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 4] 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 5] 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 6] 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 7] 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 8] (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 9] 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 10] 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 11] 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 12] 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 13] 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 14] 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 15] 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 16] 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 17] 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 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] 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 19] 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 20] 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 21] 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 22] 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 23] 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 24] (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 25] 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 26] 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 27] 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 28] 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 29] 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 30] 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 31] 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 32] 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.