A DEFENCE OF THE Humble Remonstrance, Against the frivolous and false exceptions of SMECTYMNWS.  
WHEREIN The right of Liturgy and Episcopacy is clearly vindicated from the vain cavils, and challenges of the ANSWERERS.  
By the Author of the said Humble Remonstrance.  
Seconded (in way of appendance) with the judgement of the famous Divine of the Palatinate, D. ABRAHAMUS SCULTETUS, Late Professor of DIVINITY in the UNIVERSITY of HEIDELBERG: Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY, and the No-right of LAY-ELDERSHIP.  
Faithfully Translated out of his Latin.  
LONDON, Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER in Paul's Churchyard at the pied-bull near St. Augustine's gate. 1641.   

TO THE KING'S MOST SACRED MAJESTY.  
Most dread Sovereign,  
YOur Majesty was pleased to cast a gracious eye upon a late Humble Remonstrance, made to the High Court of Parliament, bemoaning the lawless frequency of scandalous Libels, and modestly asserting the true right of Liturgy and Episcopacy. I little thought that so meek and gall-less a Discourse could have irritated any the least opposition; But now, I find to my grief, that even to move for Peace, is quarrel enough; and feel many fists about my ears, ere I could imagine to have offended. Occasion is taken from those quiet lines, to combine forces against the Cause I maintained. The quarrel is insolently managed by many unknown hands; Yet, the riot of these impotent Assailants should not easily have drawn me forth, had I not perceived that their confident ostentation and proud carriage in this affray, hath won them some (how undeserved soever) opinion of skill, with their credulous Abettors; and thereby, some disadvantage to my just cause. As one therefore that hates to betray the truth by an unfaithful silence, I do cheerfully enter these lists; rejoicing to hope that Your Majesty's Eye may be the Judge and Witness of my success. Neither shall it be displeasing to Your Majesty, that Your most honourable Peers, and most faithful Commons, now assembled, shall see the injustice, and ungroundedness of that bold Appeal, which was made to them, by my daring Answerers; whose Abilities I tax not, but their Fidelity I must; as those who have sought foully to abuse their implored Judges with false shows of misalleged Antiquity, and merely colourable pretences of proofs: Which if I do not make good to them and the world in this ensuing Discourse, let the blemish of reputation lead way to the sharpest censure upon the person of  
Your Majesty's zealously-loyal Subject, The most humble Remonstrant.   

A DEFENCE OF THE Humble Remostrance.  

SECT. I.  
MY single Remonstrance is encountered with a plural Adversary that talks in the style of We, and Us: Their names, persons, qualities, numbers, I care not to know; But, could they say, My name is Legion, for we are many; or were they as many Legions as men, my cause, yea Gods, would bid me to meet them undismayed, and to say with holy David, Though an host should incamp against me, 
Psal. 27.3.  my heart shall not fear: The truth of God, which I maintain, shall bear me up against the discouragements of my confessed weakness; In which just confidence I do gladly fly to the Bar of this high and honourable Court, craving no favour but justice.  
Besides number, these men think perhaps to carry it by bulk; for those that spare not to condemn the multitude of my few words, lash out into so tedious an Answer, that if I should return them a Reply in the same proportion, the Readers eye would be tired with the very prospect, and his tongue could not but say, Quis leget haec? But, though they have had so little mercy on him, as to put him to the penance of their longsome Volume, I dare not abuse his leisure in following them in every step of their loose and superfluous discourse; but shall so contract their lavish sheets, as that whiles I save time, I shall not lose aught of truth.  

Acts 17▪ 22. Areopagus Mars-hill, or The C●urt of Areopagites.  And first, these brief men complain of the length of my Preface; and fetch their grounds afar off, from the admired sons of Justice, the Areopagis: The Areopagis? who were those? Truly my masters, I had thought this had been the name of the place, not of the men. It is an ill sign, they say, to stumble at the threshold. And what say the admired Areopagis, the grave Judges of Athens? They condemn Prefaces, and Passion; neither of which can be justly charged upon the Remonstrance: For the Passion, let any Reader judge, whether aught can be more calmly, more mildly written; and for the Preface, brethren, your censure is palpably mistaken; for that which you miscall the Preface, is one of the main pieces of the substance of that intended Discourse, which was a too just complaint of the shameful number of Libels, lately dropped from our lawless Presses; A point no less considerable, nor less essential to that proposed Remonstrance, than those, which your peremptory Analysis makes the only subject thereof. I beseech you brethren, spend your Logic upon your own Works, let mine be such as I contrive them.  

Branded, and misliked, etc.  Those trifling cavils which you are pleased to make at some phrases of this misnamed Preface, are not worth notice; It is not for us to run after the spending of every mouth: Belike, it angers you, to hear of the honesty of my moderate Paper, out of the conscience of your own guiltiness. fain would you excuse that which the world cries shame on, the multitude of the late seditious Pamphlets; whereat you might well blush in silence; when an honourable person in open Parliament could reckon up no less than sevenscore, that had passed the Press since the beginning of this Session.  

Pag. 4.  Those other verbal exceptions are but light froth, and will sink alone; that scum may be worth taking off, which follows; wherein I shall desire all indifferent eyes to judge, whether these men do not endeavour to cast unjust envy upon me, against the clear verdict of any knowing man's conscience: In comparing of Governments of Churches and States, I had said, that if Antiquity may be the rule, the Civil Polity (as in general notion) hath sometimes varied, (as that of the state of Rome had done to seven several forms) the Sacred, never; The Civil came from arbitrary imposers, the Sacred from men inspired: these gracious Interpreters would needs draw my words to the present, & particular Government of our own Monarchy, as if I employed that to be variable and arbitrary; and are not ashamed to mention that deadly name of Treason; Whereas no man that is not wilfully blind, but sees that I speak of the common forms of Government, that are in the several States and Dominions in the world; whereof some are ruled by an Aristocracy, others by a Democracie, others by a Monarchy, whether limited, or absolute, others by a mixed form of all these; which were in the first beginnings, in the free arbitrement of their Founders; not aiming at the settled Government of any one Kingdom, much less of our own.  
Brethren, whiles you desire to seem godly, learn to be less malicious. In the mean time, God bless all good men from such charity, and our sacred Monarchy from such friends. The form of the Episcopal Government of the Church hath, contrarily, been ever one and the same, without any considerable variation; and if it have anywhere invaded the Civil administration and yoked Monarchy, it is the insolence of the persons, not the fault of the Calling: And if William Rufus, a Prince noted for grossly irreligious, oppressed by tyrannical Popish Prelates, did let fall this choleric word, that he would have the Jews confute them, and that rather than fail, England should turn Jewish, on this condition; Is this an argument for any Christian to use, for the confuting of godly, and loyal Protestant Bishops? which are ready to be censured rather for too great observance of Sovereignty? Let any but a Jew judge, whether this be a fit instance for a Christian. Any thing serves against Episcopacy; The testimony of a Pope, (whom these men honour highly) Pius 4. is also brought in as irrefragable, against the Divine right of Bishops. And what says Antichrist? He tells the Spanish Ambassador, that his Master, suing for the Counsels declaration of this truth, knew not what he demanded; for Bishops so declared, would be exempted from his Regal power, and as independent as the Pope himself. Tell me, brethren, Do ye like, or believe this assertion, because a Pope said it? Or can ye blame him (who would have all Episcopal Jurisdiction derived merely from himself) to be unwilling that their right should be yielded to have the same grounds which he pretends for his own? And if there might be this danger in those Kingdoms where the Clergy challengeth an exemption from the power of all Secularity; why is this enviously upbraided to those of ours, who do gladly profess, notwithstanding the Apostolical, that is, Divine right of their calling, to hold their places and exercise of their Jurisdiction wholly from His Majesty?  
Not less spiteful, nor more true, is your observation of the comparison made between the endeavours of alteration in our neighbour Church, by our Episcopal faction, and that which is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to the honourable House. It is a foul slander to charge the name of Episcopacy with a faction, for the fact imputed to some few. Fie brethren, are ye Presbyters of the Church of England, and dare challenge Episcopacy of faction? Had you spoken but such a word in the time of holy Cyprian, whom you frequently cite, as a pattern of good discipline, what had become of you? Neither is the wrong less, to make application of that which was most justly charged upon the practices, and combinations of libelling Separatists, to humble and peaceable Petitioners; the one railing downright upon an established and holy Government, whom I deservedly censured, the other modestly suing for a reformation of the abuses of Government: Surely, whiles the worst are thus patronised by our indulgent answerers, it is an hard question, Whether the Libelers themselves, or these their mis-zealous Advocates, are more justly to be branded for Incendiaries.   

SECT. II.  
AFter this overflowing of your gall, you descend to the two main subjects of this quarrel, Liturgy, and Episcopacy. I had truly said that our Liturgy hath been hither to esteemed sacred, reverently used by holy Martyrs, frequented by devout Protestants, as that which hath been confirmed by Edicts of religious Princes, and our own Parliamentary Acts. And hath it so? say you; Whence then proceed so many▪ Additions and Alterations, that have changed the face, and fabric thereof? Additions and Alterations? What in the present Liturgy? where or what? tell me, I beseech you brethren, are they visible, or are they not? If not, how come ye to see them? if so, why cannot we? perhaps somewhere in stead of Priest, there is Minister; perhaps Absolution is interpreted by a Remission; perhaps in private baptism, there is mention of a lawful Minister; perhaps in stead of Purification of women, there is Thanksgiving; And can ye know the Book when ye see it again, after these Alterations, these Additions? Is it not now with this mis-altered Liturgy, as with the disguised Dames, mentioned of old by D. Hall, (whom you name, I dare say, for honour's sake) so misshapen by their monstrous fashions, that their redivived Grandsires could not now know them? Can ye but blush at this envious and groundless suggestion?  
And why should not I speak of Martyrs, as the Authors and users of this holy Liturgy? why should not we glory in their name and Authority? sleight you them as you please, we bless God for such Patrons of our good cause: What a poor return is this? Whiles I tell you what our holy Martyrs did, You tell me what one of our Bishops said; As if we were bound to make good every word that falls from the mouth of every Bishop: Even of the best man we may say as the Psalmist doth of Moses, effutiit labiis, he spoke unadvisedly with his lips; As for the words themselves; If a Bishop have said, that our Liturgy hath been so wisely and charitably framed, as that the Devotion of it yieldeth no cause of offence to a very Pope's ear, as only aiming at an uncontroversory Piety, I see not what heinous fault can herein be imputed to the speech, or the Author: Would you think it requisite that we should chide, and quarrel when we speak to the God of Peace?  
It is no little advantage therefore both to our cause and Piety, that our Liturgy is taught to speak several Languages, both for use and example; and thereby our Church hath gained much justification and honour: As for that sharp censure of learned Mr calvin's, Tolerabiles ineptiae, how ever it might well have been forborn by him, In alienâ republicâ; and by you, to press it upon our own; we honour the name of that noble instrument of God's glory in his Church, yet withal, we fear not to say, without any disparagement to his worth, That our Liturgy both in the frame, and survey of it, passed the judgement of no less reverend heads than his own: Neither would you think it could become any of our greatest Divines, to meddle with the wafers, or Lordsday markets of his charge; let every Church take care of their own affairs.  
As for that unparallelled discourse of mine, concerning the Antiquity of Liturgies; Unparalleled, you say, because no man, that you have seen, ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as I have done; I must tell you, that perhaps there may be some things in the world, that may have escaped your not-omniscient eyes, and perhaps this may be one; I cannot help your wonder, but I shall justify my own Assertion. In the mean while, ye do almost yield the question, ere you argue it; If by Liturgy (you say) this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies, of praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, administration of Sacraments, etc. Such a Liturgy we know, and acknowledge, both jews and Christians have used; This yielded, what stick you at? That there were prescribed, and stinted forms composed by particular men in the Church, and imposed upon the rest, this will not down with you; Wherein I cannot see, how ye will avoid your own contradiction; For I demand; Is this order of praying and administration set, or no? If it be not set, how is it an order? and if it be a set order both for matter and form (for you cannot, I suppose, under the name of an order, intent a mere Table, or Rabrick) how can it be other, then prescribed? if the forms were merely arbitrary, to what use was the prescription of an Order? and, if they were not arbitrary, certainly they were in some sort stinted and imposed.  
But what a poor exception is this? that they were composed by some particular men; Was it ever heard that a whole Church together framed a form of prayer? Can one uniform expression be the original act of many thousand brains, and tongues? Certainly, some one, or few, must mould that, which all shall both own and use. It is a silly ostentation of Antiquity, that these men bring against these prescribed forms of Liturgy.  
Tertullian in his Apol. Chap. 30. says, The Christians of those times did in their Assemblies pray for the Emperor, 
* If we may not rather take it to allude to the manner of the Heathens, who because their gods were multinomines, according to their several powers and virtues, had certain monitors to put the suppliants in mind of the appellations of their Deities, as Desiderius Heraldus thinks; and to this purpose brings that of S. Augustine, cited out of Seneca; as he reads it, Alius numina Dei subjicit; or as Lipsius, nomina; however it cannot give the least colour to the sense intended by the Answerers.  Sine monitore, quia de pectore; that is, not being urged by any superior injunction, but freely out of the loyal inclination of their own hearts: (You mis-english it, Without any prompter but their own hearts.) What is this to a prescribed form? Or if they will needs so take it, why do they not as well argue, That because our Ministers do ordinarily in their Pulpits pray for the King in their own expressions, therefore there is no form of Liturgy enjoined? As for their other testimony, it is less to the purpose; Who ever denied that some things are to be asked according to every man's occasion? Do we abridge this liberty by ordaining a public form? And if the Lord's Prayer be yielded for an ordinary and stinted form, why not others? Since the opposers of stinted forms, do, upon the same grounds, decry that also. 
Aug. Ep. 121  S. Austin says, it is free to ask the same things that are desired in the Lord's Prayer, aliis atque aliis verbis, (in other ways of expression) who ever doubted of it? 
Aug. de bon. persever. c. 22. utinam tardi corde sic audirent disputationes nostras ut magis intuerentur orationes nostras, quas semper habuit, & habebit Ecclesia ab exordiis suis, usque dum finiatur seculum.  Yet themselves will not dare to hold, that in S. Augustine's time, there was no public Liturgy; this is but to mock the Reader.  

Just. Mart. Apol. 2. The words are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: That is, with all intention; and implied in that of the same Justin Martyr, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  If justin Martyr said, that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] (whom they somewhat guiltily translate, The Instructor of the people) prayed (as they falsely turn it) according to his ability: It is true; So do ours, and yet God be thanked we have a Liturgy, and so had they. Neither is this liberty of pouring out ourselves in our prayers ever the more impeached by a public form, since both those may, and do well stand together.  
It is somewhat magisterially said by these men, that Set and imposed forms were not introduced, till the Arrian and Pelagian heresies did invade the Church; 
Conc. Laod. c. 19 First the prayers of the Catechumeni preceded, than those of the Penitents followed, than those of the Faithful concluded.  And as Clerkly do they immediately confute themselves, by their own testimonies cited out of the Council of Laodicea, which was before their limited time, as being before the Nicene: and betwixt that and the Neocesarean. Nothing can be more full than the Canon of that ancient Synod, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Con. Laod. c. 8  That the same Liturgy of prayers should be always used both in morning and evening. Yet to mend the matter, This (say they) was a form of a man's own prescribing: Were it so, wherein is that the better? But how appears it? By another Canon in a following Council, which was the third Council of Carthage, cap. 23. As if Carthage meant to tell what was before done at Laodicea. And what say the Fathers at Carthage? That in assisting at the Altar (so are their words) the Prayer should be directed to the Father, & quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit: That is, whosoever shall offer to make use of any other form than is prescribed, should first confer with his more learned brethren: Plainly implying the contrary to that, for which the Answerers allege it, That the usual and allowed form was not of his own composing; and his own must not be at his own choice. 
Concil. Milev. 2. cont. Celestina. & Pelag.  That of the Milevitane Council is shuffled up by the Answerers, not with too much fidelity, for where they pretend the only drift of the Council to be, That none should use set prayers, but such as were approved of in the Synod, The words of the Council are full and affirmative, Placuit ut preces, It is ordered that the prayers or orisons which are allowed in the Synod, etc. shall be used or celebrated by all men; nec aliae omnino dicantur, and that no other shall be used in the Church, than those, etc. approved in a Synod; adding a sound reason, ne fortè aliquid, etc. Lest perhaps something may be composed by them, through ignorance, or want of care, contrary to the Faith.  
Nothing can be more plain than that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples (besides the rules) a direct form of Prayer, whiles he saith, Pray thus: Much of which form I find cited, as of ancient use, out of the Seder Tephilloth of the Jews of Portugal, the Antiquity whereof, as not knowing how I might avow, I expressed myself (within three days of the first impression) in the safe terms of the immediate edition; which these men will not be pleased to take notice of, lest they should find their mouths to be stopped beforehand; and so they should have lost their dear quarrel. Howsoever, that it may not seem too strange, that our Saviour should take up the forms, and usages, that had formerly obtained; surely, that he was pleased to make use, in the Celebration of his last, and heaven-by banquet, of both the fashions, and words which were usual in the Jewish feasts, Cassander hath well showed in his Liturgica.  
The set forms of prayer, that were used at the Mincha, and other the several occasions of the Jewish sacrifices, I find specified by learned Capellus in his Spicilegium, to whom I refer the reader.  
In the mean while, since they make such wonder of a set form, used by God's people, ever since Moses his time, I shall give them such a hint thereof, as perhaps they have not heard of before: In the Samaritan Chronicle, now in the hands of the incomparable Primate of Ireland, the Lord Archbishop of Armach, by him procured out of the Library of the famously learned Ios. Scaliger, thus they shall find, 
Post à mortuus est Adrianus (Cujus Deus non misereatur) obiitque cum luctu magno, etc.  After relation of the death of Adrian the Emperor (whom these Jews curse with a Deus conterat ejus ossa) which in their computation falls upon the year 4513. from Adam; Quo tempore abstulit, etc. At which time say they, 
* (viz. the high Priest then living)  he took away that most excellent book which was in their hands, ever since the calm and peaceable times of the Israelites, which contained those songs, and prayers, which were ever used before their sacrifices; For before every of their several sacrifices; they had their several songs, still used in those times of peace; all which accurately written, were transmitted to the subsequent generations, from the time of Moses, (the Legate) unto this day, by the ministry of the high Priest; This Book, did that high Priest embezzle, wherein was contained their Genealogies, to the days of Phineas, together with an historical enarration of the years of their generation, and life; Then which book, there is no history besides the Books of Moses, found more ancient; Thus that ancient Record.  

Buxtorfius tells us that the Creed of R. Ben Maimon was taken out of the Jews Liturgy.  That there were such forms in the Jewish Church we doubt not, but that they should be deduced to the use of the Church Evangelicall, to save the labour of their devotions, is but a poor and groundless requisition.  
Those forms which we have under the names of St. james, (who was, as Egesippus tells us, the first Bishop and Leiturgus of Jerusalem) of Basil, and chrysostom, though they have some intersertions which are plainly spurious, yet the substance of them cannot be taxed for other then holy, and ancient: And the implication of the ancient Council of Ancyra is worthy of observation, which forbids those Presbyters that had once sacrificed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to offer, or to preach, or to serve in the holy Liturgies, or administrations; Howsoever, I persuade myself every ingenuous reader finds reason and authority enough in this undeniable practice of antiquity, to outface an upstart conceit, of some giddy heads, that condemn all forms of prayer, (be they never so holy) because such.  
Now what should a man do with such sullen and crabbed pieces as these? If he cross them in plain terms, he is false? If he comply with them in good words, he Rhetoricates? What have I professed concerning conceived prayers, but that which I ever allowed, ever practised, both in private, and public? God is a free Spirit, and so should; ours be▪ in pouring out our voluntary devotions, upon all occasions; Nothing hinders, but that this liberty, and a public Liturgy should be good friends, and may go hand in hand together; and whosoever would forcibly sever them, let them bear their own blame; I perceive, this is it which these tetchy men quarrel, and dislike, that I make the applause of conceived prayer, but a vantage-ground to lift up the public form of our sacred Church-Liturgy the higher; which they are indeed loath should stand upon even terms, yea above ground, professedly wrangling, first, at the Original, than the confirmation of it: For the first, I had said our Liturgy was selected out of ancient models; including in a parenthesis, [not Roman, but Christian] and thereby signifying (as any ingenuous reader would construe it) that our said Liturgy had no relation either to the place, or religion of Rome, but only to the Christian and holy matter of those godly prayers. Now these charitable men fly out into high terms, and beseech your Honours to consider, How ye may trust these men, who sometimes speaking, and writing of the Roman Church, proclaim it a true Church of Christ, and yet here, Roman and Christian stand in opposition▪ Ignorantly, or maliciously? when any man may see here is not an opposition meant, but a different modification: As when the Prophet says, I am a worm, and no man, Or; the Apostle, It is no more I, but sin, Or; I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me: Neither is any phrase more common in our usual speech. In what sense we hold the Roman, a true Church, is so cleared by the unanimous Suffrages of unquestionable Divines, that this iron is too hot for their fingers. Being then thus qualified, our Liturgy needs not be either ashamed of its original, (published in King Edward's proclamation) or blanked with their unjust aggravation.  
The composers of it we still glory to say, were holy Martyrs, and Confessors of the blessed Reformation of Religion; and if any rude hand have dared to cast a foul aspersion on any of them, he is none of the Tribe I plead for, I leave him to the reward of his own merits: Thus composed, and thus confirmed by the recommendation of four most religious Princes, and our own Parliamentary Acts, they dare not absolutely discharge it; but they do as they may, nibble at it in a double exception, The one of the overrigorous pressing of it, to the justling out of Preaching, and conceived Prayer, which was never intended either by the Lawmakers, or moderate Governors of the Church; The other, that neither our own Laws, nor K. James his proclamation are so unalterable as the Laws of the Medes & Persians. Which bold flout, how well it becomes their gravity, and pretended obedience, we leave at either Bar.  
After an over-comprehensive recapitulation of their exploits in this mighty Section, they descend to two main Quaere's, whereof the first is, Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the present Liturgy; Intimating herein, not an alteration in some few expressions, excepted against, but a total alteration in the very frame of it, as their reasons import. Yes doubtless, Sirs, ye may consider of it; it is none of the Laws of the Medes and Persians. What if the weak judgement of K. james, upon some pretended reasons, decreed all forbearance of any farther change? What if that silly and ignorant Martyr, Dr Tailor, could magnify it to B. Gardner, and others, as complete? What if great Eulogies and Apologies have been cast away upon it, by learned men, since that time? What if Innovations in Religion be cried out of, as not to be endured? yet consider of the alteration▪ Neither need ye to doubt but that this will be considered by wiser heads than your own▪ and whatsoever shall be found in the manner of the expressions sit to be changed, will doubtless be altered accordingly; but the main fabric of it, which your reasons drive at, my hope is we shall never see to undergo an alteration: Yet still do you consider of this your projected alteration, whiles I consider shortly of the great reasons of your consideration.  
First, it symboliseth much with the Popish Mass▪ Surely neither as Mass, nor as Popish: If an holy Prayer be found in a Roman Portuise, shall I hate it for the place? If I find gold in the Channel, shall I throw it away because it was ill laid? If the Devils confessed Christ the Son of God, shall I disclaim that truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? Why should we not rather allow those good prayers, which symbolise with all Christian piety, then reject those which dwell amongst some superstitious neighbours?  
It was composed, you say, into this frame, on purpose to bring Papists to our Churches. Well, had it been so, the project had been charitable, and gracious. What can be more thankworthy, then to reclaim erring souls? But it failed in the success. Pardon me, brethren; if it had done so, it was neither the fault of the matter, or of the men; but it did not: 
In his speech at Norwich Assizes, published.  Sir Edward Coke can tell you, that till the eleventh year of Qu. Elizabeth, all came to Church: Those times knew no Recusant then: At last, the Jesuitish Casuists, finding their great disadvantage by the inoffensive use of our Liturgy, determined it utterly unlawful to join in Church-service with Heretics. Hence came this alienation, hence this distraction, that we have not won more; it is not the fault of our public devotion, why do you not impute it to the want, or weakness in preaching rather? But that our Liturgy hath lost any to the Popish part, it is not more paradox than slander.  
Those stumbling blocks which you say our Liturgy lays before the feet of many, are by many removed, and amongst the rest, by a blind man, 
M. Fisher.  whose eyeless head directed how to avoid those blocks, which these quick-sights will needs see how to stumble at. But if there be found aught that may endanger a scandal, it is under careful hands to remove it.  
It is Idolised, they say, in England; they mean at Amsterdam; some Separists have made it such; never any just Protestant: Others say rather that too many do injuriously make an Idol of preaching; shall we therefore consider of abandoning it? and if some one have passed an hyperbolical praise of it, must it therefore be marred in mending?  
Multitudes of people (they say) distaste it; more shame for those that have so mistaught them; (would God too much multitude did not, (through ill teaching) distaste the truth of wholesome doctrine, and abhor Communion with the true Church of Christ) shall we to humour them, abandon both?  
There is a vast difference, (they say) between it and the Liturgies of all other reformed Churches. A difference? wherein? not in the essential points, but in some accidents, and outward formalities; Whose fault is that? ours was before theirs; why did not they conform to us; rather, than we come back to them? I may boldly say, ours was, and is the more noble Church; and therefore more fit to lead, then to follow: But indeed since our Languages, and Regions are different; what need is there, our Liturgies should be one? and why should we be more tied to their forms, than those of all other Christians, Grecians, Armenians, Cophs, Abassine, Arabian, Egyptian? all which differ in no less from each other, than we from them: Consider now, brethren, whether these reasons of a change be worthy of any consideration.  
The second Quaere is so weak, that I wonder it could fall from the pens of wise men; Whether the first reformer of religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgy, further than to be an help in the want, and to the weakness of the Minister; Brethren, can ye think that our Reformers had any other intentions than all other the founders of Liturgies, through the whole Christian, yea and Jewish Church? the least part of whose care was the help of the Ministers weakness, and their main drift the help of the people's devotion, that they knowing beforehand, the matter, that should be sued for, and the words wherewith it should be clothed, might be the more prepared to join their hearts to the Ministers tongue, and be so much more intent upon their devotion, as they had less need to be distracted with the doubtful expectation of the matter, or words to be delivered.  
It is no less boldly then untruly said, that all other Churches reform, though they use Liturgies, do not bind their Ministers to the use of them; [Binding] is an ambiguous word; 
I beseech you tell me brethren, how you construe those words of Calvin which he wrote to the Protector of England. Anno 1548. Oct. 22. Quod ad formulam precum & rituum Ecclesiasticorum, valde prob● ut certa illa extet à qua pastoribus discedere non liceat infunctione sua; tam ut consulatur quorundam simplicitati & imperitiae, quam ut certius ita constet omnium inter se ecclesiarum consensus; postremo etiam, etc. That is, As for a form of prayers, and of rites Ecclesiastical; I do greatly approve that there be a certain one extant, from which it should not be lawful for the Ministers in their function to depart: both that by this means provision may be made for the simplicity, and unskilfulness of some, and the consent of all Churches amongst themselves may more certainly appear; Lastly, that thus there may be a remedy for the desultory levity of some men that affect still certain innovations; as I have showed that the Catechism itself serves for this purpose. So therefore there ought to be a set form of Catechism, a set form of administration of Sacraments, and of public Prayers.  I am sure both the French, and Dutch, Churches (in both which I have been present) require their prescribed forms, to be used both in Baptism, and in Celebration of the Lords Supper, and in solemnisation of Matrimony: And in what rank will they place the Lutheran Churches? And if the Reformed Churches use this liberty, what a poor handful are they to that world of Christian Churches abroad, which do both use and enjoin their Liturgy, in that first form we have seen urged in the Melevitane Council?  
The Rubric in King Edward's book is misconstrued, which only out of respect to the people's ease, and their more willing addiction to the hearing of Sermons, (which were then so much more long as they were more rare) gave that liberty to Ministers in the use of the Liturgy, which divers Ordinaries at this day (upon my certain knowledge) have often yielded unto: That Rubric imports no more than our practice; neither of them disparages our Liturgy.  
The Homilies are left free (they say) to be read or not, by preaching Ministers; why not then the Liturgy? And if it can be thought no less than sacrilege to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preaching, and to tie him to Homilies, it can be no less to deprive them of their gift in Prayer. Did we utterly abridge all Ministers of the public use of any conceived Prayer, on what occasion soever, the argument might hold force against us; but, that being yielded▪ our Liturgy is untouched: Neither were it a lesser sacrilege to rob the people of a set form, by the liberty of a free expression: And how doth this argument more strike us then all the Churches of the Christian world, whose preaching is out of their conception, whiles their Liturgy is enjoined?  
It is a false ground, that the imposing of the Book ties godly men from exercising their gift in Prayer: An enjoined Liturgy may well stand with the freedom of a Prayer conceived: The Desk is no hindrance to the Pulpit: He is wanting to his duty, that slackneth either service.  
Much less can this be any reason to keep men from their presence at our Church-service, that a Liturgy is imposed. Tell me, Is this Liturgy good or evil? If it be evil, it is unlawful to be used; If good, it is not unlawful to be imposed: And were the imposition amiss, what is that to the people? It is imposed upon the Minister; that whether act, or passion rests in him, the people are no more concerned in it, then if a Minister should tie himself to the use of a Prayer of his own making, (as I have known some of the most famous Divines of this Kingdom constantly do:) If then there be no way left to recover the people to a stinted Prayer but by leaving it free to use, or not to use, O● miserably misled people, whom nothing belike, can reclaim, (after such doctrine instilled) but a professed confusion! Well may they object to themselves in this way, divisions and disturbances, following upon a perfect deformity; and sooner may they object then avoid them. But why more here (they say) then in other Reformed Churches? The difference is evident, Our Churches have never been but used to a settled Liturgy, which the ears and hearts of our people look for; Theirs, perhaps, began without it: Yet so, as I doubt not but if any man should now refuse to conform to their established forms, he should soon feel the dint of their censures. The like answer serves for their objected Homilies; Surely were they enjoined to all, by lawful authority, and made so familiar to the ears of every congregation, as the Liturgy is, some few could not forbear them without offence; whiles withal, they should be allowed the helps of preaching: As in this case it is done, the use of the set Liturgy being seconded by prayers conceived. But the project is singular, That if any Ministers should prove insufficient to discharge the duty of Prayer in a conceived way, it may be imposed upon him as a punishment to use set forms, and no other. Never Confessor enjoined such a penance; Never Lawmaker imposed such a mulct: Certainly it were a more just and needful motion, that many who take upon them to preach, (with so small abuse of God's sacred Word) might (as in way of correction) be enjoined only to read Homilies: But who sees not in this overture, an utter cassation of that Liturgy which is pretended to be left free? For if the freedom of a sole conceived prayer shall depend upon the supposed sufficiency of the Minister, show me the man amongst five hundred of the forward Artisans, that Will confess, or think himself insufficient for the act, or unfurnished with the gifts of Prayer. Away then with the Book, whiles it may be supplied with a more profitable nonsense. Surely, where God hath bestowed gifts, it is fit they should be employed, and improved to the best advantage of his people: But where there is nothing but an empty overweening, and proud ignorance, there is great reason for a just restraint.   

SECT. III.  
THus their cavils concerning the Liturgy are vanished, we descend to the longer quarrel of Episcopacy: Where it is their ill hap to stumble again at the entering into these Lists: beginning their answer (pardon good Reader) with a manifest leasing; whiles they dare say, that whatsoever hath been either spoken, or written by any, either learned Divines, or well reform Churches, is taxed by me, as no other than the unjust clamours of weak, or factious persons: Certainly, had I done so, I had been no less worthy to be spit upon, for my saucy uncharitableness, than they are now for their uncharitable falsehood: After my complaints of the many railing invectives, and scandalous Libels published of late, I came now to bemoan myself to that high Court of Justice, in these words; As for that form of Episcopal government which hath hitherto obtained in the Church of God, I confess I am confounded in myself to hear with what unjust clamours it is cried down abroad, by either weak or factious persons; Abroad (I say) in relation to both Houses, lest any malicious person should have traduced my words, as reflecting upon any free speech, made in either of them, against some of that calling; alluding to that impious licentiousness of our frequent Libelers, both in the City and Country, which shamefully revile Episcopacy, as wicked and Antichristian; Now come these brotherly slanderers (sure the terms can be no better) and would needs Wire-draw my words as far as France, Germany, or Geneva itself; and cry out of my Arrogancy; as condemning all Divines, all Churches; which the God of heaven knows never came within the verge of my thoughts; Yea, if I could have been so abominably presumptuous as to enlarge my [abroad] to other Nations; yet I beseech you, readers, see how well this follows; Episcopal Government is with unjust clamours cried down abroad, by either weak or factious persons, therefore, whosoever speaks or writes against Episcopacy, is either weak or factious: Brethren, if you have any remainders of modesty, or truth, left in you, cry God mercy for this egregious and palpable calumny.  

Quanquam descessu veteris confusus amici,, Juvenal.  Of the same strain is their witty descant upon my confoundedness; I made use of the phrase, as that which is taken up by the most elegant Greek and Latin Authors, to express extreme sorrow, these deep Philologers, (as not seeming to know other sense) take it of a confoundedness, through distraction; sure the man is not in his rightwits▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; And how so, trow we? Hear how he raves; He talks of all peaceable and right affected sons of the Church, and craves an admittance in all their names, whereas all could not take notice of his book; doubtless a deep frenzy; Brethren, I am still, and shall ever be thus self-confounded, as confidently to say, that he is no peaceable, and right affected Son of the Church of England, that doth not both hate Libels, and wish well to Liturgy and Episcopacy; both which sum up my humble Remonstrance.  
But this slip, they confess, is small, that other is worthy of a large Does of Ellebore; that I say, Episcopal government, that is, government by Diocesan Bishops, derives itself from the Apostles times; this (they say) they cannot but rank amongst my notorious— speak out Masters; I would not have that word stick in your teeth, or in your throat; And why is this truth so notorious; Because there were no Diocesans of above an hundred years after Christ. Now Readers, I beseech you, cast back your eyes upon those, Lines of mine, and see, whether I make any mention at all of Diocesans, but only of the sacred government by Episcopacy; Wanton wits must have leave to play with their own stern; Brethren, what needs this importunity? Even self-confounded men do not always speak false; What the joint-confession of all reformed Divines is concerning the derivation of Episcopacy from the Apostolic times, I have elsewhere showed from some, in the name of all; and shall do again in the due place; to what purpose were this unseasonable anticipation? Indeed no true Divine did ever hold otherwise: The question never was, Whether Bishops were derived from the Apostles, But what kind of Bishops they were: For us, if we not deduce ours from them in respect of all the essentials of our calling, let the shame be ours. Whereas I say the government hath continued without any interruption, they ask jeeringly, What at Rome? and tell me of some places of the world, as Scotland for example, wherein this government was never known for many years together. Brethren, what means this, whether simplicity, or scorn? Could ye imagine me to mean, that every place through the whole world hath had a continued Line of Bishops ever since the Apostles? sure you cannot so wrong your own judgements; Alas, we could tell you of China, japan, Peru, Brasil, New-England, Virginia, and a thousand others, that never had any Bishops to this day: Yet it is never the less safe to say, that the form of Government by Bishops in the Christian world, derives itself (without interruption) from the Apostles times; for as much as there hath been no time or age since them, wherein there hath not been this form of Episcopal Government continued. You tell me, that In ancient times the Scots were instructed by Priests, and Monks, and were without Bishops two hundred and ninety years. I acknowledge the words of johannes Major, I wish they had not been without, either before, or since; but what is this to my assertion? There could be no interruption of that, which had as yet no being▪ neither did I ever say that Bishops were every where.  
You come to England, there you think to have me sure; you desire to know of the Remonstrant, Whether God had a Church in England in Q. Mary's days or no? And if so, who were then Bishops? Sure, brethren, you cannot be so ignorant as you make yourselves; Have you not seen Mr Foxes Acts and Monuments? Have you not seen Mr Fr: Masons Vindication of our succession? Or do ye make no difference betwixt an intermission and an interruption? Do ye not know that even the See of Rome, (which would fain boast of a known succession) hath yet been without a Bishop longer than the whole reign of Qu. Mary; if we may believe Damasus himself, after Marcellinus, for 7. years, 6. months, and 25. days? And if after the Martyrdom of our Orthodox Bishops, revolted, or Popish governors held those Sees, they were corrupt in their places, judgement, and practise; there was not an utter abolition of their calling, which their repentance restored to its first vigour. Where I justly aver this continuance to have been without the contradiction of any one congregation in the Christian world, you vainly think to choke me with a story from our own darling, Heylin, which tells us of the furious violence of the people of Biscay against the Bishop of Pampelona, reported also by the Spanish history: to which you refer us; concealing yet, that which the same history relates, that this was done upon some attempts and wrong conceived to be offered them by the Clergy.  
A goodly instance, and fit for the gall of your ink, and as good a consequence. The Biscainers upon a private quarrel are enraged against the person of their Bishop, 
You might as well have told us out of the same Author, of the strange conditions that are in use amongst them, which they impose upon their King, if ever he come into their coast; of his riding with one leg bare, and their mocking of him with their Maravediss.  & for his sake (for the time) against his fellows; therefore some Christian Congregation denies the succession of Episcopal Government, from the times of the Apostles. Of the like validity and judgement is your instance of French, Scotish, and Belgic Churches: Who doubts of either their Christianity, or their contradiction to Episcopacy? But if you did not wilfully both shut your own eyes, and endeavour to blind the eyes of your Reader, you could not but see, that I limit the time until this present age. Good brethren, whiles you object bold falsehood to me, learn to make some conscience of truths. To let pass your untrue suggestions concerning my assertion, of one and the same form of Prayer continued from Moses to the Apostles, and by the Apostles, etc. I cannot but wonder with what face you can reckon it amongst my untruths, that Episcopal Government hath continued in this Island, ever since the first plantation of the Gospel. I challenge you before that awful Bar, to which you have appealed, name but one year ever since Christianity had footing in England, (which was under the British o● Roman Government) wherein there were no Bishops in this Land; If you can name neither year nor Author, be ashamed to say this truth hath had any contradiction, or else I hope the Readers will be ashamed of you. What a poor shift is it to tell me of the contradiction that Episcopacy hath had since the Reformation? I can tell the world that yourselves oppose it; what of that? You mislike the Government, you cannot deny that it hath so long continued; so as my assertion continues inviolable, that the form of this government hath, without contradiction, continued here ever since the first plantation of the Gospel.  
The man runs on still, you say, and as thinking to get credit to his untruths by their multiplication, dares boldly say, that except all Histories, all Authors, fail them, nothing can be more certain than this truth: and here you cry out, Os durum! and aggravate the matter enviously, by the instance of Divine truths, concerning the main points of our holy Creed: But, good sirs, do ye bethink whom you speak to? Could you suppose to meet with so mean readers, as should not know that no phrase is more ordinary in our hourly discourse, 
Yet the words of the Remonstrance are not, nothing can be a more certain truth, but, nothing can be more plain than this truth.  than this; when we would confidently affirm any truth, to say, It is so true as nothing can be truer? Not to enter into any metaphysical discourse concerning the being, or degrees of truth, (wherein some that would be wise, may perhaps have lost themselves) would any man think it reasonable, that upon such an ordinary and familiar assertion he should be called to account for the articles of his Creed, and be urged to compare his truth with Gods? Away with this witless and malicious intimation: Pardon me Readers, that I have spent so much time and paper, in following these triflers so close; their uncharitable suggestions drew me on, Judge ye now whether of us have more just cause of indignation.   

SECT. FOUR  
HItherto they have flourished, now I hope they will strike; against the Libelers importune projects of innovations, I urged that were this Ordinance merely humane, or Ecclesiastical, if there could be no more said for it, but that it is exceeding ancient, of more than 1500. years standing, and in this Island of the same age with the Gospel itself, this might be a just reason to make men tender of admitting a change; an argument which I seconded with so rational enforcement, as will I doubt not prevail with all unpartial judgements: Now my witty Answerers tell me this is an argumentum Galeatum (and that the Reader may know they have seen a Father, cite Hierome, who gave that title to a Prologue, but never to an argument) and as if arguments were Almanacs, tell us, It was Calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy, and may indifferently serve for all Religions. Truly brethren, you have not well taken the height of the Pole, nor observed a just zenith; for could you say so much for the Presbyterial government, had it continued here so long, I should never yield my vote to alter it; an uninterrupted course of so many years should settle it still: So as you are plainly deceived, the argument is not calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy; but for whatsoever government; if so long time have given it peaceable possession, there had need to be strong reasons of Law, for an ejection; But that it may serve for all Religions, it is but an envious suggestion; unless you add this withal, save where the ground of the change is fully convictive, and irrefragable; in which cause both the mouths of Jews, and Heathens, and Papists, and your own may be justly stopped.  
As for that overworn observation of Cyprian, that our Saviour says, I am the way, the truth, and the life; but doth not say, I am custom, it is no less plausible than useful, but if we regard soundness of ratiocination, it is an Illustration merely negative: so we may say, he saith not, I am reason, I am experience, I am authority; and yet authority, experience, reason are worthy to sway with us, in all matters of question: and withal, He that said, I am the way, said, that the old way was the good way: and if Custom without Truth (as that Father said well) be nothing but a gray-haired Error; or, as Sir Francis Bacon wittily, Antiquity without Truth is a Cipher without a Figure; yet where Custom & Antiquity are backed with Truth, there they are Figures multiplied with many cyphers.  
As for the time wherein their learned Ancients affirm, The Church not to have been governed by Bishops, but by Presbyters, and for the difference pretended to be betwixt the Primitive Bishops and ours, we shall meet with it in such due time and place, as shall be justly occasioned: What needs this frivolous waste of unseasonable words? wherewith unless these men desired to swell up this their windy bulk, why do they tell us yet again, of that already answered, and groundless exception; against both their own eyes, and conscience; where I say, that this government hath continued in this Island; ever since the plantation of the Gospel without contradiction; when as they cannot name any man in this Nation that ever contradicted Episcopacy, till this present age, or that ever contradicted this truth, that Episcopacy hath so long continued in this Island; which is the only drift of my words; For alas, could I be so simple as not to know that this age hath bred opposition enough to the present government? could I doubt whether these very men oppose it? Yet, let the boldest forehead of them all deny that it hath continued thus long in this our Island, or say that any till this age contradicted it; so as that my assertion is just, their exception false; and vain: As for that supply of accessary strength, which I did not beg, but raise & evince from the light of nature and rules of just policy, for the continuance of those things, which long use and many laws have firmly established, as necessary, and beneficial; it will stand long enough, against the battery of their Paper-pellets; If some statute Laws, which seemed once necessary, and beneficial, proving afterwards, in process of time, noxious and burdensome, have been justly, and wisely repealed; Let them tell me, whether the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom, upon any man's abuse, may be subject to alteration, or whether rather their Wisdoms would not think fit to determine that the Laws must stand, and the abuses be removed; such is the cause we have now in hand, and if we shall go less: I speak not against an impossibility, but an easiness of change, the question being so stated (which their guiltiness would willingly overlook) that things indifferent, or good, having been by continuance and general approbation well rooted in Church and State, may not upon light grounds be pulled up.   

SECT. V.  
I Justly fetch the pedigree of our holy calling from no less than Apostolical (and in that right, Divine) institution, and prove it from the clear practice of their immediate successors, and justly triumph in that confidence. They tell me of one scruple yet remaining; It is well, if there be no more: And what may that be? That in Original authority of Scripture, Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same. Alas, brethren, what needed this to be a scruple in your thoughts, or your words, when it is in express terms granted by us? That there was at first a plain Identity in their denomination; here is one page, and that not without some labour of proofs, idly lost.  
It is true, that the Remonstrant undertakes to show a clear and received distinction of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, (out of the undeniable writings of those holy men, which lived in the times of the Apostles, and after them) with an evident specification of their several duties: And what say my Answerers to this? Yet, say they, Let us tell him, that we never find in Scripture these three Orders, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons. Brethren, ye might have spared to tell me that which I had told you before: I speak of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolic times; Ye, of the writings of the Apostles themselves: How then do you either answer, or oppose my assertion? Although I must also tell you, that though in the Apostolic Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles, yet there is a real distinction and specification of the duties, as we shall see in due place.  
That ye may seem not to say nothing, and may make your Readers believe you are not quite forsaken of Antiquity, ye call Hierome, chrysostom, Theophylact, Irenaeus, and Cyprian, to the Book: And what evidence will they give for you? That the names of Bishops and Presbyters were not at first distinguished, but used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a promiscuous sense, and that some succeeding Bishops of Rome were styled Presbyters; This is all: but that your trifling may appear to all the World, Name but any one of our Writers, who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacy, that hath not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for: Although withal, let me tell you, that you could not have brought a stronger argument against yourselves: for hence the world shall see how little force can be drawn from the name to the thing, since the mentioned Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Bishops of Rome, are so famously known to have been in an height of elevation above Presbyters; And since Cyprian, who is styled by his Presbyters, Frater, is never found to style his Presbyters, Bishops; And being an holy Bishop himself, in many Epistles, stiffly maintains the eminence of his superiority; And is somewhiles honoured with the title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus, which I suppose was never given to a mere Presbyter: But what do I here follow them who confess themselves out of the way? At last acknowledging, that their adversaries confess, that which they would needs spend time to prove; let the names pass; All the question is of the distinction of their offices, which they will follow as tediously as loosely.  
And first they would fain know what we make the distinct office of a Bishop, wherein they fall somewhat unhappily, upon the very words of that branded Aerius; Is it, say they, to edify the Church by Word & Sacraments? Is it to ordain others to that worked? Is it to rule, to govern by admonition, and by other censures? any, or all of these belong unto the Presbytery. Compare now the words of Aerius, as they are related by Epiphanius, whom that Father brings in speaking thus, concerning Episcopacy and Presbytery, There is one order of both, one honour, one dignity; the Bishop imposeth hands, so doth the Presbyter; the Bishop doth administer God's worship or service, so doth the Presbyter; the Bishop sitteth on the throne, so doth also the Presbyter: See reader and acknowledge the very phrases of that man, whom holy antiquity censured even in this point both for a frantic man, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiph.  and an heretic; Brethren, God speed you well with your Question; As for the first, which is edifying the Church by Word, and Sacraments, we make no difference, your distance may; we both hold it our work and make it so; and if any one have been slack herein, the fault is personal, we neither defend, nor excuse it. The main quarrel you grant to be in the second, which is the power of Ordination; impropriated (as you enviously and untruly speak) to ourselves: This you say was in former times in the hands of the Presbyters, and undertake to prove it from 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophecy, and by laying on the hands of Presbytery, a place that hath received answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which I wonder ye can so press, when Calvin himself, (as you well know) in his learned Institutions, even in his last, and ripest judgement, construes it quite otherwise; taking it of the office, and not of the men; (however elsewhere otherwise) wherein he also follows the judgement of Jerome, Primasius, Anselm, Haymo, Liranus, Erasmus, and others; as our learned Bishop Downam hath largely showed.  
To countenance this sense of yours, you tell us, you find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so taken in Scripture; and cite Luc. 22.66. and Act. 22.5. Wherein you do merely delude the reader; you find indeed the Elders of the people so called, but the Elders of the Church never; to make good your own construction therefore, you must maintain that Laymen did and must lay on hands in Ordination, which Calvin himself utterly abominates.  
Neither need we to give any other satisfaction to the point, then that which we have from S. Paul himself, 1 Tim. 3.6. Stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands; mine, not others: I ask then, Was Timothy ordained more than once? once surely S. Paul's hands were laid upon him, when therefore the Presbyters? Yes, you say, this was a joint act of both, else the Harmony of Scripture is not maintained; Pardon me Brethren, if I think Mr. Calvin was more skilled in the harmony of Scripture than ourselves, yet in his ear it sounded well, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should be the Office to which Timothy was ordained by Paul, and not a company of men that ordained him; Yet give me leave to marvel how you can have the boldness to say, This power is communicated to Presbyters, when you know that not only other Antiquity, but even Hierome himself and that Council of Aquisgrane which you cite, do still except Ordination, which yet we do not so appropriate, as to lay our hands alone upon the head of any Presbyter.  
The third part of our office consists in Ruling; which though our Bishops (you say) assumed to themselves, you will discover to have been committed to, and exercised by Presbyterial hands. For evidence whereof you cite Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, for they watch for your souls. Brethren, what an injurious imputation is this? Do we not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum? Do we not in your institution commit to you regimen animarum? Why will ye therefore bear your Readers in hand, that we herein rob you of your right? It is true, that here is a just distinction to be made, betwixt the government of souls, in several Congregations, and the government of the Church, consisting of many Congregations; that task is yours, this is the Bishops, wherein their rule yet, is not Lordly, but brotherly, or paternal; your argument reacheth not home to this, and yet you strain that place of 1 Thes. 5.12. beyond the due breadth, whiles you tenter it out to either a parity, or community of censure.  
Enjoy now what you have so victoriously purchased, but give me leave to sum up my reckonings also. Since then (how ever the name was at first promiscuously used, yet) the Office of Bishops, and Presbyters differed, even by Apostolic Institution: and the Acts pertaining thereto, of Ordination, and power of ordinary government and censures, were in that very first age of the Church manifestly differenced; therefore Bishops and Presbyters were not one.   

SECT. VI  
THE practice of the Apostles is so far from contradicting their rules, (which your brotherly charity would fasten upon my assertion) as that it is a most clear proof, and illustration of it; Their practice is irrefragable in the charge, which they gave to Timothy, and Titus, as we shall prove in due place: Now if to this we shall add the unquestionable gloss of the more clear practice of their immediate successors, I know not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of this truth. Whereto ye boldly answer, If this gloss corrupt not the text, we shall admit it; implying therein, too presumptuously, that the universal practice of the whole Primitive Church succeeding the Apostles, may prove a Burdeaux-gloss to mar the Text.  
Brethren, go you your own way, let me err with such guides: But ye are disposed to be liberal; somewhat ye will grant us, besides that which we grant you. It is agreed, that the name of Bishops and Presbyters were at first promiscuously used; It is yielded by you, That in process of time, some one was honoured with the name of Bishop, and the rest were called Presbyters. But what, I beseech you, was this process of time? Here lies your either error, or fraud: We do justly and confidently defend, that this time had no process at all; it was in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles, which we shall plainly make good in the sequel. It is also yielded, that this was not [nomen inane,] but seconded with some kind of imparity. What then is the difference? All the question, you say, is of divine right, and Apostolical institution of this imparity. Let me beseech the Reader to consider seriously of the state of this difference, in the mistaking whereof I have, not a little, unjustly suffered; And to remember how I have expressed it in my Remonstrance, fetching the pedigree of Episcopacy from Apostolical (and therefore, in that right, Divine) institution: And interpreting myself not to understand by [divine right] any express Law of God requiring it, upon the absolute necessity of the being of a Church, but an institution of Apostles, inspired by the holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had. Now whether it may be thus Apostolical, or a merely humane and Ecclesiastical invention, is the question in hand.  
On your part, you say, stand Jerome, and Ambrose. Two stiff champions indeed. And surely I must needs confess, this is the only countenance of your cause, which yet hath been blanked more than once. Jerome tells us, you say, right down in Tit. 1. Idem est ergo Presbyter, etc. Out of whose testimony you in sum collect, That A Presbyter and a Bishop were originally one: That the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custom: That before this priority, the Church was governed by the common Council of Presbyters, and that Bishops ought still so to govern: And lastly, that The occasion of this imparity, was the division, which through the Devil's instinct fell among Christians. You look now that I should tell you that the Book is of uncertain credit, or that Jerome was a Presbyter, and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity he miss; or that wiser men than yourselves have censured him in this point, for Arianism: I plead none of these, but whiles you expect that I should answer to Jerome, I shall set Jerome to answer for himself. For the first, I cannot but put you in mind, that the same Father citing the words of the Bishop of Jerusalem, That there is no difference betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter, passeth a Satis imperitè upon it: but let it be so.  
At first, he says, Bishops and Presbyters had but one title. So say we too; But when began the distinction? Ye need not learn it of Saravia, he himself tells you, When divisions began: And when that? When they began to say, I am Paul's, I am Apollo's, I am Cephas; which was (I think) well and high in the Apostles time: But this you would cleanly put of, as spoken by Jerome in the Apostles phrase, not of the time of the Apostle: This is but a general intimation of contentions arisen (though later) in the Church. Excuse me Brethren, this shift will not serve your turn: Then, belike, there should have been no distinct Bishops till after-ages, upon this ground, that till then there were no divisions: Or if so, why should the remedy be so late after the disease? Or how comes he elsewhere to name Bishops made by the Apostles, and to confess that before his time there had been many successions? Besides, he instanceth in the peculiar mis-challenging of Baptism, which only S. Paul specifieth in his own time: And Clemens seconds him in his Epistle to the Corinthians, in taxing the continuance of those distractions; so as by Ieroms own confession, Episcopacy was ordained early within the Apostles times.  
But then, say you, It was not of Apostolical intention, but of Diabolical occasion: Weakly and absurdly; As if the occasion might not be devilish, and the institution divine: As if the best Laws did not rise from the worst manners. Were not the quarrels betwixt the Grecians and Hebrews for the maintenance of their widows, an evil occurrence? yet from the occasion thereof was raised the Ordination of Deacons in the Church.  
Yea but Jerome saith, This was rather by the custom of the Church, then by the truth of the Lords disposition. True, it was by the Custom of the Church, but that Church was Apostolical; not by the Lord's disposition immediately: for Christ gave no express rule for it, but mediately it was from Christ, as from his inspired Apostles. Let Jerome himself interpret himself, who tells us expressly in his Epistle to Euagrius, this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters, is by Apostolical tradition; which is as much as we affirm. And whiles he saith, (toto orbe decretum est) that in the time of those first divisions, it was decreed all the world over, that Bishops should be set up; I would fain know, by what power (besides Apostolical) such a Decree could be so soon and so universally enacted. But Jerome saith, The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Counsel: So they did doubtless altogether, till Episcopacy was settled; who dares deny it? Yea, but he saith, They ought to do still: So say we also, and so in some cases we do: Church-government is Aristocratical. Neither is any Bishop so absolute, as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synod: Yea in many matters it is determined by our Laws, that he must take the advice and assistance of his Ecclesiastical Presbytery.  
So then, S. Jerome is in his judgement no back friend of ours, but in his History he is our Patron. With what forehead can they persuade their Reader, the Original of Episcopacy was not in Ieroms opinion so early, when they cannot but confess that the same Father hath, in flat terms, told us, that james was Bishop of Jerusalem, Timothy of Ephesus, Titus of Crete, that ever since the time of Mark the Evangelist, (who died five or six years before Peter and Paul, and almost forty years before S. john) at Alexandria, (till the days of Heraclas and Dionysius) the Presbyters have always chosen one to be their Bishop.  
As for those poor negative arguments which follow, palpably begging the question, they are scarce worthy of a pass; were it not, that by them they go about to confute their own Author, affirming, That upon occasion of divisions, Episcopacy was constituted: but he stands so close to his own grounds, as that (contrary to their misallegation of Dr Whitakers) he plainly tells them, Episcopacy is so proper a remedy for this evil, that unless the Bishop have a peerless power, there will be as many Schisms as Priests; the woeful experience whereof we find in the miserable varieties of Separatism, at this day. Go on, Brethren, since you are so resolved, to strike that friend, whom you bring in to speak for you; teach your advocate S. Jerome, how unlikely it is, that the Apostles should give way (as he professes they did) to such a remedy, as might prove both ineffectual, and dangerous; and that their holiness should make a stirrup for Antichrist.  
We looked for Ambrose to come in next; and, behold, you bring in a foisted Commenter; a man by the convictions of Whitakers, Spalatensis, Cocus, Rivetus, Bellarmine, Possevine, Maldonate, (as hath been elsewhere showed) of not a suspected only, but a cracked credit: If it mattered much, what he said, I could out of his testimony pick more advantage than you prejudice to my cause: But, if you will hear the true Ambrose speak; 
Amb. de dignity Sacerd. c. 3.  he tells you; There is one thing which God requireth of a Bishop, another of a Presbyter, another of a Deacon; As for the persons who brought in this imparity, you tell us out of the same Authors, The Presbyters themselves brought it in? Witness Jerome ad Euagrium. The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in an higher degree: But, brethren, what means this faithless and halved citation? Had you said all, the place would have answered for itself; the words are, 
Name & Alexandria à Marco Evangelistausque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Pr●sbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excel siori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, etc.  Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evangelista, etc. For at Alexandria ever since Mark the Evangelist, until the times of Heraclas and Dionysius, Bishops, the Presbyters have always called one (chosen out of themselves, and placed in an higher degree) Bishop, as if an army should choose their General. Why did you avoid the name of [Mark the Evangelist] but that your hearts told you, that he dying many years within the time of the Apostles, this election, and appellation, and distinction of degrees of Bishops and Presbyters, must needs have been in the life time of the Apostles; and not without their knowledge and approbation? The Presbyters than chose their Bishops: who doubts it? 
The holy Ghost made you Bishops, or Overseers.  But upon whose order, and Institution save that which S. Paul to the Superintendents met at Miletus, Acts 20. Spiritus sanctus vos constituit Episcopos? I marvel Brethren, with what face you can make Jerome say, that the Presbyters themselves were the Authors of this imparity, when as himself hath plainly ascribed this to Gods own work; when reading that, Esay 60.17. I will make thy Officers peace, (according to the Septuagint) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I will give thy Princes in peace, and thy Bishops in righteousness, he applies this to the Governors of the Evangelicall Church: and the blessed Martyr and Bishop S. Cyprian, to the same purpose; The Deacons (saith he) must remember that the Lord himself chose Apostles, that is, Bishops, but Deacons were chosen by the Apostles themselves.  
And when ye cannot but know, that the Apostles themselves were the immediate actors in this business; if at least ye will believe the Histories, and Fathers of the Church; Irenaeus tells you plainly, that the Apostles Peter and Paul, delivered the Episcopacy of that Church to Linus: and, that Polycarpus was by the Apostles made Bishop, in Asia, of the Church of Smyrna: and Tertullian particularly, that Polycarpus was there placed by S. john.  
And S. chrysostom clearly says, that Ignatius was not only trained up with the Apostles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but that he received his Bishopric from them; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrysost. Tom. 5. Edition. Savil. p. 499.  and emphatically, that the hands of the blessed Apostles touched his holy head.  
And lastly, the true Ambrose, (to the shaming of that Counterfeit, whom you bring forth under that name) tells you, that Paul saw james at jerusalem, because he was made Bishop of that place, by the Apostles: your slip may talk of a Council, wherein this was done: but this is as false, as himself: It is well known there never was any such Council in the Christian world: since, the first general Synod was the Nicene. And Ieroms [toto orbe Decretum] as we have showed, could import no other, than an Apostolical act: 
Aug. F p. 19  As for S. Augustine, Is it not a just wonder, Reader, that these men dare cite him for their opinion, (upon occasion of a modest word concerning the honourable title of Episcopacy) when as they cannot but know, and grant, that he hath blazoned Aerius for an heretic, merely for holding the same Tenet which they defend?  
Lastly, if Gregory Nazianzen in a pathetic manner have wished the abolition of Episcopacy, (as he never did) what more dislike had he shown to it, than he did to Synods, when he said (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) that he never knew good come of them? But reader, it will be worth the while, to inquire into the fidelity of these men's allegations; Do but consult the place of Nazianzen, & thou shalt ●●nd that he speaks not particularly of Episcopacy, but of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or precedency, and of all quarrelsome challenges of place, & all tyrannical carriage of one man towards another, 
Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  wishing that there were no standing upon points of precedency, but every man might be respected according to his virtue: and adding at last (Nunc autem dextrum hoc, et sinistrum, et medium latus, etc.) But now (saith he) the right hand, and the left, and the middle place, and the higher and lower degree, and going before, and going cheek by jowl, what a world of troubles have they brought upon us? Thus he. See then, Reader, what a testimony, here is for the utter abolition of Episcopacy, from a man who was so interessed in the calling, that he was wont to be styled by his adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Bishop of three Sees: By this judge, reader, of the rest. So then, after all the clamours, and colourable pretences of these men, this imparity and jurisdiction was conveyed from the Apostles hands, and deduced in an uninterrupted Line, through all following ages to this present day.  
How can this be (say they) unless our Bishops will draw the Line of their pedigree, through the lines of Antichrist, and join issue, and mingle blood with Rome? For shame, Brethren, eat this word; What? are there no Bishops but at Rome? Is the whole Church all the world over Antichristian, even those, which are no less angry at Rome then yourselves? Hath not Episcopal imparity continued in them, all this while? Is there no distinction to be had betwixt the calling, and the abuse? If the Antichristian Church have had Bishops; so it hath had Churches, Scriptures, Baptism, Learning, Creeds; Because we have all these with them, will ye say we deduce them from the loins of Antichrist? Away with this impotent spite, and uncharitableness; and learn to be more modest & true in your assertions, and less confident in your appeals.   

SECT. VII.  
LEt me balk your idle words; the question is of the difference betwixt our present Bishops, and the ancient, this you will spread forth in three particulars; The first is the manner of Election, to these places of eminence; which was, of old, ordered, by the privity, consent, and approbation of the people, which you eagerly seek to prove out of Cyprian: neither can it be denied that he is full, and punctual in this point: Holy Athanasius seconds it; And the old rule was: Electio clericorum, consensus Principis, petitio plebis; that a Bishop came in by the suit of the people, the Election of the Clergy, the consent of the Prince. Ye might well have in this case spared the fetching in of the good Emperor Constantine: doubtless this was the manner of old; what variations followed afterward in these proceedings, our learned Dr. Field hath well showed; but sure, this interest of the people continued so long, even in the Roman Church, that Platina can tell us, 
Platina in vita Greg. 7.  Gregory the seventh was elected by Cardinals, Clerks, Acoluthites, Subdeacons', Priests, Abbots, Bishops, Clergy, and Laity: The inconveniences that were found in those tumultuary elections, and the seditious issue of them (which Nazianzen and Eusebius have laid before us in some particulars) were, I suppose, the cause why they were (in a sort) laid down; But an imitation of this practice, we have still continuing in our Church, wherein upon the vacancy of every See, there is a Conge-d'eslire (that is, a leave to elect) sent down from the King, to the Presbyters (viz. the Dean and Chapter of that Church) for an ensuing election of their Bishop; and, if this were yet more free, we should not like it the less: But, in the mean time, Brethren, how are you quite beside the Cushion? Where the objection was, That the Apostles Bishops, and ours were two, in respect of managing their function; And my defence is, that our Bishops challenge not any other Spiritual power, than the Apostles delegated to Timothy and Titus, you now tell us, of the different manner of our Elections; What is this ad Rhombum? we speak of their actions, and exercise of power, you talk of others actions to them; Were it so pleasing to his Majesty and the State, to decree it, we should be well content to submit to this ancient form of Election; the forbearance whereof, is neither our fault, nor our prejudice: so as you might well have bestowed this breath to a better purpose, and rather conclude, that notwithstanding this form of different choice, our Bishops and those of former times are not two.   

SECT. VIII.  
WE follow you into the execution of our Episcopal Office, wherein you will show ours, and the Apostles to be two; so clearly, that he who will not wilfully shut his eyes, may see a latitude of differences, and that in three points: The first, in sole jurisdiction, which you say, was a stranger, yea a monster to former times, and will make it good by the power of (that, which in all wise writers was wont to be contra-distinguished) Ordination.  
For this main point, let my Answerers know, that the Ordination is the Bishops, but the sole (in their sense) is their own: neither did our Bishops ever challenge it, as theirs alone, without the Presbyters, but as principally theirs, with them: so, as if the power be in the Bishop, the assistance is from them, the practice in both: so is it in the Bishops, that ordinarily and regularly it may not be done without them, and yet ordinately, it may not be done without them by the Bishop: which hath been so constantly, and carefully ever observed, that I challenge them to show any one instance in the Church of England to the contrary; Say Brethren, I beseech you, after all this noise, what Bishop ever took upon him to ordain a Presbyter alone, or without the concurrent imposition of many hands? 
Cypr. Ep. 33.  They, no less than Cyprian, can say, Ego & collegae; Although I must tell you this was in the case of Aurelius, made a Lector; And in that other testimony, which you cite out of his Epistle 58. he speaks only of the fraternities consent, and approbation, not of their concurrence in their act; this is small game with you.  
Neither is it less the order of the Church of England then of the Council of Carthage, Cum ordinatur Presbyter, etc. When a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters that are present, shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, with the hands of the Bishop: With what conscience can ye allege this, as to choke us in our contrary practice; when you know this is perpetually, and unfailably done by us? But now, that the Readers may see how you shuffle, show us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practised ordaining without a Bishop, and carry the cause; else you do but abuse the Reader with an ostentation of proving what was never denied.  
But here, by the way, brethren, you must give me leave to pull you by the sleeve, and to tell you of two or three foul 'scapes, which will try whether you can blush. First, 
Fi●mil Cyp●ian. Epist. 75.  that you abuse Firmilianus in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining, which he never held; He, in his Epistle to Stephen Bishop of Rome, speaking of the true Church in opposition to heresies, describes it thus, (Vbi praesident majores natu, qui & baptizandi, & manum imponendi, et ordinandi possident potestatem: under this name expressing those Bishops; who presiding in the Church, possess the power of Baptising, Confirming, Ordaining; you injuriously Wiredraw him to Presbyters, and foist in [Seniores et Praepositos] which are far from the clause and matter. Be convinced with the more clear words of the same Epistle, Apostolis, et Episcopis, qui illis vicariâ Ordinatione successerunt.  
Secondly, that you bewray gross ignorance in translating Ambroses [Presbyteri consignant] by Presbyters ordaining; Who, that ever knew what belonged to antiquity, would have been guilty of such a solecism: when every novice knows, that, consigning, signifies confirmation, and not ordaining?  
Thirdly, you discover not too much skill in not distinguishing of the Chorepiscopi: some whereof had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes, and therefore might well by the Bishop's licence in his own charge impose hands, others not; And less fidelity, in citing the Council of Antioch, can. 10. and the 13. of the Council of Ancyra, if it were not out of our way, to fetch them into trial.  
Lastly, I cannot but tell you that you have merely cast away all this labour, and fought with your own shadow; for, how ever it were not hard to prove, that in the first times of the Church it was appropriated to the Bishop, to Ordain, (which you cannot but confesse out of Jerome, and Chrysostom) yet, since we speaking of our own time and Church, do both profess and practise an association of Presbyters with us, in the act of Ordination, whom have you all this while opposed? It is enough that you have seemed to say something, and have shown some little reading, to no purpose.   

SECT. IX.  
YEt still, you will needs beat the air very furiously, and fight pitifully with yourselves; Alas, brethren, why will ye take so much pains to go wilfully out of your way, and to misled the reader with you? Who ever challenged (in that sense which you fain to yourselves) a sole Jurisdiction? Why will you with some show of learning confute that, which you yield us to confess? we confess this [sole] cried down by store of Antiquity; we do willingly grant that Presbyters have, 
To this purpose is that which you cite out of Clemens Alex. Strom. l. 5.  and aught to have, and exercise a jurisdiction within their own charge, in foro conscientiae; we grant that in all the great affairs of the Church, the Presbyters, whether in Synods, or otherwise, aught to be consulted with; 
Alluded to in that usual allegation of Ambrose.  we grant that the Bishops had of old their Ecclesiastical Council of Presbyters, with whose advice they were wont to manage the greatest matters, and we still have so; for to that purpose serve the Deans and Chapters; and the Laws of our Church frequently make that use of them; we grant, that Presbyters have their votes in provincial Synods: But we justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop, as that Presbyters neither did, nor may exercise it without him; and that the exercise of external jurisdiction is derived, from, by, under him to those which execute it within his Diocese. Thus, it is to Timothy that S. Paul gives the charge concerning the rebuke of an Elder, or not receiving an accusation against him; It is to Titus that S. Paul leaves the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) correction of his Cretians; Thus, the Canons of the Apostles; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Thus the blessed Martyr Ignatius in his undoubted Epistle to those of Smyrna, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let no man do any thing, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in matters belonging to the Church, without the Bishop. Thus the Council of Antioch orders, that whatsoever belongs to the Church, is to be governed, managed, and disposed, by the judgement and authority of the Bishop, 
Concil. Antioch. c. 24, 25.  who hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the power of those things which belong to the Church.  
It were easy to surfeit the reader's eyes, with the clear testimonies of Fathers, and Counsels, to this purpose. Our learned Bishop Downam hath given a world of instances of the several acts of jurisdiction, appropriated to Bishops by antiquity, 
B. Down. def. l. 3. ch. 5.  exercised upon both Laics, and Clergy: to him I remit my reader; So as, you may easily set antiquity together by the ears, in this point, if you please; but surely, the advantage will be so far on our side, that if you have not ten for one against you, I will yield my cause.  
There is great difference of times, and in them of fashions: In those persecuted times, when the Church was backed with no Christian Magistrate, it was no boot to bid the guides of the Church to combine their Counsels, and to give strength to their mutual actions: when a general peace once blessed them, and they had the concurrence both of sovereign and subordinate authority with them, they began so much to remit of this care of conjoining their forces, as they supposed to find less need of it. From hence grew a devolution of all less weighty affairs to the wielding of single hands. For my part, I persuade myself, that the more frequent communicating of all the important business of the Church, whether censures or determinations, with those grave assistants, which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose, were a thing not only unprejudicial to the honour of our function, but very behooveful to the happy administration of the Church.  
In the mean while, see brethren, how you have with Simon fished all night, and caught nothing. My word was, that ours were the same with the Apostles Bishops, in this, that they challenge no other spiritual power than was by Apostolic authority delegated to Timothy and Titus: You run out upon the following times of the Church, and have with some waste quotations laboured to prove, that In after ages, Bishops called in Presbyters to the assistance of their jurisdiction; which is as much to me, as Baculus stat in angulo.   

SECT. X.  
YOur next Section runs yet wilder: I speak of the no-difference of our Bishops from the first, in the challenge of any spiritual power to themselves, other then delegated to Timothy and Titus; You tell me of delegating their power to others. What is this to the nature of the calling? Doth any man claim this as essential to his Episcopacy? Doth any man stand upon it, as a piece of his spiritual power? If this be granted to be an accidental error of some particular man, (for it cannot be fastened upon all) what difference doth it make in the substance of the function? As if some monster suddenly presented itself to you, you ask, Was ever such a thing heard of in the best primitive times? that men which never received imposition of hands, should not only be received into assistance, but be wholly entrusted with the power of spiritual jurisdiction? Let me ask you again, Was ever such a thing heard of, either in the Primitive, or following times, that Laymen should be so far admitted to the managing of spiritual jurisdiction, as to lay their hands upon their Ministers in their Ordination? 
Howsoever it is now in some Reformed Churches laid down.  Yet this is both done and challenged by too many of your good friends. Why do you object that to us, wherewith the Presbyterian part may be more justly choked? But herein, Brethren, you do foully overreach, in that you charge our Bishops, as in a generality, with wholly-intrusting the power of spiritual jurisdiction to their Chancellors, and Commissaries: The assistance of those which are learned in the Law, we gladly use, neither can well want in the necessary occasions of our judicature; but that we do either wilfully or negligently divest ourselves absolutely of that power, and wholly put it into Laic hands, it is a mere slander.  
For want of better proofs of the illegality of this course, you bring a negative authority from Cyprian, telling us, what that holy Martyr did not, That he did not send Complainants to his Chancellor or Commissary: It is very like he did not, nor yet to the Bench of a Lay Presbytery▪ But if he did not commit the hearing of his Causes to a Layman, we find that some others did: Socrates can tell you of Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas, 
Socrat. l. 7. c. 37.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. perceiving that some of his Clergy did corruptly make gain of Causes, would no more appoint any of his Clergy (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be a Judge, but made choice of some faithful man of the Laity to whom he committed that audience, and was much honoured for it.  
What Bishop Downam yields concerning the Ordinaries, Vicars, and Chancellors of former times, (till Ambrose's days) that they were only Clergymen, you reject witn scorn, and challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergyman that was Vicar to Ambrose, or Chancellor to Augustine, etc. What a poor brave is this? I challenge you to produce the name of any Secretary, or Actuary that Ambrose, or Austin had: because you cannot, shall I conclude they had none such? That instance of Sylvanus, not long after Ambrose, is evidence enough: But the antiquity of Chancellors, which were the same with Ecclesiecdici, or Episcoporum ecdici, is provable enough, (if it were for this place) and their necessary use, beyond the power of your confutation; But I had rather refer my reader to S. Thomas Ridley, and others that have laboured in that argument; and appeal to all men's judgement how sound you have (upon this ground) proved that our Bishops and the former were two.   

SECT. XI.  
HOw justly may I say, Readers, of these men as the King of Israel said of the King of Syria: 
2 King. 5.7.  See I beseech you, how they seek a quarrel against me? My just defence was, that our Bishops are the same in substance, and effect, with those which were ordained by the Apostles: they come now, and tell me, of an oath ex officio, used in the high Commission, and in our Consistories; as if every particular manner of Proceeding in our Courts, and judicatures must either be patterned by the Apostolic, or else they are utterly unjustifiable; why do they not as well challenge us, that we give men the book to touch, and kiss, in taking an oath? Why do they not ask, how we can prove that those Apostolical Bishops had Notaries, Registers, Advocates, Consistories? what frivolous and delusory exceptions are these to all wise men; and how strangely savouring of a weak judgement, and strong malice? As for your cavil at the oath ex officio, since you will needs draw it in by head and shoulders; how little soever it concerns us, I return you this answer▪ That, if any of our profession have in the pressing of it exceeded the lawful bounds, I excuse him not, I defend him not; let him bear away his own load; but in these, surely there is more to be said for it, than you will seem to take notice of. You ask for any precedent of it, in good antiquity: I give a precedent as ancient as Moses, Exod. ●2. 10, 11. and that other oath and real imprecation, in the cause of jealousy, Num. 5.19. But perhaps it will fit you better, 
Calvin Epist f 421.  that I instance in M. calvin's case, who together with the Consistory of Elders, appointed the said oath to be given to Camperell a Minister of Geneva, and to the other parties accused of an offensive dancing in the house of widow Balthasar, in which corporal oath three interrogatories being put to the deponents, two of them are said to be concerning their purposes and intentions. If yet you call for other precedents, I call your eyes home, and will you to look into our Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, Star-chamber, wherein the defendant is ordinarily put to answer the bill, and interrogatories, upon oath. As for that old Maxim of Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, you may (if it please you) object it as well to Moses, to Calvin, to our Courts; it is easily thus satisfied, that no man is bound at the suit of a party, so to answer criminous Articles, or such as are Propinqui actus, (as Lawyers interpret it;) But as Petrus de Ferrariis well determins it, Proditus per famam; tenetur seipsum ostendere, & purgare; when a fame accuses him he may clear himself by an oath; it is to be presupposed, that a man is brought into question by some of those Lawful means, which open a way to a further inquiry; 
Aquin.  and then (as Aquinas well) if there be a Semiplena probatio, or a strong fame, or evident tokens, an oath is seasonably imposed: But sure, the intention of the oath is quite mistaken, for it is meant to acquit and justify, not to accuse; neither is any man pressed to answer further, than he is bound in law: neither are the Compulsions simple and absolute, but only Causative, as the learned Apologist hath fully declared. If then a Dioclesian or Maximilian (as you call him) shall enact, that the adverse party shall not be required to exhibit such evidences as should create troubles to themselves, it is no other than is every where practised in all Courts of judicature, and may well stand with the oath ex officio, as it is formerly limited. Be advised therefore (till you understand the case better) to forbear to talk of the Lamp of nature, in the night of Eth nicisme but know, that the light of the law of God, and right reason & common practice, give sufficient allowance to that which your misprision cavils at, in those, whom ye ought to acknowledge the Fathers of the Church. You tell us of the custom of the Church, & proceedings in the time of Athanasius, and the rule of Gratian; as if we disallowed those just courses, where there is a direct & manifest accusation and evident proofs to be had; but what doth this hinder, that in case of a justly grounded suspicion, and a complaint of a half-proved offence, a man should manifest his innocence by oath? That ye might seem to have seen the Canon-law, you tell us that in some cases, it allows trial without witnesses, namely, where the crime may be justly called notorious & then deeply expound notorium, by manifestum, therein plainly contradicting yourselves; for, if that be manifest which is lawfully known, by confession, or by probation, or by the evidence of the thing; what probation can there be, (besides confession and evidence) without witnesses? But this error is as trifling, as your accusation; and after all this waist of words, notwithstanding some personal abuses of Officers in undue processes of their Courts, our Bishops and the former are not two.   

SECT. 12.  
YOur next Section hath more pomp of reading in it, than the rest, but to as little purpose, I shall trouble you with neglecting it; we cannot anger a gay man more than in passing by him unseen; my ground was, that our Bishops differ not in respect of any spiritual power, from that, which was delegated from Apostolic authority, to Timothy & Titus; you spend your time, in proving that they differ in their employment, in secular and state affairs; but, I ask, is this difference, or fault universal, or not; sure, you cannot say they are all thus misemployed; and if not, why is this blame cast upon all? why should the calling, & others innocence suffer? My cause shall yield you your postulate herein, and be no whit the worse, it is true the ordinary managing of secular affairs, is not proper for a Bishop: Chrysostoms' counsel, Julian's practise▪ Constatines bounty, Cyril's insolent pomp, the Roman Bishops degenerating, into a secular principality, Cyprians grave limitation, the just inhibitions of many Canons, are of an undoubted truth; and we could easily (if need were) add many more to these, and tell you of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that must upon the Apostolic Canons be avoided by sacred persons, and the rigorous charge of Cyprian, 
Pro dormit●one victioris non fiat blatio, a uto depre, catio aliquanomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur. Cypr. Rogatiano fratri l. 3. Ep. 9  against Geminius victor, for ordaining Geminius Faustinus, a Presbyter, but the Executor of his last will; with many other the like instances; but what are these to the work in hand? Two exceptions must necessarily be admitted; the one of extraordinary ocsicaons, and services, as, when a Prince, or state, having had good proof of the abilities of an Ecclesiastical person, shall think fit, (as now it is done in this great Northern negotiation) to call for his Counsel, or to employ his present agency, for a time, in some main business that may import the public good, and safety of the Church, or Commonwealth, so St. chrysostom once; so St. Ambrose twice, was employed in Embassy, from the Emperors: The very trade of Tentmaking did as much take up St. Paul for the time, as a state-employment might have done; and how many have we known, that have (not unprofitably) professed Physic both for soul and body; and done much good in both? The other, of a charitable interposition in matters of difference for peace and reconciliation; and composing of the unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours,, wherewith St. Ambrose and St. Austin were so extremely taken up, 
Aug. Ep. 110.  that the latter makes no little complaint of the importunity of those continual interpellations; such, as both his morning studies were distracted by them, and the afternoon wholly spent in them: and professeth, he could not have the opportunity of opening his estate, and heart to Bishop Ambrose, by reason of that continual audience of causes, daily brought before that great Prelate: surely, if the charity of more of ours have not rendered them more guilty of secularity, in this kind, than the supposed ambition of others, there will be no cause why our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times should be two.   

SECT. 13.  
IT is true the Remonstrant sores above these aftertimes, even as high as the Apostles: As if you knew not this before; when as all this while, you have endeavoured to show that the Apostles Bishops, and ours are two. We do again profess, that if our Bishops challenge any other power, than was delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, we shall yield them usurpers: you kindly tell us, so we deserve to be, if we do but challenge the same power; and why so, I beseech you brethren? because Timothy and Titus (ye say) were Evangelists, and so moved in an higher sphere; Liberally and boldly spoken; but where is your proof? For Timothy, ye say the Text is clear: but what Text, what the least intimation have you for Titus? surely not so much as the least ground of a conjecture; yet how confidently you avow for both: and even for Timothy your gloss is clear, not your text: St. Paul bids him do the work of an Evangelist, what then, that rather intimates that he was none: for he doth not say, do thine own work: but the work of an Evangelist: when I tell my friend, that I must desire him to do the office of a Solicitor, or a Secretary for me; I do herein intimate, that he is neither; but so for the time employed; why is it not so here? And what I beseech you is the work of an Evangelist, but to preach the Evangell, or good tidings of peace? So, as St. Paul herein gives no other charge to his Timothy, then in 2. Tim. 4.2. Preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season: And this you say and urge, to be the work of a Bishop too; well, therefore may Timothy, notwithstanding this charge, be no other than a Bishop: what need these words to be contradistinguished? St. 
2· Tim 1.11.  Paul says of himself, Whereto I am apppointed a Preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles; what shall we say St. Paul was an Apostle, he was not a Preacher, or not a Doctor, but an Apostle? You distinguish of Evangelists; the word is taken either for the writers of the Gospel, or for the teachers of it, and why then was not St. Paul an Evangelist, who professed to be a teacher of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, These teaching Evangelists, you dream to be of two sorts; the one, those that had ordinary places and gifts; the other extraordinary: but tell me sirs, for my learning; where do you find those ordinary-placed, and ordinary-gifted Evangelists? unless you mean to comprse all Preachers under this name? and then a Bishop may be an Evangelist also; so, as the difference of a Bishop and an Evangelist vanisheth. The truth is, these ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction; their true employment was to be sent by the Apostles, from place to place, for the preaching of the Gospel, without a settled residence upon any one charge: upon this advantage, you raise a slight argument, that St. Paul besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus. 1. Tim. 1.3. which had been a needless importunity if he had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus; for than he must have necessarily resided there: whereas you recite several proofs and occasions of his absence, which will appear to be of little force, if a man do duly consider the state of those times: the necessity whereof in that first plantation of the Gospel, made even the most sixed Sars planetary, calling them, frequently, from the places of their abode, to those services which were of most use for the success of that great work: yet so, as that either after their errands fully-done, or upon all opportune intermissions, they returned to their own Chair: The story therefore of those journal computations might well have been spared.  
Your argument from Paul's calling the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus, how ever you lean upon it, it will prove but a Reed.  
Yourselves confess (I know not upon what certain ground) that Timothy was at the meeting, Acts 20. with St. Paul: Had he been Bishop there, the Apostle (you say) in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them: Besides, the Apostle would not have so forgotten himself, as to call the Elders Bishops, before the Bishop's face; and would have given them some directions, how to carry themselves to their Bishops: In all which, brethren, you go upon wrong ground; will ye grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters, and not Bishops? under some Bishop, though not under Timothy? otherwise, why do you argue from the want of directions to them, as inferiors? but if they were indeed Bishops, and not mere Presbyters, (as the word itself imports) your argument is lost: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  For then the charge is equally given to Timothy, and all the rest; and it was no forgetfulness to call them as they were, you are strait ready to reply, how impossible it is (according to us) there should be many Bishops in one City; and here were many Presbyters from Ephesus: but let me mind you, that though these Presbyters were sent for from Ephesus, yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus: Thither they were called to meet St. Paul in all likelihood, from divers parts, which he seems to imply, when he saith; Ye all amongst whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God; intimating the superintendents of several places; so as, notwithstanding these urged probabilities, Timothy might have been, both before this time and at that present Bishop of Ephesus; after which, if Paul took him along with him to Jerusalem, this is no derogation to his Episcopacy: And if Timothy were yet, after this, prisoner with St. Paul at Rome, (as you argue from Hebr. 13.23.) this is no derogation from his Episcopacy at Ephesus; but to cut the sinews of all this strong proof of your computation; it is more than probable, that, whereas the whole history of the Acts ends with Paul's first being at Rome, that Apostle survived divers years, and passed many travels, and did many great matters, for the plantation, and settling of churches, whereof we can look for no account from Scripture, save by some glances in his following Epistles; into which time these occurrents concerning Timothy and Titus, his ordination did fall, as may be justly proved out of the Chronological table of the experienced Jacob Cappellus, compared with Baronius: Now then, the Reader may take his choice, whether he will believe all antiquity, (that have meddled with this subject) affirming Timothy to have been bishop of Ephesus, or whether he will believe a new hatched contradiction of yesterday, raised out of imaginary probabilities: Shortly, it is far enough from appearing, that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist a fellow-labourer of the Apostles, an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church; it rather appears that he was all these in divers senses, and upon several occasions.  
The like yea say of Titus, whom you are pleased to create an Evangelist, not being able to show, that ever God made him so; save in that general sense that might well stand with Episcopacy; you tell us a story of his peregrination in the attendance of Paul, wherein you shall not expect any contradiction; but you shall give me leave to take you tripping in your own Tale: from Cilicia, you say, Paul passed to Crect, where he left Titus for a while to set in order things that remain: this (for a while) you put into a different Character, as if it were part of the Text; and guiltily translate (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) things that remain, whereas ours turn it (in a more full expression of an Episcopal power) things that are wanting, or left undone; but this is not the matter, you do yet again repeat the (for a while) urging the short time that Titus could be left at Crect, and yet, in your own marginal computation there is no less distance of time, betwixt this placing in Crect, and sending for him to his next remove, unto Nicopolis, than betwixt the year 46 & 51. the space of five years, which was a large gap of time, in that unsettled condition, and manifold distractive occasions of the Church; If afterwards he were by Apostolical command called away to tend the more concerning services of the Church; this could no whit have impeached the truth of his Episcopacy; but the truth is, he was ordained by St. Paul after all those journeys mentioned in the Acts, (and as Baronius with great consent of Antiquity computes it) a year after Timothy; so, as you may well put up your conclusion, as rather begged than enforced, and cast it upon the Readers courtesy to believe you against all antiquity, that Titus was an Evangelist and no Bishop; where as these two may well agree together, he was an Evangelist when he traveled abroad; he was a bishop afterwards, when he stayed and settled at home.  
You object to yourself the authority of some Fathers, that have called Timothy and Titus Bishops: Some? name, if you can, that Father that hath called them otherwise: away with these envious diminutions, when yea have a cloud of witnesses of much antiquity, which aver Timothy and Titus to have both lived, and died Bishops, the one of Ephesus, of Crect the other: yea but so some Fathers have called them Archbishops and Patriarches too: What of that? therein they have then acknowledged them bishops, paramount; and if Titus were Bishop of Crect, which was of old (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the hundred-citied Island, and Timothy of Ephesus, the Metropolis of Asia, the multitude of the territories under them, whiles it enlargeth their charge, doth detract nothing from the use of their office.  
Secondly you tell us from learned D. Raynolds, that the Fathers, when they called any Apostle Bishop, they meant it in a general sort, and signification; because they did attend that church for a time, and supply that room in preaching the Gospel, which Bishops did after not intending it, as it is commonly taken for the overseer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a several flock: but, what is this to Timothy and Titus? you say, the same may be said of them, but the Doctor gave you no leave so to apply it; neither do we. Although to say truth, all this discourse of yours is (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) needless and extravagant: whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists, or no, sure we are, that here they stand for persons charged with those Offices, and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church governor's, in all succeeding generations: And we do most justly take them, as we find them; and with our first confidence maintain, that we challenge no other spiritual power, than was delegated unto them, and unto the Angels of the Asian Churches; you mean to confute us by questions; and those so poor and frivolous, as are not worth answer; fastening that upon some particular abuse, which we disclaim from our calling; as if under this claim, we were bound to justify every act of a Bishop. To answer you in your own kind: when, or where did our bishops challenge power to ordain alone, to govern alone? when (though you ignorantly turn an Elder in age, to an Elder in Office) did our Bishop's challenge power to pass a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder? Where did our Bishops give Commission to Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, to rail upon Presbyters, or to accuse them without just grounds, and without legal proceedings? As for your last question, I must, tell you it is no better raised then upon an ignorant negative. Did the Apostle say, reject none but an Heretic? Did he not wish would to God they were cut off that trouble you? Is it not certainly proved true, that some Schismatic may be worse than some Heretic; which I speak not so, as to traduce any of our unconforming brethren, whose consciences are unsettled in the point of this mean difference, as guilty of that hateful crime: but to convince the absurdity of our questionists; after whose ill raised cavils, thus fully answered, we have no cause to fear, upon their suggestions, to be disclaimed as usurpers.  
From Timothy and Titus you descend to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches; which no subtlety at all, but the common interest of their condition, hath twisted together in our defence.  
In the generality whereof I must premonish my Reader, that this Piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand, that cared not how oft sod Coleworts he dished out to his credulous guests; I shall (what I may) prevent their surfeit.  
Your shift is, that the Angel is here taken collectively, not individually: A conceit, which if yourselves, certainly no other wise man can ever believe; for if the interest be common and equally appertaining to all, why should one be singled out above the rest? If you will yield the person to be such, as had more than others, a right in the administration of all, it is that we seek for: Surely, it did in some sort concern all that was spoken to him, because he had the charge of all: but the direction is individual, as Beza himself takes it; as if a Letter be endorsed from the Lords of the Counsel to the Bishop of Durham or Salisbury, concerning some affairs of the whole Clergy of their Diocese, can we say that the name Bishop, is there no other than a collective; because the business may import many? verily I do not believe that the Authors of this sense can believe it themselves. To your invincible proofs; In the Epistle to Thyatira you say it is written (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I say to you, and to the rest: where (by you) must (as you imagine) be signified, the Governors; 
Rev. 2.24  by the rest, the people: but what if the better Copies read, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I say to you, the rest in Thyatira, without the copulative, as is confessed by your good friends; where then is your doughty Argument? Here are no divisions of parties, but the Pastor and Flock. And truly thus it is; and my own eyes have seen it, in that noble Manuscript, written by the hand of Tecla (as is probably supposed) some 1300. years ago, as Cyrill, the late renowned Patriarch of Constantinople avoweth; your goodly proof therefore is in the suds. But to meet with you in your own kind, if you will go upon divers Readins; what will you say to that vers 20 where the Angel of Thyatira is encharged: Thou sufferest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (thy wife jezebel) (for so it is in very good Copies) to teach and seduce; yea so it is in that memorable Copy of Tecla, forementioned, which is to be seen in the Prince's Library, under the custody of the industrious and learned Mr· Patrick Young, as my own eyes can witness: and thus St. Cyprian reads it of old: 
Cypr. l. 4. ad Antonianum Epist.  What? shall we think she was wife to the whole company, or to one Bishop alone? I leave you to blush, for the shame this very proof alone casts upon your opinion: Secondly, you tell us, it is usual with the Holy Ghost, even in this very book, to express a company under one singular person: as, the Beast is the Civil state; the Whore, and the false Prophet, the Ecclesiastical state of Rome: But what if it be thus in visions, or emblematical representations? must it needs be so in plain narrations, where it is limited by just Predicates? or because it is so in one phrase of speech, must it be so in all? Why do you not as well say, where the Lamb is named, or the Lion of Juda, this is a collective of many; not an individual subject: The seven Angels, you say, that blew the seven trumpets, and poured out the seven phials, are not to be taken literally, but synecdochically; perhaps so, but then the synecdoche lies in the seven, and not in the Angels, so I grant you the word Angel, is here metaphorical; but you are no whit nearer to your imagined synecdoche.  
The very name Angel, (you say) is sufficient proof, that it is not meant of one person alone, as being a common name to all God's Ministers, and Messengers: As if he did not well know this that directed these Epistles▪ and if he had so meant it, had it not been as easy to have mentioned more as one? Had he said, the Angels of the Church of Ephesus, or Thyatira, the cause had been clear: now, he says the Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the denoted person must be singular; for surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephesus were one Angel: The same reason holds for the Stars: had he said, to the Star of Ephesus, I suppose no body would have construed it of many, but of one eminent person: Now he speaks of so many Stars, as Angels, to wit, seven in those seven Churches.  
Your fourth Argument from the Text itself, is no better than ridiculous: poorly drawn from what it doth not say: Lo, he saith, 
Revel. 1.20.  the 7. Candlesticks which thou sawest are the 7. Churches: but he doth not say, the 7. Stars are the 7. Angels of the seven Churches: but, the Angels of the 7. Churches. Forbear, if you can, Readers, to smile at this curious subtlety: because, the seven is not twice repeated, in mentioning the Angels, there is a deep mystery in the omission: what Cabalism have we here? Had he said, the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the seven churches, now, all had been sure; but he saith not so, but only thus; the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, It is plain, that every Church hath his Angel mentioned; and there being seven Churches how many Angels, I beseech you, are there? now because he doth not say expressly in terms, seven Angels of the seven Churches, we are foiled in our proof; judge Reader, what to expect of so deep speculations.  
Lastly, it is evident (you say) though but one Angel be mentioned in the front, yet the Epistles themselves be dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers, and to the Churches themselves; who ever doubted it? the foot of every Epistle runs (what the spirit saith unto the Churches) not to one Church, but to all seven: If therefore you argue, that the name Angel is collective, say also that every of these seven Angels, is the whole company of all the seven Churches; which were a foul nonsense; you might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus, and the rest of your Authors, and your own; we never thought otherwise, but that the whole Church is spoken to; but so, as that the Governor or Bishop is singled out, as one that hath the main stroke in ordering the affairs thereof, and is therefore either praised, or challenged, according to his carriage therein; although also there are such particularities both of commendations, and exceptions, in the body of the several Epistles, as cannot but have relation to those several Overseers, to whom they were endorsed, as I have else where specified; Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love; had each of them tried the false Apostles? Had all those of Sardis a name to live, and were dead? Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper? these taxations were no doubt of individual persons, but such as in whom the whole Churches were interessed.  
As for those conjectural reasons, which you frame to yourselves, why the whole company of Presbyters should be written to under the singular name of an Angel, if ye please yourselves with them, it is well, from me they have no cause to expect an answer: they neither can draw my assent, nor merit my confutation.  
Take heed of yielding that, which ye cannot but yield to be granted by D. Raynolds, & Mr. Beza, Doctor Fulke, Pareus, and others, that the Angel is here taken individually; but still if you be wise, hold your own; that our cause is no whit advanced, nor yours impaired by this yieldance: Let him have been an Angel, yet what makes this for a Diocesan Bishop? much every way: For if the Church of Ephesus (for example) had many Ministers or Presbyters in it to instruct the people in their several charges, (as it is manifest they had) and yet but one prime Overseer, which is singled out by the Spirit of God, and styled by a title of eminence, the Angel of that Church, it must needs follow, that in St. John's time there was an acknowledged superiority in the government of the Church: if there were many Angels in each, and yet but one that was the Angel, who can make doubt of an inequality?  
It is but a pitiful shift that you make, in pleading that these Angels (if Bishops) yet were not Diocesan Bishops; for that Parishes were not divided into Dioceses (I had thought Dioceses should have been divided into Parishes rather) in S. john's days: for by the same reason, I may as well argue, that they were not Parochial Bishops neither, since that then no Parishes were as yet distinguished: As if you had resolved to speak nothing but Bulls, and Solecisms; you tell me, that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks; whereas those Stars are said to be in the right hand of the Son of God: But (say you still) not one Star was over divers Candlesticks: Truly no; who ever said, that one Angel was over all the seven Churches? but that each of these famous Churches were under their own Star, or Angel; but those churches (you say) were not Diocesan: How doth that appear? Because first tindal, and the old translation calls them seven congregations: for answer, who knows not that tindal, and the old Translation are still wont to translate the word church, wheresoever they find it, by Congregation, which some Papists have laid in our dish: Learned Doctor Fulk hath well cleared our intentions herein from their censure: tindal himself professes to do it out of this reason, because the Popish Clergy had appropriated to themselves the name of the Church; but however, they rather made use of the Word; yet not so as that hereby they intent only to signify Parishional meetings. So Ephesians 3. To the intent that now to the Rulers and Powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Congregation, the manifold Wisdom of GOD; Do we think this blessed Revelation confined to a Parish, or common to the whole Church of God? So 1. Corinthians 15. they turn, I am not worthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Congregation of GOD: Do we think his cruelty was confined to a Parish? So Matthew 6.16. Upon this Rock will I build my Congregation: was this a Parish only? So Acts 11. Herod the King stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Congregation: Was his malice only Parochial? but secondly, ye tell us, that in Ephesus, which was one of those Candlesticks, there was but one flock. Acts 20.28. Yea, but can you tell us what kind of Flock it was, whether national, or Provincial, or Diocesan? Parochial (I am sure) it could not be: you have heard before, that those Elders or Bishops were sent for from Ephesus: But that they were all of Ephesus it cannot be proved; when all of them then are bidden to take heed to the Flock of Christ, whereof they are made overseers, each is herein charged to look to his own; and all are in the next words required to feed the Church of GOD, which he hath purchased with his own blood. So as your second argument is fully answered in the solution of the first, and in the former passages of this Section. The advantage that you take from Epiphanius, affirming that divers Cities of that time might have two Bishops, whereas Alexandria held close to one, can avail you little, when it shall be well weighed; first, that your Tenet supposeth and requireth that every Presbyter should be a Bishop, and therefore (if your cause speed) there should be no fewer Bishops than parishes. Secondly, that the practice of the whole Church, both before and after Epiphanius, is by such clear testimonies convinced to be contrary: famous, and irrefragable, is that Canon of Nicen Council, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 
Conc. Nic. can. 8  that in one City there might not be two Bishops: so before this, Cornelius writing to the Bishop of Antioch objects it scornfully to Novatian, that he did not know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that in a Catholic Church there ought to be but one Bishop; And it is a known word of the Confessors of old, in Cyprians time, one GOD, one Lord, one Bishop: Make much (if you please) of this conceit of yours, that Epiphanius his Neighbourhood might acquaint him well with the Condition of the Asian Churches: But let me add, that you shall approve yourselves mere strangers to all the rules and practices of antiquity: if you shall stand upon the general plurality of Bishops in the same City, or Diocese: And last of all, remember, that Epiphanius reckons up Aerius as an Heretic, for holding Presbyters equal with Bishops.  
Your third argument, that there is nothing said in these seven Epistles, that implies a superiority, is answered by the very Superscription of each Letter, which is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Angel: and much more by the matter of the several Epistles: For what reason were it for an ordinary Presbyter to be taxed for that, which he hath no power to redress? That the Angel of Pergamus should be blamed for the having of those which hold the Doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaitans, when he had no power to proceed against them? or the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, for suffering the Woman Jezabel, (if it must be so read) to teach, and seduce, when he had no power of public censure to restrain her? But what need we stand upon conjectural answers, to convince you in this plea, as likewise in the supposed Decision of the kind of superiority, which you urge in the next paragraph; when we are able to show both who the parties were, to whom some of these Epistles were directed, and to evince the high degree of their superiority; Ignatius the Martyr (besides Tertullian) is witness for both, 
Ignat. ad Ephes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc.  who tells us that Onesimus was now the Angel or Bishop of Ephesus, Polycarpus of Smyrna; and as commenting upon this very subject, oft ingeminates the duty of subjection owing to the Bishop; and the divers degrees of those 3 several stations in the Church; as we already instanced; away then with those your unproving illustrations, and unregardable testimonies, which you (as destitute of all Antiquity) shut up the Scene withal: And let the wise Reader judge, whether the Remonstrant hath not from the evidence of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels, of the Asian Churches, made good that just claim of this sacred Hierarchy, against all your weak and frivolous pretensions. From the Remonstrant (lest your discourse should not be tedious enough) you fly upon some other Defenders of the Hierarchy, and fall upon the two postscripts of Saint Paul's Epistles (to Timothy and Titus, wherein Timothy & Titus are styled the first bishops of Ephesus, and crete) which I am no way engaged to defend: You say they are not of canonical authority; so say I too; but I say they are of great antiquity, & so you must confess also.  
fain would I see but any pretence of so much age against the matter of those Subscriptions: the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, cited by these confident antiquaries: surely he were senseless, that would imagine the Postscripts as old as the Text, or as authentic; but we may boldly say they are older than any Records of the gainsayers.  
Where these Subscriptions are not seconded by authority of the ancient Church, there I leave them; but where they are so well backed, there is no reason to forsake them. The Exception therefore which you take at the Postscript of the Epistle to Titus, is not more stale than unjust. You say peremptorily, it was not written from Nicopolis; neither was Paul then there: how appears it? Because he says in the body of the Epistle, come to me to Nicopolis, for I am determined there to winter: He saith not, here to Winter, but there: as speaking of a third place: but how slight this ground is, will be easily apparent to any man that shall consider, that Saint Paul was in perpetual journeying from place to place: And therefore, though now at that instant at Nicopolis, yet how soon, occasions might call him away, and how long, he knew not: Therefore it was most fit that he should pitch upon a certain place, whither Titus should direct his way toward him: Notwithstanding your guess therefore, since holy Athanasius plainly tells us, that S. Paul wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis; and is therein followed by Oecumenius, and Theophylact, and in that famous ancient Manuscript, sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople; I find it plainly dated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must needs follow, that either this Subscription was before Athanasius and Teclaes' time; or else that they went upon some other good ground of their assertion.  
Lastly, it may well go for a reason of your own making, that the Postscript styles Titus' Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; whereas it would be said of the Churches of the Cretians; for the Christian Churches, of any Nation, are called by Luke and Paul Churches, and not Church: Who would not yield you this truth, that the Christian Churches are called Churches? What can they be called else, when they are mentioned in their several diversities; but when they are upon some entire Relation, conjoined & united, as these of Crect, under one Government, they may well be called not the Churches, but the Church. That flash of Wit might well have been forborn, wherein you make an envious Comparison Betwixt the Authority of these Subscriptions, and Episcopal authority, of urging Subscription to their Ceremonies: And why theirs, I beseech you? Have you been urged to subscribe to any other Ceremonies, than have been established by the Laws of this Realm & Church? Was it Episcopal power that enacted them? Had you been but as obedient, these Ceremonies had been equally yours: Now out of pure Love you impose that upon us, which you repined that the Laws should impose upon you: Go on thus Charitably & prosper.  
Because you wanted Work from the Remonstrance, you will cut out some for yourselves: An Objection of your own must be answered; That is, From the inequality that was between the Twelve Apostles, and the seaventy Disciples: And well may you shape and fashion your own Answer unto your own Objection: It cannot be proved, (you say) that the Twelve had any Superiority over the Seaventy, either of Ordination, or Jurisdiction. What? have you forgotten, brethren, that the Apostles ordained the Deacons, Acts 6.6. by Prayer and imposition of hands? That the Apostle Paul laid his hands on Timothy? Have you forgotten how by virtue of his Apostleship he charges, Commands, Controllers, Censures? What is, if this be not Ordination and Jurisdiction? But (say you) suppose it were so; yet a superiority and inferiority between Officers of different kinds, will not prove a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kind. Deeply argued; Surely hence you may infer, that one Bishop is not superior to another; nor one Presbyter above another; but that a Bishop should not be superior to a Presbyter, were an uncouth consequence: If the twelve Apostles therefore were superiors to the 70. Disciples, 
So Cyprian, Epicopis loquens, etc. Qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt. Ep. 69. Vnitas per Apostolos novis successoribus tradita. Ep. 41 Meminisse debent Diaconi quoniam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos & prapaesitos Dominus clegit. Ep. 65.  and Bishops (as your own Jerome tells you) succeed those Apostles, and Presbyters come in the room of the seventy, where is that identity or sameness of kind which you pretend? All Antiquity hath acknowledged, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three several ranks in the Church-Hierarchy; and if you have a mind to jumble them together, take away the difference betwixt Presbyters, and Deacons, as well as that betwixt Bishops and Presbyters, Jam sumus ergo pares.  
And now we appeal to the same Bar, how far you have been from disproving the Divine right, or Apostolical institution of Episcopacy; and whether your reliance upon Hieromes Authority in this point hath been grounded upon any other reason, but your own weak presumption. Yet still like (as I have heard) some beaten Cocks, you dare crow; and tell your Reader, that though Scriptures fail us, yet we support ourselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious Princes: surely, if GOD should have withdrawn himself, in vain should we make flesh our arms: Our calling we challenge from God: some accessary Titles, Dignities, Maintenance, we thankfully profess to have received from the bounty of Royal Benefactors: What of this? Herein, you say, the Author acknowledgeth a difference, between our Bishops, and the Bishops of old. Yes verily, so he gladly doth, with all humble thankfulness to God, and good Princes: make your best of this concession. Suddenly you fall fair, and profess your well-pleasedness, with the liberal maintenance of the Church, although somewhat yet sticks with you: When the Ministry came to have agros, domos, locationes, vehicula, as you say from chrysostom, then Religio peperit divitias, Religion brought forth riches, and the Daughter devoured the Mother; and a voice was heard from heaven Hodie venenum: and then You tell us of wooden Priests, and golden chalices But, Brethren, take no care for this danger; our last age hath begun to take sufficient order for the redress of this Evil: and if in time You shall see Wooden Chalices, and Wooden Priests, thank yourselves.  
However, you grant there is not an incompossibility betwixt large Revenues, and an humble Sociableness; yet You say, it is rare; and tell us, That the rich Provision of Bishops hath ushered in, both neglect of their Ministry, and Pompous attendance, and insultation over their Brethren: And You instance in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus, and shut up with the grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus. It is not to be denied, Brethren, that some such ill use hath been made, by some, of their abundance: but surely, in this ablative age, the fault is rare, and hardly instanceable; both the Wings and train of many of ours have been so Clipped, that there is no great fear of flying high. But if it be so, the fault is fixed to the person, who with more grace might otherwise improve the blessing. Cast your eyes upon others, even your own great Patrons, and tell me if you do not espy the same ill use of large means, and flattering prosperity; yet you desire not to abridge their store, but to rectify the employment of it: Learn to be so charitable to your spiritual superiors.  
And now at last you give a vale to your Remonstrants' Arguments, and shut up with a bold recollection, concerning which, let me say thus much; Truly, Brethren, had you as good a faculty in strewing, as you have in gathering, there were no dealing with you: but it is your ill hap to tell the reader in your recapitulation of great feats that you have done in your former discourse, when as he must needs profess that he sees no such matter. I appeal to his judicious eyes, whether in all this tedious passage, you have proved any thing but your own bold ignorance, and absurd inconsequences.   

SECT. XIV.  
MY satisfaction to objections comes next to be scanned; Objections, which would to God they were only of my own framing.  
In the first, That Episcopacy is no prejudice of Sovereignty, I justly prove, for that there is a compatibleness in this case of God's act, and the Kings. It is God that makes the Bishop, the King that gives the Bishopric: what can you say to this?  
You tell us you have already proved that God never made a bishop, as he stands in superiority over Presbyters, so you told us; and that is enough, we were hard hearted if we would not believe you: When as we have made good by undeniable proofs, that (besides the grounds which our Saviour laid of this imparity) the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God, made this difference in a personal ordaining of some above the rest, and giving express charge of Ordination and jurisdiction to those select persons, in Church government, the Bishops have ever since succeeded.  
Tell us not therefore, that if we disclaim the influence of Sovereignty into our Creation, and assert that the King doth not make us Bishops, we must have no being at all; For, that the Reader may see you stop your own mouth; answer me, I beseech you, Where, or when ever did the King create a Bishop? name the man, and take the cause. It pleases his Majesty to give his Congedelier for a Bishop's Election to his See, to signify his Royal assent thereunto; upon which the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan, and other his Brethren; and these do, as from God, invest him in his holy Calling, which he exercises in that place, which is designed and given by his Majesty: What can be more plain than this truth? As for that unworthy censure which you pass upon the just comparison of Kings in order to Bishops, and Patrons in order to their Clerks, it shall be acknowledged, well deserved, if you shall be able to make good the disparity; When he shall prove (you say) that the Patron gives Ministerial power to his Clerk, as the King gives Episcopal power to the Bishop, it may be of some conducement to his cause: Shortly, brethren, the same day that you shall show me that the King ordained a bishop, the same day will I show you that a Patron ordained a Presbyter: The Patron gives the benefice to the one, The King gives the bishopric to the other: neither of them do give the Office, or Calling to either. Go you therefore with your Friar Simon, to your Cell, and consult with your Covent for more reason and wit, than you show in this, and the next scornful Paragraph; wherein whiles you flout at my modest concession with an unbeseeming frump, you are content silently to balk that my second answer, which you know was too hot, or too heavy for your satisfaction.  
In the second; the Imputation pretended to be cast by this Tenet upon all the reformed Churches, which want this government, I endeavoured so to satisfy, that I might justly decline the envy, which is intended to be thereby raised against us: For which cause, I professed that we do love and honour those our sister Churches, as the dear spouse of Christ, and give zealous testimonies of my well wishing to them.  
Your uncharitableness offers to choke me with those scandalous censures, and disgraceful terms which some of ours have let fall upon those Churches, and their eminent professors, which I confess, it is more easy to be sorry for, then (on some hands) to excuse; The error of a few may not be imputed to all.  
My just defence is that no such consequent can be drawn from our opinion; for as much as the Divine or Apostolical right, which we hold, goes not so high, as if there were an express command, that upon an absolute necessity there must be either Episcopacy, or no Church; but so far only, that it both may and aught to be; How fain would you here find me in a contradiction? Whiles I onewhere reckon Episcopacy amongst matters essential to the Church, another where, deny it to be of the essence thereof; Wherein you willingly hide your eyes that you may not see the distinction that I make expressly betwixt the Being & Well-being of a Church: Affirming that those Churches, to whom this power and faculty is denied, lose nothing of the true essence of a Church, though they miss something of their glory, and perfection.  
No, Brethren, it is enough for some of your friends to hold their Discipline altogether essential to the very being of a Church; We dare not be so zealous.  
The question which you ask concerning the reason of the different entertainment, given in our Church to priests converted to us from Rome, and to Ministers, who in Qu. Mary's days had received Imposition of hands in Reformed Churches abroad, is merely personal; neither can challenge my decision; Only I give you these two answers; that what fault soever may be in the easy admittance of those, who have received Romish Orders, the sticking at the admission of our brethren returning from Reformed Churches, was not in case of Ordination; but of Institution: they had been acknowledged Ministers of Christ, without any other hands laid upon them, but according to the Laws of our Land they were not, perhaps, capable of institution to a benefice, unless they were so qualified, as the Statutes of this Realm do require; And secondly I know those, more than one, that by virtue only of that Ordination, which they have brought with them from other Reformed Churches, have enjoyed Spiritual Promotions and Livings without any exception against the lawfulness of their calling.  
The confident affirmation which you allege of the learned bishop of Norwich is no rule to us; 
B. Montague  I leave him to his own defence; You think I have too much work on my hand to give satisfaction for myself in these two main Questions which arise from my book.  
What high points shall we now expect trow we?  
First, whether that Office, which by divine right hath sole power of Ordination, and ruling all other Officers of the Church (which he saith Episcopacy hath) belong not to the being, but only to the glory, and perfection of a Church: Can we tell what these men would have? Have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that necessity, and essential use of Episcopacy, which we dare not avow? Do they not care to lose their cause, so they may cross an Adversary? For your Question, you still talk of sole Ordination, and sole jurisdiction; you may (if you please) keep that pair of soles for your next shoes: We contend not for such an height of Propriety, neither do we practise it; they are so ours, that they should not be without us, as we have formerly showed; That therefore there should be a power of lawful Ordination and government in every settled Church, it is no less than necessary, but that in what case soever of extremity, and irresistible necessity, this should be only done by Episcopal hands, we never meant to affirm: It is enough that regularly it should be their Act.  
Your second Question is, There being (in this man's thoughts) the same jus Divinum for Bishops, that there is for Pastors and Elders, whether, if those Reformed Churches, wanted Pastors and Elders too, they should want nothing of the essence of a Church; but of the Perfection, and Glory of it: The answer is ready: If those Reformed Churches, wanting those whom you call pastors and Elders, did yet enjoy the government, by Bishops, Priests & Deacons, they should be so far from wanting aught of the essence of a Church, that they should herein attain to much glory and perfection: And so much for your deep questions.  
The presumptuous Remonstrant would seem to know so much of the mind of those Churches, that he saith, if they might have their option, he doubts not but they would gladly embrace Episcopal government; a foul imputation which your Zeal must needs wipe off; for which purpose you bring the confessions of the French, and Dutch Churches, averring the truth, and justifiableness of their own government; For which they have good reason: neither shall you herein expect my contradiction; nor yet my present labour of reconciling their government, and ours in the main and material points of both, This condition they are in, and they do well to defend it, but they did not tell you they would not (if opportunity were offered) be content with a better; I am deceived if their own public Constitutions be not still concluded with the power of a Change; and I have elsewhere showed out of Fregevillaeus, that this Order of Government was in their Churches at first only provisional; and instanced in those testimonies of approbation, which their learned Divines have freely given to our form of Administration; which I shall not now stand either to repeat, or multiply: Let it be enough for the present to say, that upon my certain knowledge, many eminent Divines of the Churches abroad have earnestly wished themselves in our condition, and have applauded and magnified our Church, as the most Famous, Exemplary and glorious Church in the whole Christian World: So as I wanted not good reason, for that which you are pleased to style presumptuous assertion.  
But the reason of my Assertion is yet so more offensive, that you Wonder how it could fall from my Pen:  
That there is little difference in the government of other Protestant Churches and our own, save in the perpetuity of their Moderatorship, and the exclusion of Lay Elders; A passage, belike, as you say, of admirable absurdity. But soft, brethren, I am afraid, first, lest you speak of what you know not; I speak not only of the next Churches of France, and the netherlands, I speak of them in a generality, as one that (if this place would bear it) could give a particular account of them all: Neither can your cavils work my repentance. You tell me of the Moderator in Geneva (as if all the Church of God were included in those straight walls) I could tell you of the superintendents of the Churches of Germany, of the Prepositi in the Churches of Weteraw, Hessia, Anhalt, of the Seniores, in Transylvania, Polonia, Bohemia; But what of the Moderator in Geneva? He is not of a Superior Order to his Brethren; But let me tell you, when Master Calvin was Moderator there, as he constantly was for many years, no Bishop in England swayed more, than he did in that Church: And even in the Low Countries how much the Deputati Synodi, after they had been frequently employed in those services, (as for instance, my ancient and truly reverend friend Mr. Bogermannus) prevailed) & with what authority they carry the affairs of the Church, it is not hard to understand; for those other circumstances, which you are pleased to mention, were the moderatorship perpetual; they would soon accordingly vary; and if not so, yet you may remember, that I said not, no difference at all, but, little, whereof your well affectedness to our Government can make this use, that then the Abrogation of Episcopacy will be wrought with the less difficulty, and occasion the less disturbance; The old word is; welfare a friend in a corner; still you are for the destructive; none but the Babylonian note sounds well in your ear, Down with it, down with it, even to the ground: But the God of Heaven whose cause it is, will, we hope, vindicate his own ordinance, so long perpetuated to his Church, from all your violent and subtle machinations, and prevent the utmost danger of your already sufficiently raised disturbance.   

SECT. XV.  
COncerning the Lay Presbytery I said, and say still most justly, that it never had footing in the Church of God till this present age: These wits cry out in great sport, See, see, how like the man looks to Doctor Hall, in his irrefragable Propositions? Truly, brethren, as like him, as ye are like yourselves: who are still scornful and insolent: but though ye be commonly spiteful, yet you are so seldom witty, that we may well bear with you for once: be he like whom he will; Dr. Hall will sufficiently defend both those Propositions, and this Remonstrance against all your impotent cavils: For this, concerning the questioned Lay presbytery, You make a fair flourish to little purpose: You do wisely to omit those three known Texts, which the world knows have been so throughly canvased and eluded, and that famous Text of an acknowledged counterfeit, Ambrose, so often exploded: we shall have now new stuff from You, but of as little worth: Surely had the foregoing Patrons of your Lay-Eldership found that they could have received any colour of protection from these places of Antiquity, alleged by you, they had not, after the raking of all the channels of time, forborn the utmost urging of these Your Testimonies, in their favour and defence; but they well saw how little reason there was, to press those unproving evidences, which you will needs urge as convictive.  
Your testimony from Origen cannot but shame you, if yet you can blush; 
Orig. contra Celsum c. 14.  you feared to cite the Chapter, that in so long a book, you might not be discovered.  
But the scope of the place is clearly thus, Origen is upon comparison of the Philosophers and Christians in their care of teaching; Nam illi (scil. Philosophi) propalam apud vulgus disserentes non sunt curiosi in descernendis auditoribus, etc. For the Philosophers, saith he, in their public discourses to the people are not curious in the differences of their Auditors, but every one that lists, comes and hears them at pleasure: But the Christians do, what they may, carefully pre-examine the minds of those that desire to hear them: and first they do privately so to those which are bewitched (with Paganism) before they be received into the Congregation; And when they seem to have come on so far, as to be desirous to live honestly, then do they bring them in; but in distinct degrees; the one of those which are newly admitted, but have not yet attained (the cognizance of their Purification,) Baptism; the other of those which are now come on so far as to profess the Christian Religion; in this latter rank are appointed some, which do inquire into the lives and manners of those that come; that they may be a means to keep off such Candidates of Religion as do carry themselves amiss, from their Assemblies: And the rest that are like themselves, they may gladly receive: In which passage it is most evident that Origen speaks of those which are newly admitted into the Church, who by reason of their late knowledge and acquaintance with those which they left behind them in Pagan superstition, might be fit Monitors to know, and notify the condition of such Candidates as did offer to come into the Church; Now these trusty Answerers would make the World believe, that this is spoken of some Sage Elders, that were to govern the Church; and (to deceive the Reader) unfaithfully turn the words, Nonnulli Praepositi sunt, as if they were some ruling Elders indeed; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Whereas the word signifies, and intends only a designation of such Novices as were well approved, to an Office of Monitorship concerning those which would profess to be Converts. And now to return your own words, we would gladly know whether these were not, as it were, Lay Elders.  
As for those other testimonies, which you have drawn hither out of Augustine, Optatus, and the Letters of Fortis, and Purpurius out of Baronius; I could, if need were, double your files in this kind, might that do you any service, 
Vide Justellum, in notis ad Canon. African.  I could tell you out of the acts of the Purgation of Foelix and Caecilianus, of Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, Seniores; out of the Synodal Epistle of the Cabarsussitan council (as mentioned by Saint Augustine in his Enarration upon the Psalms) Necesse nos fuerat Primiani causam Seniorum literis ejusdem Ecclesiae postulantibus, audire atque discutere; which is a more pregnant place then any you have brought; and could reckon You up yet more, out of the Code of the African Canons, Can. 91. Out of Gregory Turonensis, who speaking of the Bishop of Marselles brings him in to say, Nihil per me feci, etc. I did nothing of myself, but that which was commanded me à Dominis nostris, & Senioribus: Out of Gregory the great in his Epistles more than once, I could weary you with supply of such authorities: But, Brethren, I shall sadly tell you, that you do herein nothing but abuse your Reader, with a colourable pretence: For all those places you allege, are nothing at all to the purpose in hand. Who can make question but that Carthage and Hippo, and other African Cities, had old and grave men in them? Who can doubt that they had Magistrates and men in authority? Such, as we still are wont out of the ancient appellation, to style Aldermen? Who can doubt that they did in all great occasions of the Church take the advice, and assistance of these prime men? But will it hence follow that in the sense you contend for, they had a Settled Lay Presbytery? Was their Church ere the more (according to your construction) governed by Pastors, Elders, Deacons? That these forecited were such, as we have intimated, is most evident; in the African Canons (Can 100) they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the old men; And in the 91 Canon, we find as a Commentary upon this point, Debere unumquemque nostrum in civitate sua convenire Donatistarum Praepositos, aut adjungere sibi vicinum Collegam, ut pariter eos in singulis quibusque Civitatibus per Magistratus, vel Seniores locorum conveniant That is, That every one of us should in our own Cities meet with the chief Governors of the Donatists, and take with him some neighbour as his Colleague or Assistant, that they together may give them a meeting by the Magistrates or Elders of the places.  
But you will say, there were those which were called Seniores Ecclesiastici; ecclesiastical Elders also; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Can. Afr. 91  True, there were such, justellus confesses so much, and learned Isaacus Causabonus (whose manuscript notes I have seen,) and his worthy Son, Mericus Causabonus in his notes upon Optatus, yield no less, but these they do truly say, were but as our Churchwardens; men that were trusted with the utensils, stock, and outward affairs of the Church; or, as I may more fully compare them, our vestry-men: who are commonly and of old designed under the name of the eight men, or twelve men, in every great parish (as I am sure it is in the Western parts) to order the businesses of Seats, 
Aug. contra Crescon. l. 3. Omnes vos Episcopi, Presbyteri, Diaconi, & Seniores scitis, etc. where against your own knowledge you translate Presbyteri (Elders) to blear the Readers eyes, with a show of a double sort of Elders, whereas Presbyteri are there manifestly distinguished from Seniores.  and rates, and such like external occasions; now that those places which you have cited intent no other Elders, than these, you shall he convinced out of your own testimonies.  
The place which you bring out of Saint Austen contra Cresconium Grammaticum, runs thus; Omnes vos, etc. All you Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and Elders, do know, etc. where you see plainly that the Elders which he means are below Deacons, and so you shall find them, wheresoever they are mentioned; now those that you contend for, are by your own claim, in a Key above them. Optatus whom you cite is clear against your sense; whiles he makes only quatuor genera capitum only four sorts of men in the Church; Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, & the faithful (Laity) And in his first book against Parmenian, Quid commemorem Laicos, etc. he reckons up, mere Laics, Ministers, Deacons; Presbyteros secundo sacerdotio constitutos, Presbyters in the second degree of Priesthood, & principes omnium Episcopos, and the chief of all Bishops. Shortly, brethren, that there were in the Church of old ruling Elders, which were in a rank above Deacons, and had together with the pastors a settled power of government, in the Church, it is an opinion no less new, then unjustifiable; & I do here solemnly profess, that if any one such instance can be brought, I will renounce Episcopacy for ever. Do not then, against the light of your own knowledge set a face on proofs of those things, which never were, but give glory to God in yielding to so undoubted and clear a truth.   

SECT. XVI. XVII.XVIII.  
THe rest that remains is but mere Declamation, not worthy of any answer, but contempt and silence; It is most true that the religious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and his Antichrist.  
What can you say to this? You tell me of some irreligious ones, that have as strongly upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of GOD; What is this to the calling? can not I tell you of some wicked and irreligious Presbyters, shall the function itself therefore suffer? You tell us What an unpreaching Bishop once said of a Preacher; I challenge you to show any unpreaching Bishop in the Church of England this day? it is your slander, this, not their just Epithet: the scandals of our inferior Ministers, I profess I could not but bleed to see, but withal desired to have had them less public; your charity accuseth me of excusing them, and blaming my humble motion of Constantine's example, profess to desire the blazoning of them to the World; Whether of us shall give a better account of our charity to the God of peace, I appeal to that great Tribunal.  
In your next Section, like ill-bred sons, you spit in the face of your mother; A Mother too good for such sons; The Church of England; and tell us of Papists that dazzle the eyes of poor people with the glorious name of the holy Mother the Church; If they be too fond of their Mother, I am sure your Mother hath little cause to be fond of you; Who can and dare compare her to those Aethiopian strumpets, which were common to all comers; For your whole undutiful carriage towards her, take heed of the Ravens of the valley: As if we were no less strangers, than you enemies to the Church of England, you tell the World that we know not who she is; and that we wonder when we are asked the question; and run descant upon the two Archbishops, Bishops, Convocation; Even what your luxuriant wit shall please▪ and at last you make up your mouth with a merry jest, telling your Reader that the Remonstrant, out of his simplicity, never heard, nor thought of any more Churches of England then one Ridiculum caput! Sat you merry, Brethren but truly after all your sport, still my simplicity tells me there is but one Church of England; There are many Churches in England; but many Churches of England, were never till now heard of; You had need fetch it as far as the Heptarchy; And to show how far you are from the objected simplicity, ye tell us in the shutting up▪ that England, Scotland, and Ireland, are all one Church. Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae.  
But now take heed of Obelisks: You profess, you for your parts do acknowledge no antiprelatical Church: I am glad to hear it; nor I neither; but I beseech you, if you make and condemn a Prelatical Church of England, what shall be the other part of the Contradistinction?  
The Remonstrant tells you of further divisions, and subdivisions, which upon this ground you must necessarily make of the Church, your deep wisdoms take this, as of his upbrading of the divisions in the Church, in mere matter of Opinion, and fly out into the censures of the Prelatical party, as the cause thereof; and would have them say, Mitte nos in Mare, & non erit tempestas; The truth is, the severalties of Sects, and their separate Congregations about this City are many and lamentable; I do not upbraid, but bewail them; The God of Heaven be judge where the fault rests, and (if it be his holy will) find some speedy redress, but in the mean time, one casts it upon faction, another upon ungrounded rigour, wheresoever it be, Woe be to those by whom the offence cometh; Lay you your hands on your hearts onwards, and consider well Whether your fomenting of so unjust and deep dislikes of lawful government have not been too much guilty of these woeful breaches.  
As one that love that peace of the Church which you are willing to trouble, I persuading an unity, ask what bounders you set, what distinction of Professors you make, what grounds of Faith, what new Creed, what different Scriptures, Baptism, means of salvation are held by that part which you miscall the Prelatical Church; You answer according to your wont Charity, and Truth.  
What bounds? Those (you say) of the sixth Canon▪ from the high and lofty Promontory of Archbishops, to the Terra incognita of an etc. Witty again. Alas, brethren, if this be all, the Lists are too narrow. Here are but four ranks of Dignities, and few in each; put if that inclusive, [&c.] reach far, yet what will you make of all this?  
Do you exclude Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, &c. from being members of the Church of England? sure you dare not be so shamefully unjust: If therefore, that they have an interest in the Prelacy, cannot exclude them for their interest in the Church: What becomes of your bounders? This is fit work for your Obelisk.  
What distinction? you say, worshipping to the East, bowing to the Altar, prostituting (perhaps you mean prostrating) themselves in their approaches into Churches: and are these fit distinctions, brethren, whereupon to ground different churches? if they difference men, do they difference Christians?  
What new Creed? you say, Episcopacy by divine right is the first article of their Creed. For shame brethren, did ever man make this an article of faith? who will think you worthy to have any faith given you in the rest of your assertions? you add; absolute and blind obedience to all the commandments of Bishops; Blush yet again, brethren, blush to affirm this, when you well know that the words of the oath of Canonical obedience run only, In omnibus licitis & honestis mandatis, in all lawful and honest commands.  
You add, Election upon faith foreseen; What? nothing but gross untruths? Is this the doctrine of the Bishops of England, have they not strongly confuted it in Papists, in Arminians; have they not cried it down to the pit of Hell? What means this wickedly false suggestion? judge Reader, if here be not work for Obelisks.  
What Scripture? you say, Apocrypha, and Traditions unwritten; Mark I beseech you, unwritten Traditions are Scriptures, first: then Apocrypha; and why, I pray you, is it more our Apocrypha, then yours? Are all our Bible's Prelatical too? Shortly all those Churches and houses, and persons that have the Apocrypha in their Bible's belong to the Church Prelatical, what have we lost by the match.  
What Baptism? What Eucharist? You tell us of the absolute necessity which some Popish fools have ascribed to the one; and of an Altar and table set Altarwise in the other What are these to the Church of England? doth the error of every addle head? or the sight or posture of a Board make a different Church?  
What Christ? You answer, (near to a blasphemy;) A Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himself hath: This can be nothing but a slanderous fiction; No Christian Divine ever held that a Priest's power of absolution was any other then ministerial; Christ's Sovereign and absolute. If you know the man bring him forth that he may be stoned.  
What Heaven? you say, such as is receptive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers. Brethren, take heed of an Hell, whiles you fain such an Heaven▪ and fear lest your uncharitableness will no less bar you out of the true Heaven above, than you bar Prelatical sinners from their access thereinto: but, if you had rather, go on still in your own way, separate yourselves from us that profess we are one with you; Charge upon us those doctrines and opinions which we hate no whit less than yourselves, fasten upon the Church of England those exotic positions of unsound teachers, which itself hath in terminis condemned; and say as you are not ashamed to do, We thank God we are none of you; we forgive you, and pray for your repentance.  
Your Quaeres, wherein I see you trust much, are made up of nothing but spite and slander: If I answer you with questions shorter than your own, and more charitable, you will excuse me. In answer then to your first, I ask,  
Who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to stand by divine right. If no body, whether he that intimates it doth not falsify and slander? Why is it a greater fault in one of our Doctors to hold the Lords day to stand jure bumano, than it was in Master Calvin?  
I ask whether it were any other then K. james himself of blessed memory that said, No Bishop, no King; and if it were he, whether that wise King did not mean to prejudice his own authority?  
Whether since it hath been proved that Bishops are of more than merely humane Ordinance, and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church, and State, it be not most fit to establish them for ever: and to avoid all dangerous motions of innovation?  
Whether these answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy? or if they did, whether they could possibly be so absurd, as to raise so senseless and inconsequent inferences upon it?  
Whether there be any question at all in the fifth question? since the Remonstrant himself hath so fully cleared this point, professing to hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolical, and, in that right, Divine Institution?  
Whether Master Beza have not heard fondly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy, in the full and learned answer of Saravia: and whether he might not have been better advised then in that conceit of his, to cross all reverend antiquity: and whether the Painter that dressed up his Picture after the fancy of every passenger, do not more fitly resemble those, that frame their discipline according to the humour of their people, varying their projects every day, than those which hold them constantly to the only ancient and Apostolical form.  
Whether it were not fit that we also should speak as the ancient Fathers did, according to the language of their times; and whether those Fathers could not better understand and interpret their own meaning in the title of Episcopacy, than these partial, and not over-judicious answerers; and whether they have not clearly explicated themselves in their writings, to have spoken properly and plainly to the sense now enforced.  
Whether Presbyters can with out sin arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of public Church government, where Bishops are set over them to rule and order the affairs both of them, and the Church; and whether our Saviour when he gave to Peter the promise of the Keys, did therein intend to give it (in respect of the power of public jurisdiction) to any other save the Apostles; and their Successors the Bishops; and whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age, held that Presbyters were the Successors to the Apostles, and not to the seventy Disciples rather.  
Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power Temporal to be Barons, and to sit in Parliament, as judges, and in Court of Star-chamber, etc. or whether they be not called by his Majesty's writ, and royal authority to these services; and whether the spiritual power which they exercise, in ordaining, silencing, etc. be any other than was by the Apostles delegated to the first Bishops of the Church, & constantly exercised by their holy successors in all ages, especially by Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the rest of that sacred order; men which had as little to do with Antichrist, as our answerers have with charity.  
Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronising a noted Heretic, Aerius, in that for which he was censured of the ancient Saints, and Fathers of the Church; and whether the whole Church of Christ ever since his time till this age have not abandoned those very errors concerning the equality of Bishops and Presbyters which they now presume to maintain.  
Whether the great Apostasy of the Church of Rome do, or did consist in maintaining the order of government set by the Apostles themselves; and whether all the Churches in the whole Christian World (even those that are professedly opposite to the Church of Rome) do let in Antichrist by the door of their Discipline, since they all maintain Episcopacy no less constantly than Rome itself;  
Whether if Episcopacy be (through the munificence of good Princes) honoured with a title of dignity, and largeness of revenues, it ought to be, ere the more declined and whether themselves, if they did no hope to carry some sway in the Presbytery would be so eager in crying up that government; and whether if there were not ● maintenance annexed, they would not hid themselves, and jeopard their ears rathe● then mancipate themselves to the charge o● souls.  
Whether there be no other apparent causes to be given for the increase of Popery and superstition in the Kingdom, besides Episcopacy (which hath laboured strongly to oppose it) and whether the multitudes of Sects, and professed slovenliness in God's service, (in too many) have not been guilty of the increase of profaneness amongst us.  
Why should England one of the most famous Churches of Christendom, separate itself from that form of government, which all Churches through the whole Christian World have ever observed, and do constantly and uniformly observe and maintain; and why should not rather other less noble Churches conform to that universal government which all other Christians besides do gladly submit unto.  
Why should the name of Bishops, which hath been for this 1600. years appropriated (in a plain contradistinction) to the governor's of the Church, come now to be communicated to Presbyters, which never did all this while so much as pretend to it; and if in ancient times they should have done it could not have escaped a most severe censure. And shortly whether if we will allow you to be Bishops all will not be well.  
Whether since both God hath set such a government in his Church, as Episcopacy, and the Laws of this Land have firmly established it, it can be lawful for you to deny your subjection unto it; and whether it were not most lawful and just to punish your presumption and disobedience in framing so factious a question?  
And thus I hope you have a sufficient answer to your bold and unjust demands, and to those vain cavils which you have raised against the humble Remonstrance.  
God give you Wisdom to see the Truth, and Grace to follow it, Amen,   

To the Postscript.  
THe best beauty that you could have added to your discourse, brethren, had been honesty and truth both in your allegations of Testimonies, and inferences of argumentation; In both which I must needs say (and I speak it in the presence of God to whom I must shortly give an account) that I never saw any Writer that would dare to profess Christian sincerity, so foully to overlash; as if ye made no conscience by what means you uphold a side, or win a proselyte; God touch your hearts with a true sense of that whereof you cannot be but in this discourse convinced.  
Now you think to garnish your work with a goodly Pasquin borrowed (for a great part) out of Sion's Plea, and the Breviate consisting of a rhapsody of Histories, concerning the pride, insolence, treachery, cruelty, and all other the deadly sins of popish prelate's, but especially of those, who swayed the See of Canterbury, in those days of Darkness and Rhenish Tyranny. Whereto I suppose you expect no answer as being a thing utterly unconcerning us; and that, whereof I might say (setting aside the ill intention of an application) as Huntingdoniensis said of the Cardinal's adultery, Celari non potuit, negari non debuit. But tell me brethren what can be your drift in this your tedious relation? Is there any man that offers to undertake their patrocination? or is it any advantage to you to make their memory yet more odious? Let them have been as foul as ill will can make them; Let them have been in their times Devils incarnate; what is that to us? They were Bishops you say. True, but they were popish bishops; limbs of that body, whose head we abjure; the fault of their wickedness was in the Popery, not in the Episcopacy, in the men, not the calling, why should you think to choke us with these hateful instances If I should go about to rake together all the insolences, murders, incests, treasons, and villainies, that have been done by Popish Presbyters in the time of that lawless ignorance, & superstition, would you think these could be any blemish to you? why will you then be so miserably uncharitable, as to cast upon us the crimes of those whom we equally condemn, and to feoff their faults upon their chairs? what one profession is there in all mankind, which if we should go about to ransack, would not yield some persons extremely vicious, shall the vocation be condemned, for the crimes of the men? At last to make up the mouth of your admirable charity, You tell us of the gracious practices of the Prelates from the beginning of Queen Elizabets' Reign to this present day; whose great design, you say, still hath been to hinder reformation, to further Popery and Arminianism, to beat down preaching, to persecute zealous Professors, and some such other noble projects of Episcopal piety: Tell me Brethren, as you will answer it before the just judge of all the World; Have these been the main designs of Bishops? Are they all guilty of these woeful enormities, or are they not; If ye say they are, the World will cry shame on your falsehood; If they are not, the World will cry no less shame on your injustice, in taxing all for the fault of some: What? are these the only remarkable works that your eyes could discover to fall from the hands of Bishops? could you see no Colleges, no Hospitals built? no Churches re-edified? no learned Volumes written? no heresies confuted? no seduced persons reclaimed? no hospitality kept? no great offenders punished? no disorders corrected? no good offices done for the public? no care of the peace of the Church? No diligence in preaching? No holiness in living? Truly, brethren, I can say no more, but that the fault is in your eyes, and not in your object: Wipe them, and look better; Yea, I beseech God to open them rather, that they may see good, as well, as evil.  
As for that base and scurrilous Proverb, to which you say it is now come (whereas the World knows it is elder than your Grandsires, and was taken up, in the popish times) it were more fit for a Scurra in trivio, or some Ribald upon an Alebench, then for grave Divines.  
How easy were it for me to reckon up an hundred of such spiteful Adages which vulgar envy hath been wont to cast upon the rest of the Clergy, worthy of nothing but scorn? and so had this been, if your wit and charity had not been alike; But surely, Brethren, if whatsoever is spoiled, they say, The Bishops foot hath been in it; I doubt not but they will say, The Bishops foot hath been in your Book, for I am sure it is quite spoiled by this just confutation. Afier your own pottage (for your Proverb sapit ollam) you tell us of Boner's broth; I should have too much wondered at this conclusion, but that I hear it is the fashion in some Countries, to send in their Keal in the last service, and this, it seems, is the manner amongst our Smectymnuans.  
Well; to shut up all, let them of their Boners' beef and broth, make what Brewis they please for their credulous guests: Learned and worthy Doctor Moulin shall tell them, that the restauration of the English Church, and eversion of Popery, 
P. Moulin. Epist. 3. ad Episcop. Winton, etc.  next under God, and our King, is chiefly to be ascribed and owed to the learning and industry of our Bishops; some whereof being crowned with Martyrdom, subscribed the Gospel with their blood; Thus he; Neither doubt I but that many of them (if occasion were offered) would be ready to imitate them in those red Characters.  
In the mean time I beseech the God of Heaven to humble you in the sight and sense of your own grievous uncharitableness, and to put (at last) into your hearts and tongues, the Counsels of Peace.   
FINIS.   

An Advertisement to the READER.  
KNow Reader, that whereas in one of those many angry Pamphlets, which have been lately published, there is an intimation given of some disgraceful language that fell from Dr. Voetius, the learned professor of Vtrecht, concerning the person of Doct. Hall B. of Exeter; there hath been serious inquisition made into the truth of that report; and that the said D. Voetius disavows (to the party that inquired of it) any such words of undervaluation, by him spoken, as it is testified under the hand of Sir William Boswell Knight, his Majesty's Lieger with the states: And, if, upon the sight of a displeasing title of a Book (contrary to his own judgement) any learned Divine, should have passed a censure upon the work; there was small reason for the reporters to reflect upon the person of the author. Yea, I am confident that many of our worthy brethren at home, who are differently minded concerning this tenet of the right of Episcopacy, if they would be pleased to inform themselves throughly of the state of the question, as it is defended by the Author of that treatise, would find small cause of scruple in this opinion. For whereas there are three degrees of truths, and holy institutions (as they are commonly distinguished) Humane, Apostolic, Divine; The first from mere men; The second from men Apostolical; The third from God himself immediately; The Author desires to go a Midway in this difference; holding it too low to derive Episcopacy from a merely humane, and Ecclesiastical Ordinance; holding it too high to deduce it from an immediate command from God; and therefore pitching upon an Apostolical institution; rests there: but because those Apostles were divinely inspired, & had the directions of God's spirit for those things which they did for the common administration of the Church, therefore, and in that only name is Episcopacy said to lay claim to a Divine right; howsoever also it cannot be gainsaid that the grounds were formerly laid by our Saviour in a known imparity of his first agents; Now surely this truth hath so little reason to distaste them, that, even learned Chamier himself can say; Res ipsa coepit tempore Apostolorum, vel potius ab ipsis profecta est. And why should that seem harsh in us, which soundeth well in the mouths of less-interessed Divines? but because the very title of that book hath raised more dust than the treatise itself; Be pleased, Readers, to see, that this very question is in the very same terms determined by that eminent light of the Palatinate; Dr. Abrah. Scultetus; whose tract to this purpose I have thought fit to annex.  
Peruse it, and judge whether of those two writers have gone further in this determination; And if you shall not meet with convincing reasons to bring you home to this opinion; yet, at leastwise find cause enough to retain a charitable and favourable conceit of those, who are (as they think, upon good grounds) otherwise minded; and whilst it is on all parts agreed by wise and unprejudiced Christians, that the calling is thus ancient and sacred; let it not violate the peace of the Church to scan the original, whether Ecclesiastical, Apostolical, or divine. Shortly, let all good men humbly submit to the Ordinance, and heartily wish the Reformation of any abuses.  
And so many as are of this mind, Peace be upon them, and the whole Israel of GOD.  
AMEN.   

THE DETERMINATION of the question, Concerning the Divine Right of EPISCOPACY.  
By the famous and learned Divine Dr. Abrahamus Scultetus, late Professor of divinity in the University of HEIDELBERG.  
Faithfully translated out of his Observations upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.  
LONDON Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER. 1641,   

The Question.  
Whether Episcopacy be of Divine right? That is, whether the Apostles ordained this Government of the Church, that not only one should be placed over the people, but over Presbyters and Deacons, who should have the power of Imposition of Hands, or Ordination, and the direction of Ecclesiastical Counsels.  
THis was anciently denied by Aerius, as is related by Epiphanius, in his 75 Heresy, and by john of Jerusalem, as appears by Hierome, in his Epistle to Pammachius. And there are not wanting in these days many learned and pious men, who, although they acknowledge Aerius to have erred, in that he should disallow of that manner of Ecclesiastical government, which had been received by the whole World; yet in this they agree with him, that Episcopal government is not of Divine Right. From whose opinion why I should sever my judgement, I am moved by these strong reasons, famous examples, and evident authorities.  
My judgement is this;  
First, in the Apostles Epistles the name of Bishop did never signify any thing different from the office of a Presbyter. For a Bishop, Presbyter, and an Apostle, were common names, as you may see Act. 20. Phil. 1. v. 1. Tit. 1. 1. Pet. v. 12. Act. 1.20.  
Next. In the chief Apostolical Church, the Church was governed by the common advice of Presbyters; and that for some years in the time of the preaching of the Apostles. For first of all, companies must be gathered together, before we can define any thing concerning their perpetual government.  
Then, the Apostles, as long as they were present or near their Churches, did not place any Bishop over them, properly so called, but only Presbyters, reserving Episcopal authority to themselves alone.  
Lastly, after the Gospel was far and near propagated, and that out of equality of Presbyters, by the instinct of the Devil, Schisms were made in Religion, than the Apostles (especially in the more remote places) placed some over the Pastors, or Presbyters, which shortly after, by the Disciples of the Apostles, Ignatius, and others, were only called bishops, & by this appellation, they were distinguished from Presbyters & Deacons.  
Reason's moving me to this opinion? First, Hierome upon the 1. Chapter of the Epistle to Titus, writeth, that a Presbyter is the same with a Bishop, and before that, by the instinct of the Devil, factions were made in Religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common counsel of Presbyters: afterwards it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out of the Presbyters, should be placed over the rest.  
From whence I thus argue.  
When it began to be said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollo, but I of Cephas, than one chosen out of the Presbyters, was placed over the rest.  
But whiles the Apostles lived, it was so said among the people. As the first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides other of St. Paul's Epistles, puts it out of doubt. Therefore, while the Apostles lived, one chosen out of the Presbyters was placed over the rest.  
Again, There can be no other term assigned, in which Bishops were first made, than the time of the Apostles; for all the prime successors of the Apostles were Bishops: witness the successions of Bishops in the most famous Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, as it is in Eusebius, therefore, either the next successors of the Apostles, changed the force of Ecclesiastical government, received from the Apostles, according to their own pleasure, which is very unlikely, or the Episcopal government came from the Apostles themselves.  
Besides, even then in the time of the Apostles, there were many Presbyters, but one Bishop, even then in the time of the Apostles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that was placed over the rest, which afterwards was called Bishop, did impose hands, or ordain Ministers of the Word, which Presbyters alone did not presume to do. Even then, therefore, the calling of Bishops was distinct from the Office of Presbyters.  
If any desire the examples of Apostolical Bishops, the books of the ancient are full of the Episcopal authority, of Timothy and Titus, either of which, howsoever, first performed the office of an Evangelist, yet notwithstanding, ceased to be an Evangelist, after that Timothy was placed over the Church of Ephesus, and Titus over the Church of Crete; For Evangelists did only lay the foundations of faith in foreign places, & then did commend the rest of the care to certain Pastors, but they themselves went to other Countries, and Nations, as Eusebius writes in his third Book of Ecclesiastical History, and 34. Chap. But Paul taught sometimes in Ephesus and Crete and laid the foundations of Faith there; therefore he commandeth Timothy to stay at Ephesus, & Titus at Crete, not as Evangelists but as governors of the Churches.  
And indeed, the Epistles, written to either of them, do evince the same; for in these, he doth not prescribe the manner of gathering together a Church, which was the duty of an Evangelist, but the manner of governing a Church, being already gathered together, which is the duty of a Bishop; and all the precepts in those Epistles, are so conformable hereunto, as that they are not referred in especial to Timothy, and Titus, but in general to all Bishops, and therefore in no wise, they suit with the temporary power of Evangelists.  
Besides, that Timothy and Titus, had Episcopal jurisdiction, not only Eusebius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Hierome, Epiphanius, Oecumenius, Primasius, Theophylact, but also the most ancient writers, of any that write the History of the new Testament, whose writings are now lost, do sufficiently declare: Eusebius without doubt appealing unto those, in his third book of Ecclesiastical History and 4. chapter, Timothy (saith he) in Histories is written to be the first which was made Bishop of the Church of Ephesus, as Titus was the first, that was made Bishop of the Church of Crete.  
But if John the Apostle, and not any ancient Disciple of the Apostles, be the author of the Revelation, he suggests unto us, those seven new Examples of Apostolical Bishops: For all the most learned Interpreters interpret the seven Angels of the Churches, to be the seven Bishops of the Churches; neither can they do otherwise, unless they should offer violence to the text.  
What should I speak of James, not the Apostles but the Brother of our Saviour, the Son in law of the Mother of our Lord: who by the Apostles, was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, as Eusebius, in his 2d. book of Ecclesiastical History, & 1 chap. out of the 6. of the Hypotyposes of Clement, Hierome concerning Ecclesiastical writers, out of the 1. of the Comments of Egesippus, relate, Ambrose upon the 1. chap. unto the Galatians, chrysostom in his 23 Homily upon the 15 of the Acts, Augustine in his 2d. book and 37 chap. against Cresconius, Epiphanius in his 65, Heresy, The 6. Synod in Tullo, and 32 Canon, all assenting thereunto. For indeed, this is that James that had his first residence at Jerusalem, as an ordinary Bishop, whom Paul in his first, and last coming to Jerusalem, found in the City; almost all the Apostles preaching in other places, Gal. 1.19. and that concluded those things, which were decreed in the assembly of the Apostles, Act. 21. For he was with chrysostom Bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, from whom when certain came, Peter would not eat with the Gentiles. Galat. 2.12.  
From examples, I pass to authorities, which Ignatius confirms by his own authority,  
Whose axioms are these. The Bishop is he, which is superior in all chiefty, and power. The Presbytery, is a holy company of counsellors, and assessors to the Bishop. The deacons' are the imitators of angelical virtues, which show forth their pure, and unblameable ministry. He which doth not obey these, is without God, impure, and contemns Christ, and derogates from his order, and constitution, in his Epistle to the Trallians.  
In an other place, I exhort that ye study to do all things with concord. The Bishop being precedent in the place of God. The Presbyters in place of the Apostolic Senate, the Deacons as those to whom was committed the Ministry of Jesus Christ, in his Epistle to the Magnesians.  
And again, Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishop, the Deacons to the Presbyters, the people to the Presbyters and Deacons, in his Epistle to those of Tarsus.  
But Ignatius was the Disciple of the Apostles, from whence then had he this Hierarchy but from the Apostles?  
Let us now hear Epiphanius in his 75. Heresy. The Apostles could not presently appoint all things: Presbyters and Deacons were necessary; for by these two, Ecclesiastical affairs might be dispatch. Where there was not found any f●t for the Episcopacy, that place remained without a Bishop, but where there was need, and there were any fit for Episcopacy, they were made Bishops. All things were not complete from the beginning, but in tract of time all things were provided which were required for the perfection of those things which were necessary, the Church by this means receiving the fullness of dispensation.  
But Eusebius comes nearer to the matter, & more strongly handles the cause, who in his third book of Ecclesiastical History, and 22: chapter, as also in his Chronicle affirmeth that Erodius was ordained the 1. Bishop of Antioch in the year of our Lord. 45. in the 3. year of Claudius the Emperor: at which time, many of the Apostles were alive. Now Hierome writeth to Evagrius, that at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclius and Dionysius the Bishop, the Presbyters called one, chosen out of themselves, and placed in a higher degree, the Bishop. But Mark died, as Eusebius, and Bucholcerus testify, in the year of our Lord 64. Peter, Paul, and John, the Apostles, being then alive: therefore, it is clear, that Episcopacy was instituted in the time of the Apostles, and good Hierome suffered some frailty, when he wrote, that Bishops were greater than Presbyters, rather by the custom of the Church, than the truth of the Lords disposing; unless perhaps, by the custom of the Church, he understands the custom of the Apostles, and by the truth of the Lords disposing, he understands the appointment of Christ, yet not so, he satisfies the truth of History. For it appears out of the 1.2. and 3. Chapters of the Revelation, that the form of governing the Church by Angels or Bishops, was not only ratified, and established, in the time of the Apostles, but it was confirmed by the very Son of God. And Ignatius called that form the order of Christ.  
And when Hierome writes, that it was decreed in the whole World, that one chosen out of the Presbyters should be placed over the rest. And when I have demonstrated, that in the life-time of the Apostles, Bishops were superior to Presbyters in Ordination: and that each Church had one placed over it, do we not without cause demand; where, when, and by whom Episcopacy was ordained? Episcopacy therefore is of divine right. Which, how the Prelates of the Church of Rome, for almost 300. years, did adorn with the truth of Doctrine, innocency of life, constancy in afflictions, and suffering Death itself for the honour of Christ; and on the other side, how in succeeding times, first by their ambition, next by their excessive pragmatical covetousness, scraping up to themselves the goods of this world, then by their heresy, last of all by their tyranny they corrupted it, that the Roman Hierarchy, at this day, hath nothing else left but a vizard of the Apostolical Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the lively image of the whore of Babylon, our Histories both ancient and modern do abundantly testify.  
Wherefore all Bishops are warned from hence, that they throughly weigh with themselves the nature of Apostolical Episcopacy, of which they glory that they are the successors.  
That Episcopacy had two things peculiar to it, the privilege of succeeding, & the prerogative of ordaining: all other things were common to them with the Presbyters. Therefore both Bishops and Presbyters, should so exercise themselves in godliness, should so free themselves from contempt by their conversation, and so make themselves examples to their flock; not neglecting especially the gift of prophesying, received from above, but being wholly intent, to reading, consolation, and teaching: to meditate on these things, to be wholly conversant in them; and so perpetually employed in this holy function, and divine affairs, with this promise, that if they shall do these things, they shall both save themselves, and their Auditors, but if after the custom of some great ones, they follow the pride and luxury of this World, they shall both destroy themselves, and them that hear them. (*)  
FINIS.   

THE JUDGEMENT OF The learned Divine, Doctor Abrahamus Scultetus, prime professor of Divinity at HEIDELBERGE, Concerning Lay-Elders.  
OBSERVATIONS Upon 1 Timothy, by Abraham Scultetus. Cap. 27. Concerning 1. Tim. 5.17.  
THere are some that think this place of Scripture is of force enough to make good a Lay-Presbytery▪ for their eyes and judgements are dazzled with. that distinction of Elders, which they suppose, to be clearly intimated here by S. Paul: But, if they shall have diligently scanned the place, & compared it with other Texts of Scripture, they shall soon find that the defence of Lay Elders out of this place, is both contrary to the signification of the Word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) i e. those that rule, and contrary to the signification of the Word Presbyter; and that it is quite against St. Paul's perpetual Doctrine, and it is against the judgement of all the Fathers, that have expounded this speech of Saint Paul.  
It is contrary to the signification of the Word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) for (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or Ecclesiastical rule or government is an honour wherewith only Ministers of God's word are invested in the new Testament, and not any Lay Persons: We beseech you brethren saith the Apostle, 1 Thes. v. 12. That you know those that labour amongst you, and are over you in the Lord, and that admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake: upon which words, saith Calvin, it is worthy to be observed; what titles he gives to Pastors. First he saith, that they labour, and then he sets them forth, by the name of rule, or governance. And Beza upon the place it appears from hence, that the Church was governed by Pastors in common, and that the degree of a Bishop was not thought of, and therefore (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to rule, is the same with (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to lead, because the shepherds are wont to go before their flock. But the Apostle Heb. 13.7. and 17. calls the Ministers of the Word Leaders. Therefore, according to Beza, we must acknowledge those that are over the people, are the Ministers of the word: neither doth justin Martyr in his Apology to Antonius call the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) any other than the pastor and teacher of the Congregation.  
Moreover, the defence of Lay-Elders out of this present text of St. Paul, is contrary to the signification of the word Presbyter, which when it is used, concerning the polity of the new Testament, doth always signify the Ministers of the word: Acts 11.30. They sent their collection to the Elders by the hands of Barnabas, and Saul, that is to the Ministers, of whom it is said, Acts 14.13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They ordained them Elders in every Church: And Acts 15.2. A main question of faith is propounded to the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem; but what? to be decided by Lay-Men? for the Elders met with the Apostles to consider of this matter, Acts 15.6.  
And the Presbyters are joined together with the Apostles Verse 22. and are distinguished from the whole Church, as also v. 23. and chap. 16.4. Again in the 20. of the Acts the Elders of Ephesus verse 17. are said to be made Bishops to feed the flock of Christ, ver. 18. and in Acts 21.18. and the verses following, the Presbyters or Elders of Jerusalem instruct the Apostle Paul what he is to do; and therefore were no Laymen. In this very Chapter, when Timothy is commanded to receive no accusation against an Elder, the Elder there is a teacher, as shall be showed in the next chapter. Titus 1.5. that thou mayst ordain Elders in every City▪ what kind of Elders? surely, teachers; for he adds, if any be blameless. etc. for a Bishop must be unreprovable, etc.  
And James 5.14. The sick are bidden to send for the Elders of the Church, that they may pray over, and anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord, which is no Layman's duty: 1 Peter 5.1. The Elders I exhort who am also a fellow-Elder, feed the flock; How is he a fellow-Elder, but because he is a teacher as they?  
And they are charged to feed the flock, therefore Pastors, 2, joh· 1. & 3 joh. 1. john the Apostle without all question is called an Elder. Ignatius makes often mention of Elders, or Presbyters in his Epistles, but never of Lay-Elders. And in his Epistle to those of Tarsus describing the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of his time, he saith (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Let the Presbyters be subject to the Bishops, and the Deacons to the Presbyters, and the Laymen to both Deacons, and Presbyters: and to the Magnesians As the Lord saith he doth nothing without the Father: so neither do you without your Bishop, neither Presbyter, nor deacon, nor Laic. Where observe that the very Deacons did not sit in the Presbytery Apostolic, much less Laymen.  
Thirdly, the defence of Lay-Elders out of the 17. verse of Chap. 5. of the 1. Tim. is against the Perpetual doctrine of St. Paul: for to give honour to the Presbyters, or Elders, is to honour them with maintenance, out of the public stock of the Church; for so the Apostle, before, commands these that are indeed Widows to be honoured, that is to be designed to public attendances and allowances; And the reason which the Apostle gives, confirms this explication of the honour required; When he saith thou shalt not muzzle the Ox that treadeth out the corn. And in Matthew the honour of Parents is chiefly to be taken of meat and maintenance, which signification is very familiar and proper to the word (Kabud) used in the fifth commandment, and so the word is expounded by Mark 7.12. But maintenance, out of the stock of the Church, the Apostle would not have to be given even to such poor widows, as could be otherwise provided for; as before verse 16. And he himself laboured with his own hands, that he might not be burdensome to others, much less would he have the chief of the Laity who abound with wealth to be maintained of the common store; and that more liberally then others: For, if by those that rule well, you shall understand both Lay-Elders and sacred also, you must needs conclude, that they are all worthy of double honour, both those which rule, and those which labour in Doctrine: which conclusion the Apostle is against elsewhere; whilst he saith, those which serve at the Altar, must partake of the Altar. And the Lord himself who hath appointed that those which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel, 1. Corinthians 9.13.14. Whereupon Hierome in the same place; he would saith he, have them to yield carnal things to those of whom they receive spiritual things, because they being taken up in teaching, cannot provide necessary things for themselves. Yea, I say yet more, if St. Paul had, by those that rule, understood Lay-elders, certainly he would somewhere have put them in mind of their duty, or, at least have made mention of them, 1 Tim. 3. where he doth not omit to give charge even of Deacons, and Deaconesses: But he doth neither of the two, but presently after the mention of Bishops, or Presbyters that were Pastors, he falls into the speech concerning Deacons, and their wives; so as it is a plain proof that Lay-Elders were utterly unknown to him.  
Fourthly, the defence of Lay-Elders out of this place is utterly against the judgement of the fathers, so many as ever have expounded this text of the Apostle: Neither indeed is there any necessity at all, that because the Apostle saith, those especially that labour in Word and Doctrine, therefore we should devise new Elders to be taken out of the common people: For it was well known, that those of the Clergy, which are over the Lords flock, have their distinct Offices, and employments. There are of them, which administer Sacraments, make public prayers, privately admonish faithful people, and withhold them from sinning; there are others, which being endued with excellent gifts of speaking, employ themselves in being teachers & guides to men's souls in the way to heaven, and the labours of these men, which are taken by them, in word and Doctrine, are justly preferred before the service of them, which administer the sacraments, and make prayers for the Church; even by the testimony of the Apostle himself, who saith; Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, 1. Cor. 1.17. He was sent for both purposes, but the chief end of his mission, was, the preaching of the Gospel.  
Whosoever therefore, thus rule the people, whether they do administer the Sacrament, or only preach the word, or whether they do both, are worthy of double Honour; where a certain number is put for an uncertain, double honour, that is greater and more than others; although some are of opinion, that here by Apostolic authority there is a greater portion assigned to the Governors, then to others that appertain to the Church, others interpret it of that double Honour which is fit for governor's to have; one, of an awful reverence and command, the other of more largeness of maintenarce; that they be, both, observed, and respected above others, and, that they have a more liberal provision of necessaries for their livelihood; but the first of them is the more simple exposition of the words. He therefore holds those, that are set over the people worthy of double honour; And why double? A little before he had given them order about the honouring, that is maintaining of their Widows, at the charge of the Church: from the Widows, he passeth to the Elders, or Presbyters; whom, if they rule well, he would have honoured with a double allowance, that is greater than that of the Widows, both by reason of their office, and by reason of their family; and amongst those that rule, yet again, he would have those most regarded, who are employed not so much in administering the Sacraments, as in preaching the Word. I doubt not but this is the most true Explication of this place  
FINIS.