CASE I.
Whether Diocesan Bishops (as they are commonly called) be by Divine right.

THe answer is negative, They are not. The reasons are:

First, Because the Scripture knoweth no such creatures as Dio­cesan Bishops; for the Bishops men­tioned in Scripture, are none other than Presbyters, whereof one or moe were set over their several con­gregations respectively, as we clear­ly reade, Tit. 1. 5, 7. Act. 20. 17, [...]8. So Act. 14. 23. compared with Phi­lip. [Page 2] 1. 1. So as Presbyters & Bishops in Scripture are convertible termes; every Presbyter a Bishop, and every Bishop a Presbyter.

Secondly, Because all such prela­ticall jurisdiction and domination as our Diocesans usurpe and exer­cise, is expresly forbidden by Christ himselfe, as Mat. 20, 25, 26. Mark. 10. 42, 43. Luke 22. 25, 26.

Thirdly, Because the Apostles condemned all such jurisdiction and domination as our Prelats use: As 2 Cor. 1. 24. 2 Cor. 11. 20. 2 Thess. 2. 4. 1 Pet. 5. 3. 3 Joh. 9. 10.

Fourthly, Because Apostles them­selves, whose successors Prelats pre­tend to be, never used any such juris­diction as the Prelats doe, neither in Ordination of Ministers, nor in ex­communication, (both which they doe most grosly abuse) nor in ma­king of Canons, or setting up or im­posing of Ceremonies, both of meer humane invention, which the Apo­stles [Page 3] utterly condemned, Gal. 4. 9. 10. Col. 2. 8, &c.

Fiftly, Because the Prelats are ne­ver able to prove by any demonstra­tion from Scripture, that their juris­diction is of Divine authority: their allegations are meere pervertings of scripture;So D. Hall in his Booke of Episcopacie. as they alledge first, Christs ordaining twelve Apostles, and se­venty Disciples; here was an ine­quality (say they) Ergo a superiority of jurisdiction. But neither can hee prove here any such authority, as they pretend, or much lesse any sub­ordination of the seventy, unto the Twelve; for the Twelve neither or­dained nor sent forth the Seventy. Secondly, they alledge the post­scripts after the second Epistle to Ti­mothy; and after that to Titus; which say, That those two were Bishops. But 'tis cleare, that those postscripts are no part of the Text, as Beza well sheweth. Nor are they to be found in the vulgar Latine translation, [Page 4] which was at the least an hundred yeares after Christ. Timothy and Ti­tus were both Evangelists, not resi­dent any where, but as the Apostles called them from Country to coun­try, as we read in Pauls Epistles: and if they were to bee called Bishops, according to the scripture, they must have beene Bishops over one Con­gregation respectively. Thirdly, they aledge those seven Angels, 1 Re­vel 2 & 3. These (say they) were se­ven Bishops. This they can never prove. And if Bishops, yet Dioce­sans they were not, seeing for some hundreds of yeares after, there were no such Diocesse extant. And our last Translation, in the contents of the second Chapter of the Revelation calls those Angels the Ministers of those Churches. And for the Angel to be meant of one single man, doth imply many absurdities, as that God should destroy a whole Church for one mans sake: for God threatneth [Page 5] the Angell of Ephesus, if hee repent not, to remove his Candlesticke out of his place; to wit, that whole Church. But God never doth so; there is not in all the whole scripture any one example, that God ever rooted out a whole State or Church, generall or particular, for one mans sinne, be he Magistrate or Governor. And if God for one pre­tended Prelates sin, should remove or destroy a whole Church, as that of Ephesus; as there he threatens the Angell, who alone is charged with one onely sinne, which was a decli­nation from his first love: Then what security or safety can the whole Church or State of England long promise to it selfe, so long as it harboreth in the bosome and bow­els thereof such a crew and confe­deracy of most notorious and apo­statised Prelates, who have not now declined in some degrees from the faith formerly professed, but have [Page 6] openly oppressed and persecuted the Preachers and preaching of the Go­spel, and that even unto bloud? And againe, to goe about to proove the lawfulnesse of Prelacy by the Word of God, from a word of a darke and figurative signification, against cleer and expresse testimonies of Scrip­ture to the contrary, is most absurd and too presumptuous. For, for An­gell here to signifie a Prelate, cannot possibly, because the Scripture else­where (as before) damneth all Pre­lacy in the Church of Christ. And there be many other reasons to con­fute them, that these Angells were no such Bishops, other than Scrip­ture Bishops, as aforesaid: and that which was spoken to one, was by a Senechdochae spoken to all, as is usu­ally in Scripture, and cleare in all those seven Epistles.

Sixtly, The wisest and learnedest of the Prelats at this day among us, doe warily decline the Scripture in [Page 7] this point, & dare not stand to their authority, as being point blanke a­gainst them: but they fly to Custom and antiquity, as the Papists doe for all their unwritten Traditions.

CASE II.
Whether the next Age immediately succeeding the Apostles, be not a suffici­ent warrant for Prelaticall jurisdicti­on, seeing it may be mooved (say they) that there were then Bishops.

THe Answer is negative: first, because it is not a sufficient warrant to build the govern­ment of the Church upon any Hu­maine example, which hath not ex­presse warrant from Gods Word. Secondly, Because those who were there called Bishops, cannot be pro­ved to have been Diocesan Bishops, [Page 8] or to have had or exercised such a jurisdiction as our Prelates usurpe. Thirdly, could that be proved, yet being not according unto, but dire­ctly against the Scripture, we ought not to regard it. Fourthly, the very next age after the Apostles, produced many grosse errours and superstiti­ons, as Eusebius tells us, and as the A­postles premonished, Act. 20. 29. yea, they complained of it in their own times,2 Thess. 2. 7. while they yet lived: For the mysterie of Iniquity (saith Paul) doth already worke, &c. which mysterie was, that of Prelacy, as appeares clearely from that Text, where the Man of sin who exalts himself over the Church, is set forth as the head and top of that mysterie, namely of the Hierarchy, which is and hath been the L [...]rna or source of all ini­quity. And Jerome who lived in the fourth Century said, That Prelation over the rest of the Ministers, was a thing of humane presumption, and not [Page 9] of Divine Ordination: and though it was first devised for a remedy a­gainst schisme, yet it proved in time the greatest schisme that ever was, namely the schisme of Antichrist, and all his crew of Prelates from Christ; the Hierarchy being a meer enmity against Christs kingdome, betweene which two there is as great a Chasma or gulfe as between Paradise and Hell.

CASE III.
But seeing Episcopacy is of very great and reverend antiquity (as they say) is it not best to reduce the present Prelacy to the antient condition of Bishops in the Primitive Church.

NO; unlesse they can proove these Bishops to bee such as Gods Word alloweth. Wee [Page 10] reverence that antiquity which is joyned with verity: But antiquitie without verity is oldnesse of error, as said old Tertullian. When one asked Christ, Mat. 19. 3. If it were lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Christ gave no indulgence at all, but reduced that antient abuse among the Iewes, to the primitive institution of God in Paradise.

Secondly, The matter in hand is of higher moment, than to be regu­lated by any humane ordinance, or reduced to any antiquity, other than the Scripture it selfe. For the thing here in question concernes no lesse than the honour of Christs King­dome, and his royall prerogative in the government of his kingdome, as we shall further see.

Thirdly, that which is originally vicious, cannot by tract of time bee made good. Custome, we see, hath not made Prelates better, but worse and worse in all ages. An evil egge [Page 11] brings forth an evill Bird. And Christ saith,Mat. 7. 17. An evill tree cannot bring forth good fruit. And, Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall bee hewen downe and cast into the fire. And Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, Mat. 15. 13. shall be plucked up by the roots. Mat. 12. 33. And, Either make the tree good, and the fruit good; or make the tree evill, and the fruit evill. If there­fore the tree of Prelacie be original­ly, and in its owne nature evill, as having no foundation in Scripture, as being none of Gods planting, it ought to be so far from being a pat­terne for its antiquity, as it ought ut­terly to be rooted up, as being a no­velty, and not antiquity: for that only is truly currant, which is anti­ently true.

CASE IV.
But if the Prelacy be plucked up and quite taken away, what government shall be left for the Church of God?

FOr resolution whereof wee are to consider these necessary things: First, That that Go­vernment alone be set forth, which Christ himselfe hath left us in his Word. For who but the King and Law-giver of his Church and king­dome of Grace, should give Lawes, and appoint how it shall be gover­ned? Secondly, we are not to think that Christ who was the Law-gi­ver of the Old Testament, was not also the Law-giver of the New, and hath left us sufficient direction ther­in for the government of his people both for faith and manners. Now [Page 13] in the Old Testament all must bee done according to the Pattterne shewed to Moses in the Mount, e­ven to the least pin in the Taberna­cle. So also for the Temple and the forme thereof, David received all in writing by the Spirit of God, 1 Chr. 28. 12. 19. No place is left, nor power given to men to invent any thing, or impose the least ceremony in the worship of God. So in the New Testament is layd downe a perfect platforme of wholsome words, which is profitable for doctrine, 2 Ti. 1. 13. & 3. 16. for re­proofe, for correction, for instruction in righteousnesse, that the Man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished un­to every good worke.

CASE V.
But we see great difference in mens opinions concerning that forme of Go­vernment which Christ hath left in his Word; What then shall we do in this case, or what is tbat forme of Governement which we shall pitch upon?

FOr answere hereunto: first, however all such governement as is contrary unto, and expres­ly condemned in the Word of God, such as the Hierarchy is, ought in no case to be admitted or maintained. Secondly, as wee cannnot doubt but that Christ hath left an exact pre­script forme of governement in his Word, for the Church of the New Testament; so we ought diligently, in the use of all good meanes, to en­quire after that good old way, and [Page 15] to finde as much of it as wee can, and to follow what we know.

Thirdly, if after all our search, there be not a full agreement in all godly mens judgements, in some things which seem somwhat more difficult or doubtfull; we must not therefore either reject so much as is cleare, or yet breake Communion and fellowship with those Chur­ches which differ from us in judge­ment or practise, so long as they maintaine not any government which cannot be warranted by the Word of God: holding that rule of the Apostle,Phil. 3. 15, 16 Let us (saith he) as many as be perfect, be thus minded, God shall reveale even this unto you. Neverthe­lesse, whereto we have already attained, let us walke by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

CASE VI.
How can the Church be without pre­lates, in these respects especially: 1. For ordaining of Ministers. 2. For inflict­ing of Censures. 3. For calling of Sy­nods. 4. For determining of doubts ari­sing in matters of Faith. 5. In appoin­ting of Ceremonies. 6. For Orders sake. 7. For Confirmation of children, 8. For dedication of Churches. 9 For the forme of Doctrine.

FOr answer hereunto, First in I generall, there is no need at all of any such Officers in the Church as are not of any divine In­stitution, as Prelats are not, as afore­said: yea, such officers, in stead of any profitable usefulnesse, are most unprofitable and pernicious: as the Lord saith to false Prophets,Ier. 23. 32. I have [Page 17] not sent them, therfore they shall not pro­fit this people at all.

Secondly and particularly, First,II Prelates are no way requisite or ne­cessary for ordaining of Ministers: First, because they ordaine rather a new order of Priests, than true Mi­nisters; for which cause the Booke of Ordination calls them Priests: whereas true Ministers are never called in the new Testament priests. Secondly, They ordaine no true Mi­nisters of the Gospell (if wee may beleeve their practise) but rather a sort of dumbe Priests: for when they have ordained a full Minister, (as they call it) having put the Bible into his hand, saying, Take thou au­thority to preach the Word of God; yet for all this hee may not; must not preach at all, till he have obtained the Prelates License, which he must purchase for a good fee. Again, they make such Priests as are dumb dogs and cannot barke, being meere Ig­noramuses [Page 18] and Sir John-Lacke-La­tines; abusing those words, Receive thou the holy Ghost: And, Take thou au­thority to preach the Word of God. And lastly, They make no true Ministers of Christ, seeing they bind all with the Oath of Canonicall obedience, to be subject to their lawlesse laws, in the execution of their Ministry.

Secondly, There is no use nor need of Prelates for inflicting of Censures. Their power & practise of Excommunication is altogether unlawfull, a meere usurpation, and contrary to Gods Ordinance; and that in many respects. First, because the Prelate is not the Pastor of that Congregation whose member is cut off by Excommunication. Be­cause the Prelate doth it alone, hee or his Surrogate; and this perhaps either a Lay-man, or a dumb priest, without any consent of the people. Thirdly, he excommunicates a man for every triviall cause, & that with­out [Page 19] due summons, & rashly, and for his fee absolves him without any repentance or reformation, & with­out satisfaction to the people offen­ded. Whereas excōmunication is the highest censure, & is to be done by the Minister & congregation joynt­ly,Mat. 18. 17. & 1 Cor. 5. after much means used to reclaim the offēdor, & for grievous scandals; & not to be restored without hearty repētance, in a sad, serious & solemn maner. Lastly, if Prelats for the cau­ses here alledged be of no use for the high censure of excommunication, how much lesse need is there of thē for inflicting corporall or criminall punishment upon reputed Delin­quents, as deprivation of liberty by imprisonmēt, of the ministry by de­privation, degradation, suspēsion, de­privation of means and livelihood, by imposing of intolerable fines, and restraining men from the exer­cise of their particular Calling, to the undoing of them and theirs.

[Page 20] Thirdly, for calling of Synods, cannot this bee without a Prelate? may not this be by a Law dormant, giving liberty when occasion shall be, to have a Synod, for the better ordering whereof, a Moderator for the time being is by votes elected?

Fourthly, For determining of doubts arising in matters of Faith, what need is there for Prelats? Are they fit or competent Iudges in such things? Yea, are they not herein e­gregious usurpers, presumptuous and arrogant men? Yea Anti­christs, in sitting thus in the Temple of God, over mens consciences, as Lords over mens faith? Is not this a meere evacuating of the authoritie and sufficiencie of the Scripture, which is the sole judge and rule of Faith? Yet this Prelates presume to doe, and challenge as their proper right: so as in the twentieth Arti­cle, which is of the Authority of the Church, these words have beene of [Page 21] later dayes foisted in, namely, that the Church hath authority in Con­troversies of faith.

Fiftly, Neither in appointing of Ceremonies are Prelates needfull: Yea, for prelates or Church, or any humane power to ordaine and im­pose Ceremonies to binde the con­sciences in the worship of God, this is expressely condemned and for­bidden both by Christ himselfe,Mat. 15. 9. and by the Prophets,Ecc. 29. 13. and by the Apo­stles.Col. 2. 8. 18. Man may not impose the least Ceremony in Gods worship: if hee doe, he therein denies Christ, Col. 2. 19. he holds not the Head. And yet the aforesaid Article boldly affirmes saying, The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies. So as this Article, whether meaning by Church the Prelates (as they meane it) or any other humane power, ought to be to Christians no article of Faith, or binding any mans Con­science.

[Page 22] Sixtly, For orders sake: for what order-sake are Prelates necessary, or any way requisit? what order they keep all men know: & what order can there be in a Babylonish gover­ment, as the prelatical altogether is?

7. For confirmation of children: This also is a Babylonish Sacramēt; as if it did confer some grace ex opere operato, or some vertue dropping out of the Bishops Lawn sleeve. Indeed this confirmation is a pretty knack to win credit to the Prelacy frō the blinde Vulgar, which to everie wel taught Christian is both superstiti­ous and ridiculous.

8 For dedication of Churches; this is a most notorious Romish, Popish superstition, & is rather a meer pro­phanation, than any dedication, ex­cept it be to superstition & idolatry, as they at Rome do use their Tem­ples: & they would make the world beleeve, that by their many supersti­tious ceremonies, in crossings, cen­sings, [Page 23] adorations, & the like, which they use in their dedication, there goes forth a vertue, by which holy­nes is infused into the wals & pews, especially into their sacred chancel.

Ninthly, for the form of Liturgy, if we goe no farther than our Service booke, which is an extract out of Romes Latine service, Missall, or Masse-booke, as it is confessed in the Booke of Martyrs,Vol. 2. p. 667. print. ed. 1631 the Romane Latine being turned into English: if there were no more in it than this, that it is the forme of Romes Wor­ship, and so (as King Iames once cal­led it) an ill sayd Masse, it might a little startle such Christians, as hold that Christianity to be the pu­rest, which hath least conformitie with Antichrist and his superstitiōs. For if wee be commanded to come out of Rome, & to have no commu­nion with her idolatrous service; let it then be well considered, whe­ther Christians may with a good [Page 24] conscience be present at the English Liturgy, which is for the maine, the Masse turned into English. For al­though it be objected, that it is pur­ged from the Popish drosse, yet if it should be brought to the Touch­stone, or tried in the Text, let the wisest then judge how free from Popish drosse it is, when therein they shall finde Romish superstiti­ous Ceremonies maintained and prest upon mens consciences, as the Surplice, Crosse in Baptisme, knee­ling at the Sacrament, standing at the Creed, attended with their seve­rall significations, as if man had a power to set up any significant Ce­remonies in Gods worship,Gal. 4. 9, 10. when as wee finde all kinde of signes and ceremonies in Gods service under the Old Testament,Col. 2. 16. though ordai­ned by God himselfe, to be utterly a­bolished by Christ, and forbidden to Christians under the New Testa­ment: and much more all such as [Page 25] are of humane invention: all which are of that nature,Gal. 5. 1. as the Apostle cals them, the Yoke of Bondage, to such as are intangled therein; exhorting all Christians to stand fast in the liber­tie wherewith Christ hath made us free. And Col. 2. he plainly shewes all such ordinances to be an evacua­tion of Christs death, and so an apo­stacie from Christ. And no Christi­an, I hope, will plead for the use of humane ordinances in Gods wor­ship, when Christ hath abrogated all ceremonies of divine institution, and hath left no footstep for any one Ceremonie in the New Testa­ment, and flatly condemns all com­mandements of men in Gods Ser­vice: It beeing also a strange pre­sumption for any man to think, that either he hath authority to prescribe how God should bee worshipped, or that God should be pleased with any such will-worship; when in stead of being pleased, hee saith, In [Page 26] vain they worship me, teaching for Do­ctrine the Comments of men. For sure­ly with vaine worship God is nei­ther pleased nor honoured.

Againe, seeing we are here fallen upon the consideration or exami­nation of the Service booke, let all wise hearted and well instructed schollers in Christs schoole, that have learned the art of separating the pretious from the vile: but tell me what they think of Apocryphall bookes, publiquely read in Chur­ches, as if they were the holy Scrip­tures? What of the whole Letanie, so stuffed with Tautologies or vain repetitions? What of the prayer in the Letanie and of the Collect, wherein Bishops or Prelates are prayed for, being Antichristian and false Bishops; and all other Mini­sters are prayed for, as being the Cu­rates of those Bishops: than which what can be a greater reproach and shame to the Ministers of the [Page 27] Church of England? What of so many carvings of Scriptures into E­pistles and Gospels, with their seve­rall Collects, for the maintenance and celebration of Saints days, cal­led Holydayes? What of the lame and incongruous, yea senseles trans­lations of those sundry Scriptures with the Psalmes? What of prayers at the buriall of the Dead? What of Churching of women, aliâs, Their Purification, as some call it, and which answers to that under the Law? What of Priestly absolution? with many more particulars, too long here to rehearse. And in a word, What of so many prayers in­joyned to be read, enough to blunt the edge of any true devotion, and so to tyre out the strongest sided Mi­nister, as hee hath neither strength nor time left for Gods Ordinance, namely the preaching of the Word. And (to say the very truth) this kind of long Service was devised by the [Page 28] Popes successively, to that very end, namely to entertaine the people with a blinde devotion, and to re­taine them in ignorance, when now no roome was left for preach­ing, which was by this meanes thrust by the head and sholders out of their Churches. And thus what a deale of pretious time is taken up with a long, dull, and dead forme of prayer, which might and ought to be spent to edification of Gods people on the Lords owne Day, which should be sanctified not in humane devises, but in Gods owne Ordinances, to the glory of Him who is the Lord of the day. I say a­gaine (for I speake nothing defini­tively, as passing myne own private judgement of these things) let this wise and grave Senate (now assem­bled for a thorow-reformation, and removall of all abuses and grievan­and primarily in the matters of God and of Christ, maturely judge.

CASE VII.
Whether any set forme of a Liturgie or publique Prayer be necessarie to bee used in the publique Worship of God?

FOr answer: Indeed if it bee ne­cessary to have unpreaching Ministers, and dumb dogs over the people of the Lord, who can nor preach nor pray, then it will bee no lesse necessary to have some form of Booke prayers or Liturgy for such to officiate by. And for this cause the Prelates have had some reason to hold up their Liturgy to the full, as without which there had beene nothing for their Mutes to do in the Church. Now though dumbe Priests have need of such a Liturgy, yet it doth not follow, that therfore able godly Ministers, that know [Page 30] how to fit their prayers to all such severall occasions as do continually present themselves (which a set prayer in a booke cannot do) should be tied to any such precise set forme. For otherwise,1 Thess. 5. this were to quench the spirit of prayer, and to muzzle the mouth of prayer, and to stoppe the course of Gods spirit, which doth wonderfully improve it self in all those both Ministers and people, on whom God hath powred the spirit of grace and supplication, and who do by daily exercise grow un­to such a habit of prayer, and which doth powre it selfe forth in such a life and power, as is not possible for any set read prayer to exercise or have. For true, fervent, effectuall prayer is that which is the hearts expression by the Spirit of God. As the Apostle saith,1 Cor. 14. 15 I will pray with my Spirit. and (Phil. 19.) Prayer is sup­plied by the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This is that prayer which is first in the [Page 31] heart, before it come to the mouth, and is dictated by Gods spirit, be­fore it be uttered with the lippes: whereas a read prayer is in the mouth before it can come unto the heart, which in prayer is a speaking unadvifedly with the lips, before the heart hath first digested and sug­gested the matter. This is an abor­tive birth which never had a right conception, But a godly Minister that is best acquainted with the state of his flocke, and of the church of God, can accordingly so inlarge and apply his prayer, by the supply of Gods spirit, as may be most use­full to the Congregation, as beeing most occmmodate to their spirits, when they finde the matter of the prayer to be that, the want whereof they are most sencible of: so as there is here a concurrence of the spirits both of the Minister and people, which causeth a prayer to bee so much the more effectuall, lively, [Page 32] powerfull, and operative, and that not onely with God, but in the hearts of all those whose joint prai­er it is. Whereas a read prayer is in comparison, a dead and dull formal prayer, without any life or power either to prevaile with God, or to profit the people: as beeing such a prayer as suits only such Readers as are destitute of the spirit of Grace, and supplication, and of faith and sanctification, and therefore such as God regardeth not. So as a true Mi­nister of Christ ought not to be tyed with the bonds and lines of a writ­ten forme of prayer that must bee read, forasmuch as hereby the spirit of prayer in him is bound up, and both he and the people of God de­prived both of the benefit of such a gift, and of that profit also which the prevailing prayer of Christs spi­rit procures of God. Yea, not even a set written prayer which the Mini­ster makes, & saith by heart, though [Page 33] he reade it not, and though it bee better to say it by heart, than to read it out of a booke, yet is▪ or can be so lively and powerfull as that prayer which is not tied to a set forme of words. From such a prayer as is ut­tered by heart (as we say) the me­mory is more exercised, than the understanding and affections with­in him; there beeing now a suspen­sion of that worke of the spirit of supplication and grace, which brea­theth forth with a lively power in a conceived prayer, wherein not the memory so much, as the whole mind, soule, spirit, & affections, have their joint operation.

But it may be objected, That the Reformed Protestant Churches be­yond the seas have their set formes of publique prayer and sacraments 'Ts true: but I take it that the Mini­sters are not tied to those forms, fur­ther than they will themselves. As we see the Ministers of the Kirke of [Page 34] Scotland now in England, use no set formes of prayer, but doe dis­charge the duty of prayer with an excellent freedome of spirit, & with such an apt accommodation thereof to the present condition of the hea­rers, and of the state of Gods church, as that it serves greatly to the edifi­cation and raising up of the spirits of Gods people sympathising with it, and is first (of all other kindes of prayer) to speed with the Prayer-hearing God, who best knowes the meaning and language of that spirit of his, by which such prayers are poured forth. And surely were this well exercised by our Ministers in England, in publique, as I know it is by many both Ministers & peo­ple in private, it would no doubt much facilitate and hasten the ac­complishment of that great worke of a thorow-reformation, so happi­ly begun, and hopefully proceeded in, if flesh and bloud bee not too [Page 35] much consulted with, and humane policy (which should have no hand in setting out or authorising any de­vised forme of Gods worship, im­posed on the conscience) too much relied upon.

CASE VIII.
What is the most ready and easie way or Method, of finding out or obtaining Christs government?

FOr resolution: It is usuall with those that stand for the Hierar­chy, to stop all ways of finding this out, by laying many stumbling blocks in our way. But if we will goe roundly to worke, first of all, of necessity all false government, as that of the Hierarchy, must be quite taken out of the way, as the maine stumbling blocke. As hee that in­tends [Page 36] to build a new house in the place where the old standeth, must first pull downe the old, and rase it from the very foundation, that hee may lay a new foundation to beare up the new fabricke. But because he that thus intends to build, doth usu­ally make a draught or model of his house before named: so it is thought necessary by some, that a modell of Christs government be first drawn up, according to which the new fa­brick may be in a readinesse to bee erected presently upon the removal of the old.

This indeed stands with good reason, especially for the satisfaction of all doubts, and for the better ac­commodation of the Church, and as a preparation of the materialls to the more speedy setting forward of the worke of Reformation And yet this I dare say, That if in the first place the Hierarchy, with all the trumpery and baggage of their Ce­remonies [Page 37] & will-worship in Gods service, were quite abandoned and taken away, so as the ground where these degenerate plants doe grow, were cleared and purged, that not a root of them were left, the work of Reformation were more than halfe done; so as Christs governement would even sponte sua, of its owne accord come in, and be set up with­out the noyse of so much as a ham­mer; especially in all such Congre­gations where godly and discreet Ministers are. Yet not so, as that we can expect such a perfection at the first, specially in this land, which hath been so long pestered and cor­rupted with the tyrannous and li­centious prophane government of the Prelates, and where godly Mi­nisters are so scarse, and most men through long custome, and want of meanes (as before) are not, by reason of ignorance (though perhaps too quicke sighted in worldly matters) [Page 38] so well fitted to apprehend, and to entertain such an exact government as God requires, and his Word pre­scribes.

CASE IX.
Whether, though the Prelacy with its usurped jurisdiction, Lordships, Temp­ralties, Power, Pompe, &c. be quite re­moved out of the wayes, yet it be not ex­pedient at least, if not necessary, to re­taine the name of Bishops, as a title ap­pointed to those who are to be the prin­cipall among, and above other Ecclesia­sticall persons in the government of the Church?

FOr answer: First, we ought not to abuse those titles which the Scripture appropriates and ties to the persons and office of the true Pastors of the Church, by impropri­ating [Page 39] them from the true owners, and transferring them to such, as at the best (beeing considered as Pa­stors over their severall Congrega­tions respectively) have but a com­mon right with other Pastors, and no peculiar title as proper to them­selves alone▪ And wherefore shall such onely be still called Bishops more than others? As having the only oversight over all other Chur­ches, and their Ministers, and that by being invested in a perpetuity of such a dignity? What is this, but a clipping of those wings, and a pay­ring of those clawes, which will in time grow againe.Ier. Can the Aethyo­pian change his skinne? or the Leopard his spots? Can we so quickly forget, what spirit the spirituall ambition of these men is of? Or can we ima­gine that they will leave their old haunt, in frequenting the Court, and in courting the favor of great ones? and from whose corrupt flatteries [Page 40] not the eares of the best Princes can plead an exemption? And may wee not justly feare, that if but the stump of this banefull tree be left unstubd up by the roots, so as not so much as the bare long usurped name thereof do remaine, may not the root still spread it selfe under ground insenci­bly? and the stem through the sent of water put forth such sprouts and fruits,Heb. 12. as by the bitternesse thereof therof the whole land may be trou­bled? And may it not be just with God, yet againe to bring more plagues upon this State, by its suffe­ring of such miscreant remainders, when hee had given so faire an op­portunity to cut them off, root and branch?1 Sam. Did not Saul for sparing one Agag lose his kingdome? And did not Ahab for sparing the life of his false brother Benhadad lose his owne life?1 King. And were not those Ca­naanites thornes and prickes in the Israelites eyes and sides? Nor is it so [Page 41] small a matter to alienate the pro­perty of a name or title from the right owners, to whom alone God hath made it peculiar and proper: For such an alienation is an alterati­on not onely of the true property of the name, but also of the nature of that office to which it was first gi­ven of God. For (as is shewed be­fore) the name of Bishop is proper quarto modo, to every Pastor over that Congregation to which hee is law­fully called: and the name Episcopus, or in English, Bishop or Over-seer, sets forth the office of such a Pastor over his flocke. So as to take away this name from the Pastor, and to appropriate it to one single man set over other Ministers, to wit, one that is by man stiled and denomina­ted a Diocesan Bishop; What is this but utterly to pervert & overthrow Christs ordinance, and the nature of his true Church, and the office of a true Pastor, who being stripped of [Page 42] his proper title, is withall stript of his office, and so of his flock, wher­of another now is made the Over­seer or Bishop, and the title and Of­fice of a Curate onely is left him, ac­cording to the Collect for Bishops and Curates. Or if there be a men­tall reservation to every Minister of a congregation, of the office of Pa­storship; yet when the title of Bi­shop is given to one above him, even thus also is an invasion made upon Christs owne title and prero­gative,1 pet. 5. 4. who is the onely [...] the chiefe Shepheard or chiefe Bi­shop of his Church, besides whom and above whom all the Pastors ac­knowledge none. And if of Pa­stors, some onely be called Bishops, and the rest not, here also Christs sheepehooke is wrung out of his hand, as where he is called the Shep­heard and Bishop of our soules. 1 Pet. 2. 25. So easie a thing it is by the alienation or im­propriation of a name, to set up such [Page 43] an office and government in the Church, as wherby Christs govern­ment & the proper office of his true Ministers, are cast to the ground & trampled under foot.

Moreover, if ever this governe­ment of Bishops, falsly so called, shall bee set up or continued in ma­ner aforesaid, yet farre bee it from those Worthies of the land, whose justice is so cleare and unpartiall in other things, and namely in the cut­ting off of all Monopolies in the ci­vill State, to erect or ratifie, or any way to countenance such a Mono­poly in Christs kingdome, so dero­gatory to his incommunicable pre­rogative, and to that stile and office wherein he hath so highly dignified and intrusted all faithful Ministers. For what a Monopoly is this, to take away the title wherein the Of­fice of all true Pastors is compre­hended, and to transfer it to one a­lone among many?

[Page 44] Ob. But here it may be objected, That the Reformed Churches be­yond the seas, as even Geneva it selfe, have their Overseers, which is a title and office equivalent to our Dioce­san Bishops, Episcopus signifying an Overseer: why then is it not as law­full to have the like in England?

I answer: The case is farre diffe­rent; for such Overseers or Modera­tors, as in other reformed Churches they are called (as in the Kirke of Scotland) are chosen by the Mini­sters and Elders, and that but for one yeare, and whose office is to call the Synods at certaine fixed times, and to collect the votes, & the like. But some say, that our usurping Bi­shops shall bee perpetuall for their lives; and how farre the power of their place and dignity may be ex­tended, especially when they have their election from the Court, ei­ther immediate and absolute per se, or by the means of a Conge de lier, as [Page 45] whom so designed above, the Mini­sters of the Diocesse (in stead of the Deane and Chapter) are bound to elect. Or if they be but Triennial, & so to come under the visitation of a Trienniall Parliament; yet who knows but such spirits may so work as in time to make Parliaments as geason as heretofore? when some of them have confessed, that they never dreamed to see a Parliament againe. Or if they shall be continu­ed from three yeare to three yeare, yet this is also more than is used in forreine Reformed Churches▪ And however, for them to retaine the name of Bishop still (as before) is against Gods Word, and not onely derogatory to Christs true Mini­sters for the present, but also very prejudiciall to their liberty, when such Bishops holding their favor in Court, and their neerenesse to the Chaire of State, may by that means grow awfull to those their Curates, [Page 46] among whom some, and perhaps too many, may be found ready to prostitute their officiousnesse unto their Bishop, in stead of Christ, out of a hope to be made the heires ap­parant of the Bishopricke; which though it be now cropt and deplu­med, yet will be still a bait for am­bition, which must be doing, and will rather play small game than sit out. All which considered, I leave it to the Wise to judge what may bee the consequents thereof, & whether by this means either we or our chil­dren may come to see as great cor­ruption both in doctrine and man­ners, as now we doe. For (as I sayd before) the time may come, when God in his justice may deny this State the like opportunity (so armed with a necessity of reformation, as we neither could have wished, nor any more can hope for) to reforme Episcopall insolencie. Or suppose a possibility of Prelates to become no [Page 47] worse than as the Parliament shall leave them, yet the least rag of Pre­lacie making a rent in Christs coat, (as it beeing the head of such a Go­vernment as is condemned by the Word of God) ought no more to be pieced to Christs livery, seeing it de­stroyeth Christian liberty, both in Ministers and people. And all this (I say) ariseth from the very name of Bishop so misplaced; for which cause it ought to be with the whole Bishopricke utterly extirped; and that no lesse, than the heathen Ro­mans rooted out the very name of the Tarquins, for the tiranny which they had exercised.

CASE X.
Whether the whole Hierarchy being abolished, the 39 Articles which were agreed upon in 62, by the Archbishops and Bishops, &c. in both Provinces, doe any longer binde? or that Ministers are bound to subscribe unto them?

I Answer: First, That these 39 ar­ticles taken conjunctim together, no man can with a good con­science, rightly informed, subscribe unto them. For secondly, There be some of those articles which are ve­ry false; as Article 20, which saith, The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and authority in Con­troversies of faith. Both which are false (as before is noted) and were added since the same article was first made in King Edward the sixt [Page 49] his dayes. Againe the 36 Article is no lesse false, which saith, The booke of ordination of Archbishops and Bi­shops; and ordering of Priests, &c. doth containe all things necessary to such con­secration and ordering. Neither hath it anything that of it selfe is superstious and ungodly. And therefore all so con­secrated and ordered according to the Rites prescribed, &c. wee decree to bee rightly orderly, and lawfully consecra­ted and ordered. Now to this article all Ministers subscribe, although they be false Bishops consecrated af­ter the order of Rome; and false Priests that are by false bishops so ordered.

Thirdly, Art. 3. it is sayd, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so is it to be beleeved that he went down into hell. Which going downe into hell, im­ports a locall going downe into the place of hell; which hath no proof in Scripture, nor holds any propor­tion or analogie of faith, but cros­seth [Page 50] the truth of Scripture, and the current of all sound interpreters, and therefore not to bee beleeved as Christs death and buriall.

Fourthly, some Articles are made of late by the enemies of grace, the Prelates, of so doubtfull and double a sence (as those especially about Grace and Freewill) that they have procured a Declaration prefixed be­fore the Articles, in the Kings name, prohibiting the free preaching of those points according to the Scrip­tures. So as Ministers canot resolve what it is they subscribe unto in the sayd Article. And therefore it is ne­cessary that the said false Articles be wholly expunged, and the doubtful (as they pretend) more fully explai­ned; and so the said Declaration prefixed, taken away.

CASE XI.
Now all this done, and the whole An­tichristian yoke in the Prelacy, with the burthen of all their Rites and Ceremo­nies removed from Christians neckes: what is that particular form of govern­ment which is to be set up?

FOr answer: First we premised something hereof in generall, namely, That Christs governe­ment alone is to be set up in all true Christian congregations, and so his yoke to be borne, as our glory, upon our neckes. But secondly, for fur­ther, and a more particular unfold­ing of this government of Christ over every true Church or congre­gation: First, we are to enquire what the true Church of Christ is. And secondly, what is that governement [Page 52] which Christ hath appointed over every such Church.

For the first: A true Church of Christ is a congregation of true be­leevers men and women, who by the Word of God preached, are se­parated from the world, and the reigning lusts thereof, and declared to be such by the open profession of the true and right faith, and by the conversation of Christian life con­formable thereunto. Such is a par­ticular visible true Church or Con­gregation, and so is (as farre as wee can judge) a true branch of the holy Catholique Church, which is invi­sible, comprehending the number of Gods Elect, and is apprehended only by faith, & not by sight. Now every such particular Congregation as aforesaid, consisting of professed beleevers of the knowne truth of God, according to which they frame the course of their life and conver­sation, is in it selfe an absolute [Page 53] Church, whose onely Governor for matters of faith, and the true wor­ship of God, is Iesus Christ. He it is that as King reigneth in this congre­gation, and in all the members ther­of, they acknowledge none other Governor for matters of Religion, but Christ onely. For herein stands his kingly Office: and the Laws by which this King reigneth, and go­verneth his Church, is his written Word. And his Vicegerent, by whom Christ is alwayes present with every one of his severall Con­gregations, is the holy Ghost, which who so hath not is none of Christs.Rom. 8.

Now having thus defined what a true Church of Christ is, namely a congregation professing the known true faith, every member thereof be­ing able in some measure to give a reason of the maine points of faith, and to make proofe of their profes­sion by walking in a holy course of life: hence it appeares who they be [Page 58] that are not admitted to bee mem­bers of this congregation or church of Christ, therein to participate of the holy Sacrament, untill their re­pentance and reformation; namely all ignorant and prophane persons, which neither beleeve a right, nor live accordingly. For the congrega­tion of Christ is called the Commu­nion of Saints,Act. 26. being sanctified by faith in Christ, and by his word and Spirit.

The second thing is, to enquire and consider how this Church of Christ is to be governed. To finde this out is no difficulty. First, sure it is, that none but Christ is supreme and immediate Lord, King, and Go­vernor of his Church, whether of the Catholique, or of every particu­lar church or congregation rightly constituted (as aforesaid) so as no power on earth hath any authority to prescribe Lawes for the governe­ment of this Church, whether for [Page 59] doctrine or discipline, whether for faith or worship, but onely Christ, whose written Word and Law is the onely rule of this government; which Law all Princes (who are therefore called Custodes utrius (que) Ta­bulae) are bound by him, whose Vicegerents they are, to see well ob­served both by Ministers and peo­ple. Here then wee will speake of the Officers which Christ hath appointed over every Christian con­gregation: and those are either Mi­nisters or other officers of the peo­ple. First for the Ministers, they are called by sundry titles, asAct. 20. Tit. 1. 5. 7. Bishops or Presbyters,Eph. 4. 11. Pastors and Tea­chers,Luke. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 11. 23. Ministers,Luk. 10. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 9. Act. 6. 4. Mat. 28. 20. Act. 20. 7. Mat. 20. 25, 26. Labourers, and the like. Their principall office is to * pray to preach the word to administer the Sacraments. And these Ministers, however stiled in Scripture, are all of equall authority, not one over another, nor one over many, nor many over one, each be­ing [Page 56] in his place & peculiar congre­gation under Christ alone, as the King of his Church, to whom he is accountable:Heb. 13. 17. and under Christ, to the civill Magistrate, as being a sub­ject.

But here a question may be mo­ved,Quest. whether a Synod of Ministers, or of the churches, have not power over any one Minister, and so over all the Congregations, either to cen­sure particular persons or congrega­tions, or to prescribe and impose or­ders, Rites, Canons, or the like?

For answer:Answ. Some are of opini­on that a Synod hath authoritie to binde particular churches to such rites as they shall prescribe and impose. And they alledge that Sy­nod or assembly of the Apostles,Act. 15. wherein were determined certaine observances which they sent and imposed on the churches of the new convert Gentiles, as necessary for them to observe, some wherof were [Page 57] Iewish ceremonies. Hence they conclude, That a Synod collected of the churches, hath power over par­ticular churches, to ordaine and im­pose ceremonies as necessary to bee observed. But this act of the Apo­stles is no president or patterne for succeeding ages. The reason is first, because the Apostles were inspired with the holy Ghost, which wholly guided them in all matters of the Church; so as in that their determi­nation they say expressely,Act. 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen. Now what Synod in any age after the A­postles could ever say, that they were infallibly inspired and assisted by the holy Ghost? If any can infal­libly assure me hereof, that a Synod after the Apostles cannot erre, but that they can truly say, It pleased the holy Ghost and us: then I will obey all their Decrees.

Secondly, That injunction of the [Page 58] holy Ghost and of the Apostles was but [...], for that present time, for the avoyding of offences betweene Iewes and Gentiles, who in every city conversed together: Which James the Apostle alledgeth for the only reason of that determi­nation.Act. 15. 21. But we reade not in all the writings of the Apostles afterward, that they either ordained or impo­sed the least rite or ceremonie to bee observed in any of the Churches of God; yea, they expressely condem­ned all such ordinances, as before is shewed.

But here another question ari­seth: If particular congregations be not subject to bee ruled by Synods, or the like jurisdiction, what order can be expected, or what meanes is left for ordaining of Ministers over every congregation?

For answer, briefely: First for order; What better or surer order can be, than that which Christs [Page 59] Word hath set down? And if in any thing doubts arise in a Congregati­on, they have other congregations with the Ministers to consult with. For although every particular con­gregation be an absolute church, ha­ving no jurisdiction over it but Christs alone, and that immediatly; yet it is not separated or divided from the neighbour churches, so as that it should not hold communion with them, or a consociation, com­municating together in all mutuall offices of helpe, counsel, comfort, re­solution in doubts, advice in diffi­culties, and the like: this beeing the priviledge and benefit of the com­munion of Saints, which is not li­mited to one particular congregati­on onely within it selfe, but com­prehendeth all the Members of the Catholique church, wheresoever they are visible in any assemblies: so as if any one congregation fall into an errour, it is by others to bee ad­monished [Page 60] and conuinced, that it may be reformed. If it fall into any foule heresie (which yet is not easie in a well constituted Church) it must bee dealt withall accordingly as the case shal require: the churches assembled must labour to reduce it, and if after all meanes it proove in­corrigible, when there is no reme­die they must renounce communi­on with that congregation. And if that congregation shall bee further troublesome, in breaking the peace of the Churches, or of the civil state, it is liable to such punishments as by the good lawes of the land are allotted to such and such offences. For although no power on earth hath power over mens consciences in matters of religion, yet God hath in his ordinance set up civil powers and Magistrates,Rom. 13. whom he hath ar­med with authority to punish such as doe openly transgresse either the Lawes of God, or the just Lawes of [Page 61] the civil state. For the Magistrate is Gods Minister, 1 Pet. 2. 14. both for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise and protection of them that doe well. And for the better and more easie way for the civill Power to take cogni­sance of things of that nature, it will become the duty of all the churches, in a Synod or otherwise to convince the parties offending, and if obsti­nate, to complaine of them to the civill Magistrate. Thus it is with a congregation as it stands in relation to other Churches, and in a subjecti­on to the civill power.

Now for a congregation consi­dered in it selfe, if a member therof do offend in any kinde, what is to be done, or who shall censure it? I answer: If the offence bee against the Law of Christ, or his governe­ment over that congregation, then the same congregation hath power given from Christ to censure the Delinquent; when after all due [Page 62] means he remains obstinate and in­corrigible; as 1 Cor. 5. But if the of­fence be against the law of the civil State, he is then punishable accord­ing to that law, by the civill Magi­strate.

But here another question ariseth, Whether the Minister or Pastor of the congregation alone have power of censure committed unto him, or together with the congregation?

I answer: Together with the congregation; which therefore ele­cteth certaine officers, such as are most eminent for integrity, gravity, holinesse, knowledge, and judge­ment in matters of the congregati­on, to represent the congregation, and to assist the Minister in govern­ment and correction of manners: And who fitter to take knowledge of home-delinquents, than such as best know them? And who are likeliest to use mercy, compassion, and moderation in such censures, [Page 63] and better means of the delinquents amendment, than such as are their godly neighbours?

And these officers, either for the gravity of their yeares or manners, are called Elders. TheD. Hall, in his Episcopacy by Divine right. Prelats can­not endure the name of lay Elders; but in Scripture we find them. For [...], an Elder, is taken both for a Minister of the Word, and for a Lay Elder, as they call it: as, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, bee accounted worthy of double honor, espe­cially they who labour in the Word and doctrine. Where Elders plainly sig­nifie both such as rule, and such as preach, distinct one from the other. So Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. He that ruleth is a distinct officer from him that tea­cheth & prophecieth. And so, 1 Cor. 12. 28. After Prophets or Teachers, are set Helps, governments, or helps in government, as our Translation hath it. These Governors then sim­ply considered, were not Ministers [Page 64] of the Word, but Lay men, as they call them. We could produce some Antients that speake of these lay go­vernors or Seniors; but at present for brevities sake wee omit them. The antient Church of the Iewes had such Elders, as we reade, called Masters of the Synagogue, Act. 13. 15. And if antiently; in and after the A­postles time, there were not such Elders, how came it to passe after­ward under Antichrist, that the go­vernment of every particular con­gregation was delivered unto those of the Laity, whom we call church­wardens and Side men, who are to assist the Minister in matters of the Church, though not in matter of censure, which the Prelacy hath wholly usurped and monopolized to it selfe, having thrust out and ut­terly exterminated, as much as in them lieth, the very name and me­mory of Lay Elders, had wee not some records thereof in the lasting [Page 65] monuments of the Scripture? Yea, let the Prelates tell us, how all that Lay Eldership (as I may call it) of Chancellors, Commissaries, and the rest, came to be set up, but to supply (in some sort) those antient Lay El­ders, whom the Apostles had set up, and whom Antichrist puld down, as being the main hinderance of the setting up of his Hierarchy? For how had the Prelacie mounted to that height of power over the whole Church, had the Lay Elders still continued in governing, with godly Ministers, the several congre­gations respectively? So as the re­moving of the Lay Elders, and the bringing in of Churchwardens and other Lay Officers into the church, all subject to the Prelates jurisdicti­on, and made their sworne vassals, was the very up-setting of the Anti­christian Throne in the Temple of God. And this is that order of go­vernment, without which the Pre­lates [Page 66] cry out, There is no order. Whereas that order which the Apo­stles left, in governing the Church by Ministers ann Lay officers, is the onely true Order. Those words of Christ, Goe tell it to the Church, doe shew, That censure of incorrigible faults was in the power of every Congregation. So 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. &c.

In the second place, to the former question concerning the ordaining of Ministers in every congregation, in case there be neither Diocesan Bishops, nor Synods to perform it: I answer, first, That most men doe greatly mistake that here which they call Ordination of Ministers. The Romanists have scrued it up to one of their seven Sacraments, ma­king the Imposition of hands upon the Priests head by the Prelate, to be the outward signe of that inward grace, which ex opere operato (as they say) is conferred upon the Priest. [Page 67] And even many Protestants are of opinion, that Ordination cannot be performed but by a Prelate, or at least by Ministers onely, as without whose imposition of hands it were no Ordination, or as if it did confer such an order. Whereas the prime and proper conferring of this Order is by Christ himselfe, inwardly cal­ling and gifting a man for the work of the Ministry.

Secondly then, what is that [...], ordaining and appointing of Ministers? and [...], the Imposition of hands, which the Scripture speakes of?

I answer: [...], signifying properly a stretching out of the hand, it was used either in lifting up of the hands in token of sufferage in election of officers, or in stretching out of the hand upon the head of the man chosen, for confirmation. Also when it was used by the Apo­stles, it pleased God to bestow ther­with [Page 68] the gifts of the holy Ghost,Act. 8. 17. and on some recovery of health.Mar. 16. 18. This was very frequent in the Apostles times: But afterwards in succes­sive ages there was no such gift an­nexed to the laying on of hands. Se­condly, Therefore it was of use ac­cording to its antient and ordinary custome in sufferages in elections of officers, to declare assent and appro­bation of those for such and such places, when after prayer hands were layd on them.

But by whom was this Impositi­on of hands used at the choice of Ministers? I answer, By those who gave their sufferages or votes to the election; and those were sometimes the congregation it selfe, and some­time others at their request joyning with them: as we reade, Act. cap. 6. 5, 6. And all Ecclesiasticall stories tell us, that antiently the election of Ministers was by every congregati­on respectively. So as to them also [Page 69] of right belonged the laying of their hands, as a token of their approbati­on and confirmation of him that was so chosen to that office. And though we reade in one place, That the Apostle layd his hands upon Ti­mothy, as 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet in another we reade, (as 1 Tim. 4. 14.) that the Presbyterie layd their hands upon him. Which Presbyterie compre­hends as well the Elders of the peo­ple, as those of the Ministry. Ac­cordingly, wee exclude not the El­ders or Ministers of other neighbo­ring congregations from joyning in that worke, for assistance especially in prayer, for a blessing upon the new chosen Minister. For so farre must we be from excluding any in this kinde, that wee highly com­mend consociation and communi­cation of gifts for assistance, where it may be conveniently had. Onely reserving to each congregation that peculiar interest and right, which [Page 70] every true Church of Christ hath in chusing their owne Ministers, and other Church officers.

And this stands with good rea­son: for not onely antiquity both in and from the Apostles times plea­deth for this, but even naturall rea­son and equity. For reason willeth that such as chuse should ratifie.

Secondly, Those who give the maintenance should chuse the Offi­cer.

Thirdly, Who have commonly better Ministers than those Congre­gations, that upon good advice and counsell chuse them themselves.

Fourthly, Where is greater love betweene Minister and people, than where the liberty of such a choyce is enjoyed.

Fiftly, What vertue at any time doth a Prelates imposition of hands adde to Ministers so ordained by him? Or what bee those Ministers whom Prelates usually place over [Page 71] the people? And I would aske any reasonable Christian, whether hee would not rather have the appro­bation, prayer, and imposition of hands, of the poorest godly man, than of the most glorious Prelate? Yea, though hee were stiled even Grace it selfe? For as James saith, The effectuall fervent prayer of a righ­teous man prevaileth much. Iam. 5. 16. It is not sayd, The prayer of a great or lear­ned man.

CASE XII.
How far may and ought true refor­med Christian Congregations to hold communion among themselves; and with other Reformed Churches?

FOr answer in generall: First in generall, it is agreeable to good and approved examples in Scripture, to make firme leagues and faithfull Covenants for the maintenance of the true faith and religion of Christ. See for this, 2 Chron. 15. 12, 13. and Chapter 34. 31, 32, 33. Ezra 10. 3, Nehem. cap. 9. 38.

Severally, in particular: It stands [Page 73] both with Christian piety and pru­dence, for all the members of a par­ticular Church or congregation, to enter into a firme covenant among themselves, to maintain a holy com­munion together in the profession of the truth, and practise of a holy life, as becommeth the communion of Saints.

Thirdly, It stands with the like Christian piety and prudence, to hold a sweet and inviolable bond and communion with all other churches or congregations rightly constituted, as we conceive, accor­ding to Christs ordinance, and wal­king according unto it.

Fourthly, If there be any Christi­an Churches that doe in some small circumstances differ from us, in that forme of government which wee conceive and beleeve Christ hath set up in his Word, so as therein they may seem to come short of that exactnesse that is required, nor yet [Page 74] are able to attaine unto it, either in regard of some outward difficultie or human imperfection and frailty, the judgement being as yet not fully enlightned and perswaded (concer­ning which the Apostles rule is, Let every man bee fully perswaded in his owne minde) wee do notwithstand­ing not with-hold from them the right hand of fellowship; but hold communion with them as the churches of Christ, they holding the Orthodox Truth, and the substance of the government, which is sutea­ble to the Church of Christ, and joy­ning with us against the Common Adversaries of the Gospell: conclu­ding with that excellent saying of our Savior Christ,Mark. 9. 40. They that are not a­gainst us, are on our part.