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, [Page 2] 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 [Page 3] 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, ex­c [...]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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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, f [...]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 a [...]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 [Page 7] to a near point, and that from the evidence of the Epistles onely of Saint Paul to Timothy, Wherein as he particularly expresse [...]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 see [...]e frequently▪ in the writings of the Ancients.

The Testimonies of so many writers, ancient and modern, as have been produc [...]d for the Scripture-originall of Bishops, His Majesty con­ceiveth to be o [...] so g [...]eat importance in a question of this nature, that he thinketh himself bound bo [...]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 & ne [...]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, [Page 9] 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 Conjectura [...]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 Ma [...]esties meaning to restraine the Extraordinaries in the Apostolicall Office to those Gifts only: (for His Majesty afterwards in the same paper men­tioneth other Extr [...]ordinaries also, as before is said) but only to in­stance in those Gifts, as one sort of Extraordinaries, wherein the Apo­stles we [...]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 pro [...]erly the Bishops, the Presbyters succee [...]i [...]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 there [...]n [...]o, which His Majesty taketh not to be, as you call it, a dissolving of the Apostolicall Office.

Now the ground of what His Ma [...]esty hath said concerning the man­ner of Succession to the Apostles, that it may appeare not to have been said [...]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; oth [...]rsome lastly, and those not a few, Occasionall and Prudentiall, [...]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 [Page 11] 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 [...]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 Apostolic [...]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 [Page 12] 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. R [...]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 m [...]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 utrius (que), 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 [Page 16] 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 Cat [...]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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 26] 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 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 [Page 27] 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 prej [...]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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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.