a Precinct but not in single persons In several offices not to be confounded the parts of this definition may be â—ound but the aggregation of them altogether into one ordinary Officer cannot be â—ound And if that word ordinary and standing Government had been 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 onely in foro interno to Presbyters untill after times By this that hath been said it is manifest enough that we contend not first de nomine about the name of Episcopall Government which yet though names serve for distinction is not called or distinguished by that name in Scripture Nor secondly de opere about the worke whether the worke of Governing ordering preaching c. be of continuance in the Church Which we cleerely acknowledge But thirdly de munere about the Office it being a greatfallacy 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 liberall and learned Arts one and the same thing may be handled in divers of them and yet these Arts are distinguisht by the formalis ratio of handling of them so we say of Offices they are distinguisht by their callings and Commissions though not by the worke as all those that are named Eph. 4. 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers are designed to one and the same generall and common worke The worke of the Ministry ver. 12. And yet they are not therefore all one for â—ts said some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers A Dictator in Rome and an ordinary Tribune Moses and the subordinate governours of Israel The Court of Parliament and of the Kings-Bench an Apostle and a Presbyter or Deacon may agree in some common worke and yet no confusion of Offices followes thereupon To that which your Majesty conceives that the most that can be proved from all or any of those places by us alleadged 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 that consequently the Offiâ—… and work mentioned in these places as the Office and worke of a Bishop are the Office of a Presbyter which is confessed on all sides We make this humble returne that though there be no supposition so much as implyed that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter are distinct in any thing for the names are mutually reciprocall 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 untill there can be found a cleere distinction or 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 fame worke per omnia being allowed so to do by the fulnesse of those two words used in the Acts and St. Peter his Epistle {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} under the force of which words the Bishops claime 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 Bishops as never to see their faces more commits as by a finall charge the Government of that Church both over particular 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 diverse Orders of Presbyter and Deacon being diversly characterised upon these grounds we hope without fallacie we conceive 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 single 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 Presbyterie 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 demonstration 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 peculiarly 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 neer to an issue That GOD should intend a distinct and highest kind of Officer for Government in the Church and yet not expresse any qualification work or way of constituting and ordaining of him seemes unto us improbable 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 also a keeper of shepheards As to that which is affirmed by your Majesty that the peculiar of the function of Bishops is Church-government and that the reason why the word Episcopus is usually applied to Presbyterie was because Church Governours had then another title of greater eminencie to wit that of Apostle until the Government of the Church came into the hands of their
Majesties discourse for though there be a Succession in the worke 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 of Prophets is thence also concluded Ordinary as to Teaching and Governing and the distinction of Offices Extraordinary and Ordinary eatenus destroyed The Succession may be into the same worke not into the same Commission and Office the Ordinary Officers which are to manage the work of Teaching and Governement are constituted setled and limited by warrant of Scripture as by another Commission then 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 Bishops the question had been determined otherwise we must look upon the dissolving of the Apostolicall Office and distribution of it into these two hands as the dictate of men who have a minde by such a precarious Argument to challenge to themselves the Keyes of Authority and leave the Word to the Presbyters In our answer to the instances of Timothy and Titus which Doctor Bilson acknowledgeth to be the maine erection of Episcopall power if the proofes of their being Bishops doe 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 implyeth any such things at all that Titus was an Evangelist neither doth the text cleerly prove that Timothy was so 1. The name of Bishop the Scripture neither expresly nor by implication gives to either the work which they are injoyned to do is common to Apostles Evangelists Pastors Teachers and cannot of it self make a character of one distinct and proper 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 Timethy and Titus were not ordained to one particular Church but were companions and fellow Labourers with the Apostles sent abroad to severall Churches as occasion did require it is as we humbly conceive clear enough in Scripture and not denyed by the learned defenders of Episcopall Government nor as we remember by Scultetus himselfe during the time of their travailes 2. To that which Your Majesty secondly saith That we cannot make it appeare by any Text of Scripture that the Office of Evangelist is such as we have discribed his worke seeming 2 Tim. 2. 4 5. to be nothing else but diligence in preaching the word notwithstanding all impediments and oppositions We humbly Answer That exact definitions of these or other Church Officers are hard to bee found in any Text of Scripture but by comparing one place of Scripture with another it may bee proved aswell that they were as what the Apostles and Presbyters were the description by us given being a Character made up by collation of Scriptures from which Mr. Hooker doth not much vary saying that Evangelists were Presbyters of Principall sufficiency whom the Apostles sent abroad used as Agents in Ecclesiasticall Affaires wheresoever they saw need And that Pastors Teachers were settled in some certain charge and therby 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 Episcopall and Apostolicall so this also is to be divided in Episcopall and Evangelistical Ordination and Censures belonging to Timothy as a Bishop and diligence in Preaching only being left to the Evangelists which division as we humbly conceive is not warranted by the Scripture Thirdly Your Majesty saith that that which we so confidently affirme of Timothy and Titus their acting as Evangelists is by some denyed and refuted yea even with scorne rejected by some rigid Presbyterians and that which we so confidently deny that they were Bishops is consirmed by the consentient testimony of all antiquity recorded by Ierome himselfe that they were Bishops of Pauls ordination acknowledged by very many late Divines 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 wee 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 totall ignorance of those Testimonies which might be alledged 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 replys as these the Scripture never cals 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 affirme them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Creet the Scripture makes distinction of Evangelists and Pastors but some say that Timothy and Titus were both we cannot give Your Majesty a present account of Scultetus and Gherards Arguments but do believe that M. Gillespi and Rutherford are able with greater strength to refute that opinion of Timothy and Titus their being Bishops then they do if they do with scorne reject this of their being Evangelists As for testimonies and catalogues though 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 generall appellations or titles and allusions frequently found in the Fathers especially when they speake vulgarly and not as to a point in debate for even Ierome who as Your Majesty saith doth Record that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops and that of St. Pauls Ordination doth when he speaks to the poynt between Your Majesty and us give the Bishops to understand that they are superior to Presbyters consueitudine magis quam Dominicae veritatis dispositione for catalogues their creditrests upon the first witnesses from whom they are reported by tradition from hand to hand whose writings are many times suppositions dubius or not extant besides that these catalogues do resolve themselves into some Apostle or Evangelist as the first Bishop as the catalogue of Ierusalem into the Apostle Iames that of Antioch into Peter that of Rome into Peter and Paul that of Alexandria into Marke 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 easy for
us to proceed the same way and to finde many antient rites and customs generally received in the Church counted by the antients Apostolicall traditions as neer the Apostles times as Bishops which yet are confessedly 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 asserted how came their pretended successors who were but Primi Presbyterorum as the Fathers themselves call them to lose so much Episcopall power as was in their Predecessors and as was not recovered in 300 years and therefore we cannot upon any thing yet said recide from that of our Saviour ab initio non fuit sic from the begining is was not so Your Majesty saith that wee affirme but upon very weak proofes that they were from Ephesus and Crete removed to other places the contrary whereunto hath been demonstrated by some who have exactly out of Scripture compared the times and order of the severall journeyes and stations of Paul and Timothy It is confessed that our assertion that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists lies with some stresse upon this that they removed from place to place as they were sent by or accompanied the Apostles the proofe whereof appeares to us to bee of greaten strength then can bee taken off by the comparison which your Majesty makes of the Divines of the Assembly at Westminster Wee begin with the Travailes of Timothy as we finde them in order recorded in the Scripture-places cited in the Margin and we set forth from a Berea where we finde Timothy then next at b Athens fromwhence Paul sends him to c Thessalonica afteward having been in Macedonia he came to Paul at d Corinth and after that he is with Paul at Ephesus and thence sent by him into e Macedonia whether Paul went after him and was by Timothy accompanied into f Asia who was with him at g Troas and h Miletus to which place Saint Paul sent for the Presbyters of the Church in Ephesus and gave them that solemne charge to take heede unto themselves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops not speaking a word of recommendation of that Church to Timothy or of him to the Elders And if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus he must bee so when the first Epistle was sent to him in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him he was in continuall journeyes or absent from Ephesus For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into i 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 aftur Paul had been at Miletus he went to Jerusalem whence he was sent prisoner to Rome and never came more into Macedonia and at k Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with him and these Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome namely the Epistle to the Philippians to Philemon to the Colossians to the Hebrewes doe make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times nor doe we ever finde him againe at Ephesus for we finde that after all this towards the end of Saint Pauls life after his first answering before Nero and when he said his departing was at hand hee sent for Timothy to Rome not from Ephesus for it seemes 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 bee pleased to cast up into one totall that which is said the severall journeyes and stations of Timothy the order of them the time spent in them the nature of his imployment to negotiate the affaires of Christ in severall Churches and places the silence of the Scriptures as touching his being Bishop of any one Church you will acknowledge 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 wil conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus The like conclusion may be inforced from the like premisses from the instance of Titus whom we finde at a Jerusalem before he came to Crete from whence hee is sent for to b Nicopolis after that he is sent to Corinth from whence he is expected at c Troas and met with Paul in d Macedonia whence he is sent againe to e Corinth and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome from whence he went not into Crete but unto f Dalmatia and after this is not heard on in the Scripture and so we hope your Majesty doth conceive that we affirme not upon very weak proofes that Tymothy and Titus were from Ephesus Crete removed to other places 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 Crete which if they doe not conclude much of themselves yet being accompanied by two other places which your Majesty takes no notice of may seeme to conclude more and these are 1 Tim. v. 1. 3. Titus 1. 5. As I be sought thee to abide still at Ephesus for this cause left I thee in Creete in both which is specifed the occasionall imployment 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 doe not sound like words of installment of a man into a Bishoprick but of an intendment to call them away again and if the first and last be put together his actuall 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 of his leaving the other behind him which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches they will put faire to prove that the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places and therefore did not For the Postscripts because your Majesty layes no great weight upon them We shall not be solicitous in producing evidence against them though they doe bear witnesse in a matter of fact which in our opinion never was and in your Majesties Judgement was long before they were borne and so we conclude this discourse about Timothy and Titus 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 Episcopall Government there is cleare evidence both for Presbyters imposing hands in ordination and for their Ruling In the next point concerning the Angels of
〈◊〉 without 〈◊〉 And whereas your 〈…〉 of their work 〈…〉 in the Apostles we could wish that you had declared whether it belong to their Mission or Unction for we humbly conceive that their Authorative Power to do their Work in all places of the world did properly belong to their Mission and consequently that their Office as wel as their Abilities was extraordinary and so by your Majesties own concession not to be succeded into by the Bishops As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church your Majesty doth reply That although in the places cited Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 8. there be no mention but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbiters 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 Ordeyning any third no Warrant or way of Mission and so the Argument is as good as can be made a non cause 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 hat those very many Divines that have afferted two orders onely have concluded it from any other grounds then the Scriptures cited There appears as your Majesty saith two other manifest reasons why the Office of Bishops might not bee so proper to be mentioned in those places And wee humbly conceive there is a third more manifest then those two vizt because It was not The one reasun given by your Majesty is because in the Churches which the Appostles themselves planted they placed Presbiters under them for the Office of Teaching but reserved 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 mentiioned to bee 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 Schisme which is Jeromes reason or because the Apostles saw it not expedient which is your Majesties reason doth shew that this cause labours under a manifest weaknesse 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 then as Dr. Bilson saith they could loose their Apostleship had they set up Bishops in all Churches they had no more paâ—ted with their power of Governing then they did in seting up the Presbyters for we have proved that Presbyters being called Rulers Governours 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 comitted into one hand were not by the Apostles divided into two Nor do we see how the Apostles could reasonably commit the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus Act. 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 that part of the power of Government which for distinction saâ—e may be called Legis-Lative and which is one of the three fore-mentioned things challenged by the Bishops viz giving Rules the reserving of it in the Apostles hands hindred not but that in your Majesties Iudgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops of 〈◊〉 and Creete to whom the Apostles gives Rules for â—â—â—ring and Governing of the Church Nor is there â—â—y more reason that the Apostles reserving that part of the Power of Governing which is called Eâ—â—cutiâ—â— in such cases and upon such occasions as they thought 〈◊〉 should hinder the setting up of Bishops if they had intended it and therefore the reserving of Power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at the first then that they never did And since by your Majesties Concession the Presbiters were placed by the Apostles first in the Churches by them planted and that with Power of Governiâ—â— as wee prove by Scripture you must prove the 〈…〉 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 â—â—ll mâ—ns out the stones by little and little as i◠〈◊〉 grows As touching Phillippi where you Majesty saith it may be probable there was yet 〈◊〉 Bishop it is certaine there were many like them 〈…〉 at Epheful to whom if only the Office of Teaching did belong they had the most laboriâ—us and honorable part that which was less honorable being reserved in the Apostles hands and the Churches left in the mean time without ordinary Government The other reason given why two Orders only aâ—â— mentioned in those places is because he wrot in the 〈◊〉 to Timothy and Titus to them that were Bishops â—â— there was no need to writ any thing concerning the 〈…〉 Qualification of any other sort of 〈◊〉 then such as belonged to their Ordination or inspection which were Presbyters and Deacons only and no Bishops The former reason why two only Orders are mentioned in the Epistle to the Philipâ—â—ans was because there was yet â—â— Bishop this latter reason why the same two onely are mentioned in these Epistles is because there was no Bishop iâ—â—â— Ordained we might own the reason for good if there may bee found any rule for the Ordination of the other order of Bishops in some other place of Scripture but if the Ordination cannot be found how should we find the Order and it is reasonable to think that the Apostle in the Chapter formerly alleadged 1 Tim. 3. where he passes immediatly from the Bish to the Deâ—â—on would have 〈◊〉 exprest or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whither the Bishop â—ver Presbyters or the Presbiter Bishop to have avoyded the confusion of the name and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the 〈◊〉 of the Presbiter-Bish if there had bin some other Bishop of 〈…〉 And wheras your Maâ— saith there was no need to writ to them about 〈…〉 in a distinct sence who belonged not to their Ordination and inspection We conceive that in your Majesties judgment Bishops might then have Ordeined Bishops like themselves for there was then no Caâ—â—â— forbiding one single Bish to ordain another of his own rank and ther being many Cities in Creete 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 reasoning his against the principles of those 〈…〉
The Humble ANSWER Of the DIVINES Attending the Honorable COMMISSIONERS 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. About Episcopall Government Delivered to his Majesty October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to Print this Copie entituled The Humble Answer of the Divines c. Richard Vines London Printed for Abel Roper at the Signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street 1648. The humble ANSWER of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of PARLIAMENT at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight To the second Paper delivered to them by his MAIESTY Octob. 6. 1648. Delivered to his MAIESTY Octob. 17. May it please your Mahesty AS in our Paper of October the third in Answer to your Majesties of October the second We did so now againe we do acknowledge 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 district from Presbyters or did exercise Episcopall Government in that sence Or that this was in the least measure proved by the alleadged Scriptures and therefore our Negative not being to the same point or state of the Question which was affirmed We humby conceive that we should not be interpreted to have in effect denyed the very same thing which we had before granted or to have acknowledged that the severall Scriptures do prove the thing for which they are cited by your Majesty And if that which we granted were all that by the Scriptures cited in your Margin your Majesty intended to prove It will follow That nothing hath yet beene 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 infirme 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 sence is taken from a description of Episcopall Government which is as your Majesty saith nothing else but the Government of the Churches within a certaine Precinct commonly called a Diocesse 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 selfe in all the three forementioned particulars Ordaining giving rules of Discipline and Censures found in Scriptures except we will contend about names words must be acknowledged in the sense aforesaid to be sufficiently proved from Scriptures and your Majesty saith further that the Bishops do not challeng more or other power to belong to them in respect of their Episcopal office as it is distinct from that of Presbyters then what properly fals 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 shaâ—ed or divided The Governing part into the Bishops hands the Teaching and administring Sacraments into the Prâ—â—byters For besides that the Scripture makes no such inclosure or partition wall it appeares the challenge is grown to more then was pretended unto in the times of growne Episcopacie Jerome and Chrysostome do both acknowledge 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 singularly 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 found it like the head of Nile which cannot be found they shrowded 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 expresse precept but implicite practise 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 turn'd into an ordinary 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 incompatible to the same subject that he that will take both must lose the one aut Apostolus Episcopatum aut Apostolatum Episcopus For the Apostles though they did not in many things ut aliud yet they acted alio nomine alio munere then Presbyters or Bishops can do and if they were indeed Bishops and their government properly Episcopal in distinct sense then it is not needfull to go so far about to prove Episcopal government of Divine institution because they practised it but to assert expressely that Christ instituted it immediately in them For your Majesties definition of Episcopal government it is extracted out of the Bishops of later date then Scripture times and doth not sute to that Meridian under which there were more Bishops then 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 Angels was limited to
successors then the names were by common usage very soon appropriated That of Episcopus to Ecclesiastical Governours That of Presbyter to the ordinary Ministers This asserâ—ion your Majesty is pleased to make without any demonstration for whom the Scripture cals Presbyters Rulers and Pastors and Teachers it calls Governors and commits to them the charge of feeding and inspection as we have proved and that without any mention of Church Government peculiar 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 appropriate which is either an allusion or conceipt 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 processe of time as Theodoret one of the Fathers of this conceit affirms whose saying when it is run out of the pale of Scripture time we can no further follow from which premises laid altogether we did conclude the cleernes of our assertion that in the Scriptures of the New Testament a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in Qualification Ordination Office or dignity is not found the contrary wherof though your Majesty saith that you have seene confirmed by great variety of credible Testimony yet we believe those testimonies are rather strong in asserting then in demonstrating the Scriptures Originall 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 tryable by Scripture as matter of Fact is by Testimony Wee 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 Episcopall but Apostolicall to which Answer your Majesty being not satisfyed doth oppose certaine assertions That Christ himselfe and the Apostles received their Authority by Mission their Ability by Unction That the Mission of the Apostles was ordinary and to continue to the end of the world but the Unction wherby they were enabled to both Offices Functions Teaching and Governing was indeed extraordiry That in their Unction they were not necessarily to have successours but necessarily in their Mission or Office of Teaching and Governing That in these two ordinary Offices their ordinary successours are Presbyters 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 carryed in it more conviction then 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 then a Pedigree drawne forth by such a series of distinctions as do not distinguish him into another Officer from a Presbyter whether this chaine of distinction be strong and the links of it sufficiciently tackt together we crave leave to examine Christ saith your Majesty was the Apostle and Bishop of our soules and he made the Apostles both Apostles and Bishops we do not conceive that your Majesty meanes that the Apostles succeeded Christ as the chief Apostle and that as Bishops they succeed Christ as a Bishop least thereby Christ his Mission as an Apostle and Bishop might be conceived as ordinary as their Mission is said to be But we apprehend 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 eminently 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 Ability we cannot consent for besides that the breathing of Christ upon his Disciples saying 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 naturall use and effect of the oyle upon the body was not so much intended as the solemn and ceremonious use of it in the inauguration 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 abilities 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 extraordinary and so the Apostles were ordinary officers in all whereunto there is properly 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 abilities and measure of Spirit but not in that wherein one order of officers is above another by their office To which we cannot give consent for since no man is denominated 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 well as their abilities was extraordinary and temporay doth appeare 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 seemes 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 governing in the Apostles an ordinary office then the office of teaching and governing in Christ himselfe render his Office therefore Ordinary The reason given That the Office of Teaching and Governing was ordinary in the Apostles because of the continuance of them in the Church wee crave leave to say is that great mistake which runnes through the whole file of your
the Churches though your Majesty saith that you lay no weight upon the Allegory or Mystery of the denomination yet you assert that the persons bearing that name were personae singulares in a word Bishops who yet are never so called in Scripture the allegorical denomination of Angels or Stars which in the Judgement of ancient and moderne Writers doth belong to the faithfull Ministers and Preachers of the word in generall is appropriate as we may so say to the Myter and Crosierstaffe and so opposed to many expresse testimonies of Scripture And if your Majesty had been particular in that wherein you say the strength of your instance lies viz. the Judgement of all ancient of the best moderne Writers and many probabilities in the text it selfe we hope to have made it apparent that many ancient eminent Writers many probabilities 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 sence whether we brought any thing of moment to infirm this we humbly submit to Your Majesties judgement and shall only represent 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 prophetick writings or visionall representations such as this of the stars and golden Candlesticks is a number of things or persons is usually exprest in singulars and this in visions is the usuall 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 Angell And because Your Majesty seemes to call upon us to be particular though we cannot name the Angels nor are satisfied in our judgement that those whom some do undertake to name were intended by the name of Angells in those Epistles yet we say First that these Epistles were sent unto the Churches and that under the expression of this thou dost or this thou hast and the like the Churches are respectively intended for the sin reproved the Repentance commanded the punishments threatned are to be referred to the Churches and not to the singular Angells onely and yet wee do not thinke that Salmatius did intend nor doe wee that in formall denomination the Angells and Candlesticks are the same Secondly The Angels of these Churches or Rulers were a Collective body which wee 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 charg of that Church was by Saint Paul at his finall departure from them committed as also by that expression Revel. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thiatyra Which distinction 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 according to the Consentient Evidence of other Scriptures of the New Testament is not Safe only but Solid and Evidentiall Thirdly these Writings are directed as Epistolary Letters to Collective Bodyes 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 confesse but that the Speaker is one single Person so it doth not prove at all that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person 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 given cleare instance that though these Letters be directed to the Angels yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops not yet perpetuall Moderators For the severall opinions specified in your Majesties Paper three of them by easie and faire accommodatiâ—n as wee declared before are soon reduced and united amongst themselves and may be holden wiâ—hout ecesse from the received Iudgement of the Christian Church by such as are far from mâ—â—iting that Aspersion which is cast upon the Reformed Divines by Popish Writers that they have divided themselves from the Common and received Iudgment of the Christian Church which Imputation wee hope was not in your Majesties intention to lay upon us untill it bee made cleare that it is the common and received Iudgement 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 In the following Discourse we did deny that the Apostles were to have any Successors in their Office and affirmed onely 〈◊〉 Orders of Ordinary and Standing Officers in the Church vizt. Presbiters 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 Sucessors in cundem graedum but in those things which were not extraordinary 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 no Successours Where your Majesty deliâ—â—â—s a Doctrine new to us Namely that the Apopostâ—es had Successors into their Offices not into their 〈◊〉 For besides that Succession is not 〈◊〉 into Abilitiâ—s but into Officâ— We cannot say that one 〈◊〉 another in his 〈◊〉 o◠〈◊〉 or Patts but into his Roome and Function 〈◊〉 â—â—nceive that the Office Apostolicall was 〈…〉 in whole because their Mission and 〈◊〉 was â—o 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 rendred Ordinary because many workes of Government exercised by him were re-committed to the standing 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 〈◊〉 Denomination and then we shal confesse that Bishops if they be their Successors in Office 〈◊〉 of Divine Institution because the Apostolicall Office him so if their Successors come into part of their Office only the Presbiters may as well bee called their 〈◊〉 â—â— the Bishops and so indeed they are called by 〈◊〉 of the ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 Origen 〈◊〉 and others Whereas in much the Apostle◠〈◊〉 not properly Successors into Office but the ordinâ—ry Power of Teaching and Governing which 〈…〉 the Church for 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in the hands of ordinary Officers by a 〈…〉 and Commission according to the rules of 〈◊〉 and calling in the word 〈◊〉 the Bishop hath 〈◊〉 yet produced for himselfe and without which he cannot challenge it upon the 〈…〉 by the
to have been Bishops for our part we beleeve that â—Word-â— belonged unto 〈◊〉 and Titus with 〈…〉 Churches where they might 〈…〉 any time have the Office of Ordeyning and Governing as it is written in the same Chapter 1 Tim. 3. 14 15. Those things I have written unto thâ—â— c. that thou mayest know how to be have thy selfe in the House of God which is the Church and therefore if there had been any proper Character or Qualification of a Bishop distinct 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 insufficiency of your Majesties two reasons that there are onely two Orders of Officers and consequently that a Bishop is not superiour to a Presbyter for we find not as we said in our Answer that one Officer is superiour to another who is of the same Order Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles Your Majesty having in your first Paper said that you could not in Conscience consent to Abolish Episcopall Government because you did conceive it to be of Apostolicall Institution Practised by the Apostles themselves and by them comitted and derived to particular persons as their Successors and have ever since til these last times bin exercised by Bishops in al the Churchs of Christ We thought it necessary in our Answer to subjoyne to that we had said out of the Scriptures the Iudgment of divers ancient â—riters and Fathers by whom Bishops were not acknowledged as a Divine but as an Ecclesiasâ—ticall Institution as that which might very much conduce both to the easing of your Majesties scruple to consider that howsoever Episcopal Government was generally currant yet the superscription was not jugded Divine by some of those that either were themselves Bishops or lived under that Government to the vindication of the opinion which we hold from the prejudice of Novellisme or of recesse from the Iudgement of all Antiquity We doe as firmely beleeve as to matter of fact that Chrysostome and Austin were Bishops as that Aristotle was a Philosopher Cicerâ— an Orator though wee should rather call out Faith and beliefe thereof â—â—rtaine in matter of fact upon humane Testimonies uncontrouled then infallible in respect of the Testimonies themselves But where is your Majestie saith That the darknesse of the Historie of the Church in the time succeeding the Apostles is a strong Argument for Episcopacie which notwithstanding that darknesse hath found so full proofe by unquestioned Catalogues as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like Wee humbly conceive that those fore-mentioned times were darke to the Catalogue-makers who must derive the series of Succession from and through those Historicall darknesses and so make up their Catalogues very much from Tradition 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 neerer they come to the Apostles times wherein they should be most of all clear to establish the succession firm and cleare at first the more doubtfull uncertaine and indeed contradictorie to one another are the Testimonies Some say that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome after Peter some say the third and the intricacies about the Order of Succession in Linâ—s Anacletus Clemens and another called Cletus as some affirme are inextricable Some say that Titus was Bishop of Crate some say Arch-bishop and some Bishop of Dalmatia Some say that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus and some say that Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time Some say that Polycarpus was first Bishop of Smyrna another saith that he succeeded one Bâ—colus and another that Aristâ— was first Some say that Alexandria had but one Bishop and other Cities two and others that there was but one Bishop of one Citie at the same time And how should those Catalogues be unquestionable which must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one with another Wee confesse that the Ancient Fathers Tertulltan Irenaus c. made use of Succession as an Argument against Heretikes or Innovators to prove that they had the traduces Apostoliei seminis and that the Godly and Orthodox Fathers were on their side But that which we now have in hand is Succession in Office which according to the Catalogues resolves it selfe into some Apostle or Evangelist as the first Bishop of such a Citie or Place who as we conceive could not be Bishops of those places being of an 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 entituled and had their greatest residence in them or else the Catalogues are drawne 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 Members 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 asserted to be found in the Apostolicall and Primitive times and yet have no colour of Divine Institution and which is Argument above all other the Fathers whose Names wee exhibited to your Majestie in our Answer were doubtlesse acquainted with the Catalogues of Bishops who had beene before them and yet did hold them to be of Ecclesiasticall Institution And lest your Majestie might reply That however the Testimonies and Catalogues may varie 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 Succession of men to feed and governe those Churches while they continued Churches cannot be denyed and that the Apostles and Evangelists that planted and watered those Churches though extraordinarie and temporarie Officers were by Ecclesiasticall Writers in complyance with the Language and usage of their owne times called Bishops and so were other eminent men of chiefe note presiding 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 sence 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 and Censures wee humbly conceive can never be proved by authentike or competent Testimonies And granting that your Majestie 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 then Bishops as
Apostles and extraordinarie persons or lesse then Bishops as meerly first Presbyters having not one of the three essentials to Episcopall Government mentioned by your Majestie in their owne hand it will follow that all that your Majestie hath proved by this Succession is the Homonymy and equivocall acceptation of the word Episcopus For Clemens his Testimonie which your Majestie conceiveth to be made use of as our old fallacie from the promiscuous use of the words to inferre the indistinction of the things wee referre our selves to himselfe in his Epistle now in all mens hands whose Testimonie wee thinke cannot be eluded but by the old Artifice of hiding the Bishop under the Presbyters name for they that have read his whole Epistle and have considered that himselfe is called a Bishop may doubt of Clemens opinion concerning the distinct offices of Bishops and Presbyters or rather not doubt of it if onely his one Epistle may be impaneld upon the Inquest Concerning Ignatius his Epistles your Majesty is pleased to use some earnestnesse of expression charging some of late without any regard of ingenuity or truth out of their partiall disaffection to Bishops to have endeavoured to discredit his writings One of those cited by us cannot as we conceive be suspected of disaffection to Bishops and there are great Arguments drawn out of those Epistles themselves betraying their insincerity adulterate mixtures and interpolations So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius And if we take him in grosse we make him the Patron as Baronious 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 teâ—timonie 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 Gods high Priest and after him you must honour the King He was indeed a holy Martyr and his writings have suffered Martyrdom aswell as he Corruptions could not go currant but under the credit of worthy Names That which your Majesty saith in Your fourth Paragraph That we might have added if we had pleased That Iames 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 Aposâ—les in their Episcopall office We could not have added it without prejudice as we humbly conceive to the truth for the Apostles did not ordein 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 choyce of a certain Region or Place to exercise his function in whilest he pleased render him a Bishop any more then Paul was Bishop of the Gentiles Peter of the Circumcision Neither did the Apostles ordein the Evangelists Bishops of those Places unto which they sent them Nor were the Bishops of those times any more then as your Majesty saith reputed successours to the Apostles in their Episcopall 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 Salvâ— to our assertion that in those times there were no such Bishops distinct from Presbyters Neither do we understand whether the words Episcopall office in this Section refer to the Bishops or Apostles for in referrence to Apostles it insinuates a distinction of the Apostles office into Apostolicall and Episcopall or that the office Apostolicall was wholly Episcopall unto neither of which we can give our consent for reasons forementioned To the testimonies by us recited in proof of two onely 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 onely 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 controversie Secondly that they relate to a School-point or a nicety utrum Episcopatâ—â— sit ordo 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 fromand excell others of the same order in gifts or qualifications Yet the office it self is one and the same without difference or degrees as one Apostle or Presbyter is not superiour to another in 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 onely in the Church is a demonstration that Presbyters and Bishops are the same In which point the Scripture will counter-ballance the testimonies of those that assert three degrees or orders though ten for one But for easing of your Majesty of the trouble of producing testimonies against those cited by us We make this humble motion that the Regiments on both sides may be discharged out of the field and the point disputed by Dint of holy Scripture id verum quod primum Having passed through the Argumentative parts of your Majesties Reply wherein we should account it a great happinesse to have given your Majesty any satisfaction in order whereunto You pleased to honour us with this imployment 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 Royall Progenitors and do acknowledge that ornamentall accessions granted to the Person do not make any substantiall change in the office the reall difference between that Episcopall Government which first obtained in the Church and the present Hierarchy consists in ipso regimine modo regiminis which cannot be clearly demonstrated in particulars untill it be agreed on both sides what that Episcopacy was then and what the Hierarchy is now and then it would appear whether these three forementioned essentialls of Episcopall 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 Constantines stirring us up as men unbyassed with private interests to study the neerest accommodation and best resemblance to the Apostolicall and Primitive times But for your Majesties Salve to the Bishops sole Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction and that distinction of Ordination Authoritative in the Bishop and Concomitant in the Presbytery which You seem to found upon these two Texts 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. and which is used by D. Bilson and other defenders of Episcopacy in explication of that Cannon of the fourth Councell of Carthage which enjoyns the joyns imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters hands We shall give your Majesty an accompt when we shall be called to the disquisition thereof Albeit that we do not for the present see but that this Proviso of your Majesty renders our accommodation to the Apostolicall and Primitive times where unto You did exhort us unseasonable We not withstanding do fully professe our acknowledgement of subordination of the outward exercise of Iurisdiction to the Soveraign Power and our accomptablenesse to the Laws of the Land As for your Majesties three questions of great importance Whether there be a certain form of Government left by Christ or his Apostles to be observed by all Christian Churches Whether it binde perpetually or be upon occasion alterable in whole or in part Whether that certain form of Government be the Episcopall Presbyterian or some other differing from them both The whole volume of Ecclesiasticall 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 onely to that which is the question in order to the Bill of Abolition for we humbly professe our readinesse to serve your Majesty answering these or any other questions within our proper Cognizance according to the proportion of our mean abilities For your Majesties condescension in vouchsafing us the liberty and honour of examining Your learned Reply clothed in such excellency of stile 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 imployed in a subject worthy of it That your Majesty would please to consider that in this point under debate succession is not the best clew and most certain and ready way to finde out the Originall 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 Councell and shew You a happy way of healing our unhappy differences and of settling the Common-wealth of Jesus Christ which is the Church so as all the members thereof may live under You in all Godlinesse Peace and Honesty Imprimatur Ia. Cranford Octob. 19. 1648. FINIS Eccle. Pol l. b. 5 a Acts 17. 14. b 15. c 1 Thess. 3. 1 2. d Acts 18. 5. e Acts 19. 22. f Acts â—0 4 g 5. 6. h 17. i 1 Tim. 1. 3. k Heb. 13. 23. Phil. 1. 1. Philem. ver. 1. Col. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23. 2 Tim. 4. 6. 10. 11. 12. 16. a Galat. 1. 2. b Titus 3. 12. c 2 Cor. 2. 12. d 2 Cor. 5. 6. e 2 Cor. â— 6. f 2 Tim 4. 10.