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
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
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