what a case are we in, as obliged to receive Contradictions and Heresies? If from some only, which are they, and how known, and why they rather then the rest? Why not the second of Ephesus as well as the first at Constantinople. But this I shall not now further p. 21prosecute, unless I were dealing with the Papists (to whom have said more of it, in another writing.)

4. Ignatius his Presbyters were not men of another Office, nor yet set over many Churches that had all but one Bishop: But they were all in the same Churches with the Bishop, and of the same Office, only subject to his moderation or presidency for Vnity and Order sake: and this we strive not against, if limited by the general Rules of Scripture.

Sect. 26. Object. Those that you have to deal with say not, that [There were no Presbyters in the Apostles days, but only that in the Apostles writings, the word [Bishops] always signifies Bishops, and the word Elders either never or but rarely Presbyters. But it is possible for them to be in the time of those writings that are not mentioned in those writings; and the Apostles times were larger then their writings, as you are told Vind. against the Lond. Minist. p. 106.] Ans. 1. The words I cited (from Annot. in Act. 11.) faithfully, which you may peruse: which say that there is no evidence that in Scripture times any of the second Order were instituted.] So that it is not Scripture writings only, but Scripture times that's spoken of. And 2. If there be no evidence of it, the Church cannot believe it or affirm it; for it judgeth not of unrevealed things; and therefore to us it is no Institution that hath no evidence. 3. The Apostles were all dead save John before the end of Scripture times: So that they must be instituted by John only: And John dyed the next year after Scripture times, as the chief Chronologers judge: For as he wrote his Apocalypse about the 14^th year of Domitian, so his Gospel the year before Trajan, and dyed the next year, being after the commoner reckoning, An. D. 98. and some think more. And what likelihood, or proof at least, that John did institute them the year that he dyed? when the same men tell us of his excursion into Asia to plant p. 22Elders (b…fore that year, it's like.) 4. And if they were not instituted in Scripture time, then no testimony from Antiquity c…n prove them then instituted. But indeed if we had such testimony and nothing of it in the Scripture it self, we should take it as little to our purpose. For 5. doth Ant…quity say that the Institution was Divine, of Universal obligation to the Church, or only that it was but a prudential limitation of the exercise of the same Office (the like I demand of other like Testimonies in case of Diocesses, Metropolitans, &c.) If only the later, it binds us not, but proveth only the licet, and not the oportet at least, as to all the Church. And then every Countrey that finds cause, may set up another kind of government: …ut if it be the former that is asserted as from antiquity, then the Scripture containeth not all Gods Vniversal Laws; Which who ever affirmeth, must go to Fathers or Councils instead of Scripture to day, and to the infallibility of the Pope, or a Prophetical Inspiration to morrow, and next —

Sect. 27. Once more to them that yet will maintain that the Apostles modelled the Ecclesiastical form to the Civil, and that as a Law to the whole Church, we take it as their Concession, that then we ow no more obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury, then to the Civil Magistrate of Canterbury, (and especially London sure is exempted from his superiority.) And I yet know not that any Civil Magistrate of Canterbury, or York, or London, or Worcester, hath any government in this Countrie, except the Soveraign Rulers at Westminster be meant. And I hope our Itinerant course of Iudges, will prove the right (to the Objectors) of Itinerant Apostolical Overseers of the Churches, for settlement at least.

Sect. 28. Object. But Parishes being not divided till long after the Apostles days, there might be then no ordinary Assemblies but in the City; and yet the whole p. 23Territory adjacent be the Diocess.] Answ. Were there in the Territories persons enough to make many Assemblies, or only so few as might travel to, and joyn with the City Assembly? If the latter, it's it that I assert, as usual in the first age at least; If the former, then either all those in the Territories met for publick Worship and Communion, or not: If not, they sinned against the Law of God that obliged them thereto as well as Citizens: If they did, then they must have either Bishop or Presbyter with them, for the due performance of that worship.

Sect. 29. If any think all these stragling objections and advertisements here unseasonable, I render him this true account of them: This first Disputation was prepared only for our ordinarily Monthly Exercises here, and so written long ago, before the London Ministers Book, or the Answer to it, and the rest that have followed, and therefore could not take notice of much that hath since passed, and withal was not intended for publick view: But when I saw s… many of the Gentry and Commonalty withdraw from the publick worship, and the ignorant and prophane had learnt to refel their Pastors Instructions, by calling him a Layman, and saw how the new separation threatned the perdition of multitudes of the people, & especially was awakened by the Calls of Ministers in other Countries that were far more troubled with them then we, I thought meet to prefix this to the Second Disputation, which was it that was desired of me: and therefore to take notice of those things so late.

Sect. 30. And the common experience tells you that it is not a few that go the way that lately was singular even among the Episcopal; to which I may add the Testimony in Vindic. against the London Ministers, p. 104. [And though I might truly say that for those more minute considerations or conjectures, wherein this Doctor differs from some others — he hath the suffrages of p. 24many of the Learnedst men of this Church at this day (and as far as he knows, of all that embrace the same cause with him) &c.—]

Sect. 31. And this at least I may expect from the Reader, that if he think we argue weakly, he will confess that we argue not for worldly greatness, but go against our carnal interest. We contend against Bishopricks of the English mode, as desiring no such Wealth or Honour. Some of us have as good opportunities to have a part in that kind of Greatness if it were again introduced, as they: But I am not able alone for a Parish charge, and am loth to have more on my hands, and my accounts; which is I suppose the mind of my Brethren also.

Sect. 32. One more Advertisement I owe the Reader, that this being written so long since I was made confident by Bishop Usher, de Primordiis Eccl. Brit. that Ireland was the Ancient Scotia where Palladius, &c. planted the Gospel, which pag. 97. I have signified. But I should wrong Scotland, if I should not tell thee, that I have received such Arguments to the contrary since then, from the Right Honourable, and my highly valued friend, the Earl of Lawderdail, that I am forced to suspend my judgement in that point, till I have leisure better to study the point, being yet unable to answer the said arguments.

p. 1Whether it be Necessary or Profitable to the right order or the Peace of the Churches of England that we restore the extruded Episcopacy?

IN this Question here are these three things supposed. 1. That there are yet particular Churches of Christ in England: and therefore those that conclude that there hath been no Church among us since the Diocesan Bishops were laid by, are none o… them that we are now disputing with: and indeed we think so gross a conceit unworthy of a Confutation.

2. It is supposed that both the right Order and the Peace of these Churches are matters highly to be valued. 3. And also that its our duty for the obtaining of it, to do that which is necessary or profitable thereto. But the doubt is▪ Whether the Episcopacy in question be necessary or profitable thereto?

For the decision whereof I shall briefly tell you my Judgement, in these propositions, whereof the two first are but preparatory.

Proposition 1. A Peace with the Divines of the Episcopal judgement, p. 2is much to be desired and earnestly to be endeavoured.

Prop. 2. A certain Episcopacy may be yielded to, for the Peace (if not for the right order) of the Church.

Prop. 3. The Diocesan Episcopacy which was lately in England, and is now laid by, may not lawfully be re-assumed or re-admitted, as a means for the right Order or Peace of the Church.

1. For the first of these, I think it easie to prove that we ought to seek an Agreement in the Episcopal controversie, with those that differ from us in that point.

For, 1. They are brethren, of the same faith with us, whom we are bound to love and honour, and therefore to use all just means for peace with them. If we must as much as in us lyeth, if possible, live peaceably with all men, Rom. 12.18. much more with Brethren of the same family and profession.

2. They are very many; and the far greatest (though not the purest) part of the Church is of their mind: All the Greek Church, and the Ethiopian Church, and the Jacobites, Armenians, and all other parties without the verge of the Reformation from Popery here in the West, that ever I read or heard of, are all of that way, besides all the Romane Church: And, though I know that much ignorance, and imperfection, if not superstition and fouler errors may be justly charged on the Greek, Ethiopian, &c. Churches, as well as on Rome (though not Popery it self) yet I think there is scarce a good Christian that is not unwilling to cast off so great a part of the Church of Christ, as these are Indeed, he that dares so far despise all the Churches of Christ on earth except these few that are happily reformed, as to think that it is no duty of ours▪ to seek unity and peace with them, by all just means, I think is no meet person for us to dispute with. It is the hainous sin of Rome, to despise and unchurch Greeks, Ethiopians, and all save themselves, which I hope Protestants will never imitate, who have justly condemned them so deeply for it. Let the Donatists shut up the Church of Christ in Afr…ca, and call the rest Cecilians; and let the Papists reduce it to the subscribers to their Trent confession, or to them only that believe in the Popes universal Headship and Government, and call all others Hereticks: yet will all true Catholicks imitate Augustine and the Councils that were called against the Donatists, who still described the Catholike Church to be that which p. 3was dispersed over the world, having begun at Ierusalem: and though to Gods praise we dare rejoycingly affirm, that the most illustrious and the soundest part of it is in Europe, among the Reformed, yet dare we not say that it is all or the greatest part here; Nay we confess that we are but a small part of Christs Church. And therefore common sobriety may tell us, that the Peace of so great a part of Christs Church as is in all the rest of the world, is highly to be valued, and sought with all our might, in righteousness.

Moreover, even among the reformed Churches there are many for some Episcopacy or Superintendency: As the Church of England and Ireland was lately for Diocesan Episcopacy: so the Churches in Denmark, Sweden, Saxionie, and other parts of Germany, Transilvania, &c. are for a lower sort of Episcopacy, called Superintendency among them.

3. And the quality of many of the Divines of that way, is such as bespeaks our greatest reverence to them, and should move us to thirst after Unity and Reconciliation with them. Many of them are men of eminent Learning and Godliness, and sound in the faith.

I know that it is commonly objected, that they are generally ungodly men that are that way; and though some of them are Learned men, yet they are all, or almost all, of careless and carnal lives, or meerly formal and superstitious, and therefore their Communion is not much to be desired.

To which I answer. 1. The plain undenyable truth is that it was so here with the most of them in the Bishops dayes, where ever I was acquainted: There were more Ministers in many places that would have scorned, threatned or troubled a man for a godly diligent life, then that would lead him that way by a good example. We must speak that truth that cannot be hid, whoever be displeased. To this day, too many of that way are careless and scandalous. But then Consider withall, 2. That it is but too common for the common sort even of Ministers as well as people, to be careless and bad, what ever opinions they are of: Especially if the times do discountenance practical Religiousness, the greater part are likely to follow the times, being that way also so strongly enclined by nature. 3. Consider also that we have had, and have men of that Judgement that have been excellent p. 4Instruments of the Churches good, and so eminent for Gods graces and gifts, that their names will be pretious whilest Christ hath in England a Reformed Church: were there in all England but one such man dissenting from us, as Hooper, Farrar, Latimer, Cranmer, Ridley, Iewel, Abbot, Davenant, Vsher, Hall, &c. what sober Godly man would not be exceeding solicitous for a reconciliation? I am sure (besides the godliness of their lives, and painful preaching) One Iewel, One Vsher, One Davenant, hath done so much against the Roman Usurpers, as they will never well claw it off them to the last.

Moreover who knoweth not that most of the Godly able Ministers of England since the Reformation, did judge Episcopacy some of them Lawful, and some of them most fit (for the Non-conformists were but few:) and that even before this late trouble and war, the most, even almost all, of those that were of the late Assembly at Westminster, and most through the land, did subscribe and conform to Episcopal Government, as a thing not contrary to the word of God: so that it is evident that it is very consistent with a Godly life to judge Episcopacy lawful and fit; or else we should not have had so many hundred learned and godly men of that mind.

And I am not altogether unapt to believe, that many of them yet are so far reconcileable to it (moderated,) that if it were again established, they would submit to it as they did: For I hear but of few that have made any recantation of their former conformity; but contrarily have known divers of them profess a reconcilableness as aforesaid, as Mr. Gataker doth in one of his books express his own Judgement.

If I have proved this preparatory proposition (which I think needeth but litle proof,) then have I also proved 1. That they have sinned much who have hitherto forborn the use of any means for Peace, which was in their power. 2. And that we are bound our selves to desire and seek after a peace with such men: and that we cannot discharge a good conscience while we neglect such means as is within our reach, and fit for us to use.

The second Proposition is, that [A Certain Episcopacy may be yielded to, for the peace, if not also for the right order of the Church] In the declaration of my judgement concerning p. 5this, I make no doubt but I shall displease both sides; the one for yielding so much; the other for yielding no more. But jacta est alea: I live not upon mens favour, nor the air of their applause: That truth which displeaseth at present, may tend to peace, and produce it at the last, when the angry humour is allayed, or at least, when the angry age is gone.

For the clearer determination of this and the main Question following it is necessary that I here stay 1. To open the nature of Church-Government in general: 2. To open the sence of the word [Episcopacy] and the several sorts of Bishops. And then 3. I shall tell you what sort of Episcopacy it is that I could yield to for the Churches peace.

1. I must confess I think that the greatest part of the controversie by far, is in this first question, of the nature of Ecclesiastical Government, strictly so called, which is only in the hands of Christs Ministers, Bishops or whomsoever, commonly called, Clergy men. A…d concerning this (having written my thoughts more largely el…ewhere) I shall now lay down these few Propositions.

Prop. 1. All this power Ecclesiastical is Jure divino, given from God himself; and that either immediately, or by the mediation only of the Ap…stles. I mean as to the determination in specie, what it shall be, and the constitution of that order and power in the Church, though perhaps some other causes, at least **Of the difference between Election and Ordination; and that neither gives the Ius or Power, but Christ only. See Gro…ius de Imperio Sum. Potest. c. 10. p. 269, 270.sine quibus non may intervene for the reception of this power by an individual person. These therefore that plead only the Laws of the Land, or only Canons of former Bishops for their standing or authority, do say nothing that as to our controversie is regardable. Wh…t men do, they may undo, if there be reason for it, and if it depend on their authority, we must submit to their reason.

Prop. 2. This Divine Constitution of the Species of Church-Power and Government, is to be found wholly in the written word of God, called the holy Scriptures. This we are agreed on against the Papists, who would supply the supposed defects of Scripture by their unwritten Traditions, which they call the other part of Gods word. Church Canons and Laws of men may determine of some modes and circumstances for the better execution of the Laws of God, by the People whom they are over: but they cannot make new Church Ordinances or Governments, nor p. 6convey a Power which God the fountain of Power did not ordain and convey: nor can they give what they themselves had not. The Church-office and Authority therefore that is not proved from the Holy Scripture, is to be taken as the fruit of humane arrogancy and presumption. Yet I deny not but that we may find much in Antiquity, in Fathers and Councils about matters of fact to help us to understand some Scriptures, and so to discern the matter of right.

Prop. 3. The Scripture doth not Contradict, but suppose and confirm the light of Nature; nor doth it impose upon any man Natural impossibilities, nor constitute offices which cannot be executed, or which would destroy that end to which they are supposed to be Constituted.

Prop. 4. Ecclesiastical Authority comprehendeth not the power of the sword, nor any power of using violence to mens bodies, or laying mulcts or confiscations on their estates. The Ecclesiastical Power which Christ ordained, was exercised for the first three hundred years without any touching of mens bodies or purses, before there were any Christian Princes.

Prop. 5. Magistrates are not eo nomine obliged to punish men because they are Excommunicated (whether upon every just Excommunication they should punish, I will not now dispute) but they are bound to know that their penalties be deserved, before they inflict them; and therefore must themselves take Cognisance of the Cause, and as rational agents, understand before they act; and not blindly follow the Judgements of the Bishops, as if they were but as Executioners where the Bishops are Judges.

Prop. 6. **I comprehend in the word Directive all that is after expressed in the following Propositions.The Power of the highest Church-governours is but an Authority of Directing in the way to salvation: It is but Directive: but then there is no room for the common Objection, that [then it is no greater then any other man may perform;] for it is one thing to Direct Occasionally from Charity, and another thing to Direct by Authority in a standing office, as purposely appointed hereunto. ††Quae ante Imperatores Christianos in Synodis conscripta sunt ad ordinem aut ornatum facientia, Leges non vocantur sed Canones, haben… que aut solam Concilii vim, ut in his quae singulos magis specta… quam universos, aut obligant per modum pacti volentes & nolentes etiam pauciores ex necessitate determinationis, ac proinde ex lege naturali, non ex humano aliquo Imperio. Grotius de Imperio pag. 209, 210. Lege & cap. 9. per totum.The Power of Church-Governors is but p. 7of the same nature as is the Power of a Physitian over his Patients, or of a School-master over his Schollers, supposing he had not the power of the rod or actual force, but such a power as the Professors of Philosophy or other sciences had in their several schools upon the adult (nor all so great neither; because the Laws by which we must rule, are made to our hands, as to the substantials.) Hence therefore it is plain, that as we can bind or force no man to believe us, or to understand the truth, and to be Christians, but by the power of demonstrated Evidence, and by the light which we let in (through Gods grace) into their Consciences, so neither can we cause any to execute our sentences against offenders further than by light we convince them that it is their duty: so that if all the Bishops or Presbyteries in the land should judge such or such an opinion to be heresie, and should Excommunicate those that own it as hereticks, in this case if the Church do believe as the Pastors believe, they will consent and avoid the Excommunicate person; but if they take it to be Gods truth which the Pastors call heresie, they will not take themselves bound by that sentence to avoid him: nor will the Offender himself any further be sensible of a penalty in the sentence, then he shall be convinced that he hath erred; and if the Church avoid him, he will justifie himself, and judge that they do it wrongfully, and will glory in his suffering: so that it is on the Conscience that Church-Governors can work; and no otherwise on the outward man, but mediante Conscientiâ.

Prop. 7. The ground of this is partly because no Church Governors can bind any man contrary to Gods word: Clave errante, & ita apparente, if the people know that he erreth, they are not to obey him against God. Yet in the bare inconvenient determination of some Circumstantials, by which the duty is not destroyed, but less conveniently performed, the people are bound to obey their Governors, because it is not against Gods determination, and because he erreth but in an undetermined point, of which God appointed him to be the orderly determiner. But if God have once determined, no mans contrary determination can oblige; nor yet if they go beyond the sphere of their own work, and determine of an aliene subject, which God did never commit to their determination: else a Minister, or Bishop, might oblige every Taylor how to cut his garment, and every Sho…-maker how to p. 8cut his shoe, so that they should sin if they did disobey, which is ridiculous to imagine: and if they go about to introduce new stated Ordinances or Symbols in the Church which they have nothing to do with, or in any other work shall assume to themselves a power which God never gave them, it doth no more oblige then in the former case.

Prop. 8. Another reason of the sixth Proposition, is, because The People have a Iudgement of discerning, whether the Governors do go according to Gods word or not: else they should be led blindfold, and be obliged by God to go against Gods word, whensoever their Governors shall go against it. It is not bruits or Infants, but rational men that we must rule.

Prop. 9. The three things which Church power doth consist in, are (in conformity to the three parts of Christs own office) 1. About matter of Faith, 2. About matter of Worship, 3. About matter of Practice in other cases.

1. Church-Governors about Doctrine or Matters of Faith, are the Peoples Teachers, but cannot oblige them to Err, or to believe any thing against God, nor make that to be truth or error that is not so be…ore.

2. In matter of Worship, Church-guides are as Gods Priests, and are to go before the people, and stand between God and them, and present their prayers and prayses to God, and administer his holy mysteries, and bless them in his name.

3. The Commanding Power of Pastors is in two things: 1. In Commanding them in the name of Christ to obey the Laws which he hath made them already. And this is the principal. 2. To give them new Directions of our own, which as is said, 1. Must not be against Gods Directions. 2. Nor about any matter which is not the object of our own office, but is without the verge of it. 3. But it is only in the making of under laws, for the better execution of the laws of Christ; and those under-laws must be only the Determination of Ci…cumstances about Gods service which Scripture hath made necessary in genere, but left to the Governors determination in specie; and they are such as are al…erable in several ages, countries, &c. so that it had been unfit for Christ to have determined them in his word, because his word is an u…iversal Law for all ages and countries; and these Circumstances will not bear an universal determination: else why could not p. 9Christ have done it? nay how is his Law perfect else that doth omit it? For example, God hath commanded us to read the word, preach, hear, sing, which must necessarily be done in some time, place, gesture, number of words, &c. But he hath not commanded us on what day of the week our Lecture shall be, or at what hour of the day, nor what Chapter I shall read, nor how many at once, nor what Text I shall preach on, nor what Psalm I shall sing, nor in what words I shall pray, whether imposed by others, or not, whether with a book, or foreconce…ved form, or not; nor whether I shall read with spectacles or without, or whether I shall discern how the time p…sseth by an hour-glass, or by the clock, or by conjecture without them. These therefore and other such like, must humane Prudence determine of. But with these Cautions.

1. These are mostly matters that require a various determination in several places according to the great variety of Circumstances; and therefore it is for the most part fitter for the particular Pastor of that Church, who is upon the place, and seeth the case, to determine them pro re nata, **That Synods are not absolutely necessary (and he thinks not of Scripture Institution but Natural direction) see Grot. d… Imperio Cap 7. per totum.then for Synods, or distant Prelates, to do it by general Laws or Canons binding all. 2. Though upon a small misdetermination of such a Circumstance▪ the people must obey, yet if it be so grosly misdetermined as to destroy the duty it self Circumstantiated, or to be notoriously against the end which it is pretended for, then they are not to obey it. As if a Pastor would appoint the People to hear in the night only, or at such unseasonable times that they cannot come, or in many the like cases.

Note also tha… it is one thing to prescribe these matters in a direct Regimental Respect, and that belongeth to him upon the Place ▪ and its another thing to prescribe them for common Vnion or Con…ord among many Churches, and that belongs to a Synod, (of which a…on.)

And it is most certain by sad experience, that scarce any thing hath broken the uni…y and peace of the Church more, than unnecessary determinations pretended to be for its …nity and peace. Could men have been content to have made Gods Laws the center and touchstone of the Churches Unity, all had been well: but when they must make Canons for this Vesture, and that Gesture, and the other Ceremony, and determine in what words p. 10all men shall pray, and how many words he shall say, or how long he shall be, and so make standing Laws upon mutable circumstances, and this without any necessity at all, but meerly to domineer, as if they had been themselves ordained and entrusted with Gods worship and mens souls; such sottish Presbyters, that know not how to speak or do any thing but as it is prescribed them, nor how to carry themselves soberly or reverendly without being obliged which way to bow, and when and how oft, with the like. Unnecessary things made Necessary have destroyed the Churches Peace; and so blind are the Authors of it, that yet they will not see their errour, though the cries, and groans, and blood of the Churches have proclaimed it so long. The Church Historie of these one thousand and three hundred years at least doth tell us that it is the Church Governours by their too much business and overdoing in such wayes, even by too bold and busie determinations about doctrines or Ceremonies, that have broken all in peices and caused that confusion, dissention and seemingly remediless divisions in the Church.

Prop. 10. In cases which are beyond the present understanding of the people, they are bound as Learners, to submit to the judgement of their Guides: If they see no sufficient cause, either in the matt…r to cause them to suspect that their Teachers are mistaken, or in their Teachers to cause them to suspect them to be seducers, they owe them …o much credit and respect as their Guides, as to believe them fide humanà, or to suppose that they are likelier to be in the righ… then themselves; and therefore in matters of Doctrine not to contradict them, but to submit to learn of them, till by learning they come to that ripeness of understanding, as to be capable of discerning the errors of their Guides, and so to contradict them groundedly, if indeed they err: so also i… the order of variable …ircumstantials about the service of God, though the people ought not to obey their Governours, if under tha… pretence they should command them things sinful; yet when they are not able to see any certain evil in the thing commanded, nor so strong a probability of evil as should cause them to suspend obedience while they take better advice, in such a case it is their Duty to obey the guides of the Church. For they are certain that they are commanded to obey them that p. 11rule over them, and watch for their souls, Heb. 13.17. but they are not certain that in such a case it is an evil that is prescribed by them, nor is it supposed to be much probable; therefore a certain evil of disobedience must be avoided before an uncertain and improbable evil. This the very office of Church Governours doth plainly import.

Object. Then if the Minister mistake, all the people that understand not the grounds of the matter, must err for company. Answ. If by Must, you speak of their Duty, I deny the consequence: For their Duty is to be men of understanding, and to see the truth in its own evidence, and so not to err; But if by Must, you only express a Necessity of Infirmity which they have sinfully contracted themselves, then I yield all: but I say, that it is a greater sin to disobey their guides, without known reason, and consequently never to obey them in any case beyond the present knowledge of the people, then it is to follow them fide humana in such mistakes as we have no sufficient means at present to discover. For the former will overthrow almost all Ministration and Church-government.

Obj. Then it is no sin for an Ignorant man to Err with his Teacher for company. Answ. I deny that Consequence: for it is his sin to be an Ignorant man: and consequently to have any Error. But supposing him already Ignorant by his own sinfulness, and that the Ministers of the Gospel come to heal it, we may well say that it is his greater sin to disbelieve and disobey them without apparent cause, then to mistake with them where he is not able to discern the mistake.

Prop. 11. He that disobeyeth the Word of God in the mouth of a Minister or Church governor, committeth a double sin, in comparison of him that disobeyeth the same word in the mouth of a private man: for bsides the sin which he first committeth, he breaketh also the fifth Commandment, and despiseth Christ in his Messenger: As a man that shall refuse to worship God, to use his name reverently, &c. when a private man telleth him that it is his duty, doth sin by that refusal: but if he refuse it when his own Father or Mother, or Minister command him, he also breaks the fifth Commandment besides the rest. Ministerial Authority therefore doth aggravate the sins of persons that are disobedient.

Prop. 12. Yet for all this, one private man that evinceth out p. 12of Scripture a sin or a duty contrary to the doctrine or commands of our Guides, must be regarded in that before them; and the evidence and divine verity which he bringeth must not be refused, because Church Governors are against it. Otherwise we should make Gods Officers to be greater then himself; and the Promulgators and Preachers of his Law, to have power to null or frustrate the known Law which they should proclaim, and that the means is to be preferred before the end, and when it destroyes the end, and so ceaseth it self to be a means, which are things not to be imagined.

Prop. 13. Yet is it a great sin for any men lightly and rashly to suspect their Teachers and Rulers, and much more Councils or the whole Church; and too easily to credit the singular opinions of any private man or dissenting Pastor. But we should be very suspicious of the private man rather, and of the singular man; and therefore should search well, and see good reason for it before we credit them, though we may not refuse any truth which they shall bring.

Prop. …4. The uses of Synods or Councils, is not directly to be superiour Governours of particular Pastors and Churches; but it is Directly 1. For the Information and Edification of the Pastor… themselves by the collation of their reasons and mutual advice; 2. For the Vnion and Communion of the said Pastors, and of the particular Churches by them: that they may agree in one, and go hand in hand to do Gods work; and so may avoid the crossing and hindering of each other, and one may not receive those to communion without satisfaction, who are excommunicated by others, and so that by this concord of Pastors they may be strengthened to a more successfull performance of their duties.

But then, these Direct ends of Synods being presupposed, Indidirectly they may truly be said to be for Government; Because God in general having commanded us to carry on his work as much as we can in Unity and Peace, and it being the proper work of Councils to agree upon wayes of Unity, it followeth that for Unity sake it becomes our duty to submit to their just Agreements; and so that the forming of such Agreements or Canons, is consequently or Indirectly a part of Government, though Directly it is but for Unity and Concord. Pastors in Synods have the same power over their people as they have out: and therefore what Canons they make justly for the Government of the people, p. 13as Pastors, are Directly acts of Government: but as Assembled Pastors, and also as to the Canons by which they bind each other, they act but by consent or contract in order to concord and communion, and not by a superiour Ruling power. So that Synods as Synods are Directly only Gratiâ Vnitatis & Communionis, and not Gratia Regiminis; but Indirectly and by consequence from the first use, they are after a sort Regimental.

To conclude this about the Nature of Church-Government, in the two former similitudes it is somewhat apparent: For Christ calls himself the Physitian that comes to heal diseased souls: and his Church is also a School, and his people are all Schollars or Disciples, and Ministers his Ushers or under-Schoolmasters. Now the Physitian may prescribe to his Patient the times, the quantities of taking Medicines, and what diet to use, and what exercise in order to his health; and also Physitians may make a Colledge, and frequently meet for mutual Edification, and Agree what Patients to meddle with, and what not, and that they will not receive those Patients that run from one to another to their own hurt, and that they will use none but such and such approved Medicaments, with divers the like circumstances. But yet no Physitian can either compell men to be their Patients; nor compell them (any otherwise then by perswasion) to take their Medicines, when they are their Patients; nor can they corporally punish them for any disobedience to their directions: But this they may do: they may tell them first that if they will not be ruled, they shall be without the Physitians help, and then their desease will certainly kill them, or endanger them; and if the Patient continue so disobedient as to frustrate the means of cure, the Physitian may give him over, and be his Physitian no more; and this is the Power of a Church Guide, and this is his way of punishing: Only he may further acquaint them with a Divine Commission, then a Physician can do to his Patient, (at least gradually) and so press obedience more effectually on their consciences.

So a Schoolmaster may make orders for the right circumstantiating of matters in his School (supposing one Grammer enjoyned by superiour Authority,) and he may order what Authors shall be read, and at what hours, and how much at a time, and dispose of the seats and orders of his Schollars: But yet if p. 14he be a Teacher of the Adult, according to our case, he cannot corporally punish those that either refuse to be his Schollars, or to learn of him or obey him; but the utmost that he can do is to put some disgrace upon them while they abide in his School, and at last to shut them out. And then all the Schoolmasters in the Countrey may well agree upon one Method of Teaching, and that they will not receive those without satisfaction into one School, who are for obstinacy and abuse cast out of another. But such Agreements or Meetings to that end do not make either one Physitian or Schoolmaster to be the Governour of the rest, or above another, nor yet to have the charge of all the Schollars or Patients of all the rest; so is it in the case of Ecclesiastical Assemblies.