Obligation to maintain Presbyterial Government in Scotland For 1. There is no express mention there at all of Prosbyterial Government The words are We shall endevour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland In Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government 2. Many known Independents took that Covenant and yet never thought themselves bound thereby to maintain Presbytrie in any of the Kingdoms because they thought it no part of the reformed Government and no question the Independents had a hand in wording that Article so that the words might not necessarily import the maintaining of any one form of Government in particular contrary to what themselves conceived to be right and indeed the words do not express any one form nor yet necessarily import any one form but with this general proviso in so far as reformed now they did not think Presbyterial Government such D. Yet the body of the English Parliament who together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that Oath did by the Reformed Government in this Kirk mean Presbytrie which was then settled here and therefore we were to take anâ— did take that first Article in the sense of thâ—… imposers whatever were the thoughts of few Independents I. We are indeed to take an Oath in the sense of the Imposers but that the English Parliament sensed the first Article as if Presbyterial Government were there sworn to be maintained may justly be doubted because had that Parliament looked on Presbytery as the Reformed Government sworn to be maintained in this Kirk they consequently would have acknowledged themselves bound to reform England according to our pattern but they thought themselves not bound to do so for Anno 1647. in their Declaration to the Scots Commissioners they profess they could never find that Presbytrie is necessary by any Divine Right and charges them for thinking there is no other lawful Church Covernment but that which they call Church Government And also charges them with mis-interpreting the Article of the Covenant concerning Church Government D. It seems then that England and Scotland did not understand that Article in one and the same sense yet since our State and Church understood it of Presbytrie we are bound to it in that sense I. It seems indeed England did not understand it in our sense but that therefore we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and State will not follow but rather that it is an Article as to that part of it that speaks of Government without sense since the Imposers who only could give the binding sense are not agreed about it for to say that we are bound to that sense which our State and Church too if you will had of it is irrational because they were but a part of the Imposers and the lesser part too in respect of England and Ireland And further suppose it were granted to you that in that first Article Presbytrie is meant yet that therefore there can be no room left for any kind of Episcopacy in the second Article will be denyed for if you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy either you are mistaken or Beza And others were who notwithstanding their writing for Presbytrie yet confess there is a kind of Prelacy as ancient as the Apostles beside what I cited to you from Blondel Chamier Moulin at our last meeting see Beza apud Saravium pag. 207 233 235 240 242 251. c. D. I perceive you bear off all you can from acknowledging the Episcopacy now settled in this Church to be meant either in the National Covenant or in the League For if that were once granted then ye could not but confess your selves guilty of Perjury I. My denying the present Episcopacy of this Church to be meant in either of the Covenants is grounded upon reasons which I suppose can not easily be disapproven And to what you say that upon our acknowledging the present Episcopacy to be meant in both or either of the Covenants we could not but acknowledge our selves guilty of Perjury Though I see no reason to acknowledge this present Government to be meant in either of the Covenants but much reason to the contrary yet I am content to make the supposition that it is abjured giving then though not granting that this Episcopacy was abjured in one or both of the Covenants you cannot so easily conclude thence as you imagine that therefore those who took that Oath and now again submit to yea or own this re-established Episcopacy are perjured D. That seems very strange those who did swear against Bishops in the Covenant have they not by acknowledging them again done contrary to their Oath and so are perjured I. That you may receive answer to this you must consider the nature of Episcopacy which is the matter supposed to be abjured Episcopacy is either a necessary unalterable Government as having a Divine warrand or at least Apostolick which amounts to little less then Divine if to any thing less at all Or it is an unlawful sinful Government as being contrary to some other Government which hath the warrant of Christ and his Apostles Or 3. It is of an indifferent Nature neither commanded â—or forbidden but left to Christian prudence to be used in the Church or not as shall be found expedient all circumstances considered If Episcopacy be found grounded on the Word and to have been the only Government practised from the Apostles own times downward through the purest ages of the Church I hope you will not think an Oath taken against it obliges to any thing but repentance for engaging in so unwarrantable an Oath You are a people who cry out Perjury Perjury but consider what I said to you at last meeting to let you see what warrant Bishops have in the Word of God and that it is the only Government found in the first and purest times of the Church search when you will and that even those who have set themselves to maintain another Government have from evidence of reason and Light that shines to them out of Antiquity been forced by their own concessions to set Episcopacy high enough and till you be able solidly to answer what I said to you then on this head be more sober and sparing of your hard censures and take heed lest while you charge others with Perjury your selves be found doing all you can sacrilegiously to robb the Church of that Government which Christ and his Apostles left her in possession of and have bound your selves with an Oath so to do If Episcopacy be sinful then we are bound against it antecedently to our Oath and whether we had abjured it or noâ— And if you think Episcopacy thus unlawful you should not so much decry it upon the account of the Covenant but because it is in it self sinful as contrary to some Divine or Apostolical warrant although it's true a supervenient Oath makes an Obligation against a thing in it self sinful so much
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
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
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
nisi abolito nomine re ipsa Episcopi i. e. To what purpose is it to abolish the name of Bishop and retain the thing for both these Calvin and 〈◊〉 what were they while living but indeed Bishops though without the name And was it not so even among our selves when the name of Bishop could not be endured a meer parity is hardly practicable any where unless it be in Vtopia Now since you think Calvin a great adversary to Bishops a mistake that many are under I will produce some few places out of him to undeceive you Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. speaking of the first Bishops he citeth Jerom's words ad Euagrium and then subjoyneth alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum dicit enim Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium c. i. e. Nevertheless in another place Jerome teacheth how ancient the institution of Bishops is for he sayeth that at Alexandria from Mark downward there was still a Bishop c. Where you see Calvin passing that place of Jerome that seemeth to make against the antiquity of Bishops he rather layeth hold on that other place that speaketh them as ancient as Mark the Evangelist And a little before Calvin saith Bishops were brought into the Church ne ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur Observe this he saith equality of Ministers breedeth strifes and ut fieri solet so it useth to be And from these words of Calvin we may collect that he giveth to the first Bishops some superiority in power above the Presbyters without which saith he dissidia nascerentur Strifes would arise and so he makes them more than meer Moderators Another passage of Calvin I cited to you a little before Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 4. Si rem omisso vocabulo intueamur reperiemus c. And Institut lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 11. Supersunt Episcopi Paraeciarum rectores qui utinam de retinendo officio contenderent libenter illis concederemus eos habere pium eximium munus i. e. Now we are to speak of Bishops who I wish would contend about the retaining of their Office we would willingly grant unto them He is speaking of the popish Bishops that they have a holy and excellemt Office if they would rightly discharge it Where you see he calleth the Office pium eximium munus Holy and excellent And again a little after shewing how when it is objected to the Papists that their Regnum i. e. Church Government as managed by them is antichristian tyranny they answer it is that venerable Hierarchy so much and often commended by holy and great men Which answer of theirs he repells thus Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat commendarent hoc deforme vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent ubi Episcopi vel rudes c. i. e. as if forsooth the holy Fathers when they commend that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as it was delivered or handed unto them from the Apostles did mean it of your deformed Government Where you see he saith that the ancient Episcopacy was delivered down to the Fathers per manus ab Apostolis from the Apostles hands or from the Apostles by hand to hand And on Titus 1.5 He saith We may learn from that Text that then there was not such an equality among the Ministers of the Church Quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praesset i. e. But that some one person was in authority and counsel above the rest And in a long Letter of his to an old friend who now was made a Bishop in the Church of Rome Veteri amico nunc Praesuli it is to be found in the Volume of his Opuscula pag. 72. he saith Episcoparus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopacy it self is from God institutus and institute by God and within a few Lines after addeth In aestimando Episcopi munere neque recte neque tuto credi populo Judicium unius Dei esse audiendum Cujus authoritate est constitutum illud legibus definitum i. e. In esteeming of the Episcopal Office we must not regard the people's judgement but Gods only by whose authority it is constitute c. And sundry other clear Testimonies in that Epistle which were tedious here to recite There he speaks not one word against the Office of a Bishop but only against the abuses of it in the Romish Church In one place of it he saith omnino tibi sane quod ab Episcopo requiritur praestandum aut fedes Episcopi deserenda i. e. either do the duty of a Bishop or leave the Bishop's Seat He willeth him not to leave it on any terms no but if he minds to be faithful keep it still And in an Epistle of his to the King of Poland he approveth of all the degrees of the Hierarchy in the ancient Church even unto Patriarchs And in a long Epistle to the Duke of Somerset Protector of England in Edward the sixth his Minority as it is cited by Durel View of Govern pag. 165. Giving his advice anent reforming of many things in Religion yet never adviseth to remove Episcopacy out of the English Church which had he been of your opinion he would not have failed to have done Only he adviseth that both Bishops and Ministers be put to swear they shall deliver no other Doctrine but such as is contained in the articles of Religion And what is worthy the observing in that Letter he saith Audio esse duo seditiosorum genera quae adversus Regem Regni statum caput extulerunt alij enim cerebrosi quidem viz. sub Evangelij nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim invectam vellent alij vero in superstitionibus Antichristi obdurantur ac merentur quidem tum hi tum illi gladio ultore coerceri i. e. I hear there are two sorts of seditious persons who have gotten up the head against the King and State of the Kingdom The first a kind of heady humorous people who under pretence of the Gospel would bring in confusion and disorder every where The other are such who are hardned in their antichristian superstitions and these in authority should restrain both Now how near what he saith of the first sort may touch your selves I leave it to your consideration There is one passage more in Calvin I cannot ommit in his Treatise to the Emperour Charles the fifth and States of the Empire intituled de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae speaking of the Popish Bishops he saith Talem nobis si Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero
Apostolical warrant at least and if so then the Covenant against Episcopacy suppone it were there abjured is null from the beginning But passing this to what you say of the Assembly of Glasgow's expounding the Popes Hierarchy to be meant of all Episcopacy I answer that was more than they could do For 1. How could the Assembly put a sense upon that Oath that was taken 58. years before and few or none of the first takers of it were than alive or if alive few or none were Members of that Assembly How then could the Assembly come to know certainly that their exposition of the word Hierarchy was according to the mind of the first imposers 2. All that the Assembly 1638. produces in their Act Sess 16. to prove Episcopacy to be abjured in the National Covenant amounts only to this That the Church about the time of the first taking of that Covenant and after was labouring against Bishops but proves not that Episcopacy was abjured in it or in any words of it 3. By what warrant could the Assembly impose upon others that sense of the Covenant in which they took it themselves they might declare their own sense of it which might not be the sense of the first imposers when all is done but how could they oblige others to their sense who had taken it before The first imposers gave the Assembly no power to do so D. Yet those who took that Covenant after the Assembly 1638. had put their sense on it have thereby abjured Episcopacy for the Assembly explaineth it so I. I suppose it was not the Assemblies intention that any should take that Covenant in the sense they put on it unless it were agreeable to the sense of the first imposers and takers to whom the Assembly thought themselves subservient iâ— what they did Now that the first imposers and takers never meant it against all Episcopacy is shewed and therefore the Assemblies ground failing that which they built thereupon must fail also For it were absurd to say that the Assembly putting a meaning on that Oath no way agreeable with the meaning of the first imposers that yet this posterior meaning should oblige also though much differing from the former this is to make of an Oath what we please D. In that Covenant we are sworn that we shall joyn our selves to this Church of Scotland in Doctrine Faith Religion and Discipline and that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline thereof Where by Discipline is meant Presbyterian Government So then we are sworn to maintain it by the National Covenant I. By Discipline cannot be meant Presbyterian Government because at the time of the first imposing of that Covenant there was no such Government in Scotland nor for a considerable time after Whatever essays Ministers in those times made to introduce it yet the King who imposed that Covenant owned Episcopacy Therefore 2. If by Discipline some one particular mode of Government be meant it 's more then probable that it must be Episcopacy because it was the Government then practised in this Church And the very year after the King and Council ratified the Treaty that had been concluded at Leith in favours of Episcopacy Anno 1571. But by Dicipline is not meant any one particular form of Government but the substantials of it or the essential and utterly necessary policy of the Church as it is expressed in the first Book of Discipline Cap. 9. And this is indeed unalterable though as some think there may be a change of particular Forms of Government D. Yet in the second Article of the League Bishops are expresly abjured and I hope you will confess that Protestant Bishops are there meant I. Although Protestant Bishops be there meant yet I question if every kind oâ—… Protestant Bishops Timorcus Epist dedicat Sect. 25. and pag. 14. 16. Doubteth not to say that all kind of Prelacy is noâ—… there abjured but that notwithstanding the said Article they the English Presbyterians could freely submit to the Primitive Episcopacy that is the precedency of one over the rest without whom ordinarily nothing is to be done in Jurisdiction or Ordination and asserts that it was only the English kind of Prelacy that was meant in the second Article of the League as also appears from the explanation of that Article inclosed in the body of it by a Parenthesis Which kind we have not in Scotland nor had before although many of you think there is no difference Mr. Vines and Mr. Baxter two great men of the Presbyterian way in England say that that second Article was not intended against all kind of Episcopacy but only against that complex frame that consists of all the Officers mentioned in the Article And Mr. Gataker that the most part of the Assembly of Divines was reconcileable to a Moderat Episcopacy And further Timoreus That the English Parliament with the Commissioners from Scotland never intended the extirpation of all kind of Episcopacy but only of that in England pag. 16. 23. See also Mr. Croston Pag. 70 78. So that the most judicious of the English Presbyterians who knew the mind of the Imposers and the circumstances of that business you see would not cry out upon us as guilty of breach of that Article as ye do D. What was the Parliament of England or the Assembly of Divines their sense of that Article I know not nor think I my self much concerned to enquire but the Kirk and State of Scotland who imposed that Oath on us meant it against all sort of Bishops I. I pray you consider we are now speaking of the League which was not a meer National Covenant of this Kingdom alone but a common League of all the three Kingdoms and therefore behoved to be sensed by the Representatives of all the three So it is not the sense that any one of the Kingdoms puts on it you or I are to stand to but that meaning and sense which all the three imposed on it And what was the Parliament of England's sense was as Timorcus tells us with the joynt concurrence of Commissioners from Scotland D. In the first Article the preservation of the Government of the Kirk of Scotland is sworn to be maintained which was Presbytrie and therefore in the second we swear against all kind of Prelacy because Prelacy and Presbytrie are inconsistent I. If you think in the first Article Presbytrie is sworn to be maintain'd and yeâ— that there is a liberty left in the second Article for some kind of Prelacy which I told you the English Divines confess and if withal you think there is an inconsistency betwixt Presbytrie and any kind of Episcopacy then it will follow that we have sworn things contradictoâ—y viz. In the first Article that we shall admit of no kind of Prelacy and in the second that we may admit of some kind of Prelacy 2. It 's much doubted by learned men whither in the first Article there be any
abjured in the second Article of the League but only that species or complex frame that consists of all the members there mentioned But 3. What can you say for your owninâ—â—f Commissaries now when again actualâ—â— they do depend upon Bishops I â—now none of you who at this day scruples or declines the Commissaries Authority â—nd Courts though actually they do depend upon Bishops Yet give me leave I think according to your principles ye ought to disown and decline them otherwise I shall be glade to learn of you how you free your selves of Perjury And if ye can acknowledge a Commissary notwithstanding the Covenant pray give me your reason why not a Bishop too But I have yet another breach of Oath to charge you with which ye give me but too just ground for and that is Schism which is both a grievous sin in it self and also expresly abjured in that same second Article of the League And yet ye have been and still are carrying on a fearful and stated Schism whereby this poor Church is robbed of that Peace and Unity which our Lord Christ bequeathed to her in Legacy and this ye do with the greatest activity imaginable as if you were about some unquestionable duty But because I can stay no longer with you at present I shall be content to speak more of this at our next meeting So praying the Lord to give you understanding in all things I bid you farewell THE THIRD DIALOGUE Anent Separation Doub AT our last meeting our conference was anent the Obligation of the Covenants with breach whereof we use to charge you And at parting you by way of Re-crimination charged us with Schism which indeed is both a sin in itself and also expresly abjured in the second Article of the League But I hope we be not guilty of it I. Schism is a very grievous evil indeed even a renting of the Body of Christ which is his Church An evil which the Apostle sets himself much against Rom. 16. vers 17 18. 1 Cor. 1. vers 12 13. c. and Chap. 3. Eph. 4. vers 3 4 5. c. Phil. 2. vers 1 2 3. and in other places An ill that Satan began to make use of as one of his main engines against the Church even in the Apostles times and in sundry ages since An ill which sundry of the Fathers of the Church have in their Generations withstood and given testimony against Cyprian is full to this purpose in his Book de unitate Ecclesiae where among other things he saith An secum esse Christum cum collecti fuerunt opinantur qui extra Christi Ecclesiam colliguntur Tales etiamsi occisi fuerint in confessione nâ—minis Macula ista nec sanguine abluituâ—â— in expiabiliâ— gravis culpa discer aâ—â—â—â— nec passione purgatur Esse Martyr non potest qui 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non est Ad regnum porvenire nâ—â— poterit qui eam quae regnatura est derelinquit Pacem nobis Christus dedit Concordes atque unanimes esse praecepit dilectiones charitatis foedera inviolatae servare mundavit exhibere se non potest Martyrem qui fraternam non tenuit charitatem Ita Paulus 1 Cor. 13. Etsi habuero fidem charitatem antem non habeam nihil sum That is Do those who gather themselves together without the Church think Christ is with them so gathered such though they were even slain in confessing his Name yet that blot Schism is not washen away with their bloud the inexpiable sin of discord is not purged by their suffering He cannot be a Martyr who is not in the Church He cannot come to the Kingdom who forsakes her the Church that is to reign Christ left and commanded us peace and that we keep inviolable the bonds of Charity c. And much more to this purpose that Father hath in the foresaid Book Jerome saith Nullum Schisma est nisi sibi aliquam Haeresin confingat ut recte ab Ecclesia recessisse videatur Where he shews that Schism and Heresie at least something like it uses to go together And Epist ad Pammâ—chium Quis scindit Ecclesiam nos quorum omnis domus Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicat an tu qui aut bene credis superbe de fide taces aut male vere scindis Ecclesiam That is Who rents the Church we who communicat in the Church or you who believing well proudly holds thy peace or believing ill truly rents the Church Where he seemeth to say That even he who holds his peace and declares not against Schism is guilty of Schism too Augâ—stin Tractat. 27. in Joannem Anima tuâ— non vivificat nisi membra quae sunt in caâ—â— ne tua c. Haec dicuntur ut amemus unitatem timeamus separationem Nihil enim debet sic formidare Christianus quaâ—â— separari a corpore Christi Sic enim non est membrum ejus nec vegetatur Spiritu ejus Where he shews That Separatists are like members cut off from the body and so can receive no life from the soul that quickens the body The Church is like the Lilly among Thorns Cant. 2.2 And Schism is one of those Thorns and the harder to be pulled out because Schismaticks have always looked on themselves as the only men and Christians of the first Magnitude and so do ye and I am heartily sorry ye give me such ground to charge you with this sin D. Every Separation is not a sinful Schism I. True every Separation is not a Schism as the word Schism is ordinarily taken to signifie a causeless separating For Protestants justifie their separating from the Church of Rome since they could not hold Communion with her without sin That Church being idolatrous in her Worship and in Doctrine erronious even to the perverting of Fundamentals by consequence at least as Protestant Divines shew But I think you guilty of a sinful Separation which is Schism and that al 's groundless and unreasonable as any you shall read of in any age of the Church D. Wherein are we guilty of Schism I. First in your dividing from us in that Christian Charity which ye owe unto us which I may call Heart-schism and is the ground of your external Schisms in dividing from us in Acts of Religious Worship Ye are a people at least many of you who make difference in judgement about matters only of a secondary nature such as the outward Policy or Government of the Church a ground for difference in affection and uncharitableness as if such who are not of your way and perswasion in these matters could not be real Christians with your selves And thus you put disputable points of lesser concernment into your Creed And many of you can with great freedom un-saint all who are not of your opinion in these things And so ye Un-church and condemn all Christians that have been in all ages almost and places of the World since Christs time who ye will find have owned Bishops
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
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