The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,

The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,

Table of contents

Title page

The humble ANSWER of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of PARLIAMENT at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, To the second Paper delivered to them by his MAIESTY, Octob. 6. 1648. Delivered to his MAIESTY, Octob. 17.

Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles.

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

The Humble ANSWER Of the DIVINES Attending the Honorable COMMISSIONERS OF Parliament, At the TREATY at Newport in the Isle of WIGHT. To the second Paper delivered to them by his MAJESTY, Octob. 6. 1648. About Episcopall Government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17.

I appoint Abel Roper to Print this Copie, entituled The Humble Answer of the Divines, &c.

Richard Vines,

London, Printed for Abel Roper, at the Signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street. 1648.

The humble ANSWER of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of PARLIAMENT at the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, To the second Paper delivered to them by his MAIESTY, Octob. 6. 1648. Delivered to his MAIESTY, Octob. 17.

[Page]

[Page]

May it please your Majestly,

AS in our Paper of October the third, in Answer to your Majesties of October the second We did, so now againe we do acknowledge, that the Scriptures cited in the Margin of your Majesties Paper do prove, that the Apostles in their own persons; That Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches, had power respectively, to do those things, which are in those places of Scripture specified; But as then, so now also we humbly do deny, that any of the persons or Officers fore-mentioned were Bishops, as district from [Page] Presbyters, or did exercise Episcopall Government in that sence; Or that this was in the least measure proved by the alleadged Scriptures, and therefore our Negative not being to the same point, or state of the Question which was affirmed; We humby conceive that we should not be interpreted, to have in effect, denyed the very same thing, which we had before granted, or to have acknowledged that the severall Scriptures do prove the thing, for which they are cited by your Majesty; And, if that, which we granted were all, that, by the Scriptures cited in your Margin, your Majesty intended to prove; It will follow, That nothing hath yet beene proved on your Majesties part, to make up that conclusion which is pretended.

As then we stood upon the Negative to that assertion, so we now crave leave to represent to your Majesty, that your reply doth not infirme the Evidence given in maintenance thereof. The Reason given by your Majesty in this Paper, to support your assertion: That the persons that exercised the power aforesaid were Bishops in distinct sence, is taken from a description of Episcopall Government; ‘which is (as your Majesty saith) nothing else, but the Government of the Churches within a certaine Precinct (commonly called a Diocesse) committed to one single person, with sufficient authority over the Presbyters, and people of those Churches for that end; which Government so described, being for substance of the thing it selfe in all the three forementioned particulars, (Ordaining, giving rules of Discipline, and Censures) found in Scriptures, [Page] except we will contend about names & words, must be acknowledged in the sense aforesaid to be sufficiently proved from Scriptures: and your Majesty saith further, that the Bishops do not challeng more, or other power to belong to them, in respect of their Episcopal office, as it is distinct from that of Presbyters, then what properly fals under one of those three.’

We desire to speak both to the Bishops challenge, and to your Majesties description of Episcopal government. And first to their Challenge; because it is first exprest in your Majesties reply.

The Challenge we undertake in two respects: 1. In respect of the Power challenged, 2. In respect of that ground, or Tenure upon which the claim is laid. The Power challenged consists of three particulars; Ordaining, giving Rules of Discipline, and Censures. No more, no other, in respect of their Episcopal office. We see not, by what warrant this Writ of partition is taken forth, by which the Apostolical office is thus sha [...]ed or divided; The Governing part into the Bishops hands; the Teaching, and administring Sacraments, into the Pr [...]byters. For besides that the Scripture makes no such inclosure, or partition wall; it appeares, the challenge is grown to more then was pretended unto in the times of growne Episcopacie. Jerome, and Chrysostome do both acknowledge for their time, that the Bishop and Presbyter differed only in the matter of Ordination: and learned Doctor Bilson makes some abatement in the claim of three, saying, the things proper to Bishops, which might not be common to Presbyters, are singularly of Succeeding, and superiority in Ordaining.

[Page] The tenure or ground upon which the claim is made is Apostolical, which with us is all one with Divine Institution. And this, as far as we have learned, hath not been anciently, openly, or generally avowed in this Church of England, either in time of Popery, or of the first Reformation; and whensoever the pretension hath been made, it was not without the contradiction of learned, and godly men. The abettors of the challenge, that they might resolve it at last into the Scripture, did chuse the most plausible way of ascending by the scale of Succession; going up the River to find the Head: but when they came to Scriptures, & found it like the head of Nile (which cannot be found) they shrowded it under the name and countenance of the Angels of the Churches, and of Timothy and Titus. Those that would carry it higher, endeavoured to impe it into the Apostolical office, and so at last called it a Divine Institution, not in force of any expresse precept, but implicite practise of the Apostles; and so the Apostolical office (excepting the gifts, or enablements confest only extraordinary) is brought down to be Episcopal, and the Episcopal raised up to be Apostolical. Whereupon it follows, that the highest Officers in the Church are put into a lower orb; an extraordinary office turn'd into an ordinary distinct office, confounded with that which in the Scripture is not found; a temporary, and an extinct office revived. And indeed if the definitions of both be rightly made, they are so incompatible to the same subject, that he that will take both must lose the one: aut Apostolus Episcopatum, aut Apostolatum Episcopus. For the Apostles, though they did not in many things ut aliud, yet they acted alio nomine & alio munere, then [Page] Presbyters, or Bishops can do: and if they were indeed Bishops, and their government properly Episcopal in distinct sense, then it is not needfull to go so far about to prove Episcopal government of Divine institution, because they practised it; but to assert expressely, that Christ instituted it immediately in them.

For your Majesties definition of Episcopal government, it is extracted out of the Bishops of later date, then Scripture times, and doth not sute to that Meridian, under which there were more Bishops then one in a Precinct, or Church; and it is as fully competent to Archiepiscopal, and Patriarchal government, as Episcopal. The parts of this definition, materially, and abstractly considered, may be found in Scripture. The Apostles, Timothy and Titus, were single persons, but not limited to a Precinct: The government of the Angels was limited to a Precinct, but not in single persons. In several offices, not to be confounded, the parts of this definition may be [...]ound; but the aggregation of them altogether into one ordinary Officer cannot be [...]ound. And if that word, ordinary, and standing Government, had been made the genus in your Majesties definition (as it ought to be) We should crave leave to say it would be gratis dictum, if not petitio principii: for the Scripture doth not put all these parts together in a Bishop, who never borrowed of Apostles, Evangelists and Angels, the matter of Governing and Ordaining, and left the other of Teaching, dispensing Sacraments and dealing onely in foro interno, to Presbyters, untill after times. By this that hath been said, it is manifest enough, that we contend not first de nomine: about the name of Episcopall Government: which yet [Page] (though names serve for distinction) is not called or distinguished by that name in Scripture. Nor secondly de opere about the worke, whether the worke of Governing, ordering, preaching &c. be of continuance in the Church, Which we cleerely acknowledge; But thirdly de munere, about the Office, it being a greatfallacy to argue, That the Apostles did the same work which Bishops or Presbyters are to do in ordinary. Therefore they were of the same Office: for as it is said of the liberall, and learned Arts one and the same thing may be handled in divers of them, and yet these Arts are distinguisht by the formalis ratio of handling of them, so we say of Offices, they are distinguisht by their callings and Commissions, though not by the worke, as all those that are named, (Eph. 4. 11.) Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, are designed to one and the same generall and common worke: The worke of the Ministry, ver. 12. And yet they are not therefore all one, for [...]ts said, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers; A Dictator in Rome and an ordinary Tribune. Moses and the subordinate governours of Israel. The Court of Parliament and of the Kings-Bench, an Apostle and a Presbyter or Deacon may agree in some common worke, and yet no confusion of Offices followes thereupon.

To that which your Majesty conceives, that the most that can be proved from all, or any of those places, by us alleadged (to prove that the Name, Office, and work of Bishops and Presbyters is one and the same in all things, and not in the least distinguisht) ‘Is that the word Bishop is used in them to signifie a Presbyter, and that consequently the Offi [...], and work mentioned [Page] in these places as the Office and worke of a Bishop are the Office of a Presbyter, which is confessed on all sides.’ We make this humble returne, that though there be no supposition, so much as implyed, that the Office of a Bishop and a Presbyter, are distinct in any thing (for the names are mutually reciprocall,) yet we take your Majesties concession, that in these times of the Church, and places of Scripture, there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters; and consequently that the identity of the Office must stand, untill there can be found a cleere distinction or division in the Scriptures; And if we had argued the identity of Functions from the Community of names, and some part of the work, the Argument might have been justly termed a fallacy, but we proved them the same Office from the fame worke, per omnia, being allowed so to do by the fulnesse of those two words used in the Acts and St. Peter his Epistle [...] and [...] under the force of which words the Bishops claime their whole power of Government and Jurisdiction, and we found no little weight added to our Argument from that in the Acts, where the Apostle departing from the Ephesian Presbyters or Bishops, as never to see their faces more, commits (as by a finall charge) the Government of that Church, both over particular Presbyters and people; not to Timothy who then stood at his elbow, but to the Presbyters under the name of Bishops, made by the Holy Ghost, whom we read to have set many Bishops over one Church, not one over either one or many, and the Apostles arguing from the same qualification of a Presbyter [Page] and of a Bishop in order to ordination or putting him into Office, fully proves them to be two names of the same order or function: the diverse Orders of Presbyter and Deacon, being diversly characterised, upon these grounds (we hope without fallacie) we conceive it justly proved, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are wholly the same. That Timothy and Titus were single persons, having authority of Government, we acknowledge; but deny, that from thence any argument can be made unto either single Bishop or Presbyter: for though a single Presbyter by the power of his Order (as they call it) may preach the Word and dispense the Sacraments; yet by that example of the Presbyterie, their Laying on of hands, and that Rule of Telling the Church in matter of scandal, it seems manifest, that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter; neither hath your Majesty hitherto proved, either the names of Bishops and Presbyters, or the function, to be in other places of Scripture at all distinguished; You having wholly waved the notice or answer of that we did assert (and do yet desire some demonstration of the contrary) viz. That the Scripture doth not afford us the least notice of any qualification, any ordination, any work or duty, any honour peculiarly belonging to a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter; the assignment of which, or any of them unto a Bishop, by the Scripture, would put this question neer to an issue. That GOD should intend a distinct and highest kind of Officer for Government in the Church, and yet not expresse any qualification, work, [Page] or way of constituting and ordaining of him, seemes unto us improbable. Concerning the signification of the word Episcopus, importing an Overseer, or one that hath a charge committed to him, for instance of watching a Beacon, or keeping sheep, and the application of the name to such persons as have inspection of the Churches of Christ committed to them in spiritualibus: We also give our suffrage, but not to that distinction of Episcopus gregis, and Episcopus pastorum & gregis; both because it is the [...] or point in question; and also because your Majesty having signified that Episcopus imports a keeper of sheep, yet you have not said that it signifies also a keeper of shepheards. As to that which is affirmed by your Majesty, that the ‘peculiar of the function of Bishops is Church-government; and that the reason why the word Episcopus is usually applied to Presbyterie, was because Church Governours had then another title of greater eminencie, to wit, that of Apostle; until the Government of the Church came into the hands of their successors; & then the names were by common usage very soon appropriated; That of Episcopus to Ecclesiastical Governours, That of Presbyter to the ordinary Ministers. This asser [...]ion your Majesty is pleased to make without any demonstration;’ for whom the Scripture cals Presbyters, Rulers, and Pastors and Teachers, it calls Governors; and commits to them the charge of feeding and inspection as we have proved, and that without any mention of Church Government peculiar to a Bishop; we deny not, but some of [Page] the Fathers have conceived the notion that Bishops were called Apostles, till the names of Presbyter and Episcopus became appropriate, which is either an allusion or conceipt, without Evidence of Scripture; for, while the Function was one, the names were not divided; when the Function was divided, the name was divided also, and indeed impropriate; but we that look for the same warrant, for the division of an Office, as for the Constitution, cannot find that this appropriation of names, was made till afterwards, or in processe of time, as Theodoret (one of the Fathers of this conceit) affirms, whose saying, when it is run out of the pale of Scripture time, we can no further follow; from which premises laid altogether, we did conclude the cleernes of our assertion, that in the Scriptures of the New Testament, a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter in Qualification, Ordination, Office or dignity is not found, the contrary wherof, though your Majesty saith, that you have seene confirmed by great variety of credible Testimony, yet we believe those testimonies are rather strong in asserting, then in demonstrating the Scriptures Originall of a Bishop, which is declared against by a cloud of witnesses, named in the latter end of our former Answer, unto which we should refer if matter of right were not properly tryable by Scripture, as matter of Fact is by Testimony.

Wee said that the Apostles were the highest order of Officers of the Church, that they were extraordinary, that they were distinguisht from all other Officers, and that their Government was not Episcopall, but [Page] Apostolicall; to which Answer, your Majesty being not satisfyed, doth oppose certaine assertions, ‘That Christ himselfe and the Apostles received their Authority by Mission, their Ability by Unction; That the Mission of the Apostles was ordinary, and to continue to the end of the world; but the Unction, wherby they were enabled to both Offices & Functions, Teaching and Governing was indeed extraordiry, That in their Unction they were not necessarily to have successours, but necessarily in their Mission or Office of Teaching and Governing, That in these two ordinary Offices, their ordinary successours are Presbyters & Bishops, That Presbyters qua Presbyters do immediately succeed them in the Office of Teaching, and Bishops qua Bishops immediately in the Office of Governing;’ The demonstration of which last alone, would have carryed in it more conviction then all these Assertions put together; Officers are distinguished by that whereby they are constituted, their Commission, which being produced, Signed by one place of Scripture, gives surer evidence, then a Pedigree drawne forth by such a series of distinctions as do not distinguish him into another Officer from a Presbyter; whether this chaine of distinction be strong, and the links of it sufficiciently tackt together, we crave leave to examine, Christ saith, your Majesty, was the Apostle and Bishop of our soules, and he made the Apostles both Apostles and Bishops; we do not conceive that your Majesty meanes that the Apostles succeeded Christ as the chief Apostle, and that as Bishops, they succeed Christ as a Bishop, least [Page] thereby Christ his Mission as an Apostle and Bishop might be conceived as ordinary as their Mission is said to be; But we apprehend your Majesty to mean, that the Office of Apostle and Bishop, was eminently contained in Christs office, as the office of a Bishop was eminently contained in that of Apostleship; but thence it will not follow that inferior offices being contained in the superior eminently, are therefore existent in it formally; For because all honours and dignities are eminently contained in your Majesty, would it therefore follow that your Majesty is formally and distinctly a Baron of the Realm, as it is asserted the Apostles to have been Bishops in distinct sense; That Mission refers to Office and authority, and Vnction only to Ability, we cannot consent: for besides that the breathing of Christ upon his Disciples, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, doth refer to mission as well as unction; we conceive that in the proper anointing of Kings, or other Officers, the naturall use and effect of the oyle upon the body, was not so much intended, as the solemn and ceremonious use of it in the inauguration of them; so there is relation to Office in unction, as well as to conferring of abilities; else how are Kings or Priests or Prophets said to be anointed? And what good sense could be made of that expression in Scripture, of anointing one in anothers room: to omit, that Christ by this construction should be called the Messias in respect of abilities only. And although we should grant your Majesties explication of Mission and Ʋnction, yet it will not follow that the mission of the Apostles [Page] was ordinary, and their unction only extraordinary: That into which there is succession, was ordinary; That into which there is no succession, (for succession is not unto abilities or gifts) extraordinary; and so the Apostles were ordinary officers in all whereunto there is properly any succession, and that is office. They differed from Bishops in that wherein one Apostle or Officer of the same order might differ from another, to wit, in abilities and measure of Spirit, but not in that wherein one order of officers is above another by their office; To which we cannot give consent, for since no man is denominated an officer from his meer abilities or gifts, so neither can the Apostles be called extraordinary officers, because of extraordinary gifts, but that the Apostles mission and office (as well as their abilities) was extraordinary and temporay, doth appeare in that it was by immediate Commission from Christ without any intervention, of men, either in Election or Ordination, for planting an authoritative governing of all Churches through the World, comprehending in it all other Officers of the Church whatsoever, and therefore it seemes to us very unreasonable that the Office and authority of the Apostles should be drawn down to an ordinary, thereby to make it, as it were, a fit stock, into which the ordinary Office of a Bishop may be ingrafted, nor doth the continuance of Teaching and Governing in the Church more render the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles an ordinary office, then the office of teaching, and [Page] governing in Christ himselfe, render his Office therefore Ordinary. The reason given, That the Office of Teaching and Governing, was ordinary in the Apostles, because of the continuance of them in the Church (wee crave leave to say) is that great mistake which runnes through the whole file of your Majesties discourse, for though there be a Succession in the worke of Teaching and Governing, yet there is no Succession in the Commission or Office by which the Apostles performed them; for the Office of Christ, of Apostles, of Evangelists, of Prophets, is thence also concluded Ordinary, as to Teaching and Governing, and the distinction of Offices Extraordinary and Ordinary eatenus destroyed; The Succession may be into the same worke, not into the same Commission and Office, the Ordinary Officers, which are to manage the work of Teaching and Governement, are constituted, setled and limited by warrant of Scripture, as by another Commission then that which the Apostles had; And if your Majesty had shewn us some Record out of Scripture, warranting the division of the office of teaching and governing into two hands, and the appropriation of teaching to Presbyters, of governing to Bishops, the question had been determined, otherwise we must look upon the dissolving of the Apostolicall Office, and distribution of it into these two hands, as the dictate of men who have a minde, by such a precarious Argument, to challenge to themselves the Keyes of Authority, and leave the Word to the Presbyters.

[Page] In our answer to the instances of Timothy and Titus (which Doctor Bilson acknowledgeth to be the maine erection of Episcopall power, if the proofes of their being Bishops, doe stand, or subversion, if the answer that they were Evangelists be good) Your Majesty finds very little satisfaction though all that is said therein could be proved.

First, because the Scriptures no where implyeth any such things at all, that Titus was an Evangelist, neither doth the text cleerly prove, that Timothy was so.

‘1. The name of Bishop, the Scripture neither expresly nor by implication gives to either, the work which they are injoyned to do is common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors & Teachers, and cannot of it self make a character of one distinct and proper office;’ But that there was such an order of Officers in the Church as Evangelists reckoned amongst the extraordinary and temporary Offices and that Timothy was one of that Order, and that both Timethy and Titus were not ordained to one particular Church, but were companions and fellow Labourers with the Apostles, sent abroad to severall Churches as occasion did require, it is as we (humbly conceive) clear enough in Scripture, and not denyed by the learned defenders of Episcopall Government nor (as we remember) by Scultetus himselfe during the time of their travailes.

‘2. To that which Your Majesty secondly saith, That we cannot make it appeare by any Text of Scripture that the Office of Evangelist is such as we have discribed, his worke seeming, 2 Tim. 2. 4, 5. to be nothing else but diligence in preaching the word, notwithstanding all impediments and oppositions,’ We humbly Answer, That exact definitions of these or other Church Officers are hard to bee found in any Text of Scripture, [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] but by comparing one place of Scripture with another, it may bee proved aswell that they were, as what the Apostles and Presbyters were, the description by us given being a Character made up by collation of Scriptures, from which Mr. Hooker doth not much vary, saying that Evangelists were Presbyters of Principall sufficiency whom Eccle. Pol l. b. 5 the Apostles sent abroad & used as Agents in Ecclesiasticall Affaires, wheresoever they saw need. And that Pastors & Teachers, were settled in some certain charge and therby differed from Evangelists, whose work that it should be nothing but diligence in preaching, &c, which is common to Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, and so not distinctive of this particular Office, argueth to us, that as the Apostles Office was divided into Episcopall and Apostolicall, so this also is to be divided in Episcopall and Evangelistical, Ordination and Censures belonging to Timothy as a Bishop, and diligence in Preaching only being left to the Evangelists, which division (as we humbly conceive) is not warranted by the Scripture.

‘Thirdly, Your Majesty saith that that which we so confidently affirme of Timothy and Titus, their acting as Evangelists is by some denyed and refuted, yea even with scorne rejected by some rigid Presbyterians, and that which we so confidently deny, that they were Bishops, is consirmed by the consentient testimony of all antiquity, recorded by Ierome himselfe that they were Bishops of Pauls ordination, acknowledged by very many late Divines, and that a Catalogue of 27 Bishops of Ephesus lineally succeeding from Timothy out of good Record is vouched by Dr. Reynolds and other Writers.’

Our confidence (as Your Majesty is pleased to call it) was in our Answer exprest in these words, wee cannot say that Timothy and Titus were Bishops in the sense of Your Majesty, but extraordinary officers or Evangelists, in which opinion we were then clear, not out of a totall ignorance [Page] of those Testimonies which might be alledged against it, but from intrinsick arguments out of Scripture, from which Your Majesty hath not produced any one to the contrary, nor is our confidence weakned by such replys as these, the Scripture never cals them Bishops, but the Fathers do, the Scripture calls Timothy an Evangelist, some of late have refuted it, and rejected it with scorn, the Scripture relates their motions from Church to Church, but some affirme them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Creet, the Scripture makes distinction of Evangelists and Pastors, but some say that Timothy and Titus were both, we cannot give Your Majesty a present account of Scultetus and Gherards Arguments, but do believe that M. Gillespi and Rutherford are able with greater strength to refute that opinion of Timothy and Titus their being Bishops, then they do (if they do) with scorne reject this of their being Evangelists; As for testimonies and catalogues though we undervalue them not, yet Your Majesty will be pleased to allow us the use of our Reason, so far as not to erect an office in the Church, which is not found in Scripture, upon generall appellations or titles and allusions frequently found in the Fathers, especially when they speake vulgarly, and not as to a point in debate, for even Ierome who as Your Majesty saith doth Record that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops, and that of St. Pauls Ordination, doth when he speaks to the poynt between Your Majesty and us, give the Bishops to understand that they are superior to Presbyters consueitudine magis quam Dominicae veritatis dispositione; for catalogues their creditrests upon the first witnesses from whom they are reported by tradition from hand to hand, whose writings are many times suppositions, dubius or not extant, besides that these catalogues do resolve themselves into some Apostle or Evangelist as the first Bishop, as the catalogue of Ierusalem [Page] into the Apostle Iames, that of Antioch into Peter, that of Rome into Peter and Paul, that of Alexandria into Marke, that of Ephesus into Timothy, which Apostles and Evangelists can neither themselves be degraded by being made Bishops, nor be succeeded in their proper calling or office, and it is easy for us to proceed the same way and to finde many antient rites and customs generally received in the Church (counted by the antients Apostolicall traditions) as neer the Apostles times as Bishops, which yet are, confessedly, not of Divine institution; and further, if Timothy and the rest that are first in the catalogue were Bishops with such sole Power of Ordination and Censures, as is asserted, how came their pretended successors, who were but Primi Presbyterorum (as the Fathers themselves call them) to lose so much Episcopall power as was in their Predecessors, and as was not recovered in 300 years? and therefore we cannot upon any thing yet said, recide from that of our Saviour, ab initio non fuit sic, from the begining is was not so.

‘Your Majesty saith, that wee affirme but upon very weak proofes, that they were from Ephesus and Crete removed to other places, the contrary whereunto hath been demonstrated by some, who have exactly out of Scripture, compared the times, and order of the severall journeyes, and stations of Paul and Timothy.’

It is confessed that our assertion, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, lies with some stresse upon this, that they removed from place to place, as they were sent by or accompanied the Apostles, the proofe whereof appeares to us, to bee of greaten strength then can bee taken off by the comparison which your Majesty makes of the Divines of the Assembly at Westminster. Wee begin with the Travailes of [Page] Timothy, as we finde them in order recorded in the Scripture-places cited in the Margin, and we set forth from Acts 17. 14. Berea, where we finde Timothy, then next at 15. Athens, fromwhence Paul sends him to 1 Thess. 3. 1, 2. Thessalonica, afteward having been in Macedonia, he came to Paul at Acts 18. 5. Corinth, and after that, he is with Paul at Ephesus, and thence sent by him into Acts 19. 22. Macedonia, whether Paul went after him, and was by Timothy accompanied into Acts [...]0. 4 Asia, who was with him at 5. 6. Troas and 17. Miletus, to which place Saint Paul sent for the Presbyters of the Church in Ephesus, and gave them that solemne charge to take heede unto themselves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops, not speaking a word of recommendation of that Church to Timothy, or of him to the Elders. And if Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, he must bee so when the first Epistle was sent to him, in which he is pretended to receive the charge of exercising his Episcopall power in Ordination and government; but it is manifest that after this Epistle sent to him, he was in continuall journeyes, or absent from Ephesus. For Paul left him at Ephesus when he went into 1 Tim. 1. 3. Macedonia, and he left him there to exercise his Office, in regulating and ordering that Church and in ordaining; but it was after this time that Timothy is found with Paul at Miletus, for aftur Paul had been at Miletus, he went to Jerusalem, whence he was sent prisoner to Rome, and never came more into Macedonia, and at Heb. 13. 23. Phil. 1. 1. Philem. ver. 1. Col. 1. 1. Heb. 13. 23. Rome we find Timothy a prisoner with him, and these Epistles which Paul wrote while he was prisoner at Rome, namely the Epistle to the Philippians, to Philemon, to the Colossians, to the Hebrewes, doe make mention of Timothy as his companion at these times, nor doe we ever finde him againe at Ephesus, for we finde that after all this, towards the end of Saint Pauls life, after his first answering before [Page] Nero, and when he said his departing was at hand, hee sent for Timothy to Rome, not from Ephesus; for it seemes that Timothy was not there, because Paul giving Timothy 2 Tim. 4. 6. 10. 11. 12. 16. an account of the absence of most of his companions sent into divers parts, he saith, Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. Now if your Majesty shall bee pleased, to cast up into one totall that which is said; the severall journeyes and stations of Timothy, the order of them, the time spent in them, the nature of his imployment, to negotiate the affaires of Christ in severall Churches and places, the silence of the Scriptures, as touching his being Bishop of any one Church, you will acknowledge that such a man was not a Bishop fixed to one Church or precinct, and then by assuming that Timothy was such a man, you wil conclude that he was not Bishop of Ephesus.

The like conclusion may be inforced from the like premisses, from the instance of Titus, whom we finde at Galat. 1. 2. Jerusalem before he came to Crete, from whence hee is sent for to Titus 3. 12. Nicopolis, & after that he is sent to Corinth, from whence he is expected at 2 Cor. 2. 12. Troas, and met with Paul in 2 Cor. 5. 6. Macedonia, whence he is sent againe to 2 Cor. [...]. 6. Corinth, and after all this is neere the time of Pauls death at Rome, from whence he went not into Crete, but unto 2 Tim 4. 10. Dalmatia, and after this is not heard on in the Scripture; and so we hope your Majesty doth conceive, that we affirme not upon very weak proofes, that Tymothy and Titus were from Ephesus & Crete removed to other places.

In the fifth exception your Majesty takes notice of two places of Scripture cited by us, to prove that they were called away from those places of Ephesus & Crete, which if they doe not conclude much of themselves, yet being accompanied by two other places which your Majesty takes no notice of, may seeme to conclude more, and these are 1 Tim. v. 1. 3. Titus 1. 5. As I be sought thee to abide still at Ephesus, for this cause left I thee in Creete, in [Page] both which is specifed the occasionall imployment, for which they made stay in those places: and the expressions used, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, I left thee in Crete, doe not sound like words of installment of a man into a Bishoprick, but of an intendment to call them away again, and if the first and last be put together, his actuall revocation of them both, the intimation of his intention, that they should not stay there for continuance, and the reason of his beseeching the one to stay, & of his leaving the other behind him, which was some present defects and distempers in those Churches, they will put faire to prove that the Apostle intended not to establish them Bishops of those places, and therefore did not; For the Postscripts, because your Majesty layes no great weight upon them, We shall not be solicitous in producing evidence against them, though they doe bear witnesse in a matter of fact, which in our opinion never was, and in your Majesties Judgement was long before they were borne, and so we conclude this discourse about Timothy and Titus with this observation, that in the same very Epistle of Paul to Timothy, out of which your Majesty hath endeavoured to prove that he was a Bishop, and did exercise Episcopall Government, there is cleare evidence both for Presbyters imposing hands, in ordination, and for their Ruling.

In the next point concerning the Angels of the Churches, though your Majesty saith, ‘that you lay no weight upon the Allegory or Mystery of the denomination, yet you assert, that the persons bearing that name were personae singulares, & in a word Bishops,’ who yet are never so called in Scripture, & the allegorical denomination of Angels or Stars, which in the Judgement of ancient and moderne Writers doth belong to the faithfull Ministers and Preachers of the word in generall, is appropriate [Page] (as we may so say) to the Myter and Crosierstaffe, and so opposed to many expresse testimonies of Scripture;And if your Majesty had been particular in that, wherein you say the strength of your instance lies, viz. the Judgement of all ancient, & of the best moderne Writers, and many probabilities in the text it selfe, we hope to have made it apparent, that many ancient & eminent Writers, many probabilities out of the text it self do give evidence to the contrary. To that which is asserted, That these singular persons were Bishops in distinct sence, whether we brought any thing of moment to infirm this we humbly submit to Your Majesties judgement, and shall only represent to you that in Your Reply you have not taken notice of that which in our answer seems to us of moment, which is this, that in Mysterious & prophetick writings or visionall representations (such as this of the stars and golden Candlesticks is) a number of things or persons is usually exprest in singulars, and this in visions is the usuall way of Representation of things, a thousand persons making up one Church, is represented by one Candlestick; Many Ministers making up one Presbytery by one Angell. And because Your Majesty seemes to call upon us to be particular, though we cannot name the Angels, nor are satisfied in our judgement, that those whom some do undertake to name were intended by the name of Angells in those Epistles; yet we say, First, that these Epistles were sent unto the Churches, and that under the expression of this thou dost, or this thou hast, and the like, the Churches are respectively intended, for the sin reproved, the Repentance commanded, the punishments threatned, are to be referred to the Churches and not to the singular Angells onely, and yet wee do not thinke that Salmatius did intend, nor doe wee, that in formall denomination the Angells and Candlesticks are the same;

[Page] Secondly; The Angels of these Churches or Rulers were a Collective body, which wee endeavoured to prove by such Probabilities as your Majesty takes no notice of, namely the instance of the Church of Ephesus, where there were many Bishops, to whom the charg of that Church was by Saint Paul at his finall departure from them committed; as also by that expression Revel. 2. 24. To you, and to the rest in Thiatyra; Which distinction makes it very probable, that the Angel is explained under that Plurality to you; the like to which many expressions may be found in these Epistles, which to interpret according to the Consentient Evidence of other Scriptures of the New Testament, is not Safe only, but Solid and Evidentiall.

Thirdly, these Writings are directed as Epistolary, Letters, to Collective Bodyes, usually are (that is) to One, but intended to the Body; which your Majesty illustrateth by your sending a Message to your. Two Houses, and directing it to the Speaker of the House of Peers; which as it doth not hinder (we confesse) but that the Speaker is one single Person; so it doth not prove at all, that the Speaker is alwayes the same Person; or if he were, that the refore because your Message is directed to him he is the Governour or Ruler of the Two Houses in the least, and so your Majesty hath given cleare instance, that though these Letters be directed to the Angels, yet that notwithstanding they might neither be Bishops, not yet perpetuall Moderators. For the severall opinions specified in your Majesties Paper, three of them, by easie and faire accommodati [...]n (as wee declared before) are soon reduced and united amongst themselves, and may be holden wi [...]hout ecesse [Page] from the received Iudgement of the Christian Church▪ by such as are far from m [...]iting that Aspersion, which is cast upon the Reformed Divines, by Popish Writers, that they have divided themselves from the Common and received Iudgment of the Christian Church; which Imputation, wee hope, was not in your Majesties intention to lay upon us, untill it bee made cleare that it is the common and received Iudgement of the Christian Church that now is, or of that in former Ages, that the Angels of the Churches were Bishops having Prelacy as well over Pastors as People within their Churches.

In the following Discourse we did deny, that the Apostles were to have any Successors in their Office, and affirmed onely [...] Orders of Ordinary and Standing Officers in the Church, vizt. Presbiters and Deacons. Concerning the former of which your Majesty refers to what you had in part already declared: ‘That in those things which were extraordinary in the Apostles, as namely, the Measure of their Gifts, &c. They had no Sucessors in cundem graedum; but in those things which were not extraordinary, as the Office of Teaching and Power of Governing (which are necessary for the Service of the Church in all times) they were to have and had no Successours:’ Where your Majesty deli [...]s a Doctrine new to us. Namely, that the Apopost [...]es had Successors into their Offices, not into their [...]: For (besides that, Succession is not [...] into Abiliti [...]s▪ but into Offic [...] ▪ We cannot say, that one [...] another in his [...] ▪ o [...] [...], [Page] or Patts, but into his Roome and Function, [...] [...]nceive, that the Office Apostolicall was [...] in whole, because their Mission and [...] was [...]o, and the service or work of▪ Teaching and Governing being to continue in all times doth not render their Office Ordinary; as the Office of Moses was not rendred Ordinary, because many workes of Government exercised by him, were re-committed to the standing Elders of Israel: And if they have Successors, it must be, either into their whole Office, or into some parts: Their Successors into the whole (however differing from them in measure of Gifts and peculiar Qualifications) must be called Apostles, the same Office gives the [...] Denomination, and then we shal confesse that Bishops, if they be their Successors in Office, [...] of Divine Institution, because the Apostolicall Office him so; if their Successors come into part of their Office only, the Presbiters may as well bee called their [...] ▪ [...] the Bishops, and so indeed they are called by [...] of the ancient Fathers, [...], Origen, [...], and others: Whereas in much the Apostle [...] [...] not properly Successors into Office, but the ordin [...]ry Power of Teaching and Governing (which [...] the Church for [...]) is [...] and [...] in the hands of ordinary Officers by a [...] and Commission according to the rules of [...] and calling in the word, [...] the Bishop hath [...] yet produced for himselfe, and without which he cannot challenge it upon the [...] by the [...] without [...].

And whereas your [...] of their work [...] in the Apostles, we could wish that you had declared [Page] whether it belong to their Mission or Unction; for we humbly conceive, that their Authorative Power to do their Work in all places of the world did properly belong to their Mission, and consequently that their Office, as wel as their Abilities was extraordinary and so by your Majesties own concession not to be succeded into by the Bishops.

As to the Orders of standing Officers of the Church your Majesty doth reply, ‘That although in the places cited, Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 8. there be no mention but of the two Orders only of Bishops or Presbiters, and Deacons,’ Yet it is not thereby proved that there is no other standing Office in the Church besides, which we humbly conceive is justly proved, not only because there are no other named, but because there is no rule of Ordeyning any third, no Warrant or way of Mission, and so the Argument is as good, as can be made, a non cause ad non effectum; sor we do not yet apprehend that the Bishops pretending to the Apostolick Office do also pretend to the same manner of Mission, nor do we know hat those very many Divines that have afferted two orders onely, have concluded it from any other grounds then the Scriptures cited.

There appears (as your Majesty saith) two other manifest reasons why the Office of Bishops might not bee so proper to be mentioned in those places. And wee humbly conceive there is a third more manifest then those two, vizt, because, It was not.

‘The one reasun given by your Majesty, is because in the Churches which the Appostles themselves planted; they placed Presbiters under them for the Office of Teaching, but reserved in their own hands [Page] the Power of Governing those Churches for a longer, or shorter time before they set Bishops over them.’ Which under your Majesties favour is not so much a reason why Bishops are not mentiioned to bee in those places as that they indeed were not; the variety of reasons (may we say or conjectures) rendred why Bishops were not set up at first, as namely because fit men could not be so soon found out, which is Epiphanius his reason, or for remedy of Schisme, which is Jeromes reason, or because the Apostles saw it not expedient, which is your Majesties reason doth shew that this cause labours under a manifest weaknesse; for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of Governing, we grant it, they could no more devest themselves of power of Governing, then (as Dr. Bilson saith) they could loose their Apostleship: had they set up Bishops in all Churches, they had no more pa [...]ted with their power of Governing, then they did in seting up the Presbyters, for we have proved that Presbyters, being called Rulers, Governours, Bishops, had the power of Governing in Ordinary, committed to them, as well as the Office of Teaching, and that both the Keys (as they are called) being by our Saviour comitted into one hand, were not by the Apostles divided into two: Nor do we see, how the Apostles could, reasonably commit the Government of the Church to the Presbyters of Ephesus, Act. 20, and yet reserve the power of Governing (viz. in Ordinary) in his own hands, who took his solemn leave of them, as never to see their faces more. As that part of the power of Government, which for distinction sa [...]e may be called Legis-Lative, and which is one of the three fore-mentioned things challenged by the Bishops, viz giving Rules, the reserving of it in the [Page] Apostles hands hindred not, but that in your Majesties Iudgment Timothy and Titus were Bishops of [...] and Creete, to whom the Apostles gives Rules for [...] ring and Governing of the Church: Nor is there [...]y more reason, that the Apostles reserving that part of the Power of Governing which is called E [...]cuti [...] in such cases, and upon such occasions as they thought [...] should hinder the setting up of Bishops, if they had intended it; and therefore the reserving of Power in their hands can be no greater reason why they did not set up Bishops at the first, then that they never did. And since (by your Majesties Concession) the Presbiters were placed by the Apostles first, in the Churches by them planted, and that with Power of Governi [...], as wee prove by Scripture, you must prove the [...] of a Bishop over the Presbyters by the Apostles in some after times, or else we must conclude that the Bishop got both his Name and Power of Government out of the Presbyters hand, as the Tree in the [...]ll m [...]ns out the stones by little and little as i [...] [...] grows▪

As touching Phillippi, where you Majesty saith, it may be probable there was yet [...] Bishop, it is certaine there were many, like them, [...] at Epheful, to whom if only the Office of Teaching did belong they had the most labori [...]us and honorable part that which was less honorable being reserved in the Apostles hands and the Churches left in the mean time without ordinary Government.

The other reason given why two Orders only a [...] mentioned in those places is, because he wrot in the [...] to Timothy and Titus to them that were Bishops, [...] there was no need to writ any thing concerning the [...] Qualification of any other sort of [...] [Page] then such, as belonged to their Ordination, or inspection, which were Presbyters and Deacons only, and no Bishops. The former reason why two only Orders are mentioned in the Epistle to the Philip [...]ans, was, because there was yet [...] Bishop▪ this latter reason why the same two onely are mentioned in these Epistles, is because there was no Bishop i [...] [...] Ordained we might own the reason for good, if there may bee found any rule for the Ordination of the other order of Bishops in some other place of Scripture, but if the Ordination cannot be found, how should we find the Order? and it is reasonable to think, that the Apostle in the Chapter formerly alleadged, 1 Tim. 3. where he passes immediatly from the Bish to the De [...]on, would have [...] exprest, or at least hinted what sort of Bishop he meant whither the Bishop [...]ver Presbyters, or the Presbiter Bishop, to have avoyded the confusion of the name, and to have set as it were some mark of difference in the [...] of the Presbiter-Bish. if there had bin some other Bishop of [...]. And wheras your Ma [...]. saith there was no need to writ to them about [...] in a distinct sence, who belonged not to their Ordination and inspection▪ We conceive that in your Majesties judgment, Bishops might then have Ordeined Bishops like themselves; for there was then no Ca [...] forbiding one single Bish to ordain another of his own rank, and ther being many Cities in Creete, Titus might have found it expedient (as those ancient Fathers that call him Arch-Bishop think he did) to have set up Bishops in some of those Cities▪ So that this reasoning his against the principles, of those [...] to have been Bishops, for our part we beleeve that [...]Word- [...] belonged unto [...] and Titus with [...] Churches where they might [...] any time [Page] have the Office of Ordeyning and Governing, as it is written in the same Chapter, 1 Tim. 3. 14, 15. Those things I have written unto th [...], &c. that thou mayest know how to be have thy selfe in the House of God, which is the Church; and therefore if there had been any proper Character or Qualification of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, if any Ordination or Office, we think the Apostle would have signified it, but because he did not, we conclude (and the more strongly from the insufficiency of your Majesties two reasons) that there are onely two Orders of Officers, and consequently that a Bishop is not superiour to a Presbyter, for we find not (as we said in our Answer) that one Officer is superiour to another, who is of the same Order.

Concerning the Ages succeeding the Apostles.

‘Your Majesty having in your first Paper said, that you could not in Conscience consent to Abolish Episcopall Government, because you did conceive it to be of Apostolicall Institution, Practised by the Apostles themselves, and by them comitted and derived to particular persons as their Successors, and have ever since til these last times bin exercised by Bishops in al the Churchs of Christ:’ We thought it necessary in our Answer, to subjoyne to that we had said out of the Scriptures, the Iudgment of divers ancient [...]riters and Fathers, by whom Bishops were not acknowledged as a Divine, but as an Ecclesias [...]ticall Institution, as that which might very much conduce both to the easing of your Majesties scruple, to consider that howsoever Episcopal Government was generally currant, yet the superscription was not jugded Divine, by some of those that either were themselves Bishops, or lived under that Government, & to the vindication of the opinion which we hold, from the prejudice of Novellisme, or of recesse from the Iudgement of all Antiquity.

[Page] We doe as firmely beleeve (as to matter of fact) that Chrysostome and Austin were Bishops, as that Aristotle was a Philosopher, Cicer [...] an Orator; though wee should rather call out Faith and beliefe thereof [...]rtaine in matter of fact, upon humane Testimonies uncontrouled, then infallible, in respect of the Testimonies themselves. But where is your Majestie saith, ‘That the darknesse of the Historie of the Church, in the time succeeding the Apostles, is a strong Argument for Episcopacie, which notwithstanding that darknesse hath found so full proofe by unquestioned Catalogues, as scarce any other matter of fact hath found the like:’ Wee humbly conceive, that those fore-mentioned times were darke to the Catalogue-makers, who must derive the series of Succession from, and through those Historicall darknesses, and so make up their Catalogues very much from Tradition and Reports, which can give no great Evidence, because they agree not amongst themselves: and that which is the great blemish of their Evidence is, that the neerer they come to the Apostles times (wherein they should be most of all clear, to establish the succession firm and cleare at first) the more doubtfull, uncertaine, and indeed contradictorie to one another; are the Testimonies. Some say, that Clemens was first Bishop of Rome, after Peter; some say, the third: and the intricacies about the Order of Succession, in Lin [...]s, Anacletus, Clemens, and another called Cletus (as some affirme) are inextricable. Some say, that Titus was Bishop of Crate; some say, Arch-bishop; and some, Bishop of Dalmatia. Some say, that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus; and some say, that Iohn was Bishop of Ephesus at the same time. Some say, that Polycarpus was first Bishop of Smyrna: another saith, that he succeeded one B [...]colus; and another, that Arist [...] was first. Some say, that Alexandria had but one Bishop, and other Cities two; and others, that there was but one Bishop of one Citie at the same time. And how should those Catalogues be unquestionable, [Page] which must be made up out of Testimonies that fight one with another? Wee confesse, that the Ancient Fathers, Tertulltan, Irenaus, &c. made use of Succession, as an Argument against Heretikes, or Innovators, to prove that they had the traduces Apostoliei seminis, and that the Godly and Orthodox Fathers were on their side. But that which we now have in hand, is Succession in Office; which, according to the Catalogues, resolves it selfe into some Apostle, or Evangelist, as the first Bishop of such a Citie, or Place, who (as we conceive) could not be Bishops of those places, being of an higher Office; though, according to the language of after-times, they might by them that drew up the Catalogues, be so called, because they planted and founded, or watered those Churches to which they are entituled, and had their greatest residence in them; or else the Catalogues are drawne from some eminent men that were of great veneration and reverence in the times and places where they lived, and Presidents or Moderators of the Presbyteries, whereof themselves were Members: from whom, to pretend the Succession of after-Bishops, is as if it should be said, that Caesar was Successor to the Roman Consuls. And we humbly conceive, that there are some Rites and Ceremonies used continually in the Church of old, which are asserted to be found in the Apostolicall and Primitive times, and yet have no colour of Divine Institution; and, which is Argument above all other, the Fathers, whose Names wee exhibited to your Majestie in our Answer, were doubtlesse acquainted with the Catalogues of Bishops who had beene before them, and yet did hold them to be of Ecclesiasticall Institution.

And lest your Majestie might reply, That however the Testimonies and Catalogues may varie, or be mistaken, in the order, or times, or names of those persons that succeeded the Apostles, yet all agree, that there was a Succession of some persons; and so, though the credit of the [Page] Catalogues be infirmed, yet the thing intended is confirmed thereby: We grant, that Succession of men to feed and governe those Churches, while they continued Churches, cannot be denyed, and that the Apostles and Evangelists, that planted and watered those Churches (though extraordinarie and temporarie Officers) were by Ecclesiasticall Writers, in complyance with the Language and usage of their owne times, called Bishops; and so were other eminent men, of chiefe note, presiding in the Presbyteries of the Cities or Churches, called by such Writers as wrote after the division or distinction of the names of Presbyters, and Bishops: But that those first and ancientest Presbyters were Bishops in proper sence, according to your Majesties description, invested with power over Presbyters and people, to whom (as distinct from Presbyters) did belong the power of Ordaining, giving Rules and Censures; wee humbly conceive can never be proved by authentike or competent Testimonies. And granting, that your Majestie should prove the Succession of Bishops from the Primitive times seriatim; yet if these from whom you draw, and through whom you derive it, be found either more then Bishops, as Apostles, and extraordinarie persons, or lesse then Bishops, as meerly first Presbyters, having not one of the three essentials to Episcopall Government (mentioned by your Majestie) in their owne hand; it will follow, that all that your Majestie hath proved by this Succession, is the Homonymy and equivocall acceptation of the word Episcopus.

For Clemens his Testimonie, which your Majestie conceiveth to be made use of, as our old fallacie, from the promiscuous use of the words to inferre the indistinction of the things; wee referre our selves to himselfe in his Epistle, now in all mens hands, whose Testimonie wee thinke cannot be eluded, but by the old Artifice, of hiding the Bishop under the Presbyters name: for they that have read his whole Epistle, and have considered, that himselfe is [Page] called a Bishop, may doubt of Clemens opinion, concerning the distinct offices of Bishops and Presbyters, or rather not doubt of it, if onely his one Epistle, may be impaneld upon the Inquest. Concerning Ignatius his Epistles, your Majesty is pleased to use some earnestnesse of expression, charging some of late, without any regard of ingenuity or truth, out of their partiall disaffection to Bishops, to have endeavoured to discredit his writings. One of those cited by us, cannot (as we conceive) be suspected of disaffection to Bishops; and there are great Arguments drawn out of those Epistles themselves, betraying their insincerity, adulterate mixtures, and interpolations; So that Ignatius cannot be distinctly known in Ignatius. And if we take him in grosse, we make him the Patron (as Baronious, and the rest of the Popish writers do) of such rites and observations, as the Church in his time cannot be thought to have owned. He doth indeed give te [...]timonie to the Prelacy of a Bishop above a Presbyter, that which may justly render him suspected, is that he gives too much. Honour (saith he) the Bishop as Gods high Priest, and after him you must honour the King. He was indeed a holy Martyr, and his writings have suffered Martyrdom, aswell as he; Corruptions could not go currant, but under the credit of worthy Names.

That which your Majesty saith in Your fourth Paragraph, That we might have added, (if we had pleased) That Iames, Timothy, Titus, &c. were constituted and ordained Bishops, of the forementioned places respectively, and that all the Bishops of those times, were reputed successors to the Apos [...]les in their Episcopall office: We could not have added it without prejudice (as we humbly conceive) to the truth; for the Apostles did not ordein any of themselves Bishops, nor could they do it, for even by your Majesties concession, they were Bishops before, viz. as they were Apostles, nor could any Apostle his choyce of a certain [Page] Region or Place to exercise his function in, whilest he pleased, render him a Bishop, any more then Paul was Bishop of the Gentiles, Peter of the Circumcision. Neither did the Apostles ordein the Evangelists Bishops of those Places unto which they sent them; Nor were the Bishops of those times any more then as your Majesty saith, reputed successours to the Apostles in their Episcopall office, they came after the Apostles in the Churches by them planted, so might Presbyters do; but thats not properly succession, at least not succession into office; and this we say with a Salv [...] to our assertion, that in those times there were no such Bishops distinct from Presbyters: Neither do we understand, whether the words Episcopall office, in this Section, refer to the Bishops or Apostles; for in referrence to Apostles, it insinuates a distinction of the Apostles office, into Apostolicall and Episcopall, or that the office Apostolicall, was wholly Episcopall, unto neither of which we can give our consent for reasons forementioned. To the testimonies by us recited in proof of two onely Orders, Your Majesty answers first, that the promiscuous use of the names of Bishops and Presbyters, is imported; That which your Majesty not long ago called our old fallacy, is now Your answer, onely with this difference, We under promiscuous names hold the same office: Your Majesty under promiscuous names supposes two, which if as it is often asserted, was but once proved▪ We should take it for a determination of this controversie. Secondly, that they relate ‘to a School-point, or a nicety, utrum Episcopat [...] sit ordo vel gradus, both sides of the questionists or disputants in the mean time acknowledging the right of Church-government in the Bishops alone;’ It is confest by us, that that question as it is stated by Popish Authors, is a curious nicety, to which we have no eye or reference; for though the same officers may differ fromand excell others of the same order in gifts or qualifications, [Page] Yet the office it self, is one and the same, without difference or degrees, as one Apostle or Presbyter, is not superiour to another in degree of office; they that are of the same order are of the same degree, in respect of office, as having Power and Authority to the same Acts. Nor doth the Scripture warrant or allow, any superiority of one over another of the same order; and therefore the proving of two orders onely in the Church, is a demonstration, that Presbyters and Bishops are the same. In which point, the Scripture will counter-ballance the testimonies of those that assert three degrees or orders, though ten for one. But for easing of your Majesty of the trouble of producing testimonies against those cited by us, We make this humble motion, that the Regiments on both sides may be discharged out of the field, and the point disputed by Dint of holy Scripture, id verum quod primum. Having passed through the Argumentative parts of your Majesties Reply, wherein we should account it a great happinesse, to have given your Majesty any satisfaction, in order whereunto You pleased to honour us with this imployment, We shall contract our selves in the remainder, craving your Majesties pardon, if You shall conceive us to have been too much in the former, and too little in that which follows. We honour the Pious intentions and munificence of Your Royall Progenitors, and do acknowledge that ornamentall accessions granted to the Person, do not make any substantiall change in the office; the reall difference between that Episcopall Government, which first obtained in the Church, and the present Hierarchy, consists in ipso regimine & modo regiminis, which cannot be clearly demonstrated in particulars, untill it be agreed on both sides, what that Episcopacy was then, and what the Hierarchy is now, and then it would appear, whether these three forementioned essentialls of Episcopall Government, were the same in both: For the power [Page] under Christian Princes, and under Pagan, is one and the same, though the exercise be not. And we humbly receive your Majesties Pious advertisement, (not unlike that of Constantines) stirring us up as men unbyassed with private interests, to study the neerest accommodation and best resemblance to the Apostolicall and Primitive times. But for your Majesties Salve to the Bishops sole Power, of Ordination and Iurisdiction, and that distinction of Ordination, Authoritative in the Bishop, and Concomitant in the Presbytery, which You seem to found upon these two Texts, 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 14. and which is used by D. Bilson, and other defenders of Episcopacy, in explication of that Cannon of the fourth Councell of Carthage, which enjoyns the joyns imposition of the Bishops and Presbyters hands, We shall give your Majesty an accompt, when we shall be called to the disquisition thereof; Albeit that we do not for the present see, but that this Proviso of your Majesty, renders our accommodation to the Apostolicall and Primitive times (where unto You did exhort us) unseasonable. We not withstanding, do fully professe our acknowledgement of subordination of the outward exercise of Iurisdiction, to the Soveraign Power, and our accomptablenesse to the Laws of the Land. As for your Majesties three questions of great importance, Whether there be a certain form of Government left by Christ or his Apostles, to be observed by all Christian Churches; Whether it binde perpetually, or be upon occasion alterable in whole, or in part; Whether that certain form of Government, be the Episcopall, Presbyterian, or some other, differing from them both: The whole volume of Ecclesiasticall Policy, is contained in them; and we hope that neither your Majesty expected of us a particular answer to them at this time, nor will take offence at us, if we hold onely to that which is the question, in order to the Bill of Abolition; for we humbly professe our readinesse [Page] to serve your Majesty, answering these or any other questions, within our proper Cognizance, according to the proportion of our mean abilities.

For your Majesties condescension, in vouchsafing us the liberty and honour of examining Your learned Reply, clothed in such excellency of stile, and for Your exceeding candour, shewed to such men as we are; and for the acceptation of our humble duty, we render to your Majesty most humble thanks, and shall pray, That such a pen in the hand of such abilities, may ever be imployed in a subject worthy of it.

That your Majesty would please to consider, that in this point under debate, succession is not the best clew, and most certain, and ready way to finde out the Originall; for to go that way, is to go the furthest way about, yea, to go backward; and when You are at the spring, viz. the Scripture it self▪ You go to the rivers end, that You may seek the spring.

And that the Lord would guide your Majesty, and the two Houses of Parliament, by the right hand of his Councell, and shew You a happy way of healing our unhappy differences, and of settling the Common-wealth of Jesus Christ, which is the Church; so as all the members thereof, may live under You in all Godlinesse, Peace, and Honesty.

§

§

Imprimatur Ia. Cranford.

Octob. 19. 1648.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,

Westminster Assembly

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]

A89568

ID [STC]

Wing M757

ID [STC]

Thomason E468_21

ID [STC]

ESTC R204007

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99863746

ID [PROQUEST]

99863746

ID [VID]

115960

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. A89568)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 115960)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 75:E468[21])

Source

— The humble answer of the Divines attending the Honorable Commissioners of Parliament, at the treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight. To the second paper delivered to them by his Majesty, Octob. 6. 1648. about episcopall government. Delivered to his Majesty, October 17. I appoint Abel Roper to print this copie, entituled The humble answer of the Divines, &c. Richard Vines,, Westminster Assembly, Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655, attributed name..

Extent

40 p.

Printed for Abel Roper, at the signe of the Sunne over against S. Dunstans Church in Fleet-street,. London :: 1648.. (Sometimes attributed to Stephen Marshall, who was one of the Newport divines.) (Annotation on Thomason copy: "8ber [i.e. October] ye 20th".) (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.