a Bishop is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop but he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters And Chrysostome saith That betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter there is little difference Yet both these Fathers you see acknowledge that a difference there is and they were both Bishops themselves Their opinion might be that Bishop and Presbyter differ gradu non ordine that they might be both one Order and differ only in Degree Which is still a debate in the Schools So may be said of the rest cited by Medina 4. That these Fathers were for a difference even by Divine or Apostolick warrant will appear from other places in their writings D. What For a Divine Right Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith that after distinction was made in the Church betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet was it never accounted by antiquity to be jure divino by Divine Right I. I shew you the contrary from Irenaeus Tertullian and others yea and from Jerome himself Now for those other Fathers First hear Ambrose in his Comment on 1 Cor. 12.28 Quosdam posuit apostolos he saith ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro Act. 1. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And on vers 29. Nurquid omnes apostoli verum est saith he quia in ecclesia unus est Episcopus Also on Phil. 1.1 Rather then he will allow by Bishops in that place single Presbyters to be meant he expounds those Bishops not of such as resided at Philippi because saith he in one Church there could be but one Bishop but of Bishops and Deacons who were with Paul when he wrot that Epistle as I told you before So on 1 Tim. 3. Timotheus Episcopus erat And for Augustine on Psalm 45.16 by Fathers he means the Apostles and by the Sons the Bishops who he saith succeeded to the Apostles And contra Cresconium lib. 2. Cap. 37. Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam primus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit i. e. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem And Epist 122. he saith divina voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae Speaking of the Angels Revel 2.3 and contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 51. Quid tibi fecit ecclesiae Romanae cathedra in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet i. e. What ill hath the Chair of Rome so he calls the Episcopal Authority done to thee in which Peter once did sit and in which Anastasius now sitteth From these and the like passages in Augustine we maâ— know what his meaning is when writiâ—g to Jerome he saith Qâ—anquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit Espiscopatus Presbyterio major sit there he speaks of the use of these words what it was at that time in respect of former times Honorum vocabula clearly shews this Then hear Chrysostome on 1 Tim. 4.14 Cum impositione manuum presbyterii Non de presbyteris loquitur sed de Episcopis neque enim presbyteri Episcopum Timotheum ordinabant i. e. That place speaketh not of Presbyters but of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordain Timothy who was a Bishop Sundry Testimonies might be produced out of other Fathers deducing the original of Bishops from the Apostles or higher Cyprian is full to this purpose Epist 27. ad Lapsos he saith that Episcopacy is founded divina lege by the Divine Law and Epist 68. he calleth it Traditio divina observatio Apostolica and for this adduceth Act. 1.15 Quando in ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur i. e. Peter there speaks to the people of ordaining a Bishop in the room of Judas See also Epist 69. Epist 42. and Epist 10 11 12. c D. What antiquity saith moveth 〈◊〉 not nor resolve I in this matter to be concluded by Fathers or Councils who werâ— fallible or by Apostolical Traditions There were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as the millenary opinion and giving the communion to Infants I. Yet you can grip very closs to the least shadow in antiquity which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversie and can manage it to your best advantage but when you say that you resolve not to be concluded by antiquity herein by this you clearly confess that antiquity pincheth you sore and you are like to be born down by the stream of it Tertullian saith Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio id quod ab Apostolis id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerat sacro sanctum As for these corruptions you name which early crept into the Church they were not so generally and universally received as Episcopacy was nor could they ever so clearly deduce their Original from the Apostles D. Notwithstanding all you say to make Bishops as ancient as the Apostles yet the authority of those great protestant Divines who have opposed Episcopacy prevails much with one to suspect Bishops cannot lay claim so high I Suffer not your judgement to be captivated by the Name or Authority of any man without proof I fear there be too much implicite faith among us which we condemn in Papists and besides may be the opposition of the most knowing and learned Protestants to Episcopacy is not so great as you imagine D. What think you of Calvin is not he much against Episcopacy in his Writings as he was also in his practise when he lived a Minister at Geneve in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren there where Presbyterian parity as it had been in purest primitive times was again revived I. Before you take the Government of Geneve to be a reviving of primitive parity as you say It is fit you first solidly answer all I have produced to shew that from the Apostles dounward there were always Bishops over Ministers or Presbyters even in the purest times I will not insist to shew you that when Geneve reformed Religion she had no purpose to put away Episcopacy if it could have been preserved You may read Durel's view of Government from pag. 151. to 161. who will inform you in this Nor will I debate whither Calvin lived in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren only hear what Mason apologizing for the Government of Geneve defence of ordin pag. 175. speaking of Calvin and Beza saith They being chosen to a place of eminency and endued with Jurisdiction they having preeminence in every action and consequently in Ordination none can with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal Office This he speaketh of them in respect of the rest of the Ministers at Geneve And B. Andrews Resp 3. ad Molineum speaking of Calvin and Beza says Quid attinet abolere nomen retinere rem Nam illorum uterque dum vixerunt quid erant
occasion to speak of from the community of Name still used by the Apostle even after the change was made Secondly because that decree which Jerome says was made over all the world for introducing Bishops had it been after the Apostles times we should have some account of it in antiquity about what year after what manner in what Council c. that Decree was made and no change that followed upon it but the vestige of this is to be found Thirdly The supposing such an universal change of Government after the Apostles were gone will infer that shortly after the Apostles there was an universal defection in all the Christian world from that Government which ye think the Apostles left as unalterable in the Church which is very hard to imagine What! Not one honest man in all the world that we hear of to open his mouth and oppose this innovation but without contradiction Toto orbe decretum est how cold will you make the zeal of those Primitive Christians to have been in respect of your own now adays Fourthly because Jerome tells us this change was made ad tollenda schismata And in remedium schismatis to take away Schism Now to think that the Apostles left a Government in the Church which was liable to this great inconvenience of Schism and that those who came after saw cause to change that Government unto another for shunning of the foresaid evil Is too great an Imputation upon the wisdom of the Apostles and too great a preferring of Posterity before them But this is salv'd if we say that the Apostles themselves forseeing that parity would breed Schism did before their departure for preventing of this set Bishops over Presbyters Fifthly because this same Jerome in sundry places of his writings derives the Original of Bishops as high as the Apostles if not higher de Scriptor Eccles he says Jacobus ab Apostolis statim c. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christs Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem and that to him succeded Simon And on Galat. 1.19 He says as much of Titus at Crete of Polycarp at Smyrna of Epaphroditus at Philippi and again de Scrip. Eccles He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria and in Epist ad Euagrium says Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filij ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesia vendicent That is that we may know the Apostolical Traditions to be taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church And Epist 54. Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi With us the Bishops hold the room of the Apostles And Epist 1. Ad Heliodorum And dialog adversus Luciferianos and Epist ad Riparium adversus Vigilantium Miror Sanctum Episcopum in cujus Paraecia esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virga Apostolica confringere vas initile Where you see he calls the Bishop's power Virga Apostolica The Apostolical Rod or which was derived from them These and moe Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings to shew that he deduces Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves So that if you think in some places he cryeth down Bishops as an invention later than the Apostles you shall find that in many moe places he makes them high enough And if you will needs have this Father to contradict himself it will be with advantage to Bishops For for one word against them he speaks three for them But if you will save his Credit you must understand that change he speaks of to have been in the Apostles own times D. But Jerome says Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Let Bishops know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then by the truth of the Lords appointment Which words shew that Episcopacy came into the Church by custom not by any divine right I. Some are of opinion that Jerome speaks of that authority Bishops were then invested with over Presbyters beyond what the first Bishops were this he saith they had attained to by custom for in the same Epistle he maketh three subordinate degrees of Clergy and that Ex traditione Apostolica By Apostolical Tradition which words have much perplexed those of your perswasion So that if you think Jerome by Consuetudo meaneth Custome which came in after the Apostles times you shall make him say and unsay in one and the same Epistle But if by Consuetudo be meant that Authority the Bishops in his time did exercise beyond what the first Bishops did no such inconvenience will follow And that he is so to be understood appears from this that in equalling the Bishop as he was at first with the Presbyter he saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter Excepta Ordinatione That is What doth the Bishop which the Presbyter doth not except Ordination Where you see though he make the Bishop above the Presbyter as to Ordination yet he seemeth to equal them as to Jurisdiction And this seems agreeable to what he saith that at first inter plures Ecclesiae cura divisa and Communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernatae Ecclesiae i. e. Presbyters did at first by common counsel govern the Churches which doth not necessarily exclude the first Bishops And afterward speaking of the power that accresced in after times to Bishops he saith ad unum omnis Ecclesiae cura delata est all the care of the Church was put over upon one He seems to mean that the Bishops afterward acted solely to avoid schism that arose from the disagreeing of many Counsels thus some answer that place of Jerome 2. Others as the learned Davenant think That by dominicae dispositionis veritas Jerome meant Christ's express Command and by Consuetudo Apostolical practice begun by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And this is very probable for this same Jerome writing ad Marcellum about the observation of Lent saith it is apostolica traditio and adversus Luciferianos calleth it Ecclesiae consuetudo so that according to him what was begun by the Apostles may be called Church custome because continued by the Church So then this will be Jerom's meaning Bishops are greater than Presbyters not by Christ's express Command but by custome brought into the Church by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And now to say no more of this Father whom you take to be the great prop of your Cause in antiquity consider seriously these few things anent him 1. Doth not Jerome expresly speak of an Apostolical right at least that Episcopacy hath and that in very many places of his writings as I hinted before 2. Where he seems to speak otherwise suppose he were to be understood in your meaning which is to
yea and Liturgies Festival-days and other Ceremonies c. And with whom therefore ye would have taken more ground to quarrel than with us and if ye be come the length to think the removing of these things necessary to make a true Church as may be some of you are then according to you there hath not been a true Church in the World for much above a thousand years together if according to your own calculation we begin but to reckon from the second or third Century downward D. You cannot deny that many things crept into the Church that were not from the beginning or of Christs and his Apostles institution and such are these things you have named I. That all these things named have crept into the Church as you say since the Apostles times will not be granted You know Bishops are said to have been even from the Apostles times And Eusebius Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. says that in the dabate about the time of keeping of Easter betwixt Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Victor Bishop of Rome Polycrates alledgeth the Apostle John's authority and practice for himself in that matter But suppone it were granted to you that these things are of later date than the Apostles will you thence inter that those who used them could be no good Christians or that you can not allow them your Charity Know you not that there may be many things used about the ordering of Gods House and his Worship which in themselves are indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden and therefore the Church as she seeth fit may use her Christian liberty about such things I pray you consider Rom. Chap. 14. There was a great debate among those first Christians anent the use of the Ceremonial Law and albeit such as thought they were now no more bound by that Law having purchased their liberty by Christ and therefore neither regarded one day nor one kind of meat above another were in the right yet Paul commands them to bear with the infirmities of the weak and not despise them but still account them brethren and retain Charity notwithstanding of their error The weak again were much like your selves very ready to judge the strong and to be uncharitable to them This the Apostle forbiddeth Who art thou who judgest another mans Servant vers 4 Socrates in his Church History lib. 5. cap. 22. Tells what diversity of customs was among Christians in those first times and yet no uncharitable judging of one another as ye use How justly and severely was Victor Bishop of Rome blamed by Irenaeus for his rash uncharitable zeal much like your own in excommunicating all the Eastern Churches because they did not keep Easter on that day that he did Though Irenaeus was of Victors judgement about the thing in debate yet he much discommended his uncharitable behavior toward Polycrates and the Asian Churches Euseb lib. 5. Cap. 23. Now as ye are guilty of heart Schism which is uncharitableness so expresly forbidden in many Scriptures especially in 1 Cor. 13. Chap. throughout So ye are guilty of External Schism in separating from our Church-communion in the Word and Sacraments and all other duties of Religious Worship contrary to the Apostles Direction Heb. 10.25 Forsaâ—â— not the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is It seems there were some Separatists even at that time who being misled by a misinformed Judgement or by pride and singularity as Calvin noteth on the place did forsake the ordinary and orderly Assemblies of Christians It is a received Maxim among Divines Opinionem varietas Opiniantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Variety of Opinions about matters of a secondary Nature and Unity among those who vary in such Opinions may well consist together D. All of us do not altogether forsake your Assemblies some do but now and then leave their own Paroch Churches I. Indeed ye are not all guilty of Separation in the same degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable and ought to be avoided It may be observed how people turn not Separatists of the highest degree at first but proceed from step to step First they begin to withdraw sometimes from their own Congregation then they come to withdraw more ordinarily and at length altogether Some when they withdraw from their own Paroch will not go hear ordinarily at least such as are discharged by Law but some other Minister who either preaches under the Government or is Indulged by the King and his Council and within a little will hear none of them Some will hear but not partake of the Sacraments in their own Congregation and so acknowledges their Minister in one part of his Office but not in another Upon what grounds they do so I confess I am not able to understand for I hope they disclaim the Popish error that the Efficacy of the Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Minister Now I say an advised Christian will do well to take heed and beware of any the least degree of Separation both because unwarrantable in it self and because it maketh way for a further degree and that second for a third and so unsâ—â—t people may take a running that they shall not know where to make 〈◊〉 stand Have we not seen some turn at â—ength Bronnists and some Quakers yea Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church Divisions Pag. 268. tells of some in England who turning Separatists at length died Apostat Infidels deriding Christianity and the imortality of the Soul D. There are among your selves who will not be constant and ordinary hearers in their own Congregations What say you of them I. I say such are very reprovable for doing that which hath in it the seeds of greater Schism And those Ministers though conform to whom people of anothers charge use to resort are bound to declare against it unless great distance of place from their own Paroch Church or other insuperable lets hinder their ordinar frequenting of their own Congregation and their absence be not grounded upon any disrespect unto or disesteem of their own Minister Otherwise I say that Minister to whom they come is bound to declare against such practices And if he do not it 's presum'd desire of applause and self-love makes him hold his peace and prevails more with him than love to the peace and unity of the Church D. It 's very hard to hinder me from going where I can be most edified we are bidden covet the best Gifts 1 Cor. 12. vers last And a man may go where he can have the best dinner I. I hear that useth to be your language as for that place 1 Cor. 12. last The Apostle is not directing private Christians what Gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of Gifts and every one should be content with his own Gif given him for the edification of others yet so that he seek after better not in others
learned men have thought Episcopacy lawful though not commanded or by any Scripture president particularly warranted so neither prohibited but left to the prudence and choice of Christians as they shall find it expedient and conducing to the good and peace of the Church D. I think it is forbidden in the Word and therefore unlawful I. Let me hear in what Scripture D. In Mat. 20. ver 25 26 27 28. Where Christ forbiddeth any of his Disciples to be greater than another I. If you think all superiority among Church-men there forbidden you are in a mistake for 1. Christ there speaks to the twelve among whom I can grant there was to be no inequality in respect of power yet they were superior to the seventy Disciples whom Christ also sent to preach the Gospel as Divines commonly think and appears from Act. 1. Where Matthias one of the seventy as Clemens Alexandrin Dorotheus and others affirm him to have been is solemnly chosen and advanced to the Office of Apostleship in the room of Judas and he was numbred with the eleven Apostles vers 26. 2. The thing Christ there discharges is Ambition and not Inequality otherwise the Argument he taketh from his own example vers 28. would not suit his purpose For without controversie Christ was in Power and authority above the twelve But take the words as spoken against ambition or a sinful desire of superiority which afterward was Diotrephes his fault the reason from his own example suits well for though in power he was above all yet in humility he was a pattern to all Humility and Imparity can well consist together D. Christ there says The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion but it shall not be so among you Therefore it seems he discharges all superiority among Church-men I. He only discharges that kind of dominion which civil Princes exercise which is dominium civile despoticum a civil princely or Lordly power but the power of the Church is of another nature And besides sundry Interpreters think that Christ there speaketh against the Tyrranny which heathen Princes of the world exercised over their miserable Vassals and Subjects You may consult Mr. Pool's Collection of Interpreters on the place D. The Apostle 1 Pet. 5.3 says Be not Lords over Gods Heritage Is not superiority among Church-men there clearly forbidden I. Not at all only Domineering and Tyranny is there forbidden which may be the fault of an ordinary Minister towards his flock The Apostle is not there speaking of the carriage of Church-men towards Church-men nor of the equality or inequality of them among themselves but of Church-mens behaviour and carriage what it ought to be towards the people who are there called the flock and Gods heritage D. In the New Testament Bishop and Elder are two words signifying one and the same Officebearer for Act. 20. these who in vers 17. are called Elders vers 28. are called Bishops also Tit. 1. vers 5. and 7. compared together So that Bishop and Elder are the same in Scripture And the word Elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular Congregation I. I grant these two words are ofttimes in the New Testament used indifferently to express one and the same Officer yet it will not be granted nor can ye ever prove that the Officer meant by these words is never to be understood of any above the degree of an ordinary Minister or that the word Presbyter or Elder signifies only a Minister of a single Congregation and no more For 1. We find the name Elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet. 5.1 Joh. Epist 2.1 and Epist 3.1 And if the Apostles be called Elders Why may not Bishops be called so too 2. Your selves say that the word Elder signifies not only the Preaching Elder or Minister but also the Ruling Elder I can upon as good and better ground say It signifies the Bishop and the Minister both being Elders but of different degrees and consonant to this in some after ages we find those who were unquestionably Bishops yet sometimes designed by the name of Presbyter that is Elder Thus we find Victor Bishop of Rome called Presbyter and Iraeneus Bishop of Lyons called Presbyter Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Though ordinarly at that time such were called Bishops yet some times they are called Presbyters as still remembring the first times of the New Testament when the name was indifferently given to Bishops and Ministers D. The Apostle Philip. 1.1 Speaketh of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that one Church of Philippi I. Ambrose a Father of the Church thinks the Bishops in that place not to be understood of Bishops at Philippi but of certain Bishops who were present with Paul when he wrot that Epistle and in whose name he writes to the Philippians joyning them with himself Others think there might be sundry Bishops of the Churches about conveened at that time at Philippi and Paul knowing of this might write to and salute them together with that Church For ye see he first names all the Saints at Philippi as those to whom he mainly intended to write and then the Bishops and Deacons But granting by these Bishops and Deacons the Officers of that same Church of Philippi to be meant I ask you where are the Ruling Elders here If you say they are included in the word Bishops I can upon better ground affirm that Bishops there signifies both the superior Bishop and the ordinary Ministers under him Ministers may be called Bishops even as in that same Epistle Epaphroditus is called Apostle Chap. 2. vers 25. For the word in the Greek is Apostle But further I say may be there was no Bishop over Presbyters settled as yet at Philippi D. In Eph. 4.11 The Apostle reckoning up Church-Officers makes no mention of Bishops I. It is ill reasoning that because such an Officer is not found in such a particular place or in such an enumeration Therefore such an Officer is no where to be found in Scripture For how prove you that the Apostle in that place intended a full and compleat enumeration 2. I say Bishops in that place may be comprehended under Pastors and Teachers Bishops being such though in a superior degree to ordinary Pastors and Teachers And if you will have a perfect enumeration of all Church-Officers there you must comprehend Ruling Elders and Deacons under some of those words in that place and why may not I do so with Bishops D. Well though may be there is no discharge of Episcopacy so I suppose neither is there any ground in the word for that kind of Government more then any other and thus the best you can make of it will be that it is not unlawful so neither necessary and therefore when it comes to be inexpedient it may be altered and a better put in its place I. If ye will promise not to stand out against
so gross a violation pass so smoothly and without very great contradiction But further to let you see that those Divines come even as great a length as needeth to be desired Blondel in his Apologia Pag. 25. Speaking of the very first meetings of Presbyters that were in the beginning of Christianity he saith Antiquissimo inter Collegas primatus contigit i. e. The primacy fell upon the eldest and Pag. 53. he grants that this first Presbyter had the chief hand in Ordination and afterward that it was for this place that Diotrephes made so much ado and is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thebuthus did the like at Jerusalem shortly after And again he confesses that this Primus Presbyter had authority with his precedency quis enim saith he Praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet and lest it seems he be thought to give too much power to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Presbyter as indeed he giveth him an Episcopal power he addeth Ego sane hanc Politi◠formam ab initio observatam Christianis traditam libere crediderim sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam Where after he hath confessed a first Presbyter with an Episcopal power in effect finding this too high a concession which yet truth enforceth him to he sayeth that that form was mutable at the pleasure of the Church And Chamier confesseth that there was always from the beginning a Primus Presbyter or first Minister and that he had Novam potestatem Jurisdictionem ne esset Episcopatus merus titulus i. e. A new power and Jurisdiction that his Episcopacy might not be a meer title This he confesseth when pressed with Testimonies out of antiquity And what needs more than we find Blondel and him confessing And Moulen in Epist 3. to Bishop Andrews at last granteth that Ordo Episcopalis est juris Apostolici i. e. The Episcopal Order is by Apostolical right and then lest he should seem by this concession altogether to have yielded up the Cause to the Bishop he subjoyneth a distinction betwixt jus Apostolicum and jus divinum And that although he grant Episcopacy to have Apostolical warrant yet that will not infer a Divine unalterable warrant for saith he some things which were brought into the Church by Apostolical prudence as fit for that time are now abrogate as Deaconesses Stillingfleet in his Irenicum Pag. 230. useth this same evasion To whom the learned and judicious Author of the account of ancient Church-government among other things returns this answer that it 's granted that some Apostolical practices yea and constitutions are alterable because they were introduced by the Apostles upon reasons and considerations not holding equally for all places times and persons but if some be thus alterable yet it follows not that therefore any or all are so And then the question will be who shall judge what practices are alterable what not or when the reasons of them are dispensable when not Now I suppose none can rationally say that any private man or lesser part of a Society is competent Judge of these practices and reasons else what confusion will ensue every one establishing or abrogating what he pleaseth but this belongeth to the Church in her Representativ's and accordingly we find Bishops and Councils have retained and declared Episcopacy downward from the Apostles through many Centuries of years as the standing unalterable Apostolical Government and that reasons of its first Institution do hold still to wit preservation of Unity shunning of Schism and the like But these Apostolical practices which were founded on temporary reasons and occasions were permitted to run into a desuetude Thus you see what shifts the ablest Pens who have set themselves against Episcopacy are driven unto to shun a Conquest And truely by their great concessions which they are forced to from evidence in antiquity they yield the whole Cause Hence it is we find them speaking so uncertainly in their Writings Sometime one would think disputing down all Bishops or rather up Presbytrie at an other time setting up Bishops higher and more early than their purpose can well allow or consist with the Scope of their Debates sometime again expressing their great respect for Bishops and sincere wishes that such Churches as had them might still retain that happiness as I hinted before And I also shew that their purpose mainly was to vindicate the practice of their own Churches in having parity and not to cry down Episcopacy especially that which was in Protestant Churches as Beza expresly professes so did Blondel in the close of his Apologia of which I spoke before D. There have been many moe Protestant Divines of great note who lived since the Reformation in Europe may be many of those have been no friends to Episcopacy I. Durel View of Government supposeth a Council to be called consisting of the most famous Protestant Divines who since the Reformation have lived in all the Churches abroad France Geneve Switzerland Bohem Poland Holland and the sundry parts of Germany c. And maketh Calvin Moderator and puts Episcopacy to the Vote among them and out of their Writings delivereth their opinions in favours of Episcopacy You may see this at length in Durels View of Government from Pag. 199. to Pag. 309. And to them I may add our own John Knox who as is to be seen before the old Psalm Book in the year 1560. preached in Edinburgh at the admission of the superintendent of the three Lothians a diocy large enough which act was more Episcopal like than Presbyterian Thus I have deduced unto you Episcopacy from Scripture from the most primitive times which followed after the Apostles and from the confessions and concessions of the ablest Protestant Divines all which I think ought and will be very convincing to any who is pleased to lay aside prejudice and impartially make search after truth in this point To what I have said before I add these few things The Author of Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani are at great pains to produce some Fathers Schoolmen and some Episcopal Divines in England who were of opinion that betwixt Presbyter and Bishop there is little or no difference To which I say that the debate among the Schoolmen is meerly whether Bishop and Presbyter are diversi ordines different orders or only diversi gradus ejusdem ordinis divers degrees of one and the same Order Now this says nothing against Episcopacy for even these who think they differ only in degree yet notwithstanding might be of the mind that always from the Apostles downward there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters howbeit the difference was not so great as to constitute a different Order but only a higher degree or eminency as some speak in the same Order And these Fathers and late Episcopal Divines might be of the same mind This is sure all of them looked on Episcopacy as lawful and useful in the Church
sin and the Apostle saith we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others I. When the word forbiddeth us to give offence First it is meant of not doing that before others which is in it self sinful whereby we indeed offend or grieve the godly as also lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our ill example Now when you do your duty in obeying God you cannot be said to give offence unto any And if any will be offended at you it 's their own sin and weakness for they take offence where none is given and in the present case if any will be offended at you for your maintaining unity and peace in the Church and for not forsaking the assembling of your self together with the rest of his people It 's their own weakness while you give them no Offence at all but on the contrary by your good example is in a holy way provoking them to their duty with you and if you shall ly by for fear of their offence you shall both omit your own duty and harden them in their sin 2. Ordinarily where the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to give offence to others he is shewing how they ought to use their Christian liberty in things indifferent That they must not use it to the offence of their weak brother when either thereby he shall contrary to his conscience be emboldened to sin 1 Cor. 8.10 or yet should be grieved with us because he thinks we sin in doing what he conceives we should not Rom. 14. verse 15. Yet you must know if the Command of Authority interpose and injoyn me to use a thing in it self indifferent or not use it then and in that case it 's no more indifferent to me as to that particular and time my liberty pro tunc is determined and restricted by Authority and the thing though in it's own nature indifferent still is by the supervenient command of Authority made necessary to me in my using or not using it according as Authority hath determined Act. 15. vers 28. These necessary things though some of these things were not necessary in themselves yet abstaining from them was at that time made necessary by the Authority of that Council for the good of the Church Then and in such a case as this my obedience to Authority will preponderat the other of not giving offence the first being the greater duty of the two as Divines and Casuists shew And even in this case I give no offence but do my duty and if any take offence it 's causeless on my part and is occasioned through my brothers weakness It is Scandalum acceptum non datum Scandel groundlesly taken by him not at all given by me When the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to use their liberty to the offence of the weak he speaketh to those who were not determined by Authority Have you any more to say for your Schism D. You still impute Schism to us I. And in doing so I wrong you not but am sorry ye give me too just ground either ye are Schismaticks or the christian Church never had any ye have miserably rent the bowels of the poor Church your mother I pray the Lord discover to you this sin and give you repentance ye both forsake the Church Assemblies and also erect Separate meetings of your own both in private houses and in the fields D. What ill in so doing did not Christ preach in private houses and in the fields and people hear in any place and why may not we do the like I. It 's true Christ preached in houses and in the fields and people heard But did he so upon such grounds as ye do to wit that he might separate and teach people to separate from the Jewish Church Or did he either think or teach that the Jewish teachers at that time ought not to be heard I trow not He was oft in the Temple and in the Synagogues he allowed of hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees only with this proviso to beware of their leaven and bad lives some whom he miraculouslie healed he sent to the Priests to offer their Offering according to the Law and did not bid people decline or disown them for as corrupt as they were But ye on the contrary erect meetings of your own because ye think ours unlawful to join with But further Christ preached in any place 1. Because he was about the bringing in of the Gospel Doctrine into the World and of Preaching himself the true Messiah which was necessarie to be done and therefore took all occasions for doing it in anie place and the rather because of the opposition this Doctrine though in it self most necessarie met with from the Jewish teachers And 2. Christ was the head of the whole Church and therefore was not to be limited in the waie and manner of his Ministrie as other Teachers ought and must be but might Preach when and where and to whom he pleased for all belonged to his Ministrie and I know none in the World will say that he is universal Pastor of the whole Church except the Pope Nor will any say that it is warrantable for meer men to do what Christ did in everie thing These meetings of yours ye hold and frequent in despight of the Laws of the Land which are verie express against them And so to Schism ye add disobedience to the Civil Powers D. Should I be hindered by the Law of the Land from hearing the Word of God and other parts of his Worship Or Ministers hindred to preach You know it 's better to obey God than men I. The Laws of the Land hinder not but allow and command you to hear the Word of God in your own Congregations where ye have the Gospel purelie preached by the allowance and under the defence of Authoritie a mercie ye too little value Is it not better to Worship God in a way not contrarie to the Law of the Land the Law allowing me to Worship him purelie than in a waie that is contrarie to the Law and joyned with disobedience to it As for what you bring out of Act. 4.19 From the Apostles their not obeying the Council of Jerusalem discharging them to speak at all or teach in the Name of Jesus it doth no waie quadrat with your case For First The Apostles had an immediate extraordinarie call from Christ himself to Preach in his Name and so were not to be discharged by anie Power on Earth 2. The Prohibition given to them was intended to suppress the Gospel absolutelie and as such and therefore it was not lawful for them to obeie Nor was there anie other visible waie to propagate the Gospel through the World but by their Preaching But among us though some Ministers be silent there are manie others not discharged but allowed to Preach And blest be God the opposition of Authoritie is not against the Gospel it self but against your disorders D. Can the King and the