THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER Of Particular CHURCHES, NO NOVELTY.  
Proved from Scripture, Reason, Antiquity, and the most Eminent Modern DIVINES.  
OR, A Discourse of the Church, in a Scripture Notion, with her Extent, Power and Practice, tending to Moderate the Minds of Men, toward Dissenters in Matters Ecclesiastical, and to acquit such from the Charge of Innovation, Faction, Separation, Schism, and Breach of Union and Peace in the Church, who cannot conform in many things to the Rules, Canons, and Practices of others.  
By a Lover of Truth, Peace, Unity, and Order.  
London, Printed Anno Dom. M.DC.LXXV.   

THE DISCIPLINE AND ORDER OF Particular CHURCHES no Novelty, etc.  
THE Church of God, since the days of the Gospel, was, and is (according to Scripture-expressions) either, first, the whole Body of Christ, consisting of all the Elect, 
See the disputation against Campion at the Tower, Sep. 18. 1581. in the Morn. by Tulk. and Goad.  as Eph. 5.23. Christ the head of the Church, the Saviour of the Body, ver. 27. That he might present to himself a Glorious Church, ver. 25. Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it. So Heb. 12.22, 23. To the General Assembly and Church of the First born written in Heaven, etc. Col. 1.18. He is the Head of the Body, the Church, etc. Dr. Carleton, sometime Bishop of Chichester, in his little Piece, Called, A Direction to know the true Church, p. 3. saith, That the Saints before the Law, under the Law, and under Grace, make up the Body of Christ, or Members of the Church; and that this is the Catholic Church.  
Or, Secondly, the Universal Visible Church, or whole Visible Body of Believers upon the whole Earth, at the same time, as Acts 2.42. The Lord added to the Church daily, 
Mr. Baxter Cure of Church-Divisions. p. 82. Ho●ke● Eccl. Polity, third Book. p. 88  etc. So Eph. 3.21. Unto him be Glory in the Church by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages.— Or,  
Thirdly, a particular Congregation, Society, or Company of Professors of the Faith of Jesus Christ, usually meeting together in one place, as one Body, for the participation of the same Ordinances, and Exercising the same Duty, as a Church, in Edifying one another, 
Reynolds in his Conference with Hart, Cap. 6. p. 218. saith, That a Bishop in our sense is him to whom the Overfight and charge of a particular Church is committed, such as Ephesus, Philippi, and the seven Churches.  Prayer, etc. Such as was the Church in Jerusalem, Acts 11.22. Tidings came to the Ears of the Church, which was in Jerusalem, and they sent forth Barnabas and others, etc. That this was but one Congregation, is evident from Act. 15. where Paul and Barnabas and others coming from Antioch to this Church; they were received by the Church first, and then the Apostles and Elders. The Apostles, Elders, and Brethren, the whole Multitude were present at the Discourse of the Matter, and the Epistle wrote in the name of the whole, Apostles, Elders, and Brethren met together with one accord, ver. 25. Such was the Church of Antioch which was gathered together, Acts 14.27. when Paul and Barnabas came, and with whom they had Assembled before a whole year, Acts 11.26. And were afterwards gathered together to receive and hear the Epistle, Acts 15.30. Such were the Churches which the Apostles visited, and ordained Elders in, Acts 14.23. for they did it by suffrage. Likewise the Church in Corinth, 1 Cor. 1, 2. Unto the Church of God in Corinth: These met in one place, 1 Cor. 5. 1 Cor. 11.18.20.23. Cap. 14.23. So the Church at Cenchrea, near Corinth. 
See Smect. p. 40, 41. 47 58, 59 Bishop Jewels Reply to Harding. p. 230.  And Mr. Stillingfleet quotes Pareus in Rom. 16. for this, that the Church of Corinth did meet sometimes at Cenchrea, because of the violence of their Enemies in Corinth. Therefore also when the Apostles spoke any where of the Assemblies, or Societies of Believers in any one Country, they call them not a Church, in the singular Number or the Church of such a Country or Isle, but Churches, as of many in the same Country; as in Judea, Macedonia, Galatia, Asia, 1 Thes. 2.14. 2 Cor. 8.1.18.23, 24. Gal. 1.2.22. The Holy Ghost mentions seven Churches by name in Asia, Rev. 1.4. Ch. 2. Ch. 3.— And as to this, the same Bishop Carleton, in the same Book, p. 2. saith, That particular Churches are visible Assemblies, etc. and Governed by divers visible heads, and proves it by Gregory, Lib. 4. Epist. 3.—  
A fourth Church, in Scripture Phrase, cannot be found (since the time that all in every Nation which fear God are accepted, as the Apostle said, Acts 10.34, 35.) Such as National, Provincial, Synodical, etc. We read not in Scripture, nor in any Church History for many years after Christ, of any Church, distinct from these Descriptions before given.  
Now, it is to be presumed, that there are none who will affirm, that the first of these three Churches could possibly meet together, or do any Act, as a Church, either in choosing Officers, determining Controversies, Ordering things indifferent to Edification, giving Interpretations of Scriptures, partaking of Ordinances, and casting out of Offenders, etc. Or that ever any such Power was derived down from Christ upon them, as a Church so to do; or that he ever intended this Church, when he directs any thing to be done by the Church as such; because of the utter impossibility of their performance thereof, as a Church, part of which being already fallen asleep, and part not yet born.  
Also it may be concluded, as to the second Church above described, that it is utterly impossible they should at any time meet together as a Church in one Body, to agree upon, consent unto, Act, or Order any thing (according to the power given to the Churches, as above) jointly as such a Church; or partake of Ordinances jointly as such. Nay, it's improbable, if not impossible, that in their Representative, this Church should meet, and put themselves into a capacity, to Act as a Church in any of the things to be done by a Church as such. Nay, was there ever any such meeting of this Church? None as can be found in Story. Or, if this were possible, where have we Authority of Scripture or Primitive Practice, to justify such a Company of Representatives, to call themselves a Church in this sense, and to take to themselves the Power of the whole Church given to her by Jesus Christ, and to call their Acts the Acts of the Church? And it would be strange for any to affirm, that Christ hath put the Power (as to the Execution of it) into the hands of a Body that can never possibly be able to Execute the Power derived upon.  
If any number of Men would colourably make themselves the Churches Representative: It is necessary they should be chosen by the whole, and some one at least for every particular Church, Body, Society, or Congregation throughout the World; as the Messengers of the Churches were chosen by the Churches, or else how in any tolerable sense, can they be said to be the Church, in either of the two first Descriptions?  
And then surely it will follow, That all the Power that by the Scripture is placed in the Church of God, as such, (as to the Execution thereof) is derived upon the particular Churches, Societies, or Congregations for the management of Church-matters within themselves, as to Meeting, the Ordering of Circumstances of Worship, casting out of Offenders, choosing Officers, Ordering things indifferent, etc. according to the Laws of Christ given us in Precept, or Example of Scripture, and practice of purest times; and the determination of these things is given to each Church, the same Power by the same Rule. The Magdeburg Divines, 
Singulae Ecclesiae parem habebant, etc.  Cent. 2. Cap. 7. Col. 134, 135. Says, That every Church hath a like Power of Teaching God's Word, Administering Sacraments, Excommunicating and absolving Sinners, of calling and choosing her Ministers, and for just cause again to depose them, to Exercise the Ceremonies received from the Apostles; and also (for the cause of Edification) appoint New ones, this they prove by many Authors. And Bishop Jewel, in his Epistle to the Council of Trent, agrees to this in these words; We know (saith he there) that the Spirit of God is not tied to places, nor to numbers of Men; tell it to the Church, saith Christ; not to the whole Church spread over the whole Earth (saith the Bishop) but to a particular Church, which may easily meet in one place. Wheresoever (saith Christ) two or three are gathered together in my Name, 
Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament, p. 166. agrees this.  there I am in the midst of them. When Paul (saith the Bishop) would Reform the Church of Corinth and the Galatians, he did not command them to expect a general Council, but only wrote to them, That what error soever, or Vice was amongst them, themselves should presently cut it off. Hist. Concil. Trident. p. 860. English Translation. And in the same Council it was alleged against Episcopal Assemblies, 
Naz. ad Procop. Epist. 42.  out of Gregory Nazianz. That Contention hath been always increased by Episcopal Assemblies. The same Hist. Lib. 7. p. 706.  
That these particular Churches or Societies were made up of Professing Believers, Voluntarily joining themselves together, and that it was each Believers Liberty to join himself to what Society, Church, or Number of Christians he pleased, or was most convenient for him: And that it was the Church's power to admit such who desired so to join unto them: And that this Liberty continued to particular Churches and Christians many hundred years, 
See Justice Hubbard in the Case between Colt. and the Bish. of Coventry and Litchfield.  we think none can deny; if they do, let them show a Precedent Authoritative against it. Thus it was in the beginning; The Disciples were all together in Solomon's Porch, and of the rest durst no man to join himself to them, but the People magnified them, Acts 5.12, 13. So Acts 9.26. Saul assayed to join himself with the Church in Jerusalem, who being satisfied about him, received him. Nothing of any Law of God, or the Church in those days, nor in some Ages after, to confine Men to join themselves to, or continue with this or that particular Church or Society, or to this or that Church so and so form and Governed. No, nor can we find any such Law made by any of the first Christian Emperors, but still left free. It was thus alleged at the Council of Trent, That the Division of Parishes was first made by the People, when a certain number of Inhabitants, having received the Faith, built a Temple for the Exercise of their Religion, hired a Priest, and did constitute a Church; which by the Neighbours was called a Parish; and when the Numbers were increased, if one Church and Priest were not sufficient, those who were most remote did build a Church beside, and fit themselves better. Hist. Conc. Trident. Lib. 6. p. 498.  
And Mr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum affirms, That Men are not bound by the Law of Nature to associate themselves with any but whom they shall think fit: And that every one entering into a Society, should consent and submit unto the Rules of it; which (saith he) at men's first entering into the Society of a Church, was requisite to be done by the express and explicit consent of the parties themselves, being capable, etc. And for Children, he saith, That it is highly rational, that when they come to Age, they should explicitly declare their own voluntary consent to submit to the Laws of Christ, and conform themselves to the Profession of Christianity; which, saith he, might be a probable way, and certainly most agreeable both to Reason and Scripture, to advance the Credit of Christianity once more in the World, etc. That one great cause of the flourishing of Religion in the Primitive times, was certainly the strictness used by them in their admission of Members into their Church-Societies. These are Mr. Stillingfleets own words, see them in p. 132. 134. And as to the Church's admittance of Members, and of such as join themselves; the same Stillingfleet saith, in the same Book, p. 134, 135. That none were admitted but such, into whose Lives and Carriages they had enquired, to discern their seriousness in their professions of Christianity, and find true Repentance and Reformation of Life, a profession of Faith, and answerable Life to the Gospel, without which it was not Lawful to admit them; and this he proves there by Origen, Justin Martyr, etc. And as to an explicit Covenant, by such, he saith, That if by an Explicit Covenant be meant a real consideration between those who join themselves together in Gospel-Ordinances in Order to their being a Church, he koweth none will question it, that knoweth what it is that maketh a Society to be so, which is such a real consideration with one another. Again, That though every Christian be bound to join with some Society, or Church, yet not being determined by Scripture to what particular Church they should join; therefore, saith he, (for Christian's better understanding what their mutual Duty is one to another, who is their Pastor, to whom they own the Relation of Members) That there should be some significant Declaration either by their Words or Actions of their willingness to join with such a particular Society in Gospel-Ordinances: 
Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament. p. 322, 323 324.  This he grants to be necessary too. And further, That when Churches are overrun with Looseness, Ignorance, and Profaneness; this is useful, saith he, if not necessary. Yea, that at all times it seems the most likely way to advance the Practice, Power, and Purity of Religion. See it more at large, p. 138. 140.  
If it be Objected, That though the Law of God or Nature hath not, yet that there are Laws of Men that do determine the Matter as to the particular Churches, to which every Member must join himself (to wit) to the Parish wherein each Member resides for the time being; and also, as to the manner of joining and being admitted, (that is) by their being Parishioners.  
To say nothing of the Irrationalness of this way, 〈◊〉 the Apprehension of such who consider, what it 〈◊〉 that makes a Society to be so, and any one to become a Member thereof; or of such, who know ●hat it is to have Communion in Christian Societies ●s such.  
We Answer, First, That there were no such Laws ●ade by the first Christian Emperors against Christian Liberty in this case.  
Secondly, If any were made since, it is reasonable to inquire, how such, who made those Laws, ●ad this Authority derived upon them from God in ●uch cases? If it cannot be showed (as we think it cannot be) than the Freedom continues still to Christians.  
It is wonderful that Men, yea, Christians, should ●hink it most just to preserve men's Liberty of Liv●ng where they please, and to remove from one place to another, to choose what Society they please in Civil things; And yet restrain men's Liberty in this case, as if Soul-health, Liberty, Com●ort, and Profit, is not to be preserved above that of the Body: Especially since the Law of Nature, ●nd the Law of God hath left it free.  
Thirdly, That Law which makes all Persons indefinitely Living, or that shall Live in such a Precinct to be a Church, and Members one of another ●n a particular Society, and puts them under a necessity of joining together, as one Body, in the Matters of God, can very hardly be defended from oppugning the Laws of Christ, which forbids Fellowship in such things, with such and such Persons, many of which may be found in every Parish amongst us.  
But to prove by some particulars now, That the Power in Church-Affairs, was for some Ages Exercised in and by these particular Churches, and no● elsewhere, without any Interruption or control considerable; And without any additional or Superior Authority, 
Bish. Nicholson Vindication of the Church of England, p. 26. agrees this of Deacons.  after the Apostles days. An● first, as to the choosing of their Ministers, Acts 6▪ 2, 3.5, 6. The whole Church there, the Multitude, by the Apostles own Direction, did choose their Deacons, and were Judges of their Qualifications. The Apostles told them what the Deacons should be, the Multitude were Judges whether they were such. For, the same seven (without Examination or Exception) which they chose, were by the Apostles set apart for the work: The Apostles being then the only Officers of that Church, which was then but one Society or Congregation. 
Lorinus Salmeron, & Gasper. Sanctus upon Act. 14.23. Dear. Part 1. didst 62. See Assembly of Divines upon Act. 24.23.  So for the Elders or Bishops, Acts 14.22, 23. Paul and Barnabas ordained (or appointed) them Elders in every Church; but for the manner; it was by suffrage (i. e.) by the People's choice or Vote▪ thus the very Text is rendered in some Translations▪ and so by Magdeburg Divines Translated: They created Presbyters in every Church by suffrage▪ Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 401, 402. and this could not be but in particular Congregations, who could meet together to this end. The Apostles carried no Men with them, but passing from Church to Church, they appointed such of every Church whom they found there; and who were more capable of Judging, than the Church of which they were Members; and who had experience of, and acquaintance with them.  
That this was so, is yet more evident by this, That afterwards for many hundred years together, this way only was continued in the Churches; for the Congregations or particular Churches, to choose their own Bishops and other Ministers, and they accounted it as their Right, without any control; as ●or instance, in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 3. Cap. ● 1. p. 44. It is said, that after the death of James, ●he Apostles and Disciples of our Lord gathered themselves together to consult who should succeed, ●nd they all with one voice judged Simon worthy. So Euseb. Lib. 6. Cap. 28. p. 110. when all the Brethren of the Church of Rome had gathered themselves together for the Electing of a Bishop (their Bishop being dead) and many had thought upon Notable and Famous Men (Fabianus being present) the whole Multitude with one accord, and the same Spirit of God, agreed upon him, and made him Bishop.  
The People of a Church in Constantinople (being by their Bishop before his Death desired to choose one of two Men, he named, because of their Virtues) did (after his Death) meet, and choose one of them. Soc. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. p. 253. So did the People of a Church in Milan, being met together, with one voice chose Ambrose to be their Bishop; which the Emperor concludes there to be the work and will of God. Socrat. Lib. 4. Cap. 25. p. 335. There are such Multitudes of Precedents and Instances of this Practice, that it would be endless to mention them: Only see some Instances in the same Histories of Socrates, Lib. 2. Cap. 9 p. 256. Lib. 4. Cap. 13. p 324. Lib. 6. Cap. 2. p. 359. Lib. 7. cap. 7. p. 377, 378. Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. cap. 26. p. 390. Evagr. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 4. cap. 6. p. 473. Lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 436.  
This continued unquestioned 500 Years at least. And though attempts were sometimes made by Bishops, and the Civil Powers, they engaged t● Depose Ministers, and thrust in others upon Churches; yet still the Churches refused them, and chos● others themselves, when they wanted them, a Soc. Lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 254 One Emiseus there refused at two several places by the People, a Alexandria and Emisa. So likewise Socrat. Lib 4. cap. 7. p. 318, 319. when one Eunomius wa● sent to Cizicum by a Bishop of Constantinople, an● commanded to be placed there by the Emperor yet was he refused, and Eunomius went and Live with him that made him Bishop. So again, Socra● Lib. 7. cap. 12. p. 380. One Salvatus rejecte● by a Church in Constantinople. So again, at Cizicum, where a Bishop at Constantinople appoint Proclus to be their Bishop. The Church at Cizicum understanding what was done, prevented it, an● chose Dalmatius, a Religious Man, to Govern and Proclus being not admitted there, spent hi● time at Constantinople. Socrat. Lib. 7. cap. 28 p. 391. and many more Instances of this Nature might be given.  
Yet we find no complaint made thereof, as any irregular Act of the People, which doubtless would have been, had it not been their known right: Cyprian agrees to this, that if any were intruded upon the People, he was taken for a false Bishop, no● a true Pastor, for which he is quoted by the Magdeburg Divines, Cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 175, 176▪ Moreover, the Emperor Constantine acknowledgeth this right to be Lodged in these particular Churches: See his Epistle to the Church in Antioch, where he tells this Church in general, that they did affect Eusebius, and would have Elected him to be their Bishop, and then he persuades them to choose another, seeing all did not agree, therefore, saith he, not Lawful; because, saith he, he that is Elected to a Bishopric by the general Suffrage of Wise men assembled to deliberate thereof, aught by God's Law to enjoy it. This is Recorded in Eusebius, of the Life of Constantine, Lib. 3. cap. 58. p. 52. Yea, the great Nicene Council agree it in these words, expressed in Socrat. Lib. 1. cap. 6. p. 225. (Speaking about some who might be in a Capacity of being made Ministers) they say, if they be found worthy, and the People choose them, they may Succeed the Deceased, etc. Yet further it's manifest by the same History, That where any one Congregation did divide into two Bodies, each apart chose their own Bishops for themselves, as in the Case of the Church of Antioch, Socrat. Lib. 5. Cap. 9 p. 343. Lib. 4. cap. 1. p. 316. So in many other Cases, when those of the true Faith had Bishops imposed upon them by the Arrians, they divided themselves from the Arrians, and chose to themselves Bishops, and Assembled alone.  
And it is observable, That all these Bishops thus chosen and appointed of the People of these particular Churches, were still acknowledged as Lawful Bishops by all; and in all the Counsels mentioned in those Histories. Nor do we find the least Objection any where Recorded in those days against such, who came thus to this Office, as being unlawfully called.  
To this Practice of the particular Churches, and their Right thereto, the Fathers give in their Testimonies also; a touch of them therefore. Tertul. in his Apol. to the Gent. Cap. 39 p. 137. English Translation, saith, That in these Assemblies there are Bishops that preside, they are approved of by the Suffrage of them whom they ought to conduct. So saith many others, 
Possidon. in vita Aug. Cap. 4. Leo. 1. Epist. 95.  quoted by the Magdeburg Divines, Cent. 2. cap. 7. col. 134, 135. Cent. 1. Lib. 1. cap. 4. col. 179. Cent. 3. cap. 6. col. 146, 147.  
The Roman Presbyters, in their Epistle to Cyrian, affirm, that every Church hath a like Power of Choosing, Calling, and Ordaining Ministers, and for just cause again to depose them. 
Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 4. Aug. Epist. 100 Cyprian. Epist. 68  And Cyprian himself saith, That the right of choosing such as are fit, and refusing the unworthy, belong to the People and whole Church, and that by Divine Authority. And that the Officers and People did consult about it with common consent. And for these things he is quoted by the Magdeburg Writers, Cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 153.173, 174, 175. Cap. 6. col. 135, 136.146. and also that the People did consider the Life and Manners of the Persons to be chosen, and judge; and much more to this purpose in those places before, 
John Ferus a Friar, in his Comment upon Act. 11.  and Magdeburg. Cent. 5. cap. 6. col. 178, 179, 180.  
Now we shall add a few Testimonies and Judgements of latter Ages, and of Men otherwise differing.  
The Papists themselves, at the Council of Trent, acknowledged, that this was the usual Practice of the Church of God for 800 Years together after Christ, for the particular Churches to choose their own Ministers; and they then affirmed, that there were remaining at that day the Records thereof at Rome: and they then and there desired, that those Records might be destroyed, lest Luther (who maintained this Right to the People) should make use of them to bring in the Custom into the Church again. And they there also acknowledge, that this was taken from the Church by the Authority of a Council only who made a Decree against it. 
See the Conference of Rayno'ds & Hart, c. 6. p. 223. Hart saith out of Genebrard, that Clemens took not the Bishopric by the Council of the Lord, lest the Example of taking it by nomination of Peter should pass to posterity, and derogate from the free providence of the Church in choosing of her own Bishop Geneb●ard Chronolg. l. 3. in Lin. See more. l. 4. Seculo. 11. Cited in the same Confer. Cap. 7. l ●76.  Concil. Trident. in English, Lib 7. p. 590, 591.598. See more of the same Council, Lib. 8. p. 725. And he that wrote this History complains against Rome about this, in these words: The Church of Rome grant not the People the Election of their Ministers, which certainly, saith he, was an Apostolical Institution, continued more than 800 Years. Concil. Trident. Lib. 2. p. 163.  
Bishop Jewel, in his Reply to Mr. Harding, p. 230. Saith, out of Cyprian, Lib. 1. Epist. 4. That the Bishopric was bestowed upon Sabinus, by the consent and voices of the whole Brotherhood of that Church to which he was to be Bishop: He there saith, that Honorius the Emperor Writing to Boneface, doth agree him to be Bishop, whom some of the Clergy, and whole Brotherhood shall choose. And the Bishop himself then there affirms from hence, that every particular Church is called the whole Church. And after, in p. 282. The Bishop affirms, that Cyprian, in the same place, saith, That the People being Obedient to God's Law, have Power, especially to choose worthy, or refuse unworthy Priests.  
Mr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, p. 306. quotes Tertul. Exhort. Castil. c. 7. for these words, That all the difference between the Ministers and People, comes from the Church's Authority; and again, p. 416. himself saith, That Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture, or the Practice of the Apostles, for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for Worship, under the Charge of one man; nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of Bishops without the preceding Election of the Clergy, and at least, consent, and approbation of the People; so much he allows there, and something more in p. 339. where he useth these words (speaking of Elders) now the voice of the People, which was used in the Primitive times, is grown out of use, etc. by which he confesseth it to be the Primitive Practice. But Mr. Stillingfleet having (as he saith) been at the pains to transcribe some of Bishop Cranmers words, they will serve well here, and we shall again transcribe so much of them as speaks to this particular. See them in the same Irenicum, p. 391, 392. They are these. That in the Apostles time, when there were no Christian Princes, by whose Authority Ministers of God's Word might be appointed, nor sins be corrected by the Sword; there was no Remedy then for correction of Vice, or appointment of Ministers, but only the consent of Christian Multitude amongst themselves by an uniform consent to follow the Advice and persuasion of such Persons whom God had most endued with the Spirit of Wisdom and Council, etc. Sometimes the Apostles, and others unto, whom God had given abundance of his Spirit, sent, or appointed Ministers of God's Word; sometimes the People did choose such as they thought meet thereunto: and when any were sent by the Apostles, or other, the People, of their own voluntary will, with thanks did accept of them, not for the Supremacy Imperial Dominion that the Apostles had over them to command, as their Princes or Masters, but as good People, ready to Obey the good Councillors, and to accept any thing necessary for their Edification and Benefit. And again, that the People before Christian Princes were, commonly did Elect their Bishops and Priests; thus far of Bishop Cranmer: which words of his (as Mr. Stillingfleet there affirms) he put his own Hand to, and gave it in, in answer to certain Questions put to him in King Edward the Sixths' Time, and now remain upon Record.  
Bishop Nicholson, of Gloucester, in his Vindication of the Church of England, p. 27. grants the Truth of this. That the People did choose their Pastors in the Primitive Ages of the Church, in express terms, and saith, it was taken away from the People by Christian Princes, when the Fathers disliked the use. So far of him in this place.  
Polanus, in his Sintagma, Lib. 7. Cap. 15. fully proves, and affirms, this Right to be Lodged in these Churches.— Under this Head, De Electionibus seu vocationibu● Ecclesiasticis.  
First, he saith, That the Liberty, or Power of Election, calling or sending of Ecclesiastical Persons, is a Right, which the whole Church hath in choosing, and calling to themselves approved and fit Ministers, and in placing them into Sacred Order, p. 542. After in his next p. 543. under this Question; a quibus Electio seu vocatio Ministrorum Ecclesiae fieri debeat? By whom the Election, or calling of Ministers of the Church ought to be made? He saith, That unto the Legitimate (or Lawful Election of the Ministers of the Church, especially of the Pastors,) is requisite, a free and ingenious consent, and Suffrage of the whole Church (whose business it is) that is of the Elders and Flock. The which consent must not be had by entreaty, or sold for a price, much less forced and extorted; so that it is the part of the whole Church, to choose Ministers for themselves: And there he gives these following arguments to evince it. First, because even in the time of the Apostles, the whole Church (whose business it was) did choose Ministers for themselves (or to itself.) Neither did the Apostles themselves, saith he, Ordain any one for Ecclesiastical charges, only by their own Authority, but always by the Church consenting and approving, Acts 6.2, etc. and 14.23. Secondly, because by this means the Churches own Liberty, which Christ hath given to it, is kept. For a Pastor, or Minister of the Word of God is not to be obtruded upon the Church of God against his will. Can. Null. invit distinc. 61. Thirdly, because it serves to this, That even the Ministers may, with a good Conscience, Rule the Lords Flock, by whom he is Elected; and the Flock of the Lord may in like manner yield themselves the more easy to him to be Instructed and fed, than to him, who, beside (or against) their will, is thrust upon them: and again, he is not to be acknowledged for a Lawful Pastor of the Church, who hath been intruded on the Church by the Authority and Command of the Prince. Quod testatur Concil. Parisiense primum. Can. Octavo Tomo Secundo Concil. And after he saith, in the same p. That fit Persons are to be nominated and presented to the People before the Election, and should be openly proposed in the Assemblies. And again, in p. 544. Under this Question, Qualiter seu quomodo Ministri Ecclesiae Eligi & vocari debeant? How the Ministers of the Church ought to be chosen and called, Acts 14.23. Those Persons are to be Nominated, of whom the Election and Calling aught to be made, to this end, that the Church by the free Suffrage of the whole Congregation (or such to whom she hath committed a Right and Power of choosing) may approve and accept of one of them.  
That the Suffrages are collected by some Pastor of the Church, or of another to whom he shall commit it. And they are given, either in Order by every Elector, Viuâ voce, or jointly of all or many, by lifting up of hands, or either way, etc. For, if by giving their Suffrages, Viuâ voce, there were variance, and they go into many Sentences of unprofitable and tedious prolixity, Those who had any Votes for Ordination were again named; and every one being named, they who chose him were commanded to lift up their Hands. At the Nomination of whom, either all or many lifted up their Hands; this Man was concluded to be Lawfully Elected. After this manner, saith he, Paul and Barnabas did Create Elders, Acts 14.23.  
And after, under this Question, By what Rite or Ceremony? etc. he saith, He who was Elected by the Church with free Suffrages, at length received Ordination of the Pastors of the Church, 1 Tim. 4.14. & 5.22. the whole Multitude of the Church being present. Then Polanus concludes with these words. They do therefore grievously sin who do manifestly drive away the Ecclesiastical People or Flock from the Election of their Ministers; which, saith he, the false, or Sergeant Popish Bishops do; yea, they do grievously sin, who do impose Bishops and Pastors upon the Church against their will. Thus far Polanus agrees in his own words.  
From some of the former Authorities, The African Synod, Athanasius, Cornelius, and others. The Presbyterian Divines, in their Book, called, Smectimnius, admits this power to reside in the People of particular Churches, and that by Divine Authority. They say,  
First, That the especial power of Judging of the Worthiness, or Unworthiness lay in the People.  
Secondly, That the power of choosing, or refusing them upon this Judgement, resided in the People.  
Thirdly, That the power descended upon them by Divine Authority. Athanasius, say they, in his Epist. ad Orthodoxos, blamed the Intrusion of Bishops as against the Apostolical Precepts, against the Canon, and compelled the Heathen to Blaspheme.  
Mr. Prin, in his Book of un-bishoping Timothy and Titus, p. 69. affirms this out of Alcuvinus de Diviniis Officiis, Cap. 37. That Ministers of all sorts were made to the Year 800 by this Election of Clergy and People, and that they were all present at their Ordination, and consented to it. Also he affirms, in p. 72, 73. That Martin Bucer, in his Book of recalling, and bringing in again the use of Lawful Ordination, saith, That this power is in the People. Much more might be produced, to prove this particular, See only Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. col. 43. Concil. Trident. in English, Lib. 8. p. 725. Lib. 7. p. 591. 598. Lib. 6. p. 404, 405. And as to imposition of Hands, upon these thus chosen, Mr. Prin, in the same Book, p. 72, 73. quotes Jerome Epist. to Evagr. and his Comment upon Titus, for this; That the Ancient Consecration of Bishops was nothing else but their Election, etc. And that all the Rites and Ceremonies now used are but Novelties. And Martin Bucer, for these conclusions, in his aforesaid Book, and in his Scripta Anglicana, of the Office of Pastor, p. 154. 159. 191. and on Mat. 16. That imposition of hands, on those chosen Ministers belong to the Presbyters, but that this they have not Originally, but only Instrumentally, as Servants to the whole Congregation. And that this aught to be done publicly in the Church, where they are Elected before all the Congregation: and that the imposition of hands is no essential part of Ordination, 
Luther held this Council Trident l. 7. p. 590.  but that it may be omitted. And that those who are Elected, and Lawfully called to the Ministry by the Suffrage of the whole Church and People, are Ministers Lawfully called and Ordained without this Ceremony. And Mr. Prin there further proves this by David Blond. Apol. Sect. 3. de Ordinatione & plebis in Electionibus jure, from p. 309. to 448. He also affirms, p. 81. That Morney, Amesius, 
Morney Lord of Plessis in his Book de Eccesia, cap. 11.  and sundry others there quoted, say, That the People alone, in case of Necessity, where are no Bishops or Ministers, or where Bishops refuse to ordain as they ought, may Elect and Ordain Ministers. The right of Ordination and Election being Originally in the whole Church and people, etc. and that imposition of hands is no Essential, but Ceremonial part of Ordination, as Angelus de Clavaso, Peter Martyr, 
Mr. Baxter's body of Divinity, of Ordination, p. 79.  and others, both Papists and Protestants affirm.  
Mr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, p. 392. where he transcribes Bishop Cranmers' answer to the Questions before mentioned, hath set down these words amongst others, as the Bishops own words. The Bishop having affirmed, that the people before Christian Princes, did commonly Elect their Bishops and Priests, saith further, That in the New-Testament, he that is appointed to be Priest or Bishop needed no Consecration, for Election, or appointment thereto (saith he) is sufficient.  
Now, having so great a cloud of witnesses beyond all exception, and a concurrent sentence in this matter, by Persons at so great a distance each from other in their Judgement, in other things, and living in several ages of the World: It seemeth strange, that there should be such wrestling against the common right of the Church of God; and such a stir to make that Scripture, Acts 14.23. to speak something else, than that, which so many Learned, eminent, Godly Men agree it doth, and the practice of the Church so long and universally and fully affirm it to do. Much more strange it is, that men should be blamed for being of this Judgement, and practising accordingly, having so much ground to believe it to be the truth.  
If any should pretend, that there are other Officers in the Church of God besides Ordinary Bishops and Deacons, 
Ho●ker in his Eccles. Polity 4th Book, p. 417, 418, etc. allows Presbyter and Deacons to be the Clergy, and that no where in the New Test. are they called Priests, nor will he contend for that Name. See more, p. 123, of the same Book.  by Divine Right to continue. Let such prove it, if they can. But it seems clear that after Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, these extraordinary Officers of Christ, were deceased (who while they continued, had extraordinary Furniture given them from Christ, for their work.) These of Bishops or Elders, and Deacons, in the particular Churches, were all one no superior and General Officers over many, as Mr. Stillingfleet, in his aforesaid Irenicum, p. 416. saith, that the Episcopal Men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture, or the Apostles practice, for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for the Worship of God, under the charge of one person.  
First, it is manifest, that Bishops and Elders in those days were the same Officers, and not one above the other, Acts 20. where the Apostles ●nt for the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, and ●●ving Discoursed with them, he gave them charge, that they, the same Persons, should take ●ed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost had ●ade them Bishops (or Overseers, as our Tranation hath it.) So when Peter writes, 1 Epist. 5. ● 2, etc. He there calls the Ruling Officers in ●eneral, Elders: whether Ruling only, or Ruling ●●d Teaching Elders. See 1 Tim. 5.17.  
Bishop Cranmer, in the place before quoted by ●r. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, p. 392. saith, ●hat the Bishop and Priest were at one time, and ●ot two things, but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion.  
Dr. Fulk, against the Rhem. upon Titus 1.5. ●nd Jerome, in his Comment upon Titus, affirms ●is.  
And the Magdeburg Divines quote Jerome, Am●rose, and chrysostom, for the proof of this; and also for showing how in after Ages one Elder was exalted above the rest, 
Doctor Whittaker in his Answer to Campian in his ten Reasons 10. Vol.  and then called the Bishop ●y way of Eminence, and that this was by Humane authority. Cent. 2. Cap. 7. col. 126. Cent. 4. ●ap. 6. col. 491. Cent. 5. cap. 7. col. 737. Nay, gregory Nazianzen wisheth this Episcopal decree abolished, and saith it is Tyrannical, Orat. 28. So ●ad it proved in his days, as it seems.  
Bishop Jewel, in his Reply to Mr. Harding, p. ●22. 229. 250, 251, 252. allegeth this out of Je●ome, Cyprian, etc. That Bishops are greater than priest's, more of Custom than of God's Ordinance; That the Power of all Priests by the Authority of God's Word, is one, and equal; and that it was ●nly Policy that set one over many. And in p. 257. concludes against Papists in these words: If Christ (saith the Bishop) appointed not one Priest ov● another, how then is it likely he should appoint o● over all? And so Mr. Stillingfleet, in his afo●said Book, 
See Smect. p. 24. 26. Raynolds conference with Hart, cap. 8. p. 461, 462. affirms this Policy to be the ground of raising one E●de● ab●ve others, and so step by step to the Pope See also p, 540 541,  p. 276, 277. 310, 311. proves this 〈◊〉 large; That Bishops and Presbyters were the sa●● in Primitive times; and that Arius was not c●demned for that Opinion, but for his separat●● from such who set up Bishops above other Pries● and he quotes Aug. Epist. 29. for this. That 〈◊〉 difference between Episcopacy and Presbytery, t● the one is greater than the other, arise only by 〈◊〉 Custom of the Church attributing a Name of gre●er Honour to them.  
Secondly, That Bishops, Elders, and Deac● were all the Officers Christ intended to have continued in the Church after the Apostles days, see● clear in this; That when the Apostle wrote to 〈◊〉 Church of the Philippians, he mentioned these ●ly. To the Bishops and Deacons, Phil. 1.1. A●● when the Holy Ghost mentions the Qualificati● of Church-Officers, he names none but these. N● doth he seem to intent any other, nor any other ●corded in the Scripture of the New Tes●ment, which doubtless would have been, if Ch● had intended any other to have been continued 〈◊〉 the Church, for it would have been necessary 〈◊〉 have known how such should have been Qualify as well as these. But of these two see at large 1 Ti● 3. Titus c. 3. And that these were all in the Primiti● Churches, the Century Writers affirm, Magd● Cent. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 7. col. 508, 509. Cent. ● cap. 7. col. 125. This also may we note; T● after the Church had departed from the Apostolic Order, and by humane prudence appointed o● Elder or Bishop in every Congregation or Socit● 〈◊〉 the first step, and after in a larger Circuit) ●ve the rest. Yet even these Bishops were then ●ke manner chosen by the Body of those Church● where in he was to be Bishop, as the Authority herein before alleged fully prove.  
But now, if it shall be Objected (as some have ●med to do) That this power of Election in the ●urch was not a Privilege belonging to them of ●t, but of conveniency. Ere we give answer, 〈◊〉 shall go over some such pretences as these.  
●irst, the Papists. 
Concil. Trident. lib. 7. p. 590.  They at the Council of Trent ●●itted this use to have been in the Primitive times the Churches. But as to the Right, they say ●re, That though the people did choose, yet it 〈◊〉 by the tacit, or explicit consent of the Pope.  
This conceit will easily fall, for in those days ●re was no such thing in Nature as a Pope, (if ●y mean by a Pope such a one, as is now at ●me with such Authority as he challengeth) there● he could not by his consent bring it in; or had ●een so, the Pope had erred, to have given con●● to the Church, that she should have called her ●isters in another way than Christ had appointed, Christ did not appoint this way. If Christ did ●oint this way, than his consent was insignificant-mentioned in this case; unless they will say Christ ●n appointed no way, but that he left all to the cretion of the Pope in this matter; which we ●k they will not affirm.  
Again, Secondly, Bishop Nicholson, of Glou●er, in his Book before cited, p. 27. admits the ●ter of Fact, that the people did choose; but, ●o the Right, he saith, first, That it was after 〈◊〉 Apostles days.  
Although we see Archbishop Cranmer, Polanus, the Magdeburg Divines, and many others of express contrary Judgement in the places befo●● quoted, and agree, that this was in the Apost●● days, and their own way in which they Ordain Elders in the Churches.  
Secondly, he saith, That this was not a Pri●●ledge belonging to them of Right, but of Conve●ency, for which we have the Bishops own word ●ly, not the least proof offered; against which 〈◊〉 stream of other Learned and good men's judgement before cited generally run. And this also the ●shop himself, in the same place, in the very n● words ingeniously adds, and affirms, That 〈◊〉 choice of the People was derived from the Rule● Christian Equity and Society; and he there furt●●● sub joins this excellent effect it had. That he● it came to pass, that the People did quietly rece● willingly maintain, diligently hear, and hear● love their Pastors.  
From whence we may conclude. That su● such, whom the Bishop there saith, took away 〈◊〉 Power from the Churches, were to be blamed, 〈◊〉 rashness at least: And that there is a loud call for 〈◊〉 restoring of this Conveniency (if it be no mo●● to the Churches, since it was derived from such ●cellent Rules, and hath such desirable effects. N● such to be found following any other way, brou●● in, in the room thereof. And that it may of ●●vine Right, rather than of Conveniency, brou●● in by man's Wisdom; for it is rare to find a Constitution of man's derived from such Principles, 〈◊〉 to have such Fruits, which do exceed for good● the Constitutions of Christ himself.  
Again, Thirdly, One more such pretence we 〈◊〉 in Mr. Stillingfleet, in his aforesaid Book, p. 2● Who, (though he had before in the place herein ●oted, allowed that the People did choose; yet ●e he) saith, It seems strangely improbable, that the ●ostles should put the choice at that time into the ●ads of the People, and he makes this the only ●und of his conjecture. That there were none ●n that were fitted for the work, but whom the apostles did lay their hands upon; by which, saith 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost fell upon them, whereby they ●●re fitted and qualified for the work: the people ●n (saith he) could not ways choose men for their ●ilities, when their abilities were consequent to ●●eir Ordination. These are his own words, as to ●●s matter. But his ground seems very feeble, for ●e concluding of such an improbability: for we ●ust either take it for granted, or he must prove: ●rst, that the Holy Ghost fell on none but such on ●nom the Apostles laid hands: Secondly, That the ●oly Ghost fell on no men till the Apostles had ●d hands upon them for the Ministry: Thirdly, ●hat when ever the Apostles laid hands on any, they ●ere by that imposition of Hands Ordained Minister's. If this be not granted or proved, then there ●●ght be many in every Church qualified with gifts 〈◊〉 the Holy Ghost, and fitted for the work; some ●●thout laying on of hands, some by laying on of ●ands of the Apostles, and yet not Ministers there●●. Then these were fitted for the work, and these ●ight be chosen by the Church before Ordination. ●ut so it was; it's evident that the Holy Ghost fell ●pon many without imposition of hands; that he ●ll upon some by imposition of hands before they ●ere made Ministers: That all were not made Mi●●sters on whom the Apostles laid hands, and who ●●ceived the Spirit. So that Multitudes were fitted and qualified for the people to choose in every pla●● almost. See Acts 10. There were many heari● Peter Preach, and while he was yet speaking, 〈◊〉 Holy Ghost fell on them all, and they spoke w● Tongues; here is no imposition of hands, nor s●ting apart for the Ministry, for they were not baptised, ver. 47. yet were these Persons qualifi●● for the People to have chosen any man among them. Again, Acts 8.14, 15, 16, 17. The were many Men and Women at Samaria that believed, and the Apostles, at Jerusalem, hearing of 〈◊〉 sent unto them Peter and John, who prayed, and la● their hands on them, and the received the H● Ghost. Yet sure Mr. Stillingfleet will not sa● these were made Ministers by this; however the were qualified thereby to have been chosen by t● People.  
Again, Acts 19 Paul found certain Disciples 〈◊〉 Ephesus, twelve in Number, of Men; he la● on them, and they received they Holy Ghost, a● Prophesied. And there is no colour to say that the● were Ordained Ministers thereby: So that, the● were more Persons qualified for the work to be ch●sen by the people before Ordination.  
Yea, what saith Mr. Stillingfleet to that place 〈◊〉 Acts 6. where the Apostles direct the Multitude to choose out from amongst themselves seven M● of honest report, and full of the Holy Ghost a● Wisdom, whom the Apostles might appoint, & ● Now, had Mr. Stillingfleets conceit been true, th●● the qualification was consequent of Ordination, 〈◊〉 had been in vain to have given such a direction to th● people. But we see the people did find out among themselves seven such Men every way fitted to 〈◊〉 Ordained Ministers.  
There were many of the Brethren in that single congregation at Corinth abundantly qualified for 〈◊〉 work, as doth clearly appear in those Epistles, 〈◊〉 the rest of the Brethren were to covet such gifts 〈◊〉 qualifications, though they might never be ●●de Ministers; and so in several other Churches. 〈◊〉 did not the Apostle to Timothy and Titus, set ●wn what should be the qualifications of such who ●●uld be made Bishops and Deacons, with which ●●y must be furnished before they were to be Or●●●ned. Sure then it cannot be imagined, that ●●e were such to be chosen until they were Or●●●ned. By this time Mr. Stillingfleets strange improbability may be removed, and if this be all 〈◊〉 ground he hath for its improbability, he may ●●clude, with others, That the Apostles did put 〈◊〉 Electing power into the hands of the People 〈◊〉 ●heir days, and that Abilities were Antecedential, 〈◊〉 not Consequential of Ordination.  
●t is wonderful that such a famous and Learned ●●n, as Mr. Stillingfleet is, should (through ●●l against the People's right of Election) be so ●●ch mistaken.  
●ndeed it is lamentable to see, how Protestants ●eneral, when they writ against the Papists, do 〈◊〉 assert the people's power of choosing their Mi●●●●ers by Divine right, as in many of the instances ●ore. Yet at home amongst their brethren, they ●●ffle and are loath to confess the truth of it; they not practise it, they will not suffer other to do it, 〈◊〉 are persuaded it ought to be so: yea many ●●●tend against it, and make Laws for another ●●nner of making Ministers. In so doing they do 〈◊〉 a little advantage the Popish interest.  
We have here purposely digressed, a little 〈◊〉 show what poor devices there are to deceive 〈◊〉 people, that they may not think it their duty▪ privilege to choose their own Ministers, and th● such men might order this matter at their pleasure  
And now for answer to the objection itself, th● needs no more to be said but this; That the Div● right of the people in these Churches about t● matter, is already proved by what hath been sa● Unless better evidences can be showed to the c●trary, than any of the aforementioned suggestion and conceits or other thing we have seen or heard.  
Or if it shall be objected further, that although was so in the infancy of the Church (as some s● yet it may not be so now, and Decrees of Counc● or of the Church (as some term it) and Laws of Magistrates have taken it away.  
Answ. 1. The Churches were better able to ●●termine of the mind of Christ then, than now, th● were fewer occasions to turn her aside in those da● in such matters; 
B. Jewel on Hag. 1. Hodiae venenum, infunditur in Eccles.  and we have no new revelati● of the truth in this thing, more than they then h● They had more abundant of the spirit of God ●mongst them, than now amongst us: they had 〈◊〉 Apostles then living amongst them, and after th● for some time, such as saw the Apostles and t● practices in these things, and conversed with th● about such matters. And sure while these lig● were in the Church, she was most like to walk the right rule, and so after ages judged. The tr● is, had those men that then made up the Chu● been still living, they might have been said to h● been in their infancy in those days, and now in 〈◊〉 age; but they being dead and new Churchman still arising, it may be said she is still in her infan● And verily much more childish she is, than she was ●n those days. But the Church in Name, the Older she grew, the more she doted, and when all ●hese ancient lights went out, the more she stumbled; like Israel of old when Moses had been gone out 40 days, they made them a Calf, 
Josh. 24 3. Judges 2.7.8. etc.  and Aaron ●he High Priest was also in the folly: and the Elder ●hat Church grew (when their Fathers, who had ●een God's wonders, were dead) the more blind and idolatrous they waxed. Therefore is it much safer ●o follow the footsteps of the Church in her infancy, ●han her Rules in her age: so far as is possible.  
But 2dly. What warrant have we from God's word to conclude, that the Church must walk by ●ne Rule in her infancy, (or more properly, in the primitive Gospel days) and by another in her el●er age? one under Heathen Magistrates, another ●nder Christian? not the least word for it in Scripture that we can find; had it been necessary, or the ●ind of Christ, it should have been so, no doubt ●ur Lord would have let us known his pleasure in 〈◊〉, and have left some Rules for it. And who will ●ead for the taking away such things from the church's by humane Counsels and Laws, which ●hrist, as King and Lawgiver to his Church hath ●iven unto them.  
That in the ordinary meetings of these Churches, ●e matter of their worship and work, was only ●ading the Scriptures, expounding them, or ●eaching, exhorting, comforting one another, aging Psalms, sometimes made by the holy bre●ren, breaking bread (or participation of the Lords ●pper) prayer (as he who prayed was able,) giv●g to the poor, etc. as appears by these Scriptures, Act. 1.14.15. ch. 2.41.42. Act. 12.5.12. 1 Cor. 11.20.23, &c, ch. 12. ch. 14. Act. 20.7. 1 Thes. 5.11.14. Heb. 10.24.25. So it was after the Apostles days, Euseb. Hist. lib. 7. c. 17. p. 28.29. Tertul. in his Apol. c. 39 p. 137. 139. 141, Engl. Transl. saith, that here we pray to God, etc. read the holy Scriptures according to the Condition of the times, what serveth to the admonishing and confirming of the faithful; we cease not saith he, to confirm or discipline by the strength of precept, we continually repeat here, we make exhortations and threatings, they feast saith he, and before they sit down, they pray; after they sing Psalms or Hymns, every one composeth after the capacity of his mind, and as it began with prayer, so it ended etc. Plinius secundus, Euseb. l. 3. c. 3. p. 53. lib. 10 cap. 3. p. 184. saith something of it. And Justinus saith, that here the writings of the Prophets and Apostles were read, then preaching to stir up the people to imitate the things read, than all stood up in prayer; then the Lord Supper, (prayer preceding;) then every one gave to the poor as he would, for this he is quoted by the Magdeburg Divines, Cent. 2. c. 6. col. 114. 115. And they also say that Nicephorus and Clement write, that they ha● here Psalms composed by the faithful, Cent. 2. c. 6 Col. 115.116. And for the manner, they further in the same, 114. col. say, that here they read th● Scriptures, as they could, and he that was chief o● did preside, prayed and gave thanks as he was abl● and so other things as above. And to this Tert● in his said Apol. cap. 30. p. 119. saith, that the prayers no man did prescribe, or declare to the what to say, because (saith he) it is our heart. W● prayed a Prayer conceived and produced, &c, a● it was decreed at the Council of Carthage again reading of any thing but the Canonical Scripture, in these Churches, Magdeburg. Cent. 4. c. 6. Col. 412. No other service or prescribed forms, or any reading of prayers, etc. once mentioned to be used in those days. It's true in process of time, step by step, forms of prayer and prescribed rules of worship crept in; or were thrust in upon the Churches, upon pretence at first, that by this, they might prevent the spreading of the Arian Heresy, which said they, men might vent in prayer if they had liberty to have prayed what they had pleased: therefore they agreed, that Ministers should make their own form, and pray no other: then after that, these forms should not be used till he had conferred with some of the able brethren of the Church whereof he was Minister: then, the next step was that this prayer must be approved of by a Council  they might use them: again, that one and the same form should be used in several Churches, as it is at this day, all which, such as are acquainted with History, cannot deny. But from this we conclude, it was not so from the beginning: and it is evident also that the power of managing of the worship of God's appointment (according as we see it was in those days) belonged to the particular Congregations and each did (as to the circumstances of these) as they judged most convenient, and tend most to edification, nor did any other in those days intermeddle with these matters but in their own Churches, nor did these Churches themselves ever ●dd any thing to their worship, or prescribe any ●orms of prayer, or rules of worship to which they necessarily bound themselves, till this policy entered about the Arians, which never had any success ●o the end pretended. We see that they prayed before, as they were able, and no man prescribed words, they read according to the condition of the times. The Pastor or Bishop exhorted to follow such things as were read, and he gave thanks as he was able: they sang Hymns composed by Godly brethren, etc. nothing imposed upon them, nor did any than pretend authority over them to give rules to the Churches in those things.  
That in those ordinary meetings of these Churches, the private brethren (who were able) did (without any allowance of any Church but the Congregation, whereof they were members) openly preach, exhort, admonish, and comfort one another mutually, see Rom. 15.14. 1 Cor. 12. ch. 14. yea they might Covet gifts to this end, as the Apostle there directs the Corinthians: and it is said of them, 2 Cor. 8.7. That they abounded in utterance, and how could this be known or used if not in their Assemblies, 
Jerom. upon 3d. Titus.  see also Colos. 3, 16. 1 Thes. 5.11. Heb. 3.12.13. cap 10.24. 1 Pet. 4.10.11. If it be said that these had extraordinary gifts, their practice therefore, is no rule. Answ. The Officers of Churches themselves in these days, have no such extraordinary gifts; and if the brethren now, have such ordinary gifts as the Officers have, as to this work (both being from God) ought not these brethren then, by the same rule to employ their talent also in an orderly manner? (as the Apostles directed the use of extraordinary gifts amongst the Corinthians) for the Churches good; as believers o● old did use their extraordinary gifts for the Churches good in those days; especially these gifts which are given chief for this end: that believers should employ them for the edifying of their brethren; whe● as tongues were not given for that end, but for a sig● to the unbelievers, 1 Cor. 14.22. This the brethren did ordinarily in the Primitive Churches, as the Magdeburgh Divines allege out of Ambrose, that in the time of the Apostles, in the first Church, it was granted to all men to preach and explain the Scriptures, Cent. 4. c. 6 col. 491. and Fulk against the Rhem. upon Rom. 10. allow this right, and urgeth this place of Ambrose and Ruffinus to prove it. And in the Churches afterwards, 
Reynold in his conference with Hart c. 3. p. 103, 104, saith that all the faithful own the duty of strengthening their brethren each to other according to the measure of Grace given to them.  the brethren did the like Justine writes, that in his time, the gift of Prophesying did flourish in the Church, Euseb. l. 4. cap. 18. p. 68 Irenaeus affirms that in his time every one receiving grace of Christ, after the quantity of his talent bend himself to benefit the other brethren in the name of Christ. Euseb. l. 5. cap. 7. p. 82. This practice is also affirmed to be lawful and usual in those days, in their open Assemblies: yea when Bishops themselves were present in the Congregation, as the Bishops of Caesaria and Jerusalem maintains and gives divers instances in those days against one, who found fault only because they preached when Bishops were present; not for their preaching only or otherwise, yet this also they justify, as that which was lawful and in common use at that day: 
See Doctor Taylor Prophecy, p. 109.  yea and that which the Bishops themselves did then desire the brethren to do. See it at large, Euseb. l. 6. c. 19 p. 106.  
Mr. Harding against Bishop Jewel (though Papist) yet he saith that Prophesying is expounding of Scripture and interpreting; and he there grants that in case God shall please when we come together in the Church for Comfort and Edifying, to give into our Hearts, and put into our Mouths what we should Pray and Preach, and how we should handle the Scripture, than we might do it; and he there further saith and alloweth, that in the Apostles days they came into the Church to the intent that they might profitably Exercise the gifts God gave; and by the same (especially by the gift of Prophesying) edify one another, and Teach one another. See this in Bishop Jewels reply to Harding p. 192, 193. And the Bishop himself agrees, that the brethren as well as Officers may have gifts of the Spirit; these are his words in p. 527. 532. That the Spirit of God is bound neither to sharpness of Wit, nor abundance of Learning; ofttimes, (saith he,) the unlearned seethe that thing that the learned cannot see, 
See Raynolds in his Conference with Hart. c. 2. p. 63  and he there quotes Ephiphanus l. 2. for these words, only to the Children of the Holy Ghost all the Scriptures are plain and clear.  
Bishop Nicholson of Gloucester in his aforesaid Book p. 32. from Rom. 12.7, 8. saith, that those gifts are given to other Christians as well as to Officers, and that they ought to use these talents, as well as Officers; and there he proves it by other places of Scripture also. So that it is plain, that the brethren may have the Spirit of God and such gifts of Prophesying as Officers have; then surely it's given to them for use.  
Mr. Stillingfleet in his Book before mentioned, p. 249. saith, first that it was so in the Church-meetings of the Jews, these are his words; that any one amongst the Jews, who enjoyed any repute for Religion or knowledge of the Law, was allowed a free liberty of speaking for the instruction of the People, as we see (saith he) in Christ and his Apostles, Act. 13.15. though they were no Officers. And secondly, he confesseth at large, that it was so in the Churches in the primitive times, that such did Preach, etc.  
The Truth is, there is not one precedent of any credit for some hundred of years, of any complaint made against this practice or use, as unlawful, irregular or as an usurpation of, or intrusion upon the Minister's office, nor was there any decree in the Church of God in those days for the prohibiting of it. And it's very clear, by all the places before, that every particular Congregation did order every thing about this matter themselves and none else; since the Apostles days, did intermeddle with the ordering thereof.  
Now, how the prohibiting of the brethren's improving their Talents in this case & robbing of the Churches of that profit Christ intended them, by bestowing such gifts, will be answered at the last day can hardly be resolved to the Comfort of such who shall be active in it.  
That these Churches or Congregations usually met together for the performance of these and other things, when, and where they pleased, 
Mr. Vines of the Sacrament, p. 194. agrees that these Churches have power so to do.  and as often as they agreed so to do without any prescribed Rules in the Apostles times, for either time or place (except on the Lord's day) and that these Churches practised according to this liberty, for some ages: we think none can deny, since the Scriptures every where clear it, where the meeting of Christian Churches is spoken of: sometimes in Schools, sometimes in Houses, etc. as the Churches pleased, and was most convenient for them; and one Church was no rule in this, to another; nor were any places or times set down, as Rules for more than one Congregation to walk by; unless, they did voluntarily approve of what another did, and so do the same. Thus it was after the Apostles days as the Magdeburgh Divines say, Cent. 1. l. 2. Cap. 6. 
Raynolds Conference with Hart, c 8. p. 491. Raynolds saith Christians may sing the song of the Lord in all places, now, no ground unholy, every house Zion, and every faithful Company, yea every faithful body a temple to serve God in.  Col. 492, 493. That no certain places or hours were prescribed, or enjoined in the Churches; but each Church did herein as was most convenient. It's true, we find, that after some time, They, for conveniency of meeting, built some places, used others formerly built for the commemorations of some Persons or things, as Ecclesiastical History testifies. And when the Arian Bishops had prevailed with the Emperor to shut up those places from other Christians; these met in private places, and built them new ones, and there met by themselves, yet were not these blamed in those days for these meetings, though not in their public places; nor any punishment awarded for them: No, not by these cruel Arian Emperors. In those days nothing but the Church's meeting in any place did consecrate that place, and Worship was equally accepted in a House as in a public Temple; in one place, as in another; at one time of the Day, as another.  
That in these Congregations Societies or particular Churches, and not elsewhere, for some ages together from the Apostles downward, Offenders, scandalous sinners, wicked persons, etc. being members of the Congregations, were admonished Publicly, and in case of obstinacy or notorious fact, 
Mr. Vines upon the Sacrment, p. 166, ●95. say, That it was the power of a Church of Christian, as such, to prevent scandals.  cast out of the Church, by the consent of the whole Congregation, whereof he was a member; that is, The whole Society, Ministers and brethren met together for that work. And by them again to be received in again upon repentance. And that the judgement of all, in this Case, lay wholly and only in this Church as such, and all this by Divine Right. The Church of Corinth (which was but one Congregation, who met in one place together to partake of Ordinances, as before is proved) ●ad this power, 1 Cor. 5. where the Apostle blames ●he whole Church for not casting out the wicked ●erson, ver. 2. charging them to meet, and do it, 〈◊〉 the name (or power) of our Lord Jesus, ver. 4, 5. ●nd gave them to know, or put them in mind, ●hat it was their power and duty to do it, ver. ● 2. do not ye judge them that are within? saith ●e, is it not your duty, and power to judge them ●hat are within your Church? is it not your practice 〈◊〉 to do? That this authority of theirs in this ●atter carries the force of his argument, is plain, ●●om his conclusion, ver. 13. Therefore put away, etc. he would not have made their bare judgement, ●hat such a power resided amongst them, or that ●hey practised such a thing, his premises for such a positive conclusion, had not the right of judging ●nd casting out been in them, according to Christ's ●hind, in that of Matth. 18. Tell the Church, etc. Bishop Jewel was of the same mind from this Text, because such a Church only (who can easily meet 〈◊〉 one place as a Church; not the general Church in ●ne sense or another, is capable to hear what is told ●hem, etc. See his words before set down at large. ●nd the same Apostle writes to this Church again, ●s a Church to receive the same person in again, he ●aving manifested great repentance, And to this he persuades them by several arguments.  
First, That the former Censure of many was sufficient unto him.  
2ly. Lest he should be overwhelmed with sorrow; and  
Thirdly, Because of Satan's device and design, which was to destroy by that which was appointed ●f God to heal. Therefore the Apostle beseecheth them to receive him in again, 2 Cor. 2.6, 7, 8, 1● which argues strongly, that their power lay in thi● also, as in casting him out. So he wrote to the Gal●thians to cut off such who troubled them with fals● doctrine, And we find the seven Churches in As●● acting thus, and not one blamed for the neglect 〈◊〉 another in this matter, nor one commended for th● good in another, but each Church for itself. Perg●mus blamed for having such amongst them that he● the doctrine of Balaam. Thyatira for suffering th● woman Jezebel to teach and seduce, etc. The Church of Ephesus commended, for trying the false Apostles, 
Magdib. Cent 1. l. 2. cap 7. Col. 522.  Rev. 2.2.14, 15, 20. which clearly shewe● that these Churches had no dependency one of an●ther; but each had power both to try false teacher and to have cast them out, not to have suffered the● amongst them; and the not doing it, or the d●ing of it, accordingly is taken notice of by th● Lord Jesus Christ, as a neglect, or a work of ea●● Church, as particularly, and alone concerned, and 〈◊〉 the whole body of each Church, as is evident 〈◊〉 those places, and these words there used in th● close of what was written to each Church. He● what the Spirit saith to the Churches; not to th● Officers, or particular Persons offending, or Bishop but the whole, and they blamed for suffering su●● Persons amongst them. That those Church's we● but particular Societies, or single Congregation● and the things spoken are spoken to the whole bod● of each Church. Ambrose, Ausbertius, Perkin● and Brightman affirm. And also Dr. Tulke, Tydal, and the Old Translators, call them seven Co●gregations. Ephesus one, and that said to be b● one Flock, Acts 20. For at this time were m●titudes of Jews and Heathens in this City. Ye● ●en Polycarp their Bishop was called out to suffer ●●re were but few Christians in that City, as Eu●ius History tells us. The Presbyterian Divines ●ree this. See Smect. p. 40, 41, 43.  
Tertul. also tells us, That in these Congregati●s, these things were done. In these Assemblies ●●ith he) we make Exhortations and Threaten, 〈◊〉 Divine Censures, that banisheth Sinners and ex●deth them from our Communion: We Judge ●●m (saith he) with very great Circumspection, 'cause we know that God is in the midst of us, ●d knows what we do; Apol. Cap. 39 p. 137. 〈◊〉 this the Magdeburg. Century Writers fully ●ree. And also sets forth the manner how the Con●egations did it, Cent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. col. 158. ●b. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 358, 359. Cap. 6. Col. 498. ●●d again, they prove this from Augustine, Cent. ● Cap. 4. Col. 380, 381, 382, 383, 384. And ●ain, they say, from Ambrose ad Valentinianum ●peratorem. That those Churches had this Pow● and none else; and this aught to be done openly the Congregation, the People being present, Cent. ● cap. 7. col. 500, 501. And that, in the Epistle the Roman Presbyters to Cyprian, it is affirmed, at the Presbyters, Deacons, and Lay-People ●re wont to be together in Council, and to speak ●d confer their own sense and mind in these things those days, Cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 176.152, 153. ●●d that Cyprian himself saith, That as the Peo●e and whole Church hath Power to choose their ●●n Ministers: So if the Bishops did fall into He●ie, they were deposed by the Clergy and Peo●e, and they appoint another. And that it was ●t Lawful for the Bishop to do any thing herein without the People's Counsels, Cent. 3. cap. 7. col. 173, 174, 175, 176. And again, they say that Origen did rebuke the Pride of some Priests▪ those days, who did despise the Counsels of t● Inferior Priests and Lay-Men, Cent. 3. cap. 7. c● 151, 152, 153. Many more Testimonies might 〈◊〉 offered for the proof hereof in those days, no● denying it, or practising otherwise for many Ag● And Mr. Stillingfleet, 
Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament P. 129, 173 194, 195, 196. agrees all this f●lly. And also saith, That God gave this great Charter to the Church; not the Emperor, and that God gave it to them, as a Church.  in the same Irenicum, p. 4● saith, as to a Power arising from mutual compau and consent of Parties, he acknowledgeth a Pow● to bind all included under that Compact. Not 〈◊〉 virtue of any supreme binding Power in them; b● from the free consent of the Parties submitting, sai● he; which he saith there, is most agreeable to th● Nature of Church-Power, being not Coersive, b● Directive; and then he avers, That such was t● Confederate Discipline of the Primitive Church, b●fore they had any Christian Magistrate. From whic● words of his may be gathered; That there was 〈◊〉 Agreement amongst Christians of each Society 〈◊〉 Congregation, to submit to the Laws of Christ; f●● he saith, none can be bound but those that consent (and it canno the supposed that such a confederation or Agreement can be well made amongst more tha● can conveniently meet in one place, as a Church that all are bound who do thus Confederate, or joy themselves together in a Society: and that this Society and Church by virtue of this Confederatio● as a Church, hath Power in this case to deal wi●● as many as do come amongst them, and consent Especially, since he hath in the same Book, p. 13● agreed, that a real confederation ought to be between those who join themselvas together in Gospel-ordinances in Order to their being a Church and saith, that none will deny this, who know what it is that makes a Society to be so, which is ●●ch a real confederation with one another. And ●●terwards, p. 148, 149. to the matters in hand; more expressly he saith these things. That the Jews, being ●●e Church of God, secluded Men from their So●eties, which, saith he, may be looked upon not 〈◊〉 a civil, but a Sacred Action, and that they had ●●is Power of Excommunication: and for the Christian Church, he saith, the practice of Discipline ●pon Offenders was never questioned, etc. That ●ence, saith he, we gather in, that it hath been the practise of Societies constituted for the Worship ●f God, to call Offenders to an account for their Offence, and if upon Examination they are found ●uilty, to exclude them their Societies: and that it 〈◊〉 the dictate, of the Law of Nature, That every Offender against the Laws of a Society; must give ●n account of his actions to the Rulers of the Society, and submit to the censures inflicted on him. ●rom all which say of his, this will follow: That every particular Church or Society, joining together by a Confederation amongst themselves, ●ave this Power within themselves, to call Offenders ●o an account, and to seclude them their Society, if ●here be just cause found. Yet take one place more ●f him, and then we shall leave this as undeniable; it is in p. 228, 229. where he saith, It must in rea●on be supposed, that all Matters of the Nature of scandal to the Church must be decided there, Mat. ●8. And there he Argues, the Lawfulness of Excommunication in Christian Churches; and adds ●his: For if every Person (saith he) might withdraw from the Society of such a one, as continued refractory in his Offence, then much more may a whole Society, and the Officers of it, declare such a one to be avoided both in Religious and Famine civil Society; which (saith he) is the formal stir of Excommunication. Thus Mr. Stilling● Lodgeth this Power in every Society or Chu● joined together by mutual consent, over every 〈◊〉 that consented; by the unquestioned practice● the Churches, Nature of Societies, and the v● Law of Nature.  
To these Churches, for the most part, the E●stles were directed, which the Apostles wrote, especially when they wrote to any as a Church; as 〈◊〉 the Corinthians, Thessalonians, etc. And w●● they wrote to more than one Congregation, tho● in the same Country, they directed them to 〈◊〉 Churches, in the Plural Number; as the Epistle the Galatians: So the Epistle to the Churche● Asia; otherwise they wrote in general to all 〈◊〉 Saints, 
2 Cor. 8.19, 23. 1 Cor. 16.3 Act. 14.26.27. Act. 15.30. Colos. 4.16, 17. 1 Thes. 5.27.  or all in such a Country, and not to a● Church as such. And to these Churches, that 〈◊〉 The whole Body of each of them, Officers and P●ple, all Church-Affairs were Directed. Th● Churches, as such, sent Messengers, etc. approved of such (to be sent to them) by their Lette● and as a Church Received Letters, 〈◊〉 assembled together to read them, to agree 〈◊〉 things that concerned the Church; as the Chu● in Antioch, Jerusalem, and others, So after 〈◊〉 Apostles days. Ignatius, Polycarpus, and others, w● wrote Epistles to Churches, as such, directed th● to such particular Churches, and to the whole ●dy of them: and makes mention of their Minist● in the Body of their Epistles, as most of the Apostles did in theirs: See the Epistles of Polycarp●● and Ignatius, at large. Yea, the Emperors themselves, when they had any thing to write to a● Church, as such, about any thing that did conce●● them as a Church; as in the Matters of election of ●●nisters or restoring them again after banishment. ●●ey wrote to the whole people of the Church, as ●●seb. and Socrat testify. See the Epist. records. Euseb. of the life of Constantine, lib. 3. cap. ●. p. 52. 53, Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 252. 253. p. 18. p. 268. 269.  
So that by this we have herein before set forth; ●hough but a part of what is Extant to the same ●rpose) it may be judged somewhat clear, that ●●rticular Churches have this power by Divine ●●ght, unless it can be proved by better evidences, ●hat it is placed by Divine authority elsewhere, or ●at this power is given to none at all: which we ●●nk none will suppose. If therefore any have ●rested this power from these Churches, and invest● any other there with, and continue the same by ●●ce of Humane Laws, and so hold the People in ●bjection thereunto; It will be necessary good ●arrant of Scripture be showed for it: or else it ●ay be said of such as once it was said of the Scribes ●d Pharisees. Math. 15.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It is ●ritten ye shall do so and so. But you say no, it ●all be thus and thus, as we may there see at large; ●d (as Christ there concludes against them) he ●d, In vain do ye worship, teaching for Doctrines ●e Commandments of men. Or if men should be 〈◊〉 Mr. Stillingfleets mind in the general, That there ●no form of government of Divine right. Or of ●e Bishop of Gloucester his mind in this particular, ●hat the People's electing power was not a Divine ●●ght. Yet let these judge of it so fare as the same person's agree the Contrary in the same Book. And ●st Mr. Stillingfleet in p. 199. averrs that all essen●lls of Church Government are contained in Scripture clearly. That essentials are such things th● are necessary to the preservation of such a Socies as the Church. From which words of his, may 〈◊〉 gathered; That he grants here in a few word what he seems to bend his whole discourse against For, whatsoever is clearly contained in Scripture is of Divine authority, all that is necessary for t● preservation of a Church-Society, is therein c●tained, therefore Church-Government; yea 〈◊〉 very form of it, being necessary to Church p●servation (or else there needs no talk about it, 〈◊〉 not necessary) and contained in the whole of it 〈◊〉 Scripture, is certain and of Divine right. And y● if men will not believe, that this doth follow, th● he intends thereby, the form should be include but that he would distinguish here; Then let the persons allow, but that which Mr. Stillingfl●●● grants afterwards in the same book, p. 417. whi● is this. That that form of Church-Governme● which comes nearest to Apostolical practice is t● best, and tends most to the advantage of the pea● and unity of the Church of God. That this for● is to be gathered from Scripture, and Antiquity Whence we infer, if then that be best and m●● for the Church's peace and unity, which com● nearest the Apostolic practice, etc. And this Government and order, we have before endeavours to evince, be sufficiently proved to be nearest t● Apostolical practice, and gathered to be so fro● Scripture and Antiquity. Then, at least, it is t● best form of Government in the Church, and m● for the Church's unity and peace. And so for t● Bishop's mind about Election of Ministers. I● men (who will be of this Judgement against the D●vine right of the people in this matter) also be swa●●ed by him to believe what he saith further about it; ●his words were before recited. That this was derived upon the people from rules of Christian equity and society, and had admirable effects, as we have fully set down under that particular head of the Church's power in choosing their own Ministers, look over his Words in p. 27. of his Apol. whence in brief may be observed; That, except any other way of choosing them than by these Congregations (as before) be derived from the same rules and have the same good effects; or it cannot be proved that those rules and effects are equally good with these, at least; Then it follows, that that way of making Ministers by the particular Church's Election, is the best, and most for the Churches, and also for the Minister's advantage; The Excellency of those Rules, and the Desireableness of those Ends, still remaining; and the contrary effects from a contrary practice being apparent, and the rules whence this latter way came in, can hardly be made out to be of equal worth with the rules from whence the former was derived.  
Well then, if these premises be true and cannot be disproved by better evidences and authorities: We shall offer to consideration these things.  
First, Why should any judge evil of those who own, and practise according to this? Or how indeed, can any (convinced of these things) join themselves to, or have to do with any Church or Congregation denying these things, or opposing ●hem, or giving up this power to others, and cast●ng off their duty up on others, and whose Ministers ●re made after another manner and imposed upon ●hem? Or how can any such convinced Ones have ●o do in Congregations and Ordinances otherwise Ordered and Acting then according to this rule, in faith to expect God's presence and blessing in it? how can any knowing these things (without renouncing Christ as Lord and Lawgiver in his church) own and subscribe to the exercise of this power by others, than these Churches? much more, how can any so convinced, enforce others to give subjection to any Usurping this power without sin against Christ. Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin; so that if we are found in the practice of any thing in these matters not commanded at all, or of any thing commanded, in other manner than is prescribed by the Law of Christ; we cannot groundedly believe for a blessing there, 
Mr. Hooler Eccles. Polity, in the Preface.  having no promise for it: Nay it is sin if we do but doubt it, Rom. 14.22.23. Therefore every one ought to be at liberty till he be convinced and fully persuaded in his own mind, ere he meddle with these things.  
Secondly, Surely this then justifies and commends such, who being fully persuaded of the truth of the premises, do endeavour to regulate their practices in all Church affairs by these rules: for the Scripture saith, as we have received how aught to walk, and to please God, so should we abound etc. 1 Thes. 4.1. and as Tymothy was charged, to continue in the things he had learned, and had been assured of, knowing of whom he had learned them, and that from a Child he had known the Holy Scriptures, 2 Tim. 3.14, 15. So are Saints in general commanded to stand fast and hold the Traditions which they have been taught by word or Epistle, 2 Thess. 2.15. especially when they have by reading and searching the Scriptures like the Noble Beraeans, Act. 17. proved these things to be so, and find that the primitive Gospel Churches practised according to this; and so, trying all things, hold fast that which is good, and stand fast in the liberty Christ hath left them; for in so doing they are less like to err, Mark 12.24. do ye not therefore err, not knowing the Scriptures, etc. And if these have their foundation for their practices here, they may boldly say with Paul, Act. 24. after the way they call Heresy, so worthy I, etc. believing all things that are written, etc.  
Bishop Jewel in his reply to Harding, p. 111. allegeth these words out of Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. (speaking of Bishops) If any of my Predecessors have not followed or kept that thing which the Lord by his Example and Commandment hath Taught us, he, for his simplicity, may be pardoned, but if we wilfully offend, there is no pardon for us, who are already warned and instructed of the Lord,  
Again, that after God hath once opened his truth to us, if then we shall continue in error, etc. And again in p. 144. he quotes Cyprian, ad Caecil. lib. 2. Epist. 3. for these words. It behoveth the Religion we profess, and our reverence towards God and ●he very place and Office of our Priesthood, to keep ●he Truths of the Lords tradition, and by the Lords advertisements to correct that thing, that by certain ●ath been amiss, that when he comes in his Glory ●nd Majesty, he may find us to hold what he warned to keep; that he taught us, to do that he did. All which words of his presseth an exact keeping to ●he Rules left us, when we know them.  
But if it shall be objected, that the people of the Churches are unlearned, and cannot understand scriptures, and thence 'tis they mistake and wrest scriptures; that it is for learned Men, who understand Tongues, etc. to give the meaning of Scriptures, and that others ought to submit to their judgements herein, and to practise as the learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church have done before us.  

See Helis Serm. of the abuse of Difficult places of of Scripture. Matth. 1●. 10.11.  For Answer hereto briefly. First, The Apostle by the term [unlearned,] intends not unskilful in Tongues, nor in humane learning, but unskilful in the Spiritual meaning of the Holy Ghost in the Scripture. We know the Gospel is hid to some, to them that are lost, etc. though otherwise never so learned wise or great; and to others it is given to know.  
Secondly, That in this sense, the Scripture is not understood by the help of the greatest Art & Skill of Tongues, nor the largest humane Wisdom of any (this can only reach the letter) but by the help of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.14. The things of God are foolishness to the Natural man, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually understood o● discerned. Now surely, none will deny but that 〈◊〉 man may be very learned and wise in humane things, 
See the Conference between Raynolds and Hart, c. 2. p. 58. cap. 6. p. 2●7.  and have great skill in Tongues, and ye● be but a natural man still, that is, not having the Spirit of God, by whom spiritual things are opene● to us where is the Wise? where is the Scribe? wher● is the Disputer of this world? and God chose th● foolish things of this world to confound the wise etc. that no flesh should Glory in his presence, 
Matth. 12.7. c. 13.10, 11.12, Luk. 19.41 42. Joh. 3.10. Act. 13.17, 27. Act. 26.9.  a● is abundantly clear in 1 Cor. 1.18, 19, 20.27, 28 29. And this was apparent amongst the Jews their most learned men (Scribes and Pharisees chief Priest, etc. with all their learning and pretence to greater knowledge than the rest of th● Jews, could not find out the meaning of the Prophets concerning Christ, but Crucified Him; and Christ said of them, that they were the blind leading the blind, and that they were therefore blind because they thought they did see above others, although these were as confident, that they were the only knowing men; as the learned Doctors, and Rulers of Churches of latter ages, have been of themselves. And the contrary on the other hand, 
●o. 9.39. Bish. Jewel's Reply to Harding, p. 533. 526 Luk. 24.44 45. John 8.12, 31. Joh. 6.14. Eph. 1.17, 13. 1● Epist. Joh. 2.27.  we see men of no knowledge in Tongues, etc. nor much worldly Wisdom when Christ by his Spirit had opened their understanding, they then understood the Scriptures.  
And for this end amongst others was the Holy Ghost promised to the followers of Christ, he himself said, that such as believed should not sit in darkness, but have the light of life; that his Spirit should take of his, and show it to them. And the Apostle saith, the anointing which they should receive should teach them, etc.  
Thirdly, That this Spirit of God is neither promised nor given to the learned Doctors, able Schoolmen, or Governors of Churches only; but is promised to all believers in general, and so bestowed upon all Christ's members in common, though in different Measures, as the Spirit pleaseth; and many times more abundantly upon such, who had least of outward greatness, of skill in the tongues, or humane Wisdom, that God might be glorified the more, and that no flesh might glory, as in 1 Cor. 1. ch. 2. before mentioned doth clear, therefore such may come to the knowledge of Christ's mind in the Scriptures hereby, as well as learned men.  
Each part of which answer Bishop Jewel in his reply to Harding, Bishop Carleton in his little Book before quoted, and others fully maintain: We shall transcribe some few things, first as to this, It is not learning but the Spirit of God that makes men able to understand Scriptures. Bishop Jewel p. 216. he saith out of Tertul. Contra Hermogenem, that knowledge of Philosophy and affiance of learning hath caused Divisions and Heresies in the Church, and therefore he called the Philosophers the Patriarches of Heretics; Again in p. 526, 527. out of chrysostom he saith, that to understand God's Word, we need no silogismes or knowledge of Logic, Husbandmen old men, etc. do understand it, that Julian charged the Christians that their women were so learned in the Scriptures, and again p. 532. he saith, out of Epiphanius lib. 2. that only to the children of the Holy Ghost all the Holy Scriptures are plain and clear: and again p. 434, that it is true that flesh and blood is not able to understand the will of God without special revelation, Christ opened the understanding of his Disciples, that without this special help of God's Spirit, the word of God is unto the reader (be he never so wise or learned, saith he) as the Vision of a Sealed Book, etc. Secondly, as to this, that the Spirit of God is not given to the Doctors, rulers of the Churches or Learned men only; but also to all the members of Christ in common, in some measure; and that they ought to search the Scriptures, may understand them by the help of this Spirit, as well as the learned, who have skill in tongues, and humane learning. Cardinal Cajetan (though a Papist) at the Council of Trent affirmed this; That a sense of Scripture, against the stream of the Doctors is not to be rejected, if agreeing with other Scriptures: For God, saith he, hath not tied the sense to the old Doctors. Concil. Trident. lib. 2. p. 158. Bishop Jewel in the same Reply to Harding. p. 205. saith, That chrysostom did persuade his people to read the Scripture; That they are plain and easy; that the Ignorant and Simple men, by prayer unto God may attain unto the knowledge of them without any Master or Teacher, by himself alone; and he there quotes Chrisostome in Math. Hom. 2. in Ps. 43. ad Colos. Hom. 9 Contra Anomaeos. Hom. 3. in Gen. Hom. 35. and for these words also, If thou use to pray diligently, 
See Raynolds his Conference with Hart, c. 2. p. 62.  there is no cause thou shouldest desire the teaching of thy fellow servant, for God himself will abundantly enlighten thy mind without any interpreter; and again, it cannot be that any man with great study, fervent desire, reading the Scripture, should be destitute, though he want the teaching of man, yet will God himself from above enter into our hearts, and lighten our minds and our reason, and open things that are hid, and become our teacher of such things we know not.  
Again in p. 519. 531. 532. 534. etc. he allegeth many Fathers to prove that the people ought to be diligent in searching Scriptures both men and women; That that is the way to keep from Heresies; That such who search cannot be deceived. And in p. 526. 527. he saith again, out of Gerson. That the weighing and consideration of Faith pertain as well to others, as to the Prelates; yea to the Lay People, and that better many times (saith he) then to many Priests. And that we ought rather to believe a Lay man, if he bring the authority of Scripture than the Pope and a general Council. And again p. 532. he (speaking of the understanding of the Scriptures) saith, That in these things the Spirit of God is bound neither to sharpness of Wit, nor to abundance of Learning; ofttimes the unlearned (saith he) seethe that thing that the learned cannot see. And again after p. 534. having said before, That without the special helps of God's Spirit, the word of God is as a sealed Book, &c, He there adds these words, That this revelation is not special to some but general to all the members of Christ. And he here blames Mr. Harding, for having so low an esteem of the Vulgar people, as the Scribes and Pharisees had of the followers of Christ: These are accursed not knowing the law, said they, Though the Apostles saith he, calls them Citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God. Again p, 537. That the learned Fathers have evermore thought, that in such perilous times of dissension in Judgement, it is most behooveful for the people to have recourse unto the Scriptures, Act. 17. And out of chrysostom: in opere imperfecto, Hom. 49. upon these words, ye shall see the Abominations, etc. That Christian men who will be assured of the true Faith must resort to nothing but Holy Scriptures, else (saith he) they will be offended and perish; and not knowing which is the true Church, and by means thereof they shall fall into the abomination of the desolation. And out of Chrysost. Hom. 49. That we may in no wise believe the Churches themselves, unless they say and do such things, as be agreeable to Scriptures, Again p. 544. 
See Ray●●●ds Conference with Hart. c. 2. 6●.  he saith out of Theodoret de natura hominis. lib. 5. That you may commonly see, not only the teachers of the people and Rulers of the Churches, but also Tailors, Smiths, etc. do understand the Principles of our Religion; women who live of their labour, Servants, Husbandmen, Ditchers, etc. can reason of the Holy Trinity, of ●e Creation of the world, of the nature of man, a ●eat deal more skilfully than either Plato or A●stotle was ever able to do, and that Origen said to ●s Hearers thus, when I speak what I think meet, 
Origen in Joshua Hom. 21. Bishop Hooper in his Declaration of the ten Common. fol. 46. Jer. 44.17, 18. Ezek. 20.18.  ●amine and judge you whether it be well or otherwise. Upon which words the Bishop concludes ●at in old times the Vulgar people were able, not ●ly to understand the Scriptures, but also to judge their Preachers. And (as to our Father's exam●e) he saith p. 542. that our Father's examples are ●t always sufficient Rules: for (saith he) they ●e been led in Ignorance, Many Heretics (saith 〈◊〉) plead nothing but that they were born in, liv● in that they now practise, and received from ●eir Fathers. So much of this Bishop here.  
A word out of Bishop Carleton, and we shall con●de this. He in the same Book, (called a Directi● to know the true Church, p. 23. 24. 36. 37. ●●. 39 44. 46. 47. 53. 
See t●● Conference between Raynolds and Hart c. 2. p. 45, 46. ) there affirms and proves 〈◊〉 many Fathers, that the Scripture is the judge of ●ntroversies; that we must not take what the ●urch teacheth without limitation: For (saith 〈◊〉 she hath a Rule to teach by the Scriptures; and 〈◊〉 long as she teacheth by this, she is to be heard. That is a manifest sliding from the true Faith, and an ●ident sign of Pride, to reject any thing that is writ●, or to bring in any thing which is not written: ●at we should not regard this or that man's say, 〈◊〉 seek all these things out of Scriptures, 
Optatus l. 5. contra Parmenian Donat. Cited by Raynolds in the same Conference, p. 402.  from ●ich we must in nothing departed. And of the Pa●sts, he saith, That they presume that they deal ●th simple men, who may not examine their Do●ines; and therefore he adviseth us, lest we should 〈◊〉 deceived, to look to our Rule, which is the Scrip●re. Now, from all this we have transcribed, we may conclude this Objection to be fully answere● and the Matter undeniable; That other Member of the Church besides Learned Doctors, skilled 〈◊〉 the Tongues, and Governors of the Churches, ma● understand the Scriptures by the help of the Spi● of God. That they ought to read them, a● search them for this end; That God will give 〈◊〉 them his Spirit to open their Understandings; a● sometimes more to those, than to the Learned D●ctors: That Learning and Worldly Wisdom ca●not unfold Scripture without the Spirit of Go● That it is no safe way to follow our Father's step● no, nor the Rules of Counsels, nor Churches, a● further than they follow the Scriptures: That it 〈◊〉 safe in times of dissension in Judgement to make 〈◊〉 the Scriptures: That the Scripture is the Judge 〈◊〉 Controversies. Now, we know it is in vain f● unlearned men to read, and impossible to search t● Scriptures, or try Doctrines by them, if M● learned in the Tongues cannot reach to understa● them, or may not conceive of the sense of the● and give their Judgement of them, as their ow● Rule for their own Practices. And surely it is n● ground enough for any Man to believe, that such thing is the truth, and to expect God's Blessing 〈◊〉 the Practice of it, 
See Mr. Hildershams to this, Lecture 59 on Joh. 4. Lect. 8. on Joh. 4. Mr. Gee in his Exposition of Rom. 18.  barely upon this. That Learned Men, Nay, though very Godly Men, have 〈◊〉 Interpreted such a Scripture, or was of such an opinion about it, or that the Learned Godly Me● who went before us, did practice thus; unless 〈◊〉 so he himself be by their Demonstrations and Reason's, clearly satisfied in his own mind, that the Opinion and Practice therein is really the ve● Truth.  
If these things be full to answer such an Objection ●t by Mr. Harding against the Protestants; why ●t as full and suitable, every way to confirm the ●swer here Offered by Protestants to the selfsame ●bjection made against them by their Fellow-Bre●en?  
If it shall be Objected further, That many ●stimonies for the proving of the Premises, from ●ence these conclusions are drawn, are not Scrip●es, but Traditions. To this Answer may be ●de:  
First, That those Examples and Evidences con● with the Scriptures, and therefore the ●ore heed to be given to them; especially considering that these are only Matters of Practice gene●●ly owned, and not contended against in those ●ys; and also considering how some of these Te●●monies have remained so many hundred years un●literated against all the Endeavours of Rome, and ●ers, whose Interest and Practice these things oppose; and who have for their Interest sake corrupt most of the Fathers and Counsels, to make ●●m speak as they would.  
Secondly, That they are the say and consent Ancient and Modern Writers, and Men of dif●●●ent Judgements in other things; yet all accord in ●s, as the Practice in those days in these things, 〈◊〉 that it was by Divine Right, which may add ●he weight to them. But,  
Thirdly, No more will be demanded, That these ●stimonies should speak for the Matter in hand; ●n the Adversaries cause, these and the like Au●rities to testify against them: Surely it will be ●nted, that they are as forcible, and may as ratio●●ly be used, where it makes for, as where it makes ●●ainst any position.  
We are to keep the Ordinances and Order one delivered in the Church, as they were delivered b● the Apostles, and according to which the Church of God in the Primitive times did walk: Be ye follower's of me, saith the Apostle; Keep the Ordinances, (or Traditions) as I have delivered the● unto you, 1 Cor. 11.1, 2. Therefore did he, wh● the Corinthians there had erred about the Lor● Supper, send them again to the first Institution 〈◊〉 regulate themselves by: after he had told them their disorder, said, I have received of the Lo● that which I delivered unto you. That the Lo● Jesus the same Night, etc. and so repeats aga● the whole Institution, in the same Chapter, ver. 2● 24, 25, 26. forms nothing anew, but repeats wh● he himself received of the Lord, both for Mat● and Form.  
Thirdly, Doubtless, such who fear the medli● with any other manner of Churches, Ministers, Ordinances, or other manner of Ministration, so 〈◊〉 to join with them, or partake in them, are to commended, if they are confirmed by these E●dences in the truth of the Premises: For the Scr●ture tells us, we may not add to, or diminish fr● the Rule the Lord hath set us, but Obey that every thing, Deut. 4.2. especially since the do● of any thing in God's Worship not commanded, 
Hooper Epist. to King Edw.  so dangerous. What became of Nadab and A●hu, for their doing that which was not command though not forbidden in any express words, 〈◊〉 there could be no warrant in God's Law, Leu. 〈◊〉 1, 2, 3. God also complains of such, Jer. 7. ● for building High-Places, which he command not: Therefore God did not only direct and command about the Tabernacle and Temple, and ev● ●art thereof, but also every Tittle of the Worship ●erein, and the manner and Circumstances thereabouts. And God takes it ill, as an intrusion upon ●s prerogative Royal, 
See Bishop Andrews upon the second commandment.  when Men shall presume 〈◊〉 do any thing, in his Worship, as a part thereof, ●hich he commanded not, or walk therein by any ●ther Rule than what he hath prescribed, for no ●an was permitted to vary by adding, or dimini●ing.  
Mr. Stillingfleet, in his Irenicum, p. 6. saith, ●hat whatsoever is looked upon, as a part of Wor●ip, if not commanded of God, it is no way acceptable of God, therefore unlawful, Mat. 15.9. ●nd saith, That Tertul. de Orat. Cap. 12. rejects ●l those things, as superfluous and superstitious, which are done without the Authority of the Lords, ●r his Apostles commands. So say we, that such ●s vary purposely may expect that God should re●ect them, and their Offerings, and say to them, ●ho hath required this at your hands? The Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 24. ver. 5. tells us the sad effects of such things: The Earth, saith he, is de●led under the Inhabitants thereof, because they transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinances, etc. bishop Jewel, in his Reply to Harding, p. 111. Quotes Cyprian, for these words which were be●ore cited, That if any of my Predecessors have not ●ept the thing the Lord hath taught us, he for his ●mplicity may be pardoned; but if we wilfully Of●end, there is no pardon for us, who are already ●arned, and instructed of the Lord. Yea, further ●e say, all men are to be excused, though they pon●er well, and do not hastily embrace these things thus altered or added, till they are well tried by the Rule, 〈◊〉 the same Bishop Carleton, in the same Book, in his Epistle to the Reader, said; Because Seduce● pretend so much to love Souls, and glory so much 〈◊〉 the Name of the Church; he should be careful to t● the Spirits of such men, that speak in them; fo● saith he, it is a great fault to believe any thing without trial: Again, Trust neither us nor them, un● you have tried; try before you trust. And he the● quotes chrysostom for these words to his Hearers That they should be more careful in trying Doctri● which are delivered to them, than in telling of M●ney. Again, That the Rule we walk by, must 〈◊〉 known and certain; if not known, no Rule to 〈◊〉 if not certain, no Rule at all. And this also, sai● he, Cardinal Bellarmin agrees. And Bishop N●cholson, of Gloucester, in his aforesaid Book, 〈◊〉 67. adviseth such, who would be satisfied abo● Church-Government, to search it to the depth, an● stay till he hath consulted the Ancients, etc. an● p. 41. tells us, That it will not be enough for us 〈◊〉 answer, that we have followed the Judgement 〈◊〉 this or that Church; but upon what certain ground● we have followed it. That the ground of Conscience is Science; which also, saith he, flows fro● certain prime, immediate known Principles; n●● from probable or conjectural. From all whic● sayings of the Bishop, it's clear, That there is 〈◊〉 necessity of trying things  we practice, therefore not hastily to embrace things of this Nature And the rather too, because some things may be s●● up like to God's Ordinances, and yet not truly such Thus was Jeroboam's Feast he Instituted, 1 King 12.32, 33. The Text saith, It was like to tha● which was Observed in Judea, but it was not th● same; for he had forged it in his own heart. An● in such cases men may the easier be deceived. An● ●e Apostle, Titus 1.13, 14. forbids us to give ●y heed to Jewish Fables and Commandments of ●en, who turned from the Truth; therefore try● of those things, which are offered to our practice 〈◊〉 the Matters of God, is necessary,  we med●e; That we may discern, whether God hath commanded them, or whether they are not Jewish Fa●es, or at best, but the Commandments of Men urned from the Truth. Nay further, Christians ●e not to busy themselves in enquiring into any ●her way, or manner of Worship than what God ●th prescribed. Israel, when they were a Church, as charged, Deut. 12.30, 31, 32. not to inquire, ●ying, how did those Nation's Worship their God, ●st they should be ensnared: But God gave them ●●press Commandment in these words; That whatever thing I Command you, observe to do it: thou ●alt not add thereto, nor diminish from it; Thus ●od held them to the Rules he had prescribed them 〈◊〉 the Matter and Manner of his Worship. And 〈◊〉 (well knowing how apt those his own People ●ere to fall in with another way of Worshipping ●●n that which he prescribed, and that they were ●●e to be taken with the general way of Worship ●ed in most Nations, as afterwards they were for ●e Civil Government as other Nations, although ●od had appointed it otherwise at that time) cau●ns them before hand not so much as to inquire ●er another way, but cleave to that which he had ●dered them.  
How cautious then should Christians be of sudan Meddling with any thing in Divine Worship, and ●urch affairs, till it be fully clear to them, that ●ery part therein, with which they have to do, be ●ods Commandment, and agreeing to his mind; and not the way only of the generality of Worshippers, and Customs of the Nations, and those tha● went before them.  
And let all this therefore persuade men (wh● would have these cautious ones punished for the● practices, wherein they walk by the Rules of God Word and primitive example (as before) and al● for their Nonconformity and forbearing to subscribe to another way: though they are not persuaded or convinced by God's Word, and such Testimonies as are produced, that this other way 〈◊〉 of God, or that God will own and bless them i● it) to hear them speak further for themselves i● the words of the Godly Presbyterian Ministers, i● their Petition for Peace and amending the Liturgy p. 5, 6. 18. They are these: Suffer them, w●● desire nothing but to Worship God according to 〈◊〉 Will, as near as we can: God, say they, is Jealous in the Matters of his Worship. And for their Liberty in this, they offer these Reasons.  
First, Because they dare not consent to that whic● they Judge to be Usurpation of Christ's King's Power.  
Secondly, Because They dare not be guilty of A●dition to, or diminishing from his Worship, or doing 〈◊〉 by any other Law than that by which they must 〈◊〉 judged: Suppose they mistake, yet it is commendable, say they, that they are fearful to displease Go● and dare not do that which they judge to be sin ●gainst God: Should not the Love of Christ put 〈◊〉 upon tendering of such as are tender of God's Honour: For he, say they, that shall do that to plea● Men, or escape Sufferings, which he thinks is s●● no doubt deserveth the wrath of God. And 〈◊〉 (say they) should be loath to drive Men upon si● though we know their own infirmities to be the occasion. It is God's prerogative to search the heart, Math. 7.1.2. and these are ready to appeal to God, that what they do is only because they would not sin, And if others say they shall step into God's Throne, and say, it is not for fear of sinning, not Conscience but Obstinacy; all humane converse, say they, upon these Terms, will be overthrown. And as in their Book of proceed upon the Commission with the Bishops, p. 11. It will not justify us in the day of Judgement (if we sin) to say, that our Superiors Commanded us.  
Fourthly, That also it may be granted surely, that no man may rationally be blamed, much less punished for not obeying the Laws of any persons (as a Church who assume to themselves, the name of the Church, as invested with authority to make Laws, to impose upon others in these Church matters: For, if a fourth Church on Earth distinct from the three descriptions above, be not found, and proved to be vested with this power, and capable to execute it according to Christ's mind; none of these three did ever execute any such Power, the two first never made Laws, since they grew to big to meet in one place, the third never made any to be binding or observed further than in, and by the same Congregation or Society, where they were made, and by whom they were agreed to.  
It is true we find, That other Churches liking the Rules, of some one Church, did imitate them and agree of the same in their Churches also, as Socrat. ●n his Eccles. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 21. p. 351. etc. affirms, That in those days there were diversities of Observations and Rites in several Churches, without any forcing of any; but every Church as it seemed good to them; and that such as liked those Rites, did commend them to their Posterity for Laws.  
And Mr. Thorndike in his Book called the true way of composing differences, pag. 26, 27. saith, That if a part of a Church (speaking there of a National Church, as men term it) shall give Law to the whole, such part that so doth, for so doing are Schismatic, If therefore any particular Church (being but a part of the whole in his sense) should make Rules for the whole, or if it be said that the Convocation or Synod is such a Church, who have this Power to make Laws for the whole, these also are but a part of the Church in Mr. Thorndikes sense, and but a little part too. If these therefore shall give Laws to the whole; then hear what Thorndike saith. If yet they say, This is the whole Church in their Representative. Answer first, cannot justly call themselves the Representative of the whole; for they were neither chosen nor sent by the whole, nor did the whole ever intrust them with any such Power: Nor were they chosen, sent and entrusted by the particular Churches of the whole, without which (in any rational way) they cannot be supposed to be the whole Church, in her Representative: no, nor the Church of England in her Representative, if not so sent, chosen and entrusted by the particular Churches thereof as above; nor will they (we presume) challenge any authority from Christ, immediately derived upon their persons to be the Churches Representative, and to make Laws for them.  
But Secondly, If it should be granted (though against all reason) that they do indeed represent the Church of England: yet than it must be proved by the Word of God, or very good authority, that any such Representative was called the Church and so accounted, and hath such power to make Laws for many Churches or Congregations by Divine-right, and to whose Laws those Churches were bound to give obedience for Conscience sake.  
If that in Acts 15. be urged, it seems to be altogether impertinent, unless they will make the Apostles (and whether all or some only we cannot determine) the Elders of the Church in Jerusalem, and all the brethren of that Church, a Convocation, or Synod. And such another we can hardly find now adays; that this was so and no other, is apparent from the very Text, for all these met together about the matter, and it is said verse 22. It pleased the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own Company, etc. chief men amongst the brethren; and in the next verses we find, That the Apostles, Elders and Brethren, wrote about the matter, and say, It seems good to us being assembled together, with one accord to send, etc. here the brethren were as much the Convocation, as the Elders. But then also consider the causes, why the Church at Antioch sent to this Church at Jerusalem about this matter, and why they in Jerusalem write their mind again to them, they are two. The first may be Supposed, that is, because there were some of the Apostles, the second is Expressed, that is, because those men who came to Antioch and preached the Circumcision there, pretended that they came from Jerusalem, from the Apostles and whole Church there, with this Doctrine: therefore was there great reason, why they should apply themselves to them to be resolved of the truth in that matter, for about the same question Paul and Barnabas had before disputed at Antioch, and also mark the matter they writ about, it hath a suitableness to that, which they had desired to be resolved in. The epistle tells them, that they who wrote the Epistle, had given no such commands to those men to teach such things, ver. 24. And further, That it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to lay no greater burden upon them than such necessary things therein mentioned, which things were necessary to be abstained from; because the use of them would then have offended, and fornication was sin in itself; and by the way, note, here are no new things required to be done of those, but somewhat they should forbear to do, because by doing it they may offend such who could not judge it to be lawfully done, and sin. Here now is not the least footsteps for such a Synod as the Convocation, our Council of Bishops or Ministers, as a Church to make laws which shall be binding to any more than themselves, who agree to them. For the Church at Jerusalem (had such a thing fallen out with them as did at Antioch; That some had come from Paul and Barnabas, and that Church, with false Doctrine unto them) might as well have written to them at Antioch, to have been resolved, And Paul and Barnabas, and the Elders and Brethren of that Church of Antioch might have written an Answer to them with equal authority.  
Nay, but is there ground to give like credit or subjection to a Rule of any Convocation or Synod now, as there was to the Apostles in those days? Surely No; But if it be said, that they are the Churches Representative, and their Laws are the Laws of the Church by humane authority only, than it will be necessary to prove, That such, who take upon them to make Churches and Convey power to them, by their Laws, have such a power delegated to them from Jesus Christ so to do; Otherwise their Laws will not create such a Church with authority in these cases, and to whose Laws obedience is to be expected for Conscience sake. The old Rule must be remembered, None can give to another that he hath not in himself.  
But if it be said, that the Governors of the Churches of a Nation or Kingdom, with the Magistrates authority, have power to determine of matters indifferent in their own nature, about the worship of God and in Church Government, and by Law to impose them, upon the particular Churches of that Nation.  
For Answer to this first, we think it a matter of no small difficulty, for either Magistrates or Governors of Churches, or both together to determine what things are so indifferent in their own Nature, about the worship of God, and as to their use and practice, that they must needs be so accounted by all the members of the Churches there: 
hooker's Eccles Polity in the Preface.  For this is Necessary in this Case: Christ's Law Rom. 14. being clear in this; That if any absolutely indifferent thing used or imposed be really an offence to weak Christians, that is, when such weak ones do upon serious thoughts, judge the things themselves in their own nature, not indifferent, or else as they are used and circumstantiated, but sinful or suspicious, in this case they may not be used by other Christians, much less imposed: For if these weak ones should do this, when imposed, while they thus judge, they should sin, And for such as look upon these things and impose them as indifferent, they may without the least scruple lay aside the use of them themselves, and much more dispense with others for not using them: For a thing purely indifferent may as well not be used as used, especially when they prove an offence to others; If men choose to obey God rather than Men.  
Thus saith Mr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum. p. 63. That nothing should be determined, but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature, and he there confesseth, that there is a great difficulty to know sufficiently what is so; and gives this as his reason, because one looks upon that to be indifferent which another doth not. And again in p. 118. 119. 
See Doctor More in Book called the Mystery of Godliness Book 10. c. 10. p. 515, 516, etc. treating of liberty of Conscience.  He saith, that the power of Governors in these things extends not to bind men to go against the dictates of their own Reason and Consciences, and again there, saith he, when all is said every man will be his own judge in this case concerning his own welfare, and that an erroneous Conscience takes not off the obligation to follow the dictates thereof. So that from this (were there no other thing in the case, but that men do differently judge of the same things, both as they are in their own nature, and also in their use and ends) Church Governors would find it work enough to determine such things so as it cannot be an offence to any: which thing must be regarded, if Christ's Law be had in any reverence. Yet further, there are many other considerable things in this case, as to their use and ends, and as those things determined may be circumstantiated. As first, when things determined to be used in the matters of God's Worship, do not in truth answer the ends of their use, and whereto they were determined above others, as for Edification, Decency, Order and Peace in the Church, and in these cases also, every man must be his own judge, whether it doth in truth lead to those ends, or not; they may be offensive, and then (if the Apostle Paul, may be judge) they are not to be used, for the total laying aside, and not using such things at all, will tend most to Peace and Edification, Rom. 14.10. and thus the Fathers in former ages judged; for which Mr. Stillingfleet in his aforesaid Book. p. 68 69. Quotes Aug. Epist. 119. ad Jan. Cap. 19 for this, that he desires there, that such things might be taken away, and useth these words as his reasons; That although we cannot positively say, how such things as those do manifestly impugn our Faith; yet in that they load our Religion with servile Burdens (which the mercy of God hath left free) that they make our condition worse than that of the Jews; for they, although strangers to Gospel liberty, had no burden charged upon them by the constitutions of men, but only by the laws and commandments of God. And again p. 61 62. he Quotes Ambros. and Augustine against imposing of things indifferent upon this very ground, because they answer not the ends intended but produced the contrary effects and he therefore citys these words of August. to this purpose, I saith Aug. have often found it to my grief and sorrow that the troubles of weaker Christians have been caused by the contentious obstinacy of some, on the one hand, and the superstitious fearfulness of others, on the other, in things which are neither determined by the authority of Holy Scripture, nor by Custom of the Universal Church, nor yet by any usefulness of the things themselves, in order to the making of men's lives better, only for some petty reason in a man's own mind, or because it hath been the Custom, of their Country, or because they have found it so in other Churches; they raise such quarrels and Contentions, that they think nothing Right or Lawful, but what they do themselves.  

See the Conference of R●ynolds with Hart, c. 8. p. 510. Raynolds maintains it to be duty to remove such things as our fathers set up, if turned to error and superstition, and quotes the Canon Law, Dist. 63. for it.  Secondly, Another thing may make the use of indifferent things about Gods worship unlawful as to their use; that is, where they are used by the generality of people, not as indifferent things but as necessary; with an opinion that their worship is not perfect except it be performed after the manner determined, which is an abuse of them. It is true the Papists say of their Images, they are but indifferent things: yet it is well known, that the generality of them do not so esteem of them; which Mr. Stillingfleet also fully agrees, in the same Book p. 64. So it is certainly known amongst us Protestants, that the generality do look upon and esteem of many things (indifferent in their own nature) determined and long in use, as necessary; so that they think no part of God's Worship, or Church affairs well performed, or perfect, if not exactly done, according to that rule determined and in use; and therefore will not willingly do any thing otherwise; though they were never Compelled to it by law: which indeed hath been the ordinary effect of a Constant use of any indifferent thing about worship or Church matters, that people by Custom and Usage drink down an opinion of the necessity of their use, and cannot endure their removal: Wherefore that indifferent things might be still known to be so, and so accounted: they should be used indifferently; and not the same constantly, to prevent this superstitious and Idolatrous opinion men apt to have of them by their countenance. Bishop Jewel in his reply to Harding p. 542. said that many Heretics plead nothing, but that they were born in, lived in that which they now practise and received it from their Fathers.  
Now for others to use these things, otherwise in●ndifferent in themselves, is to harden these in their error and superstitious opinion.  
Thirdly. This also may make the use of Indifferent things unlawful, when the things determined and imposed are not so judged by those, who determine them; nor determined and imposed by them as things indifferent, but as things necessary. In this case it is not to be used; then much less imposed. Protestants in general agree; That it is sufficient warrant for our separation from the Church of Rome, because they impose things upon men's Consciences as necessary, which are doubtful, unlawful, suspected, or offensive to weak brethren. This Mr. Stillingfleet agrees in his said Book; and again in p. 119. he saith, Let men turn and wind themselves whether they will, by the same Arguments that any will prove separation from the Church of Rome Lawful because she requires unlawful things, as conditions of her communion; It will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful practice required, by any Church Governors upon the same terms, if the things so required be upon serious and sober enquiry judged unwarrantable by a man's own Conscience. And again p. 61. 62. he saith, that whatsoever is imposed as necessary doth immediately bind Conscience; and that none can have command of Conscience, but God himself. For all these things see what the Magdeburg Divines say. That in the use of these things we must take heed lest weak brethren be offended, or obstinate or refractory ones, in their pertinacious and ungodly opinions, be confirmed. Cent. 1. lib. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 414, 415, 416. And again, That they may be used freely; if Compulsion happen not, Opinion of Worship, Necessity, Scandal, or manifest Occasion of Ungodliness. But, say they, if any of these things happen, by which the weak and Godly are Offended, the Refractory and Adversaries of Truth are confirmed in their error, than these things ought not to be used freely. Cent. 1. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Col. 441, 442.  
But if it be said here, That these things are not determined, as things necessary, but as things indifferent: For Answer, First, Neither those who determine these things, nor those who do impose them do declare, that such things so determined in the whole of them, are indifferent things in their own Nature, nor that they ought to be so accounted in the use of them. And Secondly, It seems clear, that they do determine of these things above others, and so use themselves, not as things indifferent, but as things necessary, and so immediately binding to men's Consciences: For either they determine of them, above others, and so impose them, as things tending to Peace and Edification, and for Decency and Order; or for no end at all (unless it be to make Men bow to the Judgement of such Men who thus determine;) if the latter, no warrant can be pretended for it; if the former, then are the things necessary (if we must look on them to tend to this end more than other indifferent things do) for things, truly tending to those ends, we are bound to regard by Divine Command, and so the Conscience becomes bound. Whatsoever things indifferent in their own Nature, be determined above others to be used in the Matters of God, as that which above other things tends to Order, Decency, Edification, or Peace and Union in the Church, ●nd imposed by any, who have Power for to Judge, Determine, and impose them; in this case Obe●ience must be given, either because those things ●o indeed best conduce to the End (and then we ●ught to use them without imposing, if we look ●pon them so.) Or because we are to believe them ●o be so upon this ground, That God (having gi●en the Power to these Men to determine in these Matters and impose) doth also give them Spiritual Wisdom and Judgement above others in these things, ●nd lead them infallibly to determine of these ●hings; to which we ought, by Divine Command, ●o submit ourselves. If upon either of these we Obey them, our Consciences are immediately ●ound, and they become necessary things: For we ●re Commanded to follow those things which make or Peace and Edification; and also to Obey them which have the Rule over us. Upon one or both ●hese grounds Governors determine and impose, or ●pon none at all; either that the things are above others for Order and Decency, Edification and ●eace; or as the Governors are such over us, whom ●e ought to Obey, in these things, as infallibly guided.  
If any shall pretend that they are not determined 〈◊〉 infallibly the best to the ends proposed, than it ●ill follow, That no Obedience at all can be expected from such Persons, who may Judge (and ●at rationally and Christianly too) that those determined things, in Truth do not answer those ends proposed, so well as other things may do, but ra●er that they hinder and oppose them.  
But further it will appear, that indifferent things ●e determined and imposed, not as indifferent, but as necessary: first then, when the Laws about suc● things are made severe; and less strict about things necessary; and when the Execution of those sever● Laws are violently pressed by those Persons who di● determine of these indifferent things, and at th● same time good Laws about necessary things no● regarded.  
Secondly, Then when such who cannot submit t● the indifferent thing imposed, in the manner of doing, may not use the necessary thing itself, as no to Exercise a Man's Ministry in the Church, ove● which the Holy Ghost hath made him a Bishop Or not to meet, pray, exhort, etc. and Worship God, as he hath appointed. Not to Baptise, no to Communicate at the Lords Table, not to ca● out wicked Persons, or remove Offences (a which things are necessary, being God's Ordinances) unless they do all these after the form and manner determined and imposed; yea and then, whe● they are set so high, That no Person who canno● submit to such Forms and Rules in such things, (which they call indifferent) in God's Worship cannot, or may not have any Communion with the Churches thus imposed upon, but be Excommunicated upon this ground only, that they submit not to those determined things, as to those which ar● most Decent, and for Order and Edification, Unit● and Peace in the Church, and imposed as such though such things be esteemed otherwise of by those Persons who submit not to them. If thi● make not such determined things to become neces●sary Conditions of Communion, we know not wha● doth: And it may be, the things themselves so determined of, may be in themselves unlawful, suspected, and Offensive to weak Brethren.  
So that from all these things which may happen ●n the case of indifferent things: It may easily be granted, That it is a very difficult work to find out things in their own Nature so indifferent, that they shall not be doubted, suspected, or judged unlawful, and not Offensive unto any; that shall so fully answer the end proposed, that they may be determined as the best above other indifferent things for that purpose; and not to be judged otherwise by such Churches and Christians who must use them; And so to determine of the manner of their use, That the generality shall not esteem them as necessary, or use them so; or that they should be so used, as not to restrain the free use and Exercise of Necessary Duties of Worship, and in Church Affairs, although performed in another way by such, who cannot submit to the way prescribed. That the use of them shall not harden or encourage the Refractory in their errors: All which things, no doubt, aught to be well weighed  Men undertake to determine of, and impose those things which Christ hath left free, and which the Church in the Primitive times used as things indifferent; and each Church ordered and altered as they pleased: For if either of these things fall out in the case; these indifferent things may not be used, though they should be granted to be never so indifferent in their own Nature, much less may they be imposed.  
But, Secondly, If the Matter were granted to be evident, that they might find out, and determine of indifferent things, so as to answer the ends of their use, and be freed from the abuse: 
See Doctor Taylor liberty of Prophecy. p. 109.  The next thing to be resolved, is, By what Rule of God's Word can these make out, That this Authority is derived upon them from Christ, thus to determine of one indifferent thing above another to answer th● ends of the use thereof, 

Mr. Hooker in his Eccles. Polity, first Book. p. 26, 27. saith, Impossible it is that men should have complete lawful power but by consent of men, or immediate appointment of God.  
Power if lawful, than it is either granted or consented to by them over whom they exercise the same, or else given extraordinary from God.   and to be imposed upon a the Churches within their reach. Either they mu●● have it immediately from Christ, and have promises of Guidance herein; or conveyed to them by the Churches themselves. To derive it from Christ immediately is a very hard work; and sure they will not challenge it as conveyed to them by the Churches, unless they will first acknowledge the Churches to have this Power in themselves, and then make it out, that every particular Church and Society in that Nation, have given their Vote to intrust them with this Power; but the Truth lieth in the quite contrary: For, First, Those who undertake to determine thus for the Churches, will not confess, That these Churches have Power to determine of themselves, or to choose any to determine for them; and then they can never prove any such Power by the Church's Vote. No such things were known among the Primitive Gospel-Churches; For every Church or Congregation did in these indifferent things even as they amongst themselves judged fit, and agreed, being left free by Christ and his Apostles, so the Churches used them. None for many Ages undertook to determine, nor did the Churches empower any so to do. Nor indeed is any such trust reposed in any Persons, by the Churches at this day. The particular Bodies of Congregations, and many of their Officers too, are looked upon in this Matter, as insignificant Ciphers. It is true, Episcopal Assemblies, after a few Ages, began to take upon them to give some Rules to Churches (though those were Observed, but so far as the Churches thought good) yet these determinations of theirs, answered not the ends pretended: For, as it is cited before in this Discourse, out of Gregory. That Contentions have been always increased by Episcopal Assemblies; so, he that reads the Ecclesiastical History impartially, may every where plainly perceive the truth thereof: And how far they answered the ends of Order, Edification, Peace, and Unity in the Churches in these days, we shall leave the judicious observers of such things to judge. Then may we inquire further, How any rational Account can be given, why one part of the Christians in a Nation, and those very few in comparison of the whole, should determine of such things to be imposed, for all the rest, seeing no special power is derived upon them so to do, nor any promise of infallible Guidance in this matter entailed upon Them more than upon others. And as to these Matters we shall offer a few things more, in Mr. Stillingfleet his own words, in the same Irenicum, p. 45, 46. That the Pastors or Governors of Churches are commanded, Mat. 28.20. To teach what Christ had commanded them; but no Authority, saith he, thereby given to make new Laws to bind the Church, but rather a tying them up to the Commandments of Christ, already laid down in his Word. For, saith he, A Power to bind men's Consciences to their determinations lodged in the Officers of the Church, must be derived either from the Law of God giving them this right, or else only from the consent of parties: For any Law of God, there is none produced, saith he, with any probability of Reason, but that, Heb. 13.17. Obey those who have the Rule, etc. But that, saith he, implies no more than submitting to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Gospel, and to those whom Christ hath Constituted as Pastors of his Church, wherein the Law of Christ doth require obedience, etc. But this (saith he) gives them no Authority to make new Laws or Constitutions binding men's Conscience, any more than a command from a Superior Authority, that inferior Magistrates should be obeyed doth imply a Power in them to make new Laws to bind them. Yet he here acknowledgeth a Power arising from the free consent of the parties submitting: which (saith he) is most agreeable the Nature of Church Power, being not coactive but directive. And that such was the confederate Discipline of the Primitive times; And again further in p. 118, 119. That if it be said, that men are bound to be ruled by their Governors in determining what things are lawful and what not, he Answers, That no true Protestants can swear blind obedience to Church Governors in all things; That it is the Highest usurpation, to rob men of the Liberty of their Judgement: That it is our plea against the Papists, that every one hath a Judgement of private discretion, which is the rule of practice, as to himself.  
We (saith he) allow a Ministerial Power in the Governors: yet (he saith) this extends not to bind men to go against the dictates of their own reason and Conscience, their Power is only directive and declarative, and in matters of Duty can bind no more than reason and evidence brought from Scripture by them, doth. Again either therefore men are bound to obey all things absolutely, and without any restriction or limitation; which (saith he) if it be not Usurpation and Dominion over others Faith in them, and the worst of implicit Faith in others; It is hard to define what either of them is: or else if they are bound to obey only in lawful things, I then (saith he) inquire, who must be judge what things are Lawful and what not: If the Governors, still then the Power will be absolute again, for to be sure (saith he) what ever they Command they will say, it is Lawful either in itself, or as they Command it. If every private person must be judge, what is lawful and what not, which is Commanded, than he is bound no further to obey than he judgeth the thing to be lawful, which is commanded. And he there affirms, 
See the Bishop of Glou. Apol. p. 41.  (as we have before set down) that every man will be his own judge in this Case; and that the plea of an erroneous Conscience takes not off the Obligation to follow the dictates of it. Again let men (saith he) turn and wind themselves which way they will, by the same Arguments any will prove separation from the Church of Rome, Lawful; because she requires unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion. It will be proved Lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful practice required by any Church Governors upon the same Terms, if the things so required, be upon serious and sober enquiry judged unwarrantable by a man's own Conscience. And again in p. 120. 121. he quotes Mr. Hales of Schism, p. 8. for this, That where any thing unnecessary, suspected, and by many held unlawful, is imposed; it is duty to separate. See this more at large transcribed there in Mr. Stillingfleet, who there Commends Hales for as Learned and Judicious a Divine, as this Nation bred. And Mr. Stillingfleet there adds these words. If we (saith he) would take away all unnecessary things, suspected by many, and judged unlawful by some, and make nothing the bounds of our Communion but what Christ hath done, etc. allowing a liberty for matters of indifferency, and bearing with the weakness of those, who cannot bear things which others account lawful; We might, (saith he) indeed be restored to a true Primitive lustre.  
All which things of Mr. Stillingfleets may as forceably be turned against the Magistrates imposing these things by Law, as against the Church Governors determining them to be imposed: for if one were not absolute in their Power, to determine of one indifferent thing above another, for others to practise; sure neither the other to impose such things: 
Tertul foe Scapula.  for what ever may not lawfully be determined for, or required of, may not be imposed upon others, and they compelled to obedience. That which Christ hath left indifferent about these things should be so used, and no man should presume to take away their indifferency by imposing them by force of Law; since God hath not given to every man alike apprehensions of the same things, 
So Mr. Hooker his Eccles. Pol●●y in the Peface asserts that whatever we do, if our own secret judgement consent not unto it as fit and good to be done, the doing of it is sin to us, a though the thing it self be allowable. Rom. 14 5. See al●o his second B●ok, p 58  as the Apostle saith, one esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike. And again, I know that nothing is unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. All things are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence; therefore he directs here, that every manshould be fully persuaded in his own mind, Rom. 14.5.14.20. and chap. 15.1. That the strong should bear with the infirmities of the weak. And again 1 Cor. 8.4.7. he saith, we know an Idol is nothing, etc. howbeit there is not in every man this knowledge: where he also in the latter end of the same chapter, exhorteth those who do know, to have respect to those who do not know, and rather than offend them, not to use their own liberty in such things which were indifferent in their own Nature.  
Thus we see the Apostle (though he could infallibly resolve the lawfulness of the things in themselves) yet would he be so far from determining these things to be done by others who had other apprehensions, that he would not use the things themselves▪ nor would he have others to use them, where their use proved offensive to weak ones: and would have every one persuaded in his own mind (and this he knew was God's prerogative only) Such who offend their brethren by the contrary, sin against Christ. How then is it possible to justify an imposition of such things by Laws (which say they, bind Conscience to obedience because the Magistrate commands) upon such who doubt of the lawfulness of the things themselves, 
See Doctor Moor in his Book intit. mystery of Godliness, Book 10. c. 10. p. 515, 516, &c treating of liberty of Conscience and of the Duty of Christian Magistrates in matters of Religion. See also de Eccles. l. 4. c. 14. maintains liberty in Religion by many Arguments, See hooker's Polity p. 159, 160, 161. of his fourth Book.  or as they are circumstantiated: for this is to put such upon a necessity of sinning, either they must do the thing enjoined, and so sin; or if they do it not, they sin in not obeying the Magistrate (if the Magistrate commands makes it necessary;) sure we are, that in the Primitive Churches, they thought so: for neither Governors of Churches, nor Emperors (when Christian) did for some ages, determine for, or impose upon many Churches in these things; or if any did tamper this way, the Churches did not take themselves at all bound to regard it: for in those days so may Churches or Congregations, so many several usages or forms in these things, as each Church thought best and most convenient for them. Thus the Magdeburgh Divines agree Cent. 2. Cap. 7. Col. 134.135. That every Church had a like Power to exercise the Ceremonies received from the Apostles, or to make new ones for edification: so also saith Socrates of his days in his 5th. Book 21. chap. English transl. p. 351. etc. That in those days there were diversity of observations and Rites in several Churches, without any forcing of any, but every Church as it seemed good to them, etc. That it is plain, that the Apostles left every man free without Fear, Compulsion, or Constraint, to addict himself to that which seemeth to him to be good and Commendable; That hardly could two Churches be found, that observed the same Rites, and Ceremonies; that in the observation of Easter and other holy days every man did as he thought good, etc. see this at large.  
So that from all that hath been said in this matter; we cannot think that upon a sober discourse, Those that call themselves the Governors of the Church will ever arrogate to themselves, by prepretence of Divine Authority, any special right to determine of any indifferent thing above another, to be that which is every way lawful and inoffensive, and that which is most for edification, decency and order, unity and peace in the Church: Or that they have any special skill of judging in this case, above other learned and Godly men in the Church: and if not, than it may be believed that they will say, be it far from us to determine in such cases, for others, or to desire our determinations should be imposed upon others; And then we are confident the Magistrate will be farther from Challenging any right to determine of those things, nor will he undertake to impose by Law upon the Churches: but it hath been common amongst Church men to deal subtly in these things, first themselves determine and set down Rules in these cases, and tender them to the Magistrate to confirm by Laws, as those things which are necessary to the ends aforesaid; And then when they are established by Law; and they themselves cannot justify many or any of them to be necessary, or any way answering the ends proposed; They presently lay the charge upon the Magistrates, and say, it's commanded and we must obey, being by virtue of his Law bound in Conscience so to do. Certainly, let us not deceive ourselves, God is not mocked, Christ hath pronounced a woe against them by whom offences come. The excuse of the Magistrates commanding it, will not serve their turn when our Lord comes to judge in Righteousness.  
Yet there are some who are highly offended against such who walk after the Rules herein before set down, as near as they can, and fear to err from it, as that way of worship and managing of Church affairs, which they judge according to God's word to be Christ's mind they should walk by; and as that in which the Churches, in the Primitive and best ages walked; and which also hath been by many learned and Godly men in all ages since, held to be the true way. And these offended one's generally conclude against such, that they are Separatists from the Church, Schismatics, Factious, etc. for so doing (the old calumnies cast upon the Apostles and other Saints in former ages, and by Papists upon Protestants in latter ages) and their way called Heresy and evil spoken of, as Act. 24 c. 25. c. 28. Though in Truth these offended ones understand not, in this case, what they say, or whereof they affirm: either it is pure ignorance in such, not understanding what a Church is, from which properly a Separation may be said to be made, or in which a man may be said to be guilty of making a Schism; or what Act it is that may properly be called a separation from, or constitute a man a Schismatic in such a Church; or else ignorance, that is wilful, arising from interest that blinds them: These do just (as the Presbyterian Ministers, once said in Smect. p. 58. 59 take it in their own words. These do (as the Papists) dazzle the Eyes and astonish the senses of poor People with the Glorious name of the Church, etc. This is the Gorgons-Head (as Doctor White said) which enchanted them: they call, say they for obedience to the Church, etc. no mention of God and Scripture, If we (say these Divines there) question what is meant by the Church of England, they storm, as he that holdeth by an unjust Title will not suffer the Title to be questioned; they (say these men) sometimes make the Convocation the Church, excluding both Presbyters and people, as not worthy to be reckoned of the Church; sometimes the bounds of the Kingdom is the Church. If so, say they, why not England, Scotland, and Ireland one Church, being under one Monarch.  
Thus they contend and know not upon what foundation; but, having heard of the name of the Church, and found Ordinances and Forms of worship amongst them, and Discipline used according to humane Laws and Constitutions: here they go and never so much as inquire, or put it to the question, whether they are agreeable to Scripture, or Rules prescribed by God; And then they take it for granted presently; that such, who do not in these matters as they do, are Separatists and Schismatics, and deserve punishment (as rashly as the two Disciples did in another case Luke 9 who would have fire from heaven upon the Samaritans: but they knew not what Spirit they were of, as Christ told them; they never considered upon what ground they desired such a thing, whether it were Christ mind or not, that it should be so. And as Augustine, quoted by Mr. Stillingfleet in his aforesaid Book, p. 61.62. complained of men in his days about Ceremonies, who contended highly, yet had no ground for it but this, (as his words are) because it had been the custom of their Country, or because they have found them in another Church, etc. they think that nothing is right and Lawful, but what they do themselves. And as Bishop Jewel in his Reply before cited, said of many Heretics, That they had nothing to plead, but that they were born, lived in, and received of their Fathers what they did practise: upon some such poor grounds as these doth the ignorance of men work, thus to abuse their brethren. And that it may so appear. Let such persons be persuaded to weigh the premises well in the fear of God, and take these conclusions with him. First, that such who continue in the Faith of our Lord Jesus Christ (and thus hold Union with the Head of the Church according to John 15.4, 5.) continue in and do not separate from the Catholic Church the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first Church in this discourse described; for there is no other Union between the members of this Church (as such) but this, their being by one Faith united to one Head; and from thence animated by one Spirit; and such who so continue, cannot be called Schismatics in this Church. To this Doctor Carleton agrees in his aforesaid Book p. 6, 7, 8 9, 10. etc. 2dly. That such who continue to make a profession of the Faith of our Lord Jesus, and do not openly deny him in their works, do still abide in the visible body of Jesus Christ, The Church 2dly above described, and cannot be said to separate from this Church, or be guilty of Schism here; for this profession is the only thing wherein the unity of the whole visible Church lieth. And thus Mr. Stillingfleet in his Book called a Rational Account etc. p. 331. saith, That there is no separation from the whole Church, but in such things wherein the unity of the whole lieth: For separation saith he, is a violation of some union. 3dly. That such who continue to walk in, and with any visible Company, Congregation or particular Church on earth, holding the true faith, in the orderly participation of Ordinances in man-as the Scripture directs, and in subjection to Christ's Laws given to be executed therein, as such a Church, the Church 3dly above described; he cannot be said to separate from, or be guilty of schism in this Church.  
Now than if these offended ones will justify their charge against such who do not in Church affairs, as they do; It is necessary they prove such whom they thus accuse, guilty either of infidelity absolute, or of their denying their profession of Jesus Christ, or of withdrawing from the Congregation or Society to which they were regularly joined, without just cause, & refusing to walk in such a Church of Christ in the orderly participation of ordinances and to submit to the laws of Christ exercised therein. Or they must find a fourth Church described in Scripture, or in the Apostles days; and show such a one now, from which a man may be said in a proper sense to separate; & also prove what act it is, that makes a separation from that Church; And that these persons are guilty of separation thence by such an Act, or else they cannot rationally conclude any of these to be separatists, or schismatics, in any sense at all: If they can do neither of these, they will see cause to be angry no longer.  
But it is possible they may allege against some of these, that they have separated from the particular Congregations whereto sometimes they were joined; therefore are they separatists: For Answ. first, Than it must be proved, that they were regularly joined to that Congregation; that is, by a voluntary Act of theirs in understanding which is proved by some express desire, in him that joins; and an actual admission by the Society to which he is joined: For a man may ignorantly sit down at a Sacrament in these Churches, where no order is observed, to prevent that confusion, as in Most Parish Churches; yet this makes not a regular joining, nor him a fixed member of that Church or Society; a heathen may do this; besides, this is not consisting with the nature of a regular Society of rational men, much less of Christians, where must be a consideration or compact between all the parties obliged; yea further, if a man be made of such a parish by the law of the land, and bound by the Law, join with the same Parish as a Church, and be one of the members thereof; This cannot be a regular joining him to this Church neither, without his own voluntary Act: For by the Law of Nature, and the law of God, men are left free to join themselves to what Congregation or Society they pleased; 
Amos 3.3 How can two walk together except they be agreed.  And it is against both these, yea against the very nature and well being of such Societies, to force men to be of this or that Society against their own minds, and without the free consent of the Society itself: yet this was the case of most (we presume) who withdrew from parish Churches and Societies; either they did never by any act desire a regular admittance, or did the Society ever in truth make any Actual admission; only sat down at a Sacrament, or they were made of the Society by a Law, neither of which can be made out to be such a regular joining to that Society, as to denominate any such person to be a Schismatic or Separatist for leaving them and joining himself to any other. Besides should we grant that they were regularly joined, and so actual members of this or that Church, yet if they remove to another Church (if the Church of England be but true to their own Principles, and own their common practices, 
See Mr. Vines upon the Sacrament. p. 266. he saith, as we may remove for health etc. so for more fruitful Ordinances.  as regular) the guilt of separation cannot lie in this neither: for they allow a man to leave one parish and go to another, for conveniency of Habitation, Air, Trade, etc. Bodily advantages, and then join with the other Parish Church, as a member there, and leave the first: yea and that without acquainting the first Church, (whereof he was a Member) with his intentions, and for this he shall be no Separatist: so that from this it's clear, that separation lies not barely in this; that men leave one Congregation or Society and join themselves to another. And we think it may easily be granted, that if outward concernments be enough to acquit a man from the guilt of separation on such an account, and warrant his remove from one Church to another; much more may Soul concernment, justify a leaving of one Church and adjoining to another. Yet further we hope none will deny, but that there may be just cause for withdrawing from some Societies; and whether this might not fall in for a sufficient plea for many to clear themselves by, from any crime upon the account of withdrawing from the Society where once they were, and joining to another: Mr. Stillingfleet in his said Irenicum, p. 117. 118. 120. agrees thus much; That where any Churches retaining purity of doctrine, do require the owning of, and conforming to, any unlawful or suspected practice, men may lawfully deny conformity to and communion with that Church in such things, 
Hales of Schism p. 8.  without incurring the guilt of Schism, and gives this reason for it; If our separation from the Church of Rome, was therefore lawful because she required unlawful things, as Conditions of her Communion. Then wherever such things are required by any Church, Non-communion with that Church in those things will be lawful too; And where saith he, Non-communion is lawful, there can be no Schism in it. If that justified our withdrawing from the Church of Rome, 
Mr. Raynolds conference with Hart p. 666. 667.  will it not (saith he) justify men's Nonconformity in things supposed by them to be unlawful. And again, our best Writers against the Papists lay the imputation of Schism not upon these who withdraw Communion, but upon those who require such things, whereby they did rather eject men out of their Communion, than the others separate from them: And he quotes Mr. Hales of Schism, to prove fully, The refusal of Communion (in case any unnecessary things, suspected by some, and held unlawful by others, be made Conditions of Communion) to be Lawful, and Duty, etc. Now it may be this might be the case of every one who hath withdrawn Communion from parishes; that many things are required there, without a Conformity to which, no communion can be had with them; That these required things are, (in the judgement of those who thus withdraw) unnecessary useless, unlawful or suspected at least: And then this will, upon the same grounds, acquit every such one (who have withdrawn) from the Charge of Schism. And though Mr. Stillingfleet seems a little (in the 117. p. of the said Book) to mince it in these words. I say not that men may proceed to erecting of new Churches. Yet he in his Book called a Rational Account etc. p 332. seems to own such a thing, when he pleads against Rome, and justifies Protestants separations These are his words; Suppose all the particular men I converse with were Leprous, my associating myself with them, doth not imply any separation from the Communion of all mankind, but that I am loath to be infected as they are; Therefore I withdraw till I can meet with healthful persons, withwhom I can associate again; And if several other persons (saith he) be of the same mindwith me, and we therefore join together, do we therefore divide ourselves from the whole world? Thus he in this place clearly intimated a withdrawing from one Society upon good grounds; and then for as many as be so withdrawn, and of the same mind, to join themselves together and associate by agreement, and that is no separation. And no doubt, but that there is matter enough to be found, sufficiently to warrant such persons in this also as well as in withdrawing Communion.  
But if yet they shall say the Church of England is that from which these separate. How, pray? If the Church of England be granted to be a Church in either, or both of the two first Descriptions herein before given (though, in Truth she be but a little part of both) yet there is no other Union with her as one Church, nor can there be; but the Union in Fa●th under one Head, Jesus Christ, and participation of the same Spirit, and the profession of this Faith: So that none can be said to separate from her as a Church, or be guilty of Schism or breach of Union here, but such who renounce the Faith and their Union with Christ the Head in Word or Deed, and forsake their profession of it. And this Church of England cannot be pretended to be a particular Church under the third Description; for they never yet associated as such; nor is it possible for them as a Church to meet in one entire body in one place to partake of the same Ordinances, or do any other Act, as a Church or Society, but always met in their several Bodies or Churches, for performing of all Acts of a Church as such. In like manner also, do these who are so blamed. Therefore in this sense neither, can they be (by any Rule of Reason) said to be guilty of Schism.  
If these Offended ones shall yet say thus. That such Men refuse to join with our Congregations and Ministers in our way: For Answer to this (besides what hath been said before to justify their continuing by themselves;) First, it's thought in Charity to be presumed, That these Men are convinced of the Truth of the premises; That in truth, all things about Church-Affairs were managed in and by particular Churches, Congregations, or Societies by Divine Authority, and so Ordered as before: Their Ministers chosen, the Matter of their Worship without any addition, alteration, or diminishing according to Divine Rules; Scandalous Persons cast out, etc. That these cannot judge it Lawful for them to do any thing in these matters, contrary, or not according to this Rule; but think, if they should, they must sin against God. And then this must needs be a sufficient plea for these, in this case; especially since other things (to them doubtful, unnecessary, and sinful) are made necessary Conditions of Communion with those Congregations: So that none can communicate with them, but of necessity he must submit to, own, and join with there things, and neglect the other way. Secondly, Is any man bound to join with, or partake in every Congregation in England, or in more than one? or must he be guilty of the breach of Union? Surely no; may not a Man abide in his own Parish all his Life, and refuse to have any Minister but his own, or Communicate with any Congregation, but that whereof he is a Member? Yet he shall not for this be accounted a Schismatic, or Separatist: It is presumed, no Man will say, he shall. Wherein then lies the difference? These men thus accused do join themselves to some one Congregation or Church of God, according to the Rules, as was in the beginning, and there they abide in the Orderly participation of Ordinances and Subjection to Christ's Laws therein executed, and disagree in nothing of the true Faith from other Churches. So that it follows, That barely upon this pretence neither, can they fasten the Crime of Separation upon those, who do not join with their Congregations and Ministers. May not members of Parish-Churches be as properly said to be Separatists for refusing to join themselves to those Congregations, Societies, or Churches and Ministers in their Worshipping of God, as these for not joining with them? Nor can it be said, That these dis-agree with the Church of England in any thing wherein the whole Church of God is agreed, or the whole Church of England; but only in some things wherein the Church of God, yea, in England, dis-agree amongst themselves; as Mr. Stillingfleet, in his said Book, called, A Rational Account, p. 357, 358. affirms against the Papists, in these words: We, saith he, have not separated from the whole Christian World, in any thing wherein the whole Christian World is agreed: But to dis-agree from the particular Churches of the Christian World in those things wherein those Churches differ amongst themselves, is not to separate from the Christian World, but to dis-agree in some things from these particular Churches. The case is here the same: These do not separate from the whole Church of England, but only dis-agree in those things wherein the particular Churches differ amongst themselves. And then walk with such who can and will agree with them in these things. If they say the Parish-Churches are most Lawful and right, and so their Ministers, Ministration, and Order. Let this be first decided by God's Word, and their Lawfulness better proved, than the Church's Ministry and Order, and Management of Church-Affairs, amongst these; and before set forth as the Primitive Practice; and then they say something.  
But if they justify all by the Law of the Land only, it may soon be answered by this, That it was not so from the beginning. That the other way is proved by the Law of God, and Practice of the Primitive Churches, and approbation of Learned and good Men in all Ages; yea, and of Men of contrary Practices themselves: Therefore surely the best plea against this. For if Magistrates or Governors appoint any thing in these matters not agreeable to these Rules, so that Men cannot be satisfied in their own minds, but doubt its Lawfulness; such doubting ones may not be in the practice of it, (till they be satisfied of its Lawfulness) without sin: Nor will it be a sufficient Excuse in the great Day of the Lord, if they thus sin, To say, that the Magistrate commanded me to do it.  
If they shall yet further allege, That these Persons agree not to, Walk not in those Practices and Rules in the Church of England, which are prescribed by the same Church, and to which the generality of the same Church agree, and submit; and therefore they may be said to be Separatists and Schismatics.  
Though a full Answer to this may be gathered from the Answer to the last Objection, And what hath been said in this before to acquit them from this Charge upon such an Account. That is, that the Church of England (as such) never prescribed any such Rules, because they never met in the whole, or in their Representative, to consult about, or agree upon any such Rules, for the whole. Nor can any who have made such Rules, pretend themselves upon any Divine, or Rational grounds to be the Church of England, and entrusted from above with any such Power to make such Rules for the Church's Practice; nor are Men bound to use any thing in God's Worship, or about it, not commanded by God himself, so long as they suspect such things in themselves, or as they are circumstanciated, to be unlawful; of which, every Man must be his own Judge for his own Practice, because it doth so highly concern him, as he would please God.  
Yet we shall add this further by way of Answer. First, It is no true Rule; therefore to Practise those things which the generality of a Nation do, barely because they do so: For, we think, few will deny, that the most go the broad way, the wrong way, love not, follow not Christ's Laws and Rules. Secondly, That the generality of the Church of England, in truth do not agree to those Rules and Practices in the Church; but would rather be glad that they were altered and Reform, if the Magistrate would please to permit it; which we will make out thus: First, it may be taken for granted, we judge, That the greater number of People are not so studious, as to inform themselves of the true way of Ordering of Church-Affairs and making of Ministers; but take all upon trust, in these matters with the greatest implicit faith that can be; what ever their Governors do in these Cases, they subscribe to and practise; do herein as others do, or as they are enjoined to do, or as their Worldly Interest leads them. That there are others, who come not near any Churches or Worship at all, who care for none of these things, are practical Atheists, and of these not a few. Some again, and that a considerable Number too, who are professedly against all our ways; as Papists, and others, who pretend to be above all Ordinances and External Rules in these Matters. So, that when all these are set apart (as being not fit to give Sentence in the matter, nor their practice of any consideration in this case.) The number of Knowing, Serious, Conscientious, and Judicious Christians (whose Sentence only is worthy regard in this business) in the Church of England, will be but few. Secondly, Of these few, the Major part consent not, in heart at least, it is not their Judgement, that those prescribed Rules in the Church of England, are so Decent, Lawful, Useful to Edification or tend to Peace, as is pretended, as many (though they Actually submit to them) have openly declared. And there are (no doubt) many more, (might they speak freely, and not be Offenders) would testify this. A considerable number also of these demonstrate their dissent by their Sufferings for their Nonconformity to them, and practising after another Rule in these things. If then the Major part of the Knowing, Sober, Judicious, and Conscientious Christians in England descent, How can they say, The Church of England prescribes, or Commands this or that? Or have agreed on, or determined of this or that? Or that the generality of the Church agree to this, or that, (for an Agreement must be a judicious Act of the mind) to say, That the Rabble of Ignorant, Careless, and notoriously scandalous Persons agree to it, love it, embrace it, and contend highly for it; will help little to commend the Judgement of the Church, or make her Laws valid. And if this be so, Then, Thirdly, In what sense, or by what Rule of Reason can one part of the Christians in England rather be called Schismatics, and Separatists for not agreeing with the other in these things, than the other part for not agreeing with the first (except, at least it be in things apparently and undoubtedly Lawful, and tending to Edification, and so accounted by all, that Offence cannot be given.) It can be no way resolved, but thus; That those who are uppermost in outward Power, whether one party or other, will have it so.  
We shall therefore end with the words of Tertul. in his Apol. Chap. 39 p. 142, 143. English Translation: We Offend no body, we Injure no body: When any Virtuous or Godly People are associated, when any Pious or  Persons Assemble together, their Union should not be called a Faction, but a Lawful Society.  
FINIS.