must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers might ordain a Supeâ—ior cxtraordinary Officer which is absurd D. Have you any proof more for bishops out of the New Testament I. The Angels of the seven Churches Rev. chap. 2. and 3. were Bishops for it is undenyable there were many Ministers for example at Ephesus Act. 20.27 28. Yet Revel 2. When that Church is written to which was long after Pauls exhortation Act. 20. and the Church was on the growing hand yet I say we find but one Angel among all these Ministers and he alone spoken to and commended for what was praise-worthy in that Church and blam'd for what was faulty as he who had the chief hand in that Churches affairs So may be said of the rest the Epistle always directed to the Angel and he commended for what was right and discommended for what was wrong seing by his place and authority he ought to have seen to the preventing or reforming of those things D. The word Angel Rev. 2. and 3. denoteth not one single person but is taken collectively for all the Ministers that were in each of these Churches I. I know that is the answer usually given but have oft wondered at it No doubt this Scripture pincheth sore when ye flee to such a shift Scultetus a learned Protestant in his observations upon Titus hath these words doctissimi quique interpretes per septem ecclesiarum angelos intenpretantur septem ecclesiarum Episcopos neque enim aliter possunt vim nisi textui facere velint that is the most learned Interpreters all expound the Angels of the seven Churches to be the Bishops of those Churches neither can they expound the words otherwise unless they offer violence to the text D. But Rev. 2.24 Christ by John speaks to moe then one for it is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vobis Hence it is clear to me that by the Angel of that Church he meant all the ministers I. Will you be content to stand to Beza's exposition of the place he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to you the President and to the company of ministers and to the rest of the people You see the word Angel in his opinion is still to be taken for a single person and that in this place moe then the Angel are spoken unto This is as some think an Apostrophe which is an ordinary Figure in speech when the speaker turns his discourse to some other than he had at first been speaking to but that which I think should put it out of question is the Light we have from antiquity declaring to us that these Angels were single persons and condescending upon some of their Names for I suppose the practise opinions and assertions of such as followed hard after these Angels should by any rational man be acquiesced in as a sufficient commentary on this and the like Scriptures that speak of Church Governours D. Well What say they I. I told you before that Polycrates who was Bishop of Ephesus and born near to the Apostles times speaks of seven of his predecessors who had been Bishops there before him and Leontius Bishop of Magnesia in the council of Chalcedon speaks of twenty seven Bishops of Ephesus successively from Timothy We find the Bishops of those seven Churches of Asia present at the first Council of Nice and designed by their several Churches Ephesus Smyrna c. and subscribing the Acts of the Council with the rest of the Bishops Jerome de Scriptoribus Ecclesias tells us that Polycarp who had been John's disciple was by him made Bishop of Smyrna so Eusebius lib. 3. cap. 32. So Tertullian praescrip cap. 23. And Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. contra Valentin sayes Polycarp was by John ordained Bishop of Smyrna and that he saw Polycarp when he himself was a child for says he Polycarp lived long Now should not these testimonies think you have weight with any man that 's free of prejudice And further among Ignatius his Epistles who was contemporary with the Apostle John we find one written to this Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the very same Angel to whom John writeth Rev. 2. D. I think indeed much of these testimonies especially of that of Irenaeus who says he saw Polycarp and so knew the better that he was a Bishop And I have heard that Irenaeus himself was a Bishop too but for Ignatius his testimony I am not much moved with it because I hear say that these Epistles of his are forged and counterfit I. Of these Epistles we may have occasion to speak afterward but if you will be at the pains to see what the most part by far and with all the most learned of Protestant Writers and Interpreters think of these Angels you shall find Beza Diodat Marlorat Bullinger Gualter Piscator Sibelius Pareus Aretius Fulk Our own Countreyman Napier of Marchistoun Cartwright the learned Reynolds in his conference with Hart yea and Blondel in the preface to his Apologia pro sententia Hieronymi all expounding the Angel in each of these Churches to be a single person So true is it what I told you Scultetus observes doctissimi quique interpretes per septem Ecclesiarum Angelos interpretantur septem Ecclesiarum Episcopos D. Beza and may be others of these Divines though they interpret the Angel to be a single person yet they never thought that person to be a Bishop but meerly a Moderator and President among the rest of his brethren I. He could be no less than bishop because the Epistle is still directed to him though it 's true the whole Church be concerned in what is written yet I say the Angel is chiefly commended or discommended according as matters were right or wrong which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business and so he chiefly capable of what Christ by John says to him And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus above inferiour Ministers may oblige us to think no less can be allowed to the Angels And further most of the Divines I have named do say that these Angels were Episcopi Bishops And Beza himself de Minist Grad doth in effect cap. 13. give to the Angels an Episcopal power for he saith Horum authoritas in Ecclesiae regimine fuit eminentior that is their authority in governing the Church was more eminent than the rest's I might also shew you how Mr. Mede is misunderstood as if in his Key of the Revelation he did teach that the word Angel is commonly through the Revelation taken collectively that is not to signifie one person you may see the contrary in his Key Apocal. 9.14 and 14.6 7. And he sayeth the twenty four Elders about the Throne do represent the Bishops and Prelats of the Churches You may also see Brightman on cap. 7 8. and ordinarily through the Revelation he expounds the word Angel of some single person I shall produce one place more from the New Testament
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
nisi abolito nomine re ipsa Episcopi i. e. To what purpose is it to abolish the name of Bishop and retain the thing for both these Calvin and 〈◊〉 what were they while living but indeed Bishops though without the name And was it not so even among our selves when the name of Bishop could not be endured a meer parity is hardly practicable any where unless it be in Vtopia Now since you think Calvin a great adversary to Bishops a mistake that many are under I will produce some few places out of him to undeceive you Institut lib. 4. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. speaking of the first Bishops he citeth Jerom's words ad Euagrium and then subjoyneth alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum dicit enim Alexandriae a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium c. i. e. Nevertheless in another place Jerome teacheth how ancient the institution of Bishops is for he sayeth that at Alexandria from Mark downward there was still a Bishop c. Where you see Calvin passing that place of Jerome that seemeth to make against the antiquity of Bishops he rather layeth hold on that other place that speaketh them as ancient as Mark the Evangelist And a little before Calvin saith Bishops were brought into the Church ne ex aequalitate ut fieri solet dissidia nascerentur Observe this he saith equality of Ministers breedeth strifes and ut fieri solet so it useth to be And from these words of Calvin we may collect that he giveth to the first Bishops some superiority in power above the Presbyters without which saith he dissidia nascerentur Strifes would arise and so he makes them more than meer Moderators Another passage of Calvin I cited to you a little before Institut lib. 4. cap. 4. sect 4. Si rem omisso vocabulo intueamur reperiemus c. And Institut lib. 4. Cap. 5. Sect. 11. Supersunt Episcopi Paraeciarum rectores qui utinam de retinendo officio contenderent libenter illis concederemus eos habere pium eximium munus i. e. Now we are to speak of Bishops who I wish would contend about the retaining of their Office we would willingly grant unto them He is speaking of the popish Bishops that they have a holy and excellemt Office if they would rightly discharge it Where you see he calleth the Office pium eximium munus Holy and excellent And again a little after shewing how when it is objected to the Papists that their Regnum i. e. Church Government as managed by them is antichristian tyranny they answer it is that venerable Hierarchy so much and often commended by holy and great men Which answer of theirs he repells thus Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat commendarent hoc deforme vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent ubi Episcopi vel rudes c. i. e. as if forsooth the holy Fathers when they commend that Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as it was delivered or handed unto them from the Apostles did mean it of your deformed Government Where you see he saith that the ancient Episcopacy was delivered down to the Fathers per manus ab Apostolis from the Apostles hands or from the Apostles by hand to hand And on Titus 1.5 He saith We may learn from that Text that then there was not such an equality among the Ministers of the Church Quin unus aliquis authoritate consilio praesset i. e. But that some one person was in authority and counsel above the rest And in a long Letter of his to an old friend who now was made a Bishop in the Church of Rome Veteri amico nunc Praesuli it is to be found in the Volume of his Opuscula pag. 72. he saith Episcoparus ipse a Deo profectus est Episcopacy it self is from God institutus and institute by God and within a few Lines after addeth In aestimando Episcopi munere neque recte neque tuto credi populo Judicium unius Dei esse audiendum Cujus authoritate est constitutum illud legibus definitum i. e. In esteeming of the Episcopal Office we must not regard the people's judgement but Gods only by whose authority it is constitute c. And sundry other clear Testimonies in that Epistle which were tedious here to recite There he speaks not one word against the Office of a Bishop but only against the abuses of it in the Romish Church In one place of it he saith omnino tibi sane quod ab Episcopo requiritur praestandum aut fedes Episcopi deserenda i. e. either do the duty of a Bishop or leave the Bishop's Seat He willeth him not to leave it on any terms no but if he minds to be faithful keep it still And in an Epistle of his to the King of Poland he approveth of all the degrees of the Hierarchy in the ancient Church even unto Patriarchs And in a long Epistle to the Duke of Somerset Protector of England in Edward the sixth his Minority as it is cited by Durel View of Govern pag. 165. Giving his advice anent reforming of many things in Religion yet never adviseth to remove Episcopacy out of the English Church which had he been of your opinion he would not have failed to have done Only he adviseth that both Bishops and Ministers be put to swear they shall deliver no other Doctrine but such as is contained in the articles of Religion And what is worthy the observing in that Letter he saith Audio esse duo seditiosorum genera quae adversus Regem Regni statum caput extulerunt alij enim cerebrosi quidem viz. sub Evangelij nomine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passim invectam vellent alij vero in superstitionibus Antichristi obdurantur ac merentur quidem tum hi tum illi gladio ultore coerceri i. e. I hear there are two sorts of seditious persons who have gotten up the head against the King and State of the Kingdom The first a kind of heady humorous people who under pretence of the Gospel would bring in confusion and disorder every where The other are such who are hardned in their antichristian superstitions and these in authority should restrain both Now how near what he saith of the first sort may touch your selves I leave it to your consideration There is one passage more in Calvin I cannot ommit in his Treatise to the Emperour Charles the fifth and States of the Empire intituled de necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae speaking of the Popish Bishops he saith Talem nobis si Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio nodo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero
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
Light I shall endeavour to let you see warrant from the word for Bishops D. I am not so settled in my perswasion against Bishops as to stand out against light that is offered to me from the Word for this were a great fault in me or in any man else yet I believe it will be hard for you to let me see any convincing Scripture Evidence for them I. Under the Old Testament setting aside the High-priest who was a Type of Christ there was a subordination among the rest of the Priests mention is often made of the Chief-priests 2 King 19.2 Ezra 8.29 Mat. 2.4 Act. 19.14 and over these again there was a Chief or High-priest under the Highest of all who only was Typical hence sometimes two High-priests are mentioned Luk. 3.2 So there was a subordination among the Levits Ex. 6.25 Num. 3. vers 18 19. compared with vers 24 30 32 35. and in other places Neh. 11. We find one over the Levites vers 22. named Episcopus by the Greek and another over the Priests vers 14. So you see subordination among Church-men is no such new nor odious thing as some would make the world believe D. I see indeed there was a subordination under the Old Testament but that proves not that there ought to be the like under the New I. I know no reason why the Lord would have a subordination under the Old Testament but to maintain Order and Unity in his Church and this reason is still the same for a subordination under the New yea is now stronger because the Christian Church is of much greater extent than the Jewish was and so the danger of divisions and schisms and the necessity of preventing them greater And what better way for this than Gods own way which he prescribed under the Old Testament whereby the same way and course is examplarly pointed out to Christians although the New Testament gave no other ground for the like What better pattern for modelling of Church Government can we now have than his own pattern who knows best what is most behoveful for his Church and this you see was a subordination under the Old Testament D. Yet I desire to hear what warrand you can produce for Bishops out of the New Testament I. First I produce to you the superiority of the twelve Apostles above the seventy two Disciples as is granted by Divines generally D. That was extraordinary personal and temporary and to expire with the Apostles I. Indeed in some things the Apostles were extraordinary and their priviledges to cease with themselves such as their immediat calling their sending to all Nations their Infallibility Gifts of Tongues or whatever else was necessary for the first founding of the Christian Church But in some other things wherein they were superiour to other Ministers their power was not extraordinary and temporary but was necessary and still to be continued in the Church after they were gone such as Ordination of Ministers and governing of them by Ecclesiastical Authority Those things which were thus necessary they transmitted to others after them even to the Bishops says Augustin on Psal 45.16 In stead of thy fathers shall be thy children By the Fathers he understands the Apostles by the Children the Bishops who followed after the Apostles Hodie enim saith he Episcopi qui sunt per totum mundum unde nati sunt that is the Bishops who are this day over the whole World Whence are they born and addeth that the Church calleth the Apostles Fathers and did bear the Bishops as Sons and placed them in the room of the Fathers In the next place I produce to you Timothy and Titus both Bishops the one at Ephesus the other at Crete D. All the Ministers who were at Ephesus and Crete were Bishops too for so Paul names them in these Epistles I. It s true Paul names Ministers not only Presbyters but also Bishops yet I say Timothy and Titus were Bishops in that sense that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop was afterward ordinarly taken in that is they had a power in Ordination and Jurisdiction over and above inferior Ministers Our debate is not about the Name but about the Office D. That Timothy and Titus had a power in those matters over other Ministers at Ephesus and Crete I grant for they are taught by the Apostle how to ordain Ministers what qualifications to require in them how to proceed in their tryal and censures c. But this power they had as Evangelists that is they were companions to the Apostles in their labours and travels and appointed by them to settle and water those Churches they had planted I. Then it seems you would unbishop Timothy and Titus and make them extraordinary Officers whose Office was not to continue in the Church D. I think so Paul 2 Tim. 4.5 wileth Timothy to do the work of an Evangelist therefore I think he was an Evangelist and no Bishop I. Indeed he was an Evangelist in a large sense that is one who preached the Evangel or Gospel but that he was an Evangelist in the strict sense can no more be proved from that Scripture than that he was a Deacon because the Apostle in that same place saith Fulfil thy deaconship so the Greek word signifieth we have it translated Ministry or that Philip was an extraordinary Evangelist because he is called an Evangelist Act. 21.8 For he was a Deacon Act. 6. And vve read Act. 8.5 that upon the dispersion he also preached the Gospel but find no ground that therefore he was one of those extraordinary Evangelist whose Office was to cease in the Church and besides Ordination and Jurisdiction is properly no work of an Evangelist but rather preaching and spreading the Gospel D. Philip might be both a Deacon and an Evangelist I. If you will have him so why might not Timothy and Titus as well be both Evangelists and Bishops if you will needs have them Evangelists in your sense even as Jerom in Epistola ad Euagrium and de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis maketh Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria D. Bishops they could not be because we find them very unsetled especially Timothy had he been Bishop of Ephesus he had been confined to his charge but 1 Tim. 1.3 He was left there only for a season and upon an occasional business I. Timothy and Titus were rare and singular persons and useful to the Apostle in those first beginnings of the Gospel and so no wonder though the Apostle seeth fit now and then to call them from their particular charge when the good of the whole Church required it Phil. 2.19 20. 2 Cor. 8.23 Hath it not been usual in any time and have we not seen it practised in our own time that a Bishop or Minister be called away from his settled charge for a season when the good of the Church requires their service elsewhere and to return when that service is over Gerhard Locor Theologic Tomo
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
a Bishop is a Priest but the Bishop is the first so that every Bishop is a Presbyter but every Presbyter is not a Bishop but he is Bishop who is first among the Presbyters And Chrysostome saith That betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter there is little difference Yet both these Fathers you see acknowledge that a difference there is and they were both Bishops themselves Their opinion might be that Bishop and Presbyter differ gradu non ordine that they might be both one Order and differ only in Degree Which is still a debate in the Schools So may be said of the rest cited by Medina 4. That these Fathers were for a difference even by Divine or Apostolick warrant will appear from other places in their writings D. What For a Divine Right Mr. Durham on Revel pag. 225. saith that after distinction was made in the Church betwixt Bishop and Presbyter yet was it never accounted by antiquity to be jure divino by Divine Right I. I shew you the contrary from Irenaeus Tertullian and others yea and from Jerome himself Now for those other Fathers First hear Ambrose in his Comment on 1 Cor. 12.28 Quosdam posuit apostolos he saith ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante illud Petro Act. 1. Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And on vers 29. Nurquid omnes apostoli verum est saith he quia in ecclesia unus est Episcopus Also on Phil. 1.1 Rather then he will allow by Bishops in that place single Presbyters to be meant he expounds those Bishops not of such as resided at Philippi because saith he in one Church there could be but one Bishop but of Bishops and Deacons who were with Paul when he wrot that Epistle as I told you before So on 1 Tim. 3. Timotheus Episcopus erat And for Augustine on Psalm 45.16 by Fathers he means the Apostles and by the Sons the Bishops who he saith succeeded to the Apostles And contra Cresconium lib. 2. Cap. 37. Ecclesiam Hierosolymitanam primus Jacobus Episcopatu suo rexit i. e. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem And Epist 122. he saith divina voce laudatur sub Angeli nomine praepositus ecclesiae Speaking of the Angels Revel 2.3 and contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. Cap. 51. Quid tibi fecit ecclesiae Romanae cathedra in qua Petrus sedit in qua hodie Anastasius sedet i. e. What ill hath the Chair of Rome so he calls the Episcopal Authority done to thee in which Peter once did sit and in which Anastasius now sitteth From these and the like passages in Augustine we maâ— know what his meaning is when writiâ—g to Jerome he saith Qâ—anquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus obtinuit Espiscopatus Presbyterio major sit there he speaks of the use of these words what it was at that time in respect of former times Honorum vocabula clearly shews this Then hear Chrysostome on 1 Tim. 4.14 Cum impositione manuum presbyterii Non de presbyteris loquitur sed de Episcopis neque enim presbyteri Episcopum Timotheum ordinabant i. e. That place speaketh not of Presbyters but of Bishops for Presbyters did not ordain Timothy who was a Bishop Sundry Testimonies might be produced out of other Fathers deducing the original of Bishops from the Apostles or higher Cyprian is full to this purpose Epist 27. ad Lapsos he saith that Episcopacy is founded divina lege by the Divine Law and Epist 68. he calleth it Traditio divina observatio Apostolica and for this adduceth Act. 1.15 Quando in ordinando in locum Judae Episcopo Petrus ad plebem loquitur i. e. Peter there speaks to the people of ordaining a Bishop in the room of Judas See also Epist 69. Epist 42. and Epist 10 11 12. c D. What antiquity saith moveth 〈◊〉 not nor resolve I in this matter to be concluded by Fathers or Councils who werâ— fallible or by Apostolical Traditions There were many corruptions which crept into the Church in the very infancy of it and were generally received as the millenary opinion and giving the communion to Infants I. Yet you can grip very closs to the least shadow in antiquity which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversie and can manage it to your best advantage but when you say that you resolve not to be concluded by antiquity herein by this you clearly confess that antiquity pincheth you sore and you are like to be born down by the stream of it Tertullian saith Id verius quod prius id prius quod ab initio ab initio id quod ab Apostolis id ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum fuerat sacro sanctum As for these corruptions you name which early crept into the Church they were not so generally and universally received as Episcopacy was nor could they ever so clearly deduce their Original from the Apostles D. Notwithstanding all you say to make Bishops as ancient as the Apostles yet the authority of those great protestant Divines who have opposed Episcopacy prevails much with one to suspect Bishops cannot lay claim so high I Suffer not your judgement to be captivated by the Name or Authority of any man without proof I fear there be too much implicite faith among us which we condemn in Papists and besides may be the opposition of the most knowing and learned Protestants to Episcopacy is not so great as you imagine D. What think you of Calvin is not he much against Episcopacy in his Writings as he was also in his practise when he lived a Minister at Geneve in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren there where Presbyterian parity as it had been in purest primitive times was again revived I. Before you take the Government of Geneve to be a reviving of primitive parity as you say It is fit you first solidly answer all I have produced to shew that from the Apostles dounward there were always Bishops over Ministers or Presbyters even in the purest times I will not insist to shew you that when Geneve reformed Religion she had no purpose to put away Episcopacy if it could have been preserved You may read Durel's view of Government from pag. 151. to 161. who will inform you in this Nor will I debate whither Calvin lived in an evenly parity with the rest of his brethren only hear what Mason apologizing for the Government of Geneve defence of ordin pag. 175. speaking of Calvin and Beza saith They being chosen to a place of eminency and endued with Jurisdiction they having preeminence in every action and consequently in Ordination none can with reason deny them the substance of the Episcopal Office This he speaketh of them in respect of the rest of the Ministers at Geneve And B. Andrews Resp 3. ad Molineum speaking of Calvin and Beza says Quid attinet abolere nomen retinere rem Nam illorum uterque dum vixerunt quid erant
the stroner But as I told you before the ablest Champions for Presbyterie have not adventured to assert Episcopacy unlawful as being contrary to any Divine or Apostolical warrant If it be indifferent that is neither commanded nor forbidden or lawful but not necessary but left to Christian prudence Then the question will be if we could by our Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawful to our selves so that we can never in any case after own or submit to it You are mistaken if you think an Oath against the use of a thing in different so binds that in no case after the swearer can lawfully use that thing Casuists say an Oath taken about an indifferent thing may in some cases cease to bind we now suppone Episcopacy to be in it self indifferent if the thing sworn against be a matter wherein our Superiours have power to command us They by their authority given them of God may require obedience from us in any thing lawful and so in that particular they may command us to do or use that which we have sworn against it being a thing in it self lawful and in this case our Oath ceases to bind 2. If after we have sworn there come to be such an alteration in the State of affairs that what was lawfully promised cannot now be lawfully performed In this ease the Oath ceases to bind Si res non permanent in eodem statu say Casuists cessat juramenti obligatio Or 3. When our Oath comes to be Impeditivum majoris boni that is a hinderance to a greater good if we still stand to what we have sworn In such cases as these the obligation of an Oath about a matter in it self not sinful ceases to bind as Casuists commonly teach and the Author of the Seasonable Case and of the Survey of Naphtaly at length applyes to the Oath of the Covenant abjuring Episcopacy and shews that upon supposition of the lawfulness of Episcopacy in it self and that the Episcopacy of this Church is meant in the Covenant As matters now stand none ought to think themselves bound by their Oath to stand out against it onâ— Superiours now having commanded uâ— to obey and submit to that Government c. And solidly repells any thing that is brought by the Apologist or Naphtaly to the contrary An Oath about things in their own nature not sinful but alterable is always to be taken with this re-restriction and limitation if not expressed yet necessarily to be understood so long as lawfully I may for the very nature and matter of such an Oath requires this And the reason is because the takers of such an Oath may be under prior and greater obligations viz. Obedience to their Superiours and the like then any obligation they come under by their Oath about a matter indifferent and therefore when it comes to this that they cannot both satisfie those greateâ— and prior obligations and keep their Oath too Then the Oath being the lesser obligation must cede and give place to the greater especially those greater such as obedience to Superiours in things lawful and the like being such as God himself hath brought us under and our Oath about a thing indifferent being but a knot of mans casting This should be clear and undoubted to any that when two duties at one and the same tâ—me seem to require performance of us and we cannot get them both satisfied then and in that case the greater must take place of the lesser and the lesser is omitted without sin Matth. 9.13 and 12.7 Go and learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice And therefore Divines teach that every Command doth not oblige at every time D. To what you say of the first case in which a promissory Oath about a thing indifferent may cease to bind viz. The Authority of Superiours interveening you would do well to consider that the obligation of an Oath is a very Sacred Bond and I think it 's hard to say that the authority of any man can loose the Oath of God In that case we should say We have opened our mouth to the Lord and cannot go back I. And do you think that by your Oath you can warrantably bind your self up from obeying the Law of God in the fifth Commandment and in many other express Scriptures that biddeth you honour and obey your Superiours I told you that the Law of God enjoyning obedience to Superiours layes the first and greatest obligation upon you And further consider what a door you would open to frustrate Superiours of all that obedience which Inferiours owe to them for when these in Authority shall require obedience of their Subjects in such a particular they may answer hold us excused we cannot obey you for we have sworn not to do this thing And if we may thus warrantably shift in one thing why not in another thing And so may by our Oaths pre-limite and bind up our selves from obeying any thing which those in Authority can require of us And thus you may see whether that opinion of yours tends even to cast off the Yoke of all Obedience and Subjection which the Lord so expresly in his Word hath laid upon the necks of Subjects Read the 30. Chapter of Numbers and there you will see that if the Wife or the Daughter in the Fathers Houseshould bind themselves by a Vow the Husband or Parent had power to anul and make it void and by proportion and analogie the King who is Pater Patriae hath the same power over us D. Yet in that 30. of Numbers If the Father or Husband did once confirm the Vow of the Wife or Daughter though but by a tacite consent then there was no more voiding of it Now our Superiours have confirmed the Oath and therefore I think it can never be made void again I. Read the 15. vers of that 30. of Numbers where you find that even after the Husband hath heard and by his silence confirmed the Wifes vow of which was spoken vers 12. he hath notwithstanding of his tacite confirmation still a power of anulling and making void her Vow and if he do so she is bound to yield to her Husbands commands and is exonered of her Vow Indeed if the Husband the like may be said of the Parent do thus without good ground irritate and make void the Wifes Vow he is culpable he shall bear her sin but she is free because bound to obey her Husband as being under a prior obligation of obedience unto him by the Law of God You may consult Interpreters on that 15. vers of Numbers 30. and shall find them expounding it of the Husbands voiding his Wifes Vows even after he had confirmed them and if he do so he shall bear her sin that is say some If there be a guilt here it shall lye one the Husband who made the Vow void not on the Wife who by a prior obligation was bound to obey her
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
Laws silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God I. You now give me occasion to tell you brieflie how your Preachers behave themselves in this Schism who are indeed the great propagators of it 1. They exerce their Ministrie contrarie to the Command of Authoritie concerning which you ask whether the King and the Law can silence a Minister that he may not preach the Word of God To which I say you read of Solomons thrusting out Abiathar from the Priest-hood 1 King 2.27 That it was a deposing of him simply from all Priestly power I shall not debate yet sure it was a restraining of his Priestly power as to the actual exercing and officiating which he was bound to submit to This a King may do he may inhibite a Minister to Preach in his Dominions and the Minister so discharged ought to be silent and not counteract even suppose he think the King and the Law wrongs him especially when there are others to preach the Gospel though he or sundry be silent May be you have heard what Beza saith to this case Epist. 12. In answer to some in England if in case the Queen Elizabeth and the Bishops would either have Ministers Preach on their Terms or not at all they might Preach notwithstanding of the Prohibition of Authority To which he answereth Tertium enim illud nempe ut contra Regiae-Majestatis Episcoporum voluntatem Ministerio suo fungantur magis etiam exhorrescimus i. e. As to the third to wit that Ministers exercise their Ministry contrary to the will of the Queen and the Bishops is a thing we yet more abhore Next These who preach among you make themselves Ministers of the whole Church without any fixt or settled charge D. I have heard say that every Minister is a Minister of the Catholick Church I. That it is true and that you may see in what sense and on what grounds we say so against Independents read Mr. Rutherfoord in his due right of Presbytrie pag. 204. though wrong figured and he tells you that though a Pastor be Pastor of the Catholick Church yet he is not a Catholick Pastor of the Catholick Church as were the Apostles And that by a Calling or Ordination he is made a Pastor but by Election is to be restricted to be ordinarily the Pastor of his Flock So Mr. Durham on Rev. pag. 106 107. saith a Minister though he be a Minister of the Catholick Church yet is not a Catholick Minister of the Catholick Church and that there is great odds betwixt these two The Apostles saith he were Catholick Ministers of the Catholick Church and such the Pope claims to be that is to have an immediate access for exercising his Office equally and indifferently to all places Ministers saith he actu primo have a commission and power to be Ministers of the whole Church and Watch-men of the whole Citie indefinitly Yet actu secundo They are specially delegated for such and such Congregations and Posts But Ministers among you have made themselves actu secundo Ministers of all the Congregations of the Countrey where they can come And from this followeth a third step they incroach and intrude upon the Charges of other men of which I spoke before and now only shall question you by what Authoritie they do so What call have they to preach and administer the Sacraments to people of another Ministers Charge not being called or desired by the Ministers of those people so to do Their call is either Ordinary or extraordinary Ordinary they have none never being called to be Ministers of those Congregations nor so much as imployed by the Minister of the place to exercise any Ministerial act among his people And for an Extraordinary call I think they will not pretend to it It may be seen by Acts of Councils in ancient times how the Church hath guarded against this kind of incroaching by one upon anothers Charge Otherwise what confusions and absurdities would inevitably follow When these Ministers who went to Aberdeen to perswade the taking of the National Covenant preached there without leave of the Ministers of the place the Doctors and Ministers asked them how it was that without their consent and against their will they publickly preached to the people of their Congregations Which they tell them was a thing repugnant to Scripture and to Canons of ancient Councils I might further let you see by what practices ministers among you advance this Schism They are careful to or dain men of their own way that hereby the Schism might be perpetuated and kept on foot They are much in inveighing against Bishops and Curats as they call the Ministers Hereby to alienate the minds of people from their own Pastors Of late they have great mixt communions at which persons ignorant of the common principles and vitious persons may be and I little doubt are admitted it being hardly possible by their way to keep them back I might also speak of their great disswasives to people not to hear their own Pastors and of their strange and dreadful uncharitableness to such as differ from them which sin they have with too much unhappie success diffused among their ordinarie hearers Mr. Baxter saith to this purpose in the preface to his Cure of Church divisions To Preach without love and to hear without love and to pray without love to any that differ from your Sect O what a loathsome Sacrifice is it to the God of Love If we must leave our Gift at the Altar till we are reconciled to an offended brother what a gift is theirs who are unreconciled to almost all the Churches of Christ or to multitudes of their Brethren because they are not of their way Yea that make their Communion the very badge and means of their uncharitableness and divisions D. I cannot deny but there may be some truth in these things I have heard from you And now I must take my leave and shall have my thoughts of what hath past betwixt us now and then when I am alone I. Do so I pray you and seek Illumination from God and that he would remove prejudices which too oft stand in the way of our embracing Truth Only let me give you a few advices further before we part And 1. Be not too confident of your own opinions as if you were undoubtedly in the right but consider seriously what I have said to inform you at our three Conferences 2. Think not that the matters in debate among us are the very substantials of Religion or that people may not be of different perswasions in these things and yet both sides maintain Love and Church fellowship for this were to run unto manifest sin and evil viz. Schism which is a renting of Christs body the Church and neglecting publick Ordinances upon fears of what is only disputable and supposed to be evil There have been far greater differences among Christians in former times and yet Church-communion not