The HIs T 0 R y of the PuRITANS. VoL. n. K. Charles I. " and takes particular notice of the decency of their manner, and of their ~ "r~fpectful . addrefs to him upon .this occa~?n, but fays ~hey mifiook · " h1m, when they fpoke of a wnt of partition of the ep1fcopal office; « whereas his meaning was, that the office of teaching was common " both to the bilhop and prdbyter, but that government was peculiar to " the bifhop." His majefty declines anfwering to all the particulars, becaufe he would not draw out the difpute into a greater length, but feems unconvinced by any thing that had been offered; he affirms, that Timothy and 'I'itus were epffcopi pajlorum, bifhops over prdbyters; and that 'limothy had a di!l.inet work from prefbyters, that is, that he might know bow to behave bi"!fe!f in the exerc!fe if his epifcopal office. His ma– jefiy relies on the numerous tefiimonies of ancient and modern writers, for the fcripture original of bifhops, and adds, that the tdl:imonies of an equal number of equal credit to the contrary will fignify nothing, becaufe one witnefs for the qffirmative ought to be of more value than ten for the ne~ gative-In conclufion his majelly put them upon evidencing one of thefe three things, (I.) either that there is no form of church govern– ment preli::ribed in fcripture. Or (2.) if there be, that the civil power may change it as they fee caufe. Or (3.) if it be unchangeable, that it was not epifcopal, but fame other that they will name, for till this is done he {hall think himfelf excu(able for not confenting to the aboliiliing that government which he found fettled at his coronation; which is fo ancient, has been fo univerfally received in the chriflian world, has· been confirm~ ed by fo many a& of parliamen t, and fubfcrihed by all the clergy of th~ church of Englm1d. But the minifiers declined entring into fo large a field, which mufi have brought on a debate concerning the whole ecclefi– aftical polity of the church. R emarlu. ~·. 216. Thefe were all the pap·ers which palfed on both fides, and deferve the notice of thofe who would enter into this controverfy. His majefiy fay~ ing, that one witnefs for the affirmative, that epifcopacy is of divine infli.– tueion, ought to be of more value than ten for the negative, is (I appre~ hend) one of theweakefi and mofi frivolous arguments of his letter; for 'tis only ch{lnging the form of the queftion, and making the prefbyterian fay, that presbytery is if divine inJtitution, and 'then a!king his majelly, or any epifcopal divine, whether one qffirmative teftimony ought not to be of more value than te'll negative ones of equal merit. His majefiy 's {tile is firong and mafculine, and that of the parliament divines decent and refpeetful. Sir Phi!. Warwick read the king's pap\!fS before the commif– :fioners, and Mr. Vines thofe of the minill:ers: all was managed with the greatefi propriety, which makes it hard to excufe lord C/arendon's ac~ count of the behaviour of thefe divines, who fays " they v.ll behaved -- '' with
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=