Five disputations of church-government and worship

If really we be not as hearty friends to Order and Discipline in the Church as they, we shall give them leave to take it for our shame, and glory in it as their honour. But the question is not, whether we must have Church-Order? but whether it must be theirs, and none but theirs? Nor whether we must have Discipline, but whether it must be only theirs? Nay, with me, I must profess, the question is, on the other side whether we must needs have a Name and show of Discipline that's next to none, or else be no Churches or no Ministers of Christ? The main reason that turneth my heart against the English Prelacy is because it did destroy Church Discipline, and almost destroy the Church for want of it, or by the abuse of it, and because it is (as then exercised) inconsistent with true Discipline. The question is not, whether we must have Bishops and Episcopal Ordination. We all yield to that without contradiction. But the doubt is about their Species of Episcopacy, Whether we must needs have Ordination by a Bishop that is the sole Governor over an hundred, or two hundred, or very many particular Churches? or whether the Bishops of single Churches may not suffice, at least as to the Being of our office? I plead not my own cause, but the Churches▪ For I was ordained long ago by a Bishop of their own with Presbyters. But I do not therefore take my self to be disengaged from Christianity or Catholicism, ⟨image 99⟩and bound to lay by the Love which I owe to all Christs members, or to deny the Communion of the Churches, which is both my Duty, and I am sure an unvaluable Mercy. And I must say, that I have seen more of the Ancient Discipline exercised of late, without a Prelate, in some Parish Church in England, than ever I saw or heard of exercised by the Bishops in a thousand such Churches all my days. And it is not Names that are Essential to the Church, nor that will satisfy our expectations.

If really we be not as hearty friends to Order and Discipline in the Church as they, we shall give them leave to take it for our shame, and glory in it as their honour. But the question is not, whether we must have Church-Order? but whether it must be theirs, and none but theirs? Nor whether we must have Discipline, but whether it must be only theirs? Nay, with me, I must profess, the question is, on the other side whether we must needs have a Name and shew of Discipline thats next to none, or else be no Churches or no Ministers of Christ? The main reason that turneth my heart against the English Prelacy is because it did destroy Church Discipline, and almost destroy the Church for want of it, or by the abuse of it, and because it is (as then exercised) inconsistent with true Discipline. The question is not, whether we must have Bishops and Episcopal Ordination. We all yield to that without contradiction. But the doubt is about their Species of Episcopacy, Whether we must needs have Ordination by a Bishop that is the sole Governour over an hundred, or two hundred, or very many particular Churches? or whether the Bishops of single Churches may not suffice, at least as to the Being of our office? I plead not my own cause, but the Churches For I was ordained long ago by a Bshop of their own with Presbyters. But I do not therefore take my self to be disengaged from Christianity or Catholcism,