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
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
whose warrant the Apostles would not either have exercised it themselves or derived it to others Yet for that the practice in them is so cleare and evident and the warrant from him exprest but in generall Terms As my Father sent me so send I you and the like His Majesty chose rather as others have done to fixe the claime of the power upon that practice as the more evidentiall way than upon the warrant which by reason of the generality of expression would beare more dispute 3. Reply Sect. 6. As to the Definition of Episcopacy First whereas you except against it for that it is competent to Archiepiscopall and Patriarchall Government as well as Episcopall His Majesty thinketh you might have excepted more iustly against it if it had been otherwise Secondly His Majesty believeth that even in the persons by you named Timothy Titus and the Angells the definition in all the parts of it is to be found viz. That they had each their several peculiar Charges and that within their severall precincts they had authority over Presbyters aswell as others Neither Thirdly doth his Majesty thinke it needfull that any word be added to the Genus in the definition or that the Scripture should any where put all the parts of the definition together It would be a hard matter to give such a definition of an Apostle or a Prophet or an Evangelist or a Presbyter or a Deacon or indeed almost of any thing as that the parts thereof should be sound in any place of Scripture put altogether Fourthly His Majesty consenteth with you that the point in issue is not the Name or Worke meerly but the Office and that it were a Fallacy to argue a particular Office from a Generall or Common worke But judgeth withall it can be no Fallacy to argue a Particular Office from such a worke as is peculiar to that Office and is as it were the formalis ratio thereof and therefore no fallacy from a work done by a single person which a single Presbyter hath no right to doe to inferre an office in that person distinct from the Office of a Presbyter 4. Reply Sect. 7. As to the Scriptures cited by you viz. Tit. 1. Acts 20. 2 Peter 5. First when you say you take his Majesties Concession That in those times of the Church and places of Scripture there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters If you take it so truly you take it gratis His Majestie never gave it you and you mistake it too more wayes than one for to speake properly His Majesty made no Concession at all It was rather a Preterition in order to the present businesse and to avoide unnecessary disputes which ought not to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the Truth of your Expositions of those places For his own expresse words are Although his Majesty be not sure that the Proof will reach so far in each of those Places which words plainly evidence that which you call his Majesties Concession to be indeed no Concession but to have been meant according to that forme of Speech very usuall in disputations Dato non concesso But in that Concession such as it is his Majesty is not able to imagine what you could find whereon to ground those words That in those times of the Church there was no distinct c. there being not any thing in the whole passage that carrieth the least sound that way or that hath relation to any particular times of the Church Neither is the Concession such as you take it as it relateth to those places of Scripture What his Majesty said is confessed on all sides which are the words you take for a Concession was but this That supposing but not granting the word Bishop to be used in all those places to signifie a Presbyter the Office and Worke in those places mentioned as the Office and Worke of a Bishop are upon that supposall the Office and Work of a Presbyter which is so manifest a Truth that no man without admitting Contradictions can say the contrary But how wide or short that is from what you make to be his Majesties Concession your selves by comparing his words with yours may easily judge But your selves a little after make a Concession which his Majesty warned by your Example how soone anothers meaning may be mistaken when his words are altered is willing to take in the same words you give it viz. When you say and you bring reasons also to prove it That it seemeth manifest that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter Secordly you repeate your Arguments formerly drawne from those places and presse the same from the force of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from the Circumstances of the Text and otherwise adding withall that his Majesty hath waved the notice or answer of something by you alleged therein Hereunto His Majesty saith that he waved not any thing in your former Paper fâ—r any great difficulty he conceived of answering it but being desirous to contract his answer and knowing to what frailties Arguments drawn from Names and Words aâ—d Conjectural Expositions of Scripture are subject he passed by such things as he deemed to be of least Consideration in order to the end of the whole debate to wit the satisfaction of his Judgement and Conscience in the main businesse Otherwise his Majesty could have then told you That there are who by the like Conjectures grounded as seemeth to them upon some probabilities in the Text interpret those places in the Acts and in St. Peter of Bishops properly so called and in the restrained Ecclesiastical sence rather than of Ordinary Presbyters That supposing them both meant of Ordinary Presbyters the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie to feed to oversee might not unfitly be applyed to them as inferiour Pastors in relation to their Flocks under their charge and over sight the Flock being in both the places expresly mentioned which hindereth not but the same words may in a more peculiar manner be appropriated to Bishops in respect of that Authority and oversight they have even over Presbyters themselves also That still granting your own interpretation of the word Bishop in that place to Titus it can prove no more than that the two names in that place are given to the same Function That from all the premises in your Paper there layed together and supposed true his Majesty doth not conceive it justly proved That the Office of a Bishop and Presbyter is wholy the same but at the most that the Offices were not in those places distinguished by those Names Thirdly if the Assignement of any Particular Qualification worke or duty unto a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter by the Scripture would as you say put this question neer to an issue His Majesty should wel have hoped that it might soone be brought to a near point and
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
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
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