He delivered it so cautiously saying onely It might be probable but as that which for the present came first into his thoughts and was sufficient for his purpose without the least meaning thereby to prejudice other interpretations as namely of those Expositors who take the words with the Bishops and Deacons as belonging to the persons saluting and not to the persons saluted to this sence Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ with the Bishops and Deacons to the Saints at Philipi c. or of those who affirm and that with great probability to That Epaphroditus was then actually Bishop of Philippi but not to be mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle because he was not then at Philippi but with St. Paul at Rome when that Epistle was written Any of which conjectures if they be true as there is none of them utterly improbable that place of Phil. 1. 1. will not do you much service in this Question In the Epistles to Timothy and Titus the Apostle directeth and admonisheth them as Bishops particularly concerning Ordination of Ministers that they do it advisedly and Ordain none but such as are meetly qualified for the Service of the Church which Directions and Admonitions His Majesty believeth for the substance to belong to all Bishops of after times aswel as unto them But His Majesty seeth no necessity why in those Epistles there should be any particular Directions given concerning the Ordination of Bishops at least unless it could be made appear That they were to ordain some such in those places nor perhaps if that could be made to appear in as much as in those Epistles there is not the least signification of any difference at all between Presbyters and Deacons in the maner of their Ordination both being to be performed by the Bishop and by Imposition of Hands and to both comprehended under that general Rule Lay hands suddenly on no man but onely and that very little and scarce considerable as to the making of distinct Offices in the qualification of their persons The Ordination therefore of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons being to be performed in the same maner and the same qualifications after a sort saving such differences as the importance of their several Offices make which is more in the degree then in the things being required in both it had been sufficient if in those Epistles there had been direction given concerning the Ordination and Qualification of but one sort of Church Officers onely as in the Epistle to Titus we see there are of Presbyters onely and no mention made of Deacons in the whole Epistle whence it may be aswel concluded That there was to be no other standing Officer in the Church of Crete but Presbyters onely because S. Paul giveth no directions to Titus concerning any other as it can be concluded That there were to be no other Officers in the Church of Ephesus but Presbyters and Deacons onely because S. Paul giveth no directions to Timothy concerning any other XI Reply 23 27. As to the Ages succeeding the Apostles COncerning the judgement of Ecclesiastical Writers about the Divine Right of Episcopacy His Majesty conceiveth the difference to be more in their Expressions then in their Meaning some calling it Divine others Apostolical and some but not many Ecclesiastical but that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters began in the Apostles times and had its foundation in the Institution either of Christ himself or of his Apostles His Majesty hath not heard Aerius excepted that any till these latter Ages have denyed For that which you touch upon concerning the word Infallible His Majesty supposeth you knew his meaning and he delighteth not to contend about words As for the Catalogues some uncertainties in a few a frailty which all humane Histories are subject to His Majesty taketh to be insufficient to discredit all differences there are in Historiographers in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian Persian and Macedonian Kings and of the Saxon Kings in England And we finde far more inextricable intricacies in the Fasti Consulares the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls notwithstanding their great care in keeping the publique Records and the exactness of the Roman Histories then are to be found in Episcopal Catalogues those especially of the chiefest Cities as Jerusalem Rome Antioch Alexandria Ephesus c. yet as all men believe there were Kings in those Countreys and Consuls in Rome in those times so as you might wel foresee would be answered the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops in respect of some uncertainties although His Majesty doubteth not but many of the differences you instance in may be fairly reconciled tendeth rather to the confirming of the thing it self That which you say in Answer hereunto That the Ecclesiastical Writers called them Bishops incomplyance to the Language of their own times afte the names of Presbyters and Bishops were distinguished but that they were not indeed Bishops in the proper sence now in Question His Majesty who believeth the distinction of those names to have begun presently after the Apostles times if not rather whilest some of them were living doth consequently believe that as they were called so they were indeed Bishops in that proper sence It appeareth by Ignatius his Epistles every where how wide the difference was in his time between a Bishop and a meer Presbyter If Hierom only and some a little ancienter then he had applyed the name Bishop to persons that lived some ages before them there might have been the more colour to have attributed it to such a complyance as you speak of but that they received both the name and the truth of their relations from unquestionable Testimonies and Records His Majesty thinketh it may be made good by many instances For example to instance in one onely Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna who is thought to be the Angel of that Church in the Revelation Ignatius who was contemporary with him wrote one Epistle to him and sends salutation to him in another as Bishop of Smyrna Many years after Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in France whose Writings were never yet called in question by any not onely 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 St. John After cometh Eusebius who in his Ecclesicastical History not onely 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
for Scripture proofe His Majesty thought fit to admonish you that in your Answer you take two things for Graunted viz. that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and that Evangelists were such Officers as you described Neither of which if it should be denyed you could clearly prove from Scripture alone without calling in the helpe of other Writers to attest it as in your Reply you have now done Master Hookers 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 mâ—â—d 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 onely as extraordinary Officers or not Zuinglius having said that the Name of a Bishop and Evangelist is the same thing proveth it from 2 Tim. 4. and concludeth Constat idem fuisse officium utriusque Bishop and Evangelist the same Office both Gerrard 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 to more and not for an Evangelist by peculiar Office And Scultetus not onely affirmeth That S. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to Ephesus and Crete not as Evangelists but as Church-Governors 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 alleaged 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 onely 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 Bishops viz. of Governing the Churches as single persons in ordinary Office then either they or you are willing to acknowledge 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 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 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 afterwards be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete Neither doth their being Bishops of Ephesus and Crete hinder but 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 onely successively be both but even at the same time also be called by both Names Fourthly though you say You do not undervalue the Testimonies and Catâ—logues mentioned yet you endeavor 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 relie in this Cause the contrary is evident who in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers wherein he was to deliver things Fide Historicâ and to describe the persons of such as are Registred in that Catalogue by their proper and known distinctive Titles and Stiles he expresly stileth Timothy Titus Mark Polycarp and others Bishops of such and such places and such on the other side as were but meer Presbyters Ecclesiae Antio henae or Alexandrinae Presbyter c. observing the difference so constantly and exactly throughout the whole Book that nothing can be more clear then that he understood the word Episcopus no otherwise then in the ordinary Ecclesiastical sense and as a Bishop is distinct from a Presbyter As for that passage you alleage out of him by custom in the judgement 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 him 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 although he of all the Ancients be least suspected to favor 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 13 14. and their being called away from Ephesus and Crete 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 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 withal which is not 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 1 Tim. 1. 3. Tit. 1. 5. weigh so little to the purpose intended by you even in your own judgements for you say onely They put fair to prove it that you cannot expect they should weigh so much in his as to need any further Answer save onely 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 particular directions and admonitions to them for their care therein if they were not sent thither as Bishops For either there were Colledges of Presbyters in those places before their coming thither or there were not if there were and that such Colledges 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 same very Epistle to Timothy out of which he is endeavored 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 Latine Fathers especially and sundry later Writers as Calvin and others refer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remoter Substantive Grace or Gift and not to 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 Colledge 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 Colledge of meer 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 onely clear proof for the establishing of Ruling-Lay-Elders which interpretation His Majesty knoweth not how far you will admit of VIII Reply 16. As to the Angels of the Churches HIs Majesties purpose of 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 aswel 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 the 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 judgement 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 though it do not hold in some other respects and namely those by you observed 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 2. 24. But I say to you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plurally and to the rest in Thyatira is plainly of no force if those Copies in which the copalative 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 maner of Apostrophes by changing the number or turning the speech to another person being very usual both in Prophetique 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 colleagues the other Presbyters and to the rest that is to the whole flock or people which maner of speaking might be illustrated by the like forms of speech to be used in a Letter written to a Corporation wherein the Major and Aldermen especially but yet the whole Town generally were concerned but directed to the Major alone or from a Lord containing some Orders for his own houshold especially and generally for the whole Township but by the Inscription directed to his Steward onely or the like The consent of ancient and later Writers was produced by His Majesty for the proof of the two things before named onely but especially of the first viz. That the Angels were Personae singulares For the latter viz. That they were superior to Presbyters also had been confessed by your selves in your first Grant before but was not produced to prove the Conclusion it self immediately viz. That they were Bishops in distinct sence although sundry of their Testimonies come up even to that also But to the first point That they were Single persons the concurrence is so general that His Majesty remembreth not to have heard of any one single Interpreter before Brightman that ever expounded them otherwise And yet the same man as His Majesty is informed in his whole Commentary upon the Revelation doth scarce if at all any where else save in these Seven Epistles expound the word Angel collectively but still of one single person or other insomuch as he maketh one Angel to be Gregory the Great another Queen Elizabeth another Cranmer another Chemnitius and the like but generally both the Fathers and Protestant Divines agree in this That the Angel was a Single person some affirming plainly
and that in terminis he was the Bishop some naming the very persons of some of them as of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna and others some calling him the chief Pastor or Superintendent of that Church and those that speak least and were more or less disaffected to Bishops as Beza Doctor Reynolds the Geneva Noto and even Cartwright himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 President or chief among the Presbyters And this they do sundry of them not crudely delivering their Opinions onely and then no more but they give Reasons for it and after examination of the several Opinions prefer this before the rest affirming That Doctissimi quique interpretes all the best learned Interpreters so understand it and that they cannot understand it otherwise vim nisi facere Textui velint unless they will offer violence to the Text. That which His Majesty said concerning the Subdivision of those that had divided themselves from the common judgement of this Church was meant by His Majesty as to the Subdivision in respect of this particular of the Angels wherein they differ one from another as to the division in respect of their dislike of Bishops wherein they all agree And truly His Majesty doth not yet see how either their differences can be possibly reconciled in the former no accommodation in the world being able to make all the people of the whole Church nor yet a Colledge consisting of many Presbyters to be one single person or their recess wholly excused in the latter their dissenting from the common and received judgement practice of the Christian Church in the matter of Episcopacy and the evil consequents thereof having in His Majesties opinion brought a greater reproach upon the Protestant Religion and given more advantage or colour at least to the Romish party to asperse the Reformed Churches in such sort as we see they do then their disagreement from the Church of Rome in any one controverted point whatsoever besides hath done IX Reply 17 18. As to the Apostles Successors HEre little is said the substance whereof hath not been Answered before His Majesty therefore briefly declares His meaning herein That the Apostles were to have no necessary Successors in any thing that was extraordinary either in their Mission or Unction That His Majesty spake not of Succession into Abilities otherwise then by instance mentioning other particulars withal which thing he thinketh needeth not to have been now the third time by you mentioned That in the Apostles Mission or Commission for His Majesty under the name of Mission comprehended both and consequently in the Apostolical Office as there was something extraordinary so there was something ordinary wherein they were to have Successors That Bishops are properly their Successors in the whole Apostolical Office so far as it was ordinary and to have Successors That therefore the Bishops Office may in regard of that Succession be said to be Apostolical That yet it doth not follow that they must needs be called Apostles taking the Denomination from the Office in as much as the Denomination of the Apostles peculiarly so called was not given them from the Office whereunto they were sent but as the word it self rather importeth from the immediateness of their Mission being sent immediately by Christ himself in respect whereof for distinction sake and in honor to their persons it was thought fitter by those that succeeded in common usage to abstain from that Denomination and to be stiled rather by the Name of Bishops That if the Apostles had no Successors the Presbyters who are their Successors in part immediately and subordinately to the Bishops will be very hard set to prove the warrant of their own Office and Mission which if not derived from the Apostles who onely received power of Mission from Christ by a continued line of Succession His Majesty seeth not upon what other bottom it can stand X. Reply 19-23 As to the standing Officers of the Church YOu insisted upon two places of Scripture Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. to prove that there were to be no more standing Officers in the Church then the two in those places mentioned viz. Presbyters who are there called Bishops and Deacons whereunto His Majesties answer was That there might be other though not mentioned in those places which Answer though it were alone sufficient yet ex abundanti His Majesty shewed withal that supposing your interpretation of the word Bishop in both the places viz. to denote the Office of Presbyter onely there might yet be given some probable conjectures which likewise supposed true might satisfie us why that of Bishop in the distinct sence should not be needful or proper to be named in those places His Majesties former Reason though in Hypothesi and as applied to the Church of Philippi it be but conjectural yet upon the credit of all Ecclesiastical Histories and consideration of the condition of those times as it is set forth in the Scriptures also it will appear in Thesi to be undoubtedly true viz. That the Apostles themselves first planted Churches that they were perpetual Governors and in chief of all the Churches whilest they lived that as the burthen grew greater by the propagation of the Gospel they assumed others in partem curae committing to their charge the peculiar oversight of the Churches in some principal Cities and the Towns and Villages adjacent as James at Jerusalem and others in other places sooner or later as they saw it expedient for the service of the Church That the persons so by them appointed to such peculiar charges did exercise the powers of Ordination and other Government under the Apostles and are therefore in the Church Stories called Bishops of those places in a distinct sence That in some places where the Apostles were themselves more frequently conversant they did for some while govern the Churches immediately by themselves before they set Bishops there and that after the Apostles times Bishops onely were the ordinary Governors of the Churches of Christ And His Majesty believeth it cannot be proved either from clear evidence of Scripture or credible testimonies of Antiquity that ever any Presbyter or Presbytery exercised the power either of Ordination at all without a Bishop or of that which they call Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in ordinary and by their own sole Authority or otherwise then as it was delogated unto them upon occasion and for the time by Apostles or Bishops For that place of Phil. 1. 1. in particular His Majesties purpose being not to interpret the place a work fitter for Divines but to manifest the inconsequence of the Argument whereby you would conclude but two standing Officers onely because but two there named gave this as one probable conjecture why there might be no Bishop in distinct sence there mentioned because possibly the Apostles had not as yet set any Bishops over that Church which His Majesty did not propose as the onely no nor yet as the most probable conjecture for which cause