broken I might shew you that not only different opinions about Church Government hath been no hinderance to keep Protestants from joyning together in the Worship of God and other parts of Christian Communion but also when such as differed from others in the manner of their performing Worship have been occasionally in one anothers Churches they have without scruple conformed to the custome of the Church they were in for the time I pray you consider if you Separate from the Church because of Bishops you should on this ground have been a Separatist in almost all ages since Christianity began And if you think Episcopacy such an error and corruption that none ought to hold communion with a Church where it is then you must think Christ holds no Communion with such a Church and if so then it will follow that there have been sundrie ages since Christs time wherein he had no Church on Earth to keep communion with Yea that these thousand six hundred years bygone there hath been but rarely and very seldom a true Church on Earth And so what should become of his Promises to his Church that she should be built on the Rock and against her the gates of Hell should not prevail and that he would be with her alway unto the end of the World And also this were to make Christ a head without members a King without a Kingdom c. Therefore 3. Have charity for such as differ from you in the time and beware of either thinking or saying they have no grace because they are not of your way The Apostle spends a whole Chapter in commending and recommending charity to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 13. chap. Among whom there were corruptions and differences in greater matters than among us 1 Cor. chap. 11. and chap. 15. And remember it 's usual with those who have least truth on their side to have least charity too Rom. chap. 14. These weak Christians who understood not their liberty in being loosed from the Cerimonial Law as they had least truth on their side in respect of the strong who knew their liberty so had they least charity for vers 3 4. They judged the strong Papists will have no charity for Protestants yet Protestants who are in the right dare not met back to them with that measure 4. Consider what hazard we bring our selves under by our unchristian divisions Gal. 5.15 Mark 3.24 And what advantage we give to the common Enemy not only to make us a mock but also a prey It was long ago observed by the Historian Dum singuli pugnant universi vincuntur i. e. While they fight among themselves they are all overcome And the Story of Scilurus injoining his Sons to maintain concord among themselves which he elegantly examplified by the Sheaf of Arrows is known 5. Acquaint your self with the writings of the old non-conformists in England Cartwright Bredshaw Ball Paget Hildersham c. Who wrote and testified against the Brounists and such like Separatists for their separating from the Church of England for which separation much more could have been pretended than ye can for separating from us And you will see how zealously and by what good arguments these men battered down Separation Also Mr. Baxter one of the present non-conformists in England hath written a whole Book against Separation from that Church which he calleth the Cure of Church divisions where he giveth sixtie directions to people to guard them against the sin of Separation some of which I shall but name omiting his enlargements The 6. is That we make not our Terms of Communion with any Church stricker than Christ hath done 7. That we have deep and true apprehensions of the necessitie and reasons of Christian unity and concord and of the sin and misery of division and discord and consider what the Scripture saith herein 19. That we engage not our selves too far in any divided Sect nor Spouse the Interest of any party of Christians to the neglect and injury of the Universal Church and the Christian cause 20. That we be very suspicious of our religious passions and carefully distinguish betwixt a sound and sinful zeal lest we father our sin on the Spiâ—it of God 25. That we be not over-tender of our reputation with any sort of people on Earth nor too impatient of their displeasure censures or contempt but live above them 26. That we use not our selves needlesly to the familiar company of that sort of Chistians who use to censure them that are more sober catholick and charitable than themselves c. Where he saith if ever we shall have peace and love recovered it must be by training up â—â—ung Christians under the precepts and examples of grave judicious and peaceable Guides 31. That Christians never begin too soon with doubtful opinions nor ever lay too much weight upon them 41. That the bare favour of a Preacher nor the loudness of his voice or affectionate utterance draw us not to admire him without a proportion of solid understanding and judiciousness 43. That we reject not a good cause because it may be owned by bad men and own not a bad cause for the goodness of the Patrons of it 44. That we take the bad examples of Religious Persons to be one of our most perilous temptations and therefore learn to discover what are the special sins of Professors in the age we leave in that we may be fortified against them 56. Keep still in our eye the state of all Christs Churches on Earth that we may know what a people they are through the World whom he keeps communion with and may not ignorantly separate from almost all the Churches of Christ while we think we separate but from those about us 60. That we count it al 's comfortable to be a Mâ—n tyre for love and peace by blind Zealots as for the faith by Infidels and Heathens You may perceive that many of you have need of such counsels as these The old English non-conformists though they did dissent from the Ceremonies of that Church and desired a forbearance in those things as to their own practice which is not our case yet fully declared against Separation both by their Practice and Writings some of them have called it the bitter root of Separation the way that God never blest with Peace and Holiness Some Passages out of the English Presbyterians their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani anent the Unwarrantableness of Separation I shall name briefly Pag. 10. It 's agreeable to the will of Christ and much tending to edification that all those that live within the same bounds should be under the care of the same Minister or Ministers to be taught by them and to remove altogether these Parochial bounds would open a gape to thousands to live like sheep without a shepsherd And in a little time would bring in all manner of profaneness and atheism Pag. 11. Object What if a godly man live under a wicked or heretical
learned men have thought Episcopacy lawful though not commanded or by any Scripture president particularly warranted so neither prohibited but left to the prudence and choice of Christians as they shall find it expedient and conducing to the good and peace of the Church D. I think it is forbidden in the Word and therefore unlawful I. Let me hear in what Scripture D. In Mat. 20. ver 25 26 27 28. Where Christ forbiddeth any of his Disciples to be greater than another I. If you think all superiority among Church-men there forbidden you are in a mistake for 1. Christ there speaks to the twelve among whom I can grant there was to be no inequality in respect of power yet they were superior to the seventy Disciples whom Christ also sent to preach the Gospel as Divines commonly think and appears from Act. 1. Where Matthias one of the seventy as Clemens Alexandrin Dorotheus and others affirm him to have been is solemnly chosen and advanced to the Office of Apostleship in the room of Judas and he was numbred with the eleven Apostles vers 26. 2. The thing Christ there discharges is Ambition and not Inequality otherwise the Argument he taketh from his own example vers 28. would not suit his purpose For without controversie Christ was in Power and authority above the twelve But take the words as spoken against ambition or a sinful desire of superiority which afterward was Diotrephes his fault the reason from his own example suits well for though in power he was above all yet in humility he was a pattern to all Humility and Imparity can well consist together D. Christ there says The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion but it shall not be so among you Therefore it seems he discharges all superiority among Church-men I. He only discharges that kind of dominion which civil Princes exercise which is dominium civile despoticum a civil princely or Lordly power but the power of the Church is of another nature And besides sundry Interpreters think that Christ there speaketh against the Tyrranny which heathen Princes of the world exercised over their miserable Vassals and Subjects You may consult Mr. Pool's Collection of Interpreters on the place D. The Apostle 1 Pet. 5.3 says Be not Lords over Gods Heritage Is not superiority among Church-men there clearly forbidden I. Not at all only Domineering and Tyranny is there forbidden which may be the fault of an ordinary Minister towards his flock The Apostle is not there speaking of the carriage of Church-men towards Church-men nor of the equality or inequality of them among themselves but of Church-mens behaviour and carriage what it ought to be towards the people who are there called the flock and Gods heritage D. In the New Testament Bishop and Elder are two words signifying one and the same Officebearer for Act. 20. these who in vers 17. are called Elders vers 28. are called Bishops also Tit. 1. vers 5. and 7. compared together So that Bishop and Elder are the same in Scripture And the word Elder signifies no more but a Minister of a particular Congregation I. I grant these two words are ofttimes in the New Testament used indifferently to express one and the same Officer yet it will not be granted nor can ye ever prove that the Officer meant by these words is never to be understood of any above the degree of an ordinary Minister or that the word Presbyter or Elder signifies only a Minister of a single Congregation and no more For 1. We find the name Elder given to the Apostles themselves 1 Pet. 5.1 Joh. Epist 2.1 and Epist 3.1 And if the Apostles be called Elders Why may not Bishops be called so too 2. Your selves say that the word Elder signifies not only the Preaching Elder or Minister but also the Ruling Elder I can upon as good and better ground say It signifies the Bishop and the Minister both being Elders but of different degrees and consonant to this in some after ages we find those who were unquestionably Bishops yet sometimes designed by the name of Presbyter that is Elder Thus we find Victor Bishop of Rome called Presbyter and Iraeneus Bishop of Lyons called Presbyter Ecclesiae Lugdunensis Though ordinarly at that time such were called Bishops yet some times they are called Presbyters as still remembring the first times of the New Testament when the name was indifferently given to Bishops and Ministers D. The Apostle Philip. 1.1 Speaketh of Bishops in the plural number in that Church who were only Ministers since there could not be many Bishops over Ministers in that one Church of Philippi I. Ambrose a Father of the Church thinks the Bishops in that place not to be understood of Bishops at Philippi but of certain Bishops who were present with Paul when he wrot that Epistle and in whose name he writes to the Philippians joyning them with himself Others think there might be sundry Bishops of the Churches about conveened at that time at Philippi and Paul knowing of this might write to and salute them together with that Church For ye see he first names all the Saints at Philippi as those to whom he mainly intended to write and then the Bishops and Deacons But granting by these Bishops and Deacons the Officers of that same Church of Philippi to be meant I ask you where are the Ruling Elders here If you say they are included in the word Bishops I can upon better ground affirm that Bishops there signifies both the superior Bishop and the ordinary Ministers under him Ministers may be called Bishops even as in that same Epistle Epaphroditus is called Apostle Chap. 2. vers 25. For the word in the Greek is Apostle But further I say may be there was no Bishop over Presbyters settled as yet at Philippi D. In Eph. 4.11 The Apostle reckoning up Church-Officers makes no mention of Bishops I. It is ill reasoning that because such an Officer is not found in such a particular place or in such an enumeration Therefore such an Officer is no where to be found in Scripture For how prove you that the Apostle in that place intended a full and compleat enumeration 2. I say Bishops in that place may be comprehended under Pastors and Teachers Bishops being such though in a superior degree to ordinary Pastors and Teachers And if you will have a perfect enumeration of all Church-Officers there you must comprehend Ruling Elders and Deacons under some of those words in that place and why may not I do so with Bishops D. Well though may be there is no discharge of Episcopacy so I suppose neither is there any ground in the word for that kind of Government more then any other and thus the best you can make of it will be that it is not unlawful so neither necessary and therefore when it comes to be inexpedient it may be altered and a better put in its place I. If ye will promise not to stand out against
sexto pag. 358. Thinketh that Timothy and Titus were first Evangelists and afterwards settled Bishops by Paul the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. Paul Act. 20.27 Gives a charge to the Elders or Ministers of Ephesus and not to Timothy which he would not have omitted had Timothy been their Bishop and it is very probable that Timothy was present at that time for vers 4. we find him in Pauls company I. May be according to Gerards opinion Timothy was not as yet settled Bishop of Ephesus 2. Iraeneus who lived not long after the Apostles and vvas Bishop of Lions in France lib. 3. cont Valentin cap. 14. is of the mind that there were of the Asian Bishops mingled vvith the Elders of Ephesus and vvith Timothy their Bishop and that to them all in common Paul made that exhortation and Bishops might very vvell be comprehended under the name of Elders in that place since I shevv you before that Apostles are sometimes called Elders D. How prove you that Timothy and Titus were Bishops for I have great doubt about it I. I prove it first from this because in these Epistles more particularly and fully then any vvhere else in the Nevv Testa directions are given by Paul to Timothy and Titus how to carry in Ordination and Jurisdiction which two comprehend the Episcopal Office He sheweth them what qualifications they must require in those that are to be ordained that they lay hands suddenly on no man and giveth them sundry directions anent Church Government how to rebuke offenders no to receive an aecusation against an Elder but before two or three witnesses how to deal with Hereticks c. 1 Tim. 5.1 19 21. Tit. 3.10 and 1. v. 5 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.22 17. also ch 3.10 And in other places of these Epistles Now these are directions which concern not that Age only but all Ages of the Church and therefore were given not personally to Timothy and Titus but in them to their Successors Why I pray you will any have Timothy and Titus to be extraordinary Officers in their acting of these things which they cannot deny are of ordinary use in the Church What wonder as the King in his last reply at the Isle of Wight hints that some have affirmed those Acts of Ordination and Jurisdiction vvere in themselves extraordinary for ye have led them the vvay in saying that Timothy and Titus in their exercising those Acts vvere extraordinary Officers Then I prove it from this because their commission at Ephesus and Crete vvas not voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places and therefore their Office vvas to be constant For if meerly as Evangelists they vvere to settle a Church there then as soon as some fevv Ministers had been ordained Timothy and Titus vvere to cease and give vvay to the Presbytrie there settled frustra fit per plura c. but they did not so nor did their Commission run so Titus vvas left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Tit. 1.5 that is Ministers vvhich had been needless if some fevv Elders after they vvere ordained themselves might have ordained others Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici pag. 185. Defending Ordination by Church-men against such as claimed that povver to the people says Why was Titus left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City or Timothy at Ephesus might not the people have done that themselves if they have a right to do so May not the Argument be turned against the Authors of that Book themselves thus Why vvas Timothy left at Ephesus or Titus at Crete after Ministers vvere there ordained by the Apostle himself vvhen on the place or after some fevv were ordained by Timothy and Titus if those Ministers so ordained could have ordained the rest 3. I prove it from 1 Tim. 6.13 14. Where Paul solemnly charges Timothy to keep what he had commanded him till the appearing of Jesus Christ Now the Presbyterians in their Jus divinum Ministerij pag. 74. say that the directions given to Timothy were not for that age only but for all ages of the Church and bring this place to prove it which is like Mat. 28.20 I am with you always even unto the end of the world and they compare the foresaid charge with 1 Tim. 5. ver 7 21. Whence it would follow that Timothy and Titus were not extraordinary Officers but were to have successors in those Offices they then administrated which we see were superiour to ordinary Ministers and pag. 160. they say Apostolical examples in things necessary for the good of the Church and which carry a perpetual reason and equity in them have the force of a rule Now the Apostle his setting Timothy and Titus single persons over those Churches is an Apostolical example done for the good of the Church and hath a perpetual reason and equity in it Lastly I could prove this by the Testimony of many great men in the Church both Ancient and Modern Polycrats born within fourty years after John wrot his Epistle to the Church of Ephesus Rev. 2. In an ancient Treatise de Martyrio Timothei as it is cited by either in his original of Episcopacy pag. 58. affirms that Timothy was Bishop of that Church Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms the like Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the general council of Chalcedon Act. 11. declareth that from Timothy there had been a continued Succession of twenty seven Bishops in the Church of Ephesus Jerom de scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis makes Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 4. doth the like Abraham Scultetus on Titus affirmeth that Timothy and Titus were properly Bishops in their several places and that the directions given by Paul to them in these Epistles were given to them and to their Successors Gerhard Tom. 6. maketh them both Bishops as I told you before I might produce moe Testimonies but these may suffice D. Albeit you say much to make Timothy and Titus Bishops yet Paul sayeth that Timothy was ordained by the Presbytrie 1 Tim. 4.14 Therefore I think he could not be their Bishop for a Presbytrie which is but a company of Ministers cannot make a bishop I. Some among whom Calvin think that by Presbytery the Apostle meaneth not a company of Ministers but the Office of a Minister or Presbyter But suppone the company of Presbyters be meant yet these might be not the inferior degree of Presbyters or Ministers but the Superior degree who are bishops and that bishops be called presbyters ought not to seem strange since I told you the Apostles themselves are sometimes called Presbyters 3. 2 Tim. 1.6 The Apostle sayeth Timothy was ordained by the laying on of his hands so that what was substantial in that Ordination as Interpreters of good note think was from Paul although the Presbytry of Ministers if you will might share in the ceremonial part of it 4. If you say Timothy an Evangelist was ordained by inferior Elders you
to prove Episcopacy viz. John Epist 3. ver 9. Diotrephes loveth the preeminence D. I have heard that place brought against Episcopacy But never for it till now The Apostle there speaks against preeminence I. Not at all He only speaks against ambitious seeking after preeminence and finds fault with Diotrephes that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is he did ambitiously love to be first or to have the chief place An Office may be good and lawful and yet an ambitious desire after the Office sinful Look what the most judicious Interpreters say on the place Beza renders the Greek word thus qui primatum ambit Now your selves confess it was authority over other Ministers he looked at and from this ye infer that the Office he aimed at was unlawful which will not follow but rather that there was such an Office then in the Church and at this time void unto which he meant to put himself or had already done so out of an ambitious desire to be great which was a sinful end It was not the good of the Church but himself he lookt after Blondel confesseth as much in his Apologia pag. 54. Saying that Diotrephes would be Primus Presbyter to which place he willingly grants authority over the rest did belong though he will not call him Bishop yet he grants to him an Episcopal power in effect Quis enim saith he praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet pag. 39. But of this and the like Concessions of his I may have occasion to speak to you afterward D. If Bishops were by the Apostles left to rule the Church as you seem to prove from the New Testament why then do we not find them in the Church after the Apostles left the world I. We do find them after the Apostles left the world D. But not for a long time after the Apostles were gone I. You are mistaken we find Bishops immediatly after the Apostles which confirmeth what I have been saying for Episcopacy from the New Testament For the Bishops found in the Church immediatly after the Apostles or even before all the Apostles were gone are a good commentary on Timothy and Titus and on the Angels of the seven Churches and on the passage anent Diotrephes D. I would gladly hear what you can say for Bishops about or immediatly after the Apostles times I. If you will credit Jerome whom you take for the Patron of your cause he de Scriptor Eccles speaks of sundry of these first Bishops of James made by the Apostles the first Bishop of Jerusasalem whose successor he saith on Galat. 1.19 was Simeon c. Epaphroditus Bishop at Philippi and Mark Bishop of Alexandria c. Eusebius lib. 3. Hist. Cap. 4. Cap. 33. Cap. 31.36 lib. 4. Cap. 14.25 and in other places is very express to this purpose It 's known there were in some of the Churches many Presbyters or Ministers yet in these most ancient Records we can read but of one Bishop at a time and after him another succeeds in his place and that by a new Ordination For Jerome says Jacobus ab apostolis Episcopus ordinatus est Of Episcopal Ordinations see also Euseb lib. 5. cap. 5. But passing these I produce to you Ignatius contemporary with the Apostle John he was Bishop of Antioch and as is thought an Arch-bishop for in his Epistle to the Romans he stiles himself Bishop of the Church in Syria which is supposed to have hade moe Episcopal Seats in it than only that of Antioch This Ignatius died martyre about eight or nine years after the Death of John he wrote Epistles to sundry Churches of that time in which he frequently speaks of the Bishops of those Churches and setteth down these three degrees of Church-Officers viz. Deacons Presbyters or Ministers and Bishops And exhorts those Primitive Christians to be subject to the Bishop as the only mean to avoid Schisme and that without him nothing be done D. I have heard learned men say that these Epistles are much falsified so that we have them not now as they were written by Ignatius and therefore any testimony taken from them is the less to be valued I. Indeed the Arch-bishop of Armagh Vsher a man well read in Antiquity as also Vedelius who hath written on those Epistles shew that the Copies of these Epistles which were used till of late years are very faulty which is proved from this among other things that many of these Quotations which in the Fathers are found to be cited out of Ignatius are not to be found in those Epistles as they have been used But of late years Vsher found two very ancient Manuscripts of these Epistles in some Libraries in England and about that same time Is Vossius found a Greek Manuscript of them at Florence All which three Copies agreed together and differed much from these that were used before and in these three were found the Fathers Quotations which were not found in the old ones and even in these late found Copies the Testimonies for Bishops are most clear and full And this so much troubles Blondel in the Preface to his Apologia that he is forced to seek a new shift viz. that even those Epistles as we have them in the Copies found by Vsher and Vossius are vitiat also and thinks the Fathers who cite them were deceived by them he thinks they have been vitiat or forged about the year 180. Salmasius thinks Circiter medium aut initium secundi seculi about the middle or beginning of the second age Now Ignatius lived about the beginning of the second age and is it probable they could then be medled with The reasons for this forging of them are alledged by Blondel and answered by Doctor Hammond Can it be imagined they should be so far vitiat that the very Scope of sundry of them should be altered which is to perswade obedience to the Bishop as he without whom nothing ought to be done as they would avoid Schism The Divines who debated with the King at the Isle of Wight found themselves so pinched with these Epistles that they found no way to escape but utterly to reject them all as counterfeit Which the King told them they did without any regard either of Ingenuity or Truth Sure I am neither Scultetus nor Rivet did presume to do so for seven of these Epistles they own as written by Ignatius Howbeit they think some corruptions through time had crept unto them which corruptions they observe but say not that their mentioning of Bishops as Superiour to Presbyters is one of these corruptions Certainly had these two judicious Divines thought this a corruption crept into these Epistles they would have observed and mentioned it You may see Scultetus in his Medulla patrum And Rivet in his Criticus sacer what their judgementis of these Epistles But now of late Doctor Pearson in England hath largely and fully vindicat Ignatius his Epistles and therefore to him I refer you D. Yet I
the Fathers who followed were not only most of them Bishops themselves but looked upon Episcopacy as descending unto them from the Apostles as can be made out from their Writings D. You know Jerome who lived toward the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth Century saith Episcapocy was not from the beginning in the Christian Church Epist ad Euag. which is the 85. Manifestissime comprabatur eundem esse Episcopum Presbyterum quod autem postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatis remedium factumest ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet That is It 's most manifest that Bishop and Presbyter are the same and that afterward one was chosen and set over the rest it was done in remedy of Schism c. I. Jerom's meaning is that in the very first beginnings of the New Testament times it was so while the Apostles were yet alive and did by their own presence and industrie supplie the room of Bishops but as their presence began to sail by death or even sooner as their other great business called them elsewhere upon the dayly increase and enlargement of the Church then to prevent Schism that arose from equality there were Bishops set over Presbyters And that Jerome must be understood speaking so early of the Church appeareth from what immediatly followeth in that same Epistle Nam sayes he Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclium Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat aut Diaconi Archidiaconum That is at Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist downward to Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Presbyters alwise elected one from among themselves whom they placed in a higher degree and called him Bishop even as an Army would chuse a General or Deacons an Archdeacon Now Mark is reckoned to have died before either Peter or Paul and even from him downward Jerome saith there were Bishops in that Church It is strange to see how warily and defectively Smectimnuus cites these words of Jerome quite beside Jerom's intent to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning and to show how they vvere brought in by Presbyters Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles ovvn times we agree that so it was but because they for Smectimnuus is a Name composed of sundry Authors would fain have Jerome to be meant speaking of Bishops coming into Alexandria not until the Apostles were gone therefore they leave out his first words a Marco Evangelista they take what they think may seem to make for them and leave out what is directly against them which is scarce fair dealing But Calvine Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. citeth this passage intirely and from it concludes that Jerome maketh Bishops ancient enough Also you may observe how the learned M. Durham on Revel pag. 225. making use of this passage of Jerome that you do to prove that Bishops were of later date than the Apostles Yet he mentioneth not Jerom's words Alexandriae a Marco c. in which Jerome clearly makes the Original of Bishops in that Church as high as Mark which passage either destroyeth the gloss you would put upon Jerom's former words if in them you think the Father speaks of bringing in Bishops into the Church not till after the Apostles times as Mr. Durham saith expresly or else you would make Jerome contradict himself 2. Mr. Durham as he takes no notice of the Succession of Bishops at Alexandria from Mark downward so neither of the first Simile which Jerome makes use of viz. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat But only of the second Simile of Deacons making an Arch-deacon for helping them saith he in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business which shews what kind of Precedency this is he attributeth to the Bishop even such as he would allow to a Deacon who is advanced to some Peculiar Care by others for some special end Thus Mr. Durham as he is very loath to bring in Bishops till after the Apostles times so after they are brought in he would have their power as insignificant as may be but taketh no notice of Jerome his comparing the Bishop to an Emperour or General of an Army who hath not only a Precedency but without all controversie a Superiority of power and command D. Jerome on Tit. 1. is very express that Bishop and Presbyter are the same Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu Studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur That is Presbyter and Bishop are the same and before through Satans instigation there were divisions and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo and I of Cephas The Churches were governed by Presbyters in common but afterward when every one thought those to be his whom he had baptized it was declared through the whole world that one should be set above the rest and on him all the care of the Church devolved and the seeds of Schisms rooted out I. Some think Jerome in that place speaketh of the power Bishops in his time had come to beyond what the first Bishops had That at the first Presbyters had a hand in Government but afterward Omnis Ecclesiae cura ad unum pertinebat The whole care of the Church was put over upon the Bishop alone But if you think Jerome there speaks of the first Introduction of Bishops unto the Church then I say he must be meant speaking of the Apostles own times D. What reason have you to think so I. First because Jerom's words import this while he says that the thing which gave occasion to the introducing of Bishops was the divisions that arose among Christians and some said I am of Paul I of Apollo c. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptized Now thus we read it was among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. And though Jerome on Tit. 1. take occasion from the Community of Name that the Apostle there uses while he calls the Presbyter Bishop ver 5. and 7. compared together to shew that at first there were no Bishops above Presbyters yet this will not necessarily infer that there was no distinction of Office betwixt Bishop and Presbyter when the Apostle wrot to Titus or that Jerome thought there was no such distinction then But that as the names were then promiscuously used by the Apostle so sometimes there was no distinction of the Offices till necessity introduced it which change Jerome takes
occasion to speak of from the community of Name still used by the Apostle even after the change was made Secondly because that decree which Jerome says was made over all the world for introducing Bishops had it been after the Apostles times we should have some account of it in antiquity about what year after what manner in what Council c. that Decree was made and no change that followed upon it but the vestige of this is to be found Thirdly The supposing such an universal change of Government after the Apostles were gone will infer that shortly after the Apostles there was an universal defection in all the Christian world from that Government which ye think the Apostles left as unalterable in the Church which is very hard to imagine What! Not one honest man in all the world that we hear of to open his mouth and oppose this innovation but without contradiction Toto orbe decretum est how cold will you make the zeal of those Primitive Christians to have been in respect of your own now adays Fourthly because Jerome tells us this change was made ad tollenda schismata And in remedium schismatis to take away Schism Now to think that the Apostles left a Government in the Church which was liable to this great inconvenience of Schism and that those who came after saw cause to change that Government unto another for shunning of the foresaid evil Is too great an Imputation upon the wisdom of the Apostles and too great a preferring of Posterity before them But this is salv'd if we say that the Apostles themselves forseeing that parity would breed Schism did before their departure for preventing of this set Bishops over Presbyters Fifthly because this same Jerome in sundry places of his writings derives the Original of Bishops as high as the Apostles if not higher de Scriptor Eccles he says Jacobus ab Apostolis statim c. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christs Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem and that to him succeded Simon And on Galat. 1.19 He says as much of Titus at Crete of Polycarp at Smyrna of Epaphroditus at Philippi and again de Scrip. Eccles He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria and in Epist ad Euagrium says Vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento Quod Aaron filij ejus Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi in Ecclesia vendicent That is that we may know the Apostolical Traditions to be taken out of the Old Testament What Aaron and his Sons and the Levites were in the Temple that Bishops Presbyters and Deacons are in the Church And Epist 54. Apud nos Apostolorum locum tenent Episcopi With us the Bishops hold the room of the Apostles And Epist 1. Ad Heliodorum And dialog adversus Luciferianos and Epist ad Riparium adversus Vigilantium Miror Sanctum Episcopum in cujus Paraecia esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virga Apostolica confringere vas initile Where you see he calls the Bishop's power Virga Apostolica The Apostolical Rod or which was derived from them These and moe Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings to shew that he deduces Episcopacy from the Apostles themselves So that if you think in some places he cryeth down Bishops as an invention later than the Apostles you shall find that in many moe places he makes them high enough And if you will needs have this Father to contradict himself it will be with advantage to Bishops For for one word against them he speaks three for them But if you will save his Credit you must understand that change he speaks of to have been in the Apostles own times D. But Jerome says Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores That is Let Bishops know that they are greater then Presbyters rather by custom then by the truth of the Lords appointment Which words shew that Episcopacy came into the Church by custom not by any divine right I. Some are of opinion that Jerome speaks of that authority Bishops were then invested with over Presbyters beyond what the first Bishops were this he saith they had attained to by custom for in the same Epistle he maketh three subordinate degrees of Clergy and that Ex traditione Apostolica By Apostolical Tradition which words have much perplexed those of your perswasion So that if you think Jerome by Consuetudo meaneth Custome which came in after the Apostles times you shall make him say and unsay in one and the same Epistle But if by Consuetudo be meant that Authority the Bishops in his time did exercise beyond what the first Bishops did no such inconvenience will follow And that he is so to be understood appears from this that in equalling the Bishop as he was at first with the Presbyter he saith Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter Excepta Ordinatione That is What doth the Bishop which the Presbyter doth not except Ordination Where you see though he make the Bishop above the Presbyter as to Ordination yet he seemeth to equal them as to Jurisdiction And this seems agreeable to what he saith that at first inter plures Ecclesiae cura divisa and Communi Presbyterorum consilio gubernatae Ecclesiae i. e. Presbyters did at first by common counsel govern the Churches which doth not necessarily exclude the first Bishops And afterward speaking of the power that accresced in after times to Bishops he saith ad unum omnis Ecclesiae cura delata est all the care of the Church was put over upon one He seems to mean that the Bishops afterward acted solely to avoid schism that arose from the disagreeing of many Counsels thus some answer that place of Jerome 2. Others as the learned Davenant think That by dominicae dispositionis veritas Jerome meant Christ's express Command and by Consuetudo Apostolical practice begun by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And this is very probable for this same Jerome writing ad Marcellum about the observation of Lent saith it is apostolica traditio and adversus Luciferianos calleth it Ecclesiae consuetudo so that according to him what was begun by the Apostles may be called Church custome because continued by the Church So then this will be Jerom's meaning Bishops are greater than Presbyters not by Christ's express Command but by custome brought into the Church by the Apostles and continued by their Successors And now to say no more of this Father whom you take to be the great prop of your Cause in antiquity consider seriously these few things anent him 1. Doth not Jerome expresly speak of an Apostolical right at least that Episcopacy hath and that in very many places of his writings as I hinted before 2. Where he seems to speak otherwise suppose he were to be understood in your meaning which is to
make Bishops of later date than the Apostles Yet doth he not with all say that there was a necessity of bringing Bishops into the Church that thereby Schism might be put out and kept out And that this was done by a Decree through the whole Christian World And 3. Did he not approve of Episcopacy from it's first Institution down to his own time as still necessary for preserving Unity and Peace in the Church and submitteth to it Now would ye all thus far go along with Jerome our contests about Bishops and their first rise might soon cease Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 227. answering the objection that all antiquity did condemn Aerius because he took away all distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter answers that Aerius was condemned not simply as maintaining any thing contrary to truth in this but as imprudently brangling the order than established in the Church to the hazard of their Union Now setting aside the dispute anent the antiquity of Bishops Have not we in this Land been and are not you and many others as chargeable with this imprudence as ever Aerius was for ye would take away the difference betwixt Bishop and Presbyter to the hazarding of Peace and Union and so brangles that order which under Episcopacy hath been maintained in the Church for many Centuries of years D. You say Episcopacy is necessary for preserving the Church in unity and keeping out of Schism but I think not so or that ever God did appoint it for this end for the Holy Ghost would never ordain that for a remedy which could not reach the end but became a Stirup for the Pope to get into his Sadle for if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many Presbyters for preventing Schism there is the same necessity of setting one Arch-bishop over many Bishops and one Patriarch over many Arch-bishops and one Pope over all unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Arch-bishops I. When you say you think not Episcopacy necessary to keep out Schism in this you forsake Jerome who makes the taking away and preventing of schism the reason of bringing Episcopacy into the Church Also you forsake Calvine who Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. num 2. Sayeth Bishops were set over Presbyters ne ex aequalitate dissidia ut fieri solet orerentur that is lest discords should arise from equality as is usual to be As for the setting up of Arch-bishops and Patriarchs it is a thing anciently practised in the Church as antiquity sheweth and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus and his Successors supposed to be Arch-bishops in Crete And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria c. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarchs call their Precedency Mos antiquus Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Churches Unity and Calvine expresly approves of it Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 4. Quod autem singulae provinciae unum habebant inter Episcopos Archiepiscopum quod item in Nicaena Synodo constituti sunt Patriarchae qui essent ordine dignitate Archiepiscopis superiores id ad disciplinae conservationem pertinebat i. e. That every Province had an Arch-bishop over Bishops and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarchs over Arch-bishops was a thing that belonged to the preservation of Discipline And in that same place Calvin saith that although he liketh not the word Hierarchy yet if we look upon the thing it self saith he that is Church-government by Bishops Arch-bishops and Patriarchs Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam dominus verbo suo praescripsiâ— i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of seigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word And further that for order's sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarchs with a certain kind of Priority who was called Episcopus Primae Sedis Concil Carthag 3. can 26. and is a thing granted by Protestant Writers Among others see Mysterium Iniquitatis Philippi Mornaei pag. 203. 204. c. and Bucer inter Scripta Anglicana pag. 583. and all this was done to maintain order You say there is no less hazard of Schism among Bishops and Arch-bishops c. than among meer Presbyters I deny not but there may be and have been Schisms and clashings among Bishops yet I say it 's a Government not so liable to this inconvenience as a meer parity is No Government is so exempted but it may be abused by corrupt men yet one form may be better in it self than another and more conducing to the ends of Government Aristocratie may be abused yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a meer confused Democratie So Episcopacy is the best Government although the Pope hath abused it Certainly the best and most useful things in the World may be abused through the corruptions of men are not the Scriptures of God perverted by Hereticks and must the Scriptures be therefore cryed down Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyrrany must all Monarchy therefore be cryed down Bucer de vi usu mnisterij cap. de disciplina Cleric inter scripta Anglicana pag. 583. speaking of the Bishop of Rome abusing his primacy saith Episcopacy must not therefore be abolished quia saith he omnino necesse est ut singuli clerici suos habeant custodes procuratores instauranda est Episcoporum authoritas D. But let us return to the Fathers Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith not only Jerom was of Aerius his mind about the equality of Presbyter and Bishop but also some other Fathers as Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome c. I. Mr. Durham brings this as Medina's assertion as he is cited by Bellarmine to which I say 1. Suppose these Fathers to be of Jerom's opinion no great prejudice will hereby ensue to Bishops as have already shewed 2. It 's strangâ—… Mr. Durham should upon any's testimony cite Augustine as being of Aerius his judgement anent Episcopacy since he knew very well that Augustine directly makes Aerius herein to be erroneous and inrolleth him in his Catalogue of Hereticks even for his judgement in this Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni i. e. Aerius also said there ought to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop 3. Ambrose and Chrysostome whose words are cited by Mr. Durham are mistaken for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended Ambrose or one Hilary as it's thought saith Presbyteri Episcopi una est ordinatio uterque enim sacerdos est sed Episcopus primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus ille enim Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est i. e. both a Presbyter and
divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 59 60 61. Certainly these Bs. if they thought not Episcopacy jure divino neither thought they Presbytry so else would they have been Bishops themselves And Calvin how respectfully writeth he to Arch-bishop Cranmer beside what I cited out of him before Durel View of Government Pag. 161. Speaking of Calvin saith he is of the mind that Episcopacy was the Government that Calvin approved most and that he took it to be of Apostolical Institution though his opinion was that the Church according to her exigencies in relation to places times and other circumstances may dispense with it Thus he speaks of Calvin and subjoyneth a passage out of his Epistle to Cardinal Sadolet which he conceiveth is to that purpose Disciplinam qualem habuit vetus ecclesia nobis deesse neque nos diffitemur c. D. I confess I am somewhat moved with these clear Testimonies you cite out of Calvin and Beza whom I ever looked on before as stout impugners of all kind of Episcopacy Yet that I may add some moe of greatest note who have withstood Bishops What say you to Salmasius Moulin Chamier Blondel These four may come in the second rank of Protestant worthies and have all declared themselves against Bishops Moulin de munere pastorali and in his letters to Bp. Andrews Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus Chamier in his Popish Controversies Blondel in his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi I. Salmasius did retract his opinion and turned to the Episcopal perswasion as himself declares in his answer to Milton cited by Durel Pag. 297. speaking of Bishops and of his own Observation how confusions and strange errors sprang up in England immediatly upon the removal of Bishops he saith of himself experientia edoctum ut dies sequens est magister prioris sententiam mutasse c. i. e. He being taught by experience as the following day is teacher of the former he changed his opinion But setting this aside as also what we heard Blondel closed his Apology with let us but hear how far by evidence out of antiquity they are forced to yield Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus grants rem esse antiquissimam ut hi duo ordines in ecclesia fuerint distincti Episcoporum Presbyterorum si excipiantur Apostolica tempora i. e. It is a most ancient thing that Presbyters and Bishops have been distinct in the Church if we except the Apostles own times and Cap. 4. Pag. 253. cirea medium aut initium secundi seculi primus singularis Episcopatus supra Presbyteratum introductus est Where he grants Episcopacy about the beginning of the second age so very near he grants Bishops to the Apostles times for the Apostle John died about the beginning of the second age Moulin grants Statim post Apostolorum tempora aut etiam eorum tempore ut testatur historia Ecclesiastica constitutum esse ut unus inter caeteros Presbyteros Episcopus vocaretur qui in collegas haberet praeeminentiam ad vitandam confusionem quae saepe ex aequaâ—itate nascitur i. e. Immediatly after the Apostles or even in their time one among the Presbyters was set over the rest with the name of Bishop Where he saith this might have been Apostolorum tempore even in the Apostles time Chamier de Oecumen Pontif. lib. 10. cap. 6. confesses from Jerom's making Bishops as ancient at Alexandria as Mark Inaequalitatem hanc esse antiquissimam that this inequality among Church-men is most ancient And a little after he saith Conjicere licet innovationem hanc factam aut nondum elapso aut vix elapso primo seculo i. e. We may conjecture this change into Episcopacy was made either before the first age of the Church was ended or scarce ended Now John the Apostle outlived the first age and died in the beginning of the second Now do not these concessions amount to as much as a yielding of the whole Cause But let us allow any of those four Divines as long a time after the Apostles as they will demand before Bishops were introduced and we shall hear Blondel say and the authors of jus divinum Ministerij Anglic. Pag. 124. from him that before the year 140. there was not a Bishop over Presbyters and that the Toto orbe decretum in Jerome was not long before the said year 140. Thus Blondel who takes the longest time for bringing in Bishops yet acknowledges them so early that within 40. years and less after the Apostle John Bishops are every where settled in the Church Now from your opinion of the unalterableness of Presbyterian Government left by the Apostles and from Blondel's concession that within less than 40. years of the Apostle John Bishops were by an universal decree received into the Church I thus reason If there were Bishops found in the Church within less then 40. years after the Apostles times there behoved to be Bishops in the Apostles times otherwise one of these absurdities will follow none of which can be admitted 1. That that Generation of Christians who lived about 40. years and less after the Apostles was altogether ignorant of Christ and his Apostles mind anent the continuing of Presbyterian parity as the unalterable form of Government else they would not have adventured and that so unanimously upon a change of that Government which had a jus divinum for it's warrant And is this probable or is it possible that those who lived so near to the Apostles that without question sundry of them had seen John and conversed with him That these I say should all be ignorant of John's mind anent Church-government Or else it will follow which is yet worse that that Generation brought in Episcopacy notwithstanding they knew Christ and his Apostles had left Parity as unalterable in the Church And that thus over the belly of knowledge and conscience they did all as oneman for we hear not of the least opposition as we read there was against other Innovations which perverse and Heretical Spirits laboured to bring early into the Church conspire against Christ and his Apostles Government Were not this hard to be imagined that those Christians who were daily dying for Christ and the Gospel should at the same time be guilty of bringing into the Church a Government contrary to his mind and that against their own light What remains then but this if within fourty years after the Apostles Bishops were generally received in the Christian world by the confession of your ablest Writers there behoved to be Bishops even in the Apostles time For it is not conceivable how such a great change should be made in so short a time and that without any noise or opposition for any thing we hear unless you admit these absurdities which I think you will be loath to do For had there been either knowledge or conscience in but a few whither Ministers or other Christians of that time is it possible they would have suffered that change which imported
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-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
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
is speaking of the dutie of Christians in Separating from Idolaters and Heathens in their Idolatries and ungodlie fellowships not of withdrawing from Christian Assemblies In 1 Cor. 5.11 and 2 Thes 3.6 He tells Christians their dutie not to keep needless fellowship in their private converse with such as are scandalous but biddeth them not withdraw from the publick Worship of God even though there be scandalous persons there Wicked scandalous persons pollute not the Ordinances to us nor is their presence at the Ordinances a ground for us to Separate though it may be the fault of Church guides if they be careless in keeping them back from such of the Ordinances as they have no right to Rev. 18.3 is ordinarilie expounded by Protestants of leaving the Idolatrous Worship of the Church of Rome where Doctrine also is much corrupted but gives no warrant to Separate from a sound Church where no such corruptions are D. We think we have better reason to charge you with Schism than ye have to charge us for ye have departed from the Government of this Church by Presbytrie to which we still adhere so that ye have made the Schism from us not we from you I. What little ground ye have to charge us with Schism in respect of Government may appear if ye consider 1. That our sumbitting to the present Government by Bishops is in obedience to the Commands of our Superiours whom both ye and we are bound to obey in things in themselves not sinful So that our submission is dutie and your non-submission is both disobedience and Schism disobedience to Authoritie Schism from the body of the Church 2 If ye will consider that Episcopacy as at some length I shew in our first conference is the only Government of the Church left by Christ and his Apostles and practised in the first and purest times after them and so downward Not we who now submit to this Government are the Schismaticks but ye who refuse submission to it hereby ye are guilty of Schism from the whole Primitive times alswell as from us But besides when we charge you with Schism we mean it not only nor mainly of Schism in respect of Government but of your dividing and separating from our Christian Assemblies especially and Divine Worship there performed which indeed is a great Schism even suppose there were many things wrong among us that needed amendment I pray you consider I hope ye will not say we have departed more from you and from the truth than the Scribes and Pharisees and the Jewish Church under them had departed from Moses Law in Christs time and yet neither Christ nor the godly at that time such as Simeon and Anna Zacharias and Elizabeth Joseph and Mary with many others thought themselves oblieged to separate from that Church Alace then how will ye be able to justifie this Separation of yours D. Your Ministers Lecture not to the people therefore we will not hear them I. Some among us did continue to Lecture but that did not keep the people from the disease of the time Separation 2. We have the Scriptures publickly read in the Church which is a very ancient practice both in the Jewish and Christian Church The Jews had the five Books of Moses or Pentatuch which was commonly called the Law divided into 53. Sections by Ezra as some think and every Sabbath day one of those Sections together with a part of the Prophets was read in the Synagogues See Act. 13. vers 15 27. and Act. 15.21 And that there were Lectures that is Readers in the ancient Christian Church is well known So that ye who on this ground Separate now would have separate from the Church in all ages 3. Lectures as now used have no authority from the Church nor ever had For they are not according to the first appointment which was that the Minister should read a Chapter in the Old Testament and another in the New and where any difficult place occurred briefly give the meaning without any more but that way was soon left and Ministers held with one Chapter and many with a part of one and not only expounded but also raised practical observations so that in effect as some have expressed it the Lecture came to be a short Sermon on a long Text And indeed a Lecture and a Sermon after it are two Sermons at one dyet and they that separate for want of this would for the same reason separate from one who useth shorter Sermons to another who preacheth longer And yet long tedious Sermons are judged less edifying caeteris paribus and it may be a question whither it be not fitter for peoples edification to hold them with one Sermon at one dyet than to give them two considering their forgetfulness when a great variety of purposes is accumulat one thing puts out another And considering their dulness and backwardness to receive divine things and how soon corrupt nature will wearie and sit up when about these exercises is it not safer to hold with a few things and press them home at one time Therefore that ancient Christian Pembo an unlearned man recorded in Church Historie desiring another to learn him a part of a Psalm and having heard the first verse of the 39. Psalm read would hear no more saying it was a lesson great enough at that time and a long time after that another asked him if he was yet ready for another lesson he answered no for he had not sufficiently learned his first lesson 4. Suppose our want of Lectures were a fault yet I told you every fault or neglect in a Church is not a ground to Separate from her And know you not that the ancient Jewish Church some times wanted Ordinances even of Divine Institution and that for a long time together as Circumcision the Pasover c. And will any say she ought therefore to have been Separated from 5. On this ground of yours ye would separate from all the Protestant Churches in the World at this day in none of which ye will find a Lecture Yea ye would have separate from the Church of Scotland ever till about the year 1645. for till then we had no Lectures I could wish indeed all our Sermons were more like Lectures as Lectures have been and are by some used that is that Ministers would take long Texts and reduce them into some few points especially insisting on the Scope as is usual in Churches abroad I make no doubt people would please this way better and retain more of what is spoken than when Ministers confine themselves to short Texts and then too oft rack both the Text and their own Brains seeking matter to hold out the time with But herein I only give my own judgement D. There is another thing yet keepeth me back from joining with you in your Assemblies for Divine worship If I should joyn with you many good people would be offended who look upon hearing among you to be a
sin and the Apostle saith we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others I. When the word forbiddeth us to give offence First it is meant of not doing that before others which is in it self sinful whereby we indeed offend or grieve the godly as also lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our ill example Now when you do your duty in obeying God you cannot be said to give offence unto any And if any will be offended at you it 's their own sin and weakness for they take offence where none is given and in the present case if any will be offended at you for your maintaining unity and peace in the Church and for not forsaking the assembling of your self together with the rest of his people It 's their own weakness while you give them no Offence at all but on the contrary by your good example is in a holy way provoking them to their duty with you and if you shall ly by for fear of their offence you shall both omit your own duty and harden them in their sin 2. Ordinarily where the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to give offence to others he is shewing how they ought to use their Christian liberty in things indifferent That they must not use it to the offence of their weak brother when either thereby he shall contrary to his conscience be emboldened to sin 1 Cor. 8.10 or yet should be grieved with us because he thinks we sin in doing what he conceives we should not Rom. 14. verse 15. Yet you must know if the Command of Authority interpose and injoyn me to use a thing in it self indifferent or not use it then and in that case it 's no more indifferent to me as to that particular and time my liberty pro tunc is determined and restricted by Authority and the thing though in it's own nature indifferent still is by the supervenient command of Authority made necessary to me in my using or not using it according as Authority hath determined Act. 15. vers 28. These necessary things though some of these things were not necessary in themselves yet abstaining from them was at that time made necessary by the Authority of that Council for the good of the Church Then and in such a case as this my obedience to Authority will preponderat the other of not giving offence the first being the greater duty of the two as Divines and Casuists shew And even in this case I give no offence but do my duty and if any take offence it 's causeless on my part and is occasioned through my brothers weakness It is Scandalum acceptum non datum Scandel groundlesly taken by him not at all given by me When the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to use their liberty to the offence of the weak he speaketh to those who were not determined by Authority Have you any more to say for your Schism D. You still impute Schism to us I. And in doing so I wrong you not but am sorry ye give me too just ground either ye are Schismaticks or the christian Church never had any ye have miserably rent the bowels of the poor Church your mother I pray the Lord discover to you this sin and give you repentance ye both forsake the Church Assemblies and also erect Separate meetings of your own both in private houses and in the fields D. What ill in so doing did not Christ preach in private houses and in the fields and people hear in any place and why may not we do the like I. It 's true Christ preached in houses and in the fields and people heard But did he so upon such grounds as ye do to wit that he might separate and teach people to separate from the Jewish Church Or did he either think or teach that the Jewish teachers at that time ought not to be heard I trow not He was oft in the Temple and in the Synagogues he allowed of hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees only with this proviso to beware of their leaven and bad lives some whom he miraculouslie healed he sent to the Priests to offer their Offering according to the Law and did not bid people decline or disown them for as corrupt as they were But ye on the contrary erect meetings of your own because ye think ours unlawful to join with But further Christ preached in any place 1. Because he was about the bringing in of the Gospel Doctrine into the World and of Preaching himself the true Messiah which was necessarie to be done and therefore took all occasions for doing it in anie place and the rather because of the opposition this Doctrine though in it self most necessarie met with from the Jewish teachers And 2. Christ was the head of the whole Church and therefore was not to be limited in the waie and manner of his Ministrie as other Teachers ought and must be but might Preach when and where and to whom he pleased for all belonged to his Ministrie and I know none in the World will say that he is universal Pastor of the whole Church except the Pope Nor will any say that it is warrantable for meer men to do what Christ did in everie thing These meetings of yours ye hold and frequent in despight of the Laws of the Land which are verie express against them And so to Schism ye add disobedience to the Civil Powers D. Should I be hindered by the Law of the Land from hearing the Word of God and other parts of his Worship Or Ministers hindred to preach You know it 's better to obey God than men I. The Laws of the Land hinder not but allow and command you to hear the Word of God in your own Congregations where ye have the Gospel purelie preached by the allowance and under the defence of Authoritie a mercie ye too little value Is it not better to Worship God in a way not contrarie to the Law of the Land the Law allowing me to Worship him purelie than in a waie that is contrarie to the Law and joyned with disobedience to it As for what you bring out of Act. 4.19 From the Apostles their not obeying the Council of Jerusalem discharging them to speak at all or teach in the Name of Jesus it doth no waie quadrat with your case For First The Apostles had an immediate extraordinarie call from Christ himself to Preach in his Name and so were not to be discharged by anie Power on Earth 2. The Prohibition given to them was intended to suppress the Gospel absolutelie and as such and therefore it was not lawful for them to obeie Nor was there anie other visible waie to propagate the Gospel through the World but by their Preaching But among us though some Ministers be silent there are manie others not discharged but allowed to Preach And blest be God the opposition of Authoritie is not against the Gospel it self but against your disorders D. Can the King and the