must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers might ordain a Supeâ—ior cxtraordinary Officer which is absurd D. Have you any proof more for bishops out of the New Testament I. The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. chap. 2. and 3. were Bishops for it is undenyable there were many Ministers for example at Ephesus Act. 20.27 28. Yet Revel 2. When that Church is written to which was long after Pauls exhortation Act. 20. and the Church was on the growing hand yet I say we find but one Angel among all these Ministers and he alone spoken to and commended for what was praise-worthy in that Church and blam'd for what was faulty as he who had the chief hand in that Churches affairs So may be said of the rest the Epistle always directed to the Angel and he commended for what was right and discommended for what was wrong seing by his place and authority he ought to have seen to the preventing or reforming of those things D. The word Angel Rev. 2. and 3. denoteth not one single person but is taken collectively for all the Ministers that were in each of these Churches I. I know that is the answer usually given but have oft wondered at it No doubt this Scripture pincheth sore when ye flee to such a shift Scultetus a learned Protestant in his observations upon Titus hath these words doctissimi quique interpretes per septem ecclesiarum angelos intenpretantur septem ecclesiarum Episcopos neque enim aliter possunt vim nisi textui facere velint that is the most learned Interpreters all expound the Angels of the seven Churches to be the Bishops of those Churches neither can they expound the words otherwise unless they offer violence to the text D. But Rev. 2.24 Christ by John speaks to moe then one for it is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vobis Hence it is clear to me that by the Angel of that Church he meant all the ministers I. Will you be content to stand to Beza's exposition of the place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to you the President and to the company of ministers and to the rest of the people You see the word Angel in his opinion is still to be taken for a single person and that in this place moe then the Angel are spoken unto This is as some think an Apostrophe which is an ordinary Figure in speech when the speaker turns his discourse to some other than he had at first been speaking to but that which I think should put it out of question is the Light we have from antiquity declaring to us that these Angels were single persons and condescending upon some of their Names for I suppose the practise opinions and assertions of such as followed hard after these Angels should by any rational man be acquiesced in as a sufficient commentary on this and the like Scriptures that speak of Church Governours D. Well What say they I. I told you before that Polycrates who was Bishop of Ephesus and born near to the Apostles times speaks of seven of his predecessors who had been Bishops there before him and Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon speaks of twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus successively from Timothy We find the Bishops of those seven Churches of Asia present at the first Council of Nice and designed by their several Churches Ephesus Smyrna c. and subscribing the Acts of the Council with the rest of the Bishops Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesias tells us that Polycarp who had been John's disciple was by him made Bishop of Smyrna so Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. So Tertullian praescrip cap. 23. And Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. contra Valentin sayes Polycarp was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna and that he saw Polycarp when he himself was a child for says he Polycarp lived long Now should not these testimonies think you have weight with any man that 's free of prejudice And further among Ignatius his Epistles who was contemporary with the Apostle John we find one written to this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the very same Angel to whom John writeth Rev. 2. D. I think indeed much of these testimonies especially of that of Irenaeus who says he saw Polycarp and so knew the better that he was a Bishop And I have heard that Irenaeus himself was a Bishop too but for Ignatius his testimony I am not much moved with it because I hear say that these Epistles of his are forged and counterfit I. Of these Epistles we may have occasion to speak afterward but if you will be at the pains to see what the most part by far and with all the most learned of Protestant Writers and Interpreters think of these Angels you shall find Beza Diodat Marlorat Bullinger Gualter Piscator Sibelius Pareus Aretius Fulk Our own Countreyman Napier of Marchistoun Cartwright the learned Reynolds in his conference with Hart yea and Blondel in the preface to his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi all expounding the Angel in each of these Churches to be a single person So true is it what I told you Scultetus observes doctissimi quique interpretes per septem Ecclesiarum Angelos interpretantur septem Ecclesiarum Episcopos D. Beza and may be others of these Divines though they interpret the Angel to be a single person yet they never thought that person to be a Bishop but meerly a Moderator and President among the rest of his brethren I. He could be no less than bishop because the Epistle is still directed to him though it 's true the whole Church be concerned in what is written yet I say the Angel is chiefly commended or discommended according as matters were right or wrong which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business and so he chiefly capable of what Christ by John says to him And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus above inferiour Ministers may oblige us to think no less can be allowed to the Angels And further most of the Divines I have named do say that these Angels were Episcopi Bishops And Beza himself de Minist Grad doth in effect cap. 13. give to the Angels an Episcopal power for he saith Horum authoritas in Ecclesiae regimine fuit eminentior that is their authority in governing the Church was more eminent than the rest's I might also shew you how Mr. Mede is misunderstood as if in his Key of the Revelation he did teach that the word Angel is commonly through the Revelation taken collectively that is not to signifie one person you may see the contrary in his Key Apocal. 9.14 and 14.6 7. And he sayeth the twenty four Elders about the Throne do represent the Bishops and Prelats of the Churches You may also see Brightman on cap. 7 8. and ordinarily through the Revelation he expounds the word Angel of some single person I shall produce one place more from the New Testament
Light I shall endeavour to let you see warrant from the word for Bishops D. I am not so settled in my perswasion against Bishops as to stand out against light that is offered to me from the Word for this were a great fault in me or in any man else yet I believe it will be hard for you to let me see any convincing Scripture Evidence for them I. Under the Old Testament setting aside the High-priest who was a Type of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention is often made of the Chief-priests 2 King 19.2 Ezra 8.29 Mat. 2.4 Act. 19.14 and over these again there was a Chief or High-priest under the Highest of all who only was Typical hence sometimes two High-priests are mentioned Luk. 3.2 So there was a subordination among the Levits Ex. 6.25 Num. 3. vers 18 19. compared with vers 24 30 32 35. and in other places Neh. 11. We find one over the Levites vers 22. named Episcopus by the Greek and another over the Priests vers 14. So you see subordination among Church-men is no such new nor odious thing as some would make the world believe D. I see indeed there was a subordination under the Old Testament but that proves not that there ought to be the like under the New I. I know no reason why the Lord would have a subordination under the Old Testament but to maintain Order and Unity in his Church and this reason is still the same for a subordination under the New yea is now stronger because the Christian Church is of much greater extent than the Jewish was and so the danger of divisions and schisms and the necessity of preventing them greater And what better way for this than Gods own way which he prescribed under the Old Testament whereby the same way and course is examplarly pointed out to Christians although the New Testament gave no other ground for the like What better pattern for modelling of Church Government can we now have than his own pattern who knows best what is most behoveful for his Church and this you see was a subordination under the Old Testament D. Yet I desire to hear what warrand you can produce for Bishops out of the New Testament I. First I produce to you the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy two Disciples as is granted by Divines generally D. That was extraordinary personal and temporary and to expire with the Apostles I. Indeed in some things the Apostles were extraordinary and their priviledges to cease with themselves such as their immediat calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility Gifts of Tongues or whatever else was necessary for the first founding of the Christian Church But in some other things wherein they were superiour to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporary but was necessary and still to be continued in the Church after they were gone such as Ordination of Ministers and governing of them by Ecclesiastical Authority Those things which were thus necessary they transmitted to others after them even to the Bishops says Augustin on Psal 45.16 In stead of thy fathers shall be thy children By the Fathers he understands the Apostles by the Children the Bishops who followed after the Apostles Hodie enim saith he Episcopi qui sunt per totum mundum unde nati sunt that is the Bishops who are this day over the whole World Whence are they born and addeth that the Church calleth the Apostles Fathers and did bear the Bishops as Sons and placed them in the room of the Fathers In the next place I produce to you Timothy and Titus both Bishops the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. All the Ministers who were at Ephesus and Crete were Bishops too for so Paul names them in these Epistles I. It s true Paul names Ministers not only Presbyters but also Bishops yet I say Timothy and Titus were Bishops in that sense that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward ordinarly taken in that is they had a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over and above inferior Ministers Our debate is not about the Name but about the Office D. That Timothy and Titus had a power in those matters over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete I grant for they are taught by the Apostle how to ordain Ministers what qualifications to require in them how to proceed in their tryal and censures c. But this power they had as Evangelists that is they were companions to the Apostles in their labours and travels and appointed by them to settle and water those Churches they had planted I. Then it seems you would unbishop Timothy and Titus and make them extraordinary Officers whose Office was not to continue in the Church D. I think so Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 wileth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist therefore I think he was an Evangelist and no Bishop I. Indeed he was an Evangelist in a large sense that is one who preached the Evangel or Gospel but that he was an Evangelist in the strict sense can no more be proved from that Scripture than that he was a Deacon because the Apostle in that same place saith Fulfil thy deaconship so the Greek word signifieth we have it translated Ministry or that Philip was an extraordinary Evangelist because he is called an Evangelist Act. 21.8 For he was a Deacon Act. 6. And vve read Act. 8.5 that upon the dispersion he also preached the Gospel but find no ground that therefore he was one of those extraordinary Evangelist whose Office was to cease in the Church and besides Ordination and Jurisdiction is properly no work of an Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the Gospel D. Philip might be both a Deacon and an Evangelist I. If you will have him so why might not Timothy and Titus as well be both Evangelists and Bishops if you will needs have them Evangelists in your sense even as Jerom in Epistola ad Euagrium and de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis maketh Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria D. Bishops they could not be because we find them very unsetled especially Timothy had he been Bishop of Ephesus he had been confined to his charge but 1 Tim. 1.3 He was left there only for a season and upon an occasional business I. Timothy and Titus were rare and singular persons and useful to the Apostle in those first beginnings of the Gospel and so no wonder though the Apostle seeth fit now and then to call them from their particular charge when the good of the whole Church required it Phil. 2.19 20. 2 Cor. 8.23 Hath it not been usual in any time and have we not seen it practised in our own time that a Bishop or Minister be called away from his settled charge for a season when the good of the Church requires their service elsewhere and to return when that service is over Gerhard Locor Theologic Tomo
sexto pag. 358. Thinketh that Timothy and Titus were first Evangelists and afterwards settled Bishops by Paul the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. Paul Act. 20.27 Gives a charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus and not to Timothy which he would not have omitted had Timothy been their Bishop and it is very probable that Timothy was present at that time for vers 4. we find him in Pauls company I. May be according to Gerards opinion Timothy was not as yet settled Bishop of Ephesus 2. Iraeneus who lived not long after the Apostles and vvas Bishop of Lions in France lib. 3. cont Valentin cap. 14. is of the mind that there were of the Asian Bishops mingled vvith the Elders of Ephesus and vvith Timothy their Bishop and that to them all in common Paul made that exhortation and Bishops might very vvell be comprehended under the name of Elders in that place since I shevv you before that Apostles are sometimes called Elders D. How prove you that Timothy and Titus were Bishops for I have great doubt about it I. I prove it first from this because in these Epistles more particularly and fully then any vvhere else in the Nevv Testa directions are given by Paul to Timothy and Titus how to carry in Ordination and Jurisdiction which two comprehend the Episcopal Office He sheweth them what qualifications they must require in those that are to be ordained that they lay hands suddenly on no man and giveth them sundry directions anent Church Government how to rebuke offenders no to receive an aecusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses how to deal with Hereticks c. 1 Tim. 5.1 19 21. Tit. 3.10 and 1. v. 5 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.22 17. also ch 3.10 And in other places of these Epistles Now these are directions which concern not that Age only but all Ages of the Church and therefore were given not personally to Timothy and Titus but in them to their Successors Why I pray you will any have Timothy and Titus to be extraordinary Officers in their acting of these things which they cannot deny are of ordinary use in the Church What wonder as the King in his last reply at the Isle of Wight hints that some have affirmed those Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction vvere in themselves extraordinary for ye have led them the vvay in saying that Timothy and Titus in their exercising those Acts vvere extraordinary Officers Then I prove it from this because their commission at Ephesus and Crete vvas not voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places and therefore their Office vvas to be constant For if meerly as Evangelists they vvere to settle a Church there then as soon as some fevv Ministers had been ordained Timothy and Titus vvere to cease and give vvay to the Presbytrie there settled frustra fit per plura c. but they did not so nor did their Commission run so Titus vvas left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1.5 that is Ministers vvhich had been needless if some fevv Elders after they vvere ordained themselves might have ordained others Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici pag. 185. Defending Ordination by Church-men against such as claimed that povver to the people says Why was Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City or Timothy at Ephesus might not the people have done that themselves if they have a right to do so May not the Argument be turned against the Authors of that Book themselves thus Why vvas Timothy left at Ephesus or Titus at Crete after Ministers vvere there ordained by the Apostle himself vvhen on the place or after some fevv were ordained by Timothy and Titus if those Ministers so ordained could have ordained the rest 3. I prove it from 1 Tim. 6.13 14. Where Paul solemnly charges Timothy to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Jesus Christ Now the Presbyterians in their Jus divinum Ministerij pag. 74. say that the directions given to Timothy were not for that age only but for all ages of the Church and bring this place to prove it which is like Mat. 28.20 I am with you always even unto the end of the world and they compare the foresaid charge with 1 Tim. 5. ver 7 21. Whence it would follow that Timothy and Titus were not extraordinary Officers but were to have successors in those Offices they then administrated which we see were superiour to ordinary Ministers and pag. 160. they say Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which carry a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a rule Now the Apostle his setting Timothy and Titus single persons over those Churches is an Apostolical example done for the good of the Church and hath a perpetual reason and equity in it Lastly I could prove this by the Testimony of many great men in the Church both Ancient and Modern Polycrats born within fourty years after John wrot his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2. In an ancient Treatise de Martyrio Timothei as it is cited by either in his original of Episcopacy pag. 58. affirms that Timothy was Bishop of that Church Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms the like Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the general council of Chalcedon Act. 11. declareth that from Timothy there had been a continued Succession of twenty seven Bishops in the Church of Ephesus Jerom de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. doth the like Abraham Scultetus on Titus affirmeth that Timothy and Titus were properly Bishops in their several places and that the directions given by Paul to them in these Epistles were given to them and to their Successors Gerhard Tom. 6. maketh them both Bishops as I told you before I might produce moe Testimonies but these may suffice D. Albeit you say much to make Timothy and Titus Bishops yet Paul sayeth that Timothy was ordained by the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Therefore I think he could not be their Bishop for a Presbytrie which is but a company of Ministers cannot make a bishop I. Some among whom Calvin think that by Presbytery the Apostle meaneth not a company of Ministers but the Office of a Minister or Presbyter But suppone the company of Presbyters be meant yet these might be not the inferior degree of Presbyters or Ministers but the Superior degree who are bishops and that bishops be called presbyters ought not to seem strange since I told you the Apostles themselves are sometimes called Presbyters 3. 2 Tim. 1.6 The Apostle sayeth Timothy was ordained by the laying on of his hands so that what was substantial in that Ordination as Interpreters of good note think was from Paul although the Presbytry of Ministers if you will might share in the ceremonial part of it 4. If you say Timothy an Evangelist was ordained by inferior Elders you
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
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
Sermon the people were astonished but not a word that many were converted but ground for the contrary from Chap 8. vers 10 11 12. where commending the Centurion's faith he saith to the multitude that followed him down from the Mount That many should come from the East and West and sit down with Abraham c. And the unbelieving Jews who were the children of the Kingdom should be cast out Therefore I say if people would in one orderly way attend the Ordinances in their own congregations and would lay aside prejudices and pray that the Gifts of their own Ministers may be blessed to them they might expect it should not be in vain 2 Cor. 4.7 We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency c. And surely the more weak and insufficient the Instrument is the more is his Omnipotency conspicuous and his Arm revealed in doing good by weak means Ponder these things well which you will find do little favour your Separation upon pretence of being edifyed D. Though some withdraw all will not I. The fewer the better yet if you withdraw why may not others and if some why not all for it is natural to people to be led by ill example And if all withdraw we shall have Pastors without Flocks and is it not by your means almost come to this already in sundry places but as I have shown none ought to withdraw D. None ought to withdraw that iâ— strange What obligation lyeth on me to be an ordinary hearer in my own Congregation I. I spake somewhat before of the obligation we are under to maintain the Churches Peace and of the Acts of the Church in ancient times and in our own times to this purpose And now further do you not know that there is a reciprocal obligation betwixt a Minister and his People which can not be so easily broken as you imagine As the Minister is oblieged to labour among the people of his charge diligently and faithfully and that upon his peril Ezek. 33. vers 8. Heb. 13. vers 17. So the people of his charge are bound to attend on his Ministry among them To esteem him highly and love him for his Works sake Mal. 2. vers 7. 1 Thes 5. vers 11 12. To obey him Heb. 13. vers 17. Now how obey ye these injunctions when ye turn your backs upon your Ministers will not receive the Law from their mouth but do undervalue despise discountenance discourage and weaken their hands by this your contempt and by your reproaches too which oft ye are pleased to cast upon them Do ye not fear what Christ hath said He that despiseth you despiseth me Hear I pray you what Mr. Durham whose testimony I think ye ought to regard saith he speaking of a Ministers relation to a particular Congregation on Revel Pag. 105 106. After he hath shewed that there is warrant from those Epistles directed to the Angels of the seven Churches for a more special relation betwixt a Minister and such a Flock rather than another Flock and betwixt a Flock and such a Minister rather than another Minister for the Angel of Ephesus was not the Angel of Smyrna nor yet the Church of Ephesus equally bound to the Angel of Smyrna as to the Angel of Ephesus he saith Vpon this delegation by the master such a people became peculiarly the people of such a Minister and by the Masters appointment are to submit to the Ordinances administred by him because that same Lord and Master of the Minister who warrands him peculiarly to treat with such a people being also Master of that Flock calleth them peculiarly to submit to that Minister from which according to his appointment there ariseth a mutual obligation betwixt such a Minister and such a people he is bound to Minister to them in the Gospel and they are bound to submit to him strengthen him acknowledge him communicate to him in all good things c. And further he there shews that this Obligation is not founded upon meer voluntar consent but on these Scripture commands 1 Thes 5. vers 12. Heb. 13. vers 17. Galat. 6. vers 6. and the like although there be no explicite covenanting betwixt a Minister and a People in reference to these ends And pag. 106. he saith From this mutual obligation there ariseth a nearer sympathy betwixt that Minister and People than betwixt him and any other People and betwixt them and that Minister than betwixt them and any other Minister They have common interests common hazards common joy and grief and a cross to one should be to both And a little after he addeth that there are peculiar duties called for on both sides to each other which are not so required betwixt them and others and that there will be a peculiar reckoning that will follow hereupon As the Minister must reckon for his People â—…o the People for their reverencing and incouâ—…aging of him in a special manner And that â—…n this account Paul did aggredge particuâ—…arly the Gentiles their slighting and grievâ—…ng of him in his Epistles to the Corinthiâ—…ns and Galatians Because of his partiâ—…ular delegation in reference to them Thus Mr. Durham who you see speaks â—…ome to this point and upon Scripture â—…rounds binds you faster to the Ministers of your own Congregations than you â—…re aware D. But there are other reasons that keep â—…ack many of us why we cannot have freeâ—…om to hear and own the Ministers of the â—…ime were they never so able to edifie I. What are these Reasons D. First They have not entered by a all from the People as all Ministers should â—…o Act. 14. vers 23. But by a Preâ—…ntation from some Patron I. Sundry of those whom ye refuse to â—…ear entered by the peoples call and â—…ch ye ought to hear notwithstanding â—…is reason of yours As to that place â—…ct 14.23 I know many have pleaded â—…e peoples right to Elect their own Minister from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used which is borrowed from the Custome used in some of the ancient Greek States where the people signified their Election of their Magistrates by the stretching forth of their hands for so the word signifieth But that place Act. 14. and the word as it is there used will not necessarily import the peoples choicing of their own Ministers For 1. Some learned Interpreters and Criticks on that place among whom especially see Hammond shews that this word is often used by Writers to express the action of one single person and thus it is used by the same Lut Act. 10.41 Speaking of Gods choicing or appointing So that the word is not necessarily to be understood of the action or deed of many choicing by suffrageâ—… or voices 2. It 's observed that the Greeâ—… Writers ordinarily used this word to signifie the ordaining of a person to a certain charge which is done without suffrages or choicing by votes And thaâ—… so it must be taken here appears from
this because it is Paul and Barnabas whâ—… are said to do this work expressed her by the Greek word and not the people Now you will not say that Paul and Barnabas did elect Ministers to these Churches that were to yield the question Therefore in our Translation it is said when they that is Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church they prayed and commended them to the Lord. Now all these were the actions of Paul and Barnabas not of the people And 3. If you mean by this Word the peoples electing Ministers by suffrages you lose by it and gives great advantage to Independents who are for popular elections of Ministers Whereas ye give this power not to all the people but to the Session And therefore observing Presbyterians have forborn to press this place as you expound it But 2. If you think the Ministers election either by People or Session essential that is so necessary to make one a Minister to such a people that he cannot be their Minister without it you by this do not only nullify the Ministry of almost the whole Christian World for above a thousand years upward but also in particular the Ministry of this Church of Scotland ever until the year 1649. for not till then were Patronages taken away and the election by Sessions brought in use Now what thanks will you get for this even from many of your selves For not only were all the Protestant Ministers before the year 1638. entered by Presentations but also all the Presbyterian Ministers after the year 1638. till the year 1649. And there are some of them still in Office at this day in the same Congregations to which they entered not by the Sessions election but by the Patrons Presentation yet I think none of you will scruple to hear or own them upon that account nor ever did D. But I look upon Patronages as a corruption abjured in the Covenant I. I pray you let me see in what place And further if Presentations and Patronages be abjured how came it to pass that this Kirk did continue so long under Perjury For from the first taking of the Covenant till the year 1649 Patronages were still in use And it 's strange if all that while this breach of Covenant was not discerned And I told you presently your selves do without scruple hear Ministers of your own perswasion who entered by Presentations from Patrons D. Many of your Ministers are ordained by Bishops and this is another reason why we cannot hear them I. Yet all the Ministers whom ye refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops even all who were ordained betwixt the year 1638. and 1662. or thereby and there are very many of these at this day in this Church whom ye will not hear though they were ordained by a Presbytrie without a Bishop As for your not hearing of such as received Ordination from a Bishop ye would for the same reason have refused to hear those ministers whom Timothy ordained in Ephesus 1 Tim. 5.22 or whom Titus ordained in Crete Tit. 1.5 You may see what Calvin saith on the place And ye would have refused to hear any Minister in the World for many hundreds of years together for all were ordained by Bishops It was early said in the Church Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta Ordinatione Ordination then was accounted the proper act of the Bishop and now Bishops ordain not without the concurrence of Ministers who also have a hand in that action And by this reason of yours ye would have refused to hear those Ministers who were the Members of the Assembly of Glasgow 1638. For though they voted down the Bishops yet all of them generally had been ordained by Bishops few or none excepted and had sworn obedience to them too And further by this reason ye should refuse to hear some at this day who though they do not conform now to Episcopacy yet were ordained by Bishops before the year 1638. and without scruple ye can hear such of the validity of Ordination by Bishops see at length the London Presbyterians in their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani from Pag. 17. especially from pag. 25. to pag. 32. or further if you will to pag. 49. D. Though many of the Ministers of the time were ordained by Presbytrie without a Bishop yet now they are turned Curats no less than such as are ordained by the Bishops and we can hear none who preach under Bishops what ever way they were ordained they are now all of them the Bishops Curats I. By your calling Ministers Curats I know not whither ye manifest more strength of passion or weakness of judgement For as all ye who use that word useth to express your spleen and disdain not fearing Christs word be that despiseth you despiseth me So there be very few among you who know what the word Curate signifieth And even those who know that it signifieth one who hath Curam animarum the care of souls a name no Minister needs be ashamed of but should strive to be in some measure answerable to it yet I suppose know not well many of them how or in what sense it hath been used else they would not so ignorantly misapply it For those use to be called Curats who serve the Cure as they speak though they be not the Ministers who are presented to the place but substituted by them to officiat in their room and hence are called Curats the presented Minister being none resident Now it is not so in this Church But because ye call a Minister the Bishops Curate ye seem to run upon another mistake as if the Bishop were or did assume to himself to be the sole and proper Pastor of the whole Diocess and Ministers were but his substitutes deputed under him as so many helpers I know no Bishop who hath such thoughts of himself or of Ministers what ever ye think or say to cast an odium upon them But why can ye not hear them who preach under the Bishops Government D. They are perjured persons and therefore we cannot hear them I. All who preach under the present Government yea I suppose the most part of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not to be called perjured For I told you at our last conference the Covenant as such cannot bind them who never took it and so such Ministers may be heard notwithstanding of this reason and even those Ministers who took the Covenant and now upon this alteration continue in their Ministry under Bishops are not perjured suppose our Episcopacy be meant in the Covenant for the reasons I gave you at our last communing An Oath made against a thing in it self not unlawful can not bind absolutely or in every case therefore when it 's taken is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations and restrictions otherwise it may come to be a bond of iniquity as this Oath may be is to many
through their mistake hereof But giving though not granting that all the Ministers who took the Covenant and now preach under Bishops are perjured it will be hard for you to prove That therefore they are not to be owned as truly Ministers of the Gospel nor submitted to It is true personal faults and vices make a Minister justly liable to Church censure and if they be of a high scandalous nature to deposition especially if he be impenitent in them But so long as he is not convict and censured the question is whither or not the people may yea and ought to wait on his Ministry You know Judas was sent forth to preach with the rest by Jesus Christ himself and who will say that it was unwarrantable for any to hear him who came cloathed with such a mission and commission from Christ as long as he was not convict even though they had known what a knave he was for Christ knew very well what he was And ye know what great exceptions might have been brought both against the Life and Doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 15.23 and in other places They were most bitter active enemies against Christ the Messiah by all means sought to undo him they neglected the weightie duties of the Law such as Mercy Judgement and Faith were full of Pride and gross hypocrisie I will not insist to tell you how Naphtaly in a great distemper miscalls the Ministers of the time very ill though much were true of what he saith as God forbid yet they would be no worse than the Scribes and Pharisees yea not so ill for they did most maliciously oppose Christ Jesus himself and that directly neither have I any pleasure to make that parallel betwixt the Scribes and Pharisees and your Preachers ye so much glory of that some have done in their long prayers devouring of widows houses compassing Sea and Land to make Proselits c. They have given but too much ground for these comparisons But to our purpose as the Scribes and Pharisees were very gross in their lives so there was much Leaven in their Doctrine they brought in a number of humane Traditions into the Doctrine and Worship of God and taught for Doctrines the commandments of men they took away the Key of Knowledge c. Christ in his Sermon on the Mount Mat. 5. purges the Law from their corrupt glosses and yet for all this Simeon and Anna two old Saints did not forsake the Temple Luk. 2. Nor turned Separatists though it was turned into a den of thieves Joseph and Mary went up yearly to the Temple to keep the Passover and Christ himself went with them at twelve years of age And Mat. 23. He biddeth hear the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair notwithstanding their bad lives and corrupt Doctrines only he gives a Caveat to bewar of their Leaven and their ill example Read Mr. Durham on Revel Chap. 3. Commenting on the Epistle to the Angel of Sardis who had a name that he lived but was dead Pag. 187. He saith that comparing that Angel with him of Laodicea There is ground to say that men who are for their own case unsound may yet be Ministers in the Church of Christ and ought to be esteemed so while they continue in that room seing Christ doth so here And again saith The Ordinance of Christ ought not to suffer derogation in whatsoever hands it be And that hence the Lord recommends to his hearers to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23. Even when he is about to discover their rottenness and that Judas was by the people to be accounted an Ambassadour of Christ with the rest because it is not grace that intituleth one to that charge but Christs Call and Commission And seing a call may be separated from grace as grace from a call it will follow that according to his Soveraignity he may make use of whom he will he may make use of men even more sinful than others that it may be known that edifying of souls doth not necessarily depend on the holiness of the Instrument Act. 3.12 Mat. 7.23 Thus Mr. Durham Now how can you justifie your Separation when you dare not with any face say the Ministers of the time are as corrupt as were the Scribes and Pharisees if there be any other knowledge or moderation in you And suppose you think them as bad yet they are to be heard as these were read the London Ministers their Jus Divinum Minist Anglic. pag. 2. D. Christ Math. 23. vers 1 2. Biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees the words will not bear that I. I hope ye will not say that he forbiddeth to hear them as ye use to forbid people to hear among us a thing your Preachers are much on as a ready way to gain followers to themselves It 's said some of them are so far transported as to threaten people with damnation if they hear the Curats so they call Ministers how true this is I will not positively say the matter reported being so gross renders it hardly credible What truth may be in it you know better than I. You say Christ biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees yet I told you Mr. Durham saith Christ there recommends to the people to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees Now is not hearing of them a part of due ministerial respect think you Certainly without this their ministerial respect should be very lame Christ biddeth the people observe and do what the Scribes and Pharisees from Moses Chair enjoyned them to observe and do and how could they obey Christs injunction in this unless they heard the Scribes and Pharisees teach them those things from Moses Chair He that biddeth me obey my Ministers Doctrine delivered to me from the Word of God his injunction carrieth also in it an injunction to hear the Minister deliver those Doctrins to me or presupposeth my hearing as the ordinary mean or antecedent of my obedience Be pleased to consult Interpreters on the place and you will find them generally expounding that place both of hearing and obeying And truly it is too clear a Scripture for you to elude but will stand against you to your great conviction Brounists and such like Separatists in Queen Elizabeth's time and since found the dint of it from the old non-conformists who disputed against their dividing practices which ye so much follow D. It may be so Yet many Episcopal Ministers have entered in upon honest mens labours and for this reason ought not to be heard but discountenanced as Intruders I. All the Episcopal Ministers entered not so very many of them kept still the places the change of Government found them in Others entered unto Churches upon the vacancies by the death of those who had been there before or upon their transportation to some other Church You must confess this reason sayeth nothing against any of those Yet you say many