The way towards THE FINDING OF A DECISION OF The chief controversy now debated CONCERNING Church Government.  
LONDON, Printed in the year 1641.   

The Way towards THE FINDING OF A DECISION OF the chief controversy now debated concerning Church-government.  
FIRST, I presuppose I am to speak to men that make conscience of their ways, and consequently study to walk by a rule. I presuppose in the second place, that the rule by which they desire to walk, is chiefly the clear word of God, but where this cannot be had, that the principles and inditements of sound reason they will not reject: and lastly, when reasonings may be doubtful, that they will neither be singular and wilful in their own sense, but inclining to hear the judgement of others, nor unwilling to yield unto that, wherein all such as are esteemed to be most rational do agree: with such men I desire to speak, and would tell them that I find in the controversy of this time, divers little Treaties put forth, many bitterly, and indiscreetly, some modestly, and wisely written; some for, and some against Episcopacy, all of them standing for particular tenets, labour to uphold their own form of government as the best, and only lawful ordinance of God. None that I have met withal do look upon the matter without partiality to seek concerning the points chiefly to be questioned, a Decision, which I think may be taken from undoubted grounds, and undeniable principles. Therefore I thought it might be of use to put something to paper also in this kind, as it were to make a trial, whether or no the way to decide this great controversy might not be found out so as to give present satisfaction to the more simple and scrupulous; and to show to the more learned and judicious (whose doubts lie deeper) a method whereby to resolve themselves, if they will follow the same without prejudice, I shall endeavour to do.  
I take then the matter chiefly questionable, though not hitherto mainly, and expressly questioned to be this. Whether or no Christ hath not for the uniting and building up of his Church, instituted some overseers or Bishops (for I use these names indifferently) to be before, and above others in Church government? or whether for the uniting and building up of his Church, he hath made all overseers to be equal and independent one from another?  
If the first be affirmed, than the question must be what that Priority, and Superiority is which Christ hath allowed of? and how it ought to be exercised above others? But if the last be maintained, than we must be taught, what that prime and unsubordinate Authority of every overseer is, in his peculiar charge? and how he should exercise it? Now to find a way to decide these questions, I am as one who is doubtful, that I may bear a part of the burden of those who are in doubt. Therefore to be able to resolve myself, it will be necessary to lay some grounds from whence inferences may be made appliable to the questions now in hand.  
The grounds must be clear doctrines of holy Scripture, concerning the matters which are fundamental in the question. The inferences must be rules taken from those doctrines, whereby my understanding may be directed to go the straight way towards a decision of the question, and the application must be a consideration of the particular circumstances of things now debated, so far as they are determinable by the rules which may be found out.  
Thus then to find grounds of Decision I must take notice first, of things fundamental to the question, which I suppose are these.  
1. To what end Christ hath gathered together and compacted into one body several believers which are called his Church?  
2. What it is properly to build up his Church?  
3. What Officers were appointed by Christ to be the builders of his Church?  
4. What their several charges and duties were in the Church, and how they were to administrate the same every one according to his gift and place?  
5. How these that were committed to their charge, were to behave themselves towards them?  
6. How according to the intention of Christ and the rules proceeding from his spirit, the chief builders his immediate followers the Apostles did put all in execution? here then their practice in the way of government is to be taken notice of.  
If these things can be found clearly in Scripture, I hope they will afford me some light, to satisfy the doubts of my weak conscience, which now must be full of scruples for other men's sakes.  
But when I shall have gathered all that from clear Scripture can be gathered in these matters, if yet something should be found obscure, and doubtful concerning particulars now agitated, whereof perhaps no clear precept is extant in Scripture from whence I may be able to gather such inferences as may settle my conscience and put it out of doubt concerning some questions in government, as whether this or that, in such or such a case ought either to be or not to be done. Then I think I should do well to look first, upon the Apostles practice in like cases, or if that be perhaps also either unknown or not well known, as not recorded in the word, than I suppose it will not be amiss to consider the laudable practice of other times, and chiefly those who most immediately followed the apostolical age, taking notice of that which they did in such like cases; that if perhaps in all Churches of all ages and places, I find some undoubted tokens of universal consent, I may be willing to rest in it, and not affect singularity; chiefly if I should also find, that all the Churches of this present age, do either consent fully thereunto, or at least do not so far dissent from the same, as to condemn others who follow not their different practice in such cases. In all which Churches I say, I ought to take notice in those cases, which shall be thus doubtful, of their forms of government so far as I shall find the same subordinate unto the main end for which Christ gathered his Church, and not repugnant but consonant unto the rules and practice of the Apostles which are clearly recorded.  
For I conceive that if it can be made apparent, that either the end for which Christ gathered a Church, or the means of building it up appointed by him, or the rules and constitutions of the Apostles delivered to the builders which were to be their followers; or their own practice in governing the Church according to God's will, is repugnant to all Priority, and Superiority, of one Pastor above another, than it must be granted, that no such government ought to be admitted. But if this not only cannot be made apparent, but rather the contrary, namely that both the aim of Christ in compacting his Church into one body, and the means by which it is to be built up, and the rules given to the builders, and the practice of the chief Master builders, whom I take to have been infallible in the way of public government, do show forth that a Priority and superiority of one overseer above another, is allowed of: then me thinks the first question will be decided, and must be answered yea: but then the second question will come into consideration, namely that Priority, and Superiority, is which being according to Christ's aim, is answerable unto the means of mutual edification, is settled by express rules, was practised by the Apostles themselves, and hath been continued by all their followers, from the most incorrupt primitive times, until this present age? which if I can by clear word of Scripture, and testimony of Authors worthy of credit, in all ages find out, than I think I ought to set my mind at rest, and cast off further doubtings.  
If this rule of proceeding towards a decision of the matter, be thus without further restriction and exception admitted, than my next care must be to follow it closely, and take heed lest it be unsappled to things indifferent, either in nature or proportion, from those wherein Christ and his Apostles with their true followers in times most incorrupt were conversant.  
Now then to make only at this time a brief trial of this way (for hereafter if need be matters may be enlarged) I will summarily observe that which is clear Scripture concerning the forenamed heads.  
First, I find that the end wherefore Christ would have all his believers compacted and gathered into one body, is that the world should believe and know these two things: That the Father hath sent his son to us, and that the Father loveth the believers as he loveth his son. This is clear in Ioh. 17. 21, 22, 23. Another end of this union is that the believers may be able to build up themselves in grace. This is clear in Ephes. 4. 16. Another end is, that they may preserve themselves from the dangers of adversaries, and the causes of overthrow, Phil. 1. 27, 28. Gal. 5. 13, 14, 15. And a further end is the holding up of the credit of God's kingdom in the world, as well by life, as by doctrine, Phil. 2. 1, 2, 3. and sequent: but chiefly verse 14, 15, 16. From whence I suppose these assertions may safely be gathered as rules of future Decision.  
1. If the knowledge and faith of Christ, if the father's love to all believers be made manifest unto the word, if the building up of all believers amongst themselves, if their preservation from adversaries, and if the credit of God's kingdom both in life & doctrine, be upheld in the Church of God, more directly justly and safely by a Priority and Superiority of overseers one above another, then by an independency of spiritual persons and charges one from another, than it is to be conceived, that a Priority and Superiority of overseers in Christ's Church, is more answerable to his aim in compacting it into one body, than an independency. But it may be conceived, that these ends may be attained more directly, justly and safely by the one, then by the other. Therefore it may be conceived, that the one is more answerable to his aim then the other.  
2. If there be any Priority and Superiority of spiritual charges, and persons, or any parity and independency of charges amongst persons which is not subordinate, but repugnant unto those ends; than it is to be conceived that such both Priority and superiority, as also parity and independency is altogether unlawful. But perhaps there is some both Priority, and Superiority, as also independency and parity, not subordinate but repugnant to these ends: therefore it is to be conceived, that perhaps some both parity and independency, as also Priority, and Superiority is unlawful.  
I take these assertions though doubtfully proposed in respect of particulars, to be nevertheless out of all doubt in their generality; and therefore I lay them as grounds of future directions towards a Decision of the point.  
Secondly, concerning the building up of the Church, I find in Scripture that to build up the Church of Christ is to use means to perfect the Saints till they all come unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, that they may not always be carried to and fro as Infants with divers winds of doctrine; but dealing truly in love may grow up in him, that is the head even Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love, Eph 4. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.  
These are words of exceeding deep and great sense, and yet me thinks exceeding clear if they be resolved into single propositions, which now I will not stand to do, because I must be brief. Therefore I will again take up these rules.  
1. If it may be conceived, that a Priority and Superiority of some spiritual overseers over others, be a more direct and proper means then a parity, and independency of the same is, to bring all the Saints of God unto the unity of Faith, and Knowledge, and therein to a perfect manly stature, and the measure of the fullness of Christ; then I am bound to think that a priority and superiority is more answerable to Christ's intention in building up his Church, than is a parity and independency, but the Antecedent is perhaps true; therefore the Consequent perhaps also.  
2. If I find that the independent parity of Ministers doth keep the Saints of God always in infancy, suffering them to be carried to and fro with divers winds of Doctrine, and maketh an open way to the slight and cunning craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; then I am bound to think that an independent parity of Ministers is not answerable to Christ's intention in building up his Church. But I find that the independent parity of Ministers doth perhaps this. Ergo I must conclude that it is not perhaps answerable to Christ's intention in building up his Church.  
3. If the independent parity of Overseers may seem to me repugnant to that fit joining and compacting of all believers into one body, whereby as members one of another they should supply by their common joints each one towards another that which according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, should make the increase of the body to build itself up in love; and if a priority and superiority of Overseers may seem not at all repugnant, but most consonant to this kind of work, than I may conceive that the independent parity is not at all, and that the superior priority is altogether answerable unto Christ's intention in building up his Church; but the former may seem so to me, and therefore also the latter.  
Thirdly, concerning the Officers, we find in Scripture these by name: 1. Apostles, 2. Prophets, 3. Evangelists, 4. Pastors and Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11. elsewhere we find other names of Gifts and Offices; as workers of Miracles, Gifts of Healing, helps, governors, Diversities of tongues, Interpreters of tongues, 1 Cor. 12. 28, 29, 30. Item, Deacons, Exhorters, Rulers, Rom. 12. 7, 8. and Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, 1 Tim. 3. 1, 8. and 5. 17, 18, 19  
From whence I make these inferences. 1. If these Officers appointed for the first building of Christ's Church were by degrees set in a priority and superiority one above another, than I may conceive that a priority and superiority of spiritual Officers is not repugnant to the government of Christ's Church. But these Officers were so set in relation of degrees one above another; therefore I may conceive that such a gradation of spiritual Officers is not repugnant to the government of Christ's Church.  
2. If there was no independent parity in the first Officers instituted in Christ's Church, than I have reason to conceive that an independent parity is not answerable to Christ's intention, in instituting Officers in his Church. But there was no independent parity in these first Officers instituted in the Church: Therefore I have reason to conceive, that an independent parity is not answerable to Christ's intention.  
Here two things may be objected or excepted against this Rule of Decision. First, that the Apostles who were Christ's first Officers were equal one to another, and independent one from another. But to this I answer, That I speak not of the Officers appointed before the constitution of the Church, but of those that are named expressly to bear office in the Church already constituted. Secondly, if then it be said, that the inequality of these first Office-bearers doth proceed from the difference of extraordinary and ordinary Officers, then requisite at the first constitution of the Church which is not now requisite after it is once constituted; then I answer, that here I neither intend nor have need to consider which Officers were extraordinary, and which ordinary, because I take notice of them only at this time as they were Officers extant at first, to build up the Church; and my inference goeth no further as yet; nor must I come to admit of that distinction in my thought, till the matter itself carry me to it.  
Fourthly, I find the several charges and duties of these Officers to be these.  
1. Christ sending forth his Apostles appointeth them to be his witnesses unto the utmost parts of the earth, of that which he hath done for our salvation, Acts 1. 8. Also he giveth them charge to teach all men to observe whatsoever he had commanded them, and to baptise those that received their doctrine, Matth. 28. 19 20. This they did, and so gathered a Church together; wherein at first, the faithful having all things common, brought their goods to the Apostles feet, making them distributers thereof unto such as had need. But the Apostles found this charge imposed upon them to be too troublesome, and not proper unto their spiritual calling; therefore they betook themselves unto their own peculiar charge which was to attend unto prayer, and the ministry of the word; Acts 6. 4. and gave advice that Deacons, should be chosen, whose peculiar charge at their first institution, was to serve the tables, Ibid. verse 2, 3. yet it is evident that they also preached the word, and bore witness of Christ, Ib. verse 9 10. and Cap. 8. verse 5. and baptised the believers, Ib. Chap. 8. vers. 12. 38.  
Besides these Deacons, we find that the Church being constituted, other Officers in it are named and said to be different in charges. As the charge of Prophets was to prophesy according to the analogy of faith, of Deacons to attend their Deaconship, of Teachers to attend teaching, of Exhorters to attend exhorting, of Distributers to distribute, of Rulers to rule with diligence, Rom. 12. 6. 7. 8. of speakers with tongues to speak, and of Interpreters to interpret, 1 Cor. 14. 27.  
Besides these duties thus generally mentioned, we find more particular charges mentioned. As first, concerning the duties of Prophets, how they ought to prophesy, & of speakers with tongues, how they ought to speak unto edification in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.  
Secondly, concerning Rulers, where we find the charge given to Timothy, and Titus, either as Evangelists, or as ordinary Bishops, and Overseers of the Churches, next unto the Apostles; their charge was to set in order things which the Apostles left undone for the constituting of the Churches; amongst which the ordaining of Elders, and Deacons in every Church, was a chief duty belonging to them, 1 Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. item To repress and inhibit false doctrines, 1. Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 10. 11. item To settle a course of prayers in the Church, 1 Tim. 2. 1. item To appoint due maintenance for widows, and Elders, 1 Tim. 5. 9 17. 18. item To be Judges in matters of accusation against Elders, ibid. verse 19 and to give imposition of hands to those that were approved and fit for the ministry, ibid verse 22. item To maintain their authority, & not to suffer themselves to be despised therein, 1 Tim. 4. 12. Tit. 2. 15. And lastly, to commit the things which they had heard of the Apostles, unto faithful men, able to teach others who should be successors in that place, 2 Tim. 2. 2. As for other Rulers in the pastoral charge, their duty is specified to be a watching over the souls of their flock as those which must give an account, Heb. 13. 17. and in doing this, they are bound to call their sheep by name, to lead them out and to go before them, Ioh. 10. 3. 4. item To defend them against the wolves, though they hazard their life in so doing, ib. verse 11. item To visit the sick, & pray for them, Iam. 5. 14. item To keep the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to shut it, and open it as occasion shall require, Matth. 16. 19, and 18. 17, 18. and 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5.  
And then the general duty of all Officers is, that as every one hath received the gift, so he should minister the same to others as a good steward of the manifold graces of God, 1 Pet. 4. 10.  
From all this I make these inferences.  
1. If all these charges and duties are different, and yet should be administered jointly as by several members of one body, than it seems such a priority and superiority in some, and subordination in others, is to be observed as is in the members of a natural body, one in respect of another. But all these charges are different, and yet so to be administered as is mentioned, 1 Cor. 12. 4, 5. and till the end of the Chapter. Therefore it seems such a priority and superiority in some, and subordination in others, is to be observed.  
2. If these charges in their natural property as they stand in relation one to another, be repugnant to an independent parity, than there is no independent parity allowed of amongst the Officers who are to discharge the same. But it may perhaps be made good that these charges are in their natural property as they stand in relation one to another, repugnant to an independent parity, therefore perhaps there is no independent parity allowed of amongst the Officers who are to discharge the same.  
Fifthly, the duty of the flock is in a word to be obedient unto their Rulers, and to submit themselves unto them, Heb. 13. 7. 17. and to provide necessary maintenance for them, Gal. 6. 6. 8. 1 Cor. 9 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14.  
From hence I infer, that if submission and obedience is to be yielded, and if Rulers be different in charge, then according to every one's degree and different place in his charge, the submission ought to be differenced: But the Antecedent is true, and therefore also the Consequent. Therefore I conceive, that more respect was due unto Apostles even, as they were ordinary Ministers, than to their ordinary Rulers; and more to the Bishops and Overseers that were made judges of other Elders, then to the Elders that were subject to be judged; and more reverence due to the Elders then to the Deacons.  
Lastly, the practice of the Apostles as chief Masterbuilders was this: they laid the foundation which is Christ, 1 Cor. 3. 10, 11. they built by preaching upon the foundation gold, silver, and precious stones, they baptised the believers, and gathered them together in one body, and ordained Elders and Officers over them to rule them, and do the work of the ministry. See Acts 13. and 14. Chapters, and particularly in Chap. 14. the verses 21, 22, 23. They gave orders to their followers concerning all things needful for edification in the Churches, as may be seen in 1 Cor. Chapters 5, and 6, and 7, and 8, and 9, and and 10, and 11, and 12, and 14, and 16. verse 1. and in the 2 Cor. Chap. 8, and 9 in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus throughout, and elsewhere, as in the Acts in Chap. 6. and 15. and 20.  
From whence I infer, that if neither in the Apostles own practice, nor in the practice of those whom they set over the Churches in their own time there be any example of independent parity intimated or used in the way of ordinary government, than such a parity may seem to be inconvenient to be admitted into the Church of God.  
But perhaps no such example is to be found in their practice or in the practice of those whom they appointed to be ordinary Rulers of the Churches in their own time. Therefore an independent parity may seem inconvenient to be admitted.  
Thus I have briefly run over the fundamental matters of the first question in hand, not intending to determine any thing precisely, but to gather some rules of determination whereby the matter of priority and superiority in government may be tried more at large in due time.  
Only thus much I must now intimate, that my doubt concerning priority and superiority of spiritual Officers in the Church is so far resolved, that it seemeth not at all repugnant to me but rather more consonant and answerable to Christ's intention in the first institution of his Church, than an independent parity. And this is the first position wherein I receive some satisfaction to my doubts.  
If therefore any will contradict this position to make me again doubtful of it, I think he is obliged to show that an independent parity of Rulers is not only no less, but as much, and rather much more answerable to Christ's intention: and this he must show from the same grounds which I have laid, except he can show these to be insufficient, and lay some others that are more satisfactory: which if he doth, than it will be also requisite, that he define clearly what that prime and independent authority is, which every Ruler hath by himself in his particular charge.  
As for me, because I take this position as granted, that Christ did institute in the first constitution of his Church a priority and superiority of spiritual Officers; therefore I think I may safely gather, that for the building up and perpetual propagating of the same, his intention was not altered: which second position if any will deny, I suppose he will find himself obliged to show unto me sufficient and evident causes, why his intention should be altered: and therefore that frame of government which was either necessary or most convenient for the first constitution and building up of his Church, is inconsistent with the perpetual propagation thereof.  
But seeing I conceive it not likely that this can be shown, therefore I ought to proceed and come to the second question, to find out what the priority and superiority is which Christ doth allow of in the spiritual Rulers of the Church, and to find out this, it will be requisite to review again the grounds heretofore laid from whence the position hath been gathered, that a priority and superiority of Rulers in spiritual government is answerable to Christ's intention; which that we may do, let us begin at the last and go upward towards the first.  
The last of our grounds was the practice of the Apostles, which yieldeth no example to us of any independent pa●●ty, but rather of a superior priority which in the way of their ordinary government they used over others. For I suppose no man doubteth of this, but the Apostles were in the ordinary cou●se of their mystery above all other spiritual Officers which ordinarily ruled the Churches. If then it be granted that in the ordinary course of their ministry they were above others, the next thing to be sought after will be this, wherein their superiority did consist? and how far it was derived or not derived unto their successors?  
And to find out this, I conceive that in the Apostles discharge of their duty some thing was extraordinary, as being useful and requisite only for that time wherein they lived; and something ordinary and of perpetual use which was to be transmitted unto their successors.  
The extraordinary discharge of their apostolical duty was first to lay the foundation, and then to raise and settle that frame of Christ's Church upon the same which was most answerable to his kingdom: And to do this, God ●●dued them with extraordinary gifts, of tongues, of knowledge, of wisdom, of prudence, and of infallibility in truth and public government, and confirmed their authority with his own testimony bearing them witness as the Apostle saith, Heb. 2. 4. both with signs and wonders and with divers miracles and gifts of the holy Ghost; which by the imposition of their hands he conferred upon the believers, as is evident by Acts 8. 17. and 19 6.  
This I conceive was their extraordinary authority and discharge of their duty which should not be transmitted to any after them, but should rest in their persons & be for after times recorded in Scripture, that thereby they should become perpetual Apostles unto all ages; as being set on their thrones in God's word to judge the twelve tribes of Israel; so that their Apostleship although in respect of their personal condition it was temporary, yet in respect of their charge and message from God to his Church it is perpetual, and yet still extant in the Church.  
The ordinary discharge of their ministerial duty, was to bear witness of Christ unto the world, to declare by preaching the counsel of God unto mankind, to attend the work of prayer, and to govern the Church according to the rules by which they did at first constitute the same. For no doubt the Rules which they gave to others for the work of the ordinary ministry and Government, they themselves first observe, so that not only by precepts but by practice they left their examples to be followed as rules, see Phil. 3. 17. 2 Tim. 3. 10, 11. From whence I gather that what priority & superiority soever in the ordinary government of the constituted Church of God they used over other Ministers to whom the particular spiritual charge of a Church did belong, that the same priority and superiority may upon the like occasions be used in the same ordinary government: item, I gather further, that they did transmit their priority and superiority unto those whom they appointed to be their successors in the ordinary charge: I say they did transmit it either by express precepts, or by actual practice proposed to be an example unto them to be followed in like cases, for thus 2. Tim. 3. 10, 11. the Apostle recomendeth his own practice to be observed. And lastly, from both these inferences I gather a third conclusion, that if we will truly know what the priority and superiority of one spiritual governor is above another in the ordinary course of government, we must take notice of all the passages of apostolical practice in this case. And this will suffice at this time for an entry towards the determination of that which we seek for.  
The next ground going before this, was the precept of obedience and submission due by the members of the Church unto their Rulers that watched over them: the precept is clear, Heb. 11. 17. the rule inferred from thence was, that according to the difference of Rulers in the degrees of place, the submission and obedience was to be differenced. Now if I would know what the different degrees of Rulers are, I think I ought to observe the property which the Apostle addeth unto the office of a Ruler as a characteristical note of his charge when he calleth him a watching Ruler over the flock. From which property I gather this inference towards a further determination of the point in hand; namely that what priority and superiority soever may be found in the ordinary course of watching, practised by the Apostles, and so consequently transmitted unto their followers, that same priority and superiority in watching may be lawfully used now a days; and therefore if in the ordinary course of watching they did extend their care unto more particular congregations than one, than I think it may be safely concluded that such an extent of care in a priority and superiority of watching, and consequently of ruling, may also be used. And let this also suffice for a further entry at this time towards the determination of that which we seek for.  
Again, the ground precedent to this had four branches, whereof the last concerned the peculiar duty of perpetual Rulers, where we observed their charge to consist in watching over the souls of their flocks, by calling them, by leading them, defending them, visiting them, and keeping the keys of the heavenly sheepfold, to shut out the sheep, or let them in, as they should see occasion.  
From whence I gather this inference, that what priority and superiority soever, any ordinary Rulers had in the Apostles time above others in their watching over the flock, by calling, leading, defending, visiting and keeping the keys of the fold, that now also the same priority & superiority may be lawfully exercised: and if it can be made apparent, that any ordinary rulers had a priority and superiority of watching above others which extended itself unto more congregations than one, than I suppose it may safely be concluded that such a superior priority of watching may be lawfully exrcised.  
The other concerned the peculiar charge of Timothy and Titus as they were either Evangelists, or ordinary overseers, I take them either way and look upon that which they had to do, and say thus: If all the things which they had recommended to them be of perpetual use in the Church of God, than what priority and superiority soever they had over others in their course of government for the administration of those charges, that same may now also be made use of, and is requisite to be in the Churches of all ages. But all things recommended to them as I conceive are of perpetual use.  
Therefore the priority and superiority which they had for the administration of the same may also be made of: for although it be said that Timothy and Titus were no ordinary overseers but Evangelists that is extraordinary, yet I cannot conceive them (no more than I do the Apostles themselves) to be extraordinary governors of the Church, in these duties which are perpetually to be discharged in time to come; for what reason is there to think a man an extraordinary Officer for discharging an ordinary duty? as for the rest who are called Prophets, Teachers, Exhorters, Deacons, Distributers, Speakers of tongues, and Interpreters of tongues; all these though something there might be extraordinary in them, yet so far as the substance of the office is in some kind, or altogether remaining until this day in the Church, so far also that relation of priority, or posteriority of superiority or inferiority, wherein they stood one towards another, or all towards the chief ruling watchmen of the Churches ought to remain.  
But it may be thought, that they stood under Timothy and Titus, as under chief watchmen, that they should be ordered and regulated by them in their public actions, according to apostolical rules; therefore it may be thought also that all Officers having the same charge now a days, aught to stand in the same relation under the like chief watchmen.  
And lastly, concerning the duties laid upon the Apostles and Deacons heretofore mentioned; if there be nothing extraordinary therein for substance, but only in respect of certain circumstances of that time, of their persons, and of the outward manner of that society wherein they lived at Jerusalem; than it may be thought that the authority whereby they ordered all things for the good of the Church, is not abolished, but regularly transmitted unto their successors, that in like cases it may be made use of by the chief watchmen over the Churches: From whence I gather, that what priority and superiority was deferred by the Church in temporal things, first, unto the Apostles, and afterward by them resigned unto the Deacons, may in like cases be exercised in these times. And this may suffice also concerning this matter to give yet a further entry towards the determination of the point in hand.  
Then the ground next precedent, was the distinction of Officers first instituted in the Church; from which I did infer, that if there was no independent parity, but a superior priority amongst them, that then a superior priority was not to be thought repugnant to Christ's intention in building up his Church: which being granted, I now proceed further to gather this, that if the superior parity was not ground upon the persons of the Officers, but upon the offices committed unto them, which in some respect were to be perpetual in the Church; then I may infer, that as the perpetual offices are in priority and superiority one above another, so the Officers must be distinguished by their degrees▪ and therefore to find out the degrees of subordination in the Officers, we must reflect upon the nature of the offices as they stand in relation one to another. And this also may suffice at this time towards a further determination of the point in hand.  
And then the ground that went before this, was that which concerned the building up of the Church, from whence as heretofore it hath been described, I infer this, that such a priority and superiority of spiritual Officers one above another as is most fit.  
1. To unite all Saints into one perfect man till they come to the fullness of the stature of Christ.  
2. To free them from the divers winds of doctrine, and deceit of seducers.  
3. To make them able to supply spiritual gifts one to another, for their mutual edification: is that priority and superiority which Christ doth allow of. If therefore we can observe what kind of priority and superiority is best able to work the effects; or if it be found that they cannot be brought to pass, except several congregations become as one body under one watching superiority, which may have an eye unto them all alike, than we shall be able yet more fully to determine this point in hand.  
And then the first ground of all was, that which described the ends wherefore Christ would have all believers united to one body. From whence I gather this, that the priority and superiority of officers in spiritual government, which is most fit to make the faith and knowledge of Christ apparent unto the world, to build up the believers amongst themselves, to preserve them from all adversaries, and to uphold the credit of God's kingdom, is most answerable to Christ's intention; and therefore to know what that priority and superiority is; the properties which can reach these ends must be found in it, which properties if they be not repugnant but rather consonant to that inspection which one overseer may have over others in many congregations; then it will follow, that such an inspection is not repugnant, but rather consonant to Christ's intention.  
And so I think I have found matter enough whereby the nature of that priority and superiority which is to be defined may be known: if we will meditate now fully upon these heads, and discuss more distinctly the particulars contained under the same, which in due time may be done by God's assistance.  
Thus I have laid grounds and gathered rules to resolve my doubts, first, whether yea or no a superior priority be more answerable to Christ's intention, than an independent parity in the government of his Church? Secondly, what that priority and superiority is? Now I must come to the consequent of this second question. viz. How this priority and superiority ought to be exercised towards others, and to determine this, we may gather rules from three grounds which clear Scripture doth yield unto us.  
The first ground is to be taken from the nature of the duty expressed in the peculiar name, wherein the singular properties of the charge is denoted.  
The second is to be found in the special commandments given to the chief Watchmen; according to which they were to behave themselves in their charge of superiority above others.  
The third is to be observed, in the examples and practice of those that commendably and lawfully exercised their authority over others; or in the discommendable practice of those that varied from the Rules.  
To touch these things, but in a word at this time; I observe from the chief Names, viz. of Shepherd, of Ruler, of Watchman, and of Bishop or overseer, that the property of Superiority standeth chiefly in the Relation which he that is set over others hath unto the members of the Church, who in comparison of him are like a flock of sheep; or like a commonwealth, and company of men; subject to certain Laws and Constitutions, by which they are to be directed in their joint course and way of life, and lest they should fall into some danger by transgressing the same; the inspection to be had over them is committed to his charge: So that if we take notice what the true essential property of a shepherd is in his leading superiority, or of a watchman set in the Tower of a city, or of an Overseer set to look to a family in a house, the same Priority & Superiority may be attributed unto the chief officers, which Christ hath appointed for his Church. From whence again I infer, that according as the flock is small or great, the watchtower high or low in a big or little city; the company less or more; so the superiority in the charge may be differenced, and by degrees extended or contracted.  
The name of Steward also is attributed unto the chief officer but not unto him alone; yet it employeth a power of dispensing these things which the M. of the house hath appointed to be given unto his household. Therefore as the things to be dispensed are different, and either more or less universally to be administered, so the difference of superiority may be observed in the Stewardship.  
The name of a husbandman is somewhat of an other kind, for it employeth a property rather of painfulness then of power and authority wherein we conceive, that according to the intent and nature of the soil, so the husbandry must be; for as the soil may be larger or lesser, so the Charge in the husbandry thereof may be differenced.  
In like manner, the name of Builder may be differenced according to the largeness of the house, and different duties in the building thereof.  
Lastly, the name of angel is given to the Chief Officer in a peculiar manner, as denoting a Superiority of message, wherein he is employed by God towards others, to declare his will and see it executed in his kingdom. For he is the ambassador of God unto his people, and hath the beams of his authority conferred upon him. Thus than I gather that all these names of Shepherd, Ruler, Watchman, overseer, Steward, Husbandman, Builder, and angel denote clearly a Superiority of Office over and towards the persons unto which they are appointed to discharge the same; nor do their properties seem repugnant to a gradation and differencing of that superiority which their name denoteth. 2ly. A peculiar manner of discharging the duty committed unto the Office-bearers in Christ's Church, for as each name hath a several signification, so it carrieth with it a peculiar relation which the Office bearer hath towards the Church, according to which he ought to behave himself in the manner of discharging his duty. And this will suffice to show in general the way, how this priority and superiority ought to be exercised towards others.  
The more particular determination of this matter must be taken from the special commandments which are given to this effect, which are many, and cannot now be insisted upon at large. therefore we will only point at them, in showing the places of Scripture, where they maybe found.  
The peculiar duties of a shepherd, and the manner of performing the same, are set forth, John 10. 1. till 16. and Ezek. 34. 2. till 20.  
The ruler's duty is mentioned, Rom. 12. 8. and Heb. 13. 17. and Math. 18. 17, 18, 19  
The watchman's duty is mentioned, Ezek. 3. 17, 18, 19, 20. 21.  
The Bishop's duty is largely mentioned in the Epistles to Timothy, and Titus, throughout, and chiefly in the places heretofore alleged concerning their peculiar charges, and 1 Thess. 5. 12, 13, 14  
The steward's duty is mentioned, Matth. 13. 52. & 24. 45. 1 Cor. 4. 1, 2.  
The Husbandmans and builder's duties are mentioned together, 1 Cor. 3. 6.  
The angel's duties are mentioned, Revel. 2. and 3. Chapters throughout. In all which places I do perceive that the manner of discharging their duties is chiefly insisted upon, as it hath a relation unto the flock; so that their Priority and Superiority is only in that respect, clearly to be gathered, namely from the duty which towards the flock is to be done: Therefore perhaps very little will be found tending to resolve us of the doubt in hand, namely, how the Priority and Superiority in Charge which one overseer may have above another, is to be exercised. Yet than if there be nothing at all repugnant unto this superior Priority of one overseer above another in the discharge of the duties here mentioned; then I say I ought to conceive that they may very well stand together: But if on the otherside any thing here mentioned in the manner of exercising these Charges of Superiority, be altogether inconsistent with an Independent parity of overseers, and yet if that which is to be done must be perpetually made use of in Church Government: then I say it may be strongly inferred, that as for this reason an independent parity is not to be admitted, so a superior priority ought to be allowed, yet always so, as it may be a furtheranc to all the duties of a particular pastoral charge; and no ways a cross to the true manner of discharging the same. And here I will leave it unto the impartial consideration of those that are judicious, whether or no the special commandments given unto Timothy and Titus for the discharging of that Priority and Superiority wherein they were set above other Officers, be not of perpetual use both in respect of the thing to be done, and in respect of the manner of doing the same, as it is recommended unto them; where special notice may be taken of that inspection, which is deferred unto them, over others, for the repressing of false Doctrines, for the ordaining of Elders in several Churches, for the imposition of hands, for the receiving of accusations against Elders, and for the power of the keys: which things ought still both for matter and manner to be continued as they were recommended unto Timothy and Titus, except some substantial difference can be showed, which as yet I cannot see.  
The examples of Practice both commendable and discommendable, in respect of the lawful or unlawful discharge of this duty, may be gathered from such places of Scripture, wherein the Acts of Priority and Superiority, and the manner of exercising the same are mentioned, I will name some few that come now in my mind.  
First, the practice of the Church, to which Christ doth send us in cases of scandal, Math. 18. 17. whose authority is established there, ver. 18, 19, 20.  
Secondly, the practice of the Apostles at Jerusalem, Acts 1. 15. till the end. And Chap. 6. in the ordination of Deacons. And Acts 15. in holding of the Synod, which determined the controversy risen at Antiochia. And Acts 14. 23. in ordaining Elders.  
Thirdly, the practice of Paul in the matter of excommunication, 1 Cor. 5. 3, 4, 5. and in the manner of exercising his power, 1 Cor. 9 throughout. And 2 Cor. 10. throughout. And ibid. Chap. 13. 2. 3. 10. Item, 1 Thess. 2. 3. till 12. Item, Acts 20. 20. 26, 27, 33, 34, 35.  
These are examples of commendable practice: the examples of practice which is discommended are these:  
First of Diotrephes, 3. John 9 10. who loved to have a preeminency.  
Secondly, of those that in the last times should be disobedient unto the truth through presumptuousness, who despising all Superiority should perish in the contradiction of Core, Judg. 21. by which we perceive that Core, Dathan, and Abiram, were types of that disobedience which will be under the gospel in some, who will take upon them to be equal, and in nothing inferior to their lawful superiors.  
Thirdly, the reproof of the Angels of the Churches for not exercising the authority which they had, Revel. 2. 14, 15, 20.  
These examples being well examined, I suppose, may give us some light to show the manner how the superior Priority which some have over others in the Church ought to be put in practice.  
Thus having laid the grounds, and gathered some inferences, whereby to regulate my thoughts in this doubtful matter. I think I may come to the application of the same unto the controversy at this time debated, to see by what means a decision thereof may be found. And here I must consider the circumstances and properties of that Authority which is now questioned, whether it be lawful or no? But when I intend to do this, I meet with a difficulty incident to all great disputes, which are commonly involved in a multiplicity of particulars and variety of circumstances; confusedly debated, and partially related by opposite parties, where every one seeketh his own advantage; so that it is very hard to state the case truly, according to the circumstances, which are most materially therein to be considered, that the Rules may be applied unto the fundamental matter of doubt, which ought to be decided.  
Yet if I must be impartial to clear mine own and other men's scruples, I ought to state the matter so, as both sides may agree to have the forenamed Rules applied thereunto; And to do this, I conceive, it is best to proceed from that which is general, till by degrees I come to that very particular, wherein the controversy and contradiction of parties is most apparent. To which effect, I reflect first upon this general assertion: Namely, that there be some Ecclesiastical overseers, which have a Priority and Superiority of government above others in the Church of England; to which, as it is, out of all doubt, that it is so in England, so in the general notion my former Rules are not repugnant; but rather agreeable, that it may be so.  
Then in the next place, I say, that this Priority and Superiority given to some in the Church of England, is in the purpose of the Law, by which it is publicly authorized; no more, but a Superiority and Priority of watching over others for the good of the Society. And this, I suppose, as it is granted by both sides to be true; so I think that it is not repugnant to my former Rules.  
Thirdly, I comceive that this watching Priority and Superiority intended by the Law, is appointed to be for this particular good of the Society; namely, that the Flocks committed to every overseers Charge, should be called and led on in the way of godliness, through the public profession of God's true worship, so as it may become most lawfully conspicuous unto the world. And to this effect, the overseers are authorized to see, that the flock be provided with fit Teachers, Pastors, and Deacons, by lawful election and ordination through imposition of hands, that it should be settled in a course of public prayers and ordinances, befitting the administration of Christian Religion; that it should be preferred from false Doctrines & ravennous Wolves: That it should not want a spiritual Judicature, as well in matters of accusation against Elders, as in matters of scandal and offence betwixt member and member; and that in it the power of the keys, to shut open the Kingdom of heaven, as occasion should require might not be wanting; and that such maintenance as is due unto these that labour in the Word and Doctrine, and necessary for the poor, the widow, and the fatherless, may be provided for them. Those I take to be the true ends, for which the superior Watchmen in the Church of England are appointed by the Church and State, to have inspection over other Watchmen of an inferior degree.  
And that such Superiority in watching may be exercised, I take it as granted from my former ground and Rules.  
So than I find no difficulty in the thing itself; nor do I think that any doth oppose a superior Priority of governors in this respect. But if any do, than I conceive they are bound to show, that in such things no Priority or Superiority in watching of some few over many, may lawfully be appointed in the Church of God; but that every particular Officer in all these things is independent, and may do herein by himself, whatsoever he shall think good, without all relation or subordination unto any, whom the Church doth appoint over such businesses.  
Therefore from the thing appointed, and the end wherefore it is appointed in this Church; I come to the manner of appointing it: and here I inquire whether this Priority, and Superiority in government, hath not been appointed by those who have authority to do it, that is, by the Church itself (here I mean by the Church, the body either representative or collective) according to the precepts of the Apostles, and the most laudable examples of primitive times? If yea, than I suppose no exception ought to be taken at it; but if no, than I think that the irregularity of the appointment, ought only to be excepted against and corrected, and the Office itself neither condemned nor rejected but maintained.  
Now what the apostolical Precepts were, or whether or no there were any at all ever given for the manner of appointing such Officers in the Churches, I do not know because I find nothing in Scripture more than I have intimated already; which is, that such superior Officers, are neither repugnant to Christ's intention, nor to the Rules and forms of Government expressly delivered unto us in Scripture; but how they to be appointed (that is to say) what manner of proceeding aught to be used for their Election, calling and institution in their superior Charge) I find nothing in Scripture that I can call to mind, except I will represent ancient types unto myself, from which I can perhaps gather no more but the shadows of inferences. Therefore in this case, I suppose, I must betake myself unto my next general ground of proceeding, which is the laudable practice of primitive times, to see what hath been done in like cases by those, whom we esteem to have been most rational in the ways of true government, and most likely to have seen and known the apostolical Practice if there was ever any in this kind, different from the ordinary way of appointing other Officers in the Church. But if it be more likely that the manner of appointing such superior Officers was rather not different in substance then different from the ordinary way of calling and installing other Officers; then perhaps it will not be amiss to reflect upon the most immediate followers of the Apostles, so as to take notice of their practice both in respect of the thing itself, viz. that they had such superior Officers; and of the manner of appointing them as it was most answerable unto the ordinary Institution. And this I will rather do from other men's Observations, then from mine own.  
I find then that doctor Reynolds in his Conference with Hart, Chapter 8. in the end of the third Division, and the beginning of the fifth doth well observe; when as Elders were ordained by the Apostles in several Churches, that in process of time they did use to assemble themselves, to the end that things belonging to mutual and common edification, might be done by mutual & common counsel and consent. In these meetings they did things orderly, and followed the examples of their predecessors in like occasions, to choose one who was to be of their company, and moderator of their actions.  
So amongst the Apostles at Jerusalem, James, Peter, and John, are called the Pillars, Gal. 2. 9 and in the meeting, Acts 15. the matter was concluded at the determination of Peter and James.  
Thus also in after times although there might be many Elders and Pastors in one Church, as at Ephesus, Acts 20. 17. yet it may be gathered from Revel. 2. 1. that there was one chief in that Church, whom Christ calleth the angel thereof, and directeth that to him which the rest were to know by his means. He was afterward from the Priority and Superiority of his Office by the Fathers called a Bishop; For it is apparent, that in ancient times there was one who had the Presidentship amongst the Elders.  
This doctor Reynolds in the forenamed gathereth from Cyprian, Epist. 6. & 13. Prebyteris & Diaconis. From Eusebius Histor. Eccles. l. 6. c. 42. and from Cornelius letter to Cyprian Epist. 46. apud Cyprian. which Doctor Usher also hath made more clear by some observations taken from Ignatius his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus, written but twelve years after the writing of the Revelation of Saint John, and from Tertullian who flourished about a hundred years after Ignatius, and from Leontius of Magnesia, who at the general council of Chalcedon testifieth that from Timothy until that time, there had been at Ephesus a continued succession of seven and twenty Bishops, which Bishops (no doubt) were none else but the precedents of the Ephesine Presbytery.  
These witnesses being next to the first times, and worthy of credit seem to make the matter of primitive, and (for aught that I see can be excepted) of apostolical practice also, out of doubt. And if this priority and superiority was such, and was in this manner, received and deferred to one above others; I conjecture, that it was by imitation of apostolical practice thus deferred and received, because I find nothing therein repugnant, but every thing rather, and every way consonant to apostolical Rules, so that unto this Bishop as President of the Presbytery all the power belonging to the ordinary Rulers did primely belong, which he by consent of the rest did exercise, or the rest by him did put to execution.  
And this I conceive was the practice of the Apostles themselves in their course of ordinary government, as may be gathered, from Acts, 3. 15. & 1 Cor. 5. This in my apprehension is also most answerable to the rules of perpetual government given unto Timothy and Titus. and this is every way consonant to the distinction of officers in the Church to the means of building up the Church & to the intention of Christ in uniting all believers into one body, and therefore may without scruple be believed to have been the practice of the first primitive and incorrupt times▪ which being granted as I think it should, than I ought not to make any more doubt of the matter; chiefly if from that time to this day; and now also at this time, in all the Christian and protestant Churches except only those that are in fear of danger by reason of the abuse of this authority, or are under the cross of a superstitious State-government) either the undoubted footsteps or the manifest use of such a Priority and Superiority hath been in all ages and places and still is in some measure to be found which if I perceive so to be, as truly I do; then I judge that my mind should fully be at rest, and trouble itself no more about this matter. Thus I have satisfied most of mine own doubts so far as I conceive them to be common both to the simple and more learned. There be some other Scruples more proper to those that dive deeper into matters, which I know not if it be fit to propose to every one lest in stead of taking away ordinary, we may ordinary, we might raise extraordinary scruples; therefore till I be better resolved, what ought to be done in this, and perceive how far this way of deciding matters doth give satisfaction unto divided Judgements. I think it will not be amiss to surcease. In the mean time such as are spiritual, aught to exhort all sides not to censure one another, with rigour, nor to do things with passion and rashly, or to judge of persons according to the outward appearance, but to judge righteous judgement which may be done if they will study to separate in these particular courses and different opinions of most men, the precious from the vile, and apply themselves rather to heal then to exasperate sores, rather to build up then to pull down. The Lord give us all understanding that keeping the foundation as well in knowledge as in practice we may through Charity build thereon, not hay and stubble, but Gold, Silver and, precious stones, yet when we shall be careful, first to keep ourselves without blame in the midst of this froward generation, we may then also be able to hold forth unto all the word of life; & making a difference have compassion of some and save others with fear as pulling them out of this fire of endless strife and contention. Now the Lord enable us to do this in the Spirit of lenity, with godly zeal to his Glory, Amen.  
FINIS