occasion to speak of from the community of Name still used by the Apostle even after the change was made Secondly because that decree which Jerome says was made over all the world for introducing Bishops had it been after the Apostles times we should have some account of it in antiquity about what year after what manner in what Council c. that Decree was made and no change that followed upon it but the vestige of this is to be found Thirdly The supposing such an universal change of Government after the Apostles were gone will infer that shortly after the Apostles there was an universal defection in all the Christian world from that Government which ye think the Apostles left as unalterable in the Church which is very hard to imagine What! Not one honest man in all the world that we hear of to open his mouth and oppose this innovation but without contradiction Toto orbe decretum est how cold will you make the zeal of those Primitive Christians to have been in respect of your own now adays Fourthly because Jerome tells us this change was made ad tollenda schismata And in remedium schismatis to take away Schism Now to think that the Apostles left a Government in the Church which was liable to this great inconvenience of Schism and that those who came after saw cause to change that Government unto another for shunning of the foresaid evil Is too great an Imputation upon the wisdom of the Apostles and too great a preferring of Posterity before them But this is salv'd if we say that the Apostles themselves forseeing that parity would breed Schism did before their departure for preventing of this set Bishops over Presbyters Fifthly because this same Jerome in sundry places of his writings derives the Original of Bishops as high as the Apostles if not higher de Scriptor Eccles he says Jacobus ab Apostolis statim c. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christs Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem and that to him succeded Simon And on Galat. 1.19 He says as much of Titus at Crete of Polycarp at Smyrna of Epaphroditus at Philippi and again de Scrip. Eccles He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria and in Epist ad Euagrium says Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filij ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesia vendicent That is that we may know the Apostolical Traditions to be taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church And Epist 54. Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi With us the Bishops hold the room of the Apostles And Epist 1. Ad Heliodorum And dialog adversus Luciferianos and Epist ad Riparium adversus Vigilantium Miror Sanctum Episcopum in cujus Paraecia esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virga Apostolica confringere vas initile Where you see he calls the Bishop's power Virga Apostolica The Apostolical Rod or which was derived from them These and moe Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings to shew that he deduces Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves So that if you think in some places he cryeth down Bishops as an invention later than the Apostles you shall find that in many moe places he makes them high enough And if you will needs have this Father to contradict himself it will be with advantage to Bishops For for one word against them he speaks three for them But if you will save his Credit you must understand that change he speaks of to have been in the Apostles own times D. But Jerome says Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Let Bishops know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then by the truth of the Lords appointment Which words shew that Episcopacy came into the Church by custom not by any divine right I. Some are of opinion that Jerome speaks of that authority Bishops were then invested with over Presbyters beyond what the first Bishops were this he saith they had attained to by custom for in the same Epistle he maketh three subordinate degrees of Clergy and that Ex traditione Apostolica By Apostolical Tradition which words have much perplexed those of your perswasion So that if you think Jerome by Consuetudo meaneth Custome which came in after the Apostles times you shall make him say and unsay in one and the same Epistle But if by Consuetudo be meant that Authority the Bishops in his time did exercise beyond what the first Bishops did no such inconvenience will follow And that he is so to be understood appears from this that in equalling the Bishop as he was at first with the Presbyter he saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter Excepta Ordinatione That is What doth the Bishop which the Presbyter doth not except Ordination Where you see though he make the Bishop above the Presbyter as to Ordination yet he seemeth to equal them as to Jurisdiction And this seems agreeable to what he saith that at first inter plures Ecclesiae cura divisa and Communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernatae Ecclesiae i. e. Presbyters did at first by common counsel govern the Churches which doth not necessarily exclude the first Bishops And afterward speaking of the power that accresced in after times to Bishops he saith ad unum omnis Ecclesiae cura delata est all the care of the Church was put over upon one He seems to mean that the Bishops afterward acted solely to avoid schism that arose from the disagreeing of many Counsels thus some answer that place of Jerome 2. Others as the learned Davenant think That by dominicae dispositionis veritas Jerome meant Christ's express Command and by Consuetudo Apostolical practice begun by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And this is very probable for this same Jerome writing ad Marcellum about the observation of Lent saith it is apostolica traditio and adversus Luciferianos calleth it Ecclesiae consuetudo so that according to him what was begun by the Apostles may be called Church custome because continued by the Church So then this will be Jerom's meaning Bishops are greater than Presbyters not by Christ's express Command but by custome brought into the Church by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And now to say no more of this Father whom you take to be the great prop of your Cause in antiquity consider seriously these few things anent him 1. Doth not Jerome expresly speak of an Apostolical right at least that Episcopacy hath and that in very many places of his writings as I hinted before 2. Where he seems to speak otherwise suppose he were to be understood in your meaning which is to
make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
so gross a violation pass so smoothly and without very great contradiction But further to let you see that those Divines come even as great a length as needeth to be desired Blondel in his Apologia Pag. 25. Speaking of the very first meetings of Presbyters that were in the beginning of Christianity he saith Antiquissimo inter Collegas primatus contigit i. e. The primacy fell upon the eldest and Pag. 53. he grants that this first Presbyter had the chief hand in Ordination and afterward that it was for this place that Diotrephes made so much ado and is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Thebuthus did the like at Jerusalem shortly after And again he confesses that this Primus Presbyter had authority with his precedency quis enim saith he Praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet and lest it seems he be thought to give too much power to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Presbyter as indeed he giveth him an Episcopal power he addeth Ego sane hanc Politi◠formam ab initio observatam Christianis traditam libere crediderim sed ut mutabilem pro usu arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam Where after he hath confessed a first Presbyter with an Episcopal power in effect finding this too high a concession which yet truth enforceth him to he sayeth that that form was mutable at the pleasure of the Church And Chamier confesseth that there was always from the beginning a Primus Presbyter or first Minister and that he had Novam potestatem Jurisdictionem ne esset Episcopatus merus titulus i. e. A new power and Jurisdiction that his Episcopacy might not be a meer title This he confesseth when pressed with Testimonies out of antiquity And what needs more than we find Blondel and him confessing And Moulen in Epist 3. to Bishop Andrews at last granteth that Ordo Episcopalis est juris Apostolici i. e. The Episcopal Order is by Apostolical right and then lest he should seem by this concession altogether to have yielded up the Cause to the Bishop he subjoyneth a distinction betwixt jus Apostolicum and jus divinum And that although he grant Episcopacy to have Apostolical warrant yet that will not infer a Divine unalterable warrant for saith he some things which were brought into the Church by Apostolical prudence as fit for that time are now abrogate as Deaconesses Stillingfleet in his Irenicum Pag. 230. useth this same evasion To whom the learned and judicious Author of the account of ancient Church-government among other things returns this answer that it 's granted that some Apostolical practices yea and constitutions are alterable because they were introduced by the Apostles upon reasons and considerations not holding equally for all places times and persons but if some be thus alterable yet it follows not that therefore any or all are so And then the question will be who shall judge what practices are alterable what not or when the reasons of them are dispensable when not Now I suppose none can rationally say that any private man or lesser part of a Society is competent Judge of these practices and reasons else what confusion will ensue every one establishing or abrogating what he pleaseth but this belongeth to the Church in her Representativ's and accordingly we find Bishops and Councils have retained and declared Episcopacy downward from the Apostles through many Centuries of years as the standing unalterable Apostolical Government and that reasons of its first Institution do hold still to wit preservation of Unity shunning of Schism and the like But these Apostolical practices which were founded on temporary reasons and occasions were permitted to run into a desuetude Thus you see what shifts the ablest Pens who have set themselves against Episcopacy are driven unto to shun a Conquest And truely by their great concessions which they are forced to from evidence in antiquity they yield the whole Cause Hence it is we find them speaking so uncertainly in their Writings Sometime one would think disputing down all Bishops or rather up Presbytrie at an other time setting up Bishops higher and more early than their purpose can well allow or consist with the Scope of their Debates sometime again expressing their great respect for Bishops and sincere wishes that such Churches as had them might still retain that happiness as I hinted before And I also shew that their purpose mainly was to vindicate the practice of their own Churches in having parity and not to cry down Episcopacy especially that which was in Protestant Churches as Beza expresly professes so did Blondel in the close of his Apologia of which I spoke before D. There have been many moe Protestant Divines of great note who lived since the Reformation in Europe may be many of those have been no friends to Episcopacy I. Durel View of Government supposeth a Council to be called consisting of the most famous Protestant Divines who since the Reformation have lived in all the Churches abroad France Geneve Switzerland Bohem Poland Holland and the sundry parts of Germany c. And maketh Calvin Moderator and puts Episcopacy to the Vote among them and out of their Writings delivereth their opinions in favours of Episcopacy You may see this at length in Durels View of Government from Pag. 199. to Pag. 309. And to them I may add our own John Knox who as is to be seen before the old Psalm Book in the year 1560. preached in Edinburgh at the admission of the superintendent of the three Lothians a diocy large enough which act was more Episcopal like than Presbyterian Thus I have deduced unto you Episcopacy from Scripture from the most primitive times which followed after the Apostles and from the confessions and concessions of the ablest Protestant Divines all which I think ought and will be very convincing to any who is pleased to lay aside prejudice and impartially make search after truth in this point To what I have said before I add these few things The Author of Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani are at great pains to produce some Fathers Schoolmen and some Episcopal Divines in England who were of opinion that betwixt Presbyter and Bishop there is little or no difference To which I say that the debate among the Schoolmen is meerly whether Bishop and Presbyter are diversi ordines different orders or only diversi gradus ejusdem ordinis divers degrees of one and the same Order Now this says nothing against Episcopacy for even these who think they differ only in degree yet notwithstanding might be of the mind that always from the Apostles downward there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters howbeit the difference was not so great as to constitute a different Order but only a higher degree or eminency as some speak in the same Order And these Fathers and late Episcopal Divines might be of the same mind This is sure all of them looked on Episcopacy as lawful and useful in the Church
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