His Majesties finall ansvver concerning Episcopacie. Delivered in to the commissioners of Parliament the first of Novemb. 1648. England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I) 1648 Approx. 71 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 15 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2013-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A78783 Wing C2306 Thomason E469_17 ESTC R205464 99864837 99864837 117069

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A78783) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 117069) Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 75:E469[17]) His Majesties finall ansvver concerning Episcopacie. Delivered in to the commissioners of Parliament the first of Novemb. 1648. England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I) Charles I, King of England, 1600-1649. [4], 12, 15-29, [1] p. Printed for Richard Best, dwelling at Grayes-inne gate, London : 1648. The verso of leaf A1 contains an engraving of the royal seal. Text is continuous despite pagination. Reproduction of the original in the British Library.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Charles -- I, -- King of England, 1600-1649 -- Early works to 1800. Church of England -- Bishops -- Early works to 1800. Episcopacy -- Early works to 1800. Great Britain -- History -- Civil War, 1642-1649 -- Religious aspects -- Early works to 1800. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2012-02 Assigned for keying and markup 2012-03 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2012-05 Sampled and proofread 2012-05 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2013-02 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

royal blazon or coat of arms 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, 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 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 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 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 as were but meer Presbyters Eccleſiae Antio henae, or Alexandrinae Presbyter, &c. obſerving the difference ſo conſtantly and exactly throughout the whole Book, that nothing can be more clear, then that he underſtood the word Epiſcopus no otherwiſe, then in the ordinary Eccleſiaſtical ſenſe, and as a Biſhop is diſtinct from a Presbyter. As for that paſſage you alleage out of him, by cuſtom in the judgement of learned men, he muſt mean the practice of the Apoſtolick times; and by Dominica diſpoſitio, the expreſs Precept of Chriſt, unleſs you will have him contradict what himſelf hath written in ſundry other places; Whoſe Teſtimonies in the behalf of Epiſcopal Superiority, are ſo clear and frequent in his Writings, that (although he of all the Ancients be leaſt ſuſpected to favor that Function overmuch) yet the Biſhops would not refuſe to make him Arbitrator in the whole Buſineſs: As for the Catalogues, there will be more convenient place to ſpeak of them afterwards.

Fifthly, your long Diſcourſe concerning the ſeveral ſtations and removes of Timothy and Titus (13, 14.) and their being called away from Epheſus and Crete (15.) His Majeſty neither hath time to examine, nor thinketh it much needful (in reſpect of what he hath ſaid already) ſo to do. It is ſufficient to make His Majeſty at leaſt ſuſpend his Aſſent to your conjectures and inferences; Firſt, that he findeth other learned, from the like conjectures to have made other inferences; as namely, That Timothy and Titus having accompanied Paul in many journeys, Poſtea & tandem, were by him conſtituted Biſhops of Epheſus and Crete. Secondly, that ſuppoſing they were, after the times of the ſeveral Epiſtles written to them, ſent by the Apoſtles to other places, or did accompany them in ſome of their journeys, even for a long time together, it cannot be concluded thence, that they were not then Biſhops of thoſe Churches, or that the Government of thoſe Churches was not committed to their peculiar charge: If it be ſuppoſed withal (which is not reaſonable) that their abſence was commanded by the Apoſtle, and that they left their Churches cum animo revertendi. Thirdly, that the places which you preſs again of 1 Tim. 1. 3. & Tit. 1. 5. weigh ſo little to the purpoſe intended by you, even in your own judgements (for you ſay onely They put fair to prove it) that you cannot expect they ſhould weigh ſo much in his, as to need any further Anſwer; ſave onely, That His Majeſty knoweth not what great need or uſe there ſhould be of leaving Timothy at Epheſus, or Titus in Crete, for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, with ſuch particular directions and admonitions to them for their care therein, if they were not ſent thither as Biſhops: For either there were Colledges of Preſbyters in thoſe places before their coming thither, or there were not; if there were, and that ſuch Colledges had power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons without a Biſhop, Then was there little need of ſending Timothy and Titus ſo ſolemnly thither about the work; if there were none, then had Timothy and Titus power of ſole ordination, which is a thing by you very much diſliked. Thoſe inconveniences His Majeſty thinketh it will be hard wholly to avoid upon your Principles.

That Diſcourſe you conclude with this Obſervation, That in the ſame very Epiſtle to Timothy, out of which he is endeavored to be proved a Biſhop, there is clear evidence both for Preſbyters impoſing hands in Ordination, and for their Ruling: Yet His Majeſty preſumeth you cannot be ignorant, that the evidence is not ſo clear in either particular, but that in the former very many of the Latine Fathers eſpecially, and ſundry later Writers, as Calvin and others, refer the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to you, (that is, the Angel as Preſident, and his colleagues the other Presbyters) and to the reſt, that is, to the whole flock or people; which maner of ſpeaking might be illuſtrated by the like forms of ſpeech to be uſed in a Letter written to a Corporation, wherein the Major and Aldermen eſpecially, but yet the whole Town generally were concerned, but directed to the Major alone; or from a Lord, containing ſome Orders for his own houſhold eſpecially, and generally for the whole Townſhip, but by the Inſcription directed to his Steward onely, or the like.

The conſent of ancient and later Writers was produced by His Majeſty for the proof of the two things before named onely, but eſpecially of the firſt, viz. That the Angels were Perſonae ſingulares: (For the latter, viz. That they were ſuperior to Presbyters alſo, had been confeſſed by your ſelves in your firſt Grant before) but was not produced to prove the Concluſion it ſelf immediately, viz. That they were Biſhops in diſtinct ſence, although ſundry of their Teſtimonies come up even to that alſo. But to the firſt point, That they were Single perſons, the concurrence is ſo general, that His Majeſty remembreth not to have heard of any one ſingle Interpreter, before Brightman, that ever expounded them otherwiſe: And yet the ſame man (as His Majeſty is informed) in his whole Commentary upon the Revelation, doth ſcarce, if at all, any where elſe, ſave in theſe Seven Epiſtles, expound the word Angel collectively, but ſtill of one ſingle perſon or other, inſomuch as he maketh one Angel to be Gregory the Great, another Queen Elizabeth, another Cranmer, another Chemnitius, and the like; but generally both the Fathers and Proteſtant Divines agree in this, That the Angel was a Single perſon, ſome affirming plainly, and that in terminis, he was the Biſhop; ſome naming the very perſons of ſome of them, as of Polycarp Biſhop of Smyrna, and others, ſome calling him the chief Paſtor or Superintendent of that Church; and thoſe that ſpeak leaſt, and were more or leſs diſaffected to Biſhops, as Beza, Doctor Reynolds, the Geneva Noto, and even Cartwright himſelf, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 He delivered it ſo cautiouſly, ſaying onely, It might be probable) but as that which for the preſent came firſt into his thoughts, and was ſufficient for his purpoſe, without the leaſt meaning thereby to prejudice other interpretations; as namely, of thoſe Expoſitors who take the words (with the Biſhops and Deacons) as belonging to the perſons ſaluting, and not to the perſons ſaluted; to this ſence Paul and Timotheus the ſervants of Jeſus Chriſt, with the Biſhops and Deacons, to the Saints at Philipi, &c. or of thoſe who affirm, and that with great probability to, That Epaphroditus was then actually Biſhop of Philippi, but not to be mentioned in the Inſcription of the Epiſtle, becauſe he was not then at Philippi, but with St. Paul at Rome when that Epiſtle was written: Any of which conjectures, if they be true (as there is none of them utterly improbable) that place of Phil. 1. 1. will not do you much ſervice in this Queſtion.

In the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, the Apoſtle directeth and admoniſheth them as Biſhops, particularly concerning Ordination of Miniſters, that they do it adviſedly, and Ordain none but ſuch as are meetly qualified for the Service of the Church; which Directions and Admonitions, His Majeſty believeth for the ſubſtance to belong to all Biſhops of after times aſwel as unto them: But His Majeſty ſeeth no neceſſity why in thoſe Epiſtles there ſhould be any particular Directions given concerning the Ordination of Biſhops, at leaſt unleſs it could be made appear, That they were to ordain ſome ſuch in thoſe places, nor perhaps if that could be made to appear, in as much as in thoſe Epiſtles there is not the leaſt ſignification of any difference at all between Presbyters and Deacons in the maner of their Ordination, both being to be performed by the Biſhop, and by Impoſition of Hands, and to both comprehended under that general Rule (Lay hands ſuddenly on no man) but onely, and that very little, and ſcarce conſiderable (as to the making of diſtinct Offices) in the qualification of their perſons.

The Ordination therefore of Biſhops, Presbyters and Deacons, being to be performed in the ſame maner, and the ſame qualifications after a ſort, ſaving ſuch differences as the importance of their ſeveral Offices make (which is more in the degree then in the things) being required in both, it had been ſufficient if in thoſe Epiſtles there had been direction given concerning the Ordination and Qualification of but one ſort of Church Officers onely; as in the Epiſtle to Titus, we ſee there are of Presbyters onely, and no mention made of Deacons in the whole Epiſtle: whence it may be aſwel concluded, That there was to be no other ſtanding Officer in the Church of Crete but Presbyters onely, becauſe S. Paul giveth no directions to Titus concerning any other, as it can be concluded, That there were to be no other Officers in the Church of Epheſus, but Presbyters and Deacons onely, becauſe S. Paul giveth no directions to Timothy concerning any other.

XI. Reply, 23, 27. As to the Ages ſucceeding the Apoſtles,

COncerning the judgement of Eccleſiaſtical Writers about the Divine Right of Epiſcopacy, His Majeſty conceiveth the difference to be more in their Expreſſions then in their Meaning, ſome calling it Divine, others Apoſtolical, and ſome (but not many) Eccleſiaſtical; but that the Superiority of Biſhops above Preſbyters began in the Apoſtles times, and had its foundation in the Inſtitution either of Chriſt himſelf or of his Apoſtles, His Majeſty hath not heard (Aerius excepted) that any till theſe latter Ages have denyed.

For that which you touch upon concerning the word Infallible, His Majeſty ſuppoſeth you knew his meaning, and he delighteth not to contend about words.

As for the Catalogues, ſome uncertainties in a few (a frailty which all humane Hiſtories are ſubject to) His Majeſty taketh to be inſufficient to diſcredit all differences there are in Hiſtoriographers, in reciting the Succeſſion of the Babylonian, Perſian, and Macedonian Kings, and of the Saxon Kings in England: And we finde far more inextricable intricacies in the Faſti Conſulares, the Catalogues of the Roman Conſuls (notwithſtanding their great care in keeping the publique Records, and the exactneſs of the Roman Hiſtories) then are to be found in Epiſcopal Catalogues, thoſe eſpecially of the chiefeſt Cities, as Jeruſalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Epheſus, &c. yet as all men believe there were Kings in thoſe Countreys, and Conſuls in Rome in thoſe times, ſo (as you might wel foreſee would be anſwered) the diſcrediting of the Catalogues of Biſhops, in reſpect of ſome uncertainties (although His Majeſty doubteth not, but many of the differences you inſtance in, may be fairly reconciled) tendeth rather to the confirming of the thing it ſelf.

That which you ſay in Anſwer hereunto, That the Eccleſiaſtical Writers called them Biſhops, incomplyance to the Language of their own times, afte the names of Presbyters and Biſhops were diſtinguiſhed, but that they were not indeed Biſhops in the proper ſence now in Queſtion: His Majeſty who believeth the diſtinction of thoſe names, to have begun preſently after the Apoſtles times (if not rather whileſt ſome of them were living) doth conſequently believe, that as they were called, ſo they were indeed Biſhops in that proper ſence. It appeareth by Ignatius his Epiſtles every where, how wide the difference was in his time between a Biſhop and a meer Presbyter: If Hierom only and ſome a little ancienter then he, had applyed the name Biſhop to perſons that lived ſome ages before them, there might have been the more colour to have attributed it to ſuch a complyance as you ſpeak of; but that they received both the name and the truth of their relations from unqueſtionable Teſtimonies and Records, His Majeſty thinketh it may be made good by many inſtances: For example, to inſtance in one onely, Polycarp Biſhop of Smyrna, who is thought to be the Angel of that Church in the Revelation; Ignatius, who was contemporary with him, wrote one Epiſtle to him, and ſends ſalutation to him in another as Biſhop of Smyrna; Many years after Irenaeus Biſhop of Lyons in France, (whoſe Writings were never yet called in queſtion by any) not onely affirms him to have been conſtituted Biſhop of Smyrna by the Apoſtles, but ſaith, That he himſelf when he was a boy, had ſeen him a very old man; Tertullian next, a very ancient Writer, affirmeth, That he was Biſhop of Smyrna, there placed by St. John. After cometh Euſebius, who in his Eccleſicaſtical Hiſtory not onely Hiſtorically reporteth of his being Biſhop there, as he doth of other Biſhops; but citeth alſo for it the Teſtimonies both of Ignatius and Irenaeus (which by the way giveth good credit to Ignatius his Epiſtles too.) Then Hierom alſo and others laſtly atteſt the ſame. And it cannot be doubted, but Euſebius and Hierom had in their times the like certain Teſtimonies and Grounds for ſundry others, whom they report to have been Biſhops; which Teſtimonies and Records are not all come to our hands.

For the Teſtimonies of Clemens and Ignatius, His Majeſty ſaith, Firſt, That though it be not reaſonable that the Teſtimony of one ſingle Epiſtle ſhould be ſo made the adequate meaſure of Clemens his Opinion, as to exclude all other proofs from his Example, or otherwiſe; yet His Majeſty, ſince Clemens was firſt named by you, and the weight of the main Cauſe lieth not much upon it, is content alſo for that matter to refer himſelf to that Epiſtle. Secondly, That His Majeſty could not but uſe ſome earneſtneſs of expreſſion in the cauſe of Ignatius againſt ſome who have rejected the whole volumn of his Epiſtles, but upon ſuch Arguments as have more leſſened the rephtation of their own Learning, then the Authority of thoſe Epiſtles, in the opinion of moderate and judicious men: And yet Blendellus, la very learned man, though he reject thoſe Epiſtles, confeſſeth notwithſtanding the Ancient Fathers gave full Credence thereunto.

The Apoſtles, you ſay, did not ordain themſelves Biſhops of any particular places; and yet the Biſhops of ſome particular places are reported in the Catalogues to have been Succeſſors to ſuch or ſuch of the Apoſtles, and even the Names of ſuch Apoſtles are entred into the Catalogues: To this his Majeſty ſaith, That the Apoſtles were formally Biſhops by vertue of them Miſſion) from Chriſt, as hath been already declared, but did neither ordain themſelves, nor could be ordained by others, Biſhops of ſuch or ſuch particular Cities: Although His Majeſty knoweth not, but that they might, without 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 Apoſtolical Power and Function, which the Apoſtles as ordinary Paſtors had.

Your motion to reduce this whole Diſpute to Scripture alone, were the more reaſonable, if the matter in queſtion were properly a point of Faith: And yet even in points of Faith (as the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, and ſundry other) the uniform judgement of the Church hath been ever held of very conſiderable regard; but being a matter of Fact, as before was ſaid, which the Scriptures do not deliver entirely and perſpiſcuouſly in any one place together, but obſcurely, and by parts; ſo that the underſtanding thereof dependeth meerly upon conjectural Interpretations, and uncertain probabillities, nor aſſure any certain diſtinguiſhing Characters, whereby to diſcern what therein is extraordinary, what Prudential, and what of neceſſary and perpetual Obligation, there ſeemeth to his Majeſty to be a neceſſity of admitting the ſubſequent Judgement and Practice of the Chriſtian Churches into the Tryal.

XII. Reply, 29, &c.As to the three Queſtions propoſed by His Majeſty,

HIs Majeſty reſteth very much unſatisfied, That you have now again wholly declined the anſwering of thoſe three Queſtions ſo clearly propoſed by him, which your ſelves alſo confeſs to be of great importance, upon this onely pretence, That the whole volumn of Eccleſiaſtical Policy is contained in them: Whereas His Majeſty did neither expect nor require from you any large or Polemical Diſcourſe concerning thoſe QUESTIONS; but yet did conceive you were (in order to His Satisfaction and your own Undertaking) in ſome ſort obliged to have declared in few words what your judgment was therin, with the grounds thereof, that ſo His Majeſty might have taken the ſame into His further conſideration, then which nothing could have more condued to the informing of his judgement, and the ſatisfaction of his Conſcience; which His Majeſty alſo further conceives you might have done, with the tenth part of that pains you have hitherto beſtowed to other purpoſe, and therein have given full as much ſatisfaction to His deſires, as he expected, and in all likelihood better ſatisfaction to His judgement then he yet findeth, or can hope to finde from you, ſo long as you hold off from declaring your opinions concerning thoſe Queſtions: For certainly until one of theſe three things can be clearly evidenced unto His Majeſty (viz.) Either that there is no certain form of Church Government at all preſcribed in the Word, or if therebe, that the Civil power may change the ſame as they ſee cauſe; or if it be unchangeable, that it was not Epiſcopal, but ſome other, His Majeſty thinks himſelf excuſeable in the judgement of all reaſonable men, if he cannot as yet be induced to give his conſent to the utter Abolition of that Government in the Church, which he found here ſettled to his hands, which hath continued all over the Chriſtian world, from the times of the Apoſtles, until this laſt age, and in this Realm ever ſince the firſt Plantation of Chriſtianity, as well ſince the Reformation as before, which hath been confirmed by ſo many Acts of Parliament, approved as conſonant to the holy Word of God, in the Articles of our Religion, and by all the Miniſters of the Church of England, as well by their perſonal ſubſcriptions, as otherwiſe, ſo atteſted and declared, and which himſelf in his judgement and conſcience, hath for theſe many years been, and yet is perſwaded to be at leaſt of Apoſtolical Inſtitution and Practice: Truly, His Majeſty cannot but wonder what ſhould be the reaſon of your great ſhyneſs and unwillingneſs to diſcover your mindes in a matter of ſo great & neceſſary conſequence: and for a final concluſion of this whole diſpute (which His Majeſty thinketh fit to ſhut up with this Paper) he muſt plainly tel you, That your endeavors to have given him ſatiſfaction in the Queſtions propoſed, would have added much in his opinion to the reputation of your ingenuity in the whole undertaking; it being not probable you ſhould work much upon his judgement, whilſt you are fearful to declare your own, nor poſſible to relieve his Conſcience, but by a free declaring of yours.

Nevertheleſs, His Majeſty liketh well of your Prayer in the cloſe of your Paper, and thinketh you ſhould do very well to joyn therewith your utmoſt poſſible endeavors towards the ſetling of Truth, and a happy Peace in this unſettled Church and Kingdom.

FINIS.