2 Tim. ii. 4, 5. ́ His Majesty had said that the parliament divines had said nothing to prove, that the angels of the church were not personæ singulares, and such as had a prelacy over pastors i. e. bishops, but they dealt only in generals, and seemed unwilling to speak their opinions about them.

His Majesty affirms, "That bishops are the successors of the Apostles in all things not extraordinary, such as teaching and governing; and the reasons why they are not mentioned as a distinct order in the New Testament, are 1. Because the Apostles reserved to themselves the government of those churches where they appointed presbyters, and so it is probable the Philippians had no bishop when Paul writ to them; 2. Because in the epistles of Timothy and Titus, the persons to whom he writ being themselves bishops, there was no need to write about the qualifications of any other officers than those they wanted, which were presbyters and deacons only. His Majesty admits, concerning the ages after the Apostles, That they are but a human testimony, and yet may be infallible in matter of fact, as we infallibly know that Aristotle was a Greek philosopher. He avers the genuineness of those epistles of Ignatius, which give testimony to the superiority of a bishop over a presbyter: and though his Majesty's Royal Progenitors had enlarged the power and privileges of bishops, he conceives the government to be substantially the same."

Eleven days after, the Parliament Divines replied to the King's second paper, in which they say, that they can find no such partition in the Apostolical office, in Scripture, as his Majesty mentions, (viz.) that the governing part should be committed to bishops, the teaching and administering the sacra

сс

ment to presbyters: But that the whole work, per omnia, belongs to presbyters; as appears from the two words used in the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Peter's Epistle, Пoquaivo, and ETIKOTTEW, under the force of which words, the bishops claim the whole right of government and jurisdiction; and when the Apostle Paul was taking leave of the Ephesian presbyters and bishops, he commits the government of the church, not to Timothy, who was then at his elbow, but to the presbyters under the name of bishops, made by the Holy Ghost; from whence they conclude, that bishops and presbyters must be only two names of the same order. They observe, that the obscurity of the Church History in the time succeeding the Apostles made the catalogue-makers take up their succession upon report; and it is a blemish to their evidence, that the nearer they come to the days of the Apostles, they are the more doubtful and contradictory. These divines are therefore of opinion, that human testimony on both sides ought to be discharged, and the point in debate be determined by Scripture. And here they take hold of his Majesty's concession, that in Scripture the names of bishops and presbyters are not distinguished; and that there is no mention but of two orders, bishops and deacons. They desire his Majesty to shew them, where the Scripture has assigned any particular work or duty to a bishop, that is not common to a presbyter, for they apprehend his Majesty asserting that a bishop is an ecclesiastical governor, and a presbyter an ordinary minister, without any demonstration or evidence; a few clear passages of Scripture for the proof of this (say they,) would bring the point to an issue. They deny his Majesty's distinction of Episcopi Gregis, Pastorum, bishop of sheep

15

and shepherds, as being the point in question, and affirmed without any evidence." That the office of teaching and governing was ordinary in the Apostles, because continued in the church, (we crave leave to say,) is that great mistake which runs through the whole file of your Majesty's discourse; for though there is a succession in the work of teaching and governing, there is no succession in the commission or office, by which the Apostles performed them: a succession may be to the same work, but not to the same.commission; and since your Majesty can't produce any record from Scripture, warranting the division of the office of teaching and governing into two hands, we must look upon it but as an invention of men to get the power into their hands."

These divines go on with a long proof that Timothy and Titus were evangelists; that is, not fixed to one place, but travelling with the Apostles from one country to another to plant churches, and accordingly have drawn out an account of their travels from the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul's Epistles. They observe the weakness of his Majesty's reasons, why bishops are not mentioned as a distinct order in Scripture, and add a third of their own (viz.) Because really they were not. As for the Apostles reserving in their own hands the power of governing, they admit that they could no more part with it than with their Apostleship. Had they set up bishops in all churches, they had no more parted with their power of governing, than in setting up presbyters; presbyters being called rulers, governors, and bishops, nor could the Apostle reasonably be supposed to commit the government of the church of Ephesus to the presbyters, when he was taking his last farewell of them, and yet reserve the power

of governing (in ordinary) to himself. His Majesty's other reason, (they say) is inconclusive, and in a sort begging the question. They add, that it is very unaccountable, that if there had been two sorts of bishops, one over presbyters, and the other over the flock, that there should be no mention, no mark of difference, no distinct method of ordination by which they might be distinguished, throughout the whole New Testament.

As to the ages after the Apostles, they admit there were presbyter bishops, but not of divine institution; that the catalogues of succession are undoubtedly defective, if they were not, it remains still to be proved, that the bishops in the catalogue were vested in the jurisdiction which the modern bishops claim.

These divines profess to honour the pious intentions of his Majesty's ancestors, and admit, that ornamental accessions to the person make no alteration in the office, but that the primitive episcopacy, and the present hierarchy, are essentially different. They acknowledge a subordination of the exercise of jurisdiction to the civil power, and the laws of the land; and conclude with thanks to his Majesty's condescension, in allowing them to examine his learned reply, clothed in such excellency of style, and pray, that a pen in the hand of such abilities may ever be employed in a subject worthy of it.

Some days after, his Majesty offered his last paper, wherein "he acknowledges the great pains of these divines to inform his judgment, and takes particular notice of the decency of their manner, and of their respectful address to him upon this occasion, but says they mistook him when they spoke

of a writ of partition of the episcopal office: whereas his meaning was, that the office of teaching was common both to the bishop, and presbyter; but that government was peculiar to the bishop."

His Majesty declines answering to all the particulars, because he would not draw out the dispute into a greater length, but seems not convinced by any thing that had been offered; he affirms that Timothy and Titus were Episcopi Pastorum, bishops over presbyters; and that Timothy had a distinct work from presbyters, that is, that he might know how to behave himself in the exercise of his episcopal office. His Majesty relies on the numerous testimonies, and modern writers for the Scripture original of bishops, and adds, that the testimony of an equal number of equal credit to the contrary will signify nothing, because one witness for the affirmative, ought to be of more value than ten for the negative. In conclusion, his Majesty put them upon evidencing one of these three things, 1. either that there is no form of church government prescribed in Scripture; or, 2. if there be, that the civil power may change it as they see cause; or, 3. if it be unchangeable, it was not episcopal, but some other that they will name, for till this is done, he shall not think himself excusable for not consenting to the abolishing that government which he found settled at his coronation; which is so ancient; has been so universally received in the Christian world; has been confirmed by so many acts of parliament, and subscribed by all the clergy of the Church of England.