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.

IV. The Humble Answer of the Divines attending the Honourable Com∣missioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, to the Second Paper delivered to them by His Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. Delivered to His Majesty, Octob. 17.

May it please Your Majesty,

[ 1] AS in our Paper of October the third, in Answer to Your Majesties of October the second, we did, so now again we do, acknowledg that the Scriptures cited in the Margin of Your Majesties Paper do prove, that the Apostles in their own persons, that Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches, had power respectively to do those things which are in those places of Scripture specified: But as then, so now also we humbly do deny, that any of the persons or Officers fore-mentioned were Bishops as distinct from Presbyters, or did exercise Episcopal Government in that sense; or that this was in the least measure proved by the alledged Scriptures. And therefore our Negative not being to the same point or state of the Question which was affirmed, we humbly conceive that we should not be interpreted to have, in effect, denied the very same thing which we had before granted, or to have acknowledged that the several Scriptures do prove the thing for which they are cited by Your Majesty. And if that which we granted were all that, by the Scripture cited in Your Margin, Your Majesty intended to prove; it will follow, that nothing hath yet been proved on Your Ma∣jesties part, to make up that Conclusion which is pretended.

[ 2] As then we stood upon the Negative to that Assertion, so we now crave leave to represent to Your Majesty, that Your Reply doth not infirm the Evidence given in main∣tenance thereof. The reason given by Your Majesty in this Paper to support Your As∣sertion, That the persons that exercised the power aforesaid were Bishops in distinct sense, is taken from a description of Episcopal Government; which is (as Your Majesty saith) nothing else but the Government of the Churches within a certain Precinct (commonly called a Diocess) committed to one single person, with sufficient authority over the Presbyters and people of those Churches for that end: which Government so described being for substance of the thing it self in all the three forementioned particulars (Ordaining, giving rules of Discipline, and Censures) found in Scriptures, except we will contend about names and words, must be acknowledged in the sense aforesaid to be sufficiently proved from Scriptures. And Your Majesty saith farther, that the Bishops do not challenge more or other power to belong to them, in respect of their Episcopal Office, as it is distinct from that of Presbyters, than what properly falls under one of those three.

[ 3] We desire to speak both to the Bishops Challenge, and to Your Majesties Description of Episcopal Government. And first to their Challenge, because it is first exprest in Your Majesties Reply.

[ 4] The Challenge we undertake in two respects: 1. In respect of the Power challenged, 2. in respect of that ground or Tenure upon which the claim is laid. The Power chal∣lenged consists of three particulars, Ordaining, giving Rules of Discipline, and Censures: No more, no other, in respect of their Episcopal Office. We see not by what war∣rant this Writ of partition is taken forth by which the Apostolical Office is thus shared or divided; the Governing part into the Bishops hands, the Teaching and administring Sacraments into the Presbyters. For besides that the Scripture makes no such inclosure or partition-wall, it appears, the challenge is grown to more than was pretended unto in the times of grown Episcopacy. Jerome and Chrysostom do both acknowledg for their time, that the Bishop and Presbyter differed only in the matter of Ordination: and learned Doctor Bilson makes some abatement in the claim of three, saying, the things proper to Bishops, which might not be common to Presbyters, are singularity of Suc∣ceeding, and superiority in Ordaining.

[ 5] The Tenure or ground upon which the claim is made, is Apostolical, which with us is all one with Divine Institution. And this, as far as we have learned, hath not been anciently, openly, or generally avowed in this Church of England, either in time of Po∣pery, or of the first Reformation; and whensoever the pretension hath been made, it

was not without the contradiction of learned and godly men. The abettors of the chal∣lenge, that they might resolve it at last into the Scripture, did chuse the most plausi∣ble way of ascending by the scale of Succession, going up the River to find the Head: but when they came to Scriptures, and found it like the head of Nile (which cannot be found) they shrouded it under the name and countenance of the Angels of the Churches, and of Timothy and Titus. Those that would carry it higher, endeavoured to impe it into the Apostolical Office, and so at last called it a Divine Institution, not in force of any express precept, but implicite practice of the Apostles; and so the Apostolical Office (ex∣cepting the gifts or enablements confest only extraordinary) is brought down to be Episcopal, and the Episcopal raised up to be Apostolical. Whereupon it follows, that the Highest Officers in the Church are put into a lower orb; an extraordinary Office turned into an ordinary, a distinct Office confounded with that which in the Scripture is not found, a temporary and an extinct Office revived. And indeed if the definitions of both be rightly made, they are so incompetible to the same subject, that he that will take both must lose that one; aut Apostolus Episcopatum, aut Apostolatum Episcopus: For the Apostles, though they did not in many things act aliud, yet they acted alio nomine & alio munere, then Presbyters or Bishops do: and if they were indeed Bishops, and their Government properly Episcopal in distinct sense, then it is not needful to go so far about to prove Episcopal government of Divine Institution, because they practised it; but to assert expresly, that Christ instituted it immediately in them.

[ 6] For Your Majesties Definition of Episcopal Government, it is extracted out of the Bi∣shops of later date than Scripture-times, and doth not sute to that Meridian under which there were more Bishops than one in a Precinct or Church; and it is as fully competent to Archiepiscopal and Patriarchal Government, as Episcopal. The parts of this definiti∣on, materially and abstractly considered, may be found in Scripture. The Apostles, Ti∣mothy and Titus, were single persons, but not limited to a Precinct: The Government of the Angel was limited to a Precinct, but not in single persons. In several Offices, not to be confounded, the parts of this definition may be found; but the aggregation of them all together into one ordinary Officer cannot be found. And if that word, ordi∣nary, and standing Government, had made the Genus in your Majesties Definition (as it ought to be) we should crave leave to say it would be gratis dictum, if not petitio principii: for the Scripture doth not put all these parts together in a Bishop, who never borrowed of Apostles, Evangelists, and Angels, the matter of Governing and Ordaining, and left the other of Teaching, dispensing Sacraments, and dealing only in foro interno, to Presbyters, until after-times. By this that hath been said it is mani∣fest enough, that we contend not, first, de nomine, about the Name of Episcopal Go∣vernment; which yet (though names serve for distinction) is not called or distin∣guished by the name in Scripture: nor secondly, de opere, about the Work, whether the work of Governing, Ordering, Preaching, &c. be of continuance in the Church, which we clearly acknowledg: But thirdly, de munere, about the Office, it being a great fallacy to argue, That the Apostles did the same work which Bishops or Presbyters are to do in ordinary: Therefore they were of the same Office. For as it is said of the libe∣ral and learned Arts, one and the same thing may be handled in divers of them: and yet these Arts are distinguisht by formalis ratio of handling of them: so we say of Offices, they are distinguisht by their Callings and Commissions, though not by the work; as all those that are named Eph. iv. ii. Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, are designed to one and the same general and common work, the work of the Ministry, ver. 12. and yet they are not therefore all one; for it's said, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. A Dictator in Rome and an ordinary Tribune, Moses and the subordinate Governors of Israel, the Court of Parliament and of the Kings-Bench, an Apostle and a Presbyter or Deacon, may agree in some common work, and yet no confusion of Offices follows thereupon.

[ 7] To that which Your Majesty conceives, that the most that can be proved from all or any of those places by us alledged (to prove that the Name, Office, and Work of Bishops and Presbyters is one and the same in all things, and not in the least distinguisht) is, That the word Bishop is used in them to signifie a Presbyter, and the consequently the Office and Work mentioned in those places as the Office and Work of a Bishop, are the Office of a Presbyter, which is confessed on all sides; we make this humble return, That though there be no supposition so much as implied that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter are distinct in any thing (for the names are mutually reciprocal,) yet we take Your

Majesties Concession, that in these times of the Church and places of Scripture there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters; and consequently, that the identity of the Office must stand, until there can be found a clear distinction of division in the Scriptures. And if we had argued the identity of Functions from the Community of names and some part of the work, the Argument might have been justly termed a fallacy; but we proved them the same Office from the same work, per omnia, being allowed so to do by the fulness of those two words used in the Acts and S. Peter his Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, under the force of which words the Bishops claim their whole power of Government and Jurisdiction: and we found no little weight added to our Argument from that in the Acts, where the Apostle departing from the Ephesian Presbyters or Bi∣shops, as never to see their faces more, commits (as by a final charge) the Government of that Church, both over parricular Presbyters and people, not to Timothy, who then stood at his elbow, but to the Presbyters, under the name of Bishops, made by the Holy Ghost; whom we read to have set many Bishops over one Church, not one over either one or many. And the Apostles arguing from the same Qualification of a Presbyter and of a Bishop in order to Ordination or putting him into Office, fully proves them to be two names of the same Order or Function; the divers orders of Presbyter and Deacon be∣ing diversly characterised. Upon these grounds (we hope without fallacy) we con∣ceive it justly proved, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are wholly the same. That Timothy and Titus were single persons, having authority of Government, we acknowledge; but deny that from thence any argument can be made unto either single Bishop or Presbyter: for though a singie Presbyter by the power of his Order (as they call it) may preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments; yet by that example of the Presbytery, their Laying on of hands, and that Rule of Telling the Church in matter of scandal, it seems manifest that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter: neither hath Your Majesty hitherto proved either the names of Bishops and Presbyters, or the Function, to be in other places of Scripture at all distinguished; You having wholly waved the notice or answer of that we did assert (and do yet desire some de∣monstration of the contrary) viz. That the Scripture doth not afford us the least notice of any Qualification, any Ordination, any work or duty, any honour peculiary belonging to a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter; the assignment of which, or any of them, unto a Bishop by the Scripture, would put this Question near to an issue. That God should in∣tend a distinct and highest kind of Officer for Government in the Church, and yet not express any qualification, work, or way of constituting and ordaining of him, seems unto us improbable.

[ 8] Concerning the signification of the word Episcopus, importing an Overseer, or one that hath a charge committed to him, for instance, of watching a Beacon, or keeping sheep, and the application of the name to such persons as have inspection of the Churches of Christ committed to them in spiritualibus; we also give our suffrage; but not to that distinction of Episcopus gregis, and Episcopus pastorum & gregis; both because it is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or point in question; and also because Your Majesty having signified that Episcopus imports a keeper of sheep, yet You have not said that it signifies al∣so a keeper of shepherds. As to that which is affirmed by Your Majesty, that the pe∣culiar of the Function of Bishops is Church-Government; and that the reason why the word Episcopus is usually applied to Presbytery, was because Church-Governors had then another title of greater eminency, to wit, that of Apostles, until the Government of the Church came into the hands of their Successors, and then the names were by common usage very soon appropriated, that of Episcopus to Ecclesiastical Governors, that of Presbyter to the ordinary Ministrrs: This assertion Your Majesty is pleased to make without any demonstration; for whom the Scripture calls Presbyters, Rulers, and Pastors, and Teachers, it calls Governors, and commits to them the charge of feeding and inspecti∣on, as we have proved, and that without any mention of Church-Government pecu∣liar to a Bishop. We deny not but some of the Fathers have conceived the notion that Bishops were called Apostles, till the names of Presbyter and Episcopus became appro∣priate; which is either an allusion or conceit, without Evidence of Scripture; for while the Function was one, the names were not divided; when the Function was divided, the name was divided also, and indeed impropriate; but we that look for the same warrant for the division of an Office as for the Constitution, cannot find that this appropriation of names was made till afterwards, or in process of time, as Theodore (one of the Fathers of this conceit) affirms, whose saying, when it is run out of the pale of Scrip∣ture time, we can no further follow. From which premisses laid all together, we did con∣clude

the clearness of our assertion, that in the Scriptures of the New Testament, a Bishop di∣stinct from a Presbyter in Qualification, Ordination, Office or Dignity, is not found: the contrary whereof though Your Majesty saith that You have seen confirmed by great variety of credible Testimony, yet we believe those Testimonies are rather strong in assert∣ing, than in demonstrating the Scripture-Original of a Bishop, which is declared against by a cloud of Witnesses, named in the latter end of our former Answer, unto which we should refer, if matter of right were not properly triable by Scripture, as matter of Fact is by Testimony.

[ 9] We said that the Apostles were the highest Order of Officers of the Church; that they were extraordinary; that they were distinguisht from all other Officers; and that their Government was not Episcopal, but Apostolical. To which Answer Your Majesty, being not satisfied, doth oppose certain Assertions, That Christ himself and the Apostles received their Authority by Mission, their Ability by Vnction; That the Mission of the Apostles was ordinary, and to continue to the end of the World; but the Vnction, whereby they were enabled to both Offices and Functions, Teaching and Governing, was indeed extraor∣dinary; That in their Vnction they were not necessarily to have Successors, but necessarily in their Mission or Office of Teaching and Governing; That in these two ordinary Offices, their ordinary Successors are Presbyters and Bishops; That Presbyters qua Presbyters, do immediately succeed them in the Office of Teaching, and Bishops qua Bishops immediately in the Office of Governing: the demonstration of which last alone would have carried in it more conviction than all these Assertions put together. Officers are distinguished by that whereby they are constituted, their Commission, which being produced signed by one place of Scripture, gives surer evidence than a Pedigree drawn forth by such a se∣ries of distinctions as do not distinguish him into another Officer from a Presbyter. Whe∣ther this chain of distinction be strong, and the links of it sufficiently tackt together, we crave leave to examine. Christ, saith Your Majesty, was the Apostle and Bishop of our Souls, and he made the Apostles both Apostles and Bishops. We do not conceive that Your Majesty means that the Apostles succeeded Christ as the chief Apostle, and that as Bishops they succeed Christ as a Bishop, lest thereby Christ his Mission as an Apostle and Bishop might be conceived as ordinary as their Mission is said to be; but we appre∣hend Your Majesty to mean, that the Office of Apostle and Bishop was eminently contained in Christs Office, as the Office of a Bishop was eminently contained in that of Apostleship: but thence it will not follow that inferior Offices being contained in the superior eminent∣ly, are therefore existent in it formally. For because all Honours and Dignities are eminently contained in Your Majesty, would it therefore follow that Your Majesty is formally and distinctly a Baron of the Realm, as it is asserted, the Apostles to have been Bishops in distinct sense? That Mission refers to Office and Authority, and Vnction only to Abili∣ty, we cannot consent; for besides that the breathing of Christ upon his Disciples, say∣ing, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, doth refer to mission as well as unction; we conceive that in the proper anointing of Kings or other Officers, the natural use and effect of the oil upon the body was not so much intended, as the solemn and ceremonious use of it in the Inaugura∣tion of them. So there is relation to Office in unction, as well as to conferring of abilities; else how are Kings or Priests or Prophets said to be anointed? And what good sense could be made of that expression in Scripture, of anointing one in anothers room? To omit, that Christ by this construction should be called the Messias in respect of Abili∣ties only. And although we should grant Your Majesties explication of Mission and Vnction; yet it will not follow that the mission of the Apostles was ordinary, and their unction only extraordinary. That into which there is succession, was ordinary; that into which there is no succession, (for succession is not unto abilities or gifts) extra∣ordinary; and so the Apostles were ordinary Officers in all whereunto there is pro∣perly any succession, and that is Office. They differed from Bishops in that wherein one Apostle or Officer of the same order might differ from another, to wit, in abili∣ties and measure of Spirit, but not in that wherein one order of Officers is above ano∣ther by their Office; To which we cannot give consent. For since no man is denomi∣nated an Officer from his meer abilities or gifts; so neither can the Apostles be called extraordinary Officers because of extraordinary gifts: but that the Apostles Mission and Office (as their abilities) was extraordinary and temporary, doth appear in that it was by immediate Commission from Christ, without any intervention of men, either in Election or Ordination, for planting an authoritative governing of all Churches through the World, comprehending in it all other Officers of the Church whatsoever; and therefore it seems to us very unreasonable that the Office and Authority of the Apostles

should be drawn down to an ordinary, thereby to make it, as it were, a fit stock into which the ordinary Office of a Bishop may be ingrafted; nor doth the continuance of Teaching and Governing in the Church more render the Office of teaching and go∣verning in the Apostles an ordinary Office, than the Office of teaching and governing in Christ himself renders his Office therefore ordinary. The reason given, That the Office of Teaching and Governing was ordinary in the Apostles, because of the con∣tinuance of them in the Church (we crave leave to say) is that great mistake which runs through the whole file of Your Majesties Discourse: for tho there be a Succession in the Work of Teaching and Governing, yet there is no Succession in the Commission or Office by which the Apostles performed them; for the Office of Christ, of Apostles, of Evangelists or Prophets, is thence also concluded ordinary, as to Teaching and Govern∣ing, and the distinction of Offices Extraordinary and Ordinary eatenus destroyed. The Succession may be into the same Work, not into the same Commission and Office: The ordinary Officers, which are to manage the work of Teaching and Government, are constituted, settled and limited by warrant of Scripture, as by another Commission than that which the Apostles had. And if Your Majesty had shewn us some Record out of Scripture, warranting the division of the Office of Teaching and Governing into two hands, and the appropriation of Teaching to Presbyters, of Governing to Bi∣shops, the question had been determined; otherwise we must look upon the dissolving of the Apostolical Office, and distribution of it into these two hands, as the dictate of men who have a mind, by such a precarious Argument, to challenge to themselves the Keys of Authority, and leave the Word to the Presbyters.

[ 10] In our answer to the instances of Timothy and Titus (which Doctor Bilson acknow∣ledgeth to be the main erection of Episcopal power, if the proof of their being Bi∣shops do stand; or subversion, if the answer that they were Evangelists be good) Your Majesty finds very little satisfaction, though all that is said therein could be proved.

First, because the Scriptures no where imply any such thing at all, that Titus was an E∣vangelist, neither doth the text clearly prove that Timothy was so.

1. The name of Bishop the Scripture neither expressly nor by implication gives to either; the work which they are injoyned to do is common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, and cannot of it self make a character of one distinct and pro∣per Office: But that there was such an Order of Officers in the Church as Evangelists reckoned amongst the extraordinary and temporary Offices, and that Timothy was one of that Order, and that both Timothy and Titus were not ordained to one particular Church, but were companions and fellow-Labourers with the Apostles, sent abroad to several Churches as occasion did require; it is (as we humbly conceive) clear e∣nough in Scripture, and not denied by the learned defenders of Episcopal Government, nor (as we remember) by Scultetus himself, during the time of their travels.

[ 11] 2. To that which Your Majesty secondly saith, That we cannot make it appear by any Text of Scripture that the Office of Evangelist is such as we have described, his work seeming, 11 Tim. VIII. 4, 5. to be nothing else but diligence in preaching the word, not∣withstanding all impediments and oppositions; we humbly answer, that exact definitions of these or other Church-Officers are hard to be found in any Text of Scripture, but by comparing one place of Scripture with another, it may be proved as well what they were, as what the Apostles and Presbyters were, the description by us given be∣ing a Character made up by collation of Scriptures; from which Mr. Hooker doth not much vary, saying, that Evangelists were Presbyters of principal sufficiency, whom the Apostles sent abroad and used as Agents in Ecclesiastical Affairs, wheresoever they saw need. And that Pastors and Teachers were settled in some certain charge, and thereby differed from Evangelists, whose work that it should be nothing but diligence in preaching, &c. which is common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, and so not distinctive of this particular Office, argueth to us, that as the Apostles Office was divided into Episcopal and Apostolical, so this also is to be divided into Episcopal and Evangelisti∣cal, Ordination and Censures belonging to Timothy as to a Bishop, and diligence in Preaching only being left to the Evangelist: which division (as we humbly conceive) is not warranted by the Scripture.

[ 12] Thirdly, Your Majesty faith, that that which we so confidently affirm of Timothy and Titus their acting as Evangelists, is by some denied and refuted, yea even with scorn rejected by some rigid Presbyterians; and that which we so confidently deny, that they were Bishops, is confirmed by the consentient testimony of all antiquity, recorded by Jerome himself that they were Bishops of Paul's ordination, acknowledged by very many late Di∣vines, and that a Catalogue of 27 Bishops of Ephesus lineally succeeding from Timothy, out of good Record, is vouched by Dr. Reynolds and other Writers.

Our confidence (as Your Majesty is pleased to call it) was in our Answer exprest in these words, We cannot say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops in the sense of Your Majesty, but extraordinary Officers or Evangelists: in which opinion we were then clear, not out of a total ignorance of those Testimonies which might be alleged against it, but from intrinsick arguments out of Scripture, from which Your Majesty hath not produced any one to the contrary. Nor is our confidence weakned by such replies as these, The Scripture never calls them Bishops, but the Fathers do; The Scripture calls Timothy an Evangelist, some of late have refuted it and rejected it with scorn; The Scripture relates their motions from Church to Church, but some affirm them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete; The Scripture makes distinction of Evangelists and Pastors, but some say that Timothy and Titus were both. We cannot give Your Majesty a pre∣sent account of Scultetus and Gerard's Arguments, but do believe that Mr. Gillespy and Rutherford are able with greater strength to refute that opinion of Timothy and Titus their being Bishops, than they do (if they do) with scorn reject this of their being Evangelists. As for Testimonies and Catalogues, tho we undervalue them not, yet Your Majesty will be pleased to allow us the use of our Reason, so far as not to erect an Office in the Church which is not found in Scripture, upon general appellations or titles, and allusions frequently found in the Fathers, especially when they speak vulgarly, and not as to a point in debate; for even Jerome, who, as Your Majesty saith, doth record that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops, and that of St. Paul's Ordination, doth, when he speaks to the point between Your Majesty and us, give the Bishops to under∣stand that they are superior to Presbyters consuetudine magis quam Dominicoe veritatis dispositione. For Catalogues, their credit rests upon the first witnesses, from whom they are reported by tradition from hand to hand, whose writings are many times suppositi∣tious, dubious, or not extant: besides that these Catalogues do resolve themselves in∣to some Apostle or Evangelist as the first Bishop, as the catalogue of Jerusalem into the Apostle James, that of Antioch into Peter, that of Rome into Peter and Paul, that of Alexandria into Mark, that of Ephesus into Timothy; which Apostles and Evangelists can neither themselves be degraded by being made Bishops, nor be succeeded in their proper Calling or Office: and it is easie for us to proceed the same way, and to find many ancient rites and customs generally received in the Church (counted by the anci∣ents Apostolical traditions) as near the Apostles times as Bishops, which yet are confes∣sedly not of Divine Institution. And further, if Timothy and the rest that are first in the catalogue were Bishops with such sole Power of Ordination and Censures as is assert∣ed, how came their pretended Successors, who were but primi Presbyterorum (as the Fathers themselves call them) to lose so much Episcopal power as was in their Predeces∣sors, and as was not recovered in 300 years? And therefore we cannot upon any thing yet said recede from that of our Saviour, Ab initio non fuit sic, from the beginning it was not so.

[ 13] 4. Your Majesty saith, that we affirm, but upon very weak proofs, that they were from Ephesus and Crete removed to other places, the contrary whereunto hath been demonstra∣ted by some, who have exactly out of Scripture compared the times and order of the seve∣ral Journeys and Stations of Paul and Timothy.

It is confessed that our assertion, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, lies with some stress upon this, that they removed from place to place, as they were sent by, or accompanied the Apostles; the proof whereof appears to us to be of greater strength than can be taken off by the comparison which Your Majesty makes of the Divines of the Assembly at Westminster. We begin with the travels of Timothy, as we find them in order recorded in the Scripture-places cited in the Margin, and we set forth froma 1.1 Beraea, where we find Timothy; then next atb 1.2 Athens, from whence Paul sends him toc 1.3 Thessalonica; afterwards having been in Macedonia, he came to Paul atd 1.4 Corinth; and after that he is with Paul at Ephesus, and thence sent by him intoe 1.5 Macedonia, whiter Paul went after him, and was by Timothy accompanied intof 1.6 Asia, who was with him atg 1.7 Troas andh 1.8 Miletus, to which place S. Paul

sent for the Presbyters of the Church in Ephesus, and gave them that solemn charge to take heed unto themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, not speaking a word of recommendation of that Church to Timo∣thy, or of him to the Elders. And if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, he must needs be so when the first Epistle was sent to him, in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopal power in Ordination and Government: but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continual Journeys, or absent from Ephe∣sus. For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went intoh 1.9 Macedonia, and he left him there to exercise his Office, in regulating and ordering that Church, and in ordaining: but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletus; for after Paul had been at Miletus, he went to Jerusalem, whence he was sent prisoner to Rome, and never came more into Macedonia, and ati 1.10 Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with him, and those* 1.11 Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome, namely, the Epistle to the Philippians, to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Hebrews, do make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times; nor do we ever find him again at Ephesus, for we find that after all this, towards the end of St. Paul's life, after his first answering before Nero, and when he said his departure was at hand, he sent for Timothy to Rome, not from Ephesus: for it seems that Timothy was not there, because Paul giving Timothy an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts, he saith, Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. Now if Your Majesty shall be pleased to cast up into one total that which is said, the several journeys and stations of Timothy, the order of them, the time spent in them, the nature of his employment, to ne∣gotiate the affairs of Christ in several Churches and places, the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church, you will acknowledg that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or Precinct; and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man, you will conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus.

[ 14] The like conclusion may be inferred from the like premisses from the instance of Titus, whom we find atk 1.12 Jerusalem before he came to Crete, from whence he is sent for tol 1.13 Nicopolis, and after that he is sent to Corinth, from whence he is expected atm 1.14 Troas, and met with Paul inn 1.15 Macedonia, whence he is sent again too 1.16 Co∣rinth, and after all this is near the time of Paul's death at Rome, from whence he went not into Crete, but intop 1.17 Dalmatia, and after this is not heard of in the Scripture. And so we hope Your Majesty doth conceive, that we affirm not upon very weak proofs that Timothy and Titus were from Ephesus and Crete removed to other places.

[ 15] In the fifth exception Your Majesty takes notice of two places of Scripture cited by us, to prove that they were called away from those places of Ephesus and Crete, which they do not conclude much of themselves, yet being accompanied by two other places which Your Majesty takes no notice of, may seem to conclude more, and these i Tim. i. 3. Titus i. 5. as, I be sought thee to abide still at Ephesus; for this cause left I thee in Crete: in both which is specified the occasional employment for which they made stay in those places: and the expressions used, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, I left thee in Crete, do not sound like words of instalment of a man into a Bishoprick, but of an in∣tendment to call them away again; and if the first and last be put together▪ his actu∣al revocation of them both, the intimation of his intention that they should not stay there for continuance, and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay, and of his leav∣ing the other behind him, which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches, they will put fair to prove that the Apostle intended not to establish them Bi∣shops of those places, and therefore did not.

For the Postscripts; because your Majesty lays no great weight upon them, we shall not be solicitous in producing evidence against them, though they do bear witness in a matter of fact which in our opinion never was, and in Your Majesties Judgment was long before they were born. And so we conclude this discourse about Timothy and Ti∣tus with this observation, that in the same very Epistle of Paul to Timothy, out of which Your Majesty hath endeavoured to prove that he was a Bishop, and did exercise Episco∣pal Government, there is clear evidence both for Presbyters imposing hands in Ordination, and for their Ruling.

[ 16] In the next point, concerning the Angels of the Churches, tho Your Majesty faith that you lay no weight upon the Allegory or Mystery of the denomination, yet you as∣sert that the persons bearing that name were personae singulares, and, in a word, Bi∣shops;

who yet are never so called in Scripture; and the allegorical denomination of Angels or Stars, which in the Judgment of ancient and modern Writers doth belong to the faithful Ministers and Preachers of the Word in general, is appropriate (as we may so say) to the Mitre and Crosier-staff, and so opposed to many express testimo∣nies of Scripture. And if Your Majesty had been particular in that, wherein You say the strength of Your instance lies, viz. the Judgment of all ancient and of the best mo∣dern Writers, and many probabilities in the Text it self, we hope to have made it ap∣parent, that many ancient and eminent modern Writers, many probabilitirs out of the Text it self, do give evidence to the contrary. To that which is asserted, That these singular persons were Bishops in distinct sense, whether we brought any thing of mo∣ment to infirm this, we humbly submit to Your Majesties Judgment, and shall only present to You, that in Your Reply You have not taken notice of that which in our Answer seems to us of moment, which is this, That in Mysterious and prophetick wri∣tings, or visional representation (such as this of the Stars and golden Candlesticks is) a number of things and persons is usually exprest in singulars: and this in Visions is the usual way of Representation of things; a thousand persons making up one Church, is represented by one Candlestick; many Ministers making up one Presbytery, by one Angel. And because Your Majesty seems to call upon us to be particular, though we cannot name the Angels, nor are satisfied in our judgment, that those whom some do undertake to name were intended by the name of Angels in those Epistles; yet we say, First, that these Epistles were sent unto the Churches, and that under the ex∣pression of this thou dost, or this thou hast, and the like, the Churches are respectively intended; for the Sins reproved, the Repentance commanded, the Punishments threat∣ned, ate to be referred to the Churches, and not to the singular Angels only: and yet we do not think that Salmasius did intend, nor do we, that in formal denomination the Angels and Candlesticks were the same.

Secondly, The Angels of these Churches or Rulers were a Collective body, which we endeavoured to prove by such probabilities as Your Majesty takes no notice of, namely, the instance of the Church of Ephesus, where there were many Bishops, to whom the charge of that Church was by St. Paul at his final departure from them committed; as also by that expression, Rev. xi. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira: Which distincti∣on makes it very probable that the Angel is explained under that plurality, to you. The like to which many expressions may be found in these Epistles, which to interpret ac∣cording to the consentient Evidence of other Scriptures of the New Testament is not Safe only, but Solid and Evidential.

Thirdly, These Writings are directed as Epistolary Letters to Collective Bodies usually are, (that is) to One, but intended to the Body: which Your Majesty illustrateth by Your sending a Message to Your Two Houses, and directing it to the Speaker of the House of Peers: which as it doth not hinder (we confess) but that the Speaker is one single Person; so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is always the same per∣son; or if he were, that therefore because Your Message is directed to him, he is the Governour or Ruler of the two Houses in the least. And so Your Majesty hath gi∣ven clear instance, that tho these Letters be directed to the Angels, yet that not∣withstanding they might neither be Bishops, nor yet perpetual Moderators. For the several opinions specified in Your Majesties Paper, three of them, by easy and fair ac∣commodation (as we declared before) are soon reduced and united amongst themselves, and may be holden without recess from the received Judgment of the Christian Church, by such as are far from meriting that Aspersion which is cast upon the Re∣formed Divines by Popish Writers, that they have divided themselves from the Common and received Judgment of the Christian Church; which Imputation, we hope, was not in Your Majesties intention to lay upon us, until it be made clear that it is the common and received Judgment of the Christian Church that now is, or of that in former Ages, that the Angels of the Churches were Bishops, having Prelacy as well over Pastors as People within their Churches.

[ 17] In the following Discourse we did deny that the Apostles were to have any Suc∣cessors in their Office, and affirmed only Two Orders of ordinary and standing Offi∣cers in the Church, viz. Presbyters and Deacons. Concerning the former of which Your Majesty refers to what you had in part already declared; That in those things which were extraordinary in the Apostles, as namely the Measure of their Gifts, &c. They had no Successors in eundem gradum; but in those things which were not ex∣traordinary, as the Office of Teaching and Power of Governing (which are necessary

for the Service of the Church in all times) they were to have, and had, Successors. Where Your Majesty delivers a Doctrine new to us; namely, that the Apostles had Successors into their Offices, not into their Abilities: For (besides that Succession is not properly into Abilities, but into Office, we cannot say that one succeeds another in his Learning, or Wit, or Parts, but into his Room and Function) we conceive that the Office Apo∣stolical was extraordinary in whole, because their Mission and Commission was so, and the service or work of Teaching and Governing being to continue in all times, doth not render their Office Ordinary; as the Office of Moses was not rendered Ordinary, because many works of Government exercised by him were re-committed to the stand∣ing Elders of Israel. And if they have Successors, it must be either into their whole Office, or into some parts. Their Successors into the whole (however differing from them in measure of Gifts and peculiar Qualifications) must be called Apostles, the same Office gives the same Denomination; and then we shall confess that Bishops, if they be their Successors in Office, are of Divine Institution, because the Apostolical Office was so. If their Successors come into part of their Office only, the Presbyters may as well be called their Successors as the Bishops, and so indeed they are called by some of the anci∣ent Fathers, Irenoeus, Origen, Hierome and others. Whereas in truth the Apostles have not properly Successors into Office, but the ordinary Power of Teaching and Govern∣ing (which is setled in the Church for continuance) is instituted and settled in the hands of ordinary Officers by a New Warrant and Commission, according to the rules of Ordination and Calling in the Word, which the Bishop hath not yet produced for himself, and without which he cannot challenge it upon the general allusive Speeches used by the Fathers without scruple.

[ 18] And whereas Your Majesty numbers the extent of their work amongst those things which were extraordinary in the Apostles; we could wish that You had decla∣red whether it belong to their Mission or Vnction: for we humbly conceive, that their Authoritative Power to do their Work in all places of the World did properly belong to their Mission, and consequently that their Office as well as their Abilities was ex∣traordinary; and so by Your Majesties own Concession not to be succeeded into by the Bishops.

[ 19] As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church, Your Majesty doth reply, That although in the places cited, Phil. i. 1. i Tim. iii. 8. there be no mention but of the two Or∣ders only of Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons, yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides: Which we humbly conceive is justly proved, not only because there are no other named, but because there is no rule of Ordaining any third, no Warrant or way of Mission; and so Argument is as good as can be made, a non causa ad non effectum: for we do not yet apprehend that the Bishops pretending to the Apostolick Office do also pretend to the same manner of Mission; nor do we know that those very many Divines that have asserted two Or∣ders only, have concluded it from any other grounds than the Scriptures cited.

[ 20] There appear (as your Majesty saith) two other manifest Reasons why the Office of Bishops might not be so proper to be mentioned in those places. And we humbly conceive there is a third more manifest than those two, viz. because it was not.

[ 21] The one Reason given by Your Majesty is, because in the Churches which the Apostles themselves planted, they placed Presbyters under them for the Office of Teaching, but re∣served in their own hands the Power of Governing those Churches, for a longer or shorter time, before they set Bishops over them. Which, under Your Majesties favour, is not so much a reason why Bishops are not mentioned to be in those places, as that they indeed were not. The variety of Reasons (may we say? or Conjectures) rendred why Bishops were not set up at first, as namely, because fit men could not be so soon found out, which is Epiphanius his reason; or for remedy of Schism, which is Jerome's rea∣son; or because the Apostles saw it not expedient, which is Your Majesties reason; doth shew that this Cause labours under a manifest weakness. For the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of Governing, we grant it, they could no more devest themselves of power of Governing, than (as Dr. Bilson saith) they could lose their Apostleship: had they set no Bishops in all Churches, they had no more parted with their power of Governing than they did in setting up the Presbyters; for we have proved that Presby∣ters, being called Rulers, Governors, Bishops, had the power of Governing in Ordinary

committed to them, as well as the Office of Teaching, and that both the Keys (as they are called) being by our Saviour committed into one hand, were not by the Apostle divided into two. Nor do we see how the Apostle could reasonably commit the Go∣vernment of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus, Acts 20. and yet reserve the power of Governing (viz. in Ordinary) in his own hands, who took his solemn leave of them, as never to see their faces more. As concerning that part of the power of Go∣vernment, which for distinction sake, may be called Legislative, and which is one of the three fore-mentioned things challenged by the Bishops, viz. giving Rules, the reser∣ving of it in the Apostles hands hindred not but that, in Your Majesties Judgment, Timothy and Titus were Bishops of Ephesus and Crete, to whom the Apostle gives Rules for Ordering and Governing of the Church: Nor is there any more reason that the Apo∣stles reserving that part of the Power of Governing which is called Executive in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought meet, should hinder the setting up of Bi∣shops, if they had intended it; and therefore the reserving of Power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set us Bishops at the first, than that they ne∣ver did. And since (by Your Majesties Concession) the Presbyters were plac'd by the Apostles first, in the Churches by them planted, and that with Power of Govern∣ing, as we prove by Scripture; You must prove the super-institution of a Bishop over the Presbyters by the Apostles in some after-times, or else we must conclude that the Bishop got both his Name and Power of Government out of the Presbyters hand, as the Tree in the wall roots out the stones by little and little as it self grows.

As touching Philippi, where Your Majesty saith it may be probable there was yet no Bishop, it is certain there were many like them, who were also at Ephesus, to whom if only the Office of Teaching did belong, they had the most laborious and honourable part, that which was less honourable being reserved in the Apostles hands, and the Churches left in the mean time without ordinary Government.

The other Reason given why only two Orders are mentioned in those places is, be∣cause he wrote in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to them that were Bishops, so there was no need to write any thing concerning the Choice or Qualification of any other sort of Officers than such as belonged to their Ordination or Inspection; which were Presbyters and Deacons only, and no Bishops.

[ 22] The former Reason why only two Orders are mentioned in the Epistle to the Philip∣pians, was, because there was yet no Bishop; this latter Reason why the same two only are mentioned in these Epistles, is, because there was no Bishop to be Ordained. We might own the reason for good, if there may be found any rule for the Ordination of the other Order of Bishops in some other place of Scripture: but if the Ordination can∣not be found, how should we find the Order? And it is reasonable to think that the Apo∣stle in the Chapter formerly alledged, i Tim. iii. where he passes immediately from the Bishop to the Deacon, would have distinctly exprest, or at least hinted, what sort of Bishops he meant, whether the Bishop over Presbyters, or the Presbyter-Bishop, to have avoided the confusion of the Name, and to have set as it were some matk of difference in the Escocheon of the Presbyter-Bishop, if there had been some other Bishop of a higher house. And whereas Your Majesty saith, there was no need to write to them about a Bishop in a distinct sense, who belonged not to their Ordination and Inspecti∣on: we conceive that in Your Majesties judgment, Bishops might then have Ordained Bishops like themselves; for there was then no Canon forbidding one single Bishop to ordain another of his own rank; and there being many Cities in Crete, Titus might have found it expedient (as those ancient Fathers that call him Arch-bishop think he did) to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities. So that. this Reason fights against the Principles of those that hold Timothy and Titus to have been Bishops. For our part, we believe that these Rules belonged not to Timothy and Titus with strict limitation to Ephesus and Crete, but respectively to all the places or Churches where they might come, and to all that shall at any time have the Office of Ordaining and Governing; as it is writ∣ten in the same Chapter, i Tim. iii. 14, 15. These things I have written unto thee, &c. that thou mayest know how to behave thy self in the House of God, which is the Church. And therefore if there had been any proper Character or Qualification of a Bishop di∣stinct from a Presbyter, if any Ordination or Office; we think the Apostle would have signified it; but because he did not, we conclude (and the more strongly from the in∣sufficiency of Your Majesties two Reasons) that there are only two Orders of Officers, and consequently that a Bishop is not superior to a Presbyter: for we find not (as we said in our Answer) that one Officer is superior to another who is of the same Order.

Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles.

[ 23] Your Majesty having in Your first Paper said, that You could not in Conscience consent to Abolish Episcopal Government, because You did conceive it to be of Apo∣stolical Institution, practised by the Apostles themselves, and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their Successors, and hath ever since till these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ: we thought it necessary in our Answer, to subjoyn to that we had said out of the Scriptures, the Judgment of divers ancient Writers and Fathers, by whom Bishops were not acknowledged as a Divine, but as an Ecclesiastical Institution, as that which might very much conduce both to the easing of Your Majesties Scruple, to consider that howsoever Episcopal Government was generally current, yet the superscription was not judged Divine by some of those that either were themselves Bishops, or lived under that Government; and to the vindication of the opinion which we hold from the prejudice of Novellisme, or of Recess from the Judgment of all Antiquity.

[ 24] We do as firmly believe (as to matter of fact) that Chrysostome and Austin were Bi∣shops, as that Aristotle was a Philosopher, Cicero an Orator; though we should rather call our Faith and belief thereof certain in matter of fact, upon humane Testimonies uncontroll'd, than infallible, in respect of the Testimonies themselves. But whereas Your Majesty saith, That the darkness of the History of the Church in the times succee∣ding the Apostles is a strong Argument for Episcopacy, which notwithstanding that dark∣ness hath found so full proof by unquestioned Catalogues, as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like: we humbly conceive, that those fore-mentioned times were dark to the Catalogue-makers, who must derive the series of Succession from and through those Historical darknesses, and so make up their of Catalogues very much from Traditions and Reports, which can give no great Evidence, because they agree not amongst themselves: and that which is the great blemish of their Evidence is, that the nearer they come to the Apostles times (wherein they should be most of all clear, to establish the Succession firm and clear at first) the more doubtful, uncertain, and indeed contradictory to one another, are the Testimonies. Some say that Clemens was first Bi∣shop of Rome after Peter; some say the third: and intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and another called Cletus (as some affirm) are inextricable. Some say that Titus was Bishop of Crete; some say, Arch-Bishop; and some, Bishop of Dalmatia. Some say that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; and some say that John was Bishop of Ephesus at the sametime. Some say that Polycarpus was the first Bishop of Smyrna; another saith that he succeeded one Bucolus; and another, that Aristo was first. Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop, and other Cites two; and others, that there was but one Bishop of one City at the same time. And how should those Catalogues be unquestionable, which must be made up out of Testimo∣nies that fight one with another? We confess that the Ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Irenoeus, &c. made use of Succession as an Argument against Hereticks or Innova∣tors, to prove that they had the traduces Apostolici seminis, and that the Godly and Orthodox Fathers were on their side. But that which we now have in hand is Succes∣sion in Office; which, according to the Catalogues, resolves it self into some Apostle or Evangelist, as the first Bishop of such a City or Place, who (as we conceive) could not be Bishops of those places, being of higher Office; though, according to the language of after-times, they might by them that drew up the Catalogues be so called, because they planted and founded, or watered those Churches to which they are Entitled, and had their greatest residence in them. Or else the Catalogues are drawn from some eminent men that were of great veneration and reverence in the times and places where they lived, and Presidents or Moderators of the Presbyteries whereof themselves were Mem∣bers: from whom to pretend the Succession of after-Bishops, is as if it should be said that Caesar was Successor to the Roman Consuls. And we humbly conceive that there are some Rites and Ceremonies used continually in the Church of old, which are asser∣ted to be found in the Apostolical and Primitive times, and yet have no colour of Di∣vine Institution; and, which is Argument above all other, the Fathers, whose Names we exhibited to your Majesty in our Answer, were doubtless acquainted with the Cata∣logues of Bishops who had been before them, and yet did hold them to be of Ecclesiastical Institution.

[ 25] And lest Your Majesty might reply, That however the Testimonies and Cata∣logues may vary, or be mistaken, in the order, or times, or names of those persons that

succeeded the Apostles, yet all agree that there was a Succession of some persons; and so though the credit of the Catalogues be infirmed, yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby. We grant that a Succession of men to feed and govern those Churches while they continued Churches, cannot be denied, and that the Apostles and Evangelists, that planted and watered those Churches, (though extraordinary and temporary Offi∣cers) were by Ecclesiastical Writers, in compliance with the Language and usage of their own times, called Bishops; and so were other eminent men, of chief note, presi∣ding in the Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches, called by such Writers as wrote after the division or distinction of the names of Presbyters and Bishops. But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sense, according to Your Majesties description, invested with power over Presbyters and people, to whom (as distinct from Presbyters) did belong the power of Ordaining, giving Rules, ahd Censures, we hum∣bly conceive can never be proved by authentick or competent Testimonies. And grant∣ing that Your Majesty should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim; yet if these from whom You draw, and through whom You derive it, be found either more than Bishops, as Apostles, and extraordinary persons, or less than Bi∣shops, as merely first Presbyters, having not one of the three Essentials to Episcopal Go∣vernment (mentioned by Your Majesty) in their own hand; it will follow, that all that Your Majesty hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocal accep∣tation of the word Episcopus.

[ 26] For Clemens his Testimony, which Your Majesty conceiveth to be made use of as our old fallacy, from the promiscuous use of the words to infer the indistinction of the things; we refer our selves to himself in his Epistle, now in all mens hands, whose Testimony we think cannot be eluded but by the old Artifice of hiding the Bishop under the Presby∣ters name: for they that have read his whole Epistle, and have considered that himself is called a Bishop, may doubt of Clement's opinion concerning the distinct Offices of Bishops and Presbyters, or rather not doubt of it, if only his own Epistle may be im∣panel'd upon the Inquest. Concerning Ignatius his Epistles, Your Majesty is pleased to use some earnestness of expression, charging some of late, without any regard of inge∣nuity or truth, out of their partial disaffection to Bishops, to have endeavour∣ed to discredit his Writings. One of those cited by us cannot (as we con∣ceive) be suspected of disaffection to Bishops; and there are great Arguments drawn out of those Epistles themselves, betraying their insincerity, adulterate mix∣tures, and interpolations; so that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius. And if we take him in gross, we make him the Patron (as Baronius and the rest of the Popish Writers do) of such rites and observations as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned. He doth indeed give testimony to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter; that which may justly render him suspected is, that he gives too much. Honour (saith he) the Bishop, as God's high Priest, and after him you must honour the King. He was indeed a holy Martyr, and his writings have suffered Martyrdom as well as he: Corruptions could not go current but under the credit of worthy Names.

[ 27] That which Your Majesty saith in Your fourth Paragraph, that we might have added, (if we had pleased) That James, Timothy, Titus, &c. were constituted and ordained Bishops of the forementioned places respectively, and that all the Bishops of those times were reputed Successors to the Apostles in their Episcopal Office; we could not have added it without prejudice (as we humbly conceive) to the truth: for the Apostles did not ordain any of themselves Bishops, nor could they do it, for even by Your Majesties Concession they were Bishops before, viz. as they were Apostles; nor could any Apostle his choice of a certain Region or place to exercise his function in whilst he pleased, ren∣der him a Bishop any more, than Paul was Bishop of the Gentiles, Peter of the Circum∣cision. Neither did the Apostles ordain the Evangelists Bishops of those places unto which they sent them; nor were the Bishops of those times any more than, as Your Majesty saith, reputed Successors to the Apostles in their Episcopal Office; they came after the Apostles in the Churches by them planted, so might Presbyters do. But that's not properly succession, at least not succession into Office; and this we say with a Salvo to our Assertion, That in those times there were no such Bishops distinct from Presby∣ters. Neither do we understand, whether the words Episcopal Office in this Section re∣fer to the Bishops or Apostles: for in reference to Apostles it insinuates a distinction of the Apostles Office into Apostolical and Episcopal, or that the Office Apostolical was wholly Episcopal; unto neither of which we can give our consent for reasons

forementioned. To the testimonies by us recited in proof of two only Orders, Your Majesty answers, first, That the promiscuous use of the names of Bishops and Presbyters is imported. That which Your Majesty not long ago called our old fallacy, is now Your Answer, only with this difference: we under promiscuous names hold the same Office; Your Majesty under promiscuous names supposes two, which if, as it is often asserted, was but once proved, we should take it for a determination of this Controver∣sie. Secondly, that they relate to a School-point, or a nicety, utrum Episcopatus fit or do vel gradus; both sides of the questionists or disputants in the mean time acknowledging the right of Church-government in the Bishops alone. It is confest by us, that that question as it is stated by Popish Authors is a curious nicety, to which we have no eye or reference; for though the same Officers may differ from, and excel others of the same order in Gifts or Qualifications, yet the Office it self is one and the same, without difference or de∣grees, as one Apostle or Presbyter is not superior to another in the degree of Office; they that are of the same Order are of the same degree in respect of Office, as having Power and Authority to the same Acts. Nor doth the Scripture warrant or allow any Superiority of one over another of the same Order; and therefore the proving of two Orders only in the Church is a demonstration that Presbyters and Bishops are the same. In which point the Scripture will counter-balance the testimonies of those that assert three degrees or orders, though ten for one. But, for easing of Your Majesty of the trouble of produ∣cing testimonies against those cited by us, we make this humble motion, that the Regi∣ments on both sides may be discharged out of the field, and the Point disputed by Dint of holy Scripture. Id verum quod primum.

[ 28] Having passed through the Argumentative parts of Your Majesties Reply, wherein we should account it a great happiness to have given Your Majesty any satisfaction, in order whereunto You pleased to honour us with this employment, we shall contract our selves in the remainder, craving Your Majesties pardon, if You shall conceive us to have been too much in the former, and too little in that which follows. We honour the pious intentions and munificence of Your Royal Progenitors; and do acknowledge that Orna∣mental Accessions granted to the Person do not make any substantial change in the Of∣fice: the real difference betwixt that Episcopal Government which first obtained in the Church, and the present Hierarchy, consists in ipso regimine & modo regiminis; which cannot be clearly demonstrated in particulars, until it be agreed on both sides what that Episcopacy was then, and what the Hierarchy is now; and then it would appear whe∣ther these three forementioned Essentials of Episcopal Government were the same in both. For the Power under Christian Princes and under Pagan is one and the same, though the Exercise be not. And we humbly receive Your Majesties pious Advertisement, (not unlike that of Constantine's) stirring us up, as men unbiassed with private interests, to study the nearest Accommodation and best resemblance to the Apostolical and Primitive times. But for Your Majesties Salvo to the Bishops sole power of Ordination and Jurisdi∣ction, and that distinction of Ordination, Authoritative in the Bishop, and Concomitant in the Presbytery, which You seem to found upon these two Texts, 11 Tim. i. 6. 1 Tim. IV. 14. and which is used by Dr. Bilson, and other Defenders of Episcopacy, in explica∣tion of that Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, which enjoyns the joynt imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters hands, we shall give Your Majesty an accompt when we shall be called to the inquisition thereof: Albeit that we do not for the present see, but that this Proviso of Your Majesty renders our accommodation to the Apostolical and Pri∣mitive times (whereunto You did exhort us) unfeisible. We notwithstanding do ful∣ly profess our acknowledgement of subordination of the outward exercise of Jurisdiction to the Sovereign power, and our accomptableness to the Laws of the Land.

[ 29] As for Your Majesties three Questions of great importance, Whether there be a certain form of Government left by Christ and his Apostles to be observed by all Christian Churches; Whether it bind perpetually, or be upon occasion alterable in whole or in part; Whether that certain form of Government be the Episcopal, Presbyterian, or some other differing from them hoth: The whole Volume of Ecclesiastical Policy is contained in them; and we hope that neither Your Majesty expected of us a particular Answer to them at this time, nor will take offence at us, if we hold only to that which is the question in order to the Bill of Abolition. For we humbly profess our readiness to serve Your Majesty, in An∣swering these or any other questions within our proper cognisance, according to the pro∣portion of our mean abilities.

[ 30] For Your Majesties Condescension, in vouchsafing us the liberty and honour of exa∣mining Your learned Reply cloathed in such Excellency of Style, and for Your exceeding Candour shewed to such men as we are, and for the acceptation of our humble duty, we render to Your Majesty most humble Thanks, and shall pray,

That such a Pen in the hand of such Abilities may ever be employed in a Subject worthy of it.

That your Majesty would please to consider, that in this point under debate Succession is not the best Clue, and most certain and ready way to find out the Original; for to go that way, is to go the furthest way about, yea, to go backward: and when You are at the Spring, viz. the Scripture it self, You go to the Rivers end, that You may seek the Spring.

And that the Lord would guide Your Majesty, and the two Houses of Parliament, by the right hand of his Counsel, and shew You a happy way of healing our unhappy Dif∣ferences, and of settling the Commonwealth of Jesus Christ, which is the Church; so as all the members thereof may live under You in all Godliness, Peace and Honesty.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Act. xvii. 14.
• b 1.2

  15.
• c 1.3

  i Thes. iii. 1, 2.
• d 1.4

  Act. xviii. 5.
• e 1.5

  Act. xix. 22.
• f 1.6

  Act. xx. 4.
• g 1.7

  ver. 5, 6.
• h 1.8

  ver. 17.
• h 1.9

  i Tim. i. 3.
• i 1.10

  Heb. xiii. 23.
• * 1.11

  Phil. i. 1. Philem. ver. 1. Col. i. 1. Heb. xiii. 23. ii Tim. iv. 6, 10. 11, 12, 16.
• k 1.12

  Gal. i. 2.
• l 1.13

  Tit. iii. 12.
• m 1.14

  ii Cor. ii. 12.
• n 1.15

  ii Cor. v. 6.
• o 1.16

  ii Cor. viii 6.
• p 1.17

  ii Tim. iv. 10.