Argument how handsomely soever set off are not Engines of strength enough to remove him from that judgement wherein he hath been setled from his Childhood and findeth so consonant to the Judgement of Antiquity and to the constant practice of the Christian Church for so many 100 years which in a matter of this nature ought to weigh more than meere Conjecturall Inferences from Scripture Texts that are not so attested Which having now once told you his Majesty thinketh himselfe discharged from the necessity of making so large and particular an Answer to every Allegation in the sequell of your Reply as hither he hath done 6. Reply Sect. 9 As to the Apostles Mission and Succession To make his Answer the shorter to so long a discourse His Majesty declareth that his meaning was not by distinguishing the Mission and Vnction of the Apostles so to confine them as if they should relate precisely and exclusively the one to the office the other to the abilities but that they did more especially and eminently so relate For the Apostles after their last Mission Matth. 28 19. 20. whereby they were further warranted to their Office and Worke were yet to waite for that promised anoynting Luke 24. 49. Acts 1. 4. the speciall effect whereof was the enduing them with Gifts of the Holy Ghost for the better and more effectuall performing of that their Worke and Office Not was it His Maâ—esties meaning to restraine the Extraordinaries in the Apostolicall Office to those Gifts only for His Majesty afterwards in the same paper mentioneth other Extrâ—ordinaries also as before is said but only to instance in those Gifts as one sort of Extraordinaries wherein the Apostles weâ—e to have no Successors But His Majesties full meaning was that the whole Apostolicall Office setting aside all and only what was personall and extraordinary in them consisted in the work of Teaching and Governing which being both of necessary and perpetuall use in the Church to the Worlds end the Office therefore was also to continue and consequently the persons of the Apostles being mortall to be transmitted and derived to others in succession And that the Ordinary Successors of the Apostles immediatly and into the whole Office both of Teaching and Governing are proâ—erly the Bishops the Presbyters succeeâ—iâ—g them also but in part and into the Office of Teaching only and that mediatly and subordinatly to the Bishops by whom they are to be ordained and authorised thereâ—nâ—o which His Majesty taketh not to be as you call it a dissolving of the Apostolicall Office Now the ground of what His Maâ—esty hath said concerning the manner of Succession to the Apostles that it may appeare not to have been said â—â—atis is this The things which the Scriptures record to have been done by Christ or his Apostles or by others at their appointment are of three sorts some acts of Power meerly extraordinary others acts of an ordinary power but of necessary and perpetuall use othâ—rsome lastly and those not a few Occasionall and Prudentiall â—itted to the present condition of the Church in severall times To the Apostles in matters of the first sort none pretends succession nor are either the Examples of what the Apostles themselves did or the directions that they gave to others what they should doe in matters of the third sort to be drawn into consequence so farre as to be made necessary Rules binding all succeeding Church-officers in all Times to perpetual observation So that there remaine the things of the middle sort only which we may call Substantials into which the Apostles are to have ordinary and standing successors But then the difference will be by what certain markes Extraordinaries Substantials and Prudentials may be known and distinguished each from other Evident it is the Scriptures doe not afford any particular discriminating Characters whereby to discerne them the Acts of all the three sorts being related in the like narrative formes and the directions of all the three sorts expressed in the like preceptive formes Recourse therefore must of necessity be had to those two more generall Criterians the Lawes of all humane actions Reason and Common Vsage Our own Reason will tell us that instructing the People of God in the Christian Faith exhorting them to Piety and good Works administring the Sacraments c. which belong to the Office of Teaching That ordaining of Ministers Inspection over their lives and Doctrines and orher Administrations of Ecclesiasticall Affaires belonging to the Office of Governing are matters of great importance and necessary concernment to the Church in all Ages and Times and therefore were to be concredited to standing Officers in a Line of succession and accordingly were â—udged and the continuance of them preserved in the constant usage of the Churches of Christ But that on the other side the decrees concerning Abstinence from Blood and strangled Acts the 15. The Directions given for the ordering some things in the Church Assemblies 1 Cor. 14. For making Provisions for the Poore 1 Cor. 16. 1. For the choyce and maintenance of Widdowes 1 Tim. 5. For the enoyling of the sicke Iames 5. 14. and other like were but Occasionall Prudentiall and temporary and were so esteemed by the Churches and the practise of them accordingly laid aside So for the succession into the Apostolicâ—ll office we find in the Scriptures Evidence clear enough that the Apostles committed to others as namely ro Timothy and Titus the power both of Teaching and Governing the Churches And common Reason and Prudence dictating to us that it is good for the edifying of the Church that there should be many Teachers within a competent precinct but not so that there should be many Governors And the difference of Bishops and Presbyters to the purposes aforesaid having been by continuall usage received and preserved in the Christian Church down from the Apostles to the present times His Majesty conceiveth the succcession of Bishops to the Apostles into so much of their Office as was ordinary and perpetuall and such a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters as His Majesty hath formerly expressed needeth no further Confirmation from Scripture to such as are willing to make use of their Reason also which in interpreting Scripture upon all other occasions they are inforced to doe nor any thing by you produced in this Paragraph any further Answer only that distinction of Eminently and Formally because you illustrate it by instancing in himselfe His Majestie could not but take notice of which hee either understandeth not or thinketh your Illustration thereof not to be very opposite For Actions and Operations flow from the Formes of things and demonstrate the same as effects doe their causes The Apostles therefore acting in the ordinary exercise of Church Government did act not Eminently only but formally also as Bishops rather than Apostles 7. Râ—ply Sect. 10-15 As Concerning Timothy Titus First whether they were Evangelists or no His Majesty never meant to dispute Only because you often call
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
that from the evidence of the Epistles onely of Saint Paul to Timothy Wherein as he particularly expresseâ—h the Qualification work and duty of Presbyters and Deacons that Timothy might know what persons were fit to be ordained unto those Offices So in the directions given to Timothy throughout those Epistles he sufficiently describeth the Qualification work and duty of a Bishop that Timothy might know how to behave himself in the exercise of his Episcopall Office as well in ordaining as in Governing the Church 5. Reply Sect. 8. As to the signification of the word Episcopus the primary signification thereof and the application of it to Church Officers you acknowledge and that the same was after by Ecclesiastical usage appropriated to Bishops you deny not But the distinction of Episcopus Gregis Episcopus Pastorum you do not allow If you disallow it for the unfitnesse of the word as may seem by that passage where you say That His Majesty hath said that Episcopus signifieth a Keeper of Shepherds His Majesty thinketh you might very well have spared that exception For if there be a person that hath the oversight of many Shepherds under him there is no more impropriety in giving such a person the stile of Episcopus Pastorum than there is in using of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in calling Doeg the Master of Sauls Herdmen And for the thing it self it cannot be denied but that the Apostles and Timothy and Titus by what clam ordinary or extraordinary as to the present busines it matters not had the oversight and authority over many Pastors and were therefore truly and really Episcopi Pastorum The appropriation of the names of Episcopus and Presbyter to these distinct Offices considering that it was done so early and received so universally in the Church as by the writings of Clemens Ignatius the Canons commonly called of the Apostles and other ancient evidences doth appear His Majesty hath great reason to believe that it was done by consent of the Primitive Bishops meerly in honour of the Apostles out of their respect and reverence to whose persons and personall Prerogatives they chose to call themselves Bishops rather than Apostles in common usage although they made no scruple to maintain their succession from the Apostles when they spake of things proper to the Episcopall Function nor to use upon occasion the termes of Apostle and Apostolicall in that sence the truth of all which is to be seeâ—e frequently in the writings of the Ancients The Testimonies of so many writers ancient and modern as have been producâ—d for the Scripture-originall of Bishops His Majesty conceiveth to be oâ— so gâ—eat importance in a question of this nature that he thinketh himself bound boâ—h in Charity and Reason to believe that so many men of such quality would not have asserted the same with so much confidence but upon very good ground The men respectively of high estimation and reverend authority in the Church worthily re-renowned for their Learning and Piety of moderate and even Passions of Orthodox belief sundry of them uninteressed in the Quarrell and some of them of later times by interest and education byassed rather the other way Their assertions positive peremptory and full of assurances Constat neâ—no ignorat it is clear none can be ignorant and other such like expressions Namely that Christ constituted Bishops in the Apostles That it was founded upon a divine Law That Episcopacy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ordinance of God That it seemed good to the holy Ghost so to order it c. Insomuch as they accounted Aerius an Heretique for holding the Contrary And this their judgement they delivered as led there into by divine evidence of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods word teacheth it apertis Scripturae testimoniis it appeareth by plain testimonies of Scripture discimus ex hoc loco From this place we learn and the like which testimonies should they be encountered as His Majesty doth not yet believe they can be with a cloud of Witnesses to the Contrary for number and in every other respect equal thereunto Yet should not the Authority of their evidence in reason be much lessened thereby inasmuch as one witnesse for the Affirmative ought to be of more value than ten for the Negative and the testimony of one person that is not interressed than of an hundred that are And whereas you seem in this Question to decline this kind of triall because matter of right is properly triable by Scripture His Majesty conceiveth this present Question in what termes soever proposed to be yet in the true stating of it and in the last Resolution clearly a Question of Fact and not of Right For what right soever the Bishops have or pretend to have must be derived from the fact of Christ or his Apostles Which matter of Fact if it be not in the most plain historicall manner that may be related in the Scriptures but is to be deduced thence by topical remote inferences and probability of conjectures the most rationall and proper expedient for the finding out of the Right is to have recourse to the Judgement but especially to the Practice of the nearest and subsequent times according to the received Maximes Lex currit cum Praxi Consuetudo optimus interpres Legum Now he that shall find by all the best Records extant that the distinction of Bishops from and the Superiority over Presbyters was so universally and speedily spread over the face of the whole world and their Government submitted unto so unanimously by the Presbyters that there never was any considerable opposition made there against before Aerius and that cryed down as an Heresie Nor since till this last Age And shall duly consider with all that if Episcopall Government had not had an indubitable institution from the Authority of Christ and his Apostles or if any other Form of Church Government could have pretended to such institution had been the most impossible thing in the world when there neither was any outward certain power to inforce it nor could be any Generall Councel to establish it to have introduced such a Form of Government so suddenly and quietly into all Christian Churches and not the Spirit of any one Presbyter for ought that appeareth for above three hundred years to have been provoked either through zeal ambition or other motive to stand up in the just defence of their own and the Churches liberty against such an usurpation His Majesty believeth that whosoever shall consider the premises together with the Scripture evidences that are brought for that Government will see reason enough to conclude the same to have something of divine institution in it notwithstanding all the evasions and objections that the subtil wit of man can devise to perswade the contrary And therefore His Majesty thinketh it fit plainly to tell you that such Conjecturaâ—l Interpretations of Scripture as he hath yet met with in this
HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE DIEV ET MON DROIT HIS MAJESTIES FINALL ANSVVER Concerning EPISCOPACIE Delivered in to the Commissioners of PARLIAMENT the first of Novemb. 1648. LONDON Printed for Richard Best dwelling at Grayes-Inne gate 1648. His Majesties Finall Answer concerning Episcopacy November the first 1648. WHat you have offered by way of Reply to His Majesties Second Paper of October 6. in yours of Octob. 17. in Order to the further satisfaction of his Conscience in the point of Episcopacie His Majesty heard when it was publikely read by you with diligent attention and hath since so far as his leisure would permit taken the same into his private and serious Consideration Wherein his Majesty not onely acknowledgeth your great paines and Endeavours to inform his Judgement according to such perswasions as your selves have in the matter in debate But also taketh speciall Notice of the Civility of your applications to him both in the Body and Conclusion of your Reply yet hee cannot but observe withall that in very many things you either mistake his meaning and purpose in that Paper or at least come not up fully enough thereunto in this Reply Which to have shewen will sufficiently remonstrate your present Reply to be unsatisfactory in that behalfe without making a particular Answer to every Passage in it which to a Paper of that length would require more time than his Majesty can think fit amidst the present weighty affaires to allow unto a debate of this Nature Especially since his Majesty hath often found mutuall returns of long Answers and Replyes to have rather multiplyed disputes by starting new Questions than informed the Conscience by removing former Scruples 1. Reply Sect 1. 2. As to the Scriptures cited in the Margin of his Majestres first Paper It being granted by you that those Scriptures did prove the Apostles and others being single Persons to have exercised respectively the severall points in the Paper specified Which powers by your own confessions in this Reply Sect. 7. a single person who is but a meer Presbyter hath no right to exercise And it being withall evident that a Bishop in the Ecclesiasticall sence and as distinct from a Presbyter layeth claim to no more than to a peculiar right in the exercise of some or all of the said Powers which a meer Presbyter hath not the Conclusion seemeth naturall and evident that such a Power of Church-Government as wee usually call Episcopall is sufficiently proved by those Scriptures 2. Reply Sect. 3. 5. As to the Bishops Challenge First when you speak of a Writ of partition you seem to take his Majesties words as if he had shared and canton'd out the Episcopall Office One part to the Bishops alone Another to the Presbyters alone And you fall upon the same again afterwards Sect. 6. whereas his Majesties meaning was and by his words appeareth so to have been that one part of the Office That of Teaching c. was to be common to both alike But the other part That of Governing Churches peculiar to the Bishop alone Secondly you inferre from his Majesties words That the Bishops Chalenge appeareth to be grown to more than was formerly pretended to Which inference his Majesties words by you truly cited if rightly understood will not beare For having proved from Scripture the power of Church Government in all the three mentioned Particulars to have been exercised by the Apostles and others His Majestie said but this onely That the Bishops challenge no more or other power to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopell Office than what properly falleth under one of these three The words are true for hee that believeth they challenge not so much might safely say they challenge no more But the Inference is not good For hee that saith they challenge no more doth not necessarily imply they challenge all that In the power of Ordination which is purely spirituall his Majesty conceiveth the Bishops challenge to have been much-what the same in all times of the Church And therefore it is that the matter of Ordination is most insisted on as the most constant and most evident difference between Bishops and Presbyters especially after the Times of Constantine which his Majesty by your relating to Chrysostome and Hierome taketh to be the same you call the times of Grown Episcopacy But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the power of Jurisdiction should bee at all times as large as the Exercise thereof appeareth at some times to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various condition of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Jurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopall Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the dayes of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident That in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers The Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens persons or Estates yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus in making Ecclesiasticall Canons receiving accusations conventing the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excâ—uding such as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper Enjoyning Pennances upon them casting them out of the Church Receiving them again upon their Repentance c And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civill and Ecclesiasticall Powers the Jurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limit able by the Supreme Civill power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm Thirdly you seem to affirm in a Parenthesis as if nothing were confessed to have been extraordinary in the Apostles but their gifts and Enablements onely whereas his Majesty in that Paper hath in expresse words named as Extraordinaries also the Extent of their charge and the Infallibility of their Doctrine without any meaning to exclude those not named as their immediate Calling and if there be any other of like reason Fourthly for the Claime to a jus Divinum His Majesty was willing to decline both the Terme as being by reason of the different acception of it subject to misconstruction and the dispute whether by Christ or his Apostles Nevertheles although His Majesty sees no cause to dislike their opinion who derive the Episcopall power originally from Christ himselfe without
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
Testimonies of Clemens and Ignatius His Majesty saith First That though it be not reasonable that the Testimony of one single Epistle should be so made the adequate measure of Clemens his Opinion as to exclude all other proofs from his Example or otherwise yet His Majesty since Clemens was first named by you and the weight of the main Cause lieth not much upon it is content also for that matter to refer himself to that Epistle Secondly That His Majesty could not but use some earnestness of expression in the cause of Ignatius against some who have rejected the whole volumn of his Epistles but upon such Arguments as have more lessened the rephtation of their own Learning then the Authority of those Epistles in the opinion of moderate and judicious men And yet Blendellus la very learned man though he reject those Epistles confesseth notwithstanding the Ancient Fathers gave full Credence thereunto The Apostles you say did not ordain themselves Bishops of any particular places and yet the Bishops of some particular places are reported in the Catalogues to have been Successors to such or such of the Apostles and even the Names of such Apostles are entred into the Catalogues To this his Majesty saith That the Apostles were formally Bishops by vertue of them Mission from Christ as hath been already declared but did neither ordain themselves nor could be ordained by others Bishops of such or such particular Cities Although His Majesty knoweth not but that they might without prejâ—dice to their Apostleship and by mutual consent make choyce of their several quarters wherein to exercise that Function as well as St. Peter and St. Paul by consent went the one to the Circumcision the other to the Gentiles But such apportionments did not entitle them to be properly called Bishops of those places unless any of them by such Agreement did fixedly reside in some City of which there is not in the History of the Church any clear unquestionable Example If James the Lords Brother who was certainly Bishop of Jerusalem were not one of the Twelve Apostles as the more general opinion is that he was not yet did the Churches of succeeding times for the greater honor of their Sees and the memory of so great Benefactors enter the head of the Lists or Catalogues of their Bishops the Names of such of the Apostles as had either first pianted the Faith or placed Bishops or made any long abode and continuance or ended their days among them yet doth not the true Title of being Successors to the Apostles thereby accrew to the Bishops of those places more then to other Bishops but all Bishops are equally Successors to the Apostles in two other respects The one for that they derive their Ordination by a continued Line of Succession from the Apostles The other for that they succeed into the same Apostolical Power and Function which the Apostles as ordinary Pastors had Your motion to reduce this whole Dispute to Scripture alone were the more reasonable if the matter in question were properly a point of Faith And yet even in points of Faith as the Doctrine of the Trinity the Canon of Scripture and sundry other the uniform judgement of the Church hath been ever held of very considerable regard but being a matter of Fact as before was said which the Scriptures do not deliver entirely and perspiscuously in any one place together but obscurely and by parts so that the understanding thereof dependeth meerly upon conjectural Interpretations and uncertain probabillities nor assure any certain distinguishing Characters whereby to discern what therein is extraordinary what Prudential and what of necessary and perpetual Obligation there seemeth to his Majesty to be a necessity of admitting the subsequent Judgement and Practice of the Christian Churches into the Tryal XII Reply 29 c. As to the three Questions proposed by His Majesty HIs Majesty resteth very much unsatisfied That you have now again wholly declined the answering of those three Questions so clearly proposed by him which your selves also confess to be of great importance upon this onely pretence That the whole volumn of Ecclesiastical Policy is contained in them Whereas His Majesty did neither expect nor require from you any large or Polemical Discourse concerning those QUESTIONS but yet did conceive you were in order to His Satisfaction and your own Undertaking in some sort obliged to have declared in few words what your judgment was therin with the grounds thereof that so His Majesty might have taken the same into His further consideration then which nothing could have more condued to the informing of his judgement and the satisfaction of his Conscience which His Majesty also further conceives you might have done with the tenth part of that pains you have hitherto bestowed to other purpose and therein have given full as much satisfaction to His desires as he expected and in all likelihood better satisfaction to His judgement then he yet findeth or can hope to finde from you so long as you hold off from declaring your opinions concerning those Questions For certainly until one of these three things can be clearly evidenced unto His Majesty viz. Either that there is no certain form of Church Government at all prescribed in the Word or if therebe that the Civil power may change the same as they see cause or if it be unchangeable that it was not Episcopal but some other His Majesty thinks himself excuseable in the judgement of all reasonable men if he cannot as yet be induced to give his consent to the utter Abolition of that Government in the Church which he found here settled to his hands which hath continued all over the Christian world from the times of the Apostles until this last age and in this Realm ever since the first Plantation of Christianity as well since the Reformation as before which hath been confirmed by so many Acts of Parliament approved as consonant to the holy Word of God in the Articles of our Religion and by all the Ministers of the Church of England as well by their personal subscriptions as otherwise so attested and declared and which himself in his judgement and conscience hath for these many years been and yet is perswaded to be at least of Apostolical Institution and Practice Truly His Majesty cannot but wonder what should be the reason of your great shyness and unwillingness to discover your mindes in a matter of so great necessary consequence and for a final conclusion of this whole dispute which His Majesty thinketh fit to shut up with this Paper he must plainly tel you That your endeavors to have given him satisfaction in the Questions proposed would have added much in his opinion to the reputation of your ingenuity in the whole undertaking it being not probable you should work much upon his judgement whilst you are fearful to declare your own nor possible to relieve his Conscience but by a free declaring of yours Nevertheless His Majesty liketh well of your Prayer in the close of your Paper and thinketh you should do very well to joyn therewith your utmost possible endeavors towards the setling of Truth and a happy Peace in this unsettled Church and Kingdom FINIS