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 2] 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.

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 4] 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 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] 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 9] (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 10] 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 11] 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 12] 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 13] 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.

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 14] 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.