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
to prove Episcopacy viz. John Epist 3. ver 9. Diotrephes loveth the preeminence D. I have heard that place brought against Episcopacy But never for it till now The Apostle there speaks against preeminence I. Not at all He only speaks against ambitious seeking after preeminence and finds fault with Diotrephes that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did ambitiously love to be first or to have the chief place An Office may be good and lawful and yet an ambitious desire after the Office sinful Look what the most judicious Interpreters say on the place Beza renders the Greek word thus qui primatum ambit Now your selves confess it was authority over other Ministers he looked at and from this ye infer that the Office he aimed at was unlawful which will not follow but rather that there was such an Office then in the Church and at this time void unto which he meant to put himself or had already done so out of an ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end It was not the good of the Church but himself he lookt after Blondel confesseth as much in his Apologia pag. 54. Saying that Diotrephes would be Primus Presbyter to which place he willingly grants authority over the rest did belong though he will not call him Bishop yet he grants to him an Episcopal power in effect Quis enim saith he praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet pag. 39. But of this and the like Concessions of his I may have occasion to speak to you afterward D. If Bishops were by the Apostles left to rule the Church as you seem to prove from the New Testament why then do we not find them in the Church after the Apostles left the world I. We do find them after the Apostles left the world D. But not for a long time after the Apostles were gone I. You are mistaken we find Bishops immediatly after the Apostles which confirmeth what I have been saying for Episcopacy from the New Testament For the Bishops found in the Church immediatly after the Apostles or even before all the Apostles were gone are a good commentary on Timothy and Titus and on the Angels of the seven Churches and on the passage anent Diotrephes D. I would gladly hear what you can say for Bishops about or immediatly after the Apostles times I. If you will credit Jerome whom you take for the Patron of your cause he de Scriptor Eccles speaks of sundry of these first Bishops of James made by the Apostles the first Bishop of Jerusasalem whose successor he saith on Galat. 1.19 was Simeon c. Epaphroditus Bishop at Philippi and Mark Bishop of Alexandria c. Eusebius lib. 3. Hist. Cap. 4. Cap. 33. Cap. 31.36 lib. 4. Cap. 14.25 and in other places is very express to this purpose It 's known there were in some of the Churches many Presbyters or Ministers yet in these most ancient Records we can read but of one Bishop at a time and after him another succeeds in his place and that by a new Ordination For Jerome says Jacobus ab apostolis Episcopus ordinatus est Of Episcopal Ordinations see also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 5. But passing these I produce to you Ignatius contemporary with the Apostle John he was Bishop of Antioch and as is thought an Arch-bishop for in his Epistle to the Romans he stiles himself Bishop of the Church in Syria which is supposed to have hade moe Episcopal Seats in it than only that of Antioch This Ignatius died martyre about eight or nine years after the Death of John he wrote Epistles to sundry Churches of that time in which he frequently speaks of the Bishops of those Churches and setteth down these three degrees of Church-Officers viz. Deacons Presbyters or Ministers and Bishops And exhorts those Primitive Christians to be subject to the Bishop as the only mean to avoid Schisme and that without him nothing be done D. I have heard learned men say that these Epistles are much falsified so that we have them not now as they were written by Ignatius and therefore any testimony taken from them is the less to be valued I. Indeed the Arch-bishop of Armagh Vsher a man well read in Antiquity as also Vedelius who hath written on those Epistles shew that the Copies of these Epistles which were used till of late years are very faulty which is proved from this among other things that many of these Quotations which in the Fathers are found to be cited out of Ignatius are not to be found in those Epistles as they have been used But of late years Vsher found two very ancient Manuscripts of these Epistles in some Libraries in England and about that same time Is Vossius found a Greek Manuscript of them at Florence All which three Copies agreed together and differed much from these that were used before and in these three were found the Fathers Quotations which were not found in the old ones and even in these late found Copies the Testimonies for Bishops are most clear and full And this so much troubles Blondel in the Preface to his Apologia that he is forced to seek a new shift viz. that even those Epistles as we have them in the Copies found by Vsher and Vossius are vitiat also and thinks the Fathers who cite them were deceived by them he thinks they have been vitiat or forged about the year 180. Salmasius thinks Circiter medium aut initium secundi seculi about the middle or beginning of the second age Now Ignatius lived about the beginning of the second age and is it probable they could then be medled with The reasons for this forging of them are alledged by Blondel and answered by Doctor Hammond Can it be imagined they should be so far vitiat that the very Scope of sundry of them should be altered which is to perswade obedience to the Bishop as he without whom nothing ought to be done as they would avoid Schism The Divines who debated with the King at the Isle of Wight found themselves so pinched with these Epistles that they found no way to escape but utterly to reject them all as counterfeit Which the King told them they did without any regard either of Ingenuity or Truth Sure I am neither Scultetus nor Rivet did presume to do so for seven of these Epistles they own as written by Ignatius Howbeit they think some corruptions through time had crept unto them which corruptions they observe but say not that their mentioning of Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters is one of these corruptions Certainly had these two judicious Divines thought this a corruption crept into these Epistles they would have observed and mentioned it You may see Scultetus in his Medulla patrum And Rivet in his Criticus sacer what their judgementis of these Epistles But now of late Doctor Pearson in England hath largely and fully vindicat Ignatius his Epistles and therefore to him I refer you D. Yet I
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
divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 59 60 61. Certainly these Bs. if they thought not Episcopacy jure divino neither thought they Presbytry so else would they have been Bishops themselves And Calvin how respectfully writeth he to Arch-bishop Cranmer beside what I cited out of him before Durel View of Government Pag. 161. Speaking of Calvin saith he is of the mind that Episcopacy was the Government that Calvin approved most and that he took it to be of Apostolical Institution though his opinion was that the Church according to her exigencies in relation to places times and other circumstances may dispense with it Thus he speaks of Calvin and subjoyneth a passage out of his Epistle to Cardinal Sadolet which he conceiveth is to that purpose Disciplinam qualem habuit vetus ecclesia nobis deesse neque nos diffitemur c. D. I confess I am somewhat moved with these clear Testimonies you cite out of Calvin and Beza whom I ever looked on before as stout impugners of all kind of Episcopacy Yet that I may add some moe of greatest note who have withstood Bishops What say you to Salmasius Moulin Chamier Blondel These four may come in the second rank of Protestant worthies and have all declared themselves against Bishops Moulin de munere pastorali and in his letters to Bp. Andrews Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus Chamier in his Popish Controversies Blondel in his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi I. Salmasius did retract his opinion and turned to the Episcopal perswasion as himself declares in his answer to Milton cited by Durel Pag. 297. speaking of Bishops and of his own Observation how confusions and strange errors sprang up in England immediatly upon the removal of Bishops he saith of himself experientia edoctum ut dies sequens est magister prioris sententiam mutasse c. i. e. He being taught by experience as the following day is teacher of the former he changed his opinion But setting this aside as also what we heard Blondel closed his Apology with let us but hear how far by evidence out of antiquity they are forced to yield Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus grants rem esse antiquissimam ut hi duo ordines in ecclesia fuerint distincti Episcoporum Presbyterorum si excipiantur Apostolica tempora i. e. It is a most ancient thing that Presbyters and Bishops have been distinct in the Church if we except the Apostles own times and Cap. 4. Pag. 253. cirea medium aut initium secundi seculi primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum introductus est Where he grants Episcopacy about the beginning of the second age so very near he grants Bishops to the Apostles times for the Apostle John died about the beginning of the second age Moulin grants Statim post Apostolorum tempora aut etiam eorum tempore ut testatur historia Ecclesiastica constitutum esse ut unus inter caeteros Presbyteros Episcopus vocaretur qui in collegas haberet praeeminentiam ad vitandam confusionem quae saepe ex aequaâ—itate nascitur i. e. Immediatly after the Apostles or even in their time one among the Presbyters was set over the rest with the name of Bishop Where he saith this might have been Apostolorum tempore even in the Apostles time Chamier de Oecumen Pontif. lib. 10. cap. 6. confesses from Jerom's making Bishops as ancient at Alexandria as Mark Inaequalitatem hanc esse antiquissimam that this inequality among Church-men is most ancient And a little after he saith Conjicere licet innovationem hanc factam aut nondum elapso aut vix elapso primo seculo i. e. We may conjecture this change into Episcopacy was made either before the first age of the Church was ended or scarce ended Now John the Apostle outlived the first age and died in the beginning of the second Now do not these concessions amount to as much as a yielding of the whole Cause But let us allow any of those four Divines as long a time after the Apostles as they will demand before Bishops were introduced and we shall hear Blondel say and the authors of jus divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 124. from him that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters and that the Toto orbe decretum in Jerome was not long before the said year 140. Thus Blondel who takes the longest time for bringing in Bishops yet acknowledges them so early that within 40. years and less after the Apostle John Bishops are every where settled in the Church Now from your opinion of the unalterableness of Presbyterian Government left by the Apostles and from Blondel's concession that within less than 40. years of the Apostle John Bishops were by an universal decree received into the Church I thus reason If there were Bishops found in the Church within less then 40. years after the Apostles times there behoved to be Bishops in the Apostles times otherwise one of these absurdities will follow none of which can be admitted 1. That that Generation of Christians who lived about 40. years and less after the Apostles was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles mind anent the continuing of Presbyterian parity as the unalterable form of Government else they would not have adventured and that so unanimously upon a change of that Government which had a jus divinum for it's warrant And is this probable or is it possible that those who lived so near to the Apostles that without question sundry of them had seen John and conversed with him That these I say should all be ignorant of John's mind anent Church-government Or else it will follow which is yet worse that that Generation brought in Episcopacy notwithstanding they knew Christ and his Apostles had left Parity as unalterable in the Church And that thus over the belly of knowledge and conscience they did all as oneman for we hear not of the least opposition as we read there was against other Innovations which perverse and Heretical Spirits laboured to bring early into the Church conspire against Christ and his Apostles Government Were not this hard to be imagined that those Christians who were daily dying for Christ and the Gospel should at the same time be guilty of bringing into the Church a Government contrary to his mind and that against their own light What remains then but this if within fourty years after the Apostles Bishops were generally received in the Christian world by the confession of your ablest Writers there behoved to be Bishops even in the Apostles time For it is not conceivable how such a great change should be made in so short a time and that without any noise or opposition for any thing we hear unless you admit these absurdities which I think you will be loath to do For had there been either knowledge or conscience in but a few whither Ministers or other Christians of that time is it possible they would have suffered that change which imported
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
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
The said Authors of Jus Divinum Minist Angli Pag. 64. say that Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. were in many things deceived themselves and the cause of deceiving others Answ 1. They are hard put to it when they seek to relieve themselves by discrediting these ancients 2. Suppone it were granted that Eusebius was in some things deceived must he therefore all along be deceived when he speaks of Bishops superior to Presbyters He makes it a great part of his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the most famous Primitive Churches and to say that in all this he was deceived is Gratis dictum said but not proved 3. It 's strange if also Irenaeus was deceied who flourished above a hundred years before Eusebius and had seen Polycarp who was the Apostle John's contemporary and disciple Who can believe he could be ignorant what the Government of the Church had been from the Apostles downward living so near to their times 4. Is it not much more probable that Jerome might be deceived if we understand him to speak of the introducing of Bishops after the Apostles times Certainly it is more like he might be mistaken than either Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived long before him They say further that Irenaeus by Bishops meant no more but Presbyters Pag. 114 115. And Pag. 65. that the Fathers and Councils spake of Church-Officers of former times according to the Stile of their own times And again when pressed with the Catologues of Bishops out of Irenaeus and others they say that these Bishops were only the first ordained Presbyters and therefore this first ordained Presbyter is named and the rest passed by for the more expedit reckoning and the Line of Succession only drawn from the first ordained Minister Some of these answers are inconsistent For 1. They say Eusebius and Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops and next they say that by the Bishops Irenaeus only meant Presbyters Now how unsatisfactory these answers and the like are the impartial Reader may judge Only heaâ— what Bucer says De animarum cura inter scripta Anglicana Pag. 280. Where after he hath related Jerom's words which seem to make Bishops of later date than the Apostles he saith Credibile non est diu neque etiam in cunctis Ecclesiis ita observatum esse Nam apud patres Hieronymo â—etustiores clara habemus testimonia quod etiam Apostolorum temporibus unus e Presbyteris electus atque ordinatus est qui caeteris omnibus praevit Ministerium Episcopale praecipue in summo gradu gessit Where he shews that even from the Apostles downward there was in the chief Churches always a Bishop over Presbyters And so he goeth on to shew that James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that the like Order was keeped in other Churches Quantum ex omnibus historiis Ecclesiasticis cognoscere possumus and cites Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius to prove this All more ancient than Jerome D. I confess you have cleared me of sundry doubts I had anent Bishops I thought little or nothing could be said for them but that they were a meer groundless and godless usurpation in the Church for we have been taught to cry them down by all means yet there is one thing ought I think barr them to the door of this Church for ever and that is the Covenants by which we are sworn against them But since I can stay no longer with you at this time I am content to hear what you can say to this at next meeting I. Much more might be said for Bishops Yet there is enough said if you be free of prejudice And since you can stay no longer I shall be willing to commune with you anent the Obligation of the Covenant against Bishops at another time and so I bid you farewel If Blondel when he says pag. 53. Egâ— sane hanc politiae formam ab initio observatam libere concederem sed mutabilem tamen c. Speak of a primitive parity yet saith that form was mutable Prefat ad apolog pag. 59. Hieronymus hanc formam i. e. Episcopacy non modo non improbavit sed pro pacis bono semper admisit And in that same place vindicats Jerome from Aerianism And in that same place he says Episcopacy is forma regiminis non per se mala damnabilis sed adnatis sensim corruptelis viz. under poprie vitiatae and denys not but that protestanti sola corruptelarum resectione contenti esse poterant vitiatam deplorabant And more to this purpose he thought therefore Episcopacy in it self lawful Cassand Consult Artic. 14. Illi certe merito reprehendendi sunt qui odio abusuum in his ordinibus dignitatibus universum hunc ordinem quem Hierarchicon appellant ut nervum Antichristi sublatum volunt Nec minus illi accusandi qui inani titulo inflati eoque ad dominatum quendam vel etiam ad cupiditatem avaritiam abutentes neglecto quod Ecclesiae debent officio hominibus etiam non malis huic Ecclesiastico ordini detrahendi ab eo deficiendi occasionem dederunt THE SECOND DIALOGUE Anent the Obligation of the Covenants against Episcopacy Doub HAving some spare time I am come to spend it with you as I promised at our last parting I told you then that Bishops are abjured in the Covenant so that none may with a good conscience either submit to 〈…〉 them and we look upon all these 〈◊〉 â—â—sters that preach under them as perjured persons I. Ye use indeed upon all occasions to be liberal enough in charging Ministers and many others in the time with Perjury and this ye do with the greatest freedome and confidence imaginable but it is sooner said than prov'd Ye would act more Christian like if ye were more sparing in judging another mans Servants who stand or fall to their own Master Ye use to impute unto us acting against our own Light also I pray learn to be more Charitable D. You know there were Covenants sworn wherein Bishops are abjured and we all stand bound against them I. All bound There are many both people and Ministers at this day who never took the Covenant and think you them bound against Bishops D. Yes I think they are For the Covenant bindeth all not only those who took it but their Posterity also I. That is a strange fancy Casuists say Juramentum est vinculum personale i. e. an Oath is a personal tye that only bindeth him that took it And so consonant to this the Covenant sayeth We every one for our selves and not for our selves and our posterity I suppone the Father who was in his judgement against Bishops did take the Covenant his Son who groweth up afterward is in his judgement for Bishops It seemeth very hard that the Son should be by the Father's Oath prelimited in his judgement about a disputable point or else obliged to act contrary to his judgement Is not this