THE DIFFERENCES of the TIME, IN THREE DIALOGUES.  
The first, anent EPISCOPACY.  
The second, anent the Obligation of the COVENANTS against EPISCOPACY.  
The third, anent SEPARATION.  
Intended for the quieting the minds of people, and settling them in more Peace, and Unity.  
Psal. 122.6, 7, 8, 9 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, etc.  
Psal. 133.1. Behold how good, and how pleasant it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity.  
Mark. 3.24. If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.  
Heb. 10.25. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.  
Opinionum varietas & opinantium unitas non sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
EDINBURGH, Printed by the Hei● of Andrew Anderson, Printer to His most Sacred MAJESTY, Anno Dom. 1679.   

READER,  
SEPARATION, which is the Epidemical Disease of the Time, came to such a height the last Summer, 1678. that like a Flood, it almost carried all before it, in many places of the Land. These DIALOGUES were then written. The Author living among a People who were in hazard to be drawn away with the Spait of the Time, thought it his duty to fortify them against the danger, by letting them see the sin, and unwarrantableness of these dividing Practices, which were now grown to be in fashion. And this, together with the Activity, and Concurrence of Magistrates in the Place, who were careful to suppress the beginnings of Schism in the Bud; was found not to be in vain; for through the blessing of God that People hath hitherto stood their ground: for which, they indeed deserve their commendation: though at first, sundry of them out of Novelty, went to field meetings, yet presently they returned to the ways of Peace, and Order, a very few excepted. When these DIALOGUES were first written, there was no design of making them public, but a Manuscript coming to the hands of some of Note, both for Authority and Learning; It was their Judgement they should see the Light; and that through the blessing of God, some might receive good by them: yet probably they might had lurked, notwithstanding of this: But now seeing it's too evident that these Schismatical Principles, and Practices are not laid aside, but endeavours made to carry them on vigorously as before: It is therefore not only fit, but a matter of conscience, to discover to any who is not unwilling to receive information, how unwarrantable, and sinful such courses are; If Scripture, and the Doctrine, even of Presbyterian Divines (not to speak of others) shall be impartially consulted, and admitted to be Judge. It may indeed seem strange to see, not only great numbers of the common multitude, but sundry of better Note, out of zeal to presbytery, led away with the humour of Separation, and drinking in the principles of the Brounists: Notwithstanding, these ills have been zealously testified against, and disputed down, even by Non-conformists, and Presbyterians of former, and later times. Only the third DIALOGUE, which is anent Separation, was at first intended: But seeing people make Episcopacy, and the Covenant the great grounds of their Separating. It was conceived, that to speak of Separation alone, would not be enough, unless something were first spoken of the other two, to show what a sandy ground Separation is built upon; Especially if Episcopacy shall be found in itself lawful, at least, and the Covenant in every case not obligatory. In speaking to Episcopacy, not only is the mere lawfulness of that Government asserted (a thing not questioned by any of the Ancients, 
Zanchius (speaking of Episcopacy) Observe. in sum ipsius confessionem, Cap. 25. Aphoris. 10. & 11. fides mea nititur cum primis & simpliciter verbo Dei. Deinde non nihil etiam communi totius veteris Catholicae Ecclesiae consensu, si ille cum sacris literis non pugnet. credo enim quae a piis patribus in nomine Domini congregatis, communi omnium consensu citra ullam Scripturae contradictionem, definita & recepta fuerunt: Ea etiam (quanquam haud ejusdem, cum sacris literis, authoritatis) a Sp. Sancto esse. Hinc fit, ut quae sunt hujusmodi, ea ego improbare, nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia. Quid autem certius ex Historiis, ex Conciliis, & ex omnium Patrum scriptis, quam illos Ministrorum ordines, de quibus diximus, communi totius Reipub. Christianae consensu, in Ecclesia constitutos receptosque fuisse? Quis ego sim, qui quod tota Ecclesia approbavit, improbem? Blondel as in other places of his Apolog. So particularly, pag. 193. roundly approves of Episcopacy.  (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per se considerata ad Ecclesiarum Regimen absolute, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 annexa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Regiminis modum & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pertinet; quam suo semper arbitrio permissam, saeculorum omnium credidit Ecclesia— nec opus est quicquid Humana Christum profitentium consuetudo in divinorum usu ausa est, nefas putare— suasque in rebus hujusmodi Christianae prudentiae partes obire licere in confesso sit, nec ulla nunc Ecclesia in exemplum trahi potest, quae ex generali hoc praecepto 1 Cor. 14.40. quaecunque & decentiora, & commodiora sequendi, plenam sibi potestatem factam, non censeat.  except Aerius, and rarely by any of the Modern, even such who think it was not the primitive Government left by the Apostles, if we except some of our Divines in Britain, who betake themselves to Aerius, and go a greater length in opposing of Episcopacy, than Jerom can be reasonably thought to have done, and whom Blondel Praefat. ad Apolog. pag. 59 vindicats from Aerianism) but also some of these proofs are set down which may, and use to be adduced, to show that it is the only Government that hath best warrant in the Word, and was continued in the Church downward from the Apostles, for many years without interruption. If the unlearned Reader find the first DIALOGUE too high for his Capacity (though for his help, care is taken to translate the Latin Testimonies into English) he may pass unto the other two, especially to the third anent Separation, which he will find more plain, and easy to be understood: And in it all the reasons which are brought for the Separation of the Time (in so far as the Author could learn) fairly propounded, and answered without passion, or provoking expressions, which do no good, but are apt to gender more strife, and alienation of minds and affection. These Conferences are now suffered to go abroad out of real commiseration towards well meaning but misled people? Here is brought some Water to quench those fierce and unnatural Flames, which threaten to burn this poor Church to ashes. In the Preface before the Corpus and Syntagma of the Protestant confessions, Edit. Genev. The Church of Scotland hath this great commendation, Est Ecclesiae Scoticanae privilegium rarum prae multis, quod sine Schismate, nedum Haeresi, unitatem cum puritate Doctrinae retinuerit. i e. The Church of Scotland hath this rare privilege above many others; That (since the Reformation) they have without Heresy, or so much as Schism, retained Unity, with purity of Doctrine. O but how have we now lost our good Name! How is the Staff, BANDS, broken in the midst of us, Zech. 11.14. The Author could have wished a work of this nature had been undertaken by some able hand, or at least this had been in a better dress, but now, Reader, you have it such as it is, and if thou be one concerned, be entreated to lay aside prejudice: Consider what a woeful thing division in a Church is, and what the fearful consequences may be; A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, saith Christ, Mark 3.24. If we by't and devour one another, take heed we be not consumed one of another, saith Paul, Galat. 5.15. Dissolution is the daughter of division, saith another; Omne divisibile est corruptibile, saith the Philosopher. Divide & impera, saith the Politician. Si collidimur, frangimur, said the two earthen Pots in the Fable that were swimming down the Stream together. These expressions tend to show the bad consequences of division. We have lately received a loud warning from Papists to unite: Rome knows how to fish in our troubled Waters. The Lord convince us of the necessity of Union, and teach us to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; and discover to many what small evidence they give of friendship to the Protestant Interest, by keeping up divisions.   

The Reader is desired to correct these following Errors with his pen before he readeth, at least to read them right as they are here marked.  

ERRATA.  P. L For Read. 17 17 Evangelist Evengelists 23 16 Polycrats Polycrates 23 20 either Usher 39 24 Ministrum Christi Ministrum 39 25 Christ's Minister a Servant 55 20 declared decreed 57 15 and ●o cha●ge and the change 57 16 but the vestige but no vestige 74 5 〈◊〉 me 85 12 P●●●t puti●t 94 11 pag. 2●. pag. 52. 94 25 ●ayeth he, sayeth he, pag. 39 99 21 Author Author's 104 15 protestant's protestants 133 19 ve●●. 1●. vers. 7.14. 142 11 Rakehell Rachab 150 10 fuer●●t fuerint 155 4 d●b●●● debate 157 16 Opinionem Opinionum 157 17 Opiniantium Opinantium 161 8 deny deny 165 8 Zauchius Zanchius. 166 21 Chap. Chap. 7 167 5 one ●n 169 21 became become 172 1  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 172 16 Lu●. Luk. 177 7 useth use it 186 19 really real 188 12 are not all are not at all 189 4 unwarrantably warrantably 195 8 Lectures Lectores 195 27 another other 215 23 favour fervour 216 8 we leave in we live in.  
The Pages 46. 47. are in one another's place. Also some Sentences wrong pointed, which the Reader may advert to.   

THREE DIALOGUES Betwixt a Doubting Person and an Informer. The First anent Episcopacy. The Second anent the Obligation of the Covenants, abjuring Episcopacy. The Third anent Separation.  

The first Dialogue anent Episcopacy.  Doub. 
WHat news Neighbour?  Inf. 
All the news now are about our growing Confusions and Disorders.  D. 
I doubt you can ever expect better under Bishops: I could wish they were taken away.  I. 
Why so? what ill have they done?  D. 
I never heard of any good Bishops did: I doubt a Bishop can be a good Man.  I. 
Say not so, the Histories of the Church tell us what singular good men Bishops have been, and that hundreds of them have died Martyrs for the Gospel under heathen persecutors: besides what many excellent men of them suffered afterward by Arrians and other Heretics.  D. 
I doubt these were Lord Bishops, such as ours now are?  I. 
If by Lord Bishops you mean such as have a superiority over ordinary Ministers, it's clear they were Lord Bishops in that sense: but if you mean Bishops Dignified with Titles of Honour by the secular powers, I grant they were not Lord Bishops, nor could look for any the least respect from the powers of those times, who for the most part were enemies, either to Christianity altogether, or to the Orthodoxy of it. Yet at the time of the Reformation from Popery in England, in Queen Mary's days, we find sundry Lord Bishops (as you call them) were Martyrs for the Truth: As for Bishops their acting in civil affairs sometimes, I will make it none of my business to debate it with you. Only that it is not altogether incompatible with Ecclesiastical Functions, may appear from these few things. The Jewish Sanhedrim (made up of the seventy Elders, at first appointed to be assistants to Moses in the civil Government, Numb. 11.) did consist partly of Priests, which, I suppose, few versed in the Jewish Learning will deny; see Goodwinus, his Moses and Aaron, lib. 5. Cap. 5. Junius on Numb. 11. and others. Consider Deut. 17. v. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Eli the Priest judged Israel forty years, 1 Sam. 4.18. and after him Samuel the Prophet, (though from his birth lent to the Lord, 1 Sam. 1.28.) went in circuit yearly, judging the people, 1 Sam. 7. v, 15, 16. And under the New Testament, how much Bishops were employed in Civil Matters, after Emperors became Christian, you may see confessed by Smectimnuus, Sect. 12. It's true Churchmen should be as abstract from these encumbrances, as possibly they can; nor are they needlessly, or of choice to entangle themselves, for no man, etc. 2 Tim. 2.4. And therefore, some ancient Councils have discharged them to follow Military Employments, to take Farms or the like. And some of the Fathers have complained, that themselves were too much diverted and overcharged with secular matters: Yet its hard to say that its absolutely, and in every case unlawful for Churchmen to meddle in these things, for then, it will follow, that a Minister may not look after any civil affair that concerns himself, and family; and yet whatever Christian neglects this, is worse than an Infidel, 1 Tim. 5.8. Some of the Fathers were a 'gainst Churchman's being Tutors or Curators, yet, I believe, yourselves do not scruple this now adays, nor Country Trysts neither. I need not tell you how much some Ministers in our late times meddled in State affairs; Saravia at some length defends Church-mens actings in these matters. But passing this, I suppose you question the lawfulness of the Episcopal-Office itself.  D. 
I do so, because I find no command, or express warrant in the Word for it.  I. 
That proves it is not simply necessary, because not commanded, but proveth not the unlawfulness of the Office: Many things may be lawful, yea, and expedient too, which are not commanded, unless under some General, such as, That all things be done decently and in order, or, to edification, and such like: That in a meeting of Ministers, there be a Moderator and a Clerk, I know you will not say is unlawful; yet this is not any where commanded: And many learned men have thought Episcopacy lawful, though not commanded, or by any Scripture precedent 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 Churchmen 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 Mathias 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 numbered 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 controversy 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 Churchmen.  I. 
He only discharges that kind of dominion, which civil Princes exercise, which is dominium  & 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 Tyranny, 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 God's Heritage, Is not superiority among Churchmen 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 Churchmen towards Churchmen, 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 God's 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. Yourselves 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 Lions, called Presbyter Ecclesiae Lugdunensis: Though ordinarily at that time, such were called Bishops; yet some times they are called Presbyters, as still remembering 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 wrote that Epistle, and in whose name he writes to the Philippians, joining them with himself. Others think there might be sundry Bishops of the Churches about convened 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 not where to be found in Scripture; For how prove you that the Apostle in that place intended a full and complete 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 than 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 persuasion 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 Highpriest, 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 Highpriest, 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 Churchmen, 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 warrant 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 privileges to cease with themselves, such as their immediate 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 superior 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 ordinarily 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 trial and censures, etc. 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 we 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 unsettled, 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 seethe 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 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 Paul's company.  I. 
May be, according to Gerard's opinion Timothy was not as yet settled Bishop of Ephesus. 2. Iraeneus who lived not long after the Apostles, and was Bishop of Lions in France, lib. 3. cont. Valentin. cap. 14. is of the mind, that there were of the Asian Bishops mingled with the Elders of Ephesus, and with Timothy their Bishop, and that to them all in common Paul made that exhortation; and Bishops might very well be comprehended under the name of Elders in that place, since I show 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 where else in the New Testa, directions are given by Paul to Timothy and Titus, how to carry in Ordination and Jurisdiction, which two comprehend the Episcopal Office. He showeth 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 Heretics, etc. 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, were in themselves extraordinary, for ye have led them the way, in saying that Timothy and Titus, in their exercising those Acts, were extraordinary Officers. Then I prove it from this, because their commission at Ephesus and Crete, was not voided upon the first settling of Ministers in those places: and therefore their Office was to be constant. For, if merely as Evangelists they were to settle a Church there, then as soon as some few Ministers had been ordained, Timothy and Titus were to cease, and give way to the presbytery there settled, frustra fit per plura, etc. but they did not so, nor did their Commission run so; Titus was left in Crete, to ordain Elders in every City, Tit. 1.5. that is, Ministers, which had been needless, if some few Elders after they were ordained themselves, might have ordained others. Jus divinum Ministerii Evangelici, pag. 185. Defending Ordination by Churchmen, against such as claimed that power 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 was Timothy left at Ephesus, or Titus at Crete, after Ministers were there ordained by the Apostle himself, when on the place, or after some few 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 superior 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 forty years after John wrote 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 more 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 presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. Therefore I think he could not be their Bishop: for a presbytery, 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 must confess that ordinary and inferior Officers, might ordain a Superior 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 undeniable 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 Paul's 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 praiseworthy in that Church, and blamed for what was faulty, as he who had the chief hand in that Church's 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; seeing 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 more than 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 Precedent, 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 more than 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 practice, 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 Governors.  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, etc. 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. says, 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 counterfeit.  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, Gualther, Piscator, Sibelius, Pareus, Aretius, Fulk, Our own Countryman 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 merely a Moderator and Precedent, 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 chief commended, or discommended, according as matters were right, or wrong, which clearly imports that he had the chief hand in business, and so he chief capable of what Christ by John says to him: And the power we saw before in Timothy and Titus, above inferior 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 rests. I might also show 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 signify 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 Prelates 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, 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 yourselves 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 looked 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 immediately after the Apostles, which confirmeth what I have been saying for Episcopacy from the New Testament: For the Bishops found in the Church immediately 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 immediately 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, etc. Epaphroditus Bishop at Philippi, and Mark Bishop of Alexandria, etc. 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 Archbishop, for in his Epistle to the Romans, he styles himself Bishop of the Church in Syria, which is supposed to have had moe Episcopal Seats in it, than only that of Antioch. This Ignatius died martyr 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 Schism, 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 Archbishop of Armagh, Usher, a man well read in Antiquity, as also Vedelius, who hath written on those Epistles, show, 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, Usher 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 Father's 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 Usher, 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 meddled with? The reasons for this forging of them, are alleged 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 persuade 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 Superior 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 shall be the more cleared in my doubts of these Epistles, if you can produce any other convincing Testimonies from Prime Antiquity in favours of Bishops.  I. 
I offer to your consideration, what Pius Bishop of Rome, about the year 146. writing to Justus, newly elected Bishop of Vienna, in the room of Verus, sayeth, Veri loco a fratribus constitutum & collobio Episcoporum (It's thought this was the Bishop's Habit, then in use) vestitum te Presbyteri & Diaconi, non ut majorem, sed ut Ministrum Christi observent, That is, Let the Ministers and Deacons reverence and obey thee, not as one greater, but as the Servant of Christ. This passage is found in his Epistles, in Bibliotheca Patrum, Tom. 3. Fol. 15. Now by Presbyters, in that place, as all along in Antiquity, are meant these, whom we call Ministers, which I suppose, will not be denied; for both the Apostles in their Writings, and all Antiquity that followed, call them so: and yet we see these Presbyters at Vienna, had Justus a Bishop over them, and that Verus another Bishop had been there before Justus.  D. 
It seems Bishops were not then acknowledged superior to Presbyters, or Ministers, since it's said, Presbyteri te non ut majorem observent, that is, let not the Ministers reverence thee, as one greater than they.  I. 
By that same reason you should make the Bishop no greater than the Deacons neither, since it's said also, Te Diaconi non ut majorem observent, that is, let not the Deacons reverence thee, as one greater than themselves: Yea, you will make him inferior to both, for it is added, Sed ut Ministrum Christi, that is, as Christ's Minister. Pius there exhorteth Justus to humility, (a very  and seasonable counsel for these who are promoted to higher dignity above others) and therefore biddeth him carry rather like a Servant, than a Superior; I told you before, that humility and imparity consist well. In the next place, hear what Hegesippus, sayeth, who lived in the time of Hadrian, the Emperor, before the year 140. a renowned Historian, the ancientest of any that wrote the Church-history of the New Testament, next to Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles; Jerome (as the Magdeburgenses, and Rivet report) says, Hegesippus actus omnes a Christi passione ad sua tempora complexus est in sua historia. He was more ancient than that Hegesippus, who wrote the excidio Hierosolymae; nothing of his History is now extant, except a few fragments, cited by Eusebius, who, lib. 4. cap. 21. brings him in giving this account, Se plurimos Episcopos, cum Romam peregre proficisceretur, convenisse, & eandem apud omnes doctrinam deprehendisse, That is, when he went to Rome, he met with many Bishops, and found they all held the same Doctrine; and a little after he mentions Primus, Bishop of Corinth, and afterward, Romae haesisse usque ad Anicetum, Aniceto successisse Soterem, isti Eleutherium: in singulis successionibus & civitatibus ita habet sicut lex & dominus praedicant, that is, He stayed at Rome till the time Anicetus was made Bishop, to whom Soter succeeded, and to him Eleutherius, and that in all the successions, and Cities matters were constitute, as the Law and the Prophets, and the Lord Christ did Preach. Then speaking of the Church of Jerusalem, he says, after James, surnamed Justus, suffered Martyrdom, his Uncle Simeon was made bishop, whom all preferred, because he was Domini Consobrinus, a cousin of Christ's. Further, he shows that Thebulis turned heretic, because he miss a Bishopric, Quoniam non fuit Episcopus constitutus, and that till then the Church of Jerusalem was called a Virgin, because it had not been corrupted with any false Doctrine. From which Testimonies of Hegesippus, we may gather, 1. That he speaks of Bishops in all these Churches which he mentions. 2. In every Church he speaks but of one Bishop at a time, to whom, when he is gone, another succeedeth: Yet I hope it will not be denied by you, that there were sundry Ministers or Presbyters in any one of these Churches, at one and the same time. 3. That the succession of Bishops was by election, and not by Seniority, as the instance of Simeon, chosen after James at Jerusalem, clears. 4. That some were then ambitious of a Bishopric, as he reporteth of Thebulis, which also was Diotrephes, his fault. And Lastly, All this so shortly after the Apostles times, that none have any reason to doubt of Hegesippus, his certain knowledge what had been the Government of the Church from the Apostles times, to his own time, more than we can doubt what hath been the Government of the Church among ourselves for forty years bygone: For Hegesippus lived next after the first succession of the Apostles, as Usher in his Original of Bishops, pag. 62. gathers out of Eusebius.  D: 
I would hear what you can say more out of prime Antiquity?  I. 
I offer to your consideration what Dionysius, who was Bishop of Corinth, about the year 170. says, in his Epistle to the Church of Athens (Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22.) he mentioneth Quadratus, their former Bishop, and Publius', Bishop and Martyr before him, and then Dionysius the Areopagite their first Bishop, of whom we read, Act. 17. Then in his Epistle to the Church of Gortyna, in Crete, together with the rest of the Churches there, he commends Philip their Bishop; Usher thinks Philip was Archbishop in Crete, Orig. of Bishops, pag. 73. for Philip is called Bishop, not only of Gortyna, but also of the rest of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Crete, Paraecia signified then a whole Diocese, as can easily be made out from antiquity, and we find was afterward also Metropolis, and the Bishop, the Metropolitan of the whole Island Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 6. Concil. Constantinop. sub Mena, Act. 5. and 5. general. Council. In which places, the Metropolitan of Gortyna, is found subscribing, and this authority of his over whole Crete, Eusebius deriveth from the times of Titus. Dionysius writes also to the Gnosians, and exhorteth their Bishop Pinetus, ne grave servandae castitatis onus necessario fratribus imponat. that is, that he would not lay upon his brethren the heavy burden of an unmarried life. Where by the brethren, he must mean the Ministers under Pinetus, his Jurisdiction: For you can not think, that by the Brethren, Dionysius meant private Christians: or that Pinetus, did press private Christians to such a life. It appears then that Pinetus was above the rest of the brethren, that is, of the Ministers, and that with a power to enjoin, as is clear from Dionysius, his counsel to him, not to make use of his power in that particular. Hear next what Irenaeus Bishop of Lions, sayeth to this point, he was a Bishop pious and peaceable, and so answerable to his name, and lived about the year 180. You need not fear he will deceive you, but may say of him as David of Ahimaaz, he is a good man, and will bring good tidings.  D. 
Well, let us hear him.  I. 
Irenaeus contra Valent. lib. 3. cap. 3. says, Habemus annumerare qui ab Apostolis usque ad nos instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, & successores eorum, etc. that is, we can reckon on who have been Bishops in the several Churches, and who their successors, from the Apostles even to our own times: and because, he sayeth it were longsome to go through all, he mentions the succession in the Church of Rome, until he come down to Eleutherius, who was his own Contemporary: And this he doth to prove the falsehood of Heretics their Doctrine, because not agreeing with the Doctrine of the Bishops, who, from the Apostles downward, had been in the Church. And in that same place he speaketh of Polycarp, who, says he, had conversed with them who saw the Lord, and was by the Apostles made Bishop of Smyrna, and that when himself was young, he had seen Polycarp, for saith he, he lived long. Now hence we may observe, 1. that Polycarp, contemporary with the Apostles, was even such a Bishop as Eleutherius of Rome, who lived in the time of Irenaeus: for Irenaeus, makes no difference; and no doubt, Eleutherius was such a Bishop as Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lions in France, which, I suppose, few will question. 2. That, as some have observed, Polycarp behoved to be the very same Angel of Smyrna, who was written to, Rev. 2.8. for, Irenaeus saith, Polycarp was ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves, who all lived before John, and he surviving the rest, wrote at Christ's command, these Epistles to the seven Angels, so that Polycarp must be that Angel of Smyrna to whom John wrote; for Polycarp lived till Iraeneus, his time, who says, when himself was a child he saw this old Bishop, for says he, Polycarp lived long, and continued in Smyrna until his last, and died a martyr. Usher in his Orig. of Bishops, pag. 60. reckons his martyrdom to have been seventy four years after John's writing that Epistle to him: and that he continued Bishop there until his death, is collected from Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 15. 3. We see clearly, though there were in the Church of Rome many Presbyters or Ministers; yet without taking notice of them; Irenaeneus only names one at a time, who was more eminent than the rest, and after he is gone, nameth another, who succeeded him: Now if all comes only to this, that these whom he nameth, had no more but the same authority and succession with the rest of the Presbyters; Why are these we contend for, singled out and named, and not the other Presbyters as well as they? Why are the Presbyters or Ministers passed over in silence, and only Linus, and Cletus, and Soter, etc. taken notice of in their several successions, one after another? No doubt, because they were the Bishops, and had an authoritative inspection above the rest, as hath been showed already in Timothy and Titus, and in the seven Angels, Revel. 2.3. and from the Epistles of Ignatius, and other instances. And to say they only are named for the more expedit reckoning is gratis dictum, and as good as to say nothing: and whereas some object, that writers differ about the line of succession among these Primitive Bishops, therefore it may be doubted there was any such thing as Bishops, or a succession of one Bishop after another at all: The King answers at the Isle of Wight, this will no more follow, than that because Chronologers differ about the line of ancient Kings, in such a Kingdom; therefore there was no Kingly power, nor Kings there at all. 4. Observe, that Irenaeus saith, these these ancient Bishops succeeded one another by Apostolical institution, Qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt, saith he, usque ad nos Episcopi. 5. This Valentinus, against whom Irenaeus writes, was a Presbyter, and turned Heretic, because he came short of a Bishopric, Tertul. adversus Valent. cap. 4. See also Irenaeus, lib. 4. cap. 43, 44. and to add a word of Irenaeus himself, he was Bishop of Lions in France, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 23. But after the Latin, 21. Paroeciarum per Galliam quas Irenaeus moderatus est. Hence it is clear he was their Bishop, or Archbishop, as some think, for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then signified as much, as a Diocese now; See Can. Apost. Can. 14. Concil. Antioch. 9.14. Concil. Ancyr. Cap. 13, 18.  D. 
Against what you speak of Irenaeus calling him a Bishop, and an Archbishop, I have this to say, that the Gallican Church in their letter to Eleutherius, calls Irenaeus Presbyter, and so doth Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 4.  I. 
Peter calleth himself a Presbyter, or Elder, 1 Pet. 5.1. And yet we know he was more. Irenaeus himself in his writings, calls Bishop's Presbyters: Victor who succeeded to Eleutherius in Rome, is called Presbyter. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 4. and yet without all contradiction he was a Bishop,, and a great one too, when he would have extended his Jurisdiction, not only over his own, but over the Asian Churches also, Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 21, 23, 25. Salmasius in his Walo Messalinus, freely confesseth, pag. 265. Romani Pontifices vocantur Presbyteri etiam postquam Episcopatus apicem supra presbyteros consecuti sunt singuli in toto orbe Episcopi. But hardly will you find the name of Bishop any wherein those times given to a single Presbyter.  D. 
What more can you say for Bishops out of the ancient Fathers?  I. 
I could produce you Testimonies from Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, who was contemporary with Irenaeus: but something of him I spoke before, and from Clemens Alexandrinus, and other Fathers, who lived in the second age. And from Tertullian, about the year of Christ two hundred, who shows, the prescript. cap. 36. That the Apostolical Chairs at Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, were possessed, not by a presbytery, but by single persons. Also, cap. 11. and de baptismo, cap. 7. Dandi Baptismum jus habet summus sacerdos qui est Episcopus, Dehinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate, propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est, etc. That is, the Bishop hath the power of giving baptism; then the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the Bishop's authority, etc. I might produce much more from those first times, in favours of Bishops. Eusebius the ancientest Church historian, now extant, all along maketh it his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the Churches of these first times, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. from the Apostles downward unto his own time; in every of which Churches, none that hath any skill can deny, that there were sundry Presbyters, or Ministers at the same time; and yet without noticing these, he sets down the line of Bishops, one after another, in these several Churches. And for the time that followed after Tertullian, it's undeniable by you all, there were Bishops in the Church, and 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, etc.  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 industry supply 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 daily 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 immediately followeth in that same Epistle, Name, says he, & Alexandria 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 choose 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 citys these words of Jerome, quite beside Jerom's intent, to prove that Bishops were not from the beginning, and to show how they were brought in by Presbyters; Which if Smectimnuus mean to have been in the Apostles own 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 entirely, 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, Alexandria a Marco, etc. 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 expressly, 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 , for helping them, saith he, in what belongeth to the orderly management of their business, which shows 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 Emperor, or General of an Army, who hath, not only a Precedency, but without all controversy, 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 Satan's 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 baptised; 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, than 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, etc. And then Presbyters began to think these to be theirs whom they had baptised: 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 show, 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 wrote 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, etc. 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 salved, if we say, that the Apostles themselves, overseeing 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, the Scriptor. Eccles. he says, Jacobus ab Apostolis statim, etc. James was by the Apostles immediately after Christ's Ascension made Bishop of Jerusalem, and that to him succeeded Simon. And on Galat. 1.19. He says as much of Titus at Crete, of Polycarp at Smyrna, of Epaphroditus at Philippi, and again, the Scrip. Eccles. He makes Mark the first Bishop of Alexandria, and in Epist. ad Euagrium, says,  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 more Testimonies are brought out of Jerom's Writings, to show 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 more 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 than Presbyters, rather by custom, then by the truth of the Lords appointment. Which words show, 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 persuasion) So that, if you think Jerome by, Consuetudo, meaneth Custom 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 custom, 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 custom 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 expressly 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 its 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 Saddle, 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 Archbishop over many Bishops, and one Patriarch over many Archbishops, and one Pope over all; unless you imagine there is hazard of Schism only among Presbyters and not among Bishops and Archbishops.  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 Archbishops, and Patriarches, it is a thing anciently practised in the Church, as antiquity showeth, and something of this I hinted to you before from Titus, and his Successors supposed to be Archbishops in Crete. And from Ignatius who calleth himself Bishop of Syria, etc. And the first Council of Nice speaking of Patriarches, call their Precedency, Mos antiquus, Can. 6. This was found to contribute to the Church's Unity; and Calvine expressly 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 Archbishop over Bishops, and that the Council of Nice did approve of Patriarches over Archbishops, 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 itself, saith he, that is, Church-government by Bishops, Archbishops and Patriarches, Reperiemus veteres Episcopos non aliam regendi Ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea, quam dominus verbo suo praescripsi●, i. e. We shall find those ancient Bishops had no thought of feigning any other form of Government from that which the Lord prescribed in his Word. And further, that for order sake there was one Patriarch above the rest of the Patriarches, 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. etc. 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 Archbishops, etc. than among mere 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 mere parity is: No Government is so exempted, but it may be abused by corrupt men; yet one form may be better in itself than another, and more conducing to the ends of Government: aristocraty may be abused, yet it hath in it more of the nature of Government than a mere confused Democraty. 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 Heretics, and must the Scriptures be therefore cried down? Monarchy is oft through the default of men turned into tyranny, must all Monarchy therefore be cried 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, chrysostom, etc.  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 showed. 2. It's strang●… 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 Heretics, even for his judgement in this, Haeresi 53. Dicebat etiam Presbyterum ab Episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni, i. e. Aerius also said there aught to be no difference betwixt Presbyter and Bishop. 3. Ambrose and chrysostom whose words are cited by Mr. Durham, are mistaken; for their Testimonies will not come up the length intended. Ambrose or one Hilary as its 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 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 chrysostom 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 Orders 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 Apostolic 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 show 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 than 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 wrote 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 ma● know what his meaning is, when writing to Jerome, he saith, Q●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 shows this. Then hear chrysostom 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 wer● 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 closely to the least shadow in antiquity, which seemeth any way to make for you in this controversy, 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 implicit 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 practice, 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 show that from the Apostles downward, there were always Bishops over Ministers, or Presbyters even in the purest times. I will not insist to show you, that when Geneve reform 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, 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 ourselves, when the name of Bishop could not be endured? a mere parity is hardly practicable any where, unless it be in Utopia. 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 add Euagrium, and then subjoineth, alibi tamen docet quam antiquum fuerit institutum, dicit enim Alexandria a Marco Evangelista usque ad Dionysium, etc. 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, etc. 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 mere 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, etc. 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, showing 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 repels thus, Sect. 13. Quasi vero sancti Patres quum Ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam aut spirituale regimen ut ipsis per manus ab Apostolis traditum erat, commendarent, hoc deform & vastitatis plenum chaos somniarent, ubi Episcopi vel rudes, etc. 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 itself 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, etc. 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 Patriarches. 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 hardened in their antichristian superstitions: and these in authority should restrain both. Now how near what he saith of the first sort, may touch yourselves, I leave it to your consideration: There is one passage more in Calvin, I cannot ommit, in his Treatise to the Emperor Charles the fifth, and States of the Empire, entitled, the 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 nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, qui eam non reverenter, summaque obedientia observent: haec vero mendax Hierarchiae larva quid habet simile? That is, if they will give us such an Hierarchy, in which Bishops will so be great, that withal they refuse not to be subject to Christ as their only head, and aim at him, in which they so  brotherly society among themselves, that they be not knit together by any bond but his Truth; Then if there be any that shall not reverence and obey such an Hierarchy, there is no curse or anathema which they are not worthy of. Thus he. So that if the Popish Bishops would renounce their dependence on the Pope, as their head, and in his stead own Christ, and embrace the truth of the Gospel Doctrine; Calvin would have all to reverence and obey them, and thinks them worthy to be cursed, who would not. By this time you may perceive Calvin is not such an opposite to Bishops as you took him to be. He knew very well what great difference there was betwixt Primitive and Popish Episcopacy; nor would he cry down all Episcopacy as intolerable, antichristian, and I know not what, as is ordinary for many now to do, who understand little, either of the nature or antiquity of it. Saravia saith, he defendeth Calvin's opinion against Beza: and truly although Beza be no such unfriend to Bishops as many apprehend, yet Calvin far less. B. Hall, speaking against the common report, that fathered Presbytery upon Calvin, saith, I cannot find the Father of Presbytery: and Mr. Durel View of Government, Pag. 151. saith, neither was Geneve its mother: and thinks that the juncture of affairs brought it to the doors of these Churches, where it was taken in, and maintained, and that (as he saith afterward) it was a Government not of choice, but of chance or necessity: He citys Mr. Hooker, who in the preface to his Ecclesiastical Policy, saith, that the Popish Bishop and Clergy being departed Geneva (the Bishop was put away not by the reformed, but by the Papists themselves. See Durel, Pag. 157, 158, 159.) it had been a thing impossible to have chosen another in his room. And Durel, Pag. 152. saith, it doth not at all appear that the Ministers who first reform Geneve (Calvin was not then come) did settle equality out of any dislike to Hierarchical subordination, but were bend upon the reforming of doctrine, and then finding themselves in an equality without any Church Superior over them, they even continued so.  D. 
Yet since that time many able men who lived under Presbyterian parity, have defended it as good and warrantable.  I. 
True, many have indeed brought what they could in defence of it, but the ablest and most judicious of them have only brought reasons to prove the lawfulness, as they conceived of what was done among them, but not that there was any necessity of doing so in other reformed Churches, which had retained Bishops. Blondel concluded his Apologia pro sententia Hieronimi, with words to this purpose: By all which, we have said to assert the rights of presbytery, it is not our purpose to invalidat the ancient and Apostolical constitution of Episcopal Preeminence, but we believe, wherever it is established conformable to the ancient Canons, it must be carefully preserved, and wheresoever by some heat of contention, or otherwise it hath been put down or violated, it ought to be reverently restored. See for this Durel's view of Government, Pag. 339, 340. Where also is showed, how by the importunity of some, the author was prevailed with to leave out these words at the Press. Beza de Ministrorum gradibus, Cap. 18. Speaking of England's having Bishops, saith, fruantur sane ista Dei benificentia, quae utinam illi nationi sit perpetua: That is, let England enjoy that goodness of God to them, which I wish may be perpetual to that Nation. And Cap. 21. Pag. 343. Nedum ut quod falsissime & impudentissime quidam nobis objiciunt, Cuipiam ecclesiae sequendum nostrum peculiare exemplum praescribamus imperitissimorum illorum similes, qui nihil nisi quod ipsi agunt rectum putat. i e. Much less as if (which some most falsely and impudently charge us with) we did prescribe our example of Government to be followed by any other Church, like those unskilful persons who think nothing right but what they do themselves. You see then, Beza thought not other Protestant Churches were obliged to write after Geneva's Copy, nor did he wish a change of the English Episcopacy.  D. 
Beza is no friend to Bishops, as appears by Saravia's writing against him.  I. 
Beza looked not upon all kind of Episcopacy as unlawful, as you do, it's true he thought Episcopacy but an humane Institution, as he expounds his Episcopus humanus, yet he was far from your way of condemning Episcopacy absolutely, but thought it a lawful and useful order in the Church. In his dispute with Saravia, he saith, Si qui sunt (Quod sane mihi non facile persuaseris) qui omnem Episcoporum ordinem rejiciunt, absit ut quisquam sanae mentis furoribus illorum assentiatur, i. e. If there be any (as I hardly believe there are) who reject all the order of Bishops, God forbidden any man of a sound mind, should assent to their madness Beza was not against Protestant Bishops at all, for in a Letter to Archbishop Whitgift, related in the said Archbishop's life, written by Sr. George Paul, he speaketh thus; In my writings, I ever impugned the Romish Hierarchy, but never intended to touch or impugn the Policy of the Church of England, or to exact of you to form yourselves to our pattern. How respectfully writeth he to Grindal Bishop of London, Epist. 23. he saith, Quo majore posthac poena digni erunt, qui porro authoritatem tuam aspernabuntur. i e. How much greater punishment shall they deserve who shall despise your authority. Thus Beza speaks to that Bishop, and thinks his authority ought to be reverenced. And in the close of that same Epistle, he saith, Jesus te custodiat, & in tanto tibi commisso munere sancto suo spiritu regat, & magis ac magis confirmet. i e. Jesus preserve you, govern, and more and more confirm you by his holy spirit, in that great Office which is committed to you. And Epist. 58. To the same Grindal, he saith, Dominus te isthic speculatorem & judicem constituit. Now from these favourable Testimonies of Beza in behalf of Episcopacy, we may conclude; 1. That he did not think Episcopacy unlawful, else would he have wished the continuance of an unlawful, sinful Government in England, as I show you a little before expressly he doth? 2. If Beza thought presbytery the first and Apostolical Government, yet certainly he judged it not unalterable, otherwise would he have spoken with such respect of Episcopacy, as you see he doth. The same may be said of Jewel, Bilson, Morton, etc. their concessions laboriously set down, in jus 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 Archbishop 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 subjoineth 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, etc.  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 more 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 persuasion, 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, immediately upon the removal of Bishops, he saith of himself, experientia edoctum, ut dies sequens est magister prioris, sententiam mutasse, etc. 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 aequa●itate nascitur, i. e. Immediately 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 Churchmen 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 than 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 its 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 forty 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 so gross a violation, pass so smoothly, and without very great contradiction? But further, to let you see that those Divines come even as great a length as needeth to be desired. Blondel in his Apologia, Pag. 25. Speaking of the very first meetings of Presbyters, that were in the beginning of Christianity, he saith, Antiquissimo inter Collegas primatus contigit, i. e. The primacy fell upon the eldest, and Pag. 53. he grants, that this first Presbyter had the chief hand in Ordination: and afterward that it was for this place that Diotrephes made so much ado, and is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Thebuthus did the like at Jerusalem shortly after. And again he confesses that this Primus Presbyter had authority with his precedency, quis enim, saith he, Praesidentiam sine authoritate somniet? and , it seems, he be thought to give too much power to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or chief Presbyter, as indeed he giveth him an Episcopal power, he addeth, Ego sane hanc Politi● formam ab initio observatam, & Christianis traditam, libere crediderim, sed ut mutabilem & pro usu & arbitrio Ecclesiae mutandam. Where, after he hath confessed a first Presbyter with an Episcopal power in effect, finding this too high a concession, which yet truth enforceth him to, he sayeth, that that form was mutable at the pleasure of the Church. And Chamier confesseth that there was always from the beginning, a Primus Presbyter or first Minister, and that he had Novam potestatem & Jurisdictionem, ne esset Episcopatus merus titulus, i. e. A new power and Jurisdiction, that his Episcopacy might not be a mere title. This he confesseth when pressed with Testimonies out of antiquity. And what needs more than we find Blondel and him confessing. And Moulen in Epist. 3. to Bishop Andrews at last granteth, that Ordo Episcopalis est juris Apostolici, i. e. The Episcopal Order is by Apostolical right: and then lest he should seem by this concession altogether to have yielded up the Cause to the Bishop: he subjoineth a distinction betwixt jus Apostolicum, and jus divinum. And that although he grant Episcopacy to have Apostolical warrant, yet that will not infer a Divine unalterable warrant; for, saith he, some things which were brought into the Church by Apostolical prudence, as fit for that time, are now abrogate as Deaconesses. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum, Pag. 230. useth this same evasion. To whom the learned and judicious Author of the account of ancient Church-government, among other things returns this answer, that it's granted, that some Apostolical practices, yea, and constitutions are alterable, because they were introduced by the Apostles, upon reasons and considerations not holding equally for all places, times and persons: but if some be thus alterable, yet it follows not that therefore any or all are so. And then the question will be, who shall judge what practices are alterable, what not? or when the reasons of them are dispensable, when not? Now I suppose none can rationally say, that any private man, or lesser part of a Society is competent Judge of these practices and reasons; else what confusion will ensue, every one establishing, or abrogating what he pleaseth, but this belongeth to the Church in her Representativ's; and accordingly we find Bishops and Councils have retained and declared Episcopacy downward from the Apostles, through many Centuries of years, as the standing unalterable Apostolical Government, and that reasons of its first Institution do hold still, to wit, preservation of Unity, shunning of Schism and the like: But these Apostolical practices which were founded on temporary reasons and occasions, were permitted to run into a desuetude. Thus you see what shifts the ablest Pens who have set themselves against Episcopacy, are driven unto, to shun a Conquest. And truly by their great concessions which they are forced to from evidence in antiquity, they yield the whole Cause. Hence it is we find them speaking so uncertainly in their Writings. Sometime one would think disputing down all Bishops, or rather up presbytery: at an other time setting up Bishops higher, and more early than their purpose can well allow, or consist with the Scope of their Debates: sometime again expressing their great respect for Bishops, and sincere wishes that such Churches as had them might still retain that happiness, as I hinted before. And I also show that their purpose mainly was to vindicate the practice of their own Churches in having parity, and not to cry down Episcopacy, especially that which was in Protestant Churches, as Beza expressly professes; so did Blondel in the close of his Apologia, of which, I spoke before.  D. 
There have been many moe Protestant Divines of great note, who lived since the Reformation in Europe, may be many of those have been no friends to Episcopacy.  I. 
Durel View of Government, supposeth a Council to be called, consisting of the most famous Protestant Divines, who since the Reformation have lived in all the Churches abroad, France, Geneve, Switzerland, Bohem, Poland, Holland, and the sundry parts of Germany, etc. And maketh Calvin Moderator, and puts Episcopacy to the Vote among them, and out of their Writings delivereth their opinions in favours of Episcopacy. You may see this at length in Durels View of Government, from Pag. 199. to Pag. 309. And to them I may add our own John Knox, who, as is to be seen before the old Psalm Book, in the year 1560. preached in Edinburgh, at the admission of the superintendent of the three Lothians (a diocy large enough) which act was more Episcopal like than Presbyterian. Thus I have deduced unto you Episcopacy from Scripture, from the most primitive times which followed after the Apostles, and from the confessions and concessions of the ablest Protestant Divines: all which, I think, ought, and will be very convincing to any who is pleased to lay aside prejudice, and impartially make search after truth in this point.  
To what I have said before, I add these few things. The Author of Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani, are at great pains to produce some Fathers, Schoolmen, and some Episcopal Divines in England, who were of opinion, that betwixt Presbyter and Bishop there is little or no difference. To which, I say, that the debate among the Schoolmen is merely, whether Bishop and Presbyter, are diversi ordines, different orders, or only diversi gradus ejusdem ordinis, divers degrees of one and the same Order. Now this says nothing against Episcopacy, for even these, who think they differ only in degree, yet notwithstanding might be of the mind, that always from the Apostles downward there were Bishops distinct from Presbyters; howbeit the difference was not so great as to constitute a different Order, but only a higher degree, or eminency (as some speak) in the same Order. And these Fathers, and late Episcopal Divines might be of the same mind. This is sure, all of them looked on Episcopacy as lawful and useful in the Church.  
The said Authors of Jus Divinum Minist. Angli. Pag. 64. say, that Eusebius, Irenaeus and others, etc. were in many things deceived themselves, and the cause of deceiving others. Answ. 1. They are hard put to it when they seek to relieve themselves by discrediting these ancients. 2. Suppone it were granted that Eusebius was in some things deceived, must he therefore all along be deceived when he speaks of Bishop's superior to Presbyters. He makes it a great part of his work to set down the succession of Bishops in the most famous Primitive Churches, and to say, that in all this he was deceived, is Gratis dictum, said, but not proved. 3. It's strange if also Irenaeus was deceied, who flourished above a hundred years before Eusebius, and had seen Polycarp, who was the Apostle John's contemporary and disciple. Who can believe he could be ignorant what the Government of the Church had been from the Apostles downward, living so near to their times. 4. Is it not much more probable that Jerome might be deceived, if we understand him to speak of the introducing of Bishops after the Apostles times? Certainly it is more like he might be mistaken than either Eusebius or Irenaeus, who lived long before him. They say further, that Irenaeus by Bishops meant no more but Presbyters, Pag. 114, 115. And Pag. 65. that the Fathers and Councils spoke of Church-Officers of former times, according to the Style of their own times. And again when pressed with the Catologues of Bishops out of Irenaeus and others, they say, that these Bishops were only the first ordained Presbyters, and therefore this first ordained Presbyter is named and the rest passed by for the more expedit reckoning, and the Line of Succession only drawn from the first ordained Minister. Some of these answers are inconsistent; For 1. They say, Eusebius and Irenaeus were deceived when they spoke of Bishops: and next they say that by the Bishops, Irenaeus only meant Presbyters. Now how unsatisfactory these answers and the like are, the impartial Reader may judge. Only hea● what Bucer says, De animarum cura inter scripta Anglicana, Pag. 280. Where after he hath related Jerom's words, which seem to make Bishops of later date than the Apostles, he saith, Credibile non est, diu neque etiam in cunctis Ecclesiis ita observatum esse. Nam apud patres Hieronymo ●etustiores clara habemus testimonia quod etiam Apostolorum temporibus unus e Presbyteris electus atque ordinatus est qui caeteris omnibus praevit— & Ministerium, Episcopale praecipue & in summo gradu gessit. Where he shows, that even from the Apostles downward there was in the chief Churches always a Bishop over Presbyters. And so he goeth on to show that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and that the like Order was keeped in other Churches, Quantum ex omnibus historiis Ecclesiasticis cognoscere possumus, and citys Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Eusebius, to prove this; All more ancient than Jerome.  D. 
I confess you have cleared me of sundry doubts I had anent Bishops, I thought little or nothing could be said for them, but that they were a mere groundless, and godless usurpation in the Church: for we have been taught to cry them down by all means, yet there is one thing, aught, I think, bar them to the door of this Church for ever: and that is the Covenants by which we are sworn against them. But since I can stay no longer with you at this time, I am content to hear what you can say to this at next meeting.  I. 
Much more might be said for Bishops Yet there is enough said if you be free of prejudice. And since you can stay no longer, I shall be willing to commune with you anent the Obligation of the Covenant against Bishops, at another time: and so I bid you farewel.  If Blondel when he says, pag. 53. Eg● sane hanc politiae formam ab initio observatam libere concederem, sed mutabilem tamen, etc. Speak of a primitive parity, yet saith, that form was mutable. Prefat. ad apolog. pag. 59 Hieronymus hanc formam (i. e. Episcopacy) non modo non improbavit, sed pro pacis bono semper admisit. And in that same place vindicats Jerome from Aerianism. And in that same place he says Episcopacy is forma regiminis non per se mala & damnabilis, sed adnatis sensim corruptelis (viz. under poprie) vitiatae; and denys not, but that protestanti sola corruptelarum resectione contenti esse poterant, & vitiatam deplorabant. And more to this purpose, he thought therefore Episcopacy in itself lawful. Cassand. Consult. Artic. 14. Illi certe merito reprehendendi sunt, qui odio abusuum in his ordinibus & dignitatibus, universum hunc ordinem quem Hierarchicon appellant, ut nervum Antichristi sublatum volunt. Nec minus illi accusandi, qui inani titulo inflati, eoque ad dominatum quendam vel etiam ad cupiditatem & avaritiam abutentes, neglecto quod Ecclesiae debent officio; hominibus etiam non malis huic Ecclesiastico ordini, detrahendi, & ab eo deficiendi, occasionem dederunt.  

THE SECOND DIALOGUE Anent the Obligation of the Covenants against Episcopacy.  Doub. 
HAving some spare time, I am come to spend it with you (as I promised at our last parting) I told you then, that Bishops are abjured in the Covenant, so that none may with a good conscience either submit to, 〈…〉 them: and we look upon all these 〈◊〉 ●●sters that preach under them, as perjured persons.  I. 
Ye use indeed upon all occasions to be liberal enough in charging Ministers and many others in the time with Perjury, and this ye do with the greatest freedom and confidence imaginable, but it is sooner said than proved. Ye would act more Christian like, if ye were more sparing in judging another man's Servants, who stand or fall to their own Master. Ye use to impute unto us acting against our own Light also. I pray, learn to be more Charitable.  D. 
You know there were Covenants sworn, wherein Bishops are abjured, and we all stand bound against them.  I. 
All bound! There are many both people and Ministers at this day who never took the Covenant, and think you them bound against Bishops?  D. 
Yes, I think they are: For the Covenant bindeth all, not only those who took it, but their Posterity also.  I. 
That is a strange fancy: Casuists say, Juramentum est vinculum personale, i. e. an Oath is a personal tye, that only bindeth him that took it. And so consonant to this, the Covenant sayeth, We, every one for ourselves: and not, for ourselves and our posterity. I suppone the Father who was in his judgement against Bishops did take the Covenant; his Son who groweth up afterward is in his judgement for Bishops: It seemeth very hard that the Son should be by the Father's Oath prelimited in his judgement about a disputable point, or else obliged to act contrary to his judgement. Is not this very hard, think you?  D. 
If the Father's Oath cannot bind the Child, What say you to the Baptismal Vow, where the father voweth for the child, and that vow obligeth the child when he groweth up?  I. 
The father at Baptism doth not formally bind in the name and room of the child, he only bindeth for his own part, that, he shall bring up the child as becometh a christian parent, and mind him of his Baptismal Vow when he cometh to years: Indeed the child cometh under a Vow at Baptism, which ariseth from the binding matter, which in itself is obligatory, and from the nature of the Sacrament in which the Lord and the Party Baptised do Covenant; and this maketh the child's obligation so much the stronger when his Vow is superadded to the matter, which is of itself binding, like that, Psal, 119. vers. 106.  D. 
Yet those persons who took the Covenant, are bound never to acknowledge the Bishops, and now after they have sworn they must not anymore dispute or question the obligation of the Oath: for Prov. 20. vers. 25. It is a snare after vows, to make inquiry.  I. 
Solomon there speaketh of those who sacrilegiously meddle with things consecrate, and would pervert them to their own private use: and who, that they may do it the better, make enquiry how the Vow may be eluded, by which those things were consecrate Questionless it's a snare to make inquiry out of such sacrilegious design. But Solomon meaneth not that it's simply and in every case unlawful, after we have vowed or sworn an Oath, to inquire whither our Vow or Oath be in every case: binding, yea or not: otherwise you shall lay a very great snare indeed upon such as tie themselves with a rash or sinful Oath, if you will not allow them to reflect on what they have done. What! I pray you, had it been a fault in Herod to have made enquiry after his rash Oath to Herodias, and to have retracted it too? Or for those who bound themselves under a curse, they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul? Verily I think there should be liberty allowed to many who did swear the Covenant, to make enquiry, if there were no reason but this, because many took it when they were very young at Schools and Colleges, and so by reason of none age, could very little judge of the nature of an Oath, and far less of the matter abjured: and so did not swear in judgement, contrary to Jerem. 4. vers. 2. such have even but reason to make a review when they come to be better able to judge.  D. 
It may be so, yet I think when they have enquired they shall find themselves bound against Prelacy by a double tye, viz. the National Covenant and the League.  I. 
You think Episcopacy is abjured in the National Covenant, under the name of the Pope's wicked Hierarchy. But Protestant Episcopacy is not there meant, as the author of the Survey of Naphtaly fully showeth, Part 2. from pag. 114. to 130. 1. Because King James and his Council who were the imposers of that Covenant, and took it themselves, Anno 1580. did the very next year after 1581. ratify the agreement made at Leith betwixt the Commissioners of State and Church, Anno 1571. Which agreement was in favours of Episcopacy. Now if the King and his Council had by the Popish Hierarchy meant all kind of Episcopacy, is it probable that the very next year they would by that Ratification have acted so palpably contrary to the Covenant so lately taken by themselves, and imposed upon the Land by their Authority. 2. That Protestant Episcopacy was not meant, appeareth from this, because in all the strive the Church in those times had with the King to get him to put away Bishops even after the taking of that Covenant, we never find this used as an argument to persuade the King, because all Episcopacy was abjured in the Covenant. Which reason, no doubt, would much have been insisted on, if Ministers then had thought all kind of Episcopacy to be meant by the Pope's wicked Hierarchy; and their not using this argument may be very convincing to any, that by the Pope's Hierarchy no Episcopacy could be meant, but such as depended upon the Pope: for I suppose the Ministers of that time were not ignorant of the meaning of these words of the Covenant. I also told you at our last meeting that Beza professed be never intended to write against Protestant Bishops.  D. 
What can the Popish Hierarchy be meant of, if not of Bishops?  I. 
The Pop's Hierarchy is meant of Popish Bishops, who actually depended on the Pope: but can no more be meant of Protestant reform Bishops, who have renounced their dependence upon the Pope, then of reformed Presbyters, or Ministers and Deacons: Otherwise according to you, all Ministers and Deacons should be abjured there als well as all Bishops: because Presbyters and Deacons are parts of their Hierarchy, as the Council of Trent determines.  D. 
The Apologetical Narration, pag. 395. saith all Bishops depend upon the Pope: therefore all kind of Episcopacy is Popish, and as such, abjured in that Covenant.  I. 
He saith indeed, all Bishops, in esse & operari, depend on the Pope, but how proves he it? Because, saith he, the Pope acknowledges they depend on him alone, and have no other ground to stand upon. Now what a poor, because, this is, and how weakly reasoned from the Pope's saying so, ipse dixit, is too evident to any ordinary capacity. The Apologist reasoneth like a Papist, that maintaineth the Pope's infallibility, and giveth him that advantage of his arrogated supremacy and usurpation over all Bishops in the Christian world now and from the beginning; as if the very first Bishops in the primitive times had depended on the Bishop of Rome. The Pope craveth no better than this. But herein Protestants oppose his usurped Supremacy, and show from antiquity that the Bishops of Rome have been opposed by Councils and Fathers, when first they attempted the Supremacy. Remember what I cited to you from Calvin, at our last meeting, Talem si nobis Hierarchiam exhibeant in qua Episcopi a Christo ut unico capite dependeant, tum nullo non Anathemate, &c Calvin thinks them worthy of a curse, who will not submit to such Bishops, who renouncing the Pope, take Christ for their head. The Ministers who did dispute with the Doctors of Aberdeen, declared that the Doctors might take the National Covenant, and notwithstanding, debate and vote for Episcopacy in a free Assembly. It seemeth than they thought, by the pope's Hierarchy, all kind of Episcopacy not necessarily meant.  D. 
But the assembly at Glasgow, Anno 1638. hath put the matter out of doubt, and by their authority expounded the Pope's Hierarchy to be meant of all Episcopacy, and so all Episcopacy is abjured in that Covenant.  I. 
You would all along remember in this debate, that at our last conference I show you, Episcopacy had a Divine, or Apostolical warrant at least: and if so, than the Covenant against Episcopacy (suppone it were there abjured) is null from the beginning. But passing this, to what you say of the Assembly of Glasgow's expounding the Pope's Hierarchy to be meant of all Episcopacy, I answer, that was more than they could do; For 1. How could the Assembly put a sense upon that Oath, that was taken 58. years before, and few or none of the first takers of it were than alive; or if alive, few or none were Members of that Assembly? How then could the Assembly come to know certainly, that their exposition of the word, Hierarchy, was according to the mind of the first imposers. 2. All that the Assembly 1638. produces in their Act Sess. 16. to prove Episcopacy to be abjured in the National Covenant amounts only to this, That the Church about the time of the first taking of that Covenant, and after, was labouring against Bishops; but proves not that Episcopacy was abjured in it, or in any words of it. 3. By what warrant could the Assembly impose upon others that sense of the Covenant in which they took it themselves; they might declare their own sense of it, which might not be the sense of the first imposers, when all is done: but how could they oblige others to their sense, who had taken it before? The first imposers gave the Assembly no power to do so.  D. 
Yet those who took that Covenant after the Assembly 1638. had put their sense on it, have thereby abjured Episcopacy; for the Assembly explaineth it so.  I. 
I suppose it was not the Assemblies intention, that any should take that Covenant in the sense they put on it, unless it were agreeable to the sense of the first imposers, and takers, to whom the Assembly thought themselves subservient i● what they did. Now that the first imposers, and takers never meant it against all Episcopacy, is showed: and therefore the Assemblies ground failing, that which they built thereupon must fail also. For it were absurd to say that the Assembly putting a meaning on that Oath no way agreeable with the meaning of the first imposers; that yet this posterior meaning should oblige also, though much differing from the former: this is to make of an Oath what we please.  D. 
In that Covenant we are sworn that we shall join ourselves to this Church of Scotland, in Doctrine, Faith, Religion, and Discipline; and that we shall continue in the Doctrine and Discipline thereof. Where, by Discipline, is meant, Presbyterian Government. So then, we are sworn to maintain it by the National Covenant.  I. 
By Discipline, cannot be meant Presbyterian Government, because at the time of the first imposing of that Covenant there was no such Government in Scotland, nor for a considerable time after. Whatever essays Ministers in those times made to introduce it, yet the King who imposed that Covenant, owned Episcopacy. Therefore, 2. If by Discipline, some one particular mode of Government be meant, it's more than probable that it must be Episcopacy, because it was the Government then practised in this Church: And the very year after the King and Council ratified the Treaty that had been concluded at Leith in favours of Episcopacy, Anno 1571. But by Discipline, is not meant any one particular form of Government, but the substantials of it, or the essential and utterly necessary policy of the Church, as it is expressed in the first Book of Discipline, Cap. 9 And this is indeed unalterable, though, as some think, there may be a change of particular Forms of Government.  D. 
Yet in the second Article of the League, Bishops are expressly abjured, and I hope you will confess that Protestant Bishops are there meant.  I. 
Although Protestant Bishops be there meant, yet I question if every kind o●… Protestant Bishops, Timorcus Epist. dedicat. Sect. 25. and pag. 14. 16. Doubteth not to say, that all kind of Prelacy is no●… there abjured, but that notwithstanding the said Article, they (the English Presbyterians) could freely submit to the Primitive Episcopacy, that is, the precedency of one over the rest, without whom ordinarily nothing is to be done in Jurisdiction or Ordination: and asserts that it was only the English kind of Prelacy that was meant in the second Article of the League: as also appears from the explanation of that Article enclosed in the body of it, by a Parenthesis. Which kind we have not in Scotland, nor had before: although many of you think there is no difference. Mr. Vines, and Mr. Baxter, two great men of the Presbyterian way in England, say, that that second Article was not intended against all kind of Episcopacy, but only against that complex frame that consists of all the Officers mentioned in the Article. And Mr. Gataker, that the most part of the Assembly of Divines was reconcileable to a Moderate Episcopacy. And further, Timoreus, That the English Parliament, with the Commissioners from Scotland, never intended the extirpation of all kind of Episcopacy, but only of that in England, pag. 16. 23. See also Mr. Croston, Pag. 70, 78. So that the most judicious of the English Presbyterians who knew the mind of the Imposers, and the circumstances of that business, you see, would not cry out upon us as guilty of breach of that Article, as ye do.  D. 
What was the Parliament of England or the Assembly of Divines, their sense of that Article, I know not: nor think I myself much concerned to inquire: but the Kirk and State of Scotland who imposed that Oath on us, meant it against all sort of Bishops.  I. 
I pray you consider we are now speaking of the League, which was not a mere National Covenant of this Kingdom alone, but a common League of all the three Kingdoms; and therefore behoved to be sensed by the Representatives of all the three. So it is not the sense that any one of the Kingdoms puts on it, you or I are to stand to; but that meaning and sense which all the three imposed on it. And what was the Parliament of England's sense, was as Timorcus tells us, with the joint concurrence of Commissioners from Scotland.  D. 
In the first Article the preservation of the Government of the Kirk of Scotland is sworn to be maintained, which was presbytery; and therefore in the second we swear against all kind of Prelacy: because Prelacy and Presbytrie are inconsistent.  I. 
If you think in the first Article Presbytrie is sworn to be maintained, and ye● that there is a liberty left in the second Article for some kind of Prelacy, which I told you the English Divines confess; and if withal you think there is an inconsistency betwixt presbytery and any kind of Episcopacy; than it will follow, that we have sworn things contradictory, viz. In the first Article that we shall admit of no kind of Prelacy, and in the second, that we may admit of some kind of Prelacy. 2. It's much doubted by learned men, whither in the first Article there be any Obligation to maintain Presbyterial Government in Scotland; For 1. There is no express mention there at all of Prosbyterial Government; The words are (We shall endeavour the preservation of the Reformed Religion in the Church of Scotland, In Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government) 2. Many known Independents took that Covenant, and yet never thought themselves bound thereby to maintain presbytery in any of the Kingdoms, because they thought it no part of the reformed Government: and no question the Independents had a hand in wording that Article so, that the words might not necessarily import the maintaining of any one form of Government in particular contrary to what themselves conceived to be right: and indeed the words do not express any one form, nor yet necessarily import any one form, but with this general proviso, in so far as reform, now they did not think Presbyterial Government such.  D. 
Yet the body of the English Parliament, who, together with our Scots Commissioners imposed that Oath, did by the Reformed Government in this Kirk mean, presbytery, which was then settled here: and therefore we were to take, an● did take that first Article in the sense of th●… imposers; whatever were the thoughts of few Independents.  I. 
We are indeed to take an Oath in the sense of the Imposers: but that the English Parliament sensed the first Article as if Presbyterial Government were there sworn to be maintained, may justly be doubted, because, had that Parliament looked on Presbytery as the Reformed Government, sworn to be maintained in this Kirk, they consequently would have acknowledged themselves bound to reform England according to our pattern; but they thought themselves not bound to do so, for Anno 1647. in their Declaration to the Scots Commissioners, they profess they could never find that presbytery is necessary by any Divine Right, and charges them for thinking there is no other lawful Church Covernment, but that which they call Church Government. And also charges them with misinterpreting the Article of the Covenant concerning Church Government.  D. 
It seems then that England and Scotland did not understand that Article in one and the same sense, yet since our State and Church understood it of presbytery, we are bound to it in that sense.  I. 
It seems indeed England did not understand it in our sense: but that therefore we are bound to it in the sense of our Church and State, will not follow; but rather that it is an Article, as to that part of it, that speaks of Government, without sense: since the Imposers who only could give the binding sense, are not agreed about it: for to say that we are bound to that sense, which our State, and Church too, if you will, had of it, is irrational,; because they were but a part of the Imposers, and the lesser part too, in respect of England and Ireland. And further, suppose it were granted to you, that in that first Article Presbytrie is meant, yet that therefore there can be no room left for any kind of Episcopacy in the second Article, will be denied: for if you think there is an inconsistency betwixt presbytery and any kind of Episcopacy, either you are mistaken, or Beza. And others were, who notwithstanding their writing for presbytery; yet confess there is a kind of Prelacy as ancient as the Apostles; beside what I cited to you from Blondel, Chamier, Moulin, at our last meeting; see Beza apud Saravium, pag. 207, 233, 235, 240, 242, 251. etc.  D. 
I perceive you bear off all you can from acknowledging the Episcopacy now settled in this Church to be meant either in the National Covenant, or in the League: For if that were once granted, than ye could not but confess yourselves guilty of Perjury.  I. 
My denying the present Episcopacy of this Church to be meant in either of the Covenants, is grounded upon reasons which I suppose can not easily be disapproven. And to what you say, that upon our acknowledging the present Episcopacy to be meant in both, or either of the Covenants, we could not but acknowledge ourselves guilty of Perjury: Though I see no reason to acknowledge this present Government to be meant in either of the Covenants, but much reason to the contrary, yet I am content to make the supposition that it is abjured: giving then, though not granting that this Episcopacy was abjured in one, or both of the Covenants, you cannot so easily conclude thence, as you imagine, that therefore those who took that Oath, and now again submit to, yea, or own this reestablished Episcopacy, are perjured.  D. 
That seems very strange: those who did swear against Bishops in the Covenant, have they not by acknowledging them again, done contrary to their Oath, and so are perjured?  I. 
That you may receive answer to this, you must consider the nature of Episcopacy, which is the matter supposed to be abjured. Episcopacy is either a necessary unalterable Government, as having a Divine warrant, or at least Apostolic, which amounts to little less than Divine, if to any thing less at all. Or it is an unlawful, sinful Government, as being contrary to some other Government, which hath the warrant of Christ and his Apostles. Or, 3. It is of an indifferent Nature, neither commanded ●or forbidden, but left to Christian prudence, to be used in the Church, or not, as shall be found expedient, all circumstances considered. If Episcopacy be found grounded on the Word, and to have been the only Government practised from the Apostles own times downward through the purest ages of the Church, I hope you will not think an Oath taken against it obliges to any thing but repentance, for engaging in so unwarrantable an Oath. You are a people who cry out Perjury Perjury; but consider what I said to you at last meeting, to let you see what warrant Bishops have in the Word of God, and that it is the only Government found in the first and purest times of the Church, search when you will, and that even those who have set themselves to maintain another Government, have from evidence of reason, and Light that shines to them out of Antiquity, been forced by their own concessions to set Episcopacy high enough: and till you be able solidly to answer what I said to you then on this head, be more sober, and sparing of your hard censures: and take heed lest while you charge others with Perjury, yourselves be found doing all you can sacrilegiously to rob the Church of that Government which Christ and his Apostles left her in possession of, and have bound yourselves with an Oath so to do. If Episcopacy be sinful than we are bound against it antecedently to our Oath, and whether we had abjured it or no●. And if you think Episcopacy thus unlawful, you should not so much decry it upon the account of the Covenant; but because it is in itself sinful, as contrary to some Divine, or Apostolical warrant: although its true a supervenient Oath makes an Obligation against a thing in itself sinful, so much the stroner. But as I told you before, the ablest Champions for Presbytery, 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 ourselves, 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 itself indifferent) if the thing sworn against be a matter, wherein our Superiors 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 itself 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 hindrance 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 itself not sinful, ceases to bind: as Casuists commonly teach, and the Author of the Seasonable Case; and of the Survey of Naphtaly at length applies to the Oath of the Covenant abjuring Episcopacy, and shows, that upon supposition of the lawfulness of Episcopacy in itself, 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, on● Superiors now having commanded u● to obey and submit to that Government; etc. And solidly repels 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 Superiors, 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 satisfy those greate● 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 Superiors 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 man's casting. This should be clear and undoubted to any, that when two duties at one and the same t●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 Superiors intervening: 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 lose 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 yourself up from obeying the Law of God in the fifth Commandment, and in many other express Scriptures, that biddeth you honour and obey your Superiors. I told you that the Law of God enjoining obedience to Superiors lays the first and greatest obligation upon you. And further, consider what a door you would open to frustrate Superiors of all that obedience, which Inferiors own 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 prelimite and bind up ourselves 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 expressly 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 Father's Houseshould bind themselves by a Vow, the Husband or Parent had power to anul and make it void: and by proportion and analogy, 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  consent, then there was no more voiding of it: Now our Superiors 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 Wife's vow (of which was spoken, vers. 12.) he hath notwithstanding of his  confirmation, still a power of anulling and making void her Vow; and if he do so, she is bound to yield to her Husband's 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 Wife's 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 Wife's 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 lie one the Husband who made the Vow void, not on the Wife, who by a prior obligation was bound to obey her husband, and which her posterior Vow could never free her of. Others expone these words, he shall bear her sin, thus, he shall take away her sin: Now the Husband may take away the Wife's sin, she doing but her duty in obeying him; and yet he may be guiltless too, if he revocked his former confirmation upon just and rational grounds. And as to the Wife's part, some Interpreters say, Mariti authoritas uxorem absolvit voto & culpa, That is, the authority of the Husband absolves the Wife of her vow and sin too. Now the application of this to our own case is easy.  D. 
Your second case wherein you say the obligation of an Oath about a matter in its nature indifferent may cease to bind, is when there comes such a change of affairs, that the Oath can no longer oblige without sin: how apply you this to the Oath against Bishops?  I. 
Upon supposition that Episcopacy is indifferent, and that it is abjured in the Covenant: Since that Oath there is this great change of affairs, Episcopacy is by Law Re-established, and we commanded to submit to it: so that now we can no longer think ourselves bound by our Oath, without palpable disobedience to Authority.  D. 
But my Oath against Bishops had the first obligation on me, from which I can not be loosed by any Law of Authority that is made after.  I. 
Your Oath hath not the first obligation on you, but the Law of God that commands you to be obedient to your Superiors, viz. the fifth Commandment, 1 Pet. 2.13. and such like Scriptures. You came under an Oath at Baptism that you should obey the will of God, now this is a part of his will, that you obey the lawful Commands of Authority: and this Oath or Vow you were under before the Covenant Oath. If you think your Oath can secure you from obedience to the Magistrate, commanding to do contrary to what you have sworn: you are in a very dangerous error, and by this means would easily elude the express Command of God, Ecclesi. 8.2. The Author of the grand Case, Pag. 56, 57 tells, that in King James his time, sundry Jesuits went from England to Rome, and there took an Oath, according to a constitution of the Pope, that they should return unto England, and there Preach the Catholic Faith. Wherefore there was a Law made in England, prohibiting such practices: Hereupon arose the case, whether those who had taken that Oath at Rome were obliged to obey the Law, though made after their taking of the Oath: and it it was resolved (abstracting from the unlawfulness of that Oath in itself) that an Oath can not bind against a Law, though the Law be made after the Oath is taken.  D. 
Your third case wherein an Oath ceaseth to oblige, is, when it becomes an hindrance to a greater good. This seemeth to allow people too great a liberty, for how easily may they pretend that some greater good is hindered by adhering to their Oath.  I. 
When that greater good is a certain good, and no otherwise attainable, but by the discharge of our Oath, and especially if it be a good, we are preoblieged to before ever we took the Oath; then as Casuists commonly teach, the Oath ceaseth to bind. Now by our Oath against Bishops, these goods are hindered, as matters now stand, obedience to Authority, avoiding of Schism, Ministers serving God in the work of the Ministry, to which they were called, &c, by our still adhering to the Oath all these good things are hindered, and are in themselves greater and better goods than our adhering to the Oath, which we now suppose is about a thing indifferent: and as to that of Ministers, choicing rather to lay aside their Ministry than their Oath, it deserves our serious thoughts, whether a Minister can warrantably by any deed of his, especially about an indifferent thing incapacitat himself, or do that which by consequence may incapa●●tat him for the Ministry. Now many Ministers think, that by their Oath they are warrantably obliged not to continue in their respective stations, as matters stands. It is incontroverted among Divines, as I hinted before, that lesser duties must give place to the greater, when they come in competition together, and the lesser is omitted, or even, may be, the contrary to it committed, without sin: as David's eating the Shewbread, when he could have no other meat to keep him from starving. Paul and his company, their casting the good Creatur's of God unto the Sea, to save their lives, Act. 27.38. Christ will have mercy even to our Beast (much more than to the souls of people) to be preferred to ceasing from all our works on the Sabbath. He will have mercy and not sacrifice: No doubt where he can have both, he will: but where not, he will have mercy although he lose sacrifice, yea, rather than lose mercy he will have no sacrifice, he prohibits sacrifice; Therefore go and learn, saith Christ: what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, as if little understood and less practised, even by the Pharisees, the great teachers of those times, and much admired and followed by the people, yet Christ sends them to School again to learn better, and lets them see they were but blind guides, notwithstanding the great opinion the people had of them. So the Rechabits judged themselves discharged of the strict observance of their Vow in case of hazard, and self-preservation, Jer. 35. vers. 9, 10, 11.  D. 
Yet for all you have said, you know Joshua and the Princes when they had sworn to the Gibeonits'. Josh. 9 They looked on their Oath as so binding that they would not adventure to break it, even after it is discovered to them that these Gibeonits' were of the Canaanites with whom God had commanded them to make no peace, but root out: and Joshua and the Princes might have said the command of God looseth us from our Oath, and the keeping of it will be a hindrance to a greater good: yet the tye of the Oath was so sacred to them, that they choosed rather to dispense with the command of God in that particular than with their Oath: and that their so doing was acceptable to God, appeareth from his displeasure against Saul, who many years after killed sundry of these Gibeonits', to whose predecessors Joshua and the Princes had sworn.  I. 
I confess, I wonder much you should make use of this argument in the manner you do to prove the obligation of your Oath against Bishops: for that place is quite mistaken by you. Therefore first. If you think Joshua was forbidden to make peace at all with any of the Canaanites upon any terms, but was to root them all out; and yet because of his Oath he spared the Gibeonits', though it was contrary to an express command of God; you run yourself into a most wild and gross opinion that can not be admitted, viz. That an Oath can bind against a Command of God, whether it be a Moral, or particular Command, it is all one. And so as before you asserted an Oath to bind against the command of men in Authority; Now you go a greater length in saying an Oath bindeth against the more immediate Command of God. What man of sound judgement will admit the first, much less the second. 2. You are in a mistake if you think Joshua had no warrant to make peace with any of the Canaanites, but was commanded without so much as once treating with them, to root them all out. For Deut. 20. v. 10. He is commanded to proclaim peace to any City indefinitely he came to fight against, the Canaanites not excepted, only with this difference; 1. No Peace was to be concluded with any of the Canaanites, unless they became servants, and yielded up their Lands, which the Lord had bestowed upon Israel, and embraced the true Religion, abandoning their heathenish Idolatries: And hence so frequently Leagues are discharged to be made with them, they reserving their heathenish Worship, lest they should draw away the Children of Israel from the true God. 2. If any City of the Canaanites did refuse peace, (for there is difference betwixt a mere Peace and a League, as some have observed; and that Joshua at the first, made a League with the Gibeonits', but as soon as he knew them to be Canaanites he breaketh the League as being contrary to the Command of God, and merely alloweth them a peace, Josh. 9 vers. 20, 21, 22, 23.) They were to be worse dealt with than any other City that was not of the Canaanites; for Deut. 20. vers. 16, 17. in case of thei● refusal, nothing was to be saved alive, while other Cities were but to lose the lives of the Males only, vers. 12, 13, 14, 15. Read Interpreters on the place: that the Israelits were to spare the lives of the Canaanites on these terms, appears from their sparing Rachel and her friends, Josh. 6.17. Which otherwise had not been lawful for them to do. And from Josh. 11. vers. 19, 20. Which place clearly shows, that if other Cities of the Canaanites had submitted; as Gibeon did, Joshua might have spared them. And from Solomon's kindness to those Canaanites in his time, 1 King. 9.20, 21. Ezra 2.55, 58. Therefore 3. I say, Joshua and the Princes by that Oath did swear nothing contrary to the Command of God, but their Oath was consonant to God's Command, that upon such and such terms they might have peace, so that Joshua and the Princes were bound to spare them, although they had not sworn. And, 4. The Lord was angry with Saul for slaying the Gibeonits', because it was contrary both to the Command of God, in giving them peace upon their submission, and also to Joshua's Oath made to their Fathers: and not merely because it was contrary to the Oath, as you much mistake, when you think it did bind contrary to the Command of God. You may consult the Critics, and other Interpreters, collected by Mr Pool, as also others, on Joshua 9.18. The English Annotations on vers. 15. etc. And you shall find that some indeed are of the opinion, that Joshua and the Princes were discharged to make any peace at all with any of the Canaanites (though herein they are opposed both by the most judicious and numerous) yet those who think that Joshua was commanded to make no peace with them, whom herein you follow, say not, that Joshua after he discovered the Gibeonits' to be of the Canaanites, was bound to stand to his Oath (as ye say) It being contrary to an express Command of God: but they say Joshua and the Prince's Oath did not bind. And why Joshua and the Princes did not break that Oath, which they conceive was not Obligatory, yo● will find, their conjectures on that plac● You use also to bring Zedekiahs' breach of Oath that he made to the King of Babylon, with which breach the Lord wa● so much displeased, as a great argument for you. To which briefly, I say, tha● Zedekiah held the Crown of Nebuchadnezar, and that the Lord by the Prophet had expressly commanded him and the Jews to submit to the King of Babylon, Jer. 27. vers. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12. And Jer. 38. vers. 17, 20, 21. So that whatever may be said for, or against the obligation of Zedekiah's Oath in itself, considered with the circumstances of it: yet the Command of God being superadded, enjoining Zedekiah peaceably to submit under him, and no rebel. It's clear, Zedekiah was obliged to have done so according to God's Command, whatever he could pretend to the contrary. So that his breaking the Oath, had in it clear disobedience against God's Command.  D. 
David Psal. 15. vers. 4. Giveth it as a mark of a blessed man, he sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not.  I. 
Indeed a man may stand unalterably obliged by an Oath he hath taken to his ●wn hurt in many things: yet you must ●now, not in all things: I suppose a man ●hould swear to take away his own life: here an Oath to his own hurt, which I doubt you will say obliges to any thing but repentance. But besides, when a man swears to the hurt of others, of those in Authority, of those of his Family, of the souls of people. You will not say such an Oath obliges.  D. 
But say what you will, we are a people very tender of Oaths.  I. 
Every Christian ought to be so, aught to consider well before he come under an Oath, and be well advised before he think himself discharged of that Bond, after he is come under it. But to think a man can not at all be discharged of an Oath about a matter in itself not necessary; is to be more tender than we ought or lawfully can be. You say you are a people very tender of Oaths, how then did the Assembly at Glasgow, Anno 1638. by their Act lose all the Ministers of the Kingdom, that had entered by the Bishops, from their Oath they had given to the Bishops at their entry to the Ministry? But to come nearer, how was that before Bishops were last restore yourselves owned Commissaries, though they be expressly named in the Covenant as a part of, or Officers depending on th● abjured Hierarchy, according to your ow● sense: And if the Bishops of this Church b● there abjured, so are the Commissaries.  D. 
Commissaries than had no dependence on Bishops, and therefore might be owne● as not contrary to the Covenant.  I. 
Upon that ground you might have owned a Dean too, and said that then having no actual dependence on the Bishop the owning of him was not contrary to Covenant: yea or owned a Bishop too, and said, he had no dependence then on an Archbishop, for I can not see why any of those other Members of the Hierarchy under the highest, might not have been owned and retained as well as the Commissary. 2. Do you not by this answer of yours come near to what I before told you from the English Divines, viz. that all kind of Prelacy is not 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 ownin●●f Commissaries now, when again actually they do depend upon Bishops: I ●now none of you who at this day scruples or declines the Commissaries Authority ●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 yourselves 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 itself, and also expressly 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 rob 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 expressly 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. etc. and Chap. 3. Eph. 4. vers. 3, 4, 5. etc. 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 confession n●minis, Macula ista nec sanguine abluitu●●, in expiabili● & gravis culpa discer a●●●● nec passione purgatur: Esse Martyr non potest, qui 〈◊〉 Ecclesia non est: Ad regnum porvenire n●● poterit, qui eam, quae regnatura est, derelinquit. Pacem nobis Christus dedit, Concords 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 blood, 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, etc. 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 shows that Schism and Heresy, at lest something like it uses to go together. And Epist. ad Pamm●chium, Quis scindit Ecclesiam, nos quorum omnis domus Bethlehem in Ecclesia communicate, an tu, qui aut bene credis & superbe de fide taces, aut male & vere scindis Ecclesiam? That is, Who rends the Church, we who communicate in the Church, or you who believing well, proudly holds thy peace: or believing ill, truly rends the Church. Where he seemeth to say, That even he who holds his peace, and declares not against Schism, is guilty of Schism too. Aug●stin Tractat. 27. in Joannem, Anima tu● non vivificat, nisi membra quae sunt in ca●● ne tua, etc. Haec dicuntur ut amemus unitatem & timeamus separationem: Nihil enim debet sic formidare Christianus, qua●● separari a corpore Christi: Sic enim non est membrum ejus nec vegetatur Spiritu ejus. Where he shows, 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 Lily among Thorns, Cant. 2.2. And Schism is one of those Thorns, and the harder to be pulled out, because Schismatics have always looked on themselves as the only men, and Christians of the first Magnitude, and so do ye, and I am hearty 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 signify a causeless separating. For Protestants justify 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, erroneous even to the perverting of Fundamentals by consequence at least, as Protestant Divines show. But I think you guilty of a sinful Separation, which is Schism: and that als 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 own 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 persuasion in these matters could not be real Christians with yourselves: And thus you put disputable points of lesser concernment into your Creed: And many of you can with great freedom un-saint all who are not of your opinion in these things: And so ye Un-church and condemn all Christians that have been in all ages almost, and places of the World since Christ's time, who ye will find have owned Bishops, yea, and Liturgies, Festival-days, and other Ceremonies, etc. 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 Christ's 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 allegeth 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 God's House, and his Worship, which in themselves are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, and therefore the Church as she seethe 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 yourselves, very ready to judge the strong, and to be uncharitable to them: This the Apostle forbiddeth, Who art thou who judgest another man's 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 Victor's judgement about the thing in debate, yet he much discommended his uncharitable behaviour toward Polycrates and the Asian Churches. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 23. Now as ye are guilty of heart Schism, which is uncharitableness, so expressly 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. Forsa●● not the assembling of yourselves 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 aught 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, than 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 itself, and because it maketh way for a further degree, and that second for a third, and so uns●●t people may take a running that they shall not know where to make 〈◊〉 stand. Have we not seen some turn at length 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 Apostate Infidels, deriding Christianity, and the imortality of the Soul.  D. 
There are among yourselves 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 another's 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 presumed, 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 shows that though there are diversities of Gifts, and every one should be content with his own Give given him for the edification of others, yet so that he seek after better, not in others but in himself. 2. The Apostle in that Chapter is clearly pressing the Corinthians to Unity, from the consideration that Christians are all one body; and therefore the meanest Gifts must no more be despised than the meanest members of our body; and Schism must be avoided, vers. 25. 3. Suppone coveting the best Gifts were spoken to Christians, in your sense, yet it must be understood with due Limitations, such as that we covet them in an orderly way, and with respect to the Church's peace, and such like. And so many general directions in the Word, are to be understood with necessary cautions, as yourself can not deny. Edification indeed is much to be set by, yet let none imagine that it is warrantable for them to seek it in a way that mars the Church's peace, breeds in people a neglect and despising of their own Ministers, who are set over them in the Lord, and whom they are commanded to honour and reverence; that takes away the distinction of Paroches, and of one man's labours from another; as we would shun confusion; And that is contrary to laudable Canons, and Acts of the Church. You know we must not do evil that good may come of it, Rom. 3.8.  D. 
What, Canons or Acts of the Church are against my leaving my own Paroch Minister, and going to another, by whom I think I get more good?  I. 
I might produce sundry ancient Canons commanding Ministers not to excise their Pastoral Office within another's charge without leave, and that they receive not any man of another Paroch to Divine Service who neglects his own Pastor. The First Council of Nice, Can. 16. The second Council of Carthage, Can. 11. and Council 3. Can. 20. Concilium Nannetense, cap. 1. In which Council Presbyters or Ministers are commanded that at their entry to Divine Service they ask the people if there be any present of another's Congregation, who despising his own Minister desires to join with them, and if any such be found, that forthwith he be thrust out of the Church. And again in that same Council, that no minister reset one that belongs to another's charge, unless he be on a journey, or upon some other such relevant ground that keeps him from attending in his own congregation for the time. But passing these, there is an act of the General Assembly, of this same Church of Scotland, Anno, 1647. To be found among the printed Acts of it, Entitled, Act against such as withdraw themselves from the public Worship in their own Congregation; And it is express in discharging all Members of this Kirk from withdrawing from their own Congregation usuallies, except in urgent cases made known unto, and approven by the presbytery: And if any contraveen, it's recommended first to the Minister, to whom such persons resort, to deal with them to stay at home in their own Paroch; And then to the Minister and Session of the Paroch they belong to; and if need be to cite them to the presbytery, etc. Now, I suppose you will not decline the Authority of that Assembly, nor think the General Assembly of this Church were such enemies to edification, as to have deprived Christians of this way of attaining it, if they might have allowed it to them without manifest hazard of Schism. You may think they were competent enough to judge in such a case; yea, that Act was purposely conceived to curb the beginnings of Separation, and Schism, which at that time began to appear in this Church.  D. 
If Ministers had all alike abilities, and gifts, for edification, I could say the less against that Act: but it is not so, for some Ministers excel others very far in an edifying gift.  I. 
Yet you see what the Assemblies mind was in this matter. Now to what you say of an edifying Gift, I wish many of you mistake it not, if a man have a stentorian voice, or a tun, can speak loud and boldly, and can rail upon the Civil Powers, and cry down Bishops, and Curates: O, that is an edifying man! It feareth me, many of you who are pretenders high enough to knowledge, and piety, can little judge of men's Gifts when all is done: and I make no doubt, oft times leaves better at home then what ye go to. But passing this, I offer to your serious consideration these few things anent the divers measures of Ministerial Gifts, and Edification by them. 1. The Lord hath not given to all Ministers alike measure of Gifts, but the Spirit distributes in what measure he pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. and therefore to undervalue men of low Gifts, is to quarrel with the Almighty. 2. Though all have not received alike measure, we must not therefore think the meanest Gifts are useless, 1 Cor. 12. vers. 21.25. 3. The best Gifts can not of themselves work on hearts and consciences, it's only the Spirit can do this by what means pleaseteh him, weak or strong, 1 Cor. 3. vers. 6, 7. And therefore peoples too much magnifying of Cifts is but an idolising of men, and giving Gods due to the Creature, this seems to have been the fault of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. chap. 1. and chap. 3. The learned Hieronimus Zauchius in the Epistle Dedicatory to the seventh Tom. of his Works, tells, that when first he left Italy, he came to Geneve, and there observing a French man who used always to hear Calvin, and none else, he asked him his reason why he did not hear Viretus as occasion served, he answered, that if Paul were to come and preach at Geneve, Ego relicto Paulo, audirem Calvinum, i. e. he would leave Paul and go hear Calvin; which answer amazed Zauchius, and saith that he heard him, cum summa animi offension, i. e. Zauchius was much troubled and offended at his answer, and observeth from it, how dangerous it is for people to admire any Minister too much, and make gods of them, as he saith, and to despise others. 4. The Lord useth ofttimes to do more good by men of weak Gifts, than by greater. Christ was very far beyond Peter in Gifts, for he received not the Spirit in measure, and his enemies did bear him witness, that never man spoke like him. And in another place, They wondered at the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth; And yet Act. 2. Peter a poor sinful man, and very weakly gifted in comparison of Christ, at one Sermon converteth three thousand. We read not where of the like success of Christ's Ministry, but we hear him oft complaining of small success, as was before prophesied, Isai 49. vers. 4. and Chap, 53. vers. 1, 2, 3. etc. And in the Gospel frequently upbraiding these to whom he had preached, because of their unbelief, Math. 11. vers. 20, 21, 22, 23. etc. Chap. 13. vers. 14, 15. etc. Chap. 23. vers. 37. John. 5. vers. 40. and in other places. And in that famous Sermon he had on the Mount, Mat. 5.6, 7. It's said Chap. vers. 28. that when he had ended his Sermon, the people were astonished, but not a word that many were converted, but ground for the contrary, from Chap 8. vers. 10, 11, 12. where commending the Centurion's faith, he saith to the multitude that followed him down from the Mount, That many should come from the East and West and sit down with Abraham, etc. And the unbelieving Jews, who were the children of the Kingdom, should be cast out. Therefore, I say, if people would in one orderly way, attend the Ordinances in their own congregations, and would lay aside prejudices, and pray that the Gifts of their own Ministers may be blessed to them; they might expect it should not be in vain, 2 Cor. 4.7. We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency, etc. And surely the more weak and insufficient the Instrument is, the more is his Omnipotency conspicuous, and his Arm revealed in doing good by weak means. Ponder these things well, which you will find do little favour your Separation upon pretence of being edified.  D. 
Though some withdraw, all will not.  I. 
The fewer the better: yet if you withdraw, why may not others, and if some, why not all? for it is natural to people to be led by ill example. And if all withdraw, we shall have Pastors without Flocks: and is it not by your means almost come to this already in sundry places; but, as I have shown, none ought to withdraw.  D. 
None ought to withdraw! that i● strange. What obligation lieth on me to be an ordinary hearer in my own Congregation?  I. 
I spoke somewhat before of the obligation we are under to maintain the Church's Peace, and of the Acts of the Church in ancient times, and in our own times to this purpose. And now further, do you not know that there is a reciprocal obligation betwixt a Minister and his People, which can not be so easily broken as you imagine. As the Minister is obliged to labour among the people of his charge, diligently and faithfully, and that upon his peril, Ezek. 33. vers. 8. Heb. 13. vers. 17. So the people of his charge are bound to attend on his Ministry among them. To esteem him highly, and love him for his Works sake, Mal. 2. vers. 7. 1 Thes. 5. vers. 11, 12. To obey him, Heb. 13. vers. 17. Now how obey ye these injunctions when ye turn your backs upon your Ministers, will not receive the Law from their mouth, but do undervalue, despise, discountenance, discourage, and weaken their hands by this your contempt, and by your reproaches too, which oft ye are pleased to cast upon them? Do ye not fear what Christ hath said, He that despiseth you despiseth me? Hear I pray you what Mr. Durham (whose testimony I think ye ought to regard) saith, he speaking of a Ministers relation to a particular Congregation, on Revel. Pag. 105, 106. After he hath showed that there is warrant from those Epistles directed to the Angels of the seven Churches, for a more special relation betwixt a Minister and such a Flock, rather than another Flock, and betwixt a Flock and such a Minister, rather than another Minister: for the Angel of Ephesus was not the Angel of Smyrna, nor yet the Church of Ephesus equally bound to the Angel of Smyrna, as to the Angel of Ephesus, he saith, Upon this delegation by the master, such a people became peculiarly the people of such a Minister, and by the Master's appointment are to submit to the Ordinances administered by him; because that same Lord and Master of the Minister who warrants him peculiarly to treat with such a people, being also Master of that Flock; calleth them peculiarly to submit to that Minister from which, according to his appointment there ariseth a mutual obligation betwixt such a Minister and such a people; he is bound to Minister to them in the Gospel, and they are bound to submit to him, strengthen him, acknowledge him, communicate to him in all good things, etc. And further, he there shows, that this Obligation is not founded upon mere voluntar consent, but on these Scripture commands, 1 Thes. 5. vers. 12. Heb. 13. vers. 17. Galat. 6. vers. 6. and the like; although there be no explicit covenanting betwixt a Minister and a People in reference to these ends. And, pag. 106. he saith, From this mutual obligation there ariseth a nearer sympathy betwixt that Minister and People, than betwixt him and any other People, and betwixt them and that Minister, than betwixt them and any other Minister: They have common interests, common hazards, common joy and grief: and a cross to one should be to both. And a little after he addeth, that there are peculiar duties called for on both sides to each other, which are not so required betwixt them and others; and that there will be a peculiar reckoning that will follow hereupon; As the Minister must reckon for his People, ●…o the People for their reverencing, and incou●…aging of him in a special manner: And that ●…n this account Paul did aggredge particu●…arly the Gentiles, their slighting and griev●…ng of him, in his Epistles to the Corinthi●…ns, and Galatians; Because of his parti●…ular delegation in reference to them. Thus Mr. Durham, who, you see, speaks ●…ome to this point, and upon Scripture ●…rounds binds you faster to the Ministers of your own Congregations, than you ●…re ware.  D. 
But there are other reasons that keep ●…ack many of us, why we cannot have free●…om to hear and own the Ministers of the ●…ime, were they never so able to edify.  I. 
What are these Reasons?  D. 
First, They have not entered by a all from the People, as all Ministers should ●…o, Act. 14. vers. 23. But by a Pre●…ntation from some Patron.  I. 
Sundry of those whom ye refuse to ●…ear, entered by the people's call, and ●…ch ye ought to hear, notwithstanding ●…is reason of yours. As to that place, ●…ct. 14.23. I know many have pleaded ●…e people's right to Elect their own Minister from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used, which is borrowed from the Custom used in some of the ancient Greek States, where the people signified their Election of their Magistrates, by the stretching forth of their hands, for so the word signifieth. But that place, Act. 14. and the word as it is there used, will not necessarily import the people's choicing of their own Ministers: For, 1. Some learned Interpreters, and Critics on that place, among whom especially, see Hammond, shows that this word is often used by Writers, to express the action of one single person, and thus it is used by the same Lut, Act. 10.41. Speaking of Gods choicing or appointing: So that the word is not necessarily to be understood of the action, or deed of many, choicing by suffrage●… or voices. 2. It's observed that the Gree●… Writers ordinarily used this word to signify the ordaining of a person to a certain charge, which is done without suffrages, or choicing by votes. And tha●… so it must be taken here, appears from this because it is Paul and Barnabas, wh●… are said to do this work expressed her by the Greek word, and not the people. Now you will not say, that Paul and Barnabas did elect Ministers to these Churches, that were to yield the question: Therefore in our Translation it is said, when they, that is, Paul and Barnabas had ordained them Elders in every Church, they prayed and commended them to the Lord. Now all these were the actions of Paul and Barnabas, not of the people. And, 3. If you mean by this Word, the people's electing Ministers by suffrages, you lose by it, and gives great advantage to Independents, who are for popular elections of Ministers: Whereas ye give this power, not to all the people, but to the Session: And therefore observing Presbyterians have forborn to press this place, as you expound it. But, 2. If you think the Minister's election either by People or Session essential, that is, so necessary to make one a Minister to such a people, that he cannot be their Minister without it, you by this do not only nullify the Ministry of almost the whole Christian World for above a thousand years upward, but also in particular, the Ministry of this Church of Scotland, ever until the year 1649. for not till then were Patronages taken away, and the election by Sessions brought in use. Now what thanks will you get for this, even from many of yourselves? For not only were all the Protestant Ministers before the year 1638. entered by Presentations, but also all the Presbyterian Ministers after the year, 1638. till the year 1649. And there are some of them still in Office at this day in the same Congregations, to which they entered, not by the Session's election, but by the Patron's Presentation: yet I think none of you will scruple to hear or own them upon that account, nor ever did.  D. 
But I look upon Patronages as a corruption abjured in the Covenant.  I. 
I pray you let me see in what place. And further, if Presentations and Patronages be abjured, how came it to pass that this Kirk did continue so long under Perjury? For from the first taking of the Covenant, till the year 1649, Patronages were still in use. And it's strange if all that while this breach of Covenant was not discerned. And I told you presently yourselves do without scruple hear Ministers of your own persuasion, who entered by Presentations from Patrons.  D. 
Many of your Ministers are ordained by Bishops, and this is another reason why we cannot hear them.  I. 
Yet all the Ministers whom ye refuse to hear were not ordained by Bishops, even all who were ordained betwixt the year 1638. and 1662. or thereby, and there are very many of these at this day in this Church, whom ye will not hear, though they were ordained by a presbytery without a Bishop. As for your not hearing of such as received Ordination from a Bishop, ye would for the same reason have refused to hear those ministers whom Timothy ordained in Ephesus, 1 Tim. 5.22. or whom Titus ordained in Crete, Tit. 1.5. You may see what Calvin saith on the place. And ye would have refused to hear any Minister in the World for many hundreds of years together, for all were ordained by Bishops. It was early said in the Church, Quid facit Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter, excepta Ordinatione. Ordination, than was accounted the proper act of the Bishop, and now Bishops ordain not without the concurrence of Ministers, who also have a hand in that action. And by this reason of yours ye would have refused to hear those Ministers who were the Members of the Assembly of Glasgow, 1638. For though they voted down the Bishops, yet all of them generally had been ordained by Bishops, few or none excepted, and had sworn obedience to them too. And further, by this reason ye should refuse to hear some at this day, who though they do not conform now to Episcopacy: yet were ordained by Bishops before the year 1638. and without scruple ye can hear such of the validity of Ordination by Bishops, see at length the London Presbyterians in their Jus Divinum Ministerij Anglicani, from Pag. 17. especially from pag. 25. to pag. 32. or further if you will to pag. 49.  D. 
Though many of the Ministers of the time were ordained by presbytery without a Bishop, yet now they are turned Curates, no less than such as are ordained by the Bishops, and we can hear none who preach under Bishops, what ever way they were ordained, they are now all of them the Bishop's Curates.  I. 
By your calling Ministers, Curates, I know not whither ye manifest more strength of passion or weakness of judgement. For as all ye who use that word, useth to express your spleen and disdain, not fearing Christ's word, be that despiseth you despiseth me: So there be very few among you who know what the word, Curate, signifieth: And even those who know that it signifieth one who hath, Curam animarum, the care of souls (a name no Minister needs be ashamed of, but should strive to be in some measure answerable to it) yet I suppose, know not well, many of them, how, or in what sense it hath been used, else they would not so ignorantly misapply it: For those use to be called, Curates, who serve the Cure, as they speak, though they be not the Ministers who are presented to the place, but substituted by them to officiat in their room, and hence are called, Curates, the presented Minister being none resident. Now it is not so in this Church. But because ye call a Minister the Bishop's Curate, ye seem to run upon another mistake, as if the Bishop were, or did assume to himself to be the sole and proper Pastor of the whole Diocese, and Ministers were but his substitutes, deputed under him, as so many helpers. I know no Bishop who hath such thoughts of himself, or of Ministers, what ever ye think or say to cast an odium upon them. But why can ye not hear them who preach under the Bishop's Government?  D. 
They are perjured persons, and therefore we cannot hear them?  I. 
All who preach under the present Government, yea, I suppose the most part of them, never took the Covenant, and therefore are not to be called perjured. For I told you at our last conference, the Covenant, as such cannot bind them who never took it, and so such Ministers may be heard, notwithstanding of this reason, and even those Ministers who took the Covenant, and now upon this alteration continue in their Ministry under Bishops, are not perjured (suppose our Episcopacy be meant in the Covenant) for the reasons I gave you at our last communing. An Oath made against a thing in itself not unlawful, can not bind absolutely or in every case; therefore when it's taken, is necessarily to be understood with certain limitations and restrictions; otherwise it may come to be a bond of iniquity, as this Oath, may be, is to many through their mistake hereof. But giving though not granting, that all the Ministers who took the Covenant, and now preach under Bishops, are perjured, it will be hard for you to prove, That therefore they are not to be owned as truly Ministers of the Gospel, nor submitted to. It is true, personal faults and vices make a Minister justly liable to Church censure; and if they be of a high scandalous nature, to deposition; especially if he be impenitent in them: But so long as he is not convict and censured, the question is, whither or not the people may, yea, and aught to wait on his Ministry? You know Judas was sent forth to preach with the rest by Jesus Christ himself, and who will say that it was unwarrantable for any to hear him who came clothed with such a mission and commission from Christ, as long as he was not convict, even though they had known what a knave he was, for Christ knew very well what he was. And ye know what great exceptions might have been brought, both against the Life and Doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 15.23. and in other places. They were most bitter active enemies against Christ the Messiah, by all means sought to undo him, they neglected the weighty duties of the Law, such as Mercy, Judgement, and Faith, were full of Pride and gross hypocrisy: I will not insist to tell you how Naphtaly in a great distemper, miscalls the Ministers of the time very ill: though much were true of what he saith, as God forbidden, yet they would be no worse than the Scribes and Pharisees, yea, not so ill; for they did most maliciously oppose Christ Jesus himself, and that directly: neither have I any pleasure to make that parallel betwixt the Scribes and Pharisees, and your Preachers, ye so much glory of, that some have done, in their long prayers, devouring of widows houses, compassing Sea and Land to make Proselits, etc. They have given but too much ground for these comparisons. But to our purpose, as the Scribes and Pharisees were very gross in their lives, so there was much Leaven in their Doctrine, they brought in a number of humane Traditions into the Doctrine and Worship of God and taught for Doctrines the commandments of men, they took away the Key of Knowledge, etc. Christ in his Sermon on the Mount, Mat. 5. purges the Law from their corrupt glosses: and yet for all this, Simeon and Anna, two old Saints, did not forsake the Temple, Luk. 2. Nor turned Separatists, though it was turned into a den of thiefs. Joseph and Mary went up yearly to the Temple to keep the Passover, and Christ himself went with them at twelve years of age. And Mat. 23. He biddeth hear the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair, notwithstanding their bad lives, and corrupt Doctrines, only he gives a Caveat, to beware of their Leaven, and their ill example: Read Mr. Durham on Revel. Chap. 3. Commenting on the Epistle to the Angel of Sardis, who had a name that he lived, but was dead, Pag. 187. He saith, that comparing that Angel with him of Laodicea, There is ground to say that men who are for their own case unsound, may yet be Ministers in the Church of Christ, and aught to be esteemed so, while they continue in that room; seeing Christ doth so here. And again, saith, The Ordinance of Christ ought not to suffer derogation in whatsoever hands it be; And that hence the Lord recommends to his hearers to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees, Mat. 23. Even when he is about to discover their rottenness, and that Judas was by the people to be accounted an Ambassador of Christ with the rest, because it is not grace that entitleth one to that charge, but Christ's Call and Commission; And seeing a call may be separated from grace, as grace from a call, it will follow, that according to his Sovereignty he may make use of whom he will, he may make use of men even more sinful than others, that it may be known that edifying of souls doth not necessarily depend on the holiness of the Instrument, Act. 3.12. Mat. 7.23. Thus Mr. Durham. Now how can you justify your Separation, when you dare not with any face say the Ministers of the time are as corrupt as were the Scribes and Pharisees, if there be any other knowledge or moderation in you. And suppose you think them as bad, yet they are to be heard, as these were, read the London Ministers, their Jus Divinum Minist. Anglic. pag. 2.  D. 
Christ, Math. 23. verse, 1, 2. Biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees, the words will not bear that.  I. 
I hope ye will not say that he forbiddeth to hear them, as ye use to forbid people to hear among us: a thing your Preachers are much on, as a ready way to gain followers to themselves. It's said, some of them are so far transported as to threaten people with damnation if they hear the Curates (so they call Ministers) how true this is, I will not positively say, the matter reported being so gross, renders it hardly credible: What truth may be in it you know better than I. You say Christ biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees; yet I told you, Mr. Durham saith, Christ there recommends to the people to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees: Now is not hearing of them a part of due ministerial respect, think you? Certainly without this their ministerial respect should be very lame. Christ biddeth the people observe and do what the Scribes and Pharisees from Moses Chair enjoined them to observe and do, and how could they obey Christ's injunction in this, unless they heard the Scribes and Pharisees teach them those things from Moses Chair. He that biddeth me obey my Minister's Doctrine delivered to me from the Word of God, his injunction carrieth also in it, an injunction to hear the Minister deliver those Doctrines to me, or presupposeth my hearing as the ordinary mean, or antecedent of my obedience. Be pleased to consult Interpreters on the place, and you will find them generally expounding that place, both of hearing and obeying. And truly it is too clear a Scripture for you to elude, but will stand against you to your great conviction. Brounists and such like Separatists in Queen Elizabeth's time, and since, found the dint of it from the old non-conformists, who disputed against their dividing practices, which ye so much follow.  D. 
It may be so. Yet many Episcopal Ministers have entered in upon honest men's labours: and for this reason ought not to be heard, but discountenanced as Intruders.  I. 
All the Episcopal Ministers entered not so, very many of them kept still the places the change of Government found them in: Others entered unto Churches upon the vacancies by the death of those who had been there before, or upon their transportation to some other Church. You must confess this reason sayeth nothing against any of those. Yet you say, many Episcopal Ministers did intrude themselves upon other men's labours. If hereby you mean a sinful intrusion, as I know you do, let me ask you, first, were these Ministers whom you charge with Intrusion active in outing their Predecessors, or did they come in upon their places till they were out, and their places declared vacant? 2. Would you, or would these Ministers who were not clear to keep their places on the terms of the change, but choosed rather to step out, have the people of such Congregations left without a settled Ministry, because they were not clear to brook it themselves? Is this all their kindness to their people, or looks it not rather like a piece of petted self, that will neither do nor let do? And what you talk of coming in upon other men's labours, is as applicable to one that cometh in upon a Minister's charge, who against his will is transported to another charge, by those who have power to dispose of him: The Minister so transported, may be, thinketh there is a wrong done both to him, and to the people he is taken from, and the people think so too; and possibly it is so: yet he who succeedeth him upon an orderly and fair call, you know, cannot be said to be an intruder, or in your sense, to come in upon another man's labours. I think an injury, suppose really done to the former Minister, by those who put him to the door, ought not hinder well advised people from submitting to another, for there is a necessity of a Ministry, and knowing conscientious Christians should make the best of what they can not help in their Superiors. And if they cannot get such a Minister as they would, aught to take such as they can have. These Ministers who were put from their charges, for asserting their duty to the King in the year 1648. had far better ground to complain that others were brought in upon their labours: yet they were silent and submissive, nor did they stir up the people to discountenance such as succeeded in their places: and if the people had withdrawn, and refused to hear them that succeeded, as Intruders, as people are taught now to do, without doubt, the Judicatours at that time would have noticed them severely. But Lastly, ye who make so great a clamour of coming in upon other men's labours, what think ye of your own Preachers who go up and down from Paroch to Paroch through the Country, and any one of them will intrude himself not upon one Ministers charge only, but, in so far as he can, upon the charges and labours of all the Ministers in Scotland. Alace, tell us no more of Ministers among us, who have entered upon other men's labours, they are but petty intruders, that confine themselves to one Paroch; but these among you are intruders indeed, and to purpose, Rom. 2.21. When Alexander accused one that he was a Pirate, he answered, I am but a petty one, but you are the great Pirate that makes prey of whole Kingdoms and Nations.  D. 
We are sworn by the Covenant to extirpate all that depend upon the Hierarchy, of which number the Episcopal Ministers are: and therefore cannot lawfully hear them, without breach of our Oath.  I. 
Ministers are not all expressed in that Article: but suppose they were meant, yet it's said, All Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy, that is, as I told you at our last conference, on that kind of Hierarchy that consists and is made up of all these Officers mentioned in the Article, as the English Presbyterians sense it, which kind of Hierarchy we have not in this Church. But further, if Ministers depending on Bishops be there meant, than ye by binding yourselves not to hear them, have bound yourselves to sin; for I told you a little before, Ministers may be very faulty, and sinful Creatures, and yet aught to be heard. But besides, I have shown you before that Episcopacy is a most warrantable Government, which neither you nor I, nor any man could ever unwarrantably abjure, nor Ministers depending on it. So this reason of yours will come to nothing. And Lastly, by your exposition of that Clause of the second Article, ye were bound not to hear any Ministers who were in Office at the time of taking the Covenant, but to root out and extirpate them all, because all these Ministers depended on Bishops as to their Ordination still, even after they took the Covenant, unless they had renounced their Ordination which they received from Bishops, and had been ordained of new by mere Presbyters, which they did not, nor thought themselves bound to do, notwithstanding of the Covenant, otherwise it would follow, that all the time before, they were Ministers without a true Ordination, and so what should become of all their Ministerial Acts they had performed by virtue of that Ordination they had received from Bishops: and yet to this day ye never scrupled hearing such of them as took the Covenant, notwithstanding of their dependence foresaid, which is still a dependence in part, if they but disown the Bishop's Government for the future.  D. 
Besides the reasons already named against hearing I have this to add: we are warranted by the Word to separate from a corrupt Church.  I, 
If you think Bishops are a corruption in the Church, it will not be granted to you. And then you are mistaken, if you think, that every Church that hath corruption in it, is strait way to be separated from. There may be even great corruption in a Church, and yet Separation from her not lawful. Was there not great corruption of Doctrine in the Church of Galatia, and many infected with it? and in the Church of Corinth, was there not an Article of the Creed (the Resurrection of the dead) questioned? Yea, by sundry flatly denied, 1 Cor. 15. Chap. We read of great faults in sundry of these Churches, Rev. Chap. 2. and Chap. 3. And in the Church of the Old Testament sundry times, read the Books of the Kings and the Chronicles, and the Prophets, and you shall see what great corruptions oft were in that Church, and yet no command to the godly to Separate, as ●ong as the very substance of the Worship was not corrupted, as it was in the case of Jeroboams Calves, 2 Chron. 11.16. in the first ages of the Christian Church, it's known what Censures passed against the Novatians, Donatists, and others, because they were Schismatics, and, may be, there was as great corruptions in the Church at that time as any ye can pretend now, if not greater.  D. 
If we may not Separate from a corrupt Church, what then mean these Scriptures? 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 5.11. 2 Thes. 3.6. Rev. 18.3.  I. 
I deny not but a Church may be corrupted in that degree, that Separation from her is warrantable, yea, and necessary. Yet I told you every corruption is no sufficient ground of Separating from her. As for these Scriptures ye name, they prove not your point. In 2 Cor. 6.14. The Apostle is speaking of the duty of Christians in Separating from Idolaters, and Heathens in their Idolatries and ungodly fellowships, not of withdrawing from Christian Assemblies. In 1 Cor. 5.11. and 2 Thes. 3.6. He tells Christians their duty, not to keep needless fellowship in their private converse with such as are scandalous, but biddeth them not withdraw from the public 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 ordinarily 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 presbytery, 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 Superiors, whom both ye and we are bound to obey in things in themselves not sinful: So that our submission is duty, and your non-submission is both disobedience and Schism, disobedience to Authority, Schism from the body of the Church. 2 If ye will consider, that Episcopacy (as at some length I show 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 Schismatics, 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 Christ's 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 obliged to separate from that Church. Alace, then how will ye be able to justify this Separation of yours?  D. 
Your Minister's 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 publicly 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 diet, 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 fit for people's edification to hold them with one Sermon at one diet, 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 weary 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 history, desiring another to learn him a part of a Psalm, and having heard the first verse of the 39 Psalms 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, etc. 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 than 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 join 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 itself 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 yourself 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 lie 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 showing 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 enjoin me to use a thing in itself 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 its 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 show. 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 brother's weakness. It is Scandalum acceptum non datum, Scandel groundlessly 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 Schismatics, or the christian Church never had any, ye have miserably rend 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 miraculously 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 necessary to be done, and therefore took all occasions for doing it in any place, and the rather, because of the opposition this Doctrine, (though in itself most necessary) 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 way and manner of his Ministry, as other Teachers ought and must be, but might Preach, when, and where, and to whom he pleased, for all belonged to his Ministry, 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 mere men to do what Christ did in every thing. These meetings of yours ye hold and frequent in despite of the Laws of the Land, which are very 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 hindered 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 purely preached by the allowance, and under the defence of Authority, a mercy ye too little value. Is it not better to Worship God in a way not contrary to the Law of the Land, the Law allowing me to Worship him purely, than in a way that is contrary to the Law, and joined 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 way quadrat with your case. For First, The Apostles had an immediate extraordinary call from Christ himself, to Preach in his Name, and so were not to be discharged by any Power on Earth. 2. The Prohibition given to them was intended to suppress the Gospel absolutely, and as such, and therefore it was not lawful for them to obey: Nor was there any other visible way to propagate the Gospel through the World, but by their Preaching. But among us, though some Ministers be silent, there are many others not discharged, but allowed to Preach. And, blessed be God, the opposition of Authority is not against the Gospel itself, 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 briefly how your Preachers behave themselves in this Schism, who are indeed the great propagators of it. 1. They exerce their Ministry contrary to the Command of Authority; 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 Solomon's thrusting out Abiathar from the Priesthood, 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 inhibit a Minister to Preach in his Dominions, and the Minister so discharged, aught 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 abhor. Next, These who preach among you make themselves Ministers of the whole Church, without any fixed or settled charge.  D. 
I have heard say that every Minister, is a Minister of the Catholic 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 presbytery, pag. 204. (though wrong figured) and he tells you, that though a Pastor be Pastor of the Catholic Church, yet he is not a Catholic Pastor of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, yet is not a Catholic Minister of the Catholic Church, and that there is great odds betwixt these two. The Apostles, saith he, were Catholic Ministers of the Catholic 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 Watchmen of the whole City indefinitely: 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 Country where they can come. And from this followeth a third step, they encroach, and intrude upon the Charges of other men, of which, I spoke before, and now only shall question you by what Authority 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 employed 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 encroaching by one upon another's Charge: Otherwise what confusions, and absurdities would inevitably follow? When these Ministers who went to Aberdeen, to persuade 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 publicly 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 deign men of their own way, that hereby the Schism might be perpetuated, and kept on foot. They are much in inveighing against Bishops and Curates (as they call the Ministers) Hereby to alienate the minds of people from their own Pastors. Of late they have great mixed communions, at which, persons ignorant of the common principles, and vicious 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 dissuasives 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 unhappy success diffused among their ordinary 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 passed 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 persuasions 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 Christ's body, the Church, and neglecting public 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 broken. I might show you that not only different opinions about Church Government, hath been no hindrance to keep Protestants from joining 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 another's Churches, they have without scruple conformed to the custom 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; than you must think, Christ holds no Communion with such a Church: and if so, than it will follow, that there have been sundry ages since Christ's 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 always unto the end of the World, And also this were to make Christ a head without members, a King without a Kingdom, etc. 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 ourselves 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 yourself with the writings of the old non-conformists in England, Cartwright, Bredshaw, Ball, Paget, Hildersham, etc. 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 sixty directions to people, to guard them against the sin of Separation, some of which, I shall but name, omitting 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 necessity 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 ourselves 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 Spirit of God. 25. That we be not overtender 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 ourselves needlessly to the familiar company of that sort of christians, who use to censure them that are more sober, catholic, and charitable than themselves, etc. Where he saith, if ever we shall have peace, and love recovered, it must be by training up ●●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 Christ's 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 als comfortable to be a M●n tire 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 descent 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 Minister, Ought such a Man to hear such a Minister? Ans. In such a case that man ought rather to remove his habitation, than that for his sake, the bounding of Parishes be laid aside. Pag. 12. In Scripture to appoint Elders in every Church, and in every City is all one. They that were converted in a City (who were at first but few in number) joined in Church-Fellowship with the Elders and Congregation of that City, and not with any other. Pag. 25. Some evil men may, and alwise have, de facto, been Officers and Ministers in the Church. In the Jewish Church Hophni and Phineas: In the days of Christ, Scribes and Pharisees, yet the wickedness of such did not null or evacuat their Ministerial Acts. The Scribes and Pharisees were to be heard, though they said, and did not. Christ's commission did aswell authorise Judas as any other to preach and baptise— The leprosy of the hand doth not hinder the growing of the Corn, which that hand soweth. Pag. 42, 43. The ten Tribes did not only worship God after a false manner; by setting up their Golden Calves in Dan and Bethel, etc.— Yet notwithstanding all this when the Prophet came to anoint Jehu, he sayeth, thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have anointed thee King over the people of the Lord, even over Israel, etc. In Christ's time, it is evident that the Office of the Priest, and highpriest was exceedingly corrupted, they came ordinarily unto their Office by bribery and faction— The priests, and high-priests had the chief stroke in the crucifying of Christ. And yet we read, Joh. 11.51. Caiaphas is owned by the holy Ghost, as highpriest, etc. Act. 23. When Paul said to the highpriest, God will smite thee, thou whited wall, etc. And they that stood by said, Revilest thou the highpriest? Paul answered, I witted not, brothers, that he was the highpriest. For it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. Paul, as many think, acknowledged him as highpriest, though the priesthood at that time was Tyrannical, Heretical, and they came by most unjust ways into their places, and offices. From all this it appears, that corruptions cleaving to God's Ordinances, do not null his Ordinances. Thus they. Mr. Rutherfoord (a witness whom ye will not refuse) in his dueright of presbytery, from pag. 220. to pag. 256. (though wrong figured) discusseth the Question, in what cases it is lawful to separate from a Church, where among sundry other things, he saith, pag. 232. Separation from a true Church, where the Orthodox Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered, we think unlawful: And at great length he vindicats, 2 Cor. 6.14. against Separatists. Pag. 233. The personal sins of others are no warrant for Separation: For Christ himself and the Apostles did eat the passover and worship God, with one, who Christ said had a devil, and should betray the Son of Man, and was an unclean man, Joh. 13.11, 18. Ibid. If it be said, Judas was neither convicted of his treachery against Christ, nor was he known to the Apostles by name to be the man: For some of them suspected themselves, and not Judas to be the traitor. Answ. Christ told the Disciples that they were an unclean society, and that one had a devil: And therefore though they knew not the man by name, who had the devil, yet they knew the society to have a devil, and to be unclean for that one man's cause, yet Christ and the Disciples did communicate at that Supper, notwithstanding of this. Pag. 250. It was not lawful to separat from the Pharisees preaching the truth in Moses, his Chair. Pag. 253. The godly laudably did not separate from the Israel and Church of God, because the Altar of Damascus was set up, and because of the high places. Things dedicated unto Idols, as Lutheran images, may be called, and are called, 1 Cor. 10.34. Idolatry, yet are they Idolatry by participation, and so the cup of devils, 1 Cor. 10.21. Paul doth not command Separation from the Church of Corinth, and the Table of the Lord there. Pag. 254. The godly in England who refused the Ceremonies, and Bishops, did well, not to separate from the visible Church in England. He saith indeed they separated from the Church in the worst and greatest part: which he understands of their disowning Bishops and the Ceremonies, but yet they kept communion with that Church in unquestionable duties, as is well known, all except the Separatists, against whom, Mr. Rutherfoord is here reasoning, and against whom, the old Nonconformists did write. Ibid. If a Church be incorrigible in a wicked conversation, and yet retain the true faith of Christ, it is presumed, God hath there some to be saved, and that where Christ's Ordinances be, there also his Church presence is: And therefore I doubt much if that Church should be separated from, for the case is not here as with one simple person, for it is clear, all are not involved in that incorrigible obstinacy, and that is yet a true visible communion in which we are to remain; for there is some Union with the Head Christ, where the faith is kept sound and that visibly. Though a private brother being scandalous and obstinately flagitious, be to be cast off, yet are we not to deal so with an Orthodox Church, where the most part are scandalous. Ibid. I see not but we may Separate from the Lords Supper where Bread is adored, and from Baptism, where the sign of the Cross is added to Christ's Ordinance, yet are we not Separated from the Church, for we professedly hear the Word, and visibly allow the truth of Doctrine, maintained by that Church, and are ready to seal it with our blood, etc. Pag. 254, 255. There may be causes of non-union with a Church, which are not sufficient causes of Separation. Paul would not separate from the Church of the Jews, though they rejected Christ, till they openly Blasphemed, Act. 13.44, 45, 46. Act. 18.16. Ibid. There is no just cause to leave a less clean Church (if it be a true Church) and to go to a purer and cleaner: Though one who is a member of no Church, may join to that Church which he conceiveth to be purest, and cleanest. You see then that Mr. Rutherfoord, and the English Presbyterians, in their Book cited before, teach, that neither personal faults, whether in Ministers or People (suppose they be real) nor yet real faults about the Worship of God, are sufficient grounds of Separation; much less when but only supposed. 
Now to make an end, try all things impartially, and know that it is no disparagement for you, nor any to retract that, wherein you have been wrong, either in opinion, or practice. It is indeed somewhat hard for men to confess they have been wrong, and such are rare to be found: yet Augustin one of the most learned of all the Fathers, wrote whole Books of retractions, for which he is as deservedly famous, as for any thing else. And, saith Jerom to Ruffinus, never blush to change thy opinion, for neither you, nor I, nor any person alive, are of so great Authority as to be ashamed to confess, we have erred. The Lord bless us with Truth, and Peace, Peace be within the Walls of our Jerusalem, and Prosperity within her Palaces, and let them prosper who love her, and her peace. Amen.  D. 
I thank you for your free, and friendly communing with me. I know the Apostle biddeth me prove all things, which I resolve to do, And to beg illumination from the Father of Lights, and that he would give me understanding in all things. And what upon due trial, I find to be right and good, I shall by his Grace hold it fast. Farewell.  Schisma proles superbiae, male perseverando fit Haeresis, & mater Haereseos.  
FINIS.   

Differences of the Time.