His majesty's PAPER Containing several Questions propounded to the Commissioners Divines Touching Episcopacy. With an humble Answer returned to his Majesty by Mr. Martial, Mr. Vines, Mr. Carill, and Mr. Seaman 4. October 1648. Dieu ET MON DROIT London printed by Moses Bell, 9 Octob. 1648. SIR: I Have received your Letter of the 28. of September, for which I give you many thanks, and to satisfy you that the Treaty goeth on; I have sent you what hath passed here of late, which is as followeth: Upon occasion of debate upon the Proposition of the Church, in which his Majesty makes divers scruples of Conscience, there was a concession that our Ministers, (that is, Mr. Martial, Mr. Vines, Mr. Carill, and Mr. Seaman) should attend his Majesty, to remove such objections as he should please to make, and accordingly on Monday morning they waited on his Majesty, to whom the King delivered these enclosed Questions; whereunto they have returned this Answer now also sent. These Propositions of the Church are still under debate, and will take up this week or more in the consideration of them: which being once granted (as some are of opinion they will be) we may thereby hope for a very speedy consent to all the rest. Commend me to all my friends, whose names I purposely omit, and rest Newport in the Isle of Wight, 4. of October, 1648. Yours to Command: W. M. Charles R. I Conceive that episcopal Government is most consonant to the Word of God, and of an apostolical institution, as it appears by the Act. 14. 23 Acts 6. 6 1 Cor. 16. 1 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor 5. 3 3 Joh. 9 10 1 Tim. 5. 22. Titus 1. 5 Rev. 2. 3 Chap. 1 Tim. 5. 19 Tit. 3. 10 Scripture, to have been practised by Apostles themselves, and by them committed, and derived to particular persons as their Substitutes or Successors therein (as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others) and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ, and therefore I cannot in Conscience consent to abolish the said Government; notwithstanding this my persuasion I shall be glad to be informed, if our Saviour and the Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty as they might totally alter or change the Church Government at their pleasure: which if you can make appear to me, than I will confess that one of my great Scruples is clean taken away: And then there only remains; That being by my Coronation Oath obliged to maintain episcopal Government, as I found it settled to my hands: whither I may consent to the abolishing thereof until the same shall be evidenced to me to be contrary to the Word of God. Newport, 2. Octob. 1648. An humble Answer returned to your majesty's Paper delivered to us, Octob. 2. 1648. May it please Your Majesty: WE do fully agree without hesitation, That thes Scriptures cited in the margin of your Paper, Acts 14. 23. Acts 6. 6. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 3 John 9 10. do prove, That the Apostles did ordain Presbyters and Deacons, give rules concerning Christian Discipline, and had power of exercising censures over Presbyters and others; and that these places of Scripture, 1 Tim. 5. 22. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim. 5. 19 Titus 3. 10. do prove, That Timothy and Titus had power to ordain Presbyters and Deacons, and to exercise Censures over others; and that the second and third Chapters of the Revelations do prove, That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches, and exercising Censures: But that either the Apostles, or Timothy and Titus, or the Angels of the Churches were Bishops, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, exercising episcopal Government in that sense; or that the Apostles did commit and derive to any particular persons as their Substitutes and Successors, any such episcopal Government; or that this is proved in the least measure by the Scriptures alleged, we do as fully deny; And therefore do humbly deny also, That episcopal Government is therefore most consonant to the Word of God, and of apostolical institution, or proved so to be by these Scriptures. None of these were Bishops, or practised episcopal Government, as Bishops are distinct from Presbytery; neither is such an Officer of the Church as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, to be found in the new Testament (by which we humbly conceive, That our faith and conscience touching this point ought to be concluded: The Name, Office, and work of Bishop and Presbyter being one and the same in all things, and never in the least distinguished, as is clearly evident, Tit. 1. 5, 7. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Presbyters in every City, as I had appointed thee, for a Bishop must be blameless. In which place the Apostles reasoning were altogether invalid and inconsequent, if Presbyter and Bishop were not the same Office, as well as they have the same name. The same is manifest, Acts 20 17, 28. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the Presbyters of the Church, to whom he gave this charge, vers. 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flocks over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops; to feed and govern the Church of God: Where we observe, That the Apostle being to leave these Presbyters, and never to see their faces more, vers. 38. doth charge them with the feeding and governing of the Church, as being Bishops of the Holy Ghosts making: But that the Holy Ghost did make any superior or higher kind of Bishops than these common Presbyters, is not to be found in that, or any other Text. And that under the mouth of two or three witnesses this assertion of ours may stand; we add to what we have already said, That in the first of Peter 5. 1, 2. The Presbyters which are among you, I exhort, who am also a Presbyter, feed the flock of God which is among you; Performing the Office of Bishops. Where it appears plain to us, That under the words used in this place, is expressed whatsoever work the Presbyters do, more for the Government or good of the Church, otherwise than is there expressly enjoined unto Presbyters. By all which that hath been said, The point is rendered most clear to the judgement of most men, both ancient and of latter times, That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the new Testament, as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter: Neither doth the Scripture afford us the least notice of any qualification required in a Bishop, that is not required in a Presbyter; nor any Ordination to the Office of a Bishop, distinct from a Presbyter; nor any work or duty charged upon a Bishop, which Presbyters are not enjoined to do; nor any greater honour or dignity put upon them. For that double honour which the Apostles speak of, 1 Tim. 5. 17. As due to Presbyters that rule well, is with a note of especially affixed to that act or work of labouring in the Word of Doctrine; which is not that act wherein Bishops have challenged a singularity or peculiar eminency above the Presbyter. To that which your Majesty doth conceive, That episcopal Government was practised by Apostles themselves; We humbly answer, That the Apostles, as they were the highest officers of the Church of Christ, so they were extraordinary in respect of their Commission and gifts, and office, and distinguished form all other officers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church; First Apostles, Secondly Prophets, Thirdly Teachers Ephefians. 4. 1. 1. Christ gave some Apostle, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pasters, and some Teachers; Whereby the Apostles are distinguished from Pastors, and Teachers who are the ordinary Officers of the Church for Preaching the word, and Government: that they had power and authority to ordain Church-Officers, and to excercise censures in all Churches we affirm, and withal, that no other Persons or Officers of the Church may challenge or assume to themselves such power in that respect alone, because the Apostles practised it, except such power belong unto them in common, as well as to the Apostles, by warrant of the Scripture, for that Government which they practised was apostolical, according to that peculiar Commission and Authority which they had, and no otherwise to be called episcopal; then, as their Office was so comprehensive as they had power to do the work of any, or all other Church-Officers; In which respect they call themselves Presbyteri, Deaconi, (but never Episcopi in distinct sense) and therefore we humbly crave leave to say, That to argue the Apostles to have practised episcopal Government, because they ordained other Officers, and exercised censures, is, as if we should argue a Justice of Peace to be a Constable, because he doth that which a Constable doth in some particulars. It's manifest that the Office of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinct in the Apostles, they did not Act as Bishops in some Acts, and as Presbyters in other Acts; The distinction of Presbyters and Bishops being made by men in after times. And whereas your Majesty doth conceive, That the episcopal Government, was by the Apostles committed and delivered to particular persons, as their Substitutes or Successors therein (as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising censures over Presbyters and others) seeming by the alleged places of Scriptures to instance in Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches. We humbly answer▪ 1 And first to that of Timothy and Titus, we grant, That Timothy and Titus had authority and power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of exercising censures over Presbyters and others, though we cannot say they had this power as the Apostles Substitutes or Successors in episcopal Government, nor that they exercised the power they had, as being Bishops in the sense of your majesty, but as extraordinary Officers or Evangelists, which Evangelists were an Office in the Church, distinct from Pastors and Teachers, Ephesians 4. 11. And that they were Evangelists, it appears by their being sent up and down by the Apostles, or taken along with them in company to several Churches, as the necessity and occasion of the Church did require; the one of them being expressly called an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. And neither of them being anywhere in Scriptures called Bishop, neither were they fixed to Ephesus and Crect, as Bishops in the Churches committed to them, but removed from thence to other places, and never, for aught appears in Scriptures, returned to them again: And it seems clear to us, that neither their abode at Ephesus and Crect was for any long time, nor so intended by the Apostle, for he employs them there upon occasional business, and expresseth himself in such manner, (I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some, that they teach no other Doctrine, 1 Timothy 13. For this cause left I thee in Crect, Titus 1. 5. As doth not carry the fixing or constituting of a Bishop in a place as a perpetual governor: And it is as manifest, that they were both of them called away from these places, 2 Tim. 4. 9 Do thy diligence to come to me shortly, Titus, 3. 12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicapolis; so that they may as well be called Bishops of other city, or Church where they had any considerable abode, as they are pretended to have been of Ephesus and Crect, as they are called by the Postscripts of these Apostles, the credit of which Postscripts we cannot build upon in this point. 2 Secondly, to that of the Angels of the Churches, the Ministers of the Churches are called Stars and Angels, which Denominations are metaphorical and a mystery, Rev. el 1. 20. The mystery of the seven stars, angels in respect of their mission or sending; St●●●… in respect of their station and shining. And it seems strange to us, that so many express testimonies of Scriptures, and allegorical denominations or mysteries should be opposed; These Angels being nowhere called Bishops in vulgar acceptation▪ nor the word Bishop used in any of John's writings, who calls himself presbyter, nor any mention of superiority of one presbyter to another, but in Diotrophes effecting it. And as to that which may be said that Epistles are directed to one; We answer that an number of persons are in the mysterious and prophetic writings expressed in singulars. And we humbly conceive that being written in an Epistolary stile (for they are as Letters or Epistles to the Churches) these writings are directed as Letters to collective or representative bodies use to be; that is to one, but are intended and meant to the body in meeting assembled▪ which that they were so intended, is clear to us, both because there were in Ephesus Bishops, and presbyters one and the same, to whom the Apostle at his farewell commended the Government of the Church, and by divers expressions in these Epistles, as Revel. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira, by which distinction of you and the rest, we conceive the Church-governments (which were more than one) and the people to be signified, and so cannot consent that any singular person had majority over the rest, or sole power of exercising Church censures and Government spoken of in these Chapters. Having thus (as we humbly conceive) proved by pregnant places of Scripture compared together, that the Apostles themselves did not institute or practise episcopal Government, nor commit and derive it to particular persons as their substitutes or successors therein. We shall in further discharge of our duty to, and for, the more clear and full satisfaction of your Majesty in this point, briefly declare into what Officers hands, the ordinary and standing offices of the Church were transmitted and derived by, and from the Apostles. The Apostles had no Successors in eundem gradum: The apostolical office was not derived by succession, being instituted by Christ, by extraordinary and special commission; but for the ordinary and standing use and service of the Church, there were ordained only two orders of offices, viz. Bishops and Deacons, which the Apostle expresseth, Phil. 1. 1. To all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Phillipi, with the Bishops and Deacons; And only of them doth the Apostle give the due characters of Officers: ay Tim. 3. 2. 8: From both which places of Scripture we conclude with ancient Expositors both Greek and Latin, that Bishops are the same with presbyters, and besides presbyters, there is no mention of any other Order, but that of Deacons; of both which Orders there were in the Apostles times, in one City more than one, as in Philippi and Ephesus. And we humbly offer to your Majesty as observable; That though one order might be superior to another order, yet in the same order of Officers, there was not any one superior to others of the same order; No Apostle was above an Apostle, no Evangelist above an Evangelist, no presbyter above a presbyter, no Deacon above a Deacon: And so we conclude this part, that since Church Officers are instituted and set in the Church by God, or Christ Jesus; And that Ordination by or in which the Office is conveyed is of no other Officers but of Presbyters and Deacons; therefore there are no other orders of ordinary and standing Officers in the Churches of Christ. As for the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles, we answer, First, Our faith reacheth no further than the holy Scriptures; no human testimony can beget any more than an human faith. Secondly, We answer, that it is agreed upon by learned men, as well such as contend for Episcopacy as others; that the times immediately succeeding the Apostles, are very dark in respect of the History of the Church. Thirdly, That the most unquestionable record of those times, gives clear testimony to our assertion, viz. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, who reciting the Order of Church Officers, expressly limits them to two Bishops, and Deacons; And they whom in one place he called Bishops, he always afterwards nameth Presbyters. The Epistles of Ignatius pretend indeed to the next Antiquity, but are by some suspected as wholly spurious, and proved by Videlius to be so mixed, that it is hard if not impossible to know what parts of them are genuine. Besides Bishop Usher in his last observations on them. Cap 18. Page, 238. confesseth that of the twelve of his epistles, six are counterfeit, the other fix mixed, and none of them in every respect accounted sincere and genuine. Fourthly, We grant that not long after the Apostles times, Bishops in some superiority to presbyters, are by the writers of those times reported to be in the Church, but they were set up not as a Divine Institution, but as an ecclesiastical, (as afterwards both archbishops and patriarchs were,) which is clear by Doctor Reynolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowles, wherein he shows out of Bishop Jewel, that Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and many more holy Fathers, together with the Apostle Paul, agree that by the word of God there is no difference between a Presbyter and a Bishop; And that Medina in the council of Trent affirms not only the same Fathers but also another Jerome; Theodoret, Primatius, Sedulius, and Theophilact, to be of the same judgement: and that with them agreed Occuminius, Anselm Archbishop of Canturbury, and another Anselm; Gregory and Gratian, and after them many others; that it was inroled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholic doctrine, and publicly taught by learned men, and adds, that all who have laboured in the reformation of the Church for these five hundred years, have taught that all Pastors, be they instituted Bishops or Priests, have equal authority and power by God's word. The same way goes Lombard Master of the sentences, and Father of the schoolmen, who speaking of Presbyters and Deacons, saith the Primitive Churches had those Orders only; and that we have the Apostles precept for them alone; with him agree many of the most eminent of that kind, and generally all the canonists; to these we may add Sextus Senensis, who testifies for himself and many others, and Cassander who was called by one of the German Emperors, as one of singular ability and integrity, to inform him and resolve his conscience in questions of that nature, who saits it is agreed among all in the Apostles times, there was no difference betwixt a Bishop and a presbyter. For a conclusion we add, that the doctrine which we have here in propounded to your Majesty concerning the identity of the Order of Bishops and presbyters, is no other than the Doctrine published by King Henry the eight, 1543. For all his Subjects to receive, seen and allowed by the Lords both spiritual and temporal, with the nether House of Parliament: of these two Orders only (so saith his book) that is to say, Priests and Deacons, the Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred of by the Apostles by prayer, and imposition of their hands; by all which it seems evident that the order of episcopacy, as distinct from presbyters, is but an ecclesiastical Institution, and therefore not unalterable. Lastly we answer, that that episcopal Government which at first obtained in the Church did really and substantially differ from episcopal Government, which the Honourable Houses of Parliament desire the abolition of. The Bishop of these times was one presiding in, and joining with the presbytery of his Church ruling with them, and not without them, either created and made by the presbyters choosing out one among themselves, as in Rome and Alexandria, or chosen by the Church, and confirmed by three or more of his neighbours of like dignity within the same precinct. Lesser towns and Villages had and might have had Bishops in them as well as populous and eminent Cities, until the council of Sardis decreed that Villages and small Cities should have no Bishops, lest the name and authority of a Bishop might thereby come into contempt; but of one claiming as his due and right to himself alone, as a superior order or degree, all power about Ordination of presbyters and Deacons, and all jurisdictions either to exercise himself, or deligate to whom he will of the Laity or Clergy, as they distinguish according to the judgement and practice of these in our times; we read not till the latter and corrupter ages of the Church. By all which it appears, that the present Hierarchy, (the abolition whereof is desired by the Honourable Houses may accordingly be abolished;) and yet possibly the Bishops of these Primitive times might be, they are so far differing one from another. In answer to that part of your majesty's Paper, wherein you inquire whether our Saviour and his Apostles did so leave the Church at liberty, as they might totally alter or change the Church-government at their pleasure; we humbly conceive, that there are substantials belonging to Church-government, such are appointed by Christ and his Apostles, which are not in the church's liberty to alter at pleasure: But as for archbishops &c. we hope it will appear unto your majesty's conscience, that they are none of the Church governors appointed by our Saviour and his Apostles; we beseech your Majesty, rather to look to the original of them then Succession. FINIS.