man and will bring good tidings D. Well let us hear him I. Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 3. cap. 3. says Habemus annumerare qui ab Apostolis usque ad nos instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum c. that is we can reckon on who have been Bishops in the several Churches and who their successors from the Apostles even to our own times and because he sayeth it were longsome to go through all he mentions the succession in the Church of Rome until he come down to Eleutherius who was his own Contemporary And this he doth to prove the falshood of Hereticks their Doctrine because not agreeing with the Doctrine of the Bishops who from the Apostles downward had been in the Church And in that same place he speaketh of Polycarp who says he had conversed with them who saw the Lord and was by the Apostles made Bishop of Smyrna and that when himself was young he had seen Polycarp for saith he he lived long Now hence we may observe 1. that Polycarp contemporary with the Apostles was even such a Bishop as Eleutherius of Rome who lived in the time of Irenaeus for Irenaeus makes no difference and no doubt Eleutherius was such a Bishop as Irenaeus who was Bishop of Lions in France which I suppose few will question 2. That as some have observed Polycarp behoved to be the very same Angel of Smyrna who was written to Rev. 2.8 for Irenaeus saith Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves who all lived before John and he surviving the rest wrot at Christs command these Epistles to the seven Angels so that Polycarp must be that Angel of Smyrna to whom John wrot for Polycarp lived till Iraeneus his time who says when himself was a child he saw this old Bishop for says he Polycarp lived long and continued in Smyrna until his last and died a martyre Usher in his Orig. of Bishops pag. 60. reckons his martyrdome to have been seventy four years after Johns writing that Epistle to him and that he continued Bishop there until his death is collected from Euseb lib. 4. cap. 15. 3. We see clearly though there were in the Church of Rome many Presbyters or Ministers yet without taking notice of them Irenaeneus only names one at a time who was more eminent than the rest and after he is gone nameth another who succeeded him Now if all comes only to this that these whom he nameth had no more but the same authority and succession with the rest of the Presbyters Why are these we contend for singled out and named and not the other Presbyters as well as they Why are the Presbyters or Ministers passed over in silence and only Linus and Cletus and Soter c. taken notice of in their several successions one after another No doubt because they were the Bishops and had an authoritative inspection above the rest as hath been shewed already in Timothy and Titus and in the seven Angels Revel 2.3 and from the Epistles of Ignatius and other instances And to say they only are named for the more expedit reckoning is gratis dictum and as good as to say nothing and whereas some object that writers differ about the line of succession among these Primitive Bishops therefore it may be doubted there was any such thing as Bishops or a succession of one Bishop after another at all The King answers at the Isle of Wight this will no more follow than that because Chronologers differ about the line of ancient Kings in such a Kingdom therefore there was no Kingly power nor Kings there at all 4. Observe that Irenaeus saith these these ancient Bishops succeeded one another by Apostolical institution Qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt saith he usque ad nos Episcopi 5. This Valentinus against whom Irenaeus writes was a Presbyter and turned Heretick because he came short of a Bishoprick Tertul. adversus Valent. cap. 4. See also Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 43 44. and to add a word of Irenaeus himself he was Bishop of Lions in France 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 5. cap. 23. But after the Latine 21. Paroeciarum per Galliam quas Irenaeus moderatus est Hence it is clear he was their Bishop or Arch-bishop as some think for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified as much as a Diocess now See Can. Apost Can. 14. Concil Antioch 9.14 Concil Ancyr Cap. 13 18. D. Against what you speak of Irenaeus calling him a Bishop and an Arch-bishop I have this to say that the Gallican Church in their letter to Eleutherius calls Irenaeus Presbyter and so doth Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 4. I. Peter calleth himself a Presbyter or Elder 1 Pet. 5.1 And yet we know he was more Irenaeus himself in his writings calls Bishops Presbyters Victor who succeeded to Eleutherius in Rome is called Presbyter Euseb lib. 5. cap. 4. and yet without all contradiction he was a Bishop and a great one too when he would have extended his Jurisdiction not only over his own but over the Asian Churches also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 21 23 25. Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus freely confesseth pag. 265. Romani Pontifices vocantur Presbyteri etiam postquam Episcopatus apicem supra presbyteros consequuti sunt singuli in toto orbe Episcopi But hardly will you find the name of Bishop any wherein those times given to a single Presbyter D. What more can you say for Bishops out of the ancient Fathers I. I could produce you Testimonies from Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was contemporary with Irenaeus but something of him I spoke before and from Clemens Alexandrinus and other Fathers who lived in the second age And from Tertullian about the year of Christ two hundred who shews de prescript cap. 36. That the Apostolical Chairs at Corinth Philippi Thessalonica were possest not by a Presbytrie but by single persons Also cap. 11. and de baptismo cap. 7. Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est c. That is the Bishop hath the power of giving baptism then the Presbyters and Deacons yet not without the Bishops authority c. I might produce much more from those first times in favours of Bishops Eusebius the ancientest Church historian now extant all along maketh it his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the Churches of these first times Rome Alexandria Antioch c. from the Apostles downward unto his own time in every of which Churches none that hath any skill can deny that there were sundry Presbyters or Ministers at the same time and yet without noticing these he sets down the line of Bishops one after another in these several Churches And for the time that followed after Tertullian it 's undenyable by you all there were Bishops in the Church and
shall be the more cleared in my doubts of these Epistles if you can produce any other convincing Testimonies from Prime Antiquity in favours of Bishops I. I offer to your consideration what Pius Bishop of Rome about the year 146. writing to Justus newly elected Bishop of Vienna in the room of Verus sayeth Veri loco a fratribus constitutum collobio Episcoporum It 's thought this was the Bishop's Habit then in use vestitum te Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi observent That is Let the Ministers and Deacons reverence and obey thee not as one greater but as the Servant of Christ This passage is found in his Epistles in Bibliotheca Patrum Tom. 3. Fol. 15. Now by Presbyters in that place as all along in Antiquity are meant these whom we call Ministers which I suppose will not be denyed for both the Apostles in their Writings and all Antiquity that followed call them so and yet we see these Presbyters at Vienna had Justus a Bishop over them and that Verus another Bishop had been there before Justus D. It seems Bishops were not then acknowledged superiour to Presbyters or Ministers since it 's said Presbyteri te non ut majorem observent that is let not the Ministers reverence thee as one greater than they I. By that same reason you should make the Bishop no greater then the Deacons neither since it 's said also Te Diaconi non ut majorem observent that is let not the Deacons reverence thee as one greater than themselves Yea you will make him inferiour to both for it is added Sed ut Ministrum Christi that is as Christs Minister Pius there exhorteth Justus to humility a very necessar and seasonable counsel for these who are promoted to higher dignity above others and therefore biddeth him carry rather like a Servant then a Superiour I told you before that humility and imparity consist well In the next place hear what Hegesippus sayeth who lived in the time of Hadrian the Emperour before the year 140. a renouned Historian the ancientest of any that wrot the Church-history of the New Testament next to Luke who wrot the Acts of the Apostles Jerome as the Magdeburgenses and Rivet report sayes Hegesippus actus omnes a Christi passione ad sua tempora complexus est in sua historia He was more ancient than that Hegesippus who wrot de excidio Hierosolymae nothing of his History is now extant except a few fragments cited by Eusebius who lib. 4. cap. 21. brings him in giving this account Se plurimos Episcopos cum Romam peregre proficisceretur convenisse eandem apud omnes doctrinam deprehendisse That is when he went to Rome he met with many Bishops and found they all held the same Doctrine and a little after he mentions Primus Bishop of Corinth and afterward Romae haesisse usque ad Anicetum Aniceto successisse Soterem isti Eleutherium in singulis successionibus civitatibus ita habet sicut lex dominus praedicant that is He stayed at Rome till the time Anicetus was made Bishop to whom Soter succeeded and to him Eleutherius and that in all the successions and Cities matters were constitute as the Law and the Prophets and the Lord Christ did Preach Then speaking of the Church of Jerusalem he says after James sirnamed Justus suffered Martyrdom his Uncle Simeon was made bishop whom all preferred because he was Domini Consobrinus a cousin of Christs Further he shews that Thebulis turned heretick because he missed a Bishoprick Quoniam non fuit Episcopus constitutus and that till then the Church of Jerusalem was called a Virgine because it had not been corrupted with any false Doctrine From which Testimonies of Hegesippus we may gather 1. That he speaks of Bishops in all these Churches which he mentions 2. In every Church he speaks but of one Bishop at a time to whom when he is gone another succeedeth Yet I hope it will not be denyed by you that there were sundry Ministers or Presbyters in any one of these Churches at one and the same time 3. That the succession of Bishops was by election and not by Seniority as the instance of Simeon chosen after James at Jerusalem clears 4. That some were then ambitious of a Bishoprick as he reporteth of Thebulis which also was Diotrephes his fault And Lastly All this so shortly after the Apostles times that none have any reason to doubt of Hegesippus his certain knowledge what had been the Government of the Church from the Apostles times to his own time more than we can doubt what hath been the Government of the Church among our selves for fourty years bygone For Hegesippus lived next after the first succession of the Apostles as Vsher in his Original of Bishops pag. 62. gathers out of Eusebius D I would hear what you can say more out of prime Antiquity I. I offer to your consideration what Dionysius who was Bishop of Corinth about the year 170. says in his Epistle to the Church of Athens Euseb lib. 4. cap. 22. he mentioneth Quadratus their former Bishop and Publius Bishop and Martyre before him and then Dionysius the Areopagite their first Bishop of whom we read Act. 17. Then in his Epistle to the Church of Gortyna in Crete together with the rest of the Churches there he commends Philip their Bishop Vsher thinks Philip was Arch-Bishop in Crete Orig. of Bishops pag. 73. for Philip is called Bishop not only of Gortyna but also of the rest of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Crete Paraecia signified then a whole Diocess as can easily be made out from antiquity and we find was afterward also Metropolis and the Bishop the Metropolitan of the whole Island Concil Chalcedon Act. 6. Concil Constantinop sub Mena Act. 5. and 5. general Concil In which places the Metropolitan of Gortyna is found subscribing and this authority of his over whole Crete Eusebius deriveth from the times of Titus Dionysius writes also to the Gnosians and exhorteth their Bishop Pinetus ne grave servandae castitatis onus necessario fratribus imponat that is that he would not lay upon his brethren the heavy burden of an unmarried life Where by the brethren he must mean the Ministers under Pinetus his Jurisdiction For you can not think that by the Brethren Dionysius meant private Christians or that Pinetus did press private Christians to such a life It appears then that Pinetus was above the rest of the brethren that is of the Ministers and that with a power to enjoyn as is clear from Dionysius his counsel to him not to make use of his power in that particular Hear next what Irenaeus Bishop of Lions sayeth to this point he was a Bishop pious and peaceable and so answerable to his name and lived about the year 180. You need not fear he will deceive you but may say of him as David of Ahimaaz he is a good
sexto pag. 358. Thinketh that Timothy and Titus were first Evangelists and afterwards settled Bishops by Paul the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. Paul Act. 20.27 Gives a charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus and not to Timothy which he would not have omitted had Timothy been their Bishop and it is very probable that Timothy was present at that time for vers 4. we find him in Pauls company I. May be according to Gerards opinion Timothy was not as yet settled Bishop of Ephesus 2. Iraeneus who lived not long after the Apostles and vvas Bishop of Lions in France lib. 3. cont Valentin cap. 14. is of the mind that there were of the Asian Bishops mingled vvith the Elders of Ephesus and vvith Timothy their Bishop and that to them all in common Paul made that exhortation and Bishops might very vvell be comprehended under the name of Elders in that place since I shevv you before that Apostles are sometimes called Elders D. How prove you that Timothy and Titus were Bishops for I have great doubt about it I. I prove it first from this because in these Epistles more particularly and fully then any vvhere else in the Nevv Testa directions are given by Paul to Timothy and Titus how to carry in Ordination and Jurisdiction which two comprehend the Episcopal Office He sheweth them what qualifications they must require in those that are to be ordained that they lay hands suddenly on no man and giveth them sundry directions anent Church Government how to rebuke offenders no to receive an aecusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses how to deal with Hereticks c. 1 Tim. 5.1 19 21. Tit. 3.10 and 1. v. 5 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.22 17. also ch 3.10 And in other places of these Epistles Now these are directions which concern not that Age only but all Ages of the Church and therefore were given not personally to Timothy and Titus but in them to their Successors Why I pray you will any have Timothy and Titus to be extraordinary Officers in their acting of these things which they cannot deny are of ordinary use in the Church What wonder as the King in his last reply at the Isle of Wight hints that some have affirmed those Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction vvere in themselves extraordinary for ye have led them the vvay in saying that Timothy and Titus in their exercising those Acts vvere extraordinary Officers Then I prove it from this because their commission at Ephesus and Crete vvas not voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places and therefore their Office vvas to be constant For if meerly as Evangelists they vvere to settle a Church there then as soon as some fevv Ministers had been ordained Timothy and Titus vvere to cease and give vvay to the Presbytrie there settled frustra fit per plura c. but they did not so nor did their Commission run so Titus vvas left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1.5 that is Ministers vvhich had been needless if some fevv Elders after they vvere ordained themselves might have ordained others Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici pag. 185. Defending Ordination by Church-men against such as claimed that povver to the people says Why was Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City or Timothy at Ephesus might not the people have done that themselves if they have a right to do so May not the Argument be turned against the Authors of that Book themselves thus Why vvas Timothy left at Ephesus or Titus at Crete after Ministers vvere there ordained by the Apostle himself vvhen on the place or after some fevv were ordained by Timothy and Titus if those Ministers so ordained could have ordained the rest 3. I prove it from 1 Tim. 6.13 14. Where Paul solemnly charges Timothy to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Jesus Christ Now the Presbyterians in their Jus divinum Ministerij pag. 74. say that the directions given to Timothy were not for that age only but for all ages of the Church and bring this place to prove it which is like Mat. 28.20 I am with you always even unto the end of the world and they compare the foresaid charge with 1 Tim. 5. ver 7 21. Whence it would follow that Timothy and Titus were not extraordinary Officers but were to have successors in those Offices they then administrated which we see were superiour to ordinary Ministers and pag. 160. they say Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which carry a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a rule Now the Apostle his setting Timothy and Titus single persons over those Churches is an Apostolical example done for the good of the Church and hath a perpetual reason and equity in it Lastly I could prove this by the Testimony of many great men in the Church both Ancient and Modern Polycrats born within fourty years after John wrot his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2. In an ancient Treatise de Martyrio Timothei as it is cited by either in his original of Episcopacy pag. 58. affirms that Timothy was Bishop of that Church Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms the like Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the general council of Chalcedon Act. 11. declareth that from Timothy there had been a continued Succession of twenty seven Bishops in the Church of Ephesus Jerom de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. doth the like Abraham Scultetus on Titus affirmeth that Timothy and Titus were properly Bishops in their several places and that the directions given by Paul to them in these Epistles were given to them and to their Successors Gerhard Tom. 6. maketh them both Bishops as I told you before I might produce moe Testimonies but these may suffice D. Albeit you say much to make Timothy and Titus Bishops yet Paul sayeth that Timothy was ordained by the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Therefore I think he could not be their Bishop for a Presbytrie which is but a company of Ministers cannot make a bishop I. Some among whom Calvin think that by Presbytery the Apostle meaneth not a company of Ministers but the Office of a Minister or Presbyter But suppone the company of Presbyters be meant yet these might be not the inferior degree of Presbyters or Ministers but the Superior degree who are bishops and that bishops be called presbyters ought not to seem strange since I told you the Apostles themselves are sometimes called Presbyters 3. 2 Tim. 1.6 The Apostle sayeth Timothy was ordained by the laying on of his hands so that what was substantial in that Ordination as Interpreters of good note think was from Paul although the Presbytry of Ministers if you will might share in the ceremonial part of it 4. If you say Timothy an Evangelist was ordained by inferior Elders you
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
nullo non anathemate dignos fatear qui eam non reverenter summaque obedientia observent haec vero mendax Hierarchiae larva quid habet simile That is if they will give us such an Hierarchy in which Bishops will so be great that withal they refuse not to be subject to Christ as their only head and aim at him in which they so intertain brotherly society among themselves that they be not knit together by any bond but his Truth Then if there be any that shall not reverence and obey such an Hierarchy there is no curse or anathema which they are not worthy of Thus he So that if the Popish Bishops would renounce their dependance on the Pope as their head and in his stead own Christ and imbrace the truth of the Gospel Doctrine Calvin would have all to reverence and obey them and thinks them worthy to be cursed who would not By this time you may perceive Calvin is not such an opposite to Bishops as you took him to be He knew very well what great difference there was betwixt Primitive and Popish Episcopacy nor would he cry down all Episcopacy as intolerable antichristian and I know not what as is ordinary for many now to do who understand little either of the nature or antiquity of it Saravia saith he defendeth Calvin's opinion against Beza and truly although Beza be no such unfriend to Bishops as many apprehend yet Calvin far less B. Hall speaking against the common report that fathered Presbytery upon Calvin saith I cannot find the Father of Presbytery and Mr. Durel View of Government Pag. 151. saith neither was Geneve it's mother and thinks that the juncture of affairs brought it to the doors of these Churches where it was taken in and maintained and that as he saith afterward it was a Government not of choice but of chance or necessity He cites Mr. Hooker who in the preface to his Ecclesiastical Policy saith that the Popish Bishop and Clergie being departed Geneva the Bishop was put away not by the reformed but by the Papists themselves See Durel Pag. 157 158 159. it had been a thing impossible to have chosen another in his room And Durel Pag. 152. saith it doth not at all appear that the Ministers who first reformed Geneve Calvin was not then come did settle equality out of any dislike to Hierarchical subordination but were bent upon the reforming of doctrine and then finding themselves in an equality without any Church Superior over them they even continued so D. Yet since that time many able men who lived under Presbyterian parity have defended it as good and warrantable I. True many have indeed brought what they could in defence of it but the ablest and most judicious of them have only brought reasons to prove the lawfulness as they conceived of what was done among them but not that there was any necessity of doing so in other reformed Churches which had retained Bishops Blondel concluded his Apologia pro sententia Hieronimi with words to this purpose By all which we have said to assert the rights of Presbytrie it is not our purpose to invalidat the ancient and Apostolical constitution of Episcopal Preeminence but we believe wherever it is established conformable to the ancient Canons it must be carefully preserved and wheresoever by some heat of contention or otherwise it hath been put down or violated it ought to be reverently restored See for this Durel's view of Government Pag. 339 340. Where also is shewed how by the importunity of some the author was prevailed with to leave out these words at the Press Beza de Ministrorum gradibus Cap. 18. Speaking of England's having Bishops saith fruantur sane ista Dei benificentia quae utinam illi nationi sit perpetua That is let England enjoy that goodness of God to them which I wish may be perpetual to that Nation And Cap. 21. Pag. 343. Nedum ut quod falsissime impudentissime quidam nobis objiciunt Cuipiam ecclesiae sequendum nostrum peculiare exemplum praescribamus imperitissimorum illorum similes qui nihil nisi quod ipsi agunt rectum putat i. e. Much less as if which some most falsly and impudently charge us with we did prescribe our example of Government to be followed by any other Church like those unskilfull persons who think nothing right but what they do themselves You see then Beza thought not other Protestant Churches were obliged to write after Geneva's Copy nor did he wish a change of the English Episcopacy D. Beza is no friend to Bishops as appears by Saravia's writing against him I. Beza looked not upon all kind of Episcopacy as unlawful as you do it 's true he thought Episcopacy but an humane Institution as he expounds his Episcopus humanus yet he was far from your way of condemning Episcopacy absolutely but thought it a lawful and useful order in the Church In his dispute with Saravia he saith Si qui sunt Quod sane mihi non facile persuaseris qui omnem Episcoporum ordinem rejiciunt absit ut quisquam sanae mentis furoribus illorum assentiatur i. e. If there be any as I hardly believe there are who reject all the order of Bishops God forbid any man of a sound mind should assent to their madness Beza was not against Protestant Bishops at all for in a Letter to Arch-bishop Whitgift related in the said Arch-bishop's life written by Sr. George Paul he speaketh thus In my writings I ever impugned the Romish Hierarchy but never intended to touch or impugn the Policy of the Church of England or to exact of you to form your selves to our pattern How respectfully writeth he to Grindal Bishop of London Epist 23. he saith Quo majore posthac poena digni erunt qui porro authoritatem tuam aspernabuntur i. e. How much greater punishment shall they deserve who shall dispise your authority Thus Beza speaks to that Bishop and thinks his authority ought to be reverenced And in the close of that same Epistle he saith Jesus te custodiat in tanto tibi commisso munere sancto suo spiritu regat magis ac magis confirmet i. e. Jesus preserve you govern and more and more confirm you by his holy spirit in that great Office which is committed to you And Epist. 58. To the same Grindal he saith Dominus te isthic speculatorem judicem constituit Now from these favourable Testimonies of Beza in behalf of Episcopacy we may conclude 1. That he did not think Episcopacy unlawful else would he have wished the continuance of an unlawful sinful Government in England as I shew you a little before expresly he doth 2. If Beza thought Presbytrie the first and Apostolical Government yet certainly he judged it not unalterable otherwise would he have spoken with such respect of Episcopacy as you see he doth The same may be said of Jewel Bilson Morton c. their concessions laboriously set down in jus
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
Episcopal Ministers did intrude themselves upon other mens labours If hereby you mean a sinful intrusion as I know you do let me ask you first were these Ministers whom you charge with Intrusion active in outing their Predecessors or did they come in upon their places till they were out and their places declared vacant 2. Would you or would these Ministers who were not clear to keep their places on the terms of the change but chosed rather to step out have the people of such Congregations left without a settled Ministrie because they were not clear to brook it themselves Is this all their kindness to their people or looks it not rather like a piece of petted self that will neither do nor let do And what you talk of coming in upon other mens labours is as applicable to one that cometh in upon a Ministers charge who against his will is transported to another charge by those who have power to dispose of him The Minister so transported may be thinketh there is a wrong done both to him and to the people he is taken from and the people think so too and possibly it is so yet he who succeedeth him upon an orderly and fair call you know cannot be said to be an intruder or in your sense to come in upon another mans labours I think an injury suppose really done to the former Minister by those who put him to the door ought not hinder well advised people from submitting to another for there is a necessity of a Ministrie and knowing consciencious Christians should make the best of what they can not help in their Superiours And if they cannot get such a Minister as they would ought to take such as they can have These Ministers who were put from their charges for asserting their duty to the King in the year 1648. had far better ground to complain that others were brought in upon their labours yet they were silent and submissive nor did they stir up the people to discountenance such as succeeded in their places and if the people had withdrawn and refused to hear them that succeded as Intruders as people are taught now to do without doubt the Judicatours at that time would have noticed them severely But Lastly ye who make so great a clamour of coming in upon other mens labours what think ye of your own Preachers who go up and down from Paroch to Paroch through the Countrey and any one of them will intrude himself not upon one Ministers charge only but in so far as he can upon the charges and labours of all the Ministers in Scotland Alace tell us no more of Ministers among us who have entered upon other mens labours they are but petty intruders that confine themselves to one Paroch but these among you are intruders indeed and to purpose Rom. 2.21 When Alexander accused one that he was a Pirate he answered I am but a petty one but you are the great Pirate that makes prey of whole Kingdomes and Nations D. We are sworn by the Covenant to extirpat all that depend upon the Hierarchy of which number the Episcopal Ministers are and therefore cannot lawfully hear them without breach of our Oath I. Ministers are not all exprest in that Article but suppose they were meant yet it 's said All Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy that is as I told you at our last conference on that kind of Hierarchy that consists and is made up of all these Officers mentioned in the Article as the English Presbyterians sense it which kind of Hierarchy we have not in this Church But further if Ministers depending on Bishops be there meant then ye by binding your selves not to hear them have bound your selves to sin for I told you a little before Ministers may be very faulty and sinful Creatures and yet ought to be heard But besides I have shown you before that Episcopacy is a most warrantable Government which neither you nor I nor any man could ever unwarrantably abjure nor Ministers depending on it So this reason of yours will come to nothing And Lastly by your exposition of that Clause of the second Article ye were bound not to hear any Ministers who were in Office at the time of taking the Covenant but to root out and extirpat them all because all these Ministers depended on Bishops as to their Ordination still even after they took the Covenant unless they had renounced their Ordination which they received from Bishops and had been ordained of new by meer Presbyters which they did not nor thought themselves bound to do notwithstanding of the Covenant otherwise it would follow that all the time before they were Ministers without a true Ordination and so what should become of all their Ministeriall Acts they had performed by vertue of that Ordination they had received from Bishops and yet to this day ye never scrupled hearing such of them as took the Covenant notwithstanding of their dependance foresaid which is still a dependance in part if they but disown the Bishops Government for the future D. Besides the reasons already named against hearing I have this to add we are warranted by the Word to separate from a corrupt Church I If you think Bishops are a corruption in the Church it will not be granted to you And then you are mistaken if you think that every Church that hath corruption in it is straight way to be separated from There may be even great corruption in a Church and yet Separation from her not lawful Was there not great corruption of Doctrine in the Church of Galatia and many infected with it and in the Church of Corinth was there not an Article of the Creed the Resurrection of the dead questioned Yea by sundrie flatly denied 1 Cor. 15. Chap. We read of great faults in sundrie of these Churches Rev. Chap. 2. and Chap. 3. And in the Church of the Old Testament sundrie times read the Books of the Kings and the Chronicles and the Prophets and you shall see what great corruptions oft were in that Church and yet no command to the godly to Separate as â—ong as the very substance of the Worship was not corrupted as it was in the case of Jeroboams Calves 2 Chron. 11.16 in the first ages of the Christian Church it 's known what Censures past against the Novatians Donatists and others because they were Schismaticks and may be there was as great corruptions in the Church at that time as any ye can pretend now if not greater D. If we may not Separate from a corrupt Church what then mean these Scriptures 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16. 1 Cor. 5.11 2 Thes 3.6 Rev. 18.3 I. I deny not but a Church may be corrupted in that degree that Separation from her is warrantable yea and necessarie Yet I told you everie corruption is no sufficient ground of Separating from her As for these Scriptures ye name they prove not your point In 2 Cor. 6.14 The Apostle
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
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
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