make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
yea and Liturgies Festival-days and other Ceremonies c. And with whom therefore ye would have taken more ground to quarrel than with us and if ye be come the length to think the removing of these things necessary to make a true Church as may be some of you are then according to you there hath not been a true Church in the World for much above a thousand years together if according to your own calculation we begin but to reckon from the second or third Century downward D. You cannot deny that many things crept into the Church that were not from the beginning or of Christs and his Apostles institution and such are these things you have named I. That all these things named have crept into the Church as you say since the Apostles times will not be granted You know Bishops are said to have been even from the Apostles times And Eusebius Hist lib. 5. cap. 22. says that in the dabate about the time of keeping of Easter betwixt Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and Victor Bishop of Rome Polycrates alledgeth the Apostle John's authority and practice for himself in that matter But suppone it were granted to you that these things are of later date than the Apostles will you thence inter that those who used them could be no good Christians or that you can not allow them your Charity Know you not that there may be many things used about the ordering of Gods House and his Worship which in themselves are indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden and therefore the Church as she seeth fit may use her Christian liberty about such things I pray you consider Rom. Chap. 14. There was a great debate among those first Christians anent the use of the Ceremonial Law and albeit such as thought they were now no more bound by that Law having purchased their liberty by Christ and therefore neither regarded one day nor one kind of meat above another were in the right yet Paul commands them to bear with the infirmities of the weak and not despise them but still account them brethren and retain Charity notwithstanding of their error The weak again were much like your selves very ready to judge the strong and to be uncharitable to them This the Apostle forbiddeth Who art thou who judgest another mans Servant vers 4 Socrates in his Church History lib. 5. cap. 22. Tells what diversity of customs was among Christians in those first times and yet no uncharitable judging of one another as ye use How justly and severely was Victor Bishop of Rome blamed by Irenaeus for his rash uncharitable zeal much like your own in excommunicating all the Eastern Churches because they did not keep Easter on that day that he did Though Irenaeus was of Victors judgement about the thing in debate yet he much discommended his uncharitable behavior toward Polycrates and the Asian Churches Euseb lib. 5. Cap. 23. Now as ye are guilty of heart Schism which is uncharitableness so expresly forbidden in many Scriptures especially in 1 Cor. 13. Chap. throughout So ye are guilty of External Schism in separating from our Church-communion in the Word and Sacraments and all other duties of Religious Worship contrary to the Apostles Direction Heb. 10.25 Forsaâ—â— not the assembling of your selves together as the manner of some is It seems there were some Separatists even at that time who being misled by a misinformed Judgement or by pride and singularity as Calvin noteth on the place did forsake the ordinary and orderly Assemblies of Christians It is a received Maxim among Divines Opinionem varietas Opiniantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is Variety of Opinions about matters of a secondary Nature and Unity among those who vary in such Opinions may well consist together D. All of us do not altogether forsake your Assemblies some do but now and then leave their own Paroch Churches I. Indeed ye are not all guilty of Separation in the same degree yet the least degree is unwarrantable and ought to be avoided It may be observed how people turn not Separatists of the highest degree at first but proceed from step to step First they begin to withdraw sometimes from their own Congregation then they come to withdraw more ordinarily and at length altogether Some when they withdraw from their own Paroch will not go hear ordinarily at least such as are discharged by Law but some other Minister who either preaches under the Government or is Indulged by the King and his Council and within a little will hear none of them Some will hear but not partake of the Sacraments in their own Congregation and so acknowledges their Minister in one part of his Office but not in another Upon what grounds they do so I confess I am not able to understand for I hope they disclaim the Popish error that the Efficacy of the Sacraments depend upon the intention of the Minister Now I say an advised Christian will do well to take heed and beware of any the least degree of Separation both because unwarrantable in it self and because it maketh way for a further degree and that second for a third and so unsâ—â—t people may take a running that they shall not know where to make 〈◊〉 stand Have we not seen some turn at â—ength Bronnists and some Quakers yea Mr. Baxter in his Cure of Church Divisions Pag. 268. tells of some in England who turning Separatists at length died Apostat Infidels deriding Christianity and the imortality of the Soul D. There are among your selves who will not be constant and ordinary hearers in their own Congregations What say you of them I. I say such are very reprovable for doing that which hath in it the seeds of greater Schism And those Ministers though conform to whom people of anothers charge use to resort are bound to declare against it unless great distance of place from their own Paroch Church or other insuperable lets hinder their ordinar frequenting of their own Congregation and their absence be not grounded upon any disrespect unto or disesteem of their own Minister Otherwise I say that Minister to whom they come is bound to declare against such practices And if he do not it 's presum'd desire of applause and self-love makes him hold his peace and prevails more with him than love to the peace and unity of the Church D. It 's very hard to hinder me from going where I can be most edified we are bidden covet the best Gifts 1 Cor. 12. vers last And a man may go where he can have the best dinner I. I hear that useth to be your language as for that place 1 Cor. 12. last The Apostle is not directing private Christians what Gifts in others to seek after for their edification but shews that though there are diversities of Gifts and every one should be content with his own Gif given him for the edification of others yet so that he seek after better not in others
a Bishop is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop but he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters And Chrysostome saith That betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter there is little difference Yet both these Fathers you see acknowledge that a difference there is and they were both Bishops themselves Their opinion might be that Bishop and Presbyter differ gradu non ordine that they might be both one Order and differ only in Degree Which is still a debate in the Schools So may be said of the rest cited by Medina 4. That these Fathers were for a difference even by Divine or Apostolick warrant will appear from other places in their writings D. What For a Divine Right Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith that after distinction was made in the Church betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet was it never accounted by antiquity to be jure divino by Divine Right I. I shew you the contrary from Irenaeus Tertullian and others yea and from Jerome himself Now for those other Fathers First hear Ambrose in his Comment on 1 Cor. 12.28 Quosdam posuit apostolos he saith ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro Act. 1. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And on vers 29. Nurquid omnes apostoli verum est saith he quia in ecclesia unus est Episcopus Also on Phil. 1.1 Rather then he will allow by Bishops in that place single Presbyters to be meant he expounds those Bishops not of such as resided at Philippi because saith he in one Church there could be but one Bishop but of Bishops and Deacons who were with Paul when he wrot that Epistle as I told you before So on 1 Tim. 3. Timotheus Episcopus erat And for Augustine on Psalm 45.16 by Fathers he means the Apostles and by the Sons the Bishops who he saith succeeded to the Apostles And contra Cresconium lib. 2. Cap. 37. Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam primus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit i. e. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem And Epist 122. he saith divina voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae Speaking of the Angels Revel 2.3 and contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 51. Quid tibi fecit ecclesiae Romanae cathedra in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet i. e. What ill hath the Chair of Rome so he calls the Episcopal Authority done to thee in which Peter once did sit and in which Anastasius now sitteth From these and the like passages in Augustine we maâ— know what his meaning is when writiâ—g to Jerome he saith Qâ—anquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit Espiscopatus Presbyterio major sit there he speaks of the use of these words what it was at that time in respect of former times Honorum vocabula clearly shews this Then hear Chrysostome on 1 Tim. 4.14 Cum impositione manuum presbyterii Non de presbyteris loquitur sed de Episcopis neque enim presbyteri Episcopum Timotheum ordinabant i. e. That place speaketh not of Presbyters but of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordain Timothy who was a Bishop Sundry Testimonies might be produced out of other Fathers deducing the original of Bishops from the Apostles or higher Cyprian is full to this purpose Epist 27. ad Lapsos he saith that Episcopacy is founded divina lege by the Divine Law and Epist 68. he calleth it Traditio divina observatio Apostolica and for this adduceth Act. 1.15 Quando in ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur i. e. Peter there speaks to the people of ordaining a Bishop in the room of Judas See also Epist 69. Epist 42. and Epist 10 11 12. c D. What antiquity saith moveth 〈◊〉 not nor resolve I in this matter to be concluded by Fathers or Councils who werâ— fallible or by Apostolical Traditions There were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as the millenary opinion and giving the communion to Infants I. Yet you can grip very closs to the least shadow in antiquity which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversie and can manage it to your best advantage but when you say that you resolve not to be concluded by antiquity herein by this you clearly confess that antiquity pincheth you sore and you are like to be born down by the stream of it Tertullian saith Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio id quod ab Apostolis id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerat sacro sanctum As for these corruptions you name which early crept into the Church they were not so generally and universally received as Episcopacy was nor could they ever so clearly deduce their Original from the Apostles D. Notwithstanding all you say to make Bishops as ancient as the Apostles yet the authority of those great protestant Divines who have opposed Episcopacy prevails much with one to suspect Bishops cannot lay claim so high I Suffer not your judgement to be captivated by the Name or Authority of any man without proof I fear there be too much implicite faith among us which we condemn in Papists and besides may be the opposition of the most knowing and learned Protestants to Episcopacy is not so great as you imagine D. What think you of Calvin is not he much against Episcopacy in his Writings as he was also in his practise when he lived a Minister at Geneve in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren there where Presbyterian parity as it had been in purest primitive times was again revived I. Before you take the Government of Geneve to be a reviving of primitive parity as you say It is fit you first solidly answer all I have produced to shew that from the Apostles dounward there were always Bishops over Ministers or Presbyters even in the purest times I will not insist to shew you that when Geneve reformed Religion she had no purpose to put away Episcopacy if it could have been preserved You may read Durel's view of Government from pag. 151. to 161. who will inform you in this Nor will I debate whither Calvin lived in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren only hear what Mason apologizing for the Government of Geneve defence of ordin pag. 175. speaking of Calvin and Beza saith They being chosen to a place of eminency and endued with Jurisdiction they having preeminence in every action and consequently in Ordination none can with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal Office This he speaketh of them in respect of the rest of the Ministers at Geneve And B. Andrews Resp 3. ad Molineum speaking of Calvin and Beza says Quid attinet abolere nomen retinere rem Nam illorum uterque dum vixerunt quid erant
The said Authors of Jus Divinum Minist Angli Pag. 64. say that Eusebius Irenaeus and others c. were in many things deceived themselves and the cause of deceiving others Answ 1. They are hard put to it when they seek to relieve themselves by discrediting these ancients 2. Suppone it were granted that Eusebius was in some things deceived must he therefore all along be deceived when he speaks of Bishops superior to Presbyters He makes it a great part of his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the most famous Primitive Churches and to say that in all this he was deceived is Gratis dictum said but not proved 3. It 's strange if also Irenaeus was deceied who flourished above a hundred years before Eusebius and had seen Polycarp who was the Apostle John's contemporary and disciple Who can believe he could be ignorant what the Government of the Church had been from the Apostles downward living so near to their times 4. Is it not much more probable that Jerome might be deceived if we understand him to speak of the introducing of Bishops after the Apostles times Certainly it is more like he might be mistaken than either Eusebius or Irenaeus who lived long before him They say further that Irenaeus by Bishops meant no more but Presbyters Pag. 114 115. And Pag. 65. that the Fathers and Councils spake of Church-Officers of former times according to the Stile of their own times And again when pressed with the Catologues of Bishops out of Irenaeus and others they say that these Bishops were only the first ordained Presbyters and therefore this first ordained Presbyter is named and the rest passed by for the more expedit reckoning and the Line of Succession only drawn from the first ordained Minister Some of these answers are inconsistent For 1. They say Eusebius and Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops and next they say that by the Bishops Irenaeus only meant Presbyters Now how unsatisfactory these answers and the like are the impartial Reader may judge Only heaâ— what Bucer says De animarum cura inter scripta Anglicana Pag. 280. Where after he hath related Jerom's words which seem to make Bishops of later date than the Apostles he saith Credibile non est diu neque etiam in cunctis Ecclesiis ita observatum esse Nam apud patres Hieronymo â—etustiores clara habemus testimonia quod etiam Apostolorum temporibus unus e Presbyteris electus atque ordinatus est qui caeteris omnibus praevit Ministerium Episcopale praecipue in summo gradu gessit Where he shews that even from the Apostles downward there was in the chief Churches always a Bishop over Presbyters And so he goeth on to shew that James was Bishop of Jerusalem and that the like Order was keeped in other Churches Quantum ex omnibus historiis Ecclesiasticis cognoscere possumus and cites Tertullian Cyprian Irenaeus Eusebius to prove this All more ancient than Jerome D. I confess you have cleared me of sundry doubts I had anent Bishops I thought little or nothing could be said for them but that they were a meer groundless and godless usurpation in the Church for we have been taught to cry them down by all means yet there is one thing ought I think barr them to the door of this Church for ever and that is the Covenants by which we are sworn against them But since I can stay no longer with you at this time I am content to hear what you can say to this at next meeting I. Much more might be said for Bishops Yet there is enough said if you be free of prejudice And since you can stay no longer I shall be willing to commune with you anent the Obligation of the Covenant against Bishops at another time and so I bid you farewel If Blondel when he says pag. 53. Egâ— sane hanc politiae formam ab initio observatam libere concederem sed mutabilem tamen c. Speak of a primitive parity yet saith that form was mutable Prefat ad apolog pag. 59. Hieronymus hanc formam i. e. Episcopacy non modo non improbavit sed pro pacis bono semper admisit And in that same place vindicats Jerome from Aerianism And in that same place he says Episcopacy is forma regiminis non per se mala damnabilis sed adnatis sensim corruptelis viz. under poprie vitiatae and denys not but that protestanti sola corruptelarum resectione contenti esse poterant vitiatam deplorabant And more to this purpose he thought therefore Episcopacy in it self lawful Cassand Consult Artic. 14. Illi certe merito reprehendendi sunt qui odio abusuum in his ordinibus dignitatibus universum hunc ordinem quem Hierarchicon appellant ut nervum Antichristi sublatum volunt Nec minus illi accusandi qui inani titulo inflati eoque ad dominatum quendam vel etiam ad cupiditatem avaritiam abutentes neglecto quod Ecclesiae debent officio hominibus etiam non malis huic Ecclesiastico ordini detrahendi ab eo deficiendi occasionem dederunt THE SECOND DIALOGUE Anent the Obligation of the Covenants against Episcopacy Doub HAving some spare time I am come to spend it with you as I promised at our last parting I told you then that Bishops are abjured in the Covenant so that none may with a good conscience either submit to 〈…〉 them and we look upon all these 〈◊〉 â—â—sters that preach under them as perjured persons I. Ye use indeed upon all occasions to be liberal enough in charging Ministers and many others in the time with Perjury and this ye do with the greatest freedome and confidence imaginable but it is sooner said than prov'd Ye would act more Christian like if ye were more sparing in judging another mans Servants who stand or fall to their own Master Ye use to impute unto us acting against our own Light also I pray learn to be more Charitable D. You know there were Covenants sworn wherein Bishops are abjured and we all stand bound against them I. All bound There are many both people and Ministers at this day who never took the Covenant and think you them bound against Bishops D. Yes I think they are For the Covenant bindeth all not only those who took it but their Posterity also I. That is a strange fancy Casuists say Juramentum est vinculum personale i. e. an Oath is a personal tye that only bindeth him that took it And so consonant to this the Covenant sayeth We every one for our selves and not for our selves and our posterity I suppone the Father who was in his judgement against Bishops did take the Covenant his Son who groweth up afterward is in his judgement for Bishops It seemeth very hard that the Son should be by the Father's Oath prelimited in his judgement about a disputable point or else obliged to act contrary to his judgement Is not this
this because it is Paul and Barnabas whâ—… are said to do this work expressed her by the Greek word and not the people Now you will not say that Paul and Barnabas did elect Ministers to these Churches that were to yield the question Therefore in our Translation it is said when they that is Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church they prayed and commended them to the Lord. Now all these were the actions of Paul and Barnabas not of the people And 3. If you mean by this Word the peoples electing Ministers by suffrages you lose by it and gives great advantage to Independents who are for popular elections of Ministers Whereas ye give this power not to all the people but to the Session And therefore observing Presbyterians have forborn to press this place as you expound it But 2. If you think the Ministers election either by People or Session essential that is so necessary to make one a Minister to such a people that he cannot be their Minister without it you by this do not only nullify the Ministry of almost the whole Christian World for above a thousand years upward but also in particular the Ministry of this Church of Scotland ever until the year 1649. for not till then were Patronages taken away and the election by Sessions brought in use Now what thanks will you get for this even from many of your selves For not only were all the Protestant Ministers before the year 1638. entered by Presentations but also all the Presbyterian Ministers after the year 1638. till the year 1649. And there are some of them still in Office at this day in the same Congregations to which they entered not by the Sessions election but by the Patrons Presentation yet I think none of you will scruple to hear or own them upon that account nor ever did D. But I look upon Patronages as a corruption abjured in the Covenant I. I pray you let me see in what place And further if Presentations and Patronages be abjured how came it to pass that this Kirk did continue so long under Perjury For from the first taking of the Covenant till the year 1649 Patronages were still in use And it 's strange if all that while this breach of Covenant was not discerned And I told you presently your selves do without scruple hear Ministers of your own perswasion who entered by Presentations from Patrons D. Many of your Ministers are ordained by Bishops and this is another reason why we cannot hear them I. Yet all the Ministers whom ye refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops even all who were ordained betwixt the year 1638. and 1662. or thereby and there are very many of these at this day in this Church whom ye will not hear though they were ordained by a Presbytrie without a Bishop As for your not hearing of such as received Ordination from a Bishop ye would for the same reason have refused to hear those ministers whom Timothy ordained in Ephesus 1 Tim. 5.22 or whom Titus ordained in Crete Tit. 1.5 You may see what Calvin saith on the place And ye would have refused to hear any Minister in the World for many hundreds of years together for all were ordained by Bishops It was early said in the Church Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter excepta Ordinatione Ordination then was accounted the proper act of the Bishop and now Bishops ordain not without the concurrence of Ministers who also have a hand in that action And by this reason of yours ye would have refused to hear those Ministers who were the Members of the Assembly of Glasgow 1638. For though they voted down the Bishops yet all of them generally had been ordained by Bishops few or none excepted and had sworn obedience to them too And further by this reason ye should refuse to hear some at this day who though they do not conform now to Episcopacy yet were ordained by Bishops before the year 1638. and without scruple ye can hear such of the validity of Ordination by Bishops see at length the London Presbyterians in their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani from Pag. 17. especially from pag. 25. to pag. 32. or further if you will to pag. 49. D. Though many of the Ministers of the time were ordained by Presbytrie without a Bishop yet now they are turned Curats no less than such as are ordained by the Bishops and we can hear none who preach under Bishops what ever way they were ordained they are now all of them the Bishops Curats I. By your calling Ministers Curats I know not whither ye manifest more strength of passion or weakness of judgement For as all ye who use that word useth to express your spleen and disdain not fearing Christs word be that despiseth you despiseth me So there be very few among you who know what the word Curate signifieth And even those who know that it signifieth one who hath Curam animarum the care of souls a name no Minister needs be ashamed of but should strive to be in some measure answerable to it yet I suppose know not well many of them how or in what sense it hath been used else they would not so ignorantly misapply it For those use to be called Curats who serve the Cure as they speak though they be not the Ministers who are presented to the place but substituted by them to officiat in their room and hence are called Curats the presented Minister being none resident Now it is not so in this Church But because ye call a Minister the Bishops Curate ye seem to run upon another mistake as if the Bishop were or did assume to himself to be the sole and proper Pastor of the whole Diocess and Ministers were but his substitutes deputed under him as so many helpers I know no Bishop who hath such thoughts of himself or of Ministers what ever ye think or say to cast an odium upon them But why can ye not hear them who preach under the Bishops Government D. They are perjured persons and therefore we cannot hear them I. All who preach under the present Government yea I suppose the most part of them never took the Covenant and therefore are not to be called perjured For I told you at our last conference the Covenant as such cannot bind them who never took it and so such Ministers may be heard notwithstanding of this reason and even those Ministers who took the Covenant and now upon this alteration continue in their Ministry under Bishops are not perjured suppose our Episcopacy be meant in the Covenant for the reasons I gave you at our last communing An Oath made against a thing in it self not unlawful can not bind absolutely or in every case therefore when it 's taken is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations and restrictions otherwise it may come to be a bond of iniquity as this Oath may be is to many