The Answer to the said paper, whereas your Maj. doth conceive, That the Episcopall Government, was by the Apostles committed & delivered to particular persons, as their Substitutes or successors therein (as for ordaining presbyters and Deacons, giving rules concerning Chri­stian Discipline, and exercising censures over Presbyters and others) seeming by the alleadged places of Scripturs to instant in Tim. and Titus, and the Angels of the Chur­ches. We humbly answer,

1 And first to that of Tim. & Titus, we grant, that Tim. and Titus had authority and power of ordaining Presby­ters & Deacons, and of exercising censures over Presby­ters and others, though we cannot say they had this power as the Apostles Substituts or Successors in Episcopall, Goverment, nor that they exercised the power they had as being Bishops in the sence of your Maj. but as extraor­dinary Officers or Evangilists, which Evangilists were an Office in the Church, distinct from pastors and Tea­chers, Eph. 411. And that they were Evangelists, it ap­peares by their being sent up and downe by the Apostles, or take along with them in company to severall Churches as the necessity & occasion of the Church did require; the one of them being expresly called an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. And neither of them being any where in Scriptures 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 appeares in Scriptures, returned to them againe. And it seemes cleare to us, that neither their abode at Eph. and Creet was for any long time, nor so intended by the Apo­stle, for he imployes them there upon occasional busi­nesse, and expresseth himselfe in such manner 1 Tim. 13. [Page 3] Titus 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 frō these places. 2 Tim 4. 9. Titus 3. 12. so that they may as well be called Bishops of other Citie, or Church where they had any considerable abode, as they are pretended to have been of Ephesus and Creer, as they are called by the Postscrips of these Apostles, the credit of which Post­scrips we cannot build upon this point.

2. To that of the Angels of the Churches, the Minist­ers of the Churches are called stars & Angels, which De­nominations are Metaphoricall and a Mistery, Rev. 1. 20, The Mistery of the 7 stars Angels in respect of their missi­on sending; stars in respect of their station & shining. And it seems strang to us, that so many expresse testimonies, of scriptures, and allegoricall denominations or mysteries should be opposed; These Angels being no where called Bishops in vulger acceptation, nor the word Bishop used in any of Iohns writings, who cals himself Presbiter, nor nor any m [...]n [...]ion of superiority of one Presbiter to ano­ther, but in Diotrophes effecting it.

And as to that which may be said that epistles are di­rectly to one: We answer that an number of perso [...]s are in the misterious and prophitique writings exprest in singu­lars.

And we humbly conceive that being written in an Epistolary stile these writings are directed as letters to collective or represen­tative bodyes use to be that is to one but are intended to the body in meeting assembled; which that they were so intended is cleare to us, both because there were in Ephesus B [...]shops, and Presbiter to whom the Apostle committed the Government of the Chu [...]ch and by divers expressions in these Epistles as Rev. 2. 24. So that we cannot consent that any singular person had Majority over the rest.

Having thus proved by pregnant places of S [...]ipture compared together, that the Apostles themselves did not institute or practice Episcopall Government, nor com­mit and derive it to particular persons, as their substi­tutes or successours therein. We shall in further discharg of our duty to, and for, the full satisfaction of your Maj. in this point, briefly declare into what Officers hands, the ordinary and standing Offices of the Church were trans­mitted and derived by and 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 and speciall com­mission; but for the ordinary & standing use and service of the Church, their were ordained only 2 orders of offi­ces, viz. Bishops and Deacons, as Phil. 1. 1. and 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 presbiters, and besides Presbi­ters, there is no mention of any other Order, but that of Deacons of both which Orders there were in the Apo­stles times, in one City more then one, at in Phillippi and Ephesus.

As for the Ages immediatly succeeding the Apostles, we Answer.

First, Our faith reacheth no further then the holy scrip­tures; no humane testimony can beget any more then an humane faith.

2. We answer, that it is agreed upon by all learned men, as well such as contend for Episcopacy as others; that the times immediatly succeeding the Apostles are very dark in respect of the history of the Church.

[Page 5] 3. That the most unquestionable Record of those times gives clear testimony to our assertion, viz. The E­pistle of Clement to the Corinthians, who reciting the or­der of Church Officers expresly limits them to two Bi­shops and Deacons; And they whom in one place he cal­led Bishops, he alwaies afterwards nameth Presbiters.

4. We grant that not long after the Apostles times, Bishops in some superiority to Presbiters, 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 ecclesi­asticall, which is clear by D. Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knoles wherein he shewes out of Bish. Iewell that Ambrose, Chrysostome, Ierome, Augustine, and many more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle Paul, agree that by the word of God there is no difference betweene a Presbiter and a Bishop.

For a conclusion we adde, that the doctrine which we have herein propounded to your Maj. concerning the or­der of Bishops and Presbiters, is no other then the doct­rine published by K. Henry the 8. 1543. For all his sub­jects to receive, allowed both by the Lords spirituall and temporall with the neither house of Parl. of these two or­ders only (so saith his book) that is to say, Priests and deacons, the scripture maketh expresse mention, and how they were confer'd of by the Apostles by prayer, and im­position of their hands, by all which it seemes evident that the order of Episcopacy, as distinct from Presbiters is but an Ecclesiasticall Institution, and therefore not un­alterable.

Lastly we answer, The Bishop of these times was one presiding in, and joyning with the Presbitery of his Church, ruling with them, and no [...] without them, either [Page] created and made by the Presbyters chusing out one among themselves, as in Rome & Alexandria, or chosen by the Church, and confirmed by 3 or more of his neigh­bours of like dignity, within the same precinct. Lesser Towns and Villages & small Cities untill the Councell of Sardis decreed that villages and small Cities should have no Bishops, least the authority of a Bishop should thereby come into contempt, but of one claiming as his due & right to himself alone, as a superiour order or de­gree, all power about ordination of Presbiters & Dea­cons, & all jurisdictions either to exercise himself, or de­ligate to whom he will of the laity or Clergy, as they di­stinguish according to the practice of these in our times, we read not til the latter & corrupter ages of the church.

In answer to that part of your Maj. paper, wherein you inquire whether our Saviour & his Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty, as they might totally alter or chang the Church government at their pleasure, we humbly conceive, that there are substancials belonging to church government, such are appointed by Christ and this 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 Maj. conscience, that they are none of the Church Governours appointed by our Saviour & his Apostles, we beseech your Maj. rather to look to the o­riginall of them then Succession.

Octob. 9. Letters from the Isle of Wight to members of both houses, doth ascertain, That his Maj. (after severall daies debate) hath yelded to the most materiall clauses in the 2 bill concerning Religion, & made some progresse in the rest; It is conceived, that his Maj. will give his Royall assent to this (as also to the succee­ding Prop.) very suddenly. On Wednesday Octob 7. His Maj. declared his mutuall clemency, & ardent affection, concerning the Citizens of London, acknowledging their forwardnes to a personal treaty, and their sums of money to carry on the same, to be an act of great obedience, and for those that endeavoured to obstruct it, his Maj. doth freely forgive.

Newport 8 Oct. 1648.