HIS majesty's REASON why He cannot in Conscience consent to abolish the episcopal Government.  
Delivered by Him in writing to the Divines that attend the honourable Commissioners of Parliament at the Treaty at Newport Octob. 2. 1648.  
With the Answer of the said Divines delivered to His majesty in writing. October 3. 1648.  
LONDON Printed by William Wilson, 1648.   

His majesty's Reason why He cannot in conscience consent to abolish the episcopal Government.  
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 Scripture to have been practised by Apostles 
Acts 14. 23. Acts 6. 6. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 3 John 9 10.  themselves, And by them committed, and derived, to particular Persons, as their Substitutes, or Successors therein (as for ordaining Presbyters, & Deacons, giving rules concerning Christian Discipline, and exercising 
1 Tim. 5. 22. Titus 1. 5. Revel. 2. 3. c. 1 Tim. 5. 19 Titus 3. 10.  censures over Presbyters and others) And hath ever since till these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ; And therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the 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 obleiged to maintain episcopal Government, as I found it settled to my hands, whether 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.   

The Answer of the Divines to His majesty's Reason, why He cannot in Conscience consenr to the abolishment of episcopal Government.  
May it please Your Majesty,  
WE do fully agree without hesitation, that these Scriptures cited in the margin of your paper, Act. 14. 23. Acts 6. 6. 1 Cor. 16. 1. 1 Cor. 14. 1 Cor. 5. 3. 3 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. Tit. 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 Presbyters and others. And that the second, and third Chapters of the Revelation do prove; That the Angels of the Churches had power of governing of the Churches, and exercising censures.  
But that either the Apostles, or Timothy and Titus, or the Angels of the Churches were Bishops, as Bishops are distinct from Presbyters, exercising 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 Presbyters. Neither is such an Officer of the Church as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter to be found in the New Testament (by which 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, Titus 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 Apostle his reasoning were altogether invalid, and inconsequent; if Presbyter and Bishop were not the same Office, as well as they have the same Name.  
The same is manifest, Acts 20 17. 28. And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the Presbyters of the Church, to whom he gave this charge, verse 28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 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 verse 28. doth charge them with the feeding and governing of the Church; as being Bishops of the Holy Ghosts making. But that the Holy Ghost did make any 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 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. The Presbyters which are among you, I exhort, who am also a Presbyter. Feed the flock of God Which is among you, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} performing the office of Bishops, where it appears plain to us, that under the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} & {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} used in this place, is expressed whatsoever work the Presbyters are to do. Neither can Bishops, so called, as above Presbyters, do more for the government and good of the Church otherwise, than is there expressly enjoined unto Presbyters. By all which that hath been said the point is rendered to be most clear to the judgement of most men, both ancient, and of later times. That there is no such Officer to be found in the Scriptures of the New Testament, as a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter: neither doth the Scripture afford us the least notice of any qualification required in a Bishop, that is not required in a Presbyter, nor any Ordination to the Office of a Bishop, distinct from a Presbyter: nor any work or duty charged upon a Bishop, which Presbyters are not enjoined to do: nor any greater honour or dignity put upon them. For that double honour which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 5. 17. as due to Presbyters that rule well, is with a note of (especially) affixed to that Act or work of labouring in the word and doctrine, which is not that Act wherein Bishops have challenged a singularity, or peculiar eminency above the Presbyters.  
To that which Your Majesty doth conceive, That 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, gifts, and office, and distinguished from all other Officers, 1 Cor. 12. 28. God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly, Teachers, Ephes. 4. 11. Christ gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. Where the Apostles are distinguished from Pastors and Teachers, who are the ordinary Officers of the Church for preaching the word, and government. That they had power and authority to ordain Church Officers, and to exercise 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 the peculiar commission, and authority which they had, and no otherwise to be called Episcopal, than as their Office was so comprehensive, as they had power to do the work of any, or all other Church Officers, in which respect they call themselves Presbyteri, Diaconi, (but never Episcopi in distinct sense) and therefore we humbly crave leave to say, that to argue the Apostles to have practised 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 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. Seeming by the alleged places of Scripture, to instance in Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Churches. We humbly answer, and first, to that of Timothy and Titus. We grant that Timothy and Titus had Authority, and power of ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and of exercising censures over Presbyters, and others: though we cannot say they had this power as the Apostles Substitutes, or Successors in Episcopal Government; nor that they exercised the power they had, as being Bishops in the sense of your Majesty, but as extraordinary Officers, or Evangelists, which Evangelists were an office in the Church distinct from Pastors, and Teachers, Eph. 4. 11. and that they were Evangelists, it appears by their being sent up and down by the Apostles, or taken along with them in company to several Churches, as the necessity, and occasion of the Churches did require; The One of them being expressly called an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4. 5. And neither of them being anywhere in Scripture 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 Scripture, 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 expresses himself in such manner, (I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightst charge some, that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Tim. 1. 3. For this cause left I thee in Greete, Tit. 1. 5.) as doth not carry the fixing, or constituting of a Bishop in a place as a 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, Tit. 3. 12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis. So that they may as well be called Bishops of other Cities, or Churches, where they had any considerable abode, as they are pretended to have been of Ephesus and Greete. As they are called by the Poscripts of those Epistles, the credit of which Postscripts we cannot build upon in this point.  
Secondly, To that of the Angels of the Churches.  
The ministers of the Churches are called stars, and Angels, which denominations are metaphorical, and in a mystery, Rev. 1. 20. the mystery of the seven stars, Angels, in respect of their mission, or sending. stars in respect of their Station, and shining. And it seems strange to us, that to so many express testimonies of Scripture, an allegorical denomination, or mystery 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 Diotrephes affecting it. And as to that which may be said, that the Epistles are directed to one, we answer, that a number of persons, are in the mysterious, and prophetic writings expressed in singulars, and we humbly conceive, that being written in an Apostolary Style, (for they are as letters or Epistles to the Churches,) these writings are directed as letters to collective Representative bodies use to be. That is, to one, but intended & meant to that body in meeting assembled; which that they were so intended is clear to us, both because there were in Ephesus Bishops and Presbyters, one and the same, to whom the Apostle at his farewell commendeth the Government of the Church: And by divers expressions in these Epistles, as Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatyra▪ by which distinction of you and the rest, we conceive the particular governors, (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 farther 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 & 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 & special Commission. But for the ordinary and standing use and service of the Church, there were ordained only two Orders of Officers, viz. Bishops and Deacons, which the Apostle expresseth, Phil. 1. 1. To all the Saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons; And only of them doth the Apostle give the due Characters of Officers, 1 Tim. 3. 2. 8. From both which places of Scripture we conclude with ancient Expositors both Greek and Latin, that Bishops are the same with Presbyters, and besides Presbyters, there is no mention of any other order but that of Deacons. Of both which Orders in the Apostles times, there were in one City more 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 reaches no farther than the holy Scriptures. No human testimony can beget any more than a 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's to the Corinthians, who reciting the Orders of Church Officers, expresely limits them to two, Bishops and Deacons, and them, whom in one place he calls Bishops; he always afterwards nameth Presbyters. The Epistles of Ignatius pretend to the next antiquity, but are by some suspected as wholly spurious, and proved by Vedelius to be so mixed, that it is hard, it not impossible, to know what part of them are genuine: Besides, Bishop Usher in his late observations on them Chap. 18. page 138. confesses, that of the twelve of his Epistles, six are counterfeit, the other six mixed, and none of them in every respect to be accounted sincere and genuine. Fourthly, We grant, That not long after the Apostles times, Bishops in some superiority to Presbyters are by the writers of those times reported to be in the Church; But they were set up not as a Divine Institution, but as an ecclesiastical, as afterwards both Arch Bishops, and Patriarchs were; which is clear by Doctor Reinolds 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 Bishop and a Presbyter. And that Medina in the council of Trent affirms not only the same Fathers, but also another Jerome, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Theophytact, to be of the same judgement. And that with them agree Oecumenius; Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, and another Anselm, Gregory and Gratian, and after them many others; That it was enrolled 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 500 years have taught that all Pastors, be they entitled 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 Church had those Orders only, and that we have the Apostles precept for them alone. With him agree many of the most eminent in that kind, and generally all the Canonists. To these we may add Sextus Senensis, who testifies for himself, and many others. And Cassander, who was called by one of the Germame Emperors as one of singular ability, and integrity, to inform him, and resolve his conscience in questions of that nature; who said, It is agreed among all, that in the Apostles times, there was no difference between a Bishop, and a Presbyter. For a conclusion, we add, that the Doctrine which we have herein 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 8. 1543. for all his subjects to receive, seen and allowed by the Lords both spiritual and temporal, with the nether House of Parl. Of these two Orders only (so saith the Book) That is to say, priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer, and Imposition of hands. By all which it seems evident, that the Order of episcopacy, as distinct from Presbytery, is but an ecclesiastical Institution, and therefore not unalterable.  
Lastly; we answer. That episcopal Government which at first obtained in the Church, did really and substantially differ from the episcopal Government, which the honourable Houses of Parliament, desire the abolition of. The Bishop of those times was one presiding, & joining with the Presbytery of his Church, ruling with them, and not without them. Either created, and made by the Presbyters choosing out one amongst themselves, as in Rome & Alexandria, or chosen by the Church, and confirmed by three, or more of his neighbours of like dignity within the same precinct; lesser towns, and villages had, and might have Bishops in them, as well as populous and eminent Cities, 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 claming as his due, and right to himself alone, as a superior order, or degree, all power about ordination of Presbyters, and Deacons, and all jurisdiction, either to exercise himself, or delegate to whom he will of the Laity or Clergy, (as they distinguish) according to the Judgement and Practice of those in our times, we read not till in 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 Bishop of those Primitive times be. They are so far differing one from another. 
In answer to that part of your majesty's Paper, wherein you require 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 as 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. And we beseech your Majesty to look rather to the original of them, than Succession.  
Octob, 3. 1648. Imprimatur, JA: CRANFORD.  
FINIS.