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
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
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