royal blazon or coat of arms HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE DIEV ET MON DROIT   

HIS MAJESTY'S FINAL ANSWER Concerning EPISCOPACY.  
Delivered in to the Commissioners of PARLIAMENT the first of Novemb. 1648.  
LONDON, Printed for Richard Best, dwelling at Grays-inn gate. 1648.   

His Majesty's Final Answer concerning Episcopacy, November the first, 1648.  
WHat you have offered by way of Reply to His Majesty's Second Paper, of October 6. in yours of Octob. 17. in Order to the further satisfaction of his Conscience in the point of Episcopacy, His Majesty heard, when it was publicly read by you, with diligent attention, and hath since (so far as his leisure would permit) taken the same into his private and serious Consideration; Wherein his Majesty not only acknowledgeth your great pains and Endeavours to inform his Judgement, according to such persuasions as yourselves have in the matter in debate, But also taketh special Notice of the Civility of your applications to him both in the Body and Conclusion of your Reply: yet he cannot but observe withal, that in very many things you either mistake his meaning and purpose in that Paper, or at least come not up fully enough thereunto in this Reply. Which to have shown, will sufficiently remonstrate your present Reply to be unsatisfactory in that behalf, without making a particular Answer to every Passage in it, which to a Paper of that length would require more time than his Majesty can think fit (amidst the present weighty affairs) to allow unto a debate of this Nature, Especially since his Majesty hath often found mutual returns of long Answers, and Replies, to have rather multiplied disputes by starting new Questions, than informed the Conscience by removing former Scruples.  

1. Reply. Sect 1. 2. As to the Scriptures cited in the Margin of his Majestres first Paper.  
It being granted by you, that those Scriptures did prove the Apostles, and others being single Persons to have exercised respectively the several points in the Paper specified, Which powers (by your own confessions in this Reply) (Sect. 7.) a single person who is but a mere Presbyter hath no right to exercise; And it being withal evident, that a Bishop in the Ecclesiastical sense, and as distinct from a Presbyter, layeth claim to no more than to a peculiar right in the exercise of some, or all of the said Powers, which a mere Presbyter hath not; the Conclusion seemeth natural and evident, that such a Power of Church-Government as we usually call Episcopal is sufficiently proved by those Scriptures.   

2. Reply. Sect. 3. 5. As to the Bishop's Challenge.  
First, when you speak of a Writ of partition, you seem to take his Majesty's words, as if he had shared, and cantoned out the Episcopal Office, One part to the Bishops alone, Another to the Presbyters alone, And you fall upon the same again afterwards (Sect. 6.) whereas his Majesty's meaning was, and by his words appeareth so to have been, that one part of the Office (That of Teaching, etc.) was to be common to both alike; But the other part (That of Governing Churches) peculiar to the Bishop alone.  
Secondly, you infer from his Majesty's words, That the Bishop's Challenge appeareth to be grown to more than was formerly pretended to. Which inference his Majesty's words by you truly cited, if rightly understood, will not bear. For having proved from Scripture the power of Church Government, in all the three mentioned Particulars to have been exercised by the Apostles, and others; His Majesty said but this only, That the Bishops challenge no more or other power to belong unto them, in respect of their Episcopell Office, than what properly falleth under one of these three. The words are true; for he that believeth they challenge not so much, might safely say, they challenge no more. But the Inference is not good; For he that saith they challenge no more, doth not necessarily imply they challenge all that. In the power of Ordination which is purely spiritual, his Majesty conceiveth the Bishop's challenge to have been much-what the same in all times of the Church; And therefore it is, that the matter of Ordination is most insisted on, as the most constant and most evident difference between Bishops and Presbyters, especially after the Times of Constantine, which his Majesty by your relating to chrysostom and Hierome taketh to be the same you call the times of Grown Episcopacy. But his Majesty seethe no necessity, that the Bishops challenge to the power of Jurisdiction should be at all times as large as the Exercise thereof appeareth at some times to have been; the exercise thereof being variable according to the various condition of the Church in different times. And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Jurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely, as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine. The reason of the difference being evident, That in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of itself, divided from the Commonwealth, and so was to be governed by its own Rules, and Rulers. The Bishops therefore of those times, though they had no outward coercive power over men's persons, or Estates, yet inasmuch as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church, did ipso facto, and by that his own voluntary Act, put himself under their Government, they exercised a very large power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus, in making Ecclesiastical Canons, receiving accusations, conventing the accused, examining Witnesses, judging of Crimes, excluding such as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lords Supper, Enjoining Pennances upon them, casting them out of the Church, Receiving them again upon their Repentance, &c▪ And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others: But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Commonwealth, whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Powers, the Jurisdiction of Bishops (in the outward exercise of it) was subordinate unto, and limit able by the Supreme Civil power, and hath been, and is at this day, so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm.  
Thirdly, you seem to affirm in a Parenthesis, as if nothing were confessed to have been extraordinary in the Apostles but their gifts, and Enablements only, whereas his Majesty in that Paper hath in express words named as Extraordinaries also, the Extent of their charge, and the Infallibility of their Doctrine, without any meaning to exclude those not named, as their immediate Calling, and if there be any other of like reason.  
Fourthly for the Claim to a jus Divinum, His Majesty was willing to decline both the Term (as being by reason of the different acception of it subject to misconstruction) and the dispute whether by Christ or his Apostles. Nevertheless although His Majesty sees no cause to dislike their opinion who derive the Episcopal power originally from Christ himself, without whose warrant the Apostles would not either have exercised it themselves, or derived it to others; Yet for that the practice in them is so clear, and evident, and the warrant from him expressed but in general Terms (As my Father sent me, so send I you, and the like) His Majesty chose rather (as others have done) to fix the claim of the power upon that practice, as the more evidential way, than upon the warrant, which by reason of the generality of expression would bear more dispute.   

3. Reply. Sect. 6. As to the Definition of Episcopacy.  
First, whereas you except against it, for that it is competent to archiepiscopal and patriarchal Government as well as Episcopal, His Majesty thinketh you might have excepted more justly against it if it had been otherwise.  
Secondly. His Majesty believeth that even in the persons by you named (Timothy, Titus, and the Angels) the definition in all the parts of it is to be found, viz. That they had each their several peculiar Charges; and that within their several precincts, they had authority over Presbyters aswell as others.  
Neither Thirdly, doth his Majesty think it needful that any word be added to the Genus in the definition, or that the Scripture should any where put all the parts of the definition together; It would be a hard matter to give such a definition of an Apostle, or a Prophet, or an Evangelist, or a Presbyter, or a Deacon, or indeed almost of any thing, as that the parts thereof should be sound in any place of Scripture put altogether.  
Fourthly, His Majesty consenteth with you, that the point in issue, is not the Name or Work merely, but the Office, and that it were a Fallacy to argue a particular Office, from a General, or Common work: But judgeth withal it can be no Fallacy to argue a Particular Office from such a work as is peculiar to that Office, and is as it were the formalis ratio thereof, and therefore no fallacy from a work done by a single person, which a single Presbyter hath no right to do, to infer an office in that person distinct from the Office of a Presbyter.   

4. Reply Sect. 7. As to the Scriptures cited by you viz. Tit. 1. Acts 20. 2 Peter 5.  
First when you say you take his Majesty's Concession, That in those times of the Church, and places of Scripture, there was no distinct Office of Bishops and Presbyters, If you take it so, truly you take it gratis, (His Majesty never gave it you:) and you mistake it too, more ways than one, for to speak properly, His Majesty made no Concession at all. It was rather a Preterition in order to the present business, and to avoid unnecessary disputes, which ought not to be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the Truth of your Expositions of those places. For his own express words are, Although his Majesty be not sure that the Proof will reach so far in each of those Places, which words plainly evidence, that which you call his Majesty's Concession to be indeed no Concession; but to have been meant according to that form of Speech very usual in disputations, Dato, non concesso. But in that Concession, such as it is, his Majesty is not able to imagine what you could find whereon to ground those words, That in those times of the Church there was no distinct, etc. there being not any thing in the whole passage that carrieth the least sound that way, or that hath relation to any particular times of the Church. Neither is the Concession such as you take it, as it relateth to those places of Scripture. What his Majesty said is confessed on all sides (which are the words you take for a Concession) was but this, That supposing (but not granting) the word Bishop to be used in all those places to signify a Presbyter, the Office and Work in those places mentioned as the Office and Work of a Bishop are (upon that supposal) the Office and Work of a Presbyter, which is so manifest a Truth, that no man without admitting Contradictions can say the contrary. But how wide or short that is from what you make to be his Majesty's Concession, yourselves by comparing his words with yours may easily judge. But yourselves a little after make a Concession, which his Majesty (warned by your Example how soon another's meaning may be mistaken when his words are altered) is willing to take in the same words you give it, viz. When you say and you bring reasons also to prove it, That it seemeth manifest that Ordination and Censures are not to be exercised by a single Presbyter.  
Secordly you repeat your Arguments formerly drawn from those places, and press the same from the force of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and from the Circumstances of the Text, and otherwise adding withal that his Majesty hath waved the notice or answer of something by you alleged therein. Hereunto His Majesty saith, that he waved not any thing in your former Paper, f●r any great difficulty he conceived of answering it; but being desirous to contract his answer, and knowing to what frailties, Arguments drawn from Names and Words a●d Conjectural Expositions of Scripture are subject, he passed by such things as he deemed to be of least Consideration in order to the end of the whole debate; to wit the satisfaction of his Judgement and Conscience in the main business. Otherwise his Majesty could have then told you, That there are, who by the like Conjectures, grounded (as seemeth to them) upon some probabilities in the Text, interpret those places in the Acts and in St. Peter of Bishops properly so called, and in the restrained Ecclesiastical sense, rather than of Ordinary Presbyters; That supposing them both meant of Ordinary Presbyters, the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which signify to feed & to oversee) might not unfitly be applied to them as inferior Pastors, in relation to their Flocks under their charge and over sight (the Flock being in both the places expressly mentioned) which hindereth not, but the same words may in a more peculiar manner be appropriated to Bishops in respect of that Authority and oversight they have even over Presbyters themselves also; That still granting your own interpretation of the word Bishop in that place to Titus, it can prove no more than that the two names in that place are given to the same Function; That from all the premises in your Paper there laid together, and supposed true his Majesty doth not conceive it justly proved, That the Office of a Bishop and Presbyter is wholly the same but at the most, that the Offices were not in those places distinguished by those Names.  
Thirdly, if the Assignment of any Particular Qualification work or duty, unto a Bishop, distinct from a Presbyter, by the Scripture, would (as you say) put this question near to an issue; His Majesty should well have hoped, that it might soon be brought to a near point, and that from the evidence of the Epistles only of Saint Paul to Timothy, Wherein as he particularly expresse●h the Qualification, work, and duty of Presbyters and Deacons, that Timothy might know what persons were fit to be ordained unto those Offices: So in the directions given to Timothy throughout those Epistles, he sufficiently describeth the Qualification, work, and duty of a Bishop, that Timothy might know how to behave himself in the exercise of his Episcopal Office, as well in ordaining as in Governing the Church.   

5. Reply. Sect. 8.  
As to the signification of the word Episcopus, the primary signification thereof, and the application of it to Church Officers, you acknowledge: and that the same was after by Ecclesiastical usage appropriated to Bishops you deny not, But the distinction of Episcopus Gregis, & Episcopus Pastorum, you do not allow. If you disallow it for the unfitness of the word as may seem by that passage, where you say That His Majesty hath said that Episcopus signifieth a Keeper of Shepherds; His Majesty thinketh you might very well have spared that exception, For if there be a person that hath the oversight of many Shepherds under him, there is no more impropriety in giving such a person the stile of Episcopus Pastorum, than there is in using of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or in calling Doeg the Master of saul's Herdsmen. And for the thing itself, it cannot be denied, but that the Apostles, and Timothy and Titus (by what clam ordinary, or extraordinary, as to the present business it matters not) had the oversight and authority over many Pastors, and were therefore truly and really Episcopi Pastorum.  
The appropriation of the names of Episcopus and Presbyter to these distinct Offices, considering that it was done so early, and received so universally in the Church as by the writings of Clemens, Ignatius, the Canons commonly called of the Apostles, and other ancient evidences doth appear. His Majesty hath great reason to believe that it was done by consent of the Primitive Bishops, merely in honour of the Apostles, out of their respect and reverence to whose persons, and personal Prerogatives, they chose to call themselves Bishops rather than Apostles in common usage, although they made no scruple to maintain their succession from the Apostles, when they spoke of things proper to the Episcopal Function, nor to use upon occasion the terms of Apostle and Apostolical in that sense, the truth of all which is to be see●e frequently▪ in the writings of the Ancients.  
The Testimonies of so many writers, ancient and modern, as have been produced for the Scripture-originall of Bishops, His Majesty conceiveth to be o● so great importance in a question of this nature, that he thinketh himself bound bo●h in Charity and Reason to believe, that so many men of such quality would not have asserted the same with so much confidence but upon very good ground. The men respectively of high estimation and reverend authority in the Church, worthily re-renowned for their Learning and Piety, of moderate and even Passions, of Orthodox belief▪ sundry of them uninteressed in the Quarrel, and some of them of later times by interest and education biased rather the other way. Their assertions positive, peremptory and full of assurances (Constat & ne●no ignorat, it is clear, none can be ignorant, and other such like expressions.) Namely that Christ constituted Bishops in the Apostles, That it was founded upon a divine Law, That Episcopacy is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ordinance of God, That it seemed good to the holy Ghost so to order it, etc. Insomuch as they accounted Aerius an Heretic for holding the Contrary And this their judgement they delivered as led there into by divine evidence of Scripture (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's word teacheth it, apertis Scripturae testimoniis, it appeareth by plain testimonies of Scripture, discimus, ex hoc loco, From this place we learn, and the like) which testimonies should they be encountered (as His Majesty doth not yet believe they can be) with a cloud of Witnesses to the Contrary: for number, and in every other respect equal thereunto, Yet, should not the Authority of their evidence in reason be much lessened thereby: inasmuch as one witness for the Affirmative aught to be of more value, than ten for the Negative; and the testimony of one person that is not interressed, than of an hundred that are.  
And whereas you seem in this Question to decline this kind of trial, because matter of right is properly triable by Scripture; His Majesty conceiveth this present Question, in what terms soever proposed, to be yet in the true stating of it, and in the last Resolution, clearly a Question of Fact and not of Right; For what right soever the Bishops have, or pretend to have, must be derived from the fact of Christ, or his Apostles. Which matter of Fact, if it be not in the most plain historical manner that may be related in the Scriptures, but is to be deduced thence by topical remote inferences, and probability of conjectures, the most rational, and proper expedient for the finding out of the Right, is to have recourse to the Judgement, but especially to the Practice, of the nearest and subsequent times; according to the received Maxims, Lex currit cum Praxi, & Consuetudo optimus interpres Legum. Now he that shall find by all the best Records extant, that the distinction of Bishops from, and the Superiority over Presbyters was so universally, and speedily spread over the face of the whole world, and their Government submitted unto so unanimously by the Presbyters, that there never was any considerable opposition made there against before Aerius (and that cried down as an Heresy) Nor since till this last Age, And shall duly consider with all, that if Episcopal Government had not had an indubitable institution from the Authority of Christ and his Apostles, or if any other Form of Church Government could have pretended to such institution, had been the most impossible thing in the world, when there neither was any outward certain power to enforce it, nor could be any General Council to establish it, to have introduced such a Form of Government so suddenly and quietly, into all Christian Churches, and not the Spirit of any one Presbyter for aught that appeareth for above three hundred years, to have been provoked either through zeal, ambition or other motive, to stand up in the just defence of their own and the Church's liberty against such an usurpation His Majesty believeth that whosoever shall consider the premises, together with the Scripture evidences that are brought for that Government, will see reason enough to conclude the same to have something of divine institution in it, notwithstanding all the evasions and objections that the subtle wit of man can devise to persuade the contrary. And therefore His Majesty thinketh it fit, plainly to tell you, that such Conjectural Interpretations of Scripture, as he hath yet met with in this Argument, how handsomely soever set off, are not Engines of strength enough to remove him from that judgement wherein he hath been settled from his Childhood, and findeth so consonant to the Judgement of Antiquity, and to the constant practice of the Christian Church for so many 100 years; which in a matter of this nature ought to weigh more than mere Conjectural Inferences from Scripture Texts that are not so attested. Which having now once told you, his Majesty thinketh himself discharged from the necessity of making so large and particular an Answer to every Allegation in the sequel of your Reply as hither he hath done.   

6. Reply. Sect. 9,  
As to the Apostles Mission and Succession. To make his Answer the shorter too so long a discourse, His Majesty declareth that his meaning was not by distinguishing the Mission and Unction of the Apostles, so to confine them as if they should relate precisely and exclusively, the one to the office, the other to the abilities, but that they did more especially and eminently so relate: For the Apostles after their last Mission, (Matth. 28 19 20.) whereby they were further warranted to their Office, and Work, were yet to wait for that promised anointing, (Luke 24. 49. Acts 1. 4.) the special effect whereof was the enduing them with Gifts of the Holy Ghost, for the better and more effectual performing of that their Work and Office. Not was it His Majesty's meaning to restrain the Extraordinaries in the Apostolical Office to those Gifts only: (for His Majesty afterwards in the same paper mentioneth other Extraordinaries also, as before is said) but only to instance in those Gifts, as one sort of Extraordinaries, wherein the Apostles we●e to have no Successors. But His Majesty's full meaning was, that the whole Apostolical Office (setting aside all and only what was personal, and extraordinary in them) consisted in the work of Teaching and Governing, which being both of necessary and perpetual use in the Church to the World's end, the Office therefore was also to continue▪ and consequently, the persons of the Apostles being mortal, to be transmitted and derived to others in succession: And that the Ordinary Successors of the Apostles immediately, and into the whole Office, both of Teaching and Governing, are properly the Bishops, the Presbyters succee●i●g them also, but in part, and into the Office of Teaching only, and that mediately and subordinatly to the Bishops, by whom they are to be ordained and authorised there●n●o, which His Majesty taketh not to be, as you call it, a dissolving of the Apostolical Office.  
Now the ground of what His Majesty hath said concerning the manner of Succession to the Apostles, that it may appear not to have been said ●●atis, is this, The things which the Scriptures record to have been done by Christ, or his Apostles, or by others at their appointment, are of three sorts some acts of Power merely extraordinary; others acts of an ordinary power, but of necessary and perpetual use; othersome last, and those not a few, Occasional and prudential, ●itted to the present condition of the Church in several times: To the Apostles in matters of the first sort none pretends succession, nor are either the Examples of what the Apostles themselves did, or the directions that they gave to others what they should do in matters of the third sort, to be drawn into consequence so fare as to be made necessary Rules, binding all succeeding Church-officers in all Times to perpetual observation. So that there remain the things of the middle sort only, which we may call Substantials, into which the Apostles are to have ordinary, and standing successors. But then the difference will be, by what certain marks, Extraordinaries, Substantials, and Prudentials may be known, and distinguished each from other. Evident it is, the Scriptures do not afford any particular discriminating Characters whereby to discern them, the Acts of all the three sorts being related in the like narrative forms, and the directions of all the three sorts expressed in the like preceptive forms. Recourse therefore must of necessity be had to those two more general Criterians [the Laws of all humane actions] Reason and Common Usage. Our own Reason will tell us, that instructing the People of God in the Christian Faith, exhorting them to Piety, and good Works, administering the Sacraments, etc. which belong to the Office of Teaching: That ordaining of Ministers▪ Inspection over their lives, and Doctrines, and orher Administrations of Ecclesiastical Affairs belonging to the Office of Governing, are matters of great importance, and necessary concernment to the Church in all Ages, and Times; and therefore were to be concredited to standing Officers in a Line of succession, and accordingly were ●udged, and the continuance of them preserved in the constant usage of the Churches of Christ: But that on the other side the decrees concerning Abstinence from Blood, and strangled, Acts the 15. The Directions given for the ordering some things in the Church Assemblies, 1 Cor. 14. For making Provisions for the Poor, 1 Cor. 16. 1. For the choice and maintenance of Widows, 1 Tim. 5. For the enoyling of the sick, james 5. 14. and other like, were but Occasional, prudential, and temporary, and were so esteemed by the Churches, and the practice of them accordingly laid aside. So for the succession into the Apostolical office, we find in the Scriptures Evidence clear enough, that the Apostles committed to others, as namely ro Timothy and Titus, the power both of Teaching and Governing the Churches. And common Reason, and Prudence dictating to us, that it is good for the edifying of the Church, that there should be many Teachers▪ within a competent precinct, but not so that there should be many Governors, And the difference of Bishops and Presbyters to the purposes aforesaid, having been by continual usage received, and preserved in the Christian Church, down from the Apostles to the present times; His Majesty conceiveth the succession of Bishops to the Apostles into so much of their Office as was ordinary, and perpetual, and such a distinction of Bishops and Presbyters as His Majesty hath formerly expressed, needeth no further Confirmation from Scripture (to such as are willing to make use of their Reason also, which in interpreting Scripture upon all other occasions they are enforced to do nor any thing by you produced in this Paragraph, any further Answer; only that distinction of Eminently and Formally, because you illustrate it by instancing in himself, His Majesty could not but take notice of, which he either understandeth not, or thinketh your Illustration thereof not to be very opposite: For Actions, and Operations flow from the Forms of things, and demonstrate the same as effects do their causes. The Apostles therefore acting in the ordinary exercise of Church Government, did act not Eminently only, but formally also, as Bishops rather than Apostles.   

7. R●ply. Sect. 10-15 As Concerning Timothy & Titus.  
First whether they were Evangelists or no, His Majesty never meant to dispute: Only, because you often call for Scripture proof, His Majesty thought fit to admonish you, that in your Answer you take two things for Granted (viz. that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and that Evangelists were such Officers as you described) Neither of which if it should be denied, you could clearly prove from Scripture alone, without calling in the help of other Writers to attest it, as in your Reply you have now done Master hooker's; Neither have you indeed brought any thing in this Reply out of Scripture to prove either of both sufficient to convince him that were of a contrary m●●d.  
Secondly, you seem (Sect. 12.) to mistake that which was the third Point in that part of His Majesty's Paper, which was not Whether Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, or no; (concerning which, His Majesty neither did, nor doth contend) But whether in the Church-Government they exercised, they acted as Evangelists (as you affirm) and so only as extraordinary Officers, or not? Zuinglius (having said that the Name of a Bishop and Evangelist is the same thing) proveth it from 2 Tim. 4. and concludeth, Constat idem fuisse officium utriusque, Bishop and Evangelist the same Office both. Gerrard saith, the word Evangelist in that place is taken generally, and not in the special sense; that is to say, for a Minister of the Gospel at large (and the Context there indeed seemeth to import to more) and not for an Evangelist by peculiar Office. And Scultetus not only affirmeth, That S. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to Ephesus and Crete, not as Evangelists, but as Church-Governors; but saith further, That the Epistles written to them both do evince it, and also bringeth Reasons to prove it. Upon what particular Reasons Gillespy, etc. reject the conceit of their acting as Evangelists, his Majesty certainly knows not: But if this be one of their Arguments (as to their best remembrance from whom His Majesty had the Information it is) That if whatsoever is alleged from the Scripture to have been done by the Apostles, and by Timothy and Titus, in point of Ordination, Discipline and Government, may be eluded by this, that they acted therein as extraordinary Officers, There will be no proof at all from Scripture of any power left in any ordinary Church Officer to the purposes aforesaid: His Majesty then recommendeth to your most sober thoughts to consider, First, how this conceit of their acting as extraordinary Ministers only, tends to the subversion of all Ministers, as well as of the Bishops (since upon this very ground, especially the Socinians deny all Mission and Ordination of Ministers in the Church.) And secondly, If the contrary be proved by Gillespy, etc. by good Arguments, That they acted as ordinary Officers in the Church, then, Whether they have not thereby laid a better foundation for the claim of Bishop's viz. of Governing the Churches as single persons in ordinary Office) then either they or you are willing to acknowledge.  
Thirdly, His Majesty thinketh it a great liberty which you take in rendering the sense of his Reply, as you have done; viz. The Scriptures never call them Bishops, but the Fathers do: Whereas if you had followed his sense in that Paper, you might rather have delivered thus, The Scripture describeth them as Bishops, and the Fathers call them so For that of yours, The Scripture calls Timothy an Evangelist; some of late have refuted it, and rejected it with scorn: You should have said rather, The Scripture doth not any where affirm of Titus, nor clearly prove of Timothy, that they were (by peculiar Office) Evangelists; but that in governing the Churches they acted as Evangelists, or extraordinary Officers, is by sundry late Writers (the Evasion itself having been but of late minted) refuted and rejected. For that of yours, The Scripture relates their motion from Church to Church; but some affirm them to be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete: It should have been, Neither doth their motion from Church to Church hinder, but that they might afterwards be fixed at Ephesus and in Crete: Neither doth their being Bishops of Ephesus and Crete hinder, but they might afterwards, for propagation of the Gospel, be by the Apostles appointment often employed other where. For that of yours, The Scripture makes distinction of Evangelists and Pastors, but some say, that Timothy and Titus were both: It should have been, The Scripture maketh no such distinction of Evangelists and Pastors, but that the same persons might not only successively be both, but even at the same time also be called by both Names.  
Fourthly, though you say, You do not undervalue the Testimonies and Cat●logues mentioned, yet you endeavour (which cometh not far short of undervaluing) to lessen the reputation of both but too much; Of those Testimonies, by putting them off, as if when they report Timothy and Titus and others to have been Bishops, they speak but vulgarly, or by way of allusion, and not exactly as to the point in Debate. But of Hierom, upon whom you chief rely in this Cause, the contrary is evident, who in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, wherein he was to deliver things Fide Historicâ, and to describe the persons of such as are Registered in that Catalogue by their proper and known distinctive Titles and Styles, he expressly styleth Timothy, Titus, Mark, Polycarp and others, Bishops of such and such places; and such on the other side as were but mere Presbyters Ecclesiae Antio henae, or Alexandrinae Presbyter, etc. observing the difference so constantly and exactly throughout the whole Book, that nothing can be more clear, then that he understood the word Episcopus no otherwise, then in the ordinary Ecclesiastical sense, and as a Bishop is distinct from a Presbyter. As for that passage you allege out of him, by custom in the judgement of learned men, he must mean the practice of the Apostolic times; and by Dominica dispositio, the express Precept of Christ, unless you will have him contradict what himself hath written in sundry other places; Whose Testimonies in the behalf of Episcopal Superiority, are so clear and frequent in his Writings, that (although he of all the Ancients be least suspected to favour that Function overmuch) yet the Bishops would not refuse to make him Arbitrator in the whole Business: As for the Catalogues, there will be more convenient place to speak of them afterwards.  
Fifthly, your long Discourse concerning the several stations and removes of Timothy and Titus (13, 14.) and their being called away from Ephesus and Crete (15.) His Majesty neither hath time to examine, nor thinketh it much needful (in respect of what he hath said already) so to do. It is sufficient to make His Majesty at least suspend his Assent to your conjectures and inferences; First, that he findeth other learned, from the like conjectures to have made other inferences; as namely, That Timothy and Titus having accompanied Paul in many journeys, Postea & tandem, were by him constituted Bishops of Ephesus and Crete. Secondly, that supposing they were, after the times of the several Epistles written to them, sent by the Apostles to other places, or did accompany them in some of their journeys, even for a long time together, it cannot be concluded thence, that they were not then Bishops of those Churches, or that the Government of those Churches was not committed to their peculiar charge: If it be supposed withal (which is not reasonable) that their absence was commanded by the Apostle, and that they left their Churches cum animo revertendi. Thirdly, that the places which you press again of 1 Tim. 1. 3. & Tit. 1. 5. weigh so little to the purpose intended by you, even in your own judgements (for you say only They put fair to prove it) that you cannot expect they should weigh so much in his, as to need any further Answer; save only, That His Majesty knoweth not what great need or use there should be of leaving Timothy at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete, for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, with such particular directions and admonitions to them for their care therein, if they were not sent thither as Bishops: For either there were Colleges of Presbyters in those places before their coming thither, or there were not; if there were, and that such Colleges had power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons without a Bishop, Then was there little need of sending Timothy and Titus so solemnly thither about the work; if there were none, than had Timothy and Titus power of sole ordination, which is a thing by you very much disliked. Those inconveniences His Majesty thinketh it will be hard wholly to avoid upon your Principles.  
That Discourse you conclude with this Observation, That in the same very Epistle to Timothy, out of which he is endeavoured to be proved a Bishop, there is clear evidence both for Presbyters imposing hands in Ordination, and for their Ruling: Yet His Majesty presumeth you cannot be ignorant, that the evidence is not so clear in either particular, but that in the former very many of the Latin Fathers especially, and sundry later Writers, as Calvin and others, refer the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the remoter Substantive Grace or Gift, and not to that of Imposition of hands; and so understand it as meant of the Office of Presbytery, or as we were wont to call it in English, by derivation from that Greek word of Priesthood in Timothy himself, and not of a College or Company of Presbyters collectively imposing hands on him: And that the Greek Fathers, who take the word collectively, do yet understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there, a Company of Apostles or Bishops who laid hands on Timothy in his Ordination to the Office of a Bishop (as was ordinarily done by three joining in that act in the Primitive and succeeding times) and not of a College of mere Presbyters. And that in the latter particular, to wit, that of Ruling, The place whereon His Majesty conceiveth your Observation to be grounded, hath been by the Adversaries of Episcopal Government generally and mainly insisted upon, as the only clear proof for the establishing of Ruling-Lay-Elders, which interpretation His Majesty knoweth not how far you will admit of.   

VIII. Reply, 16. As to the Angels of the Churches,  
HIs Majesty's purpose of naming these Angels in his first Paper, sufficiently declared in his second, required no more to be granted for the proving of what he intended, but these two things only: first, That they were Personae singulares; and than that they had a Superiority in their respective Churches, aswel over Presbyters as others, which two being the Periphrasis or definition of a Bishop, His Majesty conceived it would follow of itself, That they were Bishops: That the Epistles directed to them in the respective Reproofs, Precepts, Threaten and other the contents thereof, did concern their fellow Presbyters also, and indeed the whole Churches (which in your last you again remember) His Majesty did then and doth still believe, finding it agreeable both to the tenor of the Epistles themselves, and to the consentient judgement of Interpreters. Only His Majesty said and still doth, That that hindereth not, but that the Angels to whom the Epistles were directed, were Personae singulares still: This His Majesty illustrated by a Similitude, which though it do not hold in some other respects, and namely those by you observed (for His Majesty never dreamt of a fourfooted Similitude) yet it perfectly illustrates the thing it was then intended for, as is evident enough, so that there needeth no more to be said about it.  
That which you insist upon to prove the contrary from Revel. 2. 24. But I say to you (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plurally) and to the rest in Thyatira, is plainly of no force, if those Copies in which the copalative conjunction is wanting, be true; for then the Reading would be this, But I say to you the rest in Thyatira: But following the ordinary Copies, the difficulty is not great, such manner of Apostrophes by changing the number, or turning the speech to another person, being very usual both in Prophetic Writings, such as this Book of Revelation is, and in Epistles of this nature written to one, but with reference to many others therein concerned. Beza expoundeth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to you, (that is, the Angel as Precedent, and his colleagues the other Presbyters) and to the rest, that is, to the whole flock or people; which manner of speaking might be illustrated by the like forms of speech to be used in a Letter written to a Corporation, wherein the Major and Aldermen especially, but yet the whole Town generally were concerned, but directed to the Major alone; or from a Lord, containing some Orders for his own household especially, and generally for the whole Township, but by the Inscription directed to his Steward only, or the like.  
The consent of ancient and later Writers was produced by His Majesty for the proof of the two things before named only, but especially of the first, viz. That the Angels were Personae singulares: (For the latter, viz. That they were superior to Presbyters also, had been confessed by yourselves in your first Grant before) but was not produced to prove the Conclusion itself immediately, viz. That they were Bishops in distinct sense, although sundry of their Testimonies come up even to that also. But to the first point, That they were Single persons, the concurrence is so general, that His Majesty remembreth not to have heard of any one single Interpreter, before Brightman, that ever expounded them otherwise: And yet the same man (as His Majesty is informed) in his whole Commentary upon the Revelation, doth scarce, if at all, any where else, save in these Seven Epistles, expound the word Angel collectively, but still of one single person or other, insomuch as he maketh one Angel to be Gregory the Great, another Queen Elizabeth, another Cranmer, another Chemnitius, and the like; but generally both the Fathers and Protestant Divines agree in this, That the Angel was a Single person, some affirming plainly, and that in terminis, he was the Bishop; some naming the very persons of some of them, as of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, and others, some calling him the chief Pastor or Superintendent of that Church; and those that speak least, and were more or less disaffected to Bishops, as Beza, Doctor Reynolds, the Geneva Noto, and even Cartwright himself, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Precedent or chief among the Presbyters. And this they do sundry of them, not crudely delivering their Opinions only, and then no more, but they give Reasons for it, and after examination of the several Opinions, prefer this before the rest, affirming, That Doctissimi quique interprete; all the best learned Interpreters so understand it, and that they cannot understand it otherwise vim nisi facere Textui velint, unless they will offer violence to the Text.  
That which His Majesty said concerning the Subdivision of those that had divided themselves from the common judgement of this Church, was meant by His Majesty, as to the Subdivision in respect of this particular of the Angels, wherein they differ one from another, as to the division in respect of their dislike of Bishops, wherein they all agree: And truly His Majesty doth not yet see, how either their differences can be possibly reconciled in the former (not accommodation in the world being able to make all the people of the whole Church, nor yet a College consisting of many Presbyters, to be one single person) or their recess wholly excused in the latter, their dissenting from the common and received judgement, practice of the Christian Church, in the matter of Episcopacy, and the evil consequents thereof, having in His Majesty's opinion, brought a greater reproach upon the Protestant Religion, and given more advantage (or colour at least) to the Romish party, to asperse the Reformed Churches in such sort as we see they do, than their disagreement from the Church of Rome in any one controverted point whatsoever besides hath done.   

IX. Reply, 17, 18. As to the Apostles Successors,  
HEre little is said, the substance whereof hath not been Answered before; His Majesty therefore briefly declares His meaning herein, That the Apostles were to have no necessary Successors in any thing that was extraordinary, either in their Mission or Unction; That His Majesty spoke not of Succession into Abilities otherwise then by instance, mentioning other particulars withal, which thing he thinketh needeth not to have been now the third time by you mentioned; That in the Apostles Mission or Commission (for His Majesty under the name of Mission comprehended both) and consequently in the Apostolical Office, as there was something extraordinary, so there was something ordinary, wherein they were to have Successors; That Bishops are properly their Successors in the whole Apostolical Office, so far as it was ordinary, and to have Successors; That therefore the Bishop's Office may in regard of that Succession, be said to be Apostolical; That yet it doth not follow that they must needs be called Apostles, taking the Denomination from the Office, in as much as the Denomination of the Apostles, peculiarly so called, was not given them from the Office whereunto they were sent, but (as the word itself rather importeth) from the immediateness of their Mission, being sent immediately by Christ himself; in respect whereof for distinction sake, and in honour to their persons, it was thought fit by those that succeeded in common usage, to abstain from that Denomination, and to be styled rather by the Name of Bishops; That if the Apostles had no Successors, the Presbyters (who are their Successors in part, immediately and subordinately to the Bishops) will be very hard set to prove the warrant of their own Office and Mission; which if not derived from the Apostles (who only received power of Mission from Christ) by a continued line of Succession, His Majesty seethe not upon what other bottom it can stand.   

X. Reply, 19-23. As to the standing Officers of the Church,  
YOu insisted upon two places of Scripture, Phil. 1. 1. and 1 Tim. 3. to prove that there were to be no more standing Officers in the Church, than the two in those places mentioned (viz.) Presbyters (who are there called Bishops) and Deacons; whereunto His Majesty's answer was, That there might be other, though not mentioned in those places: which Answer, though it were alone sufficient, yet ex abundanti, His Majesty shown withal, that supposing your interpretation of the word Bishop in both the places (viz. to denote the Office of Presbyter only) there might yet be given some probable conjectures, which (likewise supposed true) might satisfy us, why that of Bishop in the distinct sense, should not be needful or proper to be named in those places.  
His Majesty's former Reason, though in Hypothesi, and as applied to the Church of Philippi, it be but conjectural, yet upon the credit of all Ecclesiastical Histories and consideration of the condition of those times, as it is set forth in the Scriptures also, it will appear in Thesi, to be undoubtedly true (viz.) That the Apostles themselves first planted Churches; that they were perpetual Governors, and in chief of all the Churches whilst they lived; that as the burden grew greater by the propagation of the Gospel, they assumed others in partem curae, committing to their charge the peculiar oversight of the Churches in some principal Cities, and the Towns and Villages adjacent, as James at Jerusalem, and others in other places sooner or later, as they saw it expedient for the service of the Church: That the persons so by them appointed, to such peculiar charges, did exercise the powers of Ordination, and other Government, under the Apostles, and are therefore in the Church Stories, called Bishops of those places in a distinct sense; That in some places where the Apostles were themselves more frequently conversant, they did for some while govern the Churches immediately by themselves, before they set Bishops there; and that after the Apostles times, Bishops only were the ordinary Governors of the Churches of Christ: And His Majesty believeth, it cannot be proved either from clear evidence of Scripture, or credible testimonies of Antiquity, that ever any Presbyter or Presbytery exercised the power either of Ordination at all without a Bishop, or of that which they call Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in ordinary, and by their own sole Authority, or otherwise, then as it was delogated unto them upon occasion, and for the time by Apostles or Bishops.  
For that place of Phil. 1. 1. in particular, His Majesty's purpose being, not to interpret the place (a work fit for Divines) but to manifest the inconsequence of the Argument, whereby you would conclude but two standing Officers only, because but two there named, gave this as one probable conjecture why there might be no Bishop in distinct sense there mentioned, because possibly the Apostles had not as yet set any Bishops over that Church, which His Majesty did not propose as the only, no, nor yet as the most probable conjecture (for which cause He delivered it so cautiously, saying only, It might be probable) but as that which for the present came first into his thoughts, and was sufficient for his purpose, without the least meaning thereby to prejudice other interpretations; as namely, of those Expositors who take the words (with the Bishops and Deacons) as belonging to the persons saluting, and not to the persons saluted; to this sense Paul and Timotheus the servants of Jesus Christ, with the Bishops and Deacons, to the Saints at Philipi, etc. or of those who affirm, and that with great probability to, That Epaphroditus was then actually Bishop of Philippi, but not to be mentioned in the Inscription of the Epistle, because he was not then at Philippi, but with St. Paul at Rome when that Epistle was written: Any of which conjectures, if they be true (as there is none of them utterly improbable) that place of Phil. 1. 1. will not do you much service in this Question.  
In the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, the Apostle directeth and admonisheth them as Bishops, particularly concerning Ordination of Ministers, that they do it advisedly, and Ordain none but such as are meetly qualified for the Service of the Church; which Directions and Admonitions, His Majesty believeth for the substance to belong to all Bishops of after times▪ aswel as unto them: But His Majesty seethe no necessity why in those Epistles there should be any particular Directions given concerning the Ordination of Bishops, at least unless it could be made appear, That they were to ordain some such in those places, nor perhaps if that could be made to appear, in as much as in those Epistles there is not the least signification of any difference at all between Presbyters and Deacons in the manner of their Ordination, both being to be performed by the Bishop, and by Imposition of Hands, and to both comprehended under that general Rule (Lay hands suddenly on no man) but only, and that very little, and scarce considerable (as to the making of distinct Offices) in the qualification of their persons.  
The Ordination therefore of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, being to be performed in the same manner, and the same qualifications after a sort, saving such differences as the importance of their several Offices make (which is more in the degree then in the things) being required in both, it had been sufficient if in those Epistles there had been direction given concerning the Ordination and Qualification of but one sort of Church Officers only; as in the Epistle to Titus, we see there are of Presbyters only, and no mention made of Deacons in the whole Epistle: whence it may be aswel concluded, That there was to be no other standing Officer in the Church of Crete but Presbyters only, because S. Paul giveth no directions to Titus concerning any other, as it can be concluded, That there were to be no other Officers in the Church of Ephesus, but Presbyters and Deacons only, because S. Paul giveth no directions to Timothy concerning any other.   

XI. Reply, 23, 27. As to the Ages succeeding the Apostles,  
COncerning the judgement of Ecclesiastical Writers about the Divine Right of Episcopacy, His Majesty conceiveth the difference to be more in their Expressions then in their Meaning, some calling it Divine, others Apostolical, and some (but not many) Ecclesiastical; but that the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters began in the Apostles times, and had its foundation in the Institution either of Christ himself or of his Apostles, His Majesty hath not heard (Aerius excepted) that any till these latter Ages have denied.  
For that which you touch upon concerning the word Infallible, His Majesty supposeth you knew his meaning, and he delighteth not to contend about words.  
As for the Catalogues, some uncertainties in a few (a frailty which all humane Histories are subject to) His Majesty taketh to be insufficient to discredit all differences there are in Historiographers, in reciting the Succession of the Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian Kings, and of the Saxon Kings in England: And we find far more inextricable intricacies in the Fasti Consulares, the Catalogues of the Roman Consuls (notwithstanding their great care in keeping the public Records, and the exactness of the Roman Histories) then are to be found in Episcopal Catalogues, those especially of the chiefest Cities, as Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus, etc. yet as all men believe there were Kings in those countries', and Consuls in Rome in those times, so (as you might well foresee would be answered) the discrediting of the Catalogues of Bishops, in respect of some uncertainties (although His Majesty doubteth not, but many of the differences you instance in, may be fairly reconciled) tendeth rather to the confirming of the thing itself.  
That which you say in Answer hereunto, That the Ecclesiastical Writers called them Bishops, incomplyance to the Language of their own times, after the names of Presbyters and Bishops were distinguished, but that they were not indeed Bishops in the proper sense now in Question: His Majesty who believeth the distinction of those names, to have begun presently after the Apostles times (if not rather whilst some of them were living) doth consequently believe, that as they were called, so they were indeed Bishops in that proper sense. It appeareth by Ignatius his Epistles every where, how wide the difference was in his time between a Bishop and a mere Presbyter: If Hierom only and some a little ancienter than he, had applied the name Bishop to persons that lived some ages before them, there might have been the more colour to have attributed it to such a compliance as you speak of; but that they received both the name and the truth of their relations from unquestionable Testimonies and Records, His Majesty thinketh it may be made good by many instances: For example, to instance in one only, Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, who is thought to be the Angel of that Church in the Revelation; Ignatius, who was contemporary with him, wrote one Epistle to him, and sends salutation to him in another as Bishop of Smyrna; Many years after Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in France, (whose Writings were never yet called in question by any) not only affirms him to have been constituted Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles, but saith, That he himself when he was a boy, had seen him a very old man; Tertullian next, a very ancient Writer, affirmeth, That he was Bishop of Smyrna, there placed by St. John. After cometh Eusebius, who in his Ecclesicastical History not only Historically reporteth of his being Bishop there, as he doth of other Bishops; but citeth also for it the Testimonies both of Ignatius and Irenaeus (which by the way giveth good credit to Ignatius his Epistles too.) Then Hierom also and others lastly attest the same. And it cannot be doubted, but Eusebius and Hierom had in their times the like certain Testimonies and Grounds for sundry others, whom they report to have been Bishops; which Testimonies and Records are not all come to our hands.  
For the Testimonies of Clemens and Ignatius, His Majesty saith, First, That though it be not reasonable that the Testimony of one single Epistle should be so made the adequate measure of Clemens his Opinion, as to exclude all other proofs from his Example, or otherwise; yet His Majesty, since Clemens was first named by you, and the weight of the main Cause lieth not much upon it, is content also for that matter to refer himself to that Epistle. Secondly, That His Majesty could not but use some earnestness of expression in the cause of Ignatius against some who have rejected the whole volumn of his Epistles, but upon such Arguments as have more lessened the rephtation of their own Learning, than the Authority of those Epistles, in the opinion of moderate and judicious men: And yet Blendellus, lafoy very learned man, though he reject those Epistles, confesseth notwithstanding the Ancient Fathers gave full Credence thereunto.  
The Apostles, you say, did not ordain themselves Bishops of any particular places; and yet the Bishops of some particular places are reported in the Catalogues to have been Successors to such or such of the Apostles, and even the Names of such Apostles are entered into the Catalogues: To this his Majesty saith, That the Apostles were formally Bishops by virtue of them Mission) from Christ, as hath been already declared, but did neither ordain themselves, nor could be ordained by others, Bishops of such or such particular Cities: Although His Majesty knoweth not, but that they might, without prejudice to their Apostleship, and by mutual consent, make choice of their several quarters wherein to exercise that Function, as well as St. Peter and St. Paul by consent went the one to the Circumcision, the other to the Gentiles: But such apportionments did not entitle them to be properly called Bishops of those places, unless any of them by such Agreement did fixedly reside in some City; of which there is not in the History of the Church any clear unquestionable Example: If James the Lord's Brother (who was certainly Bishop of Jerusalem) were not one of the Twelve Apostles, as the more general opinion is that he was not; yet did the Churches of succeeding times, for the greater honour of their Sees, and the memory of so great Benefactors, enter the head of the Lists or Catalogues of their Bishops, the Names of such of the Apostles as had either first pianted the Faith, or placed Bishops, or made any long abode and continuance, or ended their days among them: yet doth not the true Title of being Successors to the Apostles thereby accrue to the Bishops of those places, more than to other Bishops, but all Bishops are equally Successors to the Apostles in two other respects; The one, for that they derive their Ordination by a continued Line of Succession from the Apostles: The other, for that they succeed into the same Apostolical Power and Function, which the Apostles as ordinary Pastors had.  
Your motion to reduce this whole Dispute to Scripture alone, were the more reasonable, if the matter in question were properly a point of Faith: And yet even in points of Faith (as the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, and sundry other) the uniform judgement of the Church hath been ever held of very considerable regard; but being a matter of Fact, as before was said, which the Scriptures do not deliver entirely and perspiscuously in any one place together, but obscurely, and by parts; so that the understanding thereof dependeth merely upon conjectural Interpretations, and uncertain probabillities, nor assure any certain distinguishing Characters, whereby to discern what therein is extraordinary, what Prudential, and what of necessary and perpetual Obligation, there seemeth to his Majesty to be a necessity of admitting the subsequent Judgement and Practice of the Christian Churches into the Trial.   

XII. Reply, 29, etc. As to the three Questions proposed by His Majesty,  
HIs Majesty resteth very much unsatisfied, That you have now again wholly declined the answering of those three Questions so clearly proposed by him, which yourselves also confess to be of great importance, upon this only pretence, That the whole volumn of Ecclesiastical Policy is contained in them: Whereas His Majesty did neither expect nor require from you any large or Polemical Discourse concerning those QUESTIONS; but yet did conceive you were (in order to His Satisfaction and your own Undertaking) in some sort obliged to have declared in few words what your judgement was therein, with the grounds thereof, that so His Majesty might have taken the same into His further consideration, than which nothing could have more condued to the informing of his judgement, and the satisfaction of his Conscience; which His Majesty also further conceives you might have done, with the tenth part of that pains you have hitherto bestowed to other purpose, and therein have given full as much satisfaction to His desires, as he expected, and in all likelihood better satisfaction to His judgement than he yet findeth, or can hope to find from you, so long as you hold off from declaring your opinions concerning those Questions: For certainly until one of these three things can be clearly evidenced unto His Majesty (viz.) Either that there is no certain form of Church Government at all prescribed in the Word, or if therebe, that the Civil power may change the same as they see cause; or if it be unchangeable, that it was not Episcopal, but some other, His Majesty thinks himself  in the judgement of all reasonable men, if he cannot as yet be induced to give his consent to the utter Abolition of that Government in the Church, which he found here settled to his hands, which hath continued all over the Christian world, from the times of the Apostles, until this last age, and in this Realm ever since the first Plantation of Christianity, as well since the Reformation as before, which hath been confirmed by so many Acts of Parliament, approved as consonant to the holy Word of God, in the Articles of our Religion, and by all the Ministers of the Church of England, as well by their personal subscriptions, as otherwise, so attested and declared, and which himself in his judgement and conscience, hath for these many years been, and yet is persuaded to be at least of Apostolical Institution and Practice: Truly, His Majesty cannot but wonder what should be the reason of your great shyness and unwillingness to discover your minds in a matter of so great & necessary consequence: and for a final conclusion of this whole dispute (which His Majesty thinketh fit to shut up with this Paper) he must plainly tell you, That your endeavours to have given him satisfaction in the Questions proposed, would have added much in his opinion to the reputation of your ingenuity in the whole undertaking; it being not probable you should work much upon his judgement, whilst you are fearful to declare your own, nor possible to relieve his Conscience, but by a free declaring of yours.  
Nevertheless, His Majesty liketh well of your Prayer in the close of your Paper, and thinketh you should do very well to join therewith your utmost possible endeavours towards the settling of Truth, and a happy Peace in this unsettled Church and Kingdom.   
FINIS.