abjured in the second Article of the League but only that species or complex frame that consists of all the members there mentioned But 3. What can you say for your owninâ—â—f Commissaries now when again actualâ—â— they do depend upon Bishops I â—now none of you who at this day scruples or declines the Commissaries Authority â—nd Courts though actually they do depend upon Bishops Yet give me leave I think according to your principles ye ought to disown and decline them otherwise I shall be glade to learn of you how you free your selves of Perjury And if ye can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant pray give me your reason why not a Bishop too But I have yet another breach of Oath to charge you with which ye give me but too just ground for and that is Schism which is both a grievous sin in it self and also expresly abjured in that same second Article of the League And yet ye have been and still are carrying on a fearful and stated Schism whereby this poor Church is robbed of that Peace and Unity which our Lord Christ bequeathed to her in Legacy and this ye do with the greatest activity imaginable as if you were about some unquestionable duty But because I can stay no longer with you at present I shall be content to speak more of this at our next meeting So praying the Lord to give you understanding in all things I bid you farewell THE THIRD DIALOGUE Anent Separation Doub AT our last meeting our conference was anent the Obligation of the Covenants with breach whereof we use to charge you And at parting you by way of Re-crimination charged us with Schism which indeed is both a sin in itself and also expresly abjured in the second Article of the League But I hope we be not guilty of it I. Schism is a very grievous evil indeed even a renting of the Body of Christ which is his Church An evil which the Apostle sets himself much against Rom. 16. vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 1. vers 12 13. c. and Chap. 3. Eph. 4. vers 3 4 5. c. Phil. 2. vers 1 2 3. and in other places An ill that Satan began to make use of as one of his main engines against the Church even in the Apostles times and in sundry ages since An ill which sundry of the Fathers of the Church have in their Generations withstood and given testimony against Cyprian is full to this purpose in his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where among other things he saith An secum esse Christum cum collecti fuerunt opinantur qui extra Christi Ecclesiam colliguntur Tales etiamsi occisi fuerint in confessione nâ—minis Macula ista nec sanguine abluituâ—â— in expiabiliâ— gravis culpa discer aâ—â—â—â— nec passione purgatur Esse Martyr non potest qui 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non est Ad regnum porvenire nâ—â— poterit qui eam quae regnatura est derelinquit Pacem nobis Christus dedit Concordes atque unanimes esse praecepit dilectiones charitatis foedera inviolatae servare mundavit exhibere se non potest Martyrem qui fraternam non tenuit charitatem Ita Paulus 1 Cor. 13. Etsi habuero fidem charitatem antem non habeam nihil sum That is Do those who gather themselves together without the Church think Christ is with them so gathered such though they were even slain in confessing his Name yet that blot Schism is not washen away with their bloud the inexpiable sin of discord is not purged by their suffering He cannot be a Martyr who is not in the Church He cannot come to the Kingdom who forsakes her the Church that is to reign Christ left and commanded us peace and that we keep inviolable the bonds of Charity c. And much more to this purpose that Father hath in the foresaid Book Jerome saith Nullum Schisma est nisi sibi aliquam Haeresin confingat ut recte ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur Where he shews that Schism and Heresie at least something like it uses to go together And Epist ad Pammâ—chium Quis scindit Ecclesiam nos quorum omnis domus Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat an tu qui aut bene credis superbe de fide taces aut male vere scindis Ecclesiam That is Who rents the Church we who communicat in the Church or you who believing well proudly holds thy peace or believing ill truly rents the Church Where he seemeth to say That even he who holds his peace and declares not against Schism is guilty of Schism too Augâ—stin Tractat. 27. in Joannem Anima tuâ— non vivificat nisi membra quae sunt in caâ—â— ne tua c. Haec dicuntur ut amemus unitatem timeamus separationem Nihil enim debet sic formidare Christianus quaâ—â— separari a corpore Christi Sic enim non est membrum ejus nec vegetatur Spiritu ejus Where he shews That Separatists are like members cut off from the body and so can receive no life from the soul that quickens the body The Church is like the Lilly among Thorns Cant. 2.2 And Schism is one of those Thorns and the harder to be pulled out because Schismaticks have always looked on themselves as the only men and Christians of the first Magnitude and so do ye and I am heartily sorry ye give me such ground to charge you with this sin D. Every Separation is not a sinful Schism I. True every Separation is not a Schism as the word Schism is ordinarily taken to signifie a causeless separating For Protestants justifie their separating from the Church of Rome since they could not hold Communion with her without sin That Church being idolatrous in her Worship and in Doctrine erronious even to the perverting of Fundamentals by consequence at least as Protestant Divines shew But I think you guilty of a sinful Separation which is Schism and that al 's groundless and unreasonable as any you shall read of in any age of the Church D. Wherein are we guilty of Schism I. First in your dividing from us in that Christian Charity which ye owe unto us which I may call Heart-schism and is the ground of your external Schisms in dividing from us in Acts of Religious Worship Ye are a people at least many of you who make difference in judgement about matters only of a secondary nature such as the outward Policy or Government of the Church a ground for difference in affection and uncharitableness as if such who are not of your way and perswasion in these matters could not be real Christians with your selves And thus you put disputable points of lesser concernment into your Creed And many of you can with great freedom un-saint all who are not of your opinion in these things And so ye Un-church and condemn all Christians that have been in all ages almost and places of the World since Christs time who ye will find have owned Bishops
so gross a violation pass so smoothly and without very great contradiction But further to let you see that those Divines come even as great a length as needeth to be desired Blondel in his Apologia Pag. 25. Speaking of the very first meetings of Presbyters that were in the beginning of Christianity he saith Antiquissimo inter Collegas primatus contigit i. e. The primacy fell upon the eldest and Pag. 53. he grants that this first Presbyter had the chief hand in Ordination and afterward that it was for this place that Diotrephes made so much ado and is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thebuthus did the like at Jerusalem shortly after And again he confesses that this Primus Presbyter had authority with his precedency quis enim saith he Praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet and lest it seems he be thought to give too much power to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Presbyter as indeed he giveth him an Episcopal power he addeth Ego sane hanc Politi◠formam ab initio observatam Christianis traditam libere crediderim sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam Where after he hath confessed a first Presbyter with an Episcopal power in effect finding this too high a concession which yet truth enforceth him to he sayeth that that form was mutable at the pleasure of the Church And Chamier confesseth that there was always from the beginning a Primus Presbyter or first Minister and that he had Novam potestatem Jurisdictionem ne esset Episcopatus merus titulus i. e. A new power and Jurisdiction that his Episcopacy might not be a meer title This he confesseth when pressed with Testimonies out of antiquity And what needs more than we find Blondel and him confessing And Moulen in Epist 3. to Bishop Andrews at last granteth that Ordo Episcopalis est juris Apostolici i. e. The Episcopal Order is by Apostolical right and then lest he should seem by this concession altogether to have yielded up the Cause to the Bishop he subjoyneth a distinction betwixt jus Apostolicum and jus divinum And that although he grant Episcopacy to have Apostolical warrant yet that will not infer a Divine unalterable warrant for saith he some things which were brought into the Church by Apostolical prudence as fit for that time are now abrogate as Deaconesses Stillingfleet in his Irenicum Pag. 230. useth this same evasion To whom the learned and judicious Author of the account of ancient Church-government among other things returns this answer that it 's granted that some Apostolical practices yea and constitutions are alterable because they were introduced by the Apostles upon reasons and considerations not holding equally for all places times and persons but if some be thus alterable yet it follows not that therefore any or all are so And then the question will be who shall judge what practices are alterable what not or when the reasons of them are dispensable when not Now I suppose none can rationally say that any private man or lesser part of a Society is competent Judge of these practices and reasons else what confusion will ensue every one establishing or abrogating what he pleaseth but this belongeth to the Church in her Representativ's and accordingly we find Bishops and Councils have retained and declared Episcopacy downward from the Apostles through many Centuries of years as the standing unalterable Apostolical Government and that reasons of its first Institution do hold still to wit preservation of Unity shunning of Schism and the like But these Apostolical practices which were founded on temporary reasons and occasions were permitted to run into a desuetude Thus you see what shifts the ablest Pens who have set themselves against Episcopacy are driven unto to shun a Conquest And truely by their great concessions which they are forced to from evidence in antiquity they yield the whole Cause Hence it is we find them speaking so uncertainly in their Writings Sometime one would think disputing down all Bishops or rather up Presbytrie at an other time setting up Bishops higher and more early than their purpose can well allow or consist with the Scope of their Debates sometime again expressing their great respect for Bishops and sincere wishes that such Churches as had them might still retain that happiness as I hinted before And I also shew that their purpose mainly was to vindicate the practice of their own Churches in having parity and not to cry down Episcopacy especially that which was in Protestant Churches as Beza expresly professes so did Blondel in the close of his Apologia of which I spoke before D. There have been many moe Protestant Divines of great note who lived since the Reformation in Europe may be many of those have been no friends to Episcopacy I. Durel View of Government supposeth a Council to be called consisting of the most famous Protestant Divines who since the Reformation have lived in all the Churches abroad France Geneve Switzerland Bohem Poland Holland and the sundry parts of Germany c. And maketh Calvin Moderator and puts Episcopacy to the Vote among them and out of their Writings delivereth their opinions in favours of Episcopacy You may see this at length in Durels View of Government from Pag. 199. to Pag. 309. And to them I may add our own John Knox who as is to be seen before the old Psalm Book in the year 1560. preached in Edinburgh at the admission of the superintendent of the three Lothians a diocy large enough which act was more Episcopal like than Presbyterian Thus I have deduced unto you Episcopacy from Scripture from the most primitive times which followed after the Apostles and from the confessions and concessions of the ablest Protestant Divines all which I think ought and will be very convincing to any who is pleased to lay aside prejudice and impartially make search after truth in this point To what I have said before I add these few things The Author of Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani are at great pains to produce some Fathers Schoolmen and some Episcopal Divines in England who were of opinion that betwixt Presbyter and Bishop there is little or no difference To which I say that the debate among the Schoolmen is meerly whether Bishop and Presbyter are diversi ordines different orders or only diversi gradus ejusdem ordinis divers degrees of one and the same Order Now this says nothing against Episcopacy for even these who think they differ only in degree yet notwithstanding might be of the mind that always from the Apostles downward there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters howbeit the difference was not so great as to constitute a different Order but only a higher degree or eminency as some speak in the same Order And these Fathers and late Episcopal Divines might be of the same mind This is sure all of them looked on Episcopacy as lawful and useful in the Church
sin and the Apostle saith we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others I. When the word forbiddeth us to give offence First it is meant of not doing that before others which is in it self sinful whereby we indeed offend or grieve the godly as also lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our ill example Now when you do your duty in obeying God you cannot be said to give offence unto any And if any will be offended at you it 's their own sin and weakness for they take offence where none is given and in the present case if any will be offended at you for your maintaining unity and peace in the Church and for not forsaking the assembling of your self together with the rest of his people It 's their own weakness while you give them no Offence at all but on the contrary by your good example is in a holy way provoking them to their duty with you and if you shall ly by for fear of their offence you shall both omit your own duty and harden them in their sin 2. Ordinarily where the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to give offence to others he is shewing how they ought to use their Christian liberty in things indifferent That they must not use it to the offence of their weak brother when either thereby he shall contrary to his conscience be emboldened to sin 1 Cor. 8.10 or yet should be grieved with us because he thinks we sin in doing what he conceives we should not Rom. 14. verse 15. Yet you must know if the Command of Authority interpose and injoyn me to use a thing in it self indifferent or not use it then and in that case it 's no more indifferent to me as to that particular and time my liberty pro tunc is determined and restricted by Authority and the thing though in it's own nature indifferent still is by the supervenient command of Authority made necessary to me in my using or not using it according as Authority hath determined Act. 15. vers 28. These necessary things though some of these things were not necessary in themselves yet abstaining from them was at that time made necessary by the Authority of that Council for the good of the Church Then and in such a case as this my obedience to Authority will preponderat the other of not giving offence the first being the greater duty of the two as Divines and Casuists shew And even in this case I give no offence but do my duty and if any take offence it 's causeless on my part and is occasioned through my brothers weakness It is Scandalum acceptum non datum Scandel groundlesly taken by him not at all given by me When the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to use their liberty to the offence of the weak he speaketh to those who were not determined by Authority Have you any more to say for your Schism D. You still impute Schism to us I. And in doing so I wrong you not but am sorry ye give me too just ground either ye are Schismaticks or the christian Church never had any ye have miserably rent the bowels of the poor Church your mother I pray the Lord discover to you this sin and give you repentance ye both forsake the Church Assemblies and also erect Separate meetings of your own both in private houses and in the fields D. What ill in so doing did not Christ preach in private houses and in the fields and people hear in any place and why may not we do the like I. It 's true Christ preached in houses and in the fields and people heard But did he so upon such grounds as ye do to wit that he might separate and teach people to separate from the Jewish Church Or did he either think or teach that the Jewish teachers at that time ought not to be heard I trow not He was oft in the Temple and in the Synagogues he allowed of hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees only with this proviso to beware of their leaven and bad lives some whom he miraculouslie healed he sent to the Priests to offer their Offering according to the Law and did not bid people decline or disown them for as corrupt as they were But ye on the contrary erect meetings of your own because ye think ours unlawful to join with But further Christ preached in any place 1. Because he was about the bringing in of the Gospel Doctrine into the World and of Preaching himself the true Messiah which was necessarie to be done and therefore took all occasions for doing it in anie place and the rather because of the opposition this Doctrine though in it self most necessarie met with from the Jewish teachers And 2. Christ was the head of the whole Church and therefore was not to be limited in the waie and manner of his Ministrie as other Teachers ought and must be but might Preach when and where and to whom he pleased for all belonged to his Ministrie and I know none in the World will say that he is universal Pastor of the whole Church except the Pope Nor will any say that it is warrantable for meer men to do what Christ did in everie thing These meetings of yours ye hold and frequent in despight of the Laws of the Land which are verie express against them And so to Schism ye add disobedience to the Civil Powers D. Should I be hindered by the Law of the Land from hearing the Word of God and other parts of his Worship Or Ministers hindred to preach You know it 's better to obey God than men I. The Laws of the Land hinder not but allow and command you to hear the Word of God in your own Congregations where ye have the Gospel purelie preached by the allowance and under the defence of Authoritie a mercie ye too little value Is it not better to Worship God in a way not contrarie to the Law of the Land the Law allowing me to Worship him purelie than in a waie that is contrarie to the Law and joyned with disobedience to it As for what you bring out of Act. 4.19 From the Apostles their not obeying the Council of Jerusalem discharging them to speak at all or teach in the Name of Jesus it doth no waie quadrat with your case For First The Apostles had an immediate extraordinarie call from Christ himself to Preach in his Name and so were not to be discharged by anie Power on Earth 2. The Prohibition given to them was intended to suppress the Gospel absolutelie and as such and therefore it was not lawful for them to obeie Nor was there anie other visible waie to propagate the Gospel through the World but by their Preaching But among us though some Ministers be silent there are manie others not discharged but allowed to Preach And blest be God the opposition of Authoritie is not against the Gospel it self but against your disorders D. Can the King and the
Laws silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God I. You now give me occasion to tell you brieflie how your Preachers behave themselves in this Schism who are indeed the great propagators of it 1. They exerce their Ministrie contrarie to the Command of Authoritie concerning which you ask whether the King and the Law can silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God To which I say you read of Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the Priest-hood 1 King 2.27 That it was a deposing of him simply from all Priestly power I shall not debate yet sure it was a restraining of his Priestly power as to the actual exercing and officiating which he was bound to submit to This a King may do he may inhibite a Minister to Preach in his Dominions and the Minister so discharged ought to be silent and not counteract even suppose he think the King and the Law wrongs him especially when there are others to preach the Gospel though he or sundry be silent May be you have heard what Beza saith to this case Epist. 12. In answer to some in England if in case the Queen Elizabeth and the Bishops would either have Ministers Preach on their Terms or not at all they might Preach notwithstanding of the Prohibition of Authority To which he answereth Tertium enim illud nempe ut contra Regiae-Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem Ministerio suo fungantur magis etiam exhorrescimus i. e. As to the third to wit that Ministers exercise their Ministry contrary to the will of the Queen and the Bishops is a thing we yet more abhore Next These who preach among you make themselves Ministers of the whole Church without any fixt or settled charge D. I have heard say that every Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church I. That it is true and that you may see in what sense and on what grounds we say so against Independents read Mr. Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytrie pag. 204. though wrong figured and he tells you that though a Pastor be Pastor of the Catholick Church yet he is not a Catholick Pastor of the Catholick Church as were the Apostles And that by a Calling or Ordination he is made a Pastor but by Election is to be restricted to be ordinarily the Pastor of his Flock So Mr. Durham on Rev. pag. 106 107. saith a Minister though he be a Minister of the Catholick Church yet is not a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church and that there is great odds betwixt these two The Apostles saith he were Catholick Ministers of the Catholick Church and such the Pope claims to be that is to have an immediate access for exercising his Office equally and indifferently to all places Ministers saith he actu primo have a commission and power to be Ministers of the whole Church and Watch-men of the whole Citie indefinitly Yet actu secundo They are specially delegated for such and such Congregations and Posts But Ministers among you have made themselves actu secundo Ministers of all the Congregations of the Countrey where they can come And from this followeth a third step they incroach and intrude upon the Charges of other men of which I spoke before and now only shall question you by what Authoritie they do so What call have they to preach and administer the Sacraments to people of another Ministers Charge not being called or desired by the Ministers of those people so to do Their call is either Ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none never being called to be Ministers of those Congregations nor so much as imployed by the Minister of the place to exercise any Ministerial act among his people And for an Extraordinary call I think they will not pretend to it It may be seen by Acts of Councils in ancient times how the Church hath guarded against this kind of incroaching by one upon anothers Charge Otherwise what confusions and absurdities would inevitably follow When these Ministers who went to Aberdeen to perswade the taking of the National Covenant preached there without leave of the Ministers of the place the Doctors and Ministers asked them how it was that without their consent and against their will they publickly preached to the people of their Congregations Which they tell them was a thing repugnant to Scripture and to Canons of ancient Councils I might further let you see by what practices ministers among you advance this Schism They are careful to or dain men of their own way that hereby the Schism might be perpetuated and kept on foot They are much in inveighing against Bishops and Curats as they call the Ministers Hereby to alienate the minds of people from their own Pastors Of late they have great mixt communions at which persons ignorant of the common principles and vitious persons may be and I little doubt are admitted it being hardly possible by their way to keep them back I might also speak of their great disswasives to people not to hear their own Pastors and of their strange and dreadful uncharitableness to such as differ from them which sin they have with too much unhappie success diffused among their ordinarie hearers Mr. Baxter saith to this purpose in the preface to his Cure of Church divisions To Preach without love and to hear without love and to pray without love to any that differ from your Sect O what a loathsome Sacrifice is it to the God of Love If we must leave our Gift at the Altar till we are reconciled to an offended brother what a gift is theirs who are unreconciled to almost all the Churches of Christ or to multitudes of their Brethren because they are not of their way Yea that make their Communion the very badge and means of their uncharitableness and divisions D. I cannot deny but there may be some truth in these things I have heard from you And now I must take my leave and shall have my thoughts of what hath past betwixt us now and then when I am alone I. Do so I pray you and seek Illumination from God and that he would remove prejudices which too oft stand in the way of our embracing Truth Only let me give you a few advices further before we part And 1. Be not too confident of your own opinions as if you were undoubtedly in the right but consider seriously what I have said to inform you at our three Conferences 2. Think not that the matters in debate among us are the very substantials of Religion or that people may not be of different perswasions in these things and yet both sides maintain Love and Church fellowship for this were to run unto manifest sin and evil viz. Schism which is a renting of Christs body the Church and neglecting publick Ordinances upon fears of what is only disputable and supposed to be evil There have been far greater differences among Christians in former times and yet church-Church-communion not
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
rarum prae multis quod sine Schismate nedum Haeresi unitatem cum puritate Doctrinae retinuerit i. e. The Church of Scotland hath this rare priviledge above many others That since the Reformation they have without Heresie or so much as Schism retained Vnity with purity of Doctrine O but how have we now lost our good Name How is the Staff BANDS broken in the midst of us Zech. 11.14 The Author could have wished a work of this nature had been undertaken by some able hand or at least this had been in a better dress but now Reader you have it such as it is and if thou be one concerned be intreated to lay aside prejudice Consider what a woful thing division in a Church is and what the fearful consequences may be A kingdom divided against it self cannot stand saith Christ Mark 3.24 If we bite and devour one another take heed we be not consumed one of another saith Paul Galat. 5.15 Dissolution is the daughter of division saith another Omne divisibile est corruptibile saith the Philosopher Divide impera saith the Politician Si collidimur frangimur said the two earthen Pots in the Fable that were swiming down the Stream together These expressions tend to shew the bad consequences of division We have lately received a loud warning from Papists to unite Rome knows how to fish in our troubled Waters The Lord convince us of the necessity of Vnion and teach us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and discover to many what smal evidence they give of friendship to the Protestant Interest by keeping up divisions The Reader is desired to correct these following Errors with his pen before he readeth at least to read them right as they are here marked ERRATA P. L For Read 17 17 Evangelist Evengelists 23 16 Polycrats Polycrates 23 20 either Usher 39 24 Ministrum Christi Ministrum 39 25 Christs Minister a Servant 55 20 dâ—clared decreed 57 15 and â—o chaâ—ge and the change 57 16 but the vestige but no vestige 74 5 〈◊〉 me 85 12 Pâ—â—â—t putiâ—t 94 11 pag. 2â— pag. 52. 94 25 â—ayeth he sayeth he pag. 39. 99 21 Author Authorâ— 104 15 protestantâ— protestantes 133 19 veâ—â— 1â— vers 7.14 142 11 Racâ—el Rachab 150 10 fuerâ—â—t fuerint 155 4 dâ—bâ—â—â— debate 157 16 Opinionem Opinionum 157 17 Opiniantium Opinantium 161 8 deney deny 165 8 Zauchius Zanchius 166 21 Chap. Chap. 7 167 5 one â—n 169 21 became become 172 1  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 172 16 Luâ— Luk. 177 7 useth use it 186 19 really real 188 12 are not all are not at all 189 4 unwarrantably warrantably 195 8 Lectures Lectores 195 27 another other 215 23 favour fervour 216 8 we leave in we live in The Pages 46. 47. are in one anothers place Also some Sentences wrong pointed which the Reader may advert to THREE DIALOGUES Betwixt a Doubting Person and an Informer The First anent Episcopacy The Second anent the Obligation of the Covenants abjuring Episcopacy The Third anent Separation The first Dialogue anent Episcopacy Doub WHat news Neighbour Inf. All the news now are about our growing Confusions and Disorders D. I doubt you can ever expect better under Bishops I could wish they were taken away I. Why so what ill have they done D. I never heard of any good Bishops did I doubt a Bishop can be a good Man I. Say not so the Histories of the Church tell us what singular good men Bishops have been and that hundreds of them have died Martyres for the Gospel under heathen persecutors besides what many excellent men of them suffered afterward by Arrians and other Hereticks D. I doubt these were Lord Bishops such as ours now are I. If by Lord Bishops you mean such as have a superiority over ordinary Ministers it 's clear they were Lord Bishops in that sense but if you mean Bishops Dignified with Titles of Honour by the secular powers I grant they were not Lord Bishops nor could look for any the least respect from the powers of those times who for the most part were enemies either to Christianity altogether or to the Orthodoxy of it Yet at the time of the Reformation from Popery in England in Queen Maries days we find sundry Lord Bishops as you call them were Martyres for the Truth As for Bishops their acting in civil affairs sometimes I will make it none of my business to debate it with you Only that it is not altogether incompatible with Ecclesiastical Functions may appear from these few things The Jewish Sanhedrim made up of the seventy Elders at first appointed to be assistants to Moses in the civil Government Numb 11. did consist partly of Priests which I suppose few versed in the Jewish Learning will deny see Goodwinus his Moses and Aaron lib. 5. Cap. 5. Junius on Numb 11. and others Consider Deut. 17. v. 8 9 10 11 12. Eli the Priest judged Israel fourty years 1 Sam. 4.18 and after him Samuel the Prophet though from his birth lent to the Lord 1 Sam. 1.28 went in circuit yearly judging the people 1 Sam. 7. v 15 16. And under the New Testament how much Bishops were imployed in Civil Matters after Emperours became Christian you may see confessed by Smectimnuus Sect. 12. It s true Church-men should be as abstract from these incumbrances as possibly they can nor are they needlesly or of choice to entangle themselves for no man c. 2 Tim. 2.4 And therefore some ancient Councils have discharged them to follow Military Imployments to take Farms or the like And some of the Fathers have complained that themselves were too much diverted and overcharged with secular matters Yet its hard to say that its absolutely and in every case unlawful for Church-men to medle in these things for then it will follow that a Minister may not look after any civil affair that concerns himself and family and yet whatever Christian neglects this is worse then an Infidel 1 Tim. 5.8 Some of the Fathers were a gainst Churchmens being Tutors or Curators yet I believe your selves do not scruple this now adays nor Countrey Trysts neither I need not tell you how much some Ministers in our late times medled in State affairs Saravia at some length defends Church-mens actings in these matters But passing this I suppose you question the lawfulness of the Episcopal-Office it self D. I do so because I find no command or express warrand in the Word for it I. That proves it is not simply necessary because not commanded but proveth not the unlawfulness of the Office Many things may be lawful yea and expedient too which are not commanded unless under some General such as That all things be done decently and in order or to edification and such like That in a meeting of Ministers there be a Moderator and a Clerk I know you will not say is unlawful yet this is not any where commanded And many
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
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
the Fathers who followed were not only most of them Bishops themselves but looked upon Episcopacy as descending unto them from the Apostles as can be made out from their Writings D. You know Jerome who lived toward the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century saith Episcapocy was not from the beginning in the Christian Church Epist ad Euag. which is the 85. Manifestissime comprabatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factumest ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet That is It 's most manifest that Bishop and Presbyter are the same and that afterward one was chosen and set over the rest it was done in remedy of Schism c. I. Jerom's meaning is that in the very first beginnings of the New Testament times it was so while the Apostles were yet alive and did by their own presence and industrie supplie the room of Bishops but as their presence began to sail by death or even sooner as their other great business called them elsewhere upon the dayly increase and enlargement of the Church then to prevent Schism that arose from equality there were Bishops set over Presbyters And that Jerome must be understood speaking so early of the Church appeareth from what immediatly followeth in that same Epistle Nam sayes he Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclium Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi Archidiaconum That is at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist downward to Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwise elected one from among themselves whom they placed in a higher degree and called him Bishop even as an Army would chuse a General or Deacons an Archdeacon Now Mark is reckoned to have died before either Peter or Paul and even from him downward Jerome saith there were Bishops in that Church It is strange to see how warily and defectively Smectimnuus cites these words of Jerome quite beside Jerom's intent to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning and to show how they vvere brought in by Presbyters Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles ovvn times we agree that so it was but because they for Smectimnuus is a Name composed of sundry Authors would fain have Jerome to be meant speaking of Bishops coming into Alexandria not until the Apostles were gone therefore they leave out his first words a Marco Evangelista they take what they think may seem to make for them and leave out what is directly against them which is scarce fair dealing But Calvine Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. citeth this passage intirely and from it concludes that Jerome maketh Bishops ancient enough Also you may observe how the learned M. Durham on Revel pag. 225. making use of this passage of Jerome that you do to prove that Bishops were of later date than the Apostles Yet he mentioneth not Jerom's words Alexandriae a Marco c. in which Jerome clearly makes the Original of Bishops in that Church as high as Mark which passage either destroyeth the gloss you would put upon Jerom's former words if in them you think the Father speaks of bringing in Bishops into the Church not till after the Apostles times as Mr. Durham saith expresly or else you would make Jerome contradict himself 2. Mr. Durham as he takes no notice of the Succession of Bishops at Alexandria from Mark downward so neither of the first Simile which Jerome makes use of viz. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat But only of the second Simile of Deacons making an Arch-deacon for helping them saith he in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business which shews what kind of Precedency this is he attributeth to the Bishop even such as he would allow to a Deacon who is advanced to some Peculiar Care by others for some special end Thus Mr. Durham as he is very loath to bring in Bishops till after the Apostles times so after they are brought in he would have their power as insignificant as may be but taketh no notice of Jerome his comparing the Bishop to an Emperour or General of an Army who hath not only a Precedency but without all controversie a Superiority of power and command D. Jerome on Tit. 1. is very express that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu Studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur That is Presbyter and Bishop are the same and before through Satans instigation there were divisions and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by Presbyters in common but afterward when every one thought those to be his whom he had baptized it was declared through the whole world that one should be set above the rest and on him all the care of the Church devolved and the seeds of Schisms rooted out I. Some think Jerome in that place speaketh of the power Bishops in his time had come to beyond what the first Bishops had That at the first Presbyters had a hand in Government but afterward Omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertinebat The whole care of the Church was put over upon the Bishop alone But if you think Jerome there speaks of the first Introduction of Bishops unto the Church then I say he must be meant speaking of the Apostles own times D. What reason have you to think so I. First because Jerom's words import this while he says that the thing which gave occasion to the introducing of Bishops was the divisions that arose among Christians and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo c. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptized Now thus we read it was among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. And though Jerome on Tit. 1. take occasion from the Community of Name that the Apostle there uses while he calls the Presbyter Bishop ver 5. and 7. compared together to shew that at first there were no Bishops above Presbyters yet this will not necessarily infer that there was no distinction of Office betwixt Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostle wrot to Titus or that Jerome thought there was no such distinction then But that as the names were then promiscuously used by the Apostle so sometimes there was no distinction of the Offices till necessity introduced it which change Jerome takes
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
make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
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
but in himself 2. The Apostle in that Chapter is clearly pressing the Corinthians to Unity from the consideration that Christians are all one body and therefore the meanest Gifts must no more be despised than the meanest members of our body and Schism must be avoided vers 25. 3. Suppone coveting the best Gifts were spoken to Christians in your sense yet it must be understood with due Limitations such as that we covet them in an orderly way and with respect to the Churches peace and such like And so many general directions in the Word are to be understood with necessary cautions as your self can not deney Edification indeed is much to be set by yet let none imagine that it is warrantable for them to seek it in a way that marrs the Churches peace breeds in people a neglect and despising of their own Ministers who are set over them in the Lord and whom they are commanded to honour and reverence that takes away the distinction of Parochs and of one mans labours from another as we would shun confusion And that is contrary to laudable Canons and Acts of the Church You know we must not do evil that good may come of it Rom. 3.8 D. What Canons or Acts of the Church are against my leaving my own Paroch Minister and going to another by whom I think I get more good I. I might produce sundry ancient Canons commanding Ministers not to excise their Pastoral Office within another's charge without leave and that they receive not any man of another Paroch to Divine Service who neglects his own Pastor The First Council of Nice Can. 16. The second Council of Carthage Can. 11. and Council 3. Can. 20. Concilium Nannetense cap. 1. In which Council Presbyters or Ministers are commanded that at their entry to Divine Service they ask the people if there be any present of anothers Congregation who despising his own Minister desires to joyn with them and if any such be found that forthwith he be thrust out of the Church And again in that same Council that no minister reset one that belongs to anothers charge unless he be on a journey or upon some other such relevant ground that keeps him from attending in his own congregation for the time But passing these there is an act of the General Assembly of this same Church of Scotland Anno 1647. To be found among the printed Acts of it Intituled Act against such as withdraw themselves from the publick Worship in their own Congregation And it is express in discharging all Members of this Kirk from withdrawing from their own Congregation usuallys except in urgent cases made known unto and approven by the Presbytrie And if any contraveen it 's recommended first to the Minister to whom such persons resort to deal with them to stay at home in their own Paroch And then to the Minister and Session of the Paroch they belong to and if need be to cite them to the Presbytrie c. Now I suppose you will not decline the Authority of that Assembly nor think the General Assembly of this Church were such enemies to edification as to have deprived Christians of this way of attaining it if they might have allowed it to them without manifest hazard of Schism You may think they were competent enough to judge in such a case yea that Act was purposely conceived to curb the beginnings of Separation and Schism which at that time began to appear in this Church D. If Ministers had all alike abilities and gifts for edification I could say the less against that Act but it is not so for some Ministers excell others very far in an edifying gift I. Yet you see what the Assemblies mind was in this matter Now to what you say of an edifying Gift I wish many of you mistake it not if a man have a stentorian voice or a ton can speak loud and boldly and can rail upon the Civil Powers and cry down Bishops and Curats O that is an edifying man It feareth me many of you who are pretenders high enough to knowledge and piety can little judge of mens Gifts when all is done and I make no doubt oft times leaves better at home then what ye go to But passing this I offer to your serious consideration these few things anent the diverse measures of Ministerial Gifts and Edification by them 1. The Lord hath not given to all Ministers alike measure of Gifts but the Spirit distributes in what measure he pleaseth 1 Cor. 12. and therefore to undervalue men of low Gifts is to quarrel with the Almighty 2. Though all have not received alike measure we must not therefore think the meanest Gifts are useless 1 Cor. 12. vers 21.25 3. The best Gifts can not of themselves work on hearts and consciences it 's only the Spirit can do this by what means pleaseteh him weak or strong 1 Cor. 3. vers 6 7. And therefore peoples too much magnifying of Cifts is but an idolizing of men and giving Gods due to the Creature this seems to have been the fault of the Corinthians 1 Cor. chap. 1. and chap. 3. The learned Hieronimus Zauchius in the Epistle Dedicatory to the seventh Tom. of his Works tells that when first he left Italy he came to Geneve and there observing a French man who used always to hear Calvin and none else he asked him his reason why he did not hear Viretus as occasion served he answered that if Paul were to come and preach at Geneve Ego relicto Paulo audirem Calvinum i. e. he would leave Paul and go hear Calvin which answer amazed Zauchius and saith that he heard him cum summa animi offensione i. e. Zauchius was much troubled and offended at his answer and observeth from it how dangerous it is for people to admire any Minister too much and make gods of them as he saith and to despise others 4. The Lord useth oft-times to do more good by men of weak Gifts than by greater Christ was very far beyond Peter in Gifts for he received not the Spirit in measure and his enemies did bear him witness that never man spake like him And in another place They wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth And yet Act. 2. Peter a poor sinful man and very weakly gifted in comparison of Christ at one Sermon converteth three thousand We read no where of the like success of Christs Ministry but we hear him oft complaining of smal success as was before prophesied Isai 49. vers 4. and Chap 53. vers 1 2 3. c. And in the Gospel frequently upbraiding these to whom he had preached because of their unbelief Math. 11. vers 20 21 22 23. c. Chap. 13. vers 14 15. c. Chap. 23. vers 37. John 5. vers 40. and in other places And in that famous Sermon he had on the Mount Mat. 5.6 7. It 's said Chap. vers 28. that when he had ended his
is speaking of the dutie of Christians in Separating from Idolaters and Heathens in their Idolatries and ungodlie fellowships not of withdrawing from Christian Assemblies In 1 Cor. 5.11 and 2 Thes 3.6 He tells Christians their dutie not to keep needless fellowship in their private converse with such as are scandalous but biddeth them not withdraw from the publick Worship of God even though there be scandalous persons there Wicked scandalous persons pollute not the Ordinances to us nor is their presence at the Ordinances a ground for us to Separate though it may be the fault of Church guides if they be careless in keeping them back from such of the Ordinances as they have no right to Rev. 18.3 is ordinarilie expounded by Protestants of leaving the Idolatrous Worship of the Church of Rome where Doctrine also is much corrupted but gives no warrant to Separate from a sound Church where no such corruptions are D. We think we have better reason to charge you with Schism than ye have to charge us for ye have departed from the Government of this Church by Presbytrie to which we still adhere so that ye have made the Schism from us not we from you I. What little ground ye have to charge us with Schism in respect of Government may appear if ye consider 1. That our sumbitting to the present Government by Bishops is in obedience to the Commands of our Superiours whom both ye and we are bound to obey in things in themselves not sinful So that our submission is dutie and your non-submission is both disobedience and Schism disobedience to Authoritie Schism from the body of the Church 2 If ye will consider that Episcopacy as at some length I shew in our first conference is the only Government of the Church left by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the first and purest times after them and so downward Not we who now submit to this Government are the Schismaticks but ye who refuse submission to it hereby ye are guilty of Schism from the whole Primitive times alswell as from us But besides when we charge you with Schism we mean it not only nor mainly of Schism in respect of Government but of your dividing and separating from our Christian Assemblies especially and Divine Worship there performed which indeed is a great Schism even suppose there were many things wrong among us that needed amendment I pray you consider I hope ye will not say we have departed more from you and from the truth than the Scribes and Pharisees and the Jewish Church under them had departed from Moses Law in Christs time and yet neither Christ nor the godly at that time such as Simeon and Anna Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary with many others thought themselves oblieged to separate from that Church Alace then how will ye be able to justifie this Separation of yours D. Your Ministers Lecture not to the people therefore we will not hear them I. Some among us did continue to Lecture but that did not keep the people from the disease of the time Separation 2. We have the Scriptures publickly read in the Church which is a very ancient practice both in the Jewish and Christian Church The Jews had the five Books of Moses or Pentatuch which was commonly called the Law divided into 53. Sections by Ezra as some think and every Sabbath day one of those Sections together with a part of the Prophets was read in the Synagogues See Act. 13. vers 15 27. and Act. 15.21 And that there were Lectures that is Readers in the ancient Christian Church is well known So that ye who on this ground Separate now would have separate from the Church in all ages 3. Lectures as now used have no authority from the Church nor ever had For they are not according to the first appointment which was that the Minister should read a Chapter in the Old Testament and another in the New and where any difficult place occurred briefly give the meaning without any more but that way was soon left and Ministers held with one Chapter and many with a part of one and not only expounded but also raised practical observations so that in effect as some have expressed it the Lecture came to be a short Sermon on a long Text And indeed a Lecture and a Sermon after it are two Sermons at one dyet and they that separate for want of this would for the same reason separate from one who useth shorter Sermons to another who preacheth longer And yet long tedious Sermons are judged less edifying caeteris paribus and it may be a question whither it be not fitter for peoples edification to hold them with one Sermon at one dyet than to give them two considering their forgetfulness when a great variety of purposes is accumulat one thing puts out another And considering their dulness and backwardness to receive divine things and how soon corrupt nature will wearie and sit up when about these exercises is it not safer to hold with a few things and press them home at one time Therefore that ancient Christian Pembo an unlearned man recorded in Church Historie desiring another to learn him a part of a Psalm and having heard the first verse of the 39. Psalm read would hear no more saying it was a lesson great enough at that time and a long time after that another asked him if he was yet ready for another lesson he answered no for he had not sufficiently learned his first lesson 4. Suppose our want of Lectures were a fault yet I told you every fault or neglect in a Church is not a ground to Separate from her And know you not that the ancient Jewish Church some times wanted Ordinances even of Divine Institution and that for a long time together as Circumcision the Pasover c. And will any say she ought therefore to have been Separated from 5. On this ground of yours ye would separate from all the Protestant Churches in the World at this day in none of which ye will find a Lecture Yea ye would have separate from the Church of Scotland ever till about the year 1645. for till then we had no Lectures I could wish indeed all our Sermons were more like Lectures as Lectures have been and are by some used that is that Ministers would take long Texts and reduce them into some few points especially insisting on the Scope as is usual in Churches abroad I make no doubt people would please this way better and retain more of what is spoken than when Ministers confine themselves to short Texts and then too oft rack both the Text and their own Brains seeking matter to hold out the time with But herein I only give my own judgement D. There is another thing yet keepeth me back from joining with you in your Assemblies for Divine worship If I should joyn with you many good people would be offended who look upon hearing among you to be a
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