Basiliká the works of King Charles the martyr : with a collection of declarations, treaties, and other papers concerning the differences betwixt His said Majesty and his two houses of Parliament : with the history of his life : as also of his tryal and martyrdome.

II. An Humble Answer returned to Your Majesties Paper delivered to us, Octob. 2. MDCXLVIII.

May it please Your Majesty,

[ 1] WE do fully agree without hesitation, That these Scriptures cited in the margin of Your Paper, Acts xiv. 23. Acts vi. 6. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 1 Cor. xiv. 1 Cor. v. 3. iii John 9, & 10. do prove that the Apostles did ordain Presbyters and Deacons, give Rules concerning Christian Discipline, and had power of exercising Censures over Presbyters and others: and that these places of Scripture, 1 Tim. v. 22. Tit. i. 5. 1 Tim. v. 19. Titus 3. 10. do prove that Timothy and Titus had power to ordain Pres∣byters and Deacons, and to exercise censures over Presbyters and others: and that the se∣cond and third Chapters of the Revelation do prove, That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches, and exercising Censures.

[ 2] But that either the Apostles, or Timothy and Titus, or the Angels of the Churches were Bishops, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, exercising Episcopal Government in that sense; or that the Apostles did commit and derive to any particular persons as their Substitutes and Successors any such Episcopal Government; or that this is proved in the least measure by the Scriptures alledged, we do as fully deny. And therefore do humbly deny also, That Episcopal Government is therefore most consonant to the Word of God, and of Apostolical institution, or proved so to be by these Scriptures. None of these were Bishops, or practised Episcopal Government, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters. Neither is such an Officer of the Church as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter to be found in the New Testament (by which we humbly conceive that our Faith and Conscience touching this point ought to be concluded.) The Name, Office, and Work of Bishop and Presbyter being one and the same in all things, and never in the least distinguisht, as is clearly evident, Tit. i. 5, 7. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Presbyters in every City, as I had appointed thee. For a Bishop must be blameless. In which place the Apo∣stle his reasoning were altogether invalid and inconsequent, if Presbyter and Bishop were not the same Office, as well as they have the same Name.

The same is manifest, Acts xx. 17, 28. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and cal∣led

the Presbyters of the Church, to whom he gave this charge, verse 28. Take heed therefore unto your selves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bi∣shops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to feed and govern the Church of God. Where we observe, That the Apostle being to leave these Presbyters, and never to see their faces more, verse 28. doth charge them with the feeding and governing of the Church, as being Bishops of the Holy Ghost's making. But that the Holy Ghost did make any superior or high∣er kind of Bishops than these common Presbyters, is not to be found in that or any o∣ther Text.

And that under the mouth of two or three witnesses this assertion of ours may stand; we add to what we have already said, that in 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. The Presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am also a Presbyter; Feed the flock of God which is among you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. performing the office of Bishops. Where it appears plain to us, that under the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used in this place, is expressed whatsoever work the Pres∣byters are to do. Neither can Bishops, so called, as above Presbyters, do more for the government and good of the Church otherwise than is there expresly enjoyned unto Presbyters. By all which that hath been said, the point is rendred to be most clear to the judgement of most men, both ancient and of later times, That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the New Testament as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter: neither doth the Scripture afford us the least notice of any qualification required in a Bi∣shop that is not required in a Presbyter, nor any Ordination to the Office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, nor any work or duty charged upon a Bishop which Presby∣ters are not enjoyned to do, nor any greater honour or dignity put upon them. For that double honour which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. v. 17. as due to Presbyters that rule well, is with a note of (especially) affixed to that Act or work of labouring in the word and Doctrine, which is not that Act wherein Bishops have challenged a singularity or peculiar eminency above the Presbyters.

[ 3] To that which Your Majesty doth conceive, That Episcopal government was practised by the Apostles themselves; we humbly answer, That the Apostles, as they were the high∣est Officers of the Church of Christ, so they were extraordinary in respect of their com∣mission, gifts and Office, and distinguisht from all other Officers, 1 Cor. xii. 28. God hath set some in the Church, first, Apostles, secondarily, Prophets, thirdly, Teachers; Ephes. iv. 11. Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. Where the Apostles are distinguished from Pastors and Teachers, who are the ordinary Officers of the Church for Preaching the Word, and Government. That they had power and authority to ordain Church-Officers, and to exercise Censures in all Churches, we affirm; and withal, that no other Persons or Officers of the Church may challenge or assume to themselves such power in that respect alone, because the Apostles practised it: except such power belong unto them in common, as well as to the Apo∣stles, by warrant of the Scripture. For that Government which they practised was Apo∣stolical, according to the peculiar commission and authority which they had, and no otherwise to be called Episcopal, than as their Office was so comprehensive, as they had power to do the work of any or all other Church-Officers; in which respect they call themselves Presbyteri, Diaconi, (but never Episcopi in distinct sense;) and therefore we humbly crave leave to say, that to argue the Apostles to have practised Episcopal Goverment because they ordained other Officers, and exercised Censures, is as if we should argue a Justice of Peace to be a Constable, because he doth that which a Constable doth in some particulars. It's manifest that the Office of Bishops and Presbyters was not distinct in the Apostles. They did not act as Bishops in some Acts, and as Presbyters in other Acts: the distinction of Presbyters and Bishops being made by men in after-times.

[ 4] And whereas Your Majesty doth conceive that the Episcopal Government was by the Apostles committed and derived to particular persons, as their Substitutes or Successors there∣in, as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian discipline, and exercising censures over Presbyters and others, seeming by the alledged places of Scripture to instance in Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches; we humbly answer, and first, to that of Timothy and Titus. We grant that Timothy and Titus had Authority and Power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of exercising Censures over Pres∣byters and others; though we cannot say they had this power as the Apostles Substitutes or Successors in Episcopal Government; nor that they exercised the power they had as being Bishops in the sense of Your Majesty; but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists,

which Evangelists were an Office in the Church distinct from Pastors and Teachers, Eph. iv. 11. and that they were Evangelists, it appears by their being sent up and down by the Apostles, or taken along with them in company to several Churches, as the neces∣sity and occasion of the Churches did require: The one of them being expresly called an Evangelist, 1 Tim. iv. 5. and neither of them being any where in Scripture called Bi∣shop. Neither were they fixed to Ephesus and Crete, as Bishops in the Churches com∣mitted to them; but removed from thence to other places, and never, for ought ap∣pears in Scripture, returned to them again. And it seems clear to us, that neither their abode at Ephesus and Crete was for any long time, nor so intended by the Apostle. For he imploys them there upon occasional business, and expresses himself in such manner, (I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Tim. i. 3. For this cause left I thee in Crete, Tit. i. 5.) as doth not carry the fixing or constituting of a Bishop in a place as perpetu∣al Governour. And it is as manifest that they were both of them called away from these places: ii Tim. iv. 9. Do thy diligence to come to me shortly; Tit. iii. 12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis. So that they may as well be called Bishops of any other Cities or Churches, where they had any considerable abode, as they are pretended to have been of Ephesus and Crete; as they are called by the Postscripts of these Epistles; the credit of which Postscripts we cannot build upon in this point.

[ 5] Secondly, to that of the Angels of the Churches.

The Ministers of the Churches are called Stars, and Angels, which denominations are metaphorical and in a mystery, Rev. i. 20. the mystery of the seven Stars; Angels in respect of their Mission or sending, Stars in respect of their Station and shining. And it seems strange to us, that to so many express Testimonies of Scripture, an allegorical deno∣mination or mystery should be opposed: These Angels being no where called Bishops in vulgar acceptation; nor the word Bishop used in any of John's writings, who calls himself Presbyter; nor any mention of superiority of one Presbyter to another, but in Diotrephes affecting it. And as to that which may be said, that the Epistles are directed to one, we answer, that a number of persons are in the mysterious and prophetick writings expres∣sed in singulars; and we humbly conceive, that being written in an Epistolary style, (for they are as Letters or Epistles to the Churches) these writings are directed as Letters to collective Representative Bodies use to be, that is, to one, but intended and meant to that Body in meeting assembled; which that they were so intended, is clear to us, both because there were in Ephesus Bishops and Presbyters, one and the same, to whom the Apostle at his farewel commendeth the Government of the Church; and by divers expressions in these Epistles, as Rev. 11. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira; by which distinction of you and the rest, we conceive the particular Governours (which were more than one) and the people to be signified. And so cannot consent that any sin∣gular person had majority over the rest, or sole power of exercising Church-Censures and Government spoken of in these Chapters.

[ 6] Having thus (as we humbly conceive) proved by pregnant places of Scripture com∣pared together, that the Apostles themselves did not institute or practice Episcopal Go∣vernment, nor commit and derive it to particular persons, as their Substitutes or Successors therein; we shall in farther discharge of our duty to, and for the more clear and full sa∣tisfaction of, Your Majesty in this point, briefly declare into what Officers hands the ordinary and standing Offices of the Church were transmitted and derived by and from the Apostles. The Apostles had no Successors in eundem gradum: the Apostolical Of∣fice was not derived by Succession, being instituted by Christ by extraordinary and spe∣cial Commission. But for the ordinary and standing use and service of the Church, there were ordained only two Orders of Officers, viz. Bishops and Deacons; which the Apo∣stle expresseth, Phil. 1. 1. To all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons; and onely of them doth the Apostle give the due Characters of Officers, 1 Tim. iii 2, 8. From both which places of Scripture we conclude with ancient Expositors, both Greek and Latine, that Bishops are the same with Presbyters, and be∣sides Presbyters, there is no mention of any other Order but that of Deacons. Of both which Orders in the Apostles times there were in one City more than one, as in Philip∣pi and Ephesus. And we humbly offer to Your Majesty as observable, That though one Order might be superiour to another Order, yet in the same Order of Officers there was not any one superior to others of the same Order: No Apostle was above an Apostle; no Evangelist above an Evangelist; no Presbyter above a Presbyter; no Deacon above

a Deacon. And so we conclude this part, That since Church Officers are instituted and set in the Church by God or Christ Jesus, and that Ordination by or in which the Of∣fice is conveyed is of no other Officers but of Presbyters and Deacons, therefore there are no other Orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Churches of Christ.

[ 7] As for the Ages immediately succeeding the Apostles, we answer, first, Our Faith reaches no farther than the Holy Scriptures: No human testimony can beget any more than a human faith. Secondly, we answer, That it is agreed upon by Learned men, as well such as contend for Episcopacy, as others, that the times immediately suc∣ceeding the Apostles, are very dark in respect of the History of the Church. Thirdly, That the most unquestionable Record of those times gives clear testimony to our as∣sertion, viz. The Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians, who reciting the Orders of Church-Officers, expresly limits them to two, Bishops and Deacons; and them whom in one place he calls Bishops, he always afterwards nameth Presbyters. The Epistles of Ignatius pretend to the next Antiquity, but are by some suspected as wholly spurious, and proved by Vedelius to be so mixed, that it is hard, if not impossible, to know what part of them are genuine: Besides, Bishop Vsher in his late observations on them, chap. 18. pag. 138. confesses, that of the twelve of his Epistles, six are counterfeit, the other six mixt, and none of them in every respect to be accounted sincere and genuine. Fourthly, we grant, That not long after the Apostles times, Bishops in some superiori∣ty to Presbyters are by the Writers of those times reported to be in the Church; but they were set up not as a Divine Institution, but as an Ecclesiastical, as afterwards both Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs were. Which is clear by Doctor Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles, wherein he shews out of Bishop Jewel, that Ambrose, Chrysostome, Jerome, Augustine, and many more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle Paul, agree that by the Word of God there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter; and that Medina in the Council of Trent affirms not only the same Fathers, but also ano∣ther Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius and Theophylact, to be of the same judgment: and that with them agree Oecumenius, Anselme Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, and another Anselme, Gregory and Gratian, and after them many others: that it was inrolled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholick Doctrine, and publickly taught by Learned men. And adds, That all who have laboured in the Reformation of the Church for these 500 years, have taught that all Pastors, be they intituled Bishops or Priests, have equal authority and power by God's word. The same way goes Lombard Master of the Sen∣tences, and Father of the School-men, who speaking of Presbyters and Deacons, saith, The Primitive Church had those Orders only, and that we have the Apostles precept for them alone. With him agree many of the most eminent in that kind, and gene∣rally all the Canonists. To these we may add Sixtus Senensis, who testifies for himself and many others: and Cassander, who was called by one of the German Emperors, as one of singular ability and integrity, to inform him and resolve his Conscience in que∣stions of that nature; who said, It is agreed among all, that in the Apostles times there was no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. For a conclusion, we add, that the Doctrine we have herein propounded to Your Majesty concerning the Identity of the Order of Bishops and Presbyters, is no other than the Doctrine published by King Henry the 8. 1543. for all his Subjects to receive, seen and allowed by the Lords both Spiritual and Temporal, with the neather House of Parliament. Of these two Orders on∣ly, (so saith the Book) that is to say, Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands. By all which it seems evident, that the Order of Episcopacy, as distinct from Presbytery, is but an Ecclesiastical Institution, and therefore not unalterable.

[ 8] Lastly, we answer, That Episcopal Government which at first obtained in the Church, did really and substantially differ from the Episcopal Goverment which the Honoura∣ble Houses of Parliament desire the abolition of. The Bishop of those times was one presiding and joining with the Presbytery of his Church, ruling with them, and not without them: either created and made by the Presbyters, chusing out one among themselves, as in Rome and Alexandria; or chosen by the Church, and confirmed by three or more of his Neighbours of like dignity within the same precinct; lesser Towns and Villages had, and might have have, Bishops in them, as well as populous and eminent Cities, until the Council of Sardis decreed, That Villages and small Cities should have no Bishops, lest the name and authority of a Bishop might thereby come into con∣tempt. But of one claiming as his due and right, to himself alone, as a superior order or degree, all power about Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, and all jurisdiction,

either to exercise himself, or delegate to whom he will of the Laity or Clergy, (as they distinguish) according to the Judgment and Practice of those in our times, we read not till in the latter and corrupter Ages of the Church.

By all which it appears, that the present Hierarchy, the abolition whereof is desired by the Honourable Houses, may accordingly be abolished, and yet possibly the Bishops of those Primitive times, be. They are so far differing one from another.

[ 9] In answer to that part of Your Majesties Paper, wherein You require whether our Saviour and his Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty, as they might totally alter or change the Church-Government at their pleasure; we humbly conceive that there are Sub∣stantials belonging to Church-Government, such as are appointed by Christ and his Apostles, which are not in the Churches liberty to alter at pleasure. But as for Arch-Bishops, &c. we hope it will appear unto Your Majesties Conscience, that they are none of the Church-Governors appointed by our Saviour and his Apostles. And we beseech Your Majesty to look rather to the Original of them, than Succession.

Octob. 3. 1648.