my humble Opinion would be that they should draw the Minds Tongues and Pens of the Learned to dispute about other matter than the Power or Prerogative of Kings and Princes and in this kind Your Majesty hath suffered and lost more than will easily be restored to Your self or Your Posterity for a long time It is not denied but the prime Reforming power is in Kings and Princes quibus deficientibus it comes to the inferior Magistrate quibus deficientibus it descendeth to the Body of the People supposing that there is a necessity of Reformation and that by no means it can be obtained of their Superiors It is true that such a Reformation is more imperfect in respect of the Instruments and manner of Procedure yet for the most part more pure and perfect in relation to the effect and product And for this end did I cite the Examples of old of Reformation by Regal Authority of which none was perfect in the second way of perfection except that of Josiah Concerning the saying of Grosthed whom the Cardinals at Rome confest to be a more Godly man than any of themselves it was his Complaint and Prediction of what was likely to ensue not his desire or election if Reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way I might bring two unpartial Witnesses Juel and Bilson both famous English Bishops to prove that the Tumults and Troubles raised in Scotland at the time of Reformation were to be imputed to the Papists opposing of the Reformation both of Doctrine and Discipline as an Heretical Innovation and not to be ascribed to the Nobility or People who under God were the Instruments of it intending and seeking nothing but the purging out of Errour and setling of the Truth 2. Concerning the Reformation of the Church of England I conceive whether it was begun or not in K. Henry the Eighth's time it was not finished by Q. Elizabeth the Father stirred the Humors of the diseased Church but neither the Son nor the Daughter although we have great reason to bless God for both did purge them out perfectly This Perfection is yet reserved for Your Majesty Where it is said that all this time I bring no Reasons for a further Change the fourth Section of my last Paper hath many hints of Reasons against Episcopal Government with an offer of more or clearing of those which Your Majesty hath not thought fit to take notice of And Learned men have observed many Defects in that Reformation As That the Government of the Church of England for about this is the Question now is not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the Apostles which they at least cannot deny who profess Church-Government to be mutable and ambulatory and such were the greater part of Archbishops and Bishops in England contenting themselves with the Constitutions of the Church and the authority and munificence of Princes till of late that some few have pleaded it to be Jure Divino That the English Reformation hath not perfectly purged out the Roman Leaven which is one of the reasons that have given ground to the comparing of this Church to the Church of Laodicea as being neither hot nor cold neither Popish nor Reformed but of a lukewarm temper betwixt the two That it hath depraved the Discipline of the Church by conforming of it to the Civil Policy That it hath added many Church-Offices higher and lower unto those instituted by the Son of God which is as unlawful as to take away Offices warranted by the Divine Institution and other the like which have moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent nisi jam se pervenisse crederent 4. In my Answer to the first of Your Majesty 's many Arguments I brought a Breviate of some Reasons to prove that a Bishop and Presbyter are one and the same in Scripture from which by necessary Consequence I did infer the negative Therefore no difference in Scripture between a Bishop and a Presbyter the one name signifying Industriam Curiae Pastoralis the other Sapientiae Maturitatem saith Beda And whereas Your Majesty averrs the Presbyterian Government was never practised before Calvin's time Your Majesty knows the common Objection of the Papists against the Reformed Churches Where was your Church your Reformation your Doctrine before Luther's time One part of the common Answer is that it was from the beginning and is to be found in Scripture The same I affirm of Presbyterian Government And for the proving of this the Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest that the Primitive Christian Church at Jerusalem was governed by a Presbytery while they shew 1. That the Church of Jerusalem consisted of more Congregations than one from the multitude of Believers from the many Apostles and other Preachers in that Church and from the diversity of Languages among the Believers 2. That all these Congregations were under one Presbyterial Government because they were for Government one Church Acts 11. 22 26. and because that Church was governed by Elders Acts 11. 30. which were Elders of that Church and did meet together for acts of Government And the Apostles themselves in that meeting Acts 15. acted not as Apostles but as Elders stating the Question debating it in the ordinary way of disputation and having by search of Scripture found the will of God they conclude It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us which in the judgment of the learned may be spoken by any Assembly upon like evidence of Scripture The like Presbyterian Government had place in the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. in the times of the Apostles and after them for many years when one of the Presbytery was made Episcopus Praeses even then Communi Presbyterorum Consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur saith Jerome and Episcopos magis consuetudine quam Dispositionis Divinae veritate Presbyteris esse majores in commune debere Ecclesiam regere 5. Far be it from me to think such a thought as that Your Majesty did intend any Fallacy in Your other main Argument from Antiquity As we are to distinguish between Intentio operantis and Conditio operis so may we in this case consider the difference between Intentio Argumentantis and Conditio Argumenti And where Your Majesty argues That if Your opinion be not admitted we will be forced to give place to the Interpretation of private spirits which is contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostle Peter and will prove to be of dangerous consequence I humbly offer to be considered by Your Majesty what some of chief note among the Papists themselves have taught us That the Interpretation of Scriptures and the Spirits whence they proceed may be called private in a threefold sense 1. Ratione Personae if the Interpreter be of a private condition 2. Ratione Modi Medii when Persons although not private use not the publick means which are necessary for finding out the
for example had Authority to perform such Acts and Offices of Church-Government as his Majesty hath not yet found by any thing represented unto Him by you or any other from the Scripture that a single Presbyter ever had authority to perform which is enough to prove that the Community of Names in some places notwithstanding the Functions themselves are in other places by their proper work sufficiently distinguished But for the Name Episcopus or Bishop His Majesty hath long since learned from those that are skilful in the Greek tongue that it imports properly no more than an Overseer one that hath the charge or inspection of some thing committed unto him as hee that is set to watch a Beacon or to keep Sheep whence in the New Testament and in the Ecclesiastical use it is applied to such persons as have the Care and Inspection of the Churches of Christ committed unto them in Spiritualibus as both Bishops and Presbyters have in some sort but with this difference that mere Presbyters are Episcopi gregis only they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching Administration of Sacraments Publick Prayer Exhorting Rebuking c. but Bishops are Episcopi gregis and Pastorum too having the oversight of the Flock and Pastors within their several Precincts in the acts of external Government so that the common work of both Functions is the Ministry of the Gospel but that which is peculiar to the Function of Bishops as distinguished from Presbyters is Church-Government It is not therefore to be wondred if it should happen in the New Testament the word Episcopus to be usually applied unto Presbyters who were indeed Overseers of the flock rather than unto Church-Governors who had then another Title of greater Eminency whereby to distinguish them from ordinary Presbyters to wit that of Apostles But when the government of Churches came into the hands of their Successors the names were by common usage which is the best Master of words very soon appropriated that of Episcopus to the Ecclesiastical Governor or Bishop of a Diocese and that of Presbyter to the ordinary Minister or Priest His Majesty had rather cause to wonder That upon such premises you should conclude with so much confidence as if the point were rendred most clear to the Judgment of most men both ancient and of latter times That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the New Testament as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter whenas His Majesty remembreth to have seen cited by such Authors as He hath no reason to suspect both out of the ancient Fathers and Councils and out of sundry modern Writers even of those Reformed Churches that want Bishops great variety of Testimonies to the contrary His Majesty is not satisfied with your Answer concerning the Apostles exercise of Episcopal Government which you would put off by referring it to their extraordinary Calling Our Saviour himself was the first and chief Apostle and Bishop of our Souls sent by the Father and Anointed by the Holy Ghost to be both the Teacher and the Governour of his Church By that Mission he receiv'd Authority and by his Unction ability for those works which he performed in his own person whilst he lived upon the earth Before he left the world that the Church might not want Teaching and Governing to the worlds end he chose certain persons upon whom he conferred both these Powers whereby they became also Apostles and Bishops by making them partakers both of his Mission before his Ascension As my Father sent me so send I you and of his Vnction shortly after his Ascension when he poured upon them the Holy Ghost at Pentecost The Mission both for teaching and governing at least for the substance of it was ordinary and to continue to the end of the world Matt. xxviii 18 20. and therefore necessarily to descend and be by them transmitted to others as their Substitutes and Successors But the Vnction whereby they were enabled to both Offices or Functions by the effusion of the Holy Ghost in such a plenteous measure of Knowledg Tongues Miracles Prophecyings Healing Infallibility of Doctrine discerning of spirits and such like was indeed extraordinary in them and in some few others though in an inferiour measure as God saw it needful for the planting of the Churches and propagation of the Gospel in those Primitive times and in this which was indeed extraordinary in them they were not necessarily to have Successors But it seems very unreasonable to attribute the exercise of that Power whether of Teaching or Governing to an extraordinary calling which being of necessary and continual use in the Church must therefore of necessity be the work of a Function of ordinary and perpetual use Therefore the Acts of Governing of the Church were no more nor otherwise extraordinary in the Apostles than the Acts of Teaching the Church were that is to say both extraordinary for the manner of performance in respect of their more than ordinary abilities for the same and yet both ordinary for the substance of the Offices themselves and the works to be performed therein and in these two ordinary Offices their ordinary Successors are Presbyters and Bishops Presbyters qua Presbyters immediately succeeding them in the Office of Teaching and Bishops qua Bishops immediately in the Office of Governing The instances of Timothy and Titus you likewise endeavour to avoid by the pretension of an extraordinary calling But in this Answer besides the insufficiency thereof if all that is said therein could be proved His Majesty findeth very little satisfaction 1. First you say that Timothy and Titus were by Office Evangelists whereas of Titus the Scriptures no where affirm any such thing at all and by your own Rule your Authority without Scripture will beget if that but a humane Faith neither doth the Text clearly Prove that Timothy was so 2. Setting aside mens conjectures which can breed but an humane Faith neither you cannot make it appear by any Text of Scripture that the Office of an Evangelist is such as you have described it The work of an Evangelist which Saint Paul exhorteth Timothy to do seems by the Context 2 Tim iv 5. to be nothing but diligence in preaching the Word notwithstanding all impediments and oppositions 3. That which you so confidently affirm That Timothy and Titus acted as Evangelists is not onely denyed but clearly refuted by Scultetus Gerard and others yea even with scorn rejected of late as His Majesty is informed by some rigid Presbyterians as Gillespy Rutherford c. And that which you so confidently deny that Timothy and Titus were Bishops is not onely confirmed by the consentient testimony of all Antiquity even Jerome himself having recorded it that they were Bishops and that of St. Paul's ordination and acknowledged by very many late Divines but a Catalogue also of 27. Bishops of Ephesus lineally succeeding from Timothy our of good records is vouched by
Bishop of Smyrna Many years after Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France whose Writings were never yet called in question by any not only affirms him to have been constituted Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles but saith That he himself when he was a Boy had seen him a very old man Tertullian next a very ancient Writer affirmeth That he was Bishop of Smyrna there placed by Saint John After cometh Eusebius who in his Ecclesiastical History not only Historically reporteth of his being Bishop there as he doth of other Bishops but citeth also for it the Testimonies both of Ignatius and Irenaeus which by the way giveth good credit to Ignatius his Epistles too Then Hierom also and others lastly attest the same And it cannot be doubted but Eusebius and Hierom had in their times the like certain Testimonies and Grounds for sundry others whom they report to have been Bishops which Testimonies and Records are not all come to our hands For the Testimonies of Clemens and Ignatius His Majesty saith First That tho it be not reasonable that the Testimony of one single Epistle should be so made the adequate measure of Clemens his Opinion as to exclude all other proof from his Example or otherwise yet His Majesty since Clemens was first named by you and the weight of the main cause lieth not much upon it is content also for that matter to refer Himself to that Epistle Secondly That His Majesty could not but use some earnestness of expression in the cause of Ignatius against some who have rejected the whole Volume of his Epistles but upon such Arguments as have more lessened the Reputation of their own Learning than the Authority of those Epistles in the opinion of moderate and judicious men And yet Blondellus a very Learned man tho he reject those Epistles confesseth notwithstanding the Ancient Fathers gave full Credence thereunto The Apostles you say did not ordain themselves Bishops of any particular places and yet the Bishops of some particular places are reported in the Catalogues to have been Sucoessors to such or such of the Apostles and even the Names of such Apostles are entred into the Catalogues To this His Majesty saith That the Apostles were formerly Bishops by virtue of their Mission from Christ as hath been already declared but did neither ordain themselves nor could be ordained of others Bishops of such or such particular Cities Although His Majesty knoweth not but that they might without prejudice to their Apostleship and by mutual consent make choice of their several quarters wherein to exercise that Function as well as Saint Peter and Saint Paul by consent went the one to the Circumcision the other to the Gentiles But such apportionments did not intitle them to be properly called Bishops of those places unless any of them by such agreement did fixedly reside in some City of which there is not in the History of the Church any clear unquestionable Example If James the Lord's Brother who was certainly Bishop of Jerusalem were not one of the twelve Apostles as the more general opinion is that he was not yet did the Churches of succeeding times for the greater honour of their Sees and the memory of so great Benefactors enter in the Head of the Lists or Catalogues of their Bishops the Names of such of the Apostles as had either first planted the Faith or placed Bishops or made any long abode and continuance or ended their days among them yet doth not the true Title of being Successors to the Apostles thereby accrue to the Bishops of those places more than to other Bishops but all Bishops are equally Successors to the Apostles in two other respects the one for that they derive their Ordination by a continued Line of Succession from the Apostles the other for that they succeed into the same Apostolical Power and Function which the Apostles as ordinary Pastors had Your motion to reduce this whole Dispute to Scripture alone were the more reasonable if the matter in question were properly a Point of Faith And yet even in points of Faith as the Doctrine of the Trinity the Canon of Scripture and sundry other the uniform judgment of the Church hath been ever held of very considerable regard But being a matter of Fact as before was said which the Scriptures do not deliver entirely and perspicuously in any one place together but obscurely and by parts so that the understanding thereof dependeth merely upon conjectural Interpretations and uncertain probabilities nor assure any certain distinguishing Characters whereby to discern what therein is extraordinary what prudential and what of necessary and perpetual Obligation there seemeth to His Majesty to be a necessity of admitting the subsequent Judgment and Practice of the Christian Churches into the Trial. As to the Three Questions proposed by His Majesty His Majesty resteth very much unsatisfied that you have now again wholly declined the answering of those three Questions so clearly proposed by Him which your selves also consess to be of great importance upon this only pretence That the whole Volume of Ecclesiastical Policy is contained in them Whereas His Majesty did neither expect nor require from you any large or Polemical Discourse concerning those Questions but yet did conceive you were in order to His Satisfaction in your own Undertaking in some sort obliged to have declared in few words what your Judgment was therein with the grounds thereof that so His Majesty might have taken the same into His further Consideration than which nothing could have more conduced to the informing of His Judgment and the satisfaction of His Conscience which His Majesty also further conceives you might have done with the tenth part of that pains you have hitherto bestowed to other purposes and therein have given full as much satisfaction to His desires as he expected and in all likelihood better satisfaction to His Judgment than He yet findeth or can hope to find from you so long as you hold off from declaring your Opinions concerning those Questions For certainly until one of these three things can be clearly evidenced unto His Majesty viz. Either that there is no certain Form of Church-Government at all prescribed in the Word or if there be that the Civil Power may change the same as they see cause or if it be unchangeable that it was not Episcopal but some other His Majesty thinks himself excuseable in the judgment of all reasonable men if He cannot as yet be induced to give his Assent to the utter Abolition of that Government in the Church which He found here setled to His hands which hath continued all over the Christian World from the times of the Apostles until this last Age and in this Realm ever since the first plantation of Christianity as well since the Reformation as before which hath been confirmed by so many Acts of Parliament approved as consonant to the holy Word of God in the Articles of our Religion and by all the Ministers of
as well as say it else you say little But that the conforming of the Church Discipline to the Civil Policy should be a depraving of it I absolutely deny for I aver that without it the Church can neither flourish nor be happy And for your last instance you shall do well to shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more Officers in the Church than he named and yet in one sense I do not conceive that the Church of England hath added any for an Archbishop is only a distinction for Order of Government not a new Officer and so of the rest and of this kind I believe there are divers now in Scotland which you will not condemn as the Moderators of Assemblies and others 4. Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be alwaies so it is in the Apostles time now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour albeit in their time they caused divers to be called so as Barnabas and others so that I believe this Argument makes little for you As for your proof of the antiquity of Presbyterian Government it is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can do more than Eusebius could and I shall believe when I see it for your former Paper affirms that those times were very dark for matter of fact and will be so still for Me if there be no clearer Arguments to prove it than those you mention for because there were divers Congregations in Jerusalem Ergo what are there not divers Parishes in one Diocess your two first I answer but as one Argument and because the Apostles met with those of the inferiour Orders for Acts of Government what then even so in these times do the Deans and Chapters and many times those of the inferiour Clergy assist the Bishops But I hope you will not pretend to say that there was an equality between the Apostles and other Presbyters which not being doth in My judgment quite invalidate these Arguments And if you can say no more for the Churches of Corinth Ephesus Thessalonica c. than you have for Jerusalem it will gain no ground on Me. As for Saint Jerome it is well known that he was no great Friend to Bishops as being none himself yet take him altogether and you will find that he makes a clear distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter as your self confesses but the truth is he was angry with those who maintained Deacons to be equal to Presbyters 5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your meaning concerning the word Fallacy though I think to have had reason for saying what I did but by your favour I do not conceive that you have answered the strength of my Argument for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of Scripture and I appeal to the practice of the Primitive Church and the universal consent of the Fathers to be Judge between us Methinks you should either find a fitter or submit to what I offer neither of which to My understanding you have yet done nor have you shewn how waving those Judges I appeal unto the mischief of the interpretation by private Spirits can be prevented Indeed if I cannot prove by Antiquity that Ordination and Jurisdiction belong to Bishops thereby clearly distinguishing them from other Presbyters I shall then begin to misdoubt many of my former Foundations as for Bishop Davenant he is none of those to whom I have appealed or will submit unto But for the exception you take to Fathers I take it to be a begging of the Question as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not known to former Ages I shall call new-invented fancies until particularly you shall prove the contrary and for your Roman Authors it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts whereby to maintain Novelties as well as the Puritans As for Church-ambition it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be Pope for I take it to be no point of humility to indeavour to be independent of Kings it being possible that Papacy in a multitude may be as dangerous as in one 6. As I am no Judge over the Reformed Churches so neither do I censure them for many things may be avowable upon necessity which otherwayes are unlawful but know once for all that I esteem nothing the better because it is done by such a particular Church though it were by the Church of England which I avow most to reverence but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the purity of the Primitive Doctrine and Discipline as I believe this doth Now concerning Ordination I bad you prove that Presbyters without a Bishop might lawfully ordain which yet I conceive you have not done for 2 Tim. 1. 6. it is evident that Saint Paul was at Timothie's ordination and albeit that all the Seventy had their power immediately from Christ yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear distinction between the twelve Apostles and the rest of the Disciples which is set down by three of the Evangelists whereof Saint Mark calls it an Ordination Mark 3. 15. and Saint Luke sayes And of them he chose Twelve c. Luk. 6. 13. only Saint Matthew doth but barely enumerate them by their name of distinction Mat. 10. 1. I suppose out of modesty himself being one and the other two being none are more particular For the Administration of Baptism giving but not granting what you say it makes more for Me than you but I will not engage upon new Questions not necessary for My purpose 7. For my Oath you do well not to enter upon those Questions you mention and you had done as well to have omitted your instance but out of discretion I desire you to collect your Answer out of the last Section and for your Argument though the intention of my Oath be for the good of the Church collective therefore can I be dispensed withal by others than the representative Body certainly no more than the People can dispense with Me for any Oaths I took in their favours without the two Houses of Parliament As for future Reformations I will only tell you that incommodum non solvit Argumentum 8. For the King my Father's opinion if it were not to spend time as I believe needlesly I could prove by living and written testimonies all and more than I have said of Him for His perswasion in these points which I now maintain and for your defensive War as I do acknowledge it a great sin for any King to oppress the Church so I hold it absolutely unlawful for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to make War though defensive against their lawful Sovereign against which no less proofs will make Me yield but God's Word and let Me tell you that upon such points
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 Presbyters and Deacons and to exercise censures over Presbyters and others and that the second and third Chapters of the Revelation do prove That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches and exercising Censures 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 Apostle 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 called 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 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 higher kind of Bishops than these common Presbyters is not to be found in that or any other 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 performing the office of Bishops Where it appears plain to us that under the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in this place is expressed whatsoever work the Presbyters 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 Bishop 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 Presbyters 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 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 highest Officers of the Church of Christ so they were extraordinary in respect of their commission 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 Apostles by warrant of the Scripture For that Government which they practised was Apostolical 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 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 therein 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 Presbyters 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
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 Majesties part to make up that Conclusion which is pretended 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 maintenance thereof The reason given by Your Majesty in this Paper to support Your Assertion 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 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 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 challenged 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 warrant 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 Succeeding and superiority in Ordaining 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 Popery 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 challenge that they might resolve it at last into the Scripture did chuse the most plausible 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 excepting 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 For Your Majesties Definition of Episcopal Government it is extracted out of the Bishops 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 definition materially and abstractly considered may be found in Scripture The Apostles Timothy 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 ordinary 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 manifest enough that we contend not first de nomine about the Name of Episcopal Government which yet though names serve for distinction is not called or distinguished 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 liberal 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
Church-Government could have pretended to such institution it had been the most impossible thing in the world when there neither was any outward coercive power to inforce it nor could be any General Council to establish it to have introduced such a Form of Government so suddenly and quietly into all Christian Churches and not the Spirit of any one Presbyter for ought that appeareth for above Three Hundred years to have been provoked either through Zeal Ambition or other motive to stand up in the just defence of their own and the Churches liberty against such an Usurpation His Majesty believeth that whosoever shall consider the premisses together with the Scripture-evidences that are brought for that Government will see reason enough to conclude the same to have something of Divine Institution in it notwithstanding all the evasions aad objections that the subtil wit of man can devise to perswade the contrary And therefore His Majesty thinketh it fit plainly to tell you that such Conjectural Interpretations of Scripture as He hath yet met with in this Argument how handsomly soever set off are not Engines of strength enough to remove Him from that Judgment wherein He hath been setled from His Childhood and findeth so consonant to the Judgment of Antiquity and to the constant Practice of the Christian Church for so many hundred years which in a matter of this nature ought to weigh more than mere Conjectural Inferences from Scripture-Texts that are not so attested Which having now once told you His Majesty thinketh Himself discharged from the necessity of making so large and particular an Answer to every Allegation in the sequel of your Reply as hitherto He hath done As to the Apostles Mission and Succession To make His Answer the shorter to so long a discourse His Majesty declareth that His meaning was not by distinguishing the Mission and Vnction of the Apostles so to confine them as if they should relate precisely and exclusively the one to the Office the other to the Abilities but that they did more especially and eminently so relate For the Apostles after their last Mission Matth. xxviii 19 20. whereby they were further warranted to their Office and Work were yet to wait for that promised anointing Luke xxiv 49. Acts i. 4. the special effect whereof was the enduing them with Gifts of the Holy Ghost for the better and more effectual performing of that their Work and Office Nor was it His Majesties meaning to restrain the Extraordinaries in the Apostolical Office to those Gifts only for His Majesty afterwards in the same Paper mentioneth other Extraordinaries also as before is said but only to instance in those Gifts as one sort of Extraordinaries wherein the Apostles were to have no Successors But His Majesties full meaning was that the whole Apostolical Office setting aside all and only what was personal and extraordinary in them consisted in the work of Teaching and Governing which being both of necessary and perpetual use in the Church to the worlds end the Office therefore was also to continue and consequently the persons of the Apostles being mortal to be transmitted and derived to others in succession And that the Ordinary Successors of the Apostles immediately and into the whole Office both of Teaching and Governing are properly the Bishops the Presbyters succeeding them also but in part and into the Office of Teaching only and that mediately and subordinately to the Bishops by whom they are to be ordained and authorized thereunto which His Majesty taketh not to be as you call it a dissolving of the Apostolical Office Now the ground of what His Majesty hath said concerning the manner of Succession to the Apostles that it may appear not to have been said gratis is this The things which the Scriptures record to have been done by Christ or his Apostles or by others at their appointment are of three sorts some acts of Power merely extraordinary others acts of an ordinary power but of necessary and perpetual use othersome lastly and those not a few Occasional and Prudential fitted to the present condition of the Church in several times To the Apostles in matters of the first sort none pretend succession nor are either the Examples of what the Apostles themselves did or the directions that they gave to others what they should do in matters of the third sort to be drawn into consequence so far as to be made necessary Rules binding all succeeding Church-officers in all Times to perpetual observation So that there remain the things of the middle sort only which we may call Substantials into which the Apostles are to have ordinary and standing Successors But then the difficulty will be by what certain marks Extraordinaries Substantials and Prudentials may be known and distinguished each from other Evident it is the Scriptures do not afford any particular discriminating Characters whereby to discern them the Acts of all the three sorts being related in the like narrative forms and the directions of all the three sorts expressed in the like preceptive forms Recourse therefore must of necessity be had to those two more general Criterions the Laws of all human actions Reason and Common Usage Our own Reason will tell us that instructing the People of God in the Christian Faith exhorting them to Piety and good Works administring the Sacraments c. which belong to the Office of Teaching that Ordaining of Ministers Inspection over their Lives and Doctrines and other Administrations of Ecclesiastical Affairs belonging to the Office of Governing are matters of great importance and necessary concernment to the Church in all ages and times and therefore were to be concredited to standing Officers in a Line of succession and accordingly were judged and the continuance of them preserved in the constant usage of the Churches of Christ But that on the other side the decrees concerning Abstinence from Blood and Strangled Acts xv the Directions given for the ordering some things in the Church-Assemblies i Cor. xiv for making Provisions for the Poor i Cor. xvi 1. for the choice and maintenance of Widows i Tim. v. for the enoiling of the sick James v. 14. and other like were but Occasional Prudential and Temporary and were so esteemed by the Churches and the practice of them accordingly laid aside So for the Succession into the Apostolical Office we find in the Scriptures Evidence clear enough that the Apostles committed to others as namely to Timothy and Titus the Power both of Teaching and Governing the Churches And common Reason and Prudence dictating to us that it is good for the edifying of the Church that there should be many Teachers within a competent precinct but not so that there should be many Governours and the difference of Bishops and Presbyters to the purposes aforesaid having been by continual usage received and preserved in the Christian Church down from the Apostles to the present times His Majesty conceiveth the succession of Bishops to the Apostles into so
much of their Office as was ordinary and perpetual and such a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters as His Majesty hath formerly expressed needeth no further Confirmation from Scripture to such as are willing to make use of their Reason also which in interpreting Scripture upon all other occasions they are inforced to do nor any thing by you produced in this Paragraph any further Answer only that distinction of Eminently and Formally because you illustrate it by instancing in Himself His Majesty could not but take notice of which He either understandeth not or thinketh your Illustration thereof not to be very apposite for Actions and Operations flow from the Forms of things and demonstrate the same as Effects do their Causes The Apostles therefore acting in the ordinary exercise of Church-Government did act not Eminently only but Formally also as Bishops rather than Apostles As Concerning Timothy and Titus First Whether they were Evangelists or no His Majesty never meant to dispute Only because you often call for Scripture-proof His Majesty thought fit to admonish you that in your Answer you take two things for granted viz. that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and that Evangelists were such Officers as you described neither of which if it should be denied you could clearly prove from Scripture alone without calling in the help of other Writers to attest it as in your Reply you have now done Master Hooker's neither have you indeed brought any thing in this Reply out of Scripture to prove either of both sufficient to convince him that were of a contrary mind Secondly you seem Sect. 12. to mistake that which was the Third Point in that part of His Majesties Paper which was not Whether Timothy and Titus were Evangelists or no concerning which His Majesty neither did nor doth contend but Whether in the Church-Government they exercised they acted as Evangelists as you affirm and so only as extraordinary Officers or not Zuinglius having said that the Name of a Bishop and Evangelist is the same thing proveth it from ii Tim. iv and concludeth Constat idem fuisse officium utriusque Bishop and Evangelist the same Office both Gerard saith the word Evangelist in that place is taken generally and not in the special sense that is to say for a Minister of the Gospel at large and the Context there indeed seemeth to import no more and not for an Evangelist by peculiar Office And Scultetus not only affirmeth that Saint Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to Ephesus and Crete not as Evangelists but as Church-Governours but saith further that the Epistles written to them both do evince it and also bringeth Reasons to prove it Upon what particular Reasons Gillespy c. reject the conceit of their acting as Evangelists His Majesty certainly knows not But if this be one of their Arguments as to their best remembrance from whom His Majesty had the Information it is That if whatsoever is alleged from the Scripture to have been done by the Apostles and by Timothy and Titus in point of Ordination Discipline and Government may be eluded by this that they acted therein as extraordinary Officers there will be no proof at all from Scripture of any power left in any ordinary Church-Officer to the purposes aforesaid His Majesty then recommendeth to your most sober thoughts to consider First how this Conceit of their acting as extraordinary Ministers only tends to the subversion of all Ministers as well as of the Bishops since upon this very ground especially the Socinians deny all Mission and Ordination of Ministers in the Church and Secondly if the contrary be proved by Gillespy c. by good Arguments that they acted as ordinary Officers in the Church then whether they have not thereby laid a better foundation for the claim of the Bishops viz. of Governing the Churches as single persons in Ordinary Office than either they or you are willing to acknowledg Thirdly His Majesty thinketh it a great liberty which you take in rendring the sense of His Reply as you have done viz. The Scriptures never call them Bishops but the Fathers do c. Whereas if you had followed His sense in that Paper you might rather have delivered thus The Scripture describeth them as Bishops and the Fathers call them so For that of yours The Scripture calls Timothy an Evangelist some of late have refuted it and rejected it with scorn you should have said rather The Scripture doth not any where affirm of Titus nor clearly prove of Timothy that they were by peculiar Office Evangelists but that in governing the Churches they acted as Evangelists or extraordinary Officers is by sundry late Writers the Evasion it self having been but of late time minted refuted and rejected For that of yours The Scripture relates their motion from Church to Church but some affirm them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete It should have been Neither doth their motion from Church to Church hinder but that they might afterward be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete neither doth their being Bishops of Ephesus and Crete hinder but that they might afterwards for propagation of the Gospel be by the Apostles appointment often imployed other-where For that of yours The Scripture makes distinction of Evangelists and Pastors but some say that Timothy and Titus were both It should have been The Scripture maketh no such distinction of Evangelists and Pastors but that the same persons might not only successively be both but even at the same time also be called by both Names Fourthly Tho you say You do not undervalue the Testimonies and Catalogues mentioned yet you endeavour which cometh not far short of undervaluing to lessen the reputation of both but too much Of those Testimonies by putting them off as if when they report Timothy and Titus and others to have been Bishops they speak but vulgarly or by way of allusion and not exactly as to the point in Debate But of Hierom upon whom you chiefly rely in this cause the contrary is evident who in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers wherein he was to deliver things Fide Historica and to describe the persons of such as are Registred in that Catalogue by their proper and known distinctive Titles and Styles expresly styleth Timothy Titus Mark Polycarp and others Bishops of such and such places and such on the other side as were but mere Presbyters Ecclesioe Antiochenoe or Alexandrinoe Presbyteri c. observing the difference so constantly and exactly throughout the whole Book that nothing can be more clear than that he understood the word Episcopus no otherwise than in the ordinary Ecclesiastical sense and as a Bishop is distinct from a Presbyter As for that passage you allege out of him by custome in the judgment of Learned men he must mean the practice of the Apostolick times and by Dominica dispositio the express Precept of Christ unless you will have himself contradict what himself hath written in sundry other places whose Testimonies
in the behalf of Episcopal Superiority are so clear and frequent in his Writings that altho he of all the Ancients be least suspected to favour that Function overmuch yet the Bishops would not refuse to make him Arbitrator in the whole business As for the Catalogues there will be more convenient place to speak of them afterwards Fifthly your long Discourse concerning the several stations and removes of Timothy and Titus Sect. 13 14. and their being called away from Ephesus and Crete Sect. 15. His Majesty neither hath time to examine nor thinketh it much needful in respect of what He hath said already so to do It is sufficient to make His Majesty at least suspend His Assent to your Conjectures and Inferences First that He findeth other Learned men from the like Conjectures to have made other Inferences as namely that Timothy and Titus having accompanied Paul in many journeys postea tandem were by him constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Crete Secondly that supposing they were after the times of the several Epistles written to them sent by the Apostles to other places or did accompany them in some of their journeys even for a long time together it cannot be concluded thence that they were not then Bishops of those Churches or that the Government of those Churches was not committed to their peculiar charge If it be supposed withall which is but reasonable that their absence was commanded by the Apostle and that they left their Churches cum animo revertendi Thirdly that the places which you press again of i Tim. i. 3. and Titus i. 5. weigh so little to the purpose intended by you even in your own judgments for you say only They put fair to prove it that you cannot expect they should weigh so much in His as to need any further Answer save only that His Majesty knoweth not what great need or use there should be of leaving Timothy at Ephesus or Titus in Crete for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons with such directions and admonitions to them for their care therein if they were not sent thither as Bishops For either there were Colleges of Presbyters in those places before their coming thither or there were not if there were and that such Colleges had power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop then was there little need of sending Timothy and Titus so solemnly thither about the work if there were none then had Timothy and Titus power of sole Ordination which is a thing by you very much disliked Those inconveniences His Majesty thinketh it will be hard wholly to avoid upon your Principles That Discourse you conclude with this Observation That in the very same Epistle to Timothy out of which he is endeavoured to be proved a Bishop there is clear evidence both for Presbyters imposing hands in Ordination and for their Ruling Yet His Majesty presumeth you cannot be ignorant that the evidence is not so clear in either particular but that in the former very many of the Latin Fathers especially and sundry later Writers as Calvin and others refer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remoter Substantive Grace or Gift and not that of Imposition of Hands and so understand it as meant of the Office of Presbytery or as we were wont to call it in English by derivation from that Greek word of Priesthood in Timothy himself and not of a Colledg or Company of Presbyters collectively imposing hands on him and that the Greek Fathers who take the word collectively do yet understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there a Company of Apostles or Bishops who laid hands on Timothy in his ordination to the Office of a Bishop as was ordinarily done by three joyning in that act in the Primitive and succeeding times and not of a College of mere Presbyters and that in the latter particular to wit that of Ruling the place whereon His Majesty conceiveth your Observation to be grounded hath been by the Adversaries of Episcopal Government generally and mainly insisted upon as the only clear proof for the establishing of Ruling-Lay-Elders which interpretation His Majesty knoweth not how far you will admit of As to the Angels of the Churches His Majesties purpose in naming these Angels in His first Paper sufficiently declared in His second required no more to be granted for the proving of what He intended but these Two Things only First That they were Personae singulares and then That they had a Superiority in their respective Churches as well over Presbyters as others which two being the Periphrasis or Definition of a Bishop His Majesty conceived it would follow of it self That they were Bishops That the Epistles directed to them in their respective Reproofs Precepts Threatnings and other the contents thereof did concern their fellow-Presbyters also and indeed the whole Churches which in your last you again remember His Majesty did then and doth still believe finding it agreeable both to the tenor of the Epistles themselves and to the consentient judgment of Interpreters Only His Majesty said and still doth That that hindreth not but that the Angels to whom the Epistles were directed were Personae singulares still This His Majesty illustrated by a Similitude which tho it do not hold in some other respects and namely those you observe for His Majesty never dreamt of a four-footed Similitude yet it perfectly illustrates the thing it was then intended for as is evident enough so that there needeth no more to be said about it That which you insist upon to prove the contrary from Revel xi 24. But I say to you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plurally and the rest in Thyatira is plainly of no force if those Copies in which the copulative conjunction is wanting be true for then the Reading would be this But I say to you the rest in Thyatira But following the ordinary Copies the difficulty is not great such manner of Apostrophes by changing the number or turning the speech to another person being very usual both in Prophetick Writings such as this Book of Revelation is and in Epistles of this nature written to one but with reference to many others therein concerned Beza expoundeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you that is the Angel as President and his Collegues the other Presbyters and to the rest that is to the whole flock or people which manner of speaking might be illustrated by the like forms of speech to be used in a Letter written to a Corporation wherein the Mayor and Aldermen especially but yet the whole Town generally were concerned but directed to the Mayor alone or from a Lord containing some Orders for his own houshould especially and generally for the whole Township but by the Inscription directed to his Steward only or the like The Consent of ancient and later Writers was produced by His Majesty for the proof of the two things before named only but especially of the first viz. That the Angels were Personae singulares