Episcopal Ministers did intrude themselves upon other mens labours If hereby you mean a sinful intrusion as I know you do let me ask you first were these Ministers whom you charge with Intrusion active in outing their Predecessors or did they come in upon their places till they were out and their places declared vacant 2. Would you or would these Ministers who were not clear to keep their places on the terms of the change but chosed rather to step out have the people of such Congregations left without a settled Ministrie because they were not clear to brook it themselves Is this all their kindness to their people or looks it not rather like a piece of petted self that will neither do nor let do And what you talk of coming in upon other mens labours is as applicable to one that cometh in upon a Ministers charge who against his will is transported to another charge by those who have power to dispose of him The Minister so transported may be thinketh there is a wrong done both to him and to the people he is taken from and the people think so too and possibly it is so yet he who succeedeth him upon an orderly and fair call you know cannot be said to be an intruder or in your sense to come in upon another mans labours I think an injury suppose really done to the former Minister by those who put him to the door ought not hinder well advised people from submitting to another for there is a necessity of a Ministrie and knowing consciencious Christians should make the best of what they can not help in their Superiours And if they cannot get such a Minister as they would ought to take such as they can have These Ministers who were put from their charges for asserting their duty to the King in the year 1648. had far better ground to complain that others were brought in upon their labours yet they were silent and submissive nor did they stir up the people to discountenance such as succeeded in their places and if the people had withdrawn and refused to hear them that succeded as Intruders as people are taught now to do without doubt the Judicatours at that time would have noticed them severely But Lastly ye who make so great a clamour of coming in upon other mens labours what think ye of your own Preachers who go up and down from Paroch to Paroch through the Countrey and any one of them will intrude himself not upon one Ministers charge only but in so far as he can upon the charges and labours of all the Ministers in Scotland Alace tell us no more of Ministers among us who have entered upon other mens labours they are but petty intruders that confine themselves to one Paroch but these among you are intruders indeed and to purpose Rom. 2.21 When Alexander accused one that he was a Pirate he answered I am but a petty one but you are the great Pirate that makes prey of whole Kingdomes and Nations D. We are sworn by the Covenant to extirpat all that depend upon the Hierarchy of which number the Episcopal Ministers are and therefore cannot lawfully hear them without breach of our Oath I. Ministers are not all exprest in that Article but suppose they were meant yet it 's said All Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy that is as I told you at our last conference on that kind of Hierarchy that consists and is made up of all these Officers mentioned in the Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which kind of Hierarchy we have not in this Church But further if Ministers depending on Bishops be there meant then ye by binding your selves not to hear them have bound your selves to sin for I told you a little before Ministers may be very faulty and sinful Creatures and yet ought to be heard But besides I have shown you before that Episcopacy is a most warrantable Government which neither you nor I nor any man could ever unwarrantably abjure nor Ministers depending on it So this reason of yours will come to nothing And Lastly by your exposition of that Clause of the second Article ye were bound not to hear any Ministers who were in Office at the time of taking the Covenant but to root out and extirpat them all because all these Ministers depended on Bishops as to their Ordination still even after they took the Covenant unless they had renounced their Ordination which they received from Bishops and had been ordained of new by meer Presbyters which they did not nor thought themselves bound to do notwithstanding of the Covenant otherwise it would follow that all the time before they were Ministers without a true Ordination and so what should become of all their Ministeriall Acts they had performed by vertue of that Ordination they had received from Bishops and yet to this day ye never scrupled hearing such of them as took the Covenant notwithstanding of their dependance foresaid which is still a dependance in part if they but disown the Bishops Government for the future D. Besides the reasons already named against hearing I have this to add we are warranted by the Word to separate from a corrupt Church I If you think Bishops are a corruption in the Church it will not be granted to you And then you are mistaken if you think that every Church that hath corruption in it is straight way to be separated from There may be even great corruption in a Church and yet Separation from her not lawful Was there not great corruption of Doctrine in the Church of Galatia and many infected with it and in the Church of Corinth was there not an Article of the Creed the Resurrection of the dead questioned Yea by sundrie flatly denied 1 Cor. 15. Chap. We read of great faults in sundrie of these Churches Rev. Chap. 2. and Chap. 3. And in the Church of the Old Testament sundrie times read the Books of the Kings and the Chronicles and the Prophets and you shall see what great corruptions oft were in that Church and yet no command to the godly to Separate as â—ong as the very substance of the Worship was not corrupted as it was in the case of Jeroboams Calves 2 Chron. 11.16 in the first ages of the Christian Church it 's known what Censures past against the Novatians Donatists and others because they were Schismaticks and may be there was as great corruptions in the Church at that time as any ye can pretend now if not greater D. If we may not Separate from a corrupt Church what then mean these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.6 Rev. 18.3 I. I deny not but a Church may be corrupted in that degree that Separation from her is warrantable yea and necessarie Yet I told you everie corruption is no sufficient ground of Separating from her As for these Scriptures ye name they prove not your point In 2 Cor. 6.14 The Apostle
Apostolical warrant at least and if so then the Covenant against Episcopacy suppone it were there abjured is null from the beginning But passing this to what you say of the Assembly of Glasgow's expounding the Popes Hierarchy to be meant of all Episcopacy I answer that was more than they could do For 1. How could the Assembly put a sense upon that Oath that was taken 58. years before and few or none of the first takers of it were than alive or if alive few or none were Members of that Assembly How then could the Assembly come to know certainly that their exposition of the word Hierarchy was according to the mind of the first imposers 2. All that the Assembly 1638. produces in their Act Sess 16. to prove Episcopacy to be abjured in the National Covenant amounts only to this That the Church about the time of the first taking of that Covenant and after was labouring against Bishops but proves not that Episcopacy was abjured in it or in any words of it 3. By what warrant could the Assembly impose upon others that sense of the Covenant in which they took it themselves they might declare their own sense of it which might not be the sense of the first imposers when all is done but how could they oblige others to their sense who had taken it before The first imposers gave the Assembly no power to do so D. Yet those who took that Covenant after the Assembly 1638. had put their sense on it have thereby abjured Episcopacy for the Assembly explaineth it so I. I suppose it was not the Assemblies intention that any should take that Covenant in the sense they put on it unless it were agreeable to the sense of the first imposers and takers to whom the Assembly thought themselves subservient iâ— what they did Now that the first imposers and takers never meant it against all Episcopacy is shewed and therefore the Assemblies ground failing that which they built thereupon must fail also For it were absurd to say that the Assembly putting a meaning on that Oath no way agreeable with the meaning of the first imposers that yet this posterior meaning should oblige also though much differing from the former this is to make of an Oath what we please D. In that Covenant we are sworn that we shall joyn our selves to this Church of Scotland in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline and that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline thereof Where by Discipline is meant Presbyterian Government So then we are sworn to maintain it by the National Covenant I. By Discipline cannot be meant Presbyterian Government because at the time of the first imposing of that Covenant there was no such Government in Scotland nor for a considerable time after Whatever essays Ministers in those times made to introduce it yet the King who imposed that Covenant owned Episcopacy Therefore 2. If by Discipline some one particular mode of Government be meant it 's more then probable that it must be Episcopacy because it was the Government then practised in this Church And the very year after the King and Council ratified the Treaty that had been concluded at Leith in favours of Episcopacy Anno 1571. But by Dicipline is not meant any one particular form of Government but the substantials of it or the essential and utterly necessary policy of the Church as it is expressed in the first Book of Discipline Cap. 9. And this is indeed unalterable though as some think there may be a change of particular Forms of Government D. Yet in the second Article of the League Bishops are expresly abjured and I hope you will confess that Protestant Bishops are there meant I. Although Protestant Bishops be there meant yet I question if every kind oâ—… Protestant Bishops Timorcus Epist dedicat Sect. 25. and pag. 14. 16. Doubteth not to say that all kind of Prelacy is noâ—… there abjured but that notwithstanding the said Article they the English Presbyterians could freely submit to the Primitive Episcopacy that is the precedency of one over the rest without whom ordinarily nothing is to be done in Jurisdiction or Ordination and asserts that it was only the English kind of Prelacy that was meant in the second Article of the League as also appears from the explanation of that Article inclosed in the body of it by a Parenthesis Which kind we have not in Scotland nor had before although many of you think there is no difference Mr. Vines and Mr. Baxter two great men of the Presbyterian way in England say that that second Article was not intended against all kind of Episcopacy but only against that complex frame that consists of all the Officers mentioned in the Article And Mr. Gataker that the most part of the Assembly of Divines was reconcileable to a Moderat Episcopacy And further Timoreus That the English Parliament with the Commissioners from Scotland never intended the extirpation of all kind of Episcopacy but only of that in England pag. 16. 23. See also Mr. Croston Pag. 70 78. So that the most judicious of the English Presbyterians who knew the mind of the Imposers and the circumstances of that business you see would not cry out upon us as guilty of breach of that Article as ye do D. What was the Parliament of England or the Assembly of Divines their sense of that Article I know not nor think I my self much concerned to enquire but the Kirk and State of Scotland who imposed that Oath on us meant it against all sort of Bishops I. I pray you consider we are now speaking of the League which was not a meer National Covenant of this Kingdom alone but a common League of all the three Kingdoms and therefore behoved to be sensed by the Representatives of all the three So it is not the sense that any one of the Kingdoms puts on it you or I are to stand to but that meaning and sense which all the three imposed on it And what was the Parliament of England's sense was as Timorcus tells us with the joynt concurrence of Commissioners from Scotland D. In the first Article the preservation of the Government of the Kirk of Scotland is sworn to be maintained which was Presbytrie and therefore in the second we swear against all kind of Prelacy because Prelacy and Presbytrie are inconsistent I. If you think in the first Article Presbytrie is sworn to be maintain'd and yeâ— that there is a liberty left in the second Article for some kind of Prelacy which I told you the English Divines confess and if withal you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy then it will follow that we have sworn things contradictoâ—y viz. In the first Article that we shall admit of no kind of Prelacy and in the second that we may admit of some kind of Prelacy 2. It 's much doubted by learned men whither in the first Article there be any
abjured in the second Article of the League but only that species or complex frame that consists of all the members there mentioned But 3. What can you say for your owninâ—â—f Commissaries now when again actualâ—â— they do depend upon Bishops I â—now none of you who at this day scruples or declines the Commissaries Authority â—nd Courts though actually they do depend upon Bishops Yet give me leave I think according to your principles ye ought to disown and decline them otherwise I shall be glade to learn of you how you free your selves of Perjury And if ye can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant pray give me your reason why not a Bishop too But I have yet another breach of Oath to charge you with which ye give me but too just ground for and that is Schism which is both a grievous sin in it self and also expresly abjured in that same second Article of the League And yet ye have been and still are carrying on a fearful and stated Schism whereby this poor Church is robbed of that Peace and Unity which our Lord Christ bequeathed to her in Legacy and this ye do with the greatest activity imaginable as if you were about some unquestionable duty But because I can stay no longer with you at present I shall be content to speak more of this at our next meeting So praying the Lord to give you understanding in all things I bid you farewell THE THIRD DIALOGUE Anent Separation Doub AT our last meeting our conference was anent the Obligation of the Covenants with breach whereof we use to charge you And at parting you by way of Re-crimination charged us with Schism which indeed is both a sin in itself and also expresly abjured in the second Article of the League But I hope we be not guilty of it I. Schism is a very grievous evil indeed even a renting of the Body of Christ which is his Church An evil which the Apostle sets himself much against Rom. 16. vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 1. vers 12 13. c. and Chap. 3. Eph. 4. vers 3 4 5. c. Phil. 2. vers 1 2 3. and in other places An ill that Satan began to make use of as one of his main engines against the Church even in the Apostles times and in sundry ages since An ill which sundry of the Fathers of the Church have in their Generations withstood and given testimony against Cyprian is full to this purpose in his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where among other things he saith An secum esse Christum cum collecti fuerunt opinantur qui extra Christi Ecclesiam colliguntur Tales etiamsi occisi fuerint in confessione nâ—minis Macula ista nec sanguine abluituâ—â— in expiabiliâ— gravis culpa discer aâ—â—â—â— nec passione purgatur Esse Martyr non potest qui 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non est Ad regnum porvenire nâ—â— poterit qui eam quae regnatura est derelinquit Pacem nobis Christus dedit Concordes atque unanimes esse praecepit dilectiones charitatis foedera inviolatae servare mundavit exhibere se non potest Martyrem qui fraternam non tenuit charitatem Ita Paulus 1 Cor. 13. Etsi habuero fidem charitatem antem non habeam nihil sum That is Do those who gather themselves together without the Church think Christ is with them so gathered such though they were even slain in confessing his Name yet that blot Schism is not washen away with their bloud the inexpiable sin of discord is not purged by their suffering He cannot be a Martyr who is not in the Church He cannot come to the Kingdom who forsakes her the Church that is to reign Christ left and commanded us peace and that we keep inviolable the bonds of Charity c. And much more to this purpose that Father hath in the foresaid Book Jerome saith Nullum Schisma est nisi sibi aliquam Haeresin confingat ut recte ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur Where he shews that Schism and Heresie at least something like it uses to go together And Epist ad Pammâ—chium Quis scindit Ecclesiam nos quorum omnis domus Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat an tu qui aut bene credis superbe de fide taces aut male vere scindis Ecclesiam That is Who rents the Church we who communicat in the Church or you who believing well proudly holds thy peace or believing ill truly rents the Church Where he seemeth to say That even he who holds his peace and declares not against Schism is guilty of Schism too Augâ—stin Tractat. 27. in Joannem Anima tuâ— non vivificat nisi membra quae sunt in caâ—â— ne tua c. Haec dicuntur ut amemus unitatem timeamus separationem Nihil enim debet sic formidare Christianus quaâ—â— separari a corpore Christi Sic enim non est membrum ejus nec vegetatur Spiritu ejus Where he shews That Separatists are like members cut off from the body and so can receive no life from the soul that quickens the body The Church is like the Lilly among Thorns Cant. 2.2 And Schism is one of those Thorns and the harder to be pulled out because Schismaticks have always looked on themselves as the only men and Christians of the first Magnitude and so do ye and I am heartily sorry ye give me such ground to charge you with this sin D. Every Separation is not a sinful Schism I. True every Separation is not a Schism as the word Schism is ordinarily taken to signifie a causeless separating For Protestants justifie their separating from the Church of Rome since they could not hold Communion with her without sin That Church being idolatrous in her Worship and in Doctrine erronious even to the perverting of Fundamentals by consequence at least as Protestant Divines shew But I think you guilty of a sinful Separation which is Schism and that al 's groundless and unreasonable as any you shall read of in any age of the Church D. Wherein are we guilty of Schism I. First in your dividing from us in that Christian Charity which ye owe unto us which I may call Heart-schism and is the ground of your external Schisms in dividing from us in Acts of Religious Worship Ye are a people at least many of you who make difference in judgement about matters only of a secondary nature such as the outward Policy or Government of the Church a ground for difference in affection and uncharitableness as if such who are not of your way and perswasion in these matters could not be real Christians with your selves And thus you put disputable points of lesser concernment into your Creed And many of you can with great freedom un-saint all who are not of your opinion in these things And so ye Un-church and condemn all Christians that have been in all ages almost and places of the World since Christs time who ye will find have owned Bishops
is speaking of the dutie of Christians in Separating from Idolaters and Heathens in their Idolatries and ungodlie fellowships not of withdrawing from Christian Assemblies In 1 Cor. 5.11 and 2 Thes 3.6 He tells Christians their dutie not to keep needless fellowship in their private converse with such as are scandalous but biddeth them not withdraw from the publick Worship of God even though there be scandalous persons there Wicked scandalous persons pollute not the Ordinances to us nor is their presence at the Ordinances a ground for us to Separate though it may be the fault of Church guides if they be careless in keeping them back from such of the Ordinances as they have no right to Rev. 18.3 is ordinarilie expounded by Protestants of leaving the Idolatrous Worship of the Church of Rome where Doctrine also is much corrupted but gives no warrant to Separate from a sound Church where no such corruptions are D. We think we have better reason to charge you with Schism than ye have to charge us for ye have departed from the Government of this Church by Presbytrie to which we still adhere so that ye have made the Schism from us not we from you I. What little ground ye have to charge us with Schism in respect of Government may appear if ye consider 1. That our sumbitting to the present Government by Bishops is in obedience to the Commands of our Superiours whom both ye and we are bound to obey in things in themselves not sinful So that our submission is dutie and your non-submission is both disobedience and Schism disobedience to Authoritie Schism from the body of the Church 2 If ye will consider that Episcopacy as at some length I shew in our first conference is the only Government of the Church left by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the first and purest times after them and so downward Not we who now submit to this Government are the Schismaticks but ye who refuse submission to it hereby ye are guilty of Schism from the whole Primitive times alswell as from us But besides when we charge you with Schism we mean it not only nor mainly of Schism in respect of Government but of your dividing and separating from our Christian Assemblies especially and Divine Worship there performed which indeed is a great Schism even suppose there were many things wrong among us that needed amendment I pray you consider I hope ye will not say we have departed more from you and from the truth than the Scribes and Pharisees and the Jewish Church under them had departed from Moses Law in Christs time and yet neither Christ nor the godly at that time such as Simeon and Anna Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary with many others thought themselves oblieged to separate from that Church Alace then how will ye be able to justifie this Separation of yours D. Your Ministers Lecture not to the people therefore we will not hear them I. Some among us did continue to Lecture but that did not keep the people from the disease of the time Separation 2. We have the Scriptures publickly read in the Church which is a very ancient practice both in the Jewish and Christian Church The Jews had the five Books of Moses or Pentatuch which was commonly called the Law divided into 53. Sections by Ezra as some think and every Sabbath day one of those Sections together with a part of the Prophets was read in the Synagogues See Act. 13. vers 15 27. and Act. 15.21 And that there were Lectures that is Readers in the ancient Christian Church is well known So that ye who on this ground Separate now would have separate from the Church in all ages 3. Lectures as now used have no authority from the Church nor ever had For they are not according to the first appointment which was that the Minister should read a Chapter in the Old Testament and another in the New and where any difficult place occurred briefly give the meaning without any more but that way was soon left and Ministers held with one Chapter and many with a part of one and not only expounded but also raised practical observations so that in effect as some have expressed it the Lecture came to be a short Sermon on a long Text And indeed a Lecture and a Sermon after it are two Sermons at one dyet and they that separate for want of this would for the same reason separate from one who useth shorter Sermons to another who preacheth longer And yet long tedious Sermons are judged less edifying caeteris paribus and it may be a question whither it be not fitter for peoples edification to hold them with one Sermon at one dyet than to give them two considering their forgetfulness when a great variety of purposes is accumulat one thing puts out another And considering their dulness and backwardness to receive divine things and how soon corrupt nature will wearie and sit up when about these exercises is it not safer to hold with a few things and press them home at one time Therefore that ancient Christian Pembo an unlearned man recorded in Church Historie desiring another to learn him a part of a Psalm and having heard the first verse of the 39. Psalm read would hear no more saying it was a lesson great enough at that time and a long time after that another asked him if he was yet ready for another lesson he answered no for he had not sufficiently learned his first lesson 4. Suppose our want of Lectures were a fault yet I told you every fault or neglect in a Church is not a ground to Separate from her And know you not that the ancient Jewish Church some times wanted Ordinances even of Divine Institution and that for a long time together as Circumcision the Pasover c. And will any say she ought therefore to have been Separated from 5. On this ground of yours ye would separate from all the Protestant Churches in the World at this day in none of which ye will find a Lecture Yea ye would have separate from the Church of Scotland ever till about the year 1645. for till then we had no Lectures I could wish indeed all our Sermons were more like Lectures as Lectures have been and are by some used that is that Ministers would take long Texts and reduce them into some few points especially insisting on the Scope as is usual in Churches abroad I make no doubt people would please this way better and retain more of what is spoken than when Ministers confine themselves to short Texts and then too oft rack both the Text and their own Brains seeking matter to hold out the time with But herein I only give my own judgement D. There is another thing yet keepeth me back from joining with you in your Assemblies for Divine worship If I should joyn with you many good people would be offended who look upon hearing among you to be a
broken I might shew you that not only different opinions about Church Government hath been no hinderance to keep Protestants from joyning together in the Worship of God and other parts of Christian Communion but also when such as differed from others in the manner of their performing Worship have been occasionally in one anothers Churches they have without scruple conformed to the custome of the Church they were in for the time I pray you consider if you Separate from the Church because of Bishops you should on this ground have been a Separatist in almost all ages since Christianity began And if you think Episcopacy such an error and corruption that none ought to hold communion with a Church where it is then you must think Christ holds no Communion with such a Church and if so then it will follow that there have been sundrie ages since Christs time wherein he had no Church on Earth to keep communion with Yea that these thousand six hundred years bygone there hath been but rarely and very seldom a true Church on Earth And so what should become of his Promises to his Church that she should be built on the Rock and against her the gates of Hell should not prevail and that he would be with her alway unto the end of the World And also this were to make Christ a head without members a King without a Kingdom c. Therefore 3. Have charity for such as differ from you in the time and beware of either thinking or saying they have no grace because they are not of your way The Apostle spends a whole Chapter in commending and recommending charity to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 13. chap. Among whom there were corruptions and differences in greater matters than among us 1 Cor. chap. 11. and chap. 15. And remember it 's usual with those who have least truth on their side to have least charity too Rom. chap. 14. These weak Christians who understood not their liberty in being loosed from the Cerimonial Law as they had least truth on their side in respect of the strong who knew their liberty so had they least charity for vers 3 4. They judged the strong Papists will have no charity for Protestants yet Protestants who are in the right dare not met back to them with that measure 4. Consider what hazard we bring our selves under by our unchristian divisions Gal. 5.15 Mark 3.24 And what advantage we give to the common Enemy not only to make us a mock but also a prey It was long ago observed by the Historian Dum singuli pugnant universi vincuntur i. e. While they fight among themselves they are all overcome And the Story of Scilurus injoining his Sons to maintain concord among themselves which he elegantly examplified by the Sheaf of Arrows is known 5. Acquaint your self with the writings of the old non-conformists in England Cartwright Bredshaw Ball Paget Hildersham c. Who wrote and testified against the Brounists and such like Separatists for their separating from the Church of England for which separation much more could have been pretended than ye can for separating from us And you will see how zealously and by what good arguments these men battered down Separation Also Mr. Baxter one of the present non-conformists in England hath written a whole Book against Separation from that Church which he calleth the Cure of Church divisions where he giveth sixtie directions to people to guard them against the sin of Separation some of which I shall but name omiting his enlargements The 6. is That we make not our Terms of Communion with any Church stricker than Christ hath done 7. That we have deep and true apprehensions of the necessitie and reasons of Christian unity and concord and of the sin and misery of division and discord and consider what the Scripture saith herein 19. That we engage not our selves too far in any divided Sect nor Spouse the Interest of any party of Christians to the neglect and injury of the Universal Church and the Christian cause 20. That we be very suspicious of our religious passions and carefully distinguish betwixt a sound and sinful zeal lest we father our sin on the Spiâ—it of God 25. That we be not over-tender of our reputation with any sort of people on Earth nor too impatient of their displeasure censures or contempt but live above them 26. That we use not our selves needlesly to the familiar company of that sort of Chistians who use to censure them that are more sober catholick and charitable than themselves c. Where he saith if ever we shall have peace and love recovered it must be by training up â—â—ung Christians under the precepts and examples of grave judicious and peaceable Guides 31. That Christians never begin too soon with doubtful opinions nor ever lay too much weight upon them 41. That the bare favour of a Preacher nor the loudness of his voice or affectionate utterance draw us not to admire him without a proportion of solid understanding and judiciousness 43. That we reject not a good cause because it may be owned by bad men and own not a bad cause for the goodness of the Patrons of it 44. That we take the bad examples of Religious Persons to be one of our most perilous temptations and therefore learn to discover what are the special sins of Professors in the age we leave in that we may be fortified against them 56. Keep still in our eye the state of all Christs Churches on Earth that we may know what a people they are through the World whom he keeps communion with and may not ignorantly separate from almost all the Churches of Christ while we think we separate but from those about us 60. That we count it al 's comfortable to be a Mâ—n tyre for love and peace by blind Zealots as for the faith by Infidels and Heathens You may perceive that many of you have need of such counsels as these The old English non-conformists though they did dissent from the Ceremonies of that Church and desired a forbearance in those things as to their own practice which is not our case yet fully declared against Separation both by their Practice and Writings some of them have called it the bitter root of Separation the way that God never blest with Peace and Holiness Some Passages out of the English Presbyterians their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani anent the Unwarrantableness of Separation I shall name briefly Pag. 10. It 's agreeable to the will of Christ and much tending to edification that all those that live within the same bounds should be under the care of the same Minister or Ministers to be taught by them and to remove altogether these Parochial bounds would open a gape to thousands to live like sheep without a shepsherd And in a little time would bring in all manner of profaneness and atheism Pag. 11. Object What if a godly man live under a wicked or heretical
Minister Ought such a Man to hear such a Minister Ans In such a case that man ought rather to remove his habitation than that for his sake the bounding of Parishes be laid aside Pag. 12. In Scripture to appoint Elders in every Church and in every City is all one They that were converted in a City who were at first but few in number joyned in Church-Fellowship with the Elders and Congregation of that City and not with any other Pag. 25. Some evil men may and alwise have de facto been Officers and Ministers in the Church In the Jewish Church Hophni and Phineas In the days of Christ Scribes and Pharisees yet the wickedness of such did not null or evacuat their Ministerial Acts. The Scribes and Pharisees were to be heard though they said and did not Christ's commission did aswell authorize Judas as any other to preach and baptize The leprosie of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the Corn which that hand soweth Pag. 42 43. The ten Tribes did not only worship God after a false manner by setting up their Golden Calves in Dan and Bethel c. Yet notwithstanding all this when the Prophet came to anoint Jehu he sayeth thus saith the Lord God of Israel I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord even over Israel c. In Christs time it is evident that the Office of the Priest and high-priest was exceedingly corrupted they came ordinarily unto their Office by bribery and faction The priests and high-priests had the chief stroak in the crucifying of Christ. And yet we read Joh. 11.51 Caiaphas is owned by the holy Ghost as high-priest c. Act. 23. When Paul said to the high-priest God will smite thee thou whited wall c. And they that stood by said Revilest thou the high-priest Paul answered I wist not brethren that he was the high-priest For it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people Paul as many think acknowledged him as high-priest though the priest-hood at that time was Tyrannical Heretical and they came by most unjust ways into their places and offices From all this it appears that corruptions cleaving to Gods Ordinances do not null his Ordinances Thus they Mr. Rutherfoord a witness whom ye will not refuse in his due-right of Presbytrie from pag. 220. to pag. 256. though wrong figured discusseth the Question in what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church where among sundry other things he saith pag. 232. Separation from a true Church where the Orthodox Word of God is preached and the Sacraments duly administred we think unlawful And at great length he vindicats 2 Cor. 6.14 against Separatists Pag. 233. The personal sins of others are no warrant for Separation For Christ himself and the Apostles did eat the passover and worship God with one who Christ said had a devil and should betray the Son of Man and was an unclean man Joh. 13.11 18. Ibid. If it be said Judas was neither convicted of his treachery against Christ nor was he known to the Apostles by name to be the man For some of them suspected themselves and not Judas to be the traitor Answ Christ told the Disciples that they were an unclean society and that one had a devil And therefore though they knew not the man by name who had the devil yet they knew the society to have a devil and to be unclean for that one man's cause yet Christ and the Disciples did communicat at that Supper notwithstanding of this Pag. 250. It was not lawful to separat from the Pharisees preaching the truth in Moses his Chair Pag. 253. The godly laudably did not separate from the Israel and Church of God because the Altar of Damascus was set up and because of the high places Things dedicated unto Idols as Lutheran images may be called and are called 1 Cor. 10.34 Idolatry yet are they Idolatry by participation and so the cup of devils 1 Cor. 10.21 Paul doth not command Separation from the Church of Corinth and the Table of the Lord there Pag. 254. The godly in England who refused the Ceremonies and Bishops did well not to separate from the visible Church in England He saith indeed they separated from the Church in the worst and greatest part which he understands of their disowning Bishops and the Ceremonies but yet they kept communion with that Church in unquestionable duties as is well known all except the Separatists against whom Mr. Rutherfoord is here reasoning and against whom the old Nonconformists did write Ibid. If a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation and yet retain the true faith of Christ it is presumed God hath there some to be saved and that where Christs Ordinances be there also his Church presence is And therefore I doubt much if that Church should be separated from for the case is not here as with one simple person for it is clear all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy and that is yet a true visible communion in which we are to remain for there is some Vnion with the Head Christ where the faith is kept sound and that visibly Though a private brother being scandalous and obstinatly flagitious be to be cast off yet are we not to deal so with an Orthodox Church where the most part are scandalous Ibid. I see not but we may Separate from the Lords Supper where Bread is adored and from Baptism where the sign of the Cross is added to Christs Ordinance yet are we not Separated from the Church for we professedly hear the Word and visibly allow the truth of Doctrine maintained by that Church and are ready to seal it with our blood c. Pag. 254 255. There may be causes of non-union with a Church which are not sufficient causes of Separation Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jews though they rejected Christ till they openly Blasphemed Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.16 Ibid. There is no just cause to leave a less clean Church if it be a true Church and to go to a purer and cleaner Though one who is a member of no Church may joyn to that Church which he conceiveth to be purest and cleanest You see then that Mr. Rutherfoord and the English Presbyterians in their Book cited before teach that neither personal faults whether in Ministers or People suppose they be real nor yet real faults about the Worship of God are sufficient grounds of Separation much less when but only supposed Now to make an end try all things impartially and know that it is no disparagement for you nor any to retract that wherein you have been wrong either in opinion or practice It is indeed somewhat hard for men to confess they have been wrong and such are rare to be found yet Augustin one of the most learned of all the Fathers wrote whole Books of retractions for which he is as deservedly famous as for any thing else And saith Jerom to Ruffinus never blush to change thy opinion for neither you nor I nor any person alive are of so great Authority as to be ashamed to confess we have erred The Lord bless us with Truth and Peace Peace be within the Walls of our Jerusalem and Prosperitie within her Palaces and let them prosper who love her and her peace Amen D. I thank you for your free and friendly communing with me I know the Apostle biddeth me prove all things which I resolve to do And to begg illumination from the Father of Lights and that he would give me understanding in all things And what upon due tryal I find to be right and good I shall by his Grace hold it fast Farewel Schisma proles superbiae male perseverando fit Haeresis mater Haereseos FINIS Differences of the Time