His Maiesties reason vvhy he cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall government. Delivered by him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648. With the answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October 3. 1648.

His Maiesties reason vvhy he cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall government. Delivered by him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648. With the answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October 3. 1648.

Table of contents

Title page

His Majesties Reason why He cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall Government.

The Answer of the Divines to His Majesties Reason, why He cannot in Conscience consenr to the abolishment of Episcopall Government.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

HIS MAIESTIES REASON VVhy He cannot in Conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall Government.

Delivered by Him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648.

With the Answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October 3. 1648.

LONDON Printed by William Wilson, 1648.

His Majesties Reason why He cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall Government.

[Page]

[Page]

Charles R.

I Conceive that Episcopall Government is most consonant to the word of God, and of an Apostolicall institution, as it appears by the Scripture to have bin practised by Apostles Acts 14. 23. Acts 6. 6. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 3 John 9. 10. themselves, And by them committed, and derived, to perticular Persons, as their Substitutes, or Successors therein (as for ordeyning [Page] Presbyters, & Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising 1 Tim. 5. 22. Titus 1. 5. Revel. 2. 3. c. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Titus 3. 10. censurs over Presbyters and others) And hath ever since till these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ; And therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the sayd Government.

Notwithstanding this my perswasion, I shall be glad to be informed, if our Saviour, and the Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty, as they might totally alter or change the Church Government at their pleasure, which if you can make appeare to me, then I will confesse that one of my great scruples is cleane taken away, and then there only remaines;

That being by my Coronation Oath obleiged to maintaine Episcopall Government, as I found it setled to my hands, whether I may consent to the abolishing thereof, untill the same shall be evidenced to Me to be contrary to the Word of God.

Newport 2. Octob. 1648.

The Answer of the Divines to His Majesties Reason, why He cannot in Conscience consenr to the abolishment of Episcopall Government.

[Page]

May it please Your Majesty,

WE do fully agree without hesitation, that these Scriptures cited in the margin of your paper, Act. 14. 23. Acts 6. 6. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 3 Iohn 9 & 10 do prove that the Apostles did ordeine Presbyters and Deacons, give rules concerning Christian Discipline, and had power of exercising censures over Presbyters, and others. And that these places of Scripture, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 19. Titus 3. 10. do prove that Timothy and Titus had power to ordeine Presbyters and Deacons, and to exercise censures over Presbyters and others. And that the second, and third Chapters of the Revelation do prove; That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches, and exercising censures.

But that either the Apostles, or Timothy and Titus, or the Angels of the Churches were Bishops, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, exercising Episcopall Government in that sense. Or that the Apostles did commit and derive to any particular persons as their substitutes, and successors, any such Episcopall Government: or that this is proved in the least measure by the Scriptures alleaged, we do as fully deny. And therefore do humbly deny also, [Page] That Episcopall Government is therefore most consonant to the word of God, and of Apostolicall institution, or proved so to be by these Scriptures. None of these were Bishops, or practised Episcopall Government, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters. Neither is such an Officer of the Church as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter to be found in the New Testament (by which wee humbly conceive, that our Faith, and Conscience touching this poynt ought to be concluded.) The name Office, and Worke of Bishop and Presbyter being one and the same in all things, and never in the least distinguisht, as is clearly evident, Titus 1. 5. 7. For this cause left I thee in Creete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordaine Presbyters in every City; as I had appointed thee. For a Bishop must be blamelesse, In which place the Apostle his reasoning were altogether invalid, and inconsequent; if Presbyter and Bishop were not the same Office, as well as they have the same Name.

The same is manifest, Acts 20 17. 28. And from Miletus hee sent to Ephesus, and called the Presbyters of the Church, to whom hee gave this charge, verse 28. Take heede therefore unto your selves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, [...], to feede and governe the Church of God. Where wee observe, That the Apostle being to leave these Presbyters, and never to see their faces more verse 28. doth charge them with the feeding and governing of the Church; as being Bishops of the Holy Ghosts making. But that the Holy Ghost did make any superiour, or higher kinde of Bishops, than these common Presbyters is not to bee found in that, or any other Text.

[Page] And that under the mouth of two or three witnesses this assertion of ours may stand; we adde to what we have already said, that in the 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. The Presbyters which are among you, I exhort, who am also a Presbyter. Feed the flock of God Which is among you, [...] performing the office of Bishops, where it appears plaine to us, that under the words [...] & [...] used in this place, is expressed whatsoever work the Presbyters are to do. Neither can Bishops, so called, as above Presbyters, do more for the government and good of the Church otherwise, then is there expressely injoyned unto Presbyters. By all which that hath been said the point is rendered to be most cleare to the judgement of most men, both ancient, and of later times. That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the New Testament, as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter: neither doth the Scripture afford us the least notice of any qualification required in a Bishop, that is not required in a Presbyter, nor any Ordination to the Office of a Bishop, distinct from a Presbyter: nor any work or duty charged upon a Bishop, which Presbyters are not enjoyned to do: nor any greater honour or dignity put upon them. For that double honour which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 5. 17. as due to Presbyters that rule well, is with a note of (especially) affixed to that Act or work of labouring in the word and doctrine, which is not that Act wherein Bishops have challenged a singularity, or peculiar eminency above the Presbyters.

To that which Your Majesty doth conceive, That Episcopall government was practised by Apostles themselves. We humbly answer, That the Apostles as they were the highest Officers of the Church of Christ: so they were [Page] extraordinary in respect of their commission, gifts, and office, and distinguisht from all other Officers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly, Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11. Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. Where the Apostles are distinguished from Pastors and Teachers, who are the ordinary Officers of the Church for preaching the word, and government. That they had power and authority to ordaine Church Officers, and to exercise censures in all Churches, we affirm, and withall, that no other Persons, or Officers of the Church may challenge or assume to themselves such power in that respect alone, because the Apostles practised it. Except such power belong unto them in common, as well as to the Apostles, by warrant of the Scripture. For that government which they practised was Apostolicall, according to the peculiar commission, and authority which they had, and no otherwise to be called Episcopal, than as their Office was so comprehensive, as they had power to do the work of any, or all other Church Officers, in which respect they call themselves Presbyteri, Diaconi, (but never Episcopi in distinct sense) and therefore we humbly crave leave to say, that to argue the Apostles to have practised Episcopall Government, because they ordeined other Officers, and exercised censures, is, as if we should argue a Justice of Peace to be a Constable, because he doth that which a Constable doth in some particulars. Its manifest that the Office of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinct in the Apostles. They did not act as Bishops in some Acts, and as Presbyters in other Acts. The distinction of Presbyters and Bishops being made by men in after times.

[Page] And whereas your Majesty doth conceive that the Episcopall Government was by the Apostles committed and derived to particular persons, as their Substitutes, or Successors therein, as for ordeining Presbyters and Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian discipline, and exercising censures over Presbyters and others. Seeming by the alledged places of Scripture, to instance in Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches. We humbly answer, and first, to that of Timothy and Titus. We grant that Timothy and Titus had Authority, and power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of exercising censures over Presbyters, and others: though we cannot say they had this power as the Apostles Substitutes, or Successors in Episcopal Government; nor that they exercised the power they had, as being Bishops in the sense of your Majesty, but as extraordinary Officers, or Evangelists, which Evangelists were an office in the Church distinct from Pastors, and Teachers, Eph. 4. 11. and that they were Evangelists, it appears by their being sent up and downe by the Apostles, or taken along with them in company to severall Churches, as the necessity, and occasion of the Churches did require; The One of them being expressely called an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. And neither of them being any where in Scripture called Bishop. Neither were they fixed to Ephesus, and Creet, as Bishops in the Churches committed to them: but removed from thence to other places, and never, for ought appears in Scripture, returned to them againe. And it seems cleare to us, that neither their abode at Ephesus and Creet, was for any long time, nor so intended by the Apostle. For he imploys them there upon occasionall businesse, and [Page] expresses himselfe in such manner, (I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightst charge some, that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Tim. 1. 3. For this cause left I thee in Greete, Tit. 1. 5.) as doth not carry the fixing, or constituting of a Bishop in a place as a perpetuall Governour. And it is as manifest, that they were both of them called away from these places, 2 Tim. 4. 9. Do thy diligence to come to me shortly, Tit. 3. 12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis. So that they may as well be called Bishops of other Cities, or Churches, where they had any considerable abode, as they are pretended to have beene of Ephesus and Greete. As they are called by the Poscripts of those Epistles, the credit of which Postscripts we cannot build upon in this point.

Secondly, To that of the Angels of the Churches.

The ministers of the Churches are called Starres, and Angels, which denominations are metaphoricall, and in a mystery, Rev. 1. 20. the mystery of the seven Starres, Angels, in respect of their mission, or sending. Starres in respect of their Station, and shining. And it seems strange to us, that to so many expresse Testimonyes of Scripture, an Allegoricall denomination, or mystery should be opposed. These Angels being no where called Bishops in vulgar acceptation, nor the word Bishop used in any of Johns writings, who cals himselfe Presbyter. Nor any mention of superiority of one Presbyter to another, but in Diotrephes affecting it. And as to that which may be said, that the Epistles are directed to one, we answer, that a number of persons, are in the mysterious, and Prophetick writings expressed in singulars, and we humbly conceive, that being written in an Apostolary Style, [Page] (for they are as letters or Epistles to the Churches,) these writings are directed as letters to collective Representative bodies use to be. That is, to one, but intended & meant to that body in meeting assembled; which that they were so intended is cleare to us, both because there were in Ephesus Bishops and Presbyters, one and the same, to whom the Apostle at his farewell commendeth the Government of the Church: And by divers expressions in these Epistles, as Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatyra▪ by which distinction of you and the rest, we conceive the particular Governours, (which were more then one) and the people to be signified. And so cannot consent that any singular person had majority over the rest, or sole power of exercising Church Censures, and Government spoken of in these Chapters.

Having thus (as we humbly conceive) proved by pregnant places of Scripture compared together, that the Apostles themselves did not institute, or practise Episcopall Government, nor commit and derive it to particular persons, as their substitutes, or successors therein. Wee shall in farther discharge of our duty to, and for the more cleare, and full satisfaction of your Majesty in this point, briefely declare into what Officers hands the ordinary and standing Offices of the Church were transmitted, and derived by & from the Apostles. The Apostles had no successors in eundem gradum: the Apostolicall Office was not derived by succession, being instituted by Christ by extraordinary & special Commission. But for the ordinary and standing use and service of the Church, there were ordained only two Orders of Officers, viz. Bishops and Deacons, which the Apostle expresseth, Phil. 1. 1. To [Page] all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons; And onely of them doth the Apostle give the due Characters of Officers, 1 Tim. 3. 2. 8. From both which places of Scripture we conclude with ancient Expositors both Greek and Latin, that Bishops are the same with Presbyters, and besides Presbyters, there is no mention of any other order but that of Deacons. Of both which Orders in the Apostles times, there were in one City more then one, as in Philippi and Ephesus. And we humbly offer to your Majesty as observable; That though one Order might be superiour to another Order, yet in the same Order of Officers, there was not any one superiour to others of the same Order: No Apostle was above an Apostle; No Evangelist above an Evangelist; No Presbyter above a Presbyter; No Deacon above a Deacon. And so we conclude this part, That since Church Officers are instituted, and set in the Church by God, or Christ Jesus, and that Ordination by, or in which the Office is conveyed, is of no other Officers, but of Presbyters and Deacons. Therefore there are no other Orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Churches of Christ.

As for the ages immediatly succeeding the Apostles, we answer. First, Our Faith reaches no farther than the holy Scriptures. No humane testimony can beget any more than a humane faith. Secondly, we answer, That it is agreed upon by learned men, as well such as contend for Episcopacy, as others, that the times immediately succeeding the Apostles are very dark in respect of the Hystory of the Church. Thirdly, That the most unquestionable Record of those times gives cleare testimony to our assertion, viz. The Epistle of Clements to the [Page] Corinthians, who reciting the Orders of Church Officers, expresely limits them to two, Bishops and Deacons, and them, whom in one place he calls Bishops; he alwayes afterwards nameth Presbyters. The Epistles of Ignatius pretend to the next antiquity, but are by some suspected as wholly spurious, and proved by Ʋedelius to be so mixed, that it is hard, it not impossible, to know what part of them are genuine: Besides, Bishop Vsher in his late observations on them Chap. 18. page 138. confesses, that of the twelve of his Epistles, six are counterfeit, the other sixe mixt, and none of them in every respect to be accounted sincere and genuine. Fourthly, We grant, That not long after the Apostles times, Bishops in some superiority to Presbyters are by the writers of those times reported to be in the Church; But they were set up not as a Divine Institution, but as an Ecclefiasticall, as afterwards both Arch Bishops, and Patriarchs were; which is cleare by Doctor Reinolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles, wherein he shewes out of Bishop Jewel, That Ambrose, Chrysostome, Jerome, Augustine, and many more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle Paul agree, that by the word of God there is no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. And that Medina in the Councell of Trent affirmes not onely the same Fathers, but also another Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophytact, to be of the same judgement. And that with them agree Oecumenius; Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury, and another Anselme, Gregory and Gratian, and after them many others; That it was inrolled in the Canon-Law for sound and Catholick Doctrine; and publikely taught by learned men. And addes, that all who have laboured in the Reformation [Page] of the Church for these 500. years have taught that all Pastors, be they entituled Bishops, or Priests, have equal authority and power by Gods word. The same way goes Lumbard Master of the Sentences, and Father of the Schoolmen, who speaking of Presbyters, and Deacons, saith, The Primitive Church had those Orders onely, and that we have the Apostles precept for them alone. With him agree many of the most eminent in that kind, and generally all the Canonists. To these we may adde Sextus Senensis, who testifies for himself, and many others. And Cassander, who was called by one of the Germame Emperours as one of singular ability, and integrity, to inform him, and resolve his conscience in questions of that nature; who said, It is agreed among all, that in the Apostles times, there was no difference betweene a Bishop, and a Presbyter. For a conclusion, we adde, that the Doctrine which we have herein propounded to your Majesty concerning the Identity of the Order of Bishops and Presbyters, is no other then the Doctrine published by King Henry the 8. 1543. for all his subjects to receive, seen and allowed by the Lords both spiritual and temporal, with the nether House of Parl. Of these two Orders onely (so saith the Book) That is to say, Preists and Deacons, Scripture maketh expresse mention, and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer, and Imposition of hands. By all which it seems evident, that the Order of Episcopacie, as distinct from Presbytery, is but an Ecclesiasticall Institution, and therefore not unalterable.

Lastly; we answer. That Episcopall Government which at first obteined in the Church, did really and substancially differ from the Episcopall Government, [Page] which the Honorable Houses of Parliament, desire the abolition of. The Bishop of those times was one presiding, & joyning with the Presbytery of his Church, ruling with them, and not without them. Either created, and made by the Presbyters choosing out one amongst themselves, as in Rome & Alexandria, or chosen by the Church, and confirmed by three, or more of his neighbours of like dignity within the same precinct; lesser towns, and villages had, and might have Bishops in them, as well as populous and eminent Cities, untill the Councel of Sardis decreed, that villages, and small Cities should have no Bishops, least the name, and authority of a Bishop might thereby come into contempt. But of one claming as his due, and right to himselfe alone, as a superior order, or degree, all power about ordination of Presbyters, and Deacons, and all jurisdiction, either to exercise himselfe, or delegate to whom he will of the Laity or Clergy, (as they distinguish) according to the Judgement and Practice of those in our times, wee read not till in the latter and corrupter ages of the Church.

By all which it appears, that the present Hierarchy, the abolition whereof is desired by the Honourable Houses, may accordingly be abolished, and yet possibly the Bishop of those Primitive times be. They are so farre differing one from another.

In answer to that part of your Majesties Paper, wherein you require whether our Saviour and his Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty, as they might totally [Page] alter or change the Church Government at their pleasure. We humbly conceive that there are substantials belonging to Church Government, such as are appointed by Christ and his Apostles, which are not in the Churches liberty to alter at pleasure. But as for Arch-bishops, &c. We hope it will appear unto your Majesties conscience, that they are none of the Church Governours appointed by our Saviour and his Apostles. And we beseech your Majesty to look rather to the Originall of them, then Succession.

Octob, 3. 1648.

Imprimatur,

JA: CRANFORD.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

His Maiesties reason vvhy he cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall government. Delivered by him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648. With the answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October 3. 1648.

England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I)

Edition statement

1648

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A79056

ID [STC]

Wing C2738

ID [STC]

Thomason E466_5

ID [STC]

ESTC R205219

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99864649

ID [PROQUEST]

99864649

ID [VID]

116881

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A79056)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 116881)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 74:E466[5])

Source

— His Maiesties reason vvhy he cannot in conscience consent to abolish the Episcopall government. Delivered by him in writing to the Divines that attend the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648. With the answer of the said Divines delivered to His Majestie in writing. October 3. 1648., England and Wales. Sovereign (1625-1649 : Charles I), Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655., Vines, Richard, 1600?-1656., Seaman, Lazarus, d. 1675., Caryl, Joseph, 1602-1673., Westminster Assembly (1643-1652).

Extent

[2], 14 p.

Printed by William Wilson,. London :: 1648.. (The Divines are Stephen Marshall, Richard Vines, Joseph Caryl and Lazarus Seaman. Cf. Thomason Catalogue.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "8ber [i.e. October] ye 9th".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)

Creation

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

Editorial practices

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.