THE Healing Attempt Examined and Submitted TO THE PARLIAMENT AND CONVOCATION, Whether it be HEALING or HURTFUL To the Peace of the CHURCH.  JOB XXIV. 2. 
Some remove the Landmarks, they violently take away the Flocks, and feed thereof.  
Licenced and Entered according to Order.  
LONDON: Printed by Freeman Collins, and are to be Sold by Richard Baldwin in the Old-Bailey. MDCLXXXIX.   

THE Healing Attempt EXAMINED, etc.  
THE Author gins with his Blessing. And without Controversy, a good Conceit therefore he seems to have of himself, who attempts to impose his Conceptions on the Judgement of those Thirty Divines, to whom he presents them, and to persuade them to Abolish that Government and Liturgy, to which they have obliged themselves to live in Obedience and Conformity by their Oaths and Subscriptions. And immediately to his Blessing, he subjoins what implies a Curse, for loading and increasing the Burdens of their Nonconforming Brethren, though he seems to excuse it, as being done against their wills. And gives it, as the Belief of his Brethren, That no good will be done them by that Meeting or Convocation, seeing they say, it is impossible that they, etc. How this should stimulate them to a greater earnestness to do what they believe and have made impossible to be done, I cannot see; nor can the Author conceive, seeing he thinks it unnecessary to propound any other Argument than what is contained in the Title (i. e.) Such a Moderation of Episcopacy, that the Power be kept within the line of our first Reformers, which will certainly destroy his Project, and confirm the present Establishment, as to Episcopacy and Liturgy, from the strict imposition whereof he hopes to be freed. The Author complains of want of time and search, to excuse the slenderness of his Attempt: But if Mr. Jo. Humphryes be the Author, I suppose he hath had sufficient time since his renouncing his re-ordination, which was about Twenty Years since; and that he had made his search before, he with the help of other his Non-con-brethrens, set forth their Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, wherein the chiefest of his present Arguments were then urged, and shortly after refuted, as by the following Account will hereafter appear.  
He tells his Readers, That it is impossible for the Dissenters to Unite, if it be still affirmed, That the Bishop and Presbyters are not of the same Order, That the Power of Ordination is the sole Prerogative of the Bishops (i.e.) if the Presbyters may not Ordain as effectually as the Bishops; That the Ordination by Presbyters only is void, That the Ordaining them again by Bishops is not re-ordination. This, saith our Author, destroys the Church-state, not only of the Dissenters, but of all other Protestants in the World; which is a very large stretch, seeing there are many other Protestant Churches, who affirm and practise the same things with the Church of England; and yet he asserts, That if a comprehension may not be had but on these terms, there can be none at all. However, seeing he makes his Appeal to the Sentiments of the first Reformers in the days of Henry VIII. Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth, to them we will jointly submit, because he says, that will heal our Divisions touching Church Government; of which I doubt, seeing I have Reason to say, they are not impartially proposed by Mr. J.H. nor will be found to be so exactly the same with the Dissenters. So that if the present Episcopacy appear to be the same as it was in the days of the first Reformers, Martyrs, and Confessors, and our Liturgy much more Reformed, though they accounted it such a Grievance, as neither they nor their Fathers could bear.  
Their Non Conformity will still lie under the interpretation of a peevish Humour and Obstinacy, though they do with the like Confidence pretend, that they have Antiquity as well as our first Reformers on their side; it is a condescension in the Author to acknowledge, that the Canons of James I. run another way, and to those Canons the Clergy did consent, as do the present Clergy; and if, as he says, Archbishop Usher adhered to the first Reformers, we may yet hope for an Accommodation. As for the Opinions of particular Divines, I shall refer them to their due place, and only intimate his Observation to the Reader, That because Jurisdiction is given to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, during the Suspension of the Archbishop, therefore they have also the Power of conferring Orders, when other Deans and Arch-Deacons also have an Episcopal Jurisdiction in their several peculiars, but neither of them have the Power of Orders; and frustra est potentia quae nunquam reducitur in actum. And St. Hierom expressly appropriates Ordination to the Bishops only.  
As to Mr. Clerkson's Excellent Discourse of Liturgies, I shall recommend to the Reader's perusal, what hath been written by Bishop Taylor, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. Faulkner, to which I may add Mr. Calvin's Epistle to the Protector, and leave it to the Reader's determination, whether a Liturgy of Extemporary Prayers are most agreeable to Public Worship.  
I agree with the Author in his Introduction, That our Divisions had too great a hand in bringing us under those Dangers, and keeping us in those Fears which are still threatening us; but that Indulgence and Comprehension together will secure us, I much doubt, because Experience hath taught the contrary; and therefore, though Mr. J. H. apprehends a necessity, for the saving of many thousand Souls, to let in Men of more tender Consciences (Absit invidia) to set open the Church-Doors wider, I think it may be a means to let in many Adversaries with a few Friends. I know the Complaints of Dissenters have been bold and clamourous ever since the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; and great boasts made of their Numbers, and never louder than in the days of Charles the First of Blessed Memory, where the Martial Canons were planted to throw down the Ecclesiastical, and the Petitions of Dissenters worried that Good Prince and the Archbishop out of their Lives; and therefore I think our Governors, both in Church and State, had more just cause to complain of the Dissenters, than these of them; whereof you shall hear a fuller account from those whom the Author mentioneth, as Friends to his new Model. As to the Quotation from Sir Robert Cotton, I cannot much commend the ingenuity of Mr. J. H. who in the midst of it leaves out these words, (after these words)— Duty to their Sovereign: It thus proceeds: Therewith start up from among us some that might have been recommended for their Zeal, if it had been tempered with Discretion; who forerunning the Authority of the Magistrate, took upon them in sundry places, and publicly to censure what agreed not with their private conceits; with which gross humours, vented in Pulpits and Pamphlets, most Men grew to be frozen in Zeal, etc. And the Marginal Note says, Some think, that if these men's zeal had by order been put to employ itself otherwise, and a task set them to do some good and memorable thing in the Church, they might have been reform or made harmless by diversion. I desire Mr. J. H. to consider what it is, and of whom Sir Robert there speaketh, and to give a Reason why this was interpoled. And to this Quotation I shall subjoin another of Mr. R. B's in an Epistle to his separated Brethren, That thousands are gone to Hell, and ten thousands going after them; who would never have gone thither, if they had kept in the Communion of their Parish-Churches.  
But in the conclusion of the Introduction, he seems no way satisfied with the Propension of our Governors to lay aside the strict use of Ceremonies, and other more offensive Impositions, unless this one thing may be granted; and, I think, such a grant will be still accounted a grievance, (viz.) a declaring the Government of the Church to be no other than what it was held and intended by the first Reformers; in the mean time he avers, That that Government which is really established by Law, is not only inconsistent with, and destructive of that which was settled in the Church by the first Reformers, but of the Church-state of all other Protestants. This Durus Sermo. This is his endeavour as to the Reign of Henry the Eighth in his first Chapter.  
Here I think fit to advertise the Reader, that the Materials for the new Model of Henry the Eighth's Bishops, was fitted (though Mr. J. H. complains for want of time) above seven years since, and the Scheme drawn-up by Mr. H. in's half Sheet, and offered to a Parliament; and because he took no notice of what was then said in Answer to his Model, in a Tract called, No Protestant, but the Dissenters Plot, Printed 1682. He deserves to do Penance in a whole Sheet now; and because that Answer may be after so many years become forgotten; or rarely found; I beg the Reader's leave to repeat so much of it as concerns the State of our Church, and the Opinion of the Divines that then lived as to Episcopacy; because our Author says the whole stress of his cause upon it; saying, That this one thing is the most effectual expedient in the whole World, to promote his healing attempt; wherein I shall join issue with him. It might be expected, that he should have laid a sure and solid Cornerstone for his new Model, because an error in the foundation doth usually run through the whole Fabric; but this will appear to be nothing else but Slime and Sand; that is, in plain English, a confident Imposture and Fiction of his own Brain; for, p. 9 the account which this Author gives of that excellent Book, The Erudition of a Christian Man, is this, That of these two Orders only, (viz.) Priests and Deacons, Scripture makes express mention, and how they were conferred by the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of hands. Thus saith Mr. H. There are but two Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, no third Order; Bishops therefore must be of the same Order with Priests. And again, That all such lawful Power and Autherity of any one Bishop, Mr. H. adds, in a Parenthesis (or Priest, for they are in the sense of these great Divines the same) over another were, and be given them by the Consent, Ordinance, and positive Laws of Men, and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture. So far the necessary Erudition. Now that there may be a fair trial of this case, I shall set down from Dr. Stillingfleet's printed Paper, the Opinions of those Divines which consulted about our Reformation in Henry the Eighth's days: concerning which I shall only mind the Dissenters of an Observation of their own, viz. That though some of these Reformers were of different Opinions as to some Points mentioned in this Manuscript, yet they must be considered to have receded from them when they subscribed the Necessary Erudition, being then all of that Judgement which is there described.  
The intent of Printing Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript, containing the Resolutions of the Archbishop and several Bishops and Divines of some Questions concerning the Sacraments, was, as Dr. Burnet says, that it might appear with what maturity and care they proceeded in the Reformation. And the Subscriptions which were at the end of every man's Paper, he tells us, p. 242. were in this form: T. Cant. This is my Opinion and Sentence; which I do not temerariously define, but do remit the Judgement thereof wholly to your Majesty— and as is also sometimes expressed, p. 201. without prejudice to the Truth, and saving always more better Judgement: Cum facultate etiam melius deliberandi in hac parte. Now this Consultation was some years before the Book was published; and if any of the Bishops had been then of a contrary Opinion, as the Dissenters observe that Archbishop Cranmer was in the case of Excommunication, inclining to Erastianism, from these they must be considered (say the Dissenters) to have receded, because they subscribed the Necessary Erudition; p. 8. This Manuscript speaks home to our purpose in  
Quest. 9 Whether the Apostles lacking a higher power, as in not having a a Christian King among them, made Bishops by that necessity, or by authority given by God?  
The Answer of the Archbishop to this Question, as indeed to many others, is singular, and differs from the rest of the Reformers; being, as the Prefacers themselves do observe, mere Erastianism, p. 7. but from these also (as they say of his Opinion concerning Excommunication, p. 8.) he must be considered to have receded, because he subscribed the Necessary Erudition; which being done on more mature deliberation, we ought to impute nothing to the Archbishop as his judgement in those controverted Points, but what is there by him asserted. I shall therefore mention the Resolutions of the rest only as we find them in the Re-collection; only of this first I shall speak at large.  York. 
We find in SS. that the Apostles used the power to make Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; which power may be grounded upon these words: Sicut misit me vivens Pater, sic ego mitto vos. And we verily think that they durst not have used so high a power, unless they had had authority from Christ. But that their power to ordain Bishops, Priests, or Deacons by Imposition of hands, requireth any other authority than authority of God, we neither read in SS. nor out of SS.  London 
I think the Apostles made Bishops by the Law of God, because Acts 22. it is said, In quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit. Nevertheless I think if Christian Princes had been then, they should have named by Right, and appointed the said Bishops to their places.  Rochester. 
I think that the Apostles made Bishops by authority given them from God.  Carlisle. 
That Christ made his Apostles Priests and Bishops, and that he gave them power to make others, it seemeth to be the very Trade of SS.  Dr. Robertson. 
I think the Apostles made Bishops and Presbyters by divine authority, where the public Magistrate did permit it.  Dr. Cox. 
Although the Apostles had no authority to force any man to be Priests, yet (they moved by the Holy Ghost) had authority of God to exhort and induce men to set forth God's honour, and so to make them Priests.  Dr. Day. 
The Apostles ordained Bishops by authority given them by God. Joh. 20. Sicut misit me, etc. Item Joh. ult. & Acts 20. & 1 Tim. 4. Paulus ordinavit Timotheum & Titum, & prescribit quales ille debeant ordinare, 1 Tim. 1. Tit. 1.  Dr. Oglethorp. 
The Apostles by authority and command of God, did ordain and institute Bishops, leave being desired and obtained from the Prince or Magistrate who was then chief. As I suppose.  Dr. Redman. 
Christ gave his Apostles authority to make Bishops and Ministers in his Church, as he had received authority of the Father to make them Bishops. But if any Christian Prince had then been, the Apostles had been and aught to have been obedient Subjects, and would have attempted nothing but under the permission and assent of their earthly Governors. Yet was it meet that they which were special and elect Servants of our Saviour Christ, and were sent by him to convert the World, and having most abundantly the Holy Ghost in them, should have special ordering of such Ministry as pertained to the planting and increasing of the Faith: whereunto I doubt not but a Christian Prince of his godly mind would most lovingly have condescended. And it is to be considered in this Question, with other like, this word making a Bishop or Priest, may be taken two ways: for understanding the word to ordain or consecrate, so it is a thing which pertaineth to the Apostles and their Successors only; but but if by this word (making) be understood the appointing or naming to the Office, so it pertaineth specially to the supreme Heads and Governors of the Church, which be Princes.  Dr. Edgeworth. 
The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God, and not for lack of any higher power: notwithstanding, where there is a Christian King or Prince, the Election, Deputation, and Assignation of them that shall be Priests and Bishops, belongeth to the King or Prince, so that he may forbid any Bishop within his Kingdom that he give no Orders, for considerations moving him; and may assign him a time when he shall give Orders, and to whom: Example of King David, 1 Chron. 24. dividing the Levites into twenty four Orders, deputing over every Order one chief Bishop; prescribing an Ordinal and Rule how they should do their duties and courses; and what Sacrifices, Rites and Ceremonies they should use every day, as the day and time required. And his Son King Solomon diligently executed and commanded the same usages to be observed in the Temple, after he had erected and finished it, 2 Chron. 8.  Dr. Symmons. 
The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God.  Dr. Tresham. 
The Apostles had authority of God to make Bishops: yet if there had been a Christian King in any place where they made Bishops, they would and ought to have desired authority of him for the executing of such Godly acts; which not Christian King would have denied.  Dr. Leighton. 
The Apostles, as I suppose, made Bishops by authority given to them of Christ: howbeit I think they would and should have required the Christian Princes consent and licence thereto, if there had been any Christian Kings or Princes.  Dr. Coren. 
The Apostles made Bishops and Priests by authority given them of God: Notwithstanding, if there had been a Christian King at that time, it had been their duties to have had his licence and permission thereto.  
Here you see they all affirm that the Apostles, by authority from God, did make Bishops as well as Priests and Deacons; and that there needs no other authority for their Successors to do the like, but what is given them of God. Now that they were distinct Orders, will appear by the next Question.  
Quest. 10. Whether Bishops or Priests were first? and if the Priest were first, than the Priest made the Bishop?  
The Bishop of St. David's, my Lord elect of Westminster, Dr. Cox, and Dr. Redman say, That at the beginning they were all One. The Bishops of York, London, Rechester, Carlisle, Doctors, Day, Tresham, Symmons, Oglethorp, be in other contrary Opinions. The Bishop of York and Dr. Tresham think that the Apostles first were Priests, and after were made Bishops, when the overseeing of other Priests was committed to them. My Lords of London, Duresm, Carlisle, and Rochester, Drs. symmond's and Grayford, think that the Apostles were first Bishops, and they after made other Bishops and Priests. Drs. Coren and Oglethorp say, That the Apostles were made Bishops, and the seventy two were after made Priests. Dr. Day thinks that Bishops, as they are now called, were before Priests. My Lord of London, Drs. Edgeworth and Robertson, think it no inconvenience if a Priest made a Bishop in that time.  
Quest. 11. Whether a Bishop hath Authority to make a Priest by the SS. or no? and whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest?  
To the former part of the Question the Bishop of St. David's doth answer, That Bishops have no authority to make Priests, unless they be authorized of the Christian Prince. The others do all say, That they be authorized of God. Yet some of them add, That they cannot use their Authority, without their Christian Prince doth permit them. To the second part, the Answer of the Bishop of St. David's is, That Laymen have otherwhile made Priests. So doth Drs. Edgeworth and Redman say, That Moses, by a privilege given him of God, made Aaron his Brother Priest. Drs. Tresham, Grayford, and Cox, say, That Laymen may make Priests in time of necessity. The Bishops of York, Duresm, Rochester, Carlisle, Elect of Westminster, Drs. Coren, Leighton, symmond's, seem to deny this thing: for they say, They find not nor read not any such Example.  
Quest. 12. Whether in the New Testament be required any Consecration of a Pishop and Priest, or only appointing to the Office be sufficient?  
The Bishop of St. David's saith, That only the appointing. And Dr. Cox, That only the appointing cum manuum impositione is sufficient, without Consecration. The Bishops of York, London, Duresm, Carlisle, Drs. Day, Coren, Leighton, Tresham, Edgeworth, Oglethorp, say, That Consecration is requisite. Dr. Redman saith, That Consecration hath been from the Apostles time, and instituted of the Holy Ghost, to confer Grace. My Lord of Rochester, Drs. Day and Symmons say, The Priesthood is given per manuum impositionem, and that by Scripture; and that Consecration hath of long time been received in the Church.  
So that in this Paper, which contains a previous Consultation (some years before) to the things published in the Necessary Erudition, they did generally agree, That the Office of Bishops is mentioned in Scripture; That they were of a superior Order to Priests; That the Apostles made Bishops by authority from God, and left their Successors power to do the like. And to this they all subscribed in the Necessary Erudition.  
Much more might be added from some public Writings of that Age, of which I shall name but one or two; as first, the Book called Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum; a design first begun by King Henry the Eighth, prosecuted by Edward the Sixth, as by their two Orders prefixed to that Book, doth appear; and committed to the care of thirty two Divines and Civilians, the Archbishop being the chief; wherein it is ordered, That to the Bishop all are to give Obedience according to the Word of God, p. 98. Episcope qui Ecclesiae praeficitur, non solum Decanus, Archidiaconus, Archipresbyter, & reliqui Ministri parebunt, etc. And cap. 10. Episcopi, quoniam inter caeteros Ecclesiae Ministros, locum principem tenent, ideo sana Doctriná gravi authoritate atque provido consilio debent inferiores Ordines Cleri regere ac pascere. Dr. Burnet, p. 71. of the second part, says, It is plain that Cranmer had quite laid aside those singular Opinions which he formerly held of the Ecclesiastical Functions: for now in a Work of his own, without the concurrence of any other (speaking of his Catechism) he fully sets forth their Divine Institution.  
And now I shall consider how agreeable their Design is to the Ancient Constitution of our Government about matters Ecclesiastical, which (as they say) is very excellently described in (the Book called) The necessary Doctrine and Erudition of a Christian-man, composed by several Bishops and other great Doctors, and approved by Authority in the days of King Henry the Eighth. The Dissenters cannot have a greater Reverence for that Book than the Conformists have, as to the Constitution of our Church. And to corroborate this Authority, they add that of another excellent Book (viz.) Dr. Burnet 's History of the Reformation; for which, as they observe, the whole Kingdom have given the Doctor thanks: And I shall think the worse of these Dissenters, if they will not do the same. P. 16. From these Books they attempt to prove, that the establishing a Parochial or Congregational Church-Discipline (the great thing which the Dissenters desire) may be done consistently with the Ancient Constitution of the Government of this Realm, to the fixing the desired, firm, and lasting Union. P. 11. If this appear, the Dissenters may well boast that they are the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, as it was settled by the first Reformers; and that they have been (as they complain) misrepresented as Enemies both to Church and State; as if the adhering to old Protestant Principles about Church-Discipline had been the Overt Act of a Spirit seditious and fanatical, p. 17. To these two they have appealed for the truth of their Assertion; and I hope they will not show themselves such double-minded men, as to be unstable in all their ways, and not stand to the Evidence and Arbitration of these two Authorities produced by themselves. And if the reducing of us to the Ancient Constitution of Church-Government and Discipline in this Realm, may fix the desired, firm, and lasting Union, it will be still the Dissenters fault that we are not all agreed.  
In that Judicious Tract 'tis manifest (say the Dissenters, p. 2.)  

1. That Church-Government is Jure Divino. Be it so.  
2. That to the constituting such a Church-Government, those Church-Officers only are necessary who are mentioned in the New Testament. This is also granted.  
3. That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons. This is sub judice.  
4. That Bishops or Priests, the sole Governors of the Church, are of one and the same Order. This also is to be determined.   
To all this I shall oppose a short Syllogism, viz.  
That Church-Government which is mentioned in the New Testament (by the Compilers of the Necessary Erudition) is Jure Divino.  
But the Church Government mentioned, etc. is by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
Ergo, the Church-Government by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, is Jure Divino, according to the Necessary Erudition.  
It chanced that on reading this Preface, I had at hand that ancient Book, printed in English 1543. and set forth by the King's Authority, as appears by the Preface. I had also a Translation of the same Book into elegant Latin, printed the following year, viz. 1544. This Latin Book hath a Preface more than I find in the English, which seems to be compiled by the Archbishop and the rest of the Reforming Clergy, who give us this reason of the translating it into Latin: Quam Institutionem (Lector Carissime) Illustrissimi simul & Religiosissimi Principis industriâ primum vernaculo sermone editam, nos nunc in Latinum versam in lucem damus; Quòd indignum duximus ut hoc pacificandae Ecclesiae studium, & exemplum quo Regia Majestas immortalem sibi gloriam promerita est in obscuro lateret, ac non potius orbi universo, quo caeteri Principes ad similem componendae Religionis zelum excitentur innotesceret: (i. e.) Which Erudition first published in English by the Industry of our most Illustrious and Religious Prince, we now publish in Latin; as thinking it an unworthy thing, that the care and good Example of pacifying the Church, whereby His Majesty hath deserved immortal Glory, should lie hid, and not be known to the World, to stir up other Princes to the like Zeal.  
From whence I desire the Reader to observe, that this Book being set forth a year after the English one, and being somewhat explained and enlarged, as intended to inform the Foreign Churches with the matter and order of our Reformation, is of the two the more exact and perfect, as containing their second Thoughts and final Resolutions. The place quoted out of that Book, is that which concerns The Sacrament of Orders; which (say they) are given of God to Christian men by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishop's hands. And doubtless King Henry would have been very much in wrath with any that should have denied the Order of Bishops to be Sacramental, when by their hands, and by a power given them of God, as is their asserted, other Orders were to be conveyed.  
But secondly, I observe, that whereas that Book nameth Bishops And Priests as two distinct Orders, these Dissenters, by a little trick (learned of the Jesuits) of changing a small syllable, would alter the sense of the whole Chapter: for four or five times in the second and third pages, the Dissenters name Bishops Or Priests, making them one and the same thing; which the Reformers in that Chapter of Orders do distinguish as two distinct Orders; and eight times at least read Bishops And (not Or) Priests in sensu diviso. In the first place it is said, that St. Paul did consecrate and order Priests and Bishops; for which they quote 1 Tim. 4. (i. e.) Jure Divino. And again, as the Apostles themselves did order Priests and Bishops, so they appointed and willed other Bishops after them to do the like; for which they quote Titus 1. and 1 Tim. 5. which is another Proof out of the New Testament. In another place they say, that the Priests and Bishops in the execution of their Office and Ministration, do use and exercise the power and authority of God committed unto them. And to name but one place more (for I shall quote those only which in the sense of those Reformers (and our Dissenters too) prove the Order of Bishops to be distinct from that of Priests, and of Divine Institution) speaking of the power of the Prince over Bishops and Priests, they say, that the Prince is to oversee and cause the said Bishops and Priests to execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully, and specially in those points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them. So that it is undeniable that Bishops are mentioned as Church-Officers in the New Testament by this excellent Book, and consequently are necessary to such a Church-Government as is Jure Divino, according to the first and second Assertion of the Dissenters.  
Let us inquire therefore how they derive their third Assertion from this Book; which is, That in the New Testament there is mention made of no other Church-Officers but Priests and Deacons. (To which words they immediately add) That no other Government is of Divine Right, but what is under the conduct of Bishops or Priests, and that the New Testament mentioneth no other: Which grants that Bishops are mentioned in the New Testament as well as Priests. But the Dissenters will not grant them to be mentioned in the sense of the Reformers (that is) as a distinct Office, and having a Superiority over Priests and Deacons: for in the  
Fourth Assertion they say, That Bishops or Priests, the sole Governors of the Church, are of one and the same Order. For proof whereof, they quote these words out of the Necessary Erudition, (viz.) That Bishops, or Priests and Deacons, are the only Orders mentioned in the New Testament— And that of these two Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention. To which I answer, That it is nowhere said in the Necessary Erudition, That Bishops or Priests, the sole Governors of the Church, are of one and the same Order: And that this Assertion is contradicted by the following Quotation upon which they ground it, (viz.) That Bishops, or Priests and Deacons are the only Orders mentioned in the New Testament. For throughout that whole Chapter, the Reformers make as plain a distinction between Bishops and Priests, as between Priests and Deacons.  
I do therefore reject the first Assertion as a Fiction of their own, not to be found in the Necessary Erudition, nor in the practice of the Authors of it, which could best expound their meaning, viz. That Bishops or Priests are of one and the same Order.  
As to the second, viz. That of these two Orders only (i. e.) of Priests and Deacons, the Scripture maketh mention; I hope to give such a plain and genuine sense of the Authors, as our Dissenters (notwithstanding all their Prejudices and Evasions) shall not be able to deny. And (because, Qui benè distinguit, benè docet) I desire them to observe this distinction of the word Order, which signifieth either the Power and Faculty conferred by the Apostles hands; or the Modus, the Rite and Ceremony of Imposition of Hands and Prayer, by which it was conferred. The first is properly Order, and the second, as they term it, Ordering or Ordination. Now I will not dispute in which sense our Reformers use the word Order in this place; the Context will show that: But let the Dissenters take it in which sense they will, it will be so far from establishing, that it will overthrow their Propositions, That Bishops and Priests are one and the same Order; and that of these two only Scripture maketh express mention.  
I grant therefore, that this second sentence is found entire in that Book, (viz.) Of these two Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention. But had these men been so ingenuous as to quote the whole Paragraph, or to judge of the sense of this Expression, which is somewhat dark, by those which were more plain, whereof some go before, and others follow that sentence, and all declare Bishops to be a distinct Order, and to be mentioned in the New Testament; they would never have had the confidence so to expose these learned Reformers, as if they had contradicted themselves in the same breath, and professed their Judgement to be contrary to their Practice, in a Book of that importance, written with great Advice and Deliberation, and published to give the World an account of the Reformation. Can their Popish Adversaries of that Age have fixed such an Opinion and Contradiction on them, they should have heard of it as loudly as we have of the Nag's head Fable: but they had not the confidence to feign them guilty of that Opinion which these Dissenters would force on them whether they will or no. For the Papists of that Age knew that Lex currit cum praxi, and that the Reformers exercising Episcopal Authority over the Presbyters within their several Dioceses, was a clear proof that they judged their Order to be superior to that of Priests, and that by Divine Institution (as in the four places  doth appear.)  
But to clear this Objection, I shall first examine the place quoted as it is entire. Secondly, I shall show the sense of it from the Latin Translation, which is the best Commentary. And thirdly, from the received Opinion of other Divines of that Age. And fourthly, I shall give you Dr. Burnet's Opinion of the whole matter.  
First, The place quoted says thus: Of these two Orders only (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their Hands: and to these two the Primitive Church did add and conjoin certain other inferior and lower degrees, as Subdeacons', Acolytes, Exorcists, with divers other, of the which mention is made both of the most Ancient Writers that we have in the Church of Christ after the Apostles; as also in divers old Councils, and namely, in the fourth Council of afric, in which St. Augustine was present; where all the kinds of Orders which were then in the Church be rehearsed. Now though what hath been observed from the Context, might be enough to satisfy all Persons that were not maliciously disposed to quarrel with those Reformers, as if they contradicted themselves, and overthrew that Episcopal Order in Thesi, which they maintained in Praxi; yet this Paragraph is so clear by its own light, that they must needs wink with both eyes that could not see the sense of the Reformers in it.  
First then, the scope of the Paragraph ought to have been considered, which is to speak of such Orders as were inferior to the Apostles and Bishops in Scripture-times; of which they say that express mention is made in Scripture only of these two, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons: To which two, though the Church added other inferior and lower degrees mentioned in Ancient Writers (yet there is no mention of them in the Scripture, but) in some old Councils, and namely, in the four African, where all the kinds of Orders be rehearsed. Now in that Council you may find the several Rites of Ordaining. 1. Bishops, 2. Presbyters, 3. Deacons, 4. Subdeacons', 5. Acolythi, 6. Exorcists, etc. And Canon 27.  Episcopus de loco ignobile ad nobilem non transeat, nec quisquam inferioris ordinis Clericus: Inferioris vero gradus Sacerdotes possunt concessione suorum Episcoporum ad alias Ecclesias migrare. So that in the Judgement of that Council, Priests were an inferior Order to Bishops; and consequently they were so in the Judgement of our Reformers, who quote it to that end. See Binius, Tom. 1. p. 728.  
This also appears from the Milevitan Council, which is also quoted by the Reformers, in which St. Augustine was also present; wherein a Canon was made, Quo prohibiter ne Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri inferiores Clerici in causis suis ulla extra Africam adeant judicia. So that by both these Councils, Priests as well as Deacons are proved to be inferior to Bishops: which was the thing intended by our Reformers in that Paragraph.  
So that when these Dissenters (from this passage, (viz,) that of these two Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, Scripture maketh express mention) do in the words immediately following infer, That all others (meaning particularly that of Bishops) were afterward added by the Church, p. 2. and name this inference as if it were the very words of that excellent Book, is no less a sin, than the bearing false witness against them; for they treat only of other inferior and lower degrees. So that if the word Order be taken in the first sense, for the power or faculty of administering holy things conferred by the Bishops, it is their plain sense, That the Scripture maketh express mention of these two inferior Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, and not of Subdeacons', Acolytes, etc.  
Moreover, two things especially seem designed by the Reformers concerning the Sacrament of Orders: The first is to show that Bishops are of Divine Institution, and had not their dependence on the Pope, whom his Favourites made the only Bishop, and all the rest deriving their power and authority from him. The second was to show, that of all those seven Orders which were made Sacramental, only those of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons had foundation in Scripture; the rest were added in aftertimes. And to confirm both these, they describe the manner of ordaining both Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Holy Scripture, to discharge it from those superstitious Ceremonies introduced by the Pope, and made necessary to their Ordination. As for the Superiority of Bishops to Priests, there is no question made, much less of their Identity or sameness of Office.  
For the Divine Right of Bishops, they assert it in four several places, that they have it from Christ; and prove it by Scripture, and from thence infer this Conclusion, That whereas the Bishop of Rome hath heretofore claimed and usurped to be Head and Governor of all Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, by the Laws of God; it is evident that his Power is utterly feigned and untrue, and was neither given him by God in Holy Scripture, nor allowed by the Fathers in Ancient General Councils, nor by consent of the Cotholick Church. And they declare, That the Authorities, Powers, and Jurisdictions of Patriarches, Primates, Archbishops; and Metropolitans, were given them by the positive Laws of men only, and not by any Ordinance of God in Holy Scripture. And the power usurped by any one Bishop over another, (not given him by the Consent of men) is no lawful Power, but plain Usurpation and Tyranny: Which they prove from the Ancient Councils and Fathers against the Pope. Secondly, They show, that of those seven Orders owned by the Church of Rome as Sacramental, only Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, had their Institution in the Holy Scripture; and that Subdeacons', Acolytes, Exorcists, etc. were added by the Church, as also the Rites and Ceremonies by which they were conferred. And thirdly, to confirm what they had said, they describe the manner of ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to clear it from those superstitious Ceremonies brought in by the Church of Rome; as the Ring and Crosier-staff, several Unctions and Garments, some of which must come from Rome; whereas the Scripture mentions only the imposition of Hands and Prayers. In these words, Of these two Orders only, (i. e.) Priests and Deacons, the Scripture maketh express mention; and how they were conferred of the Apostles by Prayer and imposition of their Hands. And evident it is to me, that by the word Order they intended only the manner of Ordaining, not the distinction of Orders: for they all held the Superiority of Bishops to Priests. And this will appear, first, from the word used by the Latin Translation, which is, De his tantum Ordinationibus, of these Ordinations only, not of these two Orders only, the Scripture makes mention, and describeth the manner of conferring them. And doubtless those learned men did not confound the words Ordo and Ordinatio. For the understanding whereof, I shall explain the English Edition by the Latin.  
Thus in the beginning they say, That these Orders were given by the Consecration and Imposition of the Bishop's hands: [Per Consecrationem & Impositionem manum Episcopi.] And as the Apostles themselves in the beginning of the Church did order Priests and Bishops; so they willed the other Bishops to the like. Thus the Latin Book: Et Quemadmodum Apostoli ipsi Episcopos & Presbyteros Ordinaverunt, ita, eosdem etiam instituisse ut in posterum succedentes Episcopi eundem ordinandi morem in Ecclesia servarent. Again, Here is to be noted, That although this Form before declared is to be observed in giving Orders, etc. in the Latin, Quanquam autem hunc in modum Scriptura Ordinationes fieri instituit. Again, Thus we have briefly touched the Ordering, not the Orders of Priests and Bishops. The Latin, Hactonus quidem de Ordinatione Presbyterorum. Neither speak of the Order, but Ordering. Moreover, touching the Order of Deacons, we read Acts 6. that they were ordered and instituted by the same Apostles by Prayer and Imposition of their hands. The Latin, Jam vero praeter Episcopos & Sacerdotes, Diaconorum etiam Scriptura meminit, traditque hos ab Apostolis per Orationem & manuum impositionem ordinatos & institutos fuisse. After all which it followeth, Of these two Orders only, (which I cannot understand (the premises being considered) in any other sense than as the Latin renders it) Of these Ordinations only, and how they were conferred, the Scripture maketh mention, That they were conferred by Prayer and Imposition of hands. Nor can it be thought that by the mentioning the manner of ordaining Bishops and Priests to be the same, that therefore the Reformers thought the Order to be the same; because the Deacons were ordained in the same manner, and yet it is granted that they were distinct Orders And for the distinction of the Orders of Priests and Bishops, enough had been spoken before, and their present practice did demonstrate what their Opinions were.  
If any desire farther satisfaction in these things, let him read the Casuists de Sacramento Ordinis, where this distinction is obvious: Ordo significat vel ipsam potestatem, vel Ordinationem quâ potestas datur. And they may find that Bellarmine, and generally the Jesuits, reckon Bishops and Priests to be but one Order, as our Dissenters would have it: and among the later Schoolmen it was made a Question, An Episcopatus sit Ordo à Presbyteratu distinctus; and they generally hold that they are one in Genere Sacerdotis, but are distinct in Specie, the Episcopal Character including that of a Priest; and so they hold that Solum Sacerdotium est Ordo & Sacramentum. So they dispute against the Imposition of hands in Ordination of Priests; and the usual form was by delivering the Patine and Chalice, with Bread and Wine, with these words: Accipe potestatem offerendi Sacrificia pro vivis & mortuis, In nomine Patris, etc. And they affirm, That the Pope can create a Bishop or Priest, only by saying, Be thou a Bishop or Priest— A Deacon is ordained by delivering of the Gospels into his hands, and the Subdeacon by delivery of an empty Patine and Chalice: Which superstitious uses our Reformers would destroy, and reduce to the Apostolical Practice.  
One Argument more these Dissenters mention from the Necessary Erudition, as good as the rest, p. 3. The Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same, whose Office is not only to preach and administer Sacraments, but moreover to exercise Discipline, namely, in assoiling and losing from sin such as be truly penitent, and in excommunicating the obstinately vicious; where from the Community of some Offices, they would argue to the equality of the Orders: though nothing is more evident, than that the Bishops of this Age reserved the power of Confirmation, Ordination, and Diocesan Jurisdiction to themselves, as their Right Jure Divino, as will yet further appear. But nowhere doth the Necessary Erudition say, That the Order of a Bishop or Priest is one and the same, as they sophistically infer: And they may as well affirm it to be the sense of the Council of Trent, as of our Reformers, who use almost the same words, Non solum Sacerdotibus, sed & de Diaconis, Sacrae Literae apertam mentionem faciunt.  
I cannot conceive what ground these Dissenters had to fix this Error of theirs upon, unless an unwary Expression of Dr. Burnet's; who perhaps considering the Archbishop's Judgement, more than the Judgements of the rest, doth assert the same as the Dissenters do: But if they had it from him, they had also in him a correction of this Error; and it was far from the ingenuity of true Protestant Divines, to publish the Error, and conceal the Confutation of it. Thus then Dr. Burnet discovers the whole Intrigue, Dr. Burnet, p. 336. of the first part, That both in this Writing (i.e. Dr. Stillingfleet's Manuscript) and in the Necessary Erudition of a Christian man, Bishops and Priests are spoken of as one and the same Office. But Dr. Burnet adds, In the ancient Church they knew none of those subtleties which were found out in the later Ages; it was then thought enough that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his Function by a new Imposition of hands, and that several Offices could not be performed without a Bishop, such as Ordination, Confirmation, etc. But they did not refine in these matters so much as to inquire whether Bishops and Priests differed in Order and Office, or only in degree: But after the Schoolmen fell to examine matters of Dignity with logical and unintelligible Niceties, the Canonists began to comment upon the Rules of the Ancient Church, they studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one to another, so that the difference was but small. They did it with different designs: The Schoolmen having set up the grand Mystery of Transubstantiation, were to exalt the Priestly Office as much as was possible; for the turning of the Host into God, was so great an action, that they reckoned there could be no Office higher than that which qualified a man to so mighty a performance. Therefore as they changed the form of Ordination from what it was anciently believed to consist in, (viz.) Imposition of hands, to a delivering of Sacred Vessels; and held that a Priest had his Orders by that Rite, not by the Imposition of hands: So they raised their Order or Office so high, as to make it equal with the Order of a Bishop. But as they designed to extol the Order of Priesthood, so the Canonists had as great a mind to depress the Episcopal Order; they generally wrote for preferment, and the way to it, was to extol the Papacy: Nothing could do that so effectually, as to bring down the power of Bishops; this only could justify the Exemptions of the Monks and Friars, the Pope's setting up Legantine Courts, and receiving at first Appeals, and then Original Causes before them, together with many other Encroachments on the Jurisdiction of Bishops; all which were unlawful, if the Bishops had by Divine Right Jurisdiction in their Dioceses: Therefore it was necessary to lay them as low as could be, and to make them think that the power they held was rather as delegates of the Apostolic See, than by a Commission from Christ or his Apostles. So that they looked on the declaring Episcopal Authority to be of Divine Right, as a blow that would be fatal to the Court of Rome; therefore they did after this at Trent, use all possible endeavours to hinder any such Decision: it having been then the common Style of that Age, to reckon Bishops and Priests as the same Office, it is no wonder if at this time the Clergy of this Church, the greatest part of them being still leavened with the old Superstition, and the rest of them not having enough of spare time to examine lesser matters, retain still the former Phrases in this particular.  
This might have been sufficient to correct the forwardness of our Dissenters to comply with the Papists in this new Notion of Bishops or Priests as one Order; but because they abated nothing of their confidence by this, I shall mind them of that severer Reprimand of the Doctor's, for which in their behalf I give him hearty thanks, for I think he shall have none from them. It is in these words (N. B.)  
On this I have insisted the more, that it may appear how little they have considered things, who are so far carried with their Zeal against the established Government of this Church, as to make much use of some passages of the Schoolmen and Canonists that deny them to be distinct Orders: for these are the very dregs of Popery (N. B.) the one raising the Priests higher for the sake of Transubstantiation, the other pulling the Bishop's lower for the sake of the Pope's Supremacy, and by such means bringing them almost to an equality. So partial are some men to their particular Conceits, that they make use of the most mischievous Topics when they can serve their turn, not considering how much farther these Arguments will run if they ever admit them.  
So that although the Phrase of Priests or Bishops. might have been used in former times, as it was in a Paper printed among the Addenda to the first part of the Doctor's History, p. 324. which Paper was written about six years before the Necessary Erudition, as is proved, p. 365. of the first part: Yet when our Dissenters read (as no doubt they did) these Remarks of the Doctor's concerning the rise and mischievous tendences of it, their presumption in urging it from that Paper where it is so shamefully condemned, is as unpardonable as their endeavour to fasten it on the Necessary Erudition, where the contrary is evidently asserted.  
And is this the great Reverence that our Dissenters have for the first Reformers, thus to wrest and abuse their Writings, by altering their Words, curtailing their Sentences, and representing them as contradicting themselves, as well as the Universal Church in all Ages before them, in such an excellent Book, and to object that against them, which their Adversaries, who watched for such an advantage, could never find? This is no otherwise to honour them, than to call them to a second Martyrdom, more inglorious and hateful to them than the first. And yet these Dissenters could not but know, that all they who had a hand in compiling that Book, were either Diocesan Bishops, or such Divines as lived in a willing submission to them. And these things are sufficient to show that the Dissenters are more genuine Sons of some other Church, than of the Church of England according to its Primitive Constitution.  
And thus the Declaration mentioned by our Author to be subscribed by Tho. Cromwell, etc. which says, That in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, Priests or Bishops; as also the Opinions of Tindal, Lambert, and Dr. Barnes, must be submitted to the more mature and authorized Judgement of the State, Civil and Ecclesiastical, expressed in the Necessary Erudition. And the private Sentiments of such Divines as have written from the days of Edward VI until now, must be adjudged to be conformable to the Judgement and Determination of the Church, which hath been established by Law in their days, to which also they generally subscribed; and then I need say no more, but that the Forms of Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, will determine the Question; whether from the beginning of our Reformation, the Church of England hath acknowledged three Orders, viz. of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or two only; And whether the Church-Government established by Law ever since the days of Edward VI hath not been by Diocesan Bishops.  
But I would ask these men, Can they have conformed to Episcopacy and Liturgy under King Henry the Eighth, or Edward the Sixth, and can they not now? Was not Episcopacy the same then as it is now; and the Liturgy much better now than it was then? Can you conform to Henry the Eighth's Primer, to his six Articles and seven Sacraments? Or to the Liturgy established by King Edward the Sixth, wherein were many things that were deservedly accounted Ineptias? As in the Communion-Office, where they commend to the mercy of God all his Servants departed hence from us; And that God would command our Prayers and Supplications by the ministry of his holy Angels to be brought up into his holy Tabernacle: The commending Auricular and Secret Confession to the Priest: And in the Office of Baptism, enjoining a great part of that Office to be performed the people standing at the Church-door; and then to take the Child by the right hand, and lead it towards the Font: To sign it with the sign of the Cross on the Breast, as well as the Forehead. The use of Exorcism, in these words: I command thee, thou unclean Spirit, in the Name of the Father, etc. to come out and departed from this Infant. The dipping the Child three times in the Water, (except in case of weakness) first on the right side, then on the left, and then with the Face towards the Water. Then to put on it the Crysom, saying, Take thou this white Vesture for a Token of the Innocency, etc. Then to anoint the Infant on the head, praying God to anoint him with the Unction of the Spirit. And (to omit many other things) anointing the sick, and signing his breast with the sign of the Cross. Commending at the time of Burial into the hands of God's mercy the Souls of the departed.  
As for the Book of consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, it was added to the Liturgy by King Edward, as it is received now, with some few alterations (mentioned by Dr. Burnet) for the better, p. 144.  
His Articles, and Acts for Uniformity, were as severe as any that are now. And all these were established in Archbishop Cranmers time, and with his good Approbation.  
In the Articles of Religion, printed 1552. one concerning the Liturgy declares thus. The Book (of Prayers) which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the Authority of Parliament, containing the Manner and Form of praying, and ministering the Sacraments; and the Book of ordering Ministers of the Church, set forth by the afore said Authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome Doctrine of the Gospel, but agreeing thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little; and therefore of all faithful Ministers of the Church of England, and chief of the Ministers of the Lord, aught to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the people of God. Besides the Discourse concerning Ceremonies retained in our Book, was then set forth; as also a Proclamation against those that innovate, altar, or leave down any Rite or Ceremony in the Church, and that preach without Licence; printed in the second year of Edward the Sixth, (to which the Form for Bidding of Prayers may be added.) See p. 128. of Dr. Burnet's second part. All which notwithstanding, Bucer and Peter Martyr approved of Conformity.  
And Mr. Calvin himself both persuaded and approved all that was done in the second Liturgy of King Edward, in an Epistle of his to the then Protector, being the forty first Epistle in the Edition at Amsterdam, 1667. to this effect: Let there be published a Summary of Doctrine to be received by all, which all may conform to in their preaching; for the observance of which, let all Bishops and Parish-Priests be obliged by Oath; and let none be admitted to Ecclesiastical Function, unless he promise to observe that consent of Doctrine inviolate. Let there be also a common form of Catechism for the use of Children: I also greatly approve that there be a certain Form of Prayers and Ecclesiastical Rites, from which it should not be lawful for the Pastors to recede in their Function; as well to provide for the simplicity and unskilfulness of some, as also that thereby the consent of all the Churches may more certainly appear; and lastly, that the desultory levity of some men, who affect Novelties, may be prevented. So that there ought to be an established Catechism, an established Administration of the Sacraments, and public Form of Prayers.  
Did not Dr. Taylor, a learned Martyr, declare of the Liturgy as it stood in Edward the Sixth's days, that according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf, no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained? And is it well done to fill the Consciences of the People now with Scruples against almost every part of it? How these men would have demeaned themselves under the Impositions and Bishops in the days of Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth, I cannot divine, Uniformity being as strictly enjoined then, as it is now. For such as did officiate in any other manner than was prescribed by the Liturgy, were for the first Offence to suffer six months' Imprisonment; for the second, to be imprisoned during life: and if any should print in defamation of it, or threaten Clergy men for using of it, he was to be fined 10 l. for the first Offence, 20 l. for the second, and for the third to forfeit all his Goods, and suffer Imprisonment during life.  
And as for the Reign of Queen Mary, let the Book of Martyrs be viewed, and it will appear that they who bore Testimony to the Truths of Christ, and truly deserved the name of Martyrdom, were such as were eminent Assertors of the established Episcopacy and Liturgy; such as Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Taylor.  
Lest I should lead my Reader into an Error, while I follow the Method of these Men, I thought fit to inform the Reader, That the Erudition of a Christian Man was printed in the Year 1543. and the Resolution of the Questions mentioned in the Papeer by Dr. Stillingfleet, in the days of King Edward the Sixth; which whether they were consulted of before (viz.) in the days of Henry the Eighth, is not material to inquire into: but the Method Mr. H. and Mr. Lob used in the Reply to the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet, in the Preface, saying, in Henry the Eighth's time, Cranmer, in Answer to that Question, Whether Bishops or Priests were first? did assert, etc. And that he did not vary from that Opinion, the same being by him asserted in the Necessary Erudition.  
As to the Opinion of those three Divines which are mentioned in this Chapter, viz. Tindal, Lambert, and Barnes, the first says, That the Apostles ordained two Officers (viz.) Bishop or Overseer, and Deacon or Minister; and adds, That Deacons crept not into Orders till the Church grew Rich.  
Lambert he says was of the same Opinion, which he took from St. Hierome, who held Bishops and Priests to be one and the same (of which we shall speak hereafter). This Lambert was a stranger, come from Avignon, and would that every Parish should have his proper Bishop, and in every City there ought to be many Bishops: This Mr. Barnes denies, and quotes St. Paul, who said, I have left thee behind me to set in every City a Bishop. And the Article against Mr. Barnes was, That he held, that one Man might not by the Law of God be a Bishop of Two or Three Cities, or of a whole Country; he denied not one Bishop in a City, but thought that an Apostolical Institution: His Opinion was, That there ought not to be such Bishops as the Cardinal that examined him was: Who told Mr. Barnes, That this Article touched him. And it seems evident, that this Man spoke against such Usurpations as the Pope and Cardinals exercised; wherein he agreed to the Sentiments of all those that subscribed the necessary Erudition.  
And now there remains little too be said of Ch. 2. for that which he says from a Statute primo Edw. 6. was brought in by a Parenthesis, as not part of the intention of the Statute, which was to be learned from the Preamble, (viz.) That the Election of Bishops should not be in the Deans and Chapters, to prevent Delays and Expenses, but in the King: So that it respects only the External Government of the Church, which is still acknowledged to be in the determination of the Magistrate, who is Supreme in all Causes, and over all Persons. And therefore it needed not that Reflection of Dr. Heylin, which our Author mentioneth, viz. That it did weaken the Authority of the Episcopal Order: Which, (as hath been proved from the Erudition, and the Judgement of the Divines mentioned in Dr. Stillingfleet's Paper) was from Christ.  
As to Bishop Poynet, the sum of what he says is this, Who knows not that the Name Bishop hath been so abused, that when it was spoken the People understood no other thing but a great Lord,— (Where he seems to describe a Cardinal, or Popish Bishop) that went in a white Rochet, with a wide shaved Crown, and that carried an Oil-Box with him, wherewith he useth once in Seven Years, Riding about, to Confirm Children. Certainly, he could not mean this of Diocesan Protestant Bishops, he being then Bishop of Winchester; and the Name of Bishop being thus abused, he thought it not amiss, if another word were used in its place, till the abused word were restored to its right Signification; and then adds: O how the Papists would triumph over us, if they had like proof for the Names of Pope, Cardinal, etc. as we have for the maintenance of the Names Superintendent, (i. e.) in his sense, Bishop, Minister, and suchlike by us used.  
Ch. 3. He says, That Aley Bishop of Exeter, Pilkington of Durham, Jewel of Salisbury, Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury were of the same Opinion with Tindal, Lambert, and Barnes, and the Reformers in King Edward's time, and what that was hath been considered; I only observe in general, that all these were Diocesan Bishops, and therefore probably would write nothing to destroy their own Order, That which Bishop Aley says, is a Quotation from St. Hierome, That a Presbyter and Bishop are the same, etc. But, saith Bishop Aley, it grew by little and little, that the whole charge and care should be appointed to one Bishop within his Precinct. Our Author mentions another Quotation from the Bishop out of St. Hierome, viz. That Bishops are greater than Priests, rather by Custom than by Dispensation from the Lord; of which hereafter. To the same effect he quotes Pilkington Bishop of Durham, arguing against a Popish Author, and therefore probably against Popish Bishops; and he says, That God's Commission is alike to all, Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, and Prelate; for which he quotes St. Hierome, ad Evagrium, That a Bishop wherever he be, is of the same Power and Priesthood, which he urged against those that still claimed their Bishop of Rome, usurped Power above Princes, and other Bishops; who as this Bishop says, had no Authority to Suspend, Deprive, and Interdict any Priest that paid not his Subsidies, but from the Parliament: I cannot see what inference the Author can make from this to favour his Opinion.  
The sum of what Bishop Jewel says, is that of St. Hierome, That all Priests are of the same Power; that the Names of Metropolitans, Archbishops, Archdeacon's, &c. are not found in the SS. That St. Hierome says, Sciant Episcopi; that they are in Authority over Priests more by Custom, than by Order of God's Truth: And against Harding he says, What meant Mr. Harding to come in with the difference between Priests and Bishops, thinketh he that Priests and Bishops hold only by Tradition; or is it so humble a Heresy to say, that by the SS of God, a Bishop and a Priest are all one: He grants also, That it is by the favour of Princes, that a Priest being found negligent, etc. he may be punished by the discretion of the Bishop. That the Matters of Government must be taken out of the Word of God: (viz) That the Word be truly taught, the Sacraments rightly administered, Virtue furthered, Vice repressed, and the Church kept in Quietness and Order: That the Officers whereby this Government is wrought, be not namely and particularly expressed in SS. but left to the discretion of the Church, according to the state of Times, Places, and Persons; and therefore no certain and perfect kind of Government being prescribed in SS, as necessary to the Salvation of the Church, the same may be altered: For which he quotes Gualther— Let every Church follow the manner of Discipline which doth most agree with the people, and most fit for the time and place; and let no Man rashly prescribe to others, and bind all Churches to one Form: It is well known, that the Manner and Form of Government in the Apostles times, and expressed in the SS, neither is now, nor can, nor aught to be observed. This he wrote against Cartwright, pleading for his Government, as if prescribed in SS, and thus he applies it to the then Dissenters: If you will have the Queen Rule as Monarch in her own Dominions, you must give her leave to use one kind and form of Government, in all, and every part, and so to Govern the Church in Ecclesiastical Affairs, as in Civil. I wish they would follow his Example and Advice, that so seem to recommend his Judgement.  
Ch. 4. gins with Dr. Willet's Opinion, who says, That of the difference between Bishops and Priests there are Three Opinions; the first of Arrius, who held that all Ministers should be equal; and that a Bishop was not, nor aught to be superior to a Priest; nor was there any difference at all between them. Which Opinion was counted an Heresy. N. B.  
The Second in the other extreme is of the Papists, That would have not only a difference, but a Princely Pre-eminence of their Bishops over the Clergy, and that by the Word of God.  
The Third Opinion between both, is: That although this distinction of Bishops and Priests, as now received, cannot be directly proved out of SS, yet it is very good for the Polity of the Church, to avoid Schism and to preserve it in Unity: And he concludes. So then here is a difference between our Adversaries the Papists, and us; they say, It is of necessity to Salvation to be subject to the Pope, and to Bishops, and Archbishops under him, as necessarily prescribed in the Word: But so do not our Bishops and Archbishops, which is a notable difference between the Bishops of the Popish Church, and the Reformed Churches.  
Let every Church use the Form which best fitteth their State in External Matters. N. B. Every Church is free, not one bound to the Prescription of another: So they measure themselves by the Rule of the Word. This then (he says) may without any contradiction be affirmed, that in this distinction of the Ministers of the Church, there is somewhat Apostolical, somewhat also Political: First, in the calling of Bishops, as now ordained in some Reformed Church, it cannot be denied but that we have Order in the Church; and to have diversity of Degrees and Ministrations, to avoid Confusion, proceeds from an Institution of Christ, that there should not be a popular Equality, but a convenient Superiority, and Priority in the Ministers of the Gospel; as St. Paul also showeth: First Apostles, second Prophets, etc. Secondly, There is somewhat Politic, and that of two sorts, as touching the Polity Ecclesiastical and Civil. To the Ecclesiastical, in advancing the Dignity of Bishops these things appertain: 1. St. Hierome says of Confirmation, That it is committed only to Bishops; that it is rather for the honour of the Priesthood, then by necessity of any Law. 2. The Council of Aquisgrane, ch. 8, saith, That the Ordination and Consecration of Ministers is now reserved to the chief Minister only for Authority's-sake, lest that the Discipline of the Church being changed by many, should break the Peace of the Church. 3. The Author of the Book under Hierome's Name, De Septem Ordinibus, saith, That the Consecration of Virgins, which is not now in use in the Reformed Churches, was reserved to the Bishop for Concord's sake. 4. The Jurisdiction of the Church, which in times past (Hierome says) was committed to the College of Presbyters, was afterwards, to avoid Schism, devolved to the Bishop. Among other Inferences from Dr. Willet, he concludes, That Willet indeed saith, that for the sake of Order, the Presidence of one above the rest is Divine and Apostolical: And at the latter end of Queen Eligabeth, the Episcopal Government is affirmed to be Apostolical, and a Divine Institution. And as to Saravia, our Author gives his Judgement in these two particulars, differing from Whitgift: 1. That not only the Ministry of the Word and Sacraments, but the Form of Government instituted by the Lord himself, delivered by the Apostles, confirmed by the Fathers, aught to be continued forever. 2. The Superiority in degree of a Bishop, above a Presbyter, is a Divine Institution; and that St. Hierome was in the same Error with Arrius: Dico privatam fuisse Hieronimi Opinionem consentaneam cum Arrio & Dei verbo contrariam. The last that he mentioneth in this Ch. is Bishop Bancroft, who says, We have a Church-Government, which in my Conscience is truly Apostolical, and far to be preferred before any other received this day in any Reformed Church in Christendom. And after the Death of the Apostles, who did oversee both Churches, Pastors, and Bishops, or Superintendents, Ecclesiastical Histories, and ancient Fathers have kept a Register of their Names, who Succeeded and Ruled the Churches after them.— And this inequality hath been approved and honoured by all the Ancient Fathers, none excepted, and by all the General Councils, and by all other Men of Learning, for many hundred Years after the Apostles time, saving Arrius the Heretic, who missing of a Bishopric that he shed for, first broached the Opinion, That there ought to be no difference between a Bishop and a Priest. N. B.  
That which Bishop Bancroft notes from Dr. Robinson, is this: I have maintained that the Titles of Honour given to our Bishops, are no more repugnant to the Word, than for us to be called Wardens or Precedents of Colleges, and in my Judgement they may with as good Conscience be Governors of their Diocese, as we being Ministers may Govern Colleges of Mrnisters. Nor do I think this was a late devised Polity; for I am persuaded, that the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, to whom St. John writes, was one Minister set over the rest; for why, seeing there were many Pastors there, should St. John write to the Angel, and not to the Angels, if there had been no difference among them; neither if this Presidency had had that fault which is reproved in Diotrephes, would our Saviour, who reproveth those Disorders which he found in the Seven Churches, have passed over this great fault in silence; therefore as Titus was left in Greet to reform the Churches in that whole Island, so I am persuaded, that in other Places some of that Order, and of Pastors and Teachers, which is perpetual in the Church, even in the time of the Apostles, and had a Prelacy among their Brethren, and that this Pre-eminence is approved by our Saviour. And to come lower, tho' the word Episcopus signifieth, that care which is required of all, and be in SS required of all that have care of Souls; yet I do not remember any one Ecclesiastical Writer wherein that word doth not import a greater Dignity than is common to all Ministers; neither do I think that any old Writer did under the Name of Bishop mean the Pastor of every Parish: Thus Dr. Robinson, with whom, if Dr. Raynolds do agree, I see not (saith he) whether the Factioners will turn them; for this Doctor in his Book against Hart saith, That in the Church of Ephesus, though it had sundry Elders and Pastors to guide it, yet among those was there one Chief, whom our Saviour calleth the Angel of the Church; and this is he, whom after, in the Primitive Church, the Fathers called Bishop: For, etc. He proceeds thus:  
The Name of Bishop, common before to all Elders and Pastors of the Church, was then, by the usual Language of the Fathers, appropriated to him who had the Presidentship over the Elders. Thus are certain Elders reproved by St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, for receiving to the Communion them who had fallen in time of Persecution, before the Bishop had advised with them, and others. These Two are for Oxford, touching the Language of the Ancient Fathers, speaking of Bishops. Now you shall have a Cambridge Man's Opinion, Dr. Fulke, who in confutation of the Rbemish Testament, says: Among the Clergy for Order and seemly Government, there was always one Principal, to whom, by long use of the Church, the Name of Bishop, or Superintendant hath been applied; which room Titus exercised in Crect, Timothy in Ephesus, and others in other places; therefore, altho' in SS a Bishop and an Elder is of one Order and Authority in Preacling the Word, and Administering the Sacraments, as Hierome doth often confess; yet in Government, by ancient use of Speech, he is only called a Bishop, which is in SS so called, Rom. 12.8. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 13.7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Chief in Government, to whom the Ordination, or Consecration, by Imposition of Hands was always principally committed; which most Ancient Form of Government, when Arrius would take away, it was noted among his other Errors. So I hereby trust it may appear to Mr. Cartwright's reproach, and to all their shames, that shall pretend any Authority from the Ancient Fathers, to impugn the Right Honourable and Lawful Calling of Bishops, not Parsons in every Parish, but Bishops in their Diocese and Province, appointed in the Apostles times, for the right Order and Government of the Church of Christ. As to Bishop Spotwood's History of Scotland, p. 514, concerning the Ordination of the Three Scots Bishops in King James' time, Bishop Andrews urged, That it might not be done, because they were not duly made Presbyters, (i. e.) by Bishops; but the Archbishop considering that this might reflect on the Reformed Churches that had no Bishops, which was the condition also of Scotland, where Episcopal Ordination could not be had, it was dispensed with. But this is not the Case of our Dissenters, who refuse Episcopal Ordination where it may be had, and set up the Presbyterian against it.  
Ch. 5. Gins with the Judicious Mr. Hooker, from whom, after a long Quotation, he infers, p. 37. That the Polity in general be necessary to the Church; yet it is not necessary that any one Temporal Polity be in the SS: This being the Position of the Non-Cons, Mr. Hooker makes this use of it: — You cannot so much as pretend to this ground, that all the parts of your Discipline are in SS; and your Mouths are stopped, when you plead against all other Forms, seeing their Polity may be agreeable to the general Axioms of SS, as well as yours: And therefore, he says, The best way for our Cause, and the strongest against them, is to hold, (as the Non-Cons do) that in SS there must needs be found some particular Form of Church-Government which God hath instituted, and belongs to all Churches at all times; but by partiality and cunning, to make those things truest which are fittest to serve our purpose, is what we neither like, nor mean to follow. In p. 38. Mr. Hooker says:  
First, That in the Clergy there have ever been, and aught to be some subordinate to others, as the Apostles in the beginning, and to Bishops ever since; as in SS, and all Ecclesiastical Records other Ministers have been.  
Secondly, That a solemn admittance (viz. of Ministers into the Church) is of such necessity, that without it there can be no Church Polity. These he says are the perpetual and principal parts in Ecclesiastical Polity: And this is all that Mr. J. H. hath noted out of those Books of Mr. Hooker, which are generally allowed to be genuine; which being not much for his purpose, he goes to the Seventh Book, and there he finds this description of a Bishop: A Bishop is a Minister of God, to whom with permanent continuance, not only a Power of Administering the Word and Sacraments is given, (which other Presbyters have) but a farther Power to Ordain Ecclesiastical Persons, and a Power of Chiefty in Government over Presbyters as well as Laymen, a Power to be by way of Jurisdiction a Pastor, even to Pastors themselves. And the things which properly belong to a Bishop, cannot be common to other Pastors; and of Bishops restrained to some definite local compass he says, their Regiment we hold to be a thing most Divine and Holy in the Church of Christ: In two things J. H. notes that Hooker differs from the Non-Cons, p. 40. 1. They make the Superiority or Priority of Order to be but Temporary; he makes it permanent. 2. They deny the Bishops have any Power over other Pastors, that is Mandatory, Judicial, and Coercive, Mr. Hooker affirms it: Then he shows: how Mr. Hooker resolves a Sentence of St. Hierome, which seems inconsistent with itself: viz. How the Apostles should be the Authors of that Government, (i. e.) Episcopacy, and yet the Custom of the Church be accounted the chief Prop of it. To which the substance of his Answer is, That what Laws the Universal Church might change, and doth not, St. Hierome ascribes the continuance of such Laws, tho' instituted by God himself, to the Judgement of the Church, for they which may abrogate a Law, and do not, may be said to establish it; and seeing the whole Church receiving it for a Custom, which was established by them, on whom the Holy Ghost was in an abundant manner poured out for ordering of Christ's Church, it had either Divine appointment beforehand, or Divine approbation afterwards. Now how Mr. J. H. could from these premises draw this following conclusion, I cannot perceive, p. 44. Let there be, saith he, as many Bishoprics, as there are considerable Personages, and a Provision made for the Presbyters which are to assist the Bishops in the Government of the Churches; and then a Superiority of the Bishop above the Presbyters, will be no longer a Bone of Contention. The Sense whereof seems to me to be this: Let the Presbyters in every Parish have all the Power that belongs to Bishops, and then, and not else, they will be pleased. But the Judicious Hooker would not have been so pleased with them that should have inferred this conclusion from any premises of his. That which followeth our of Mr. Hooker's maimed Book, is, 1. That the Church Visible hath not ordinarily allowed any but Bishops alone to Ordain; howbeit, in some necessary Cases, we may decline from the ordinary ways. 2. That Confirmation hath not always belonged to the Bishops, but in some places, in the absence of the Bishop, the Presbyter might Ordain. 3. That the Presbyters are for the most part mentioned as Counsellors and Assistants to the Bishop.  
The last Bishop whom he would constrain to help on his New Model, is Bishop Bilson, who says, That to prevent Dissension and Confusion, there must needs, even by God's Ordinance, be a Precedent, or Ruler of every Presbytery; but that in the Apostles times the Presidentship should go round to every Presbyter by course; this is the main point between us. Then he says, There are Four Things must be perpetual in the Church. 1. The Dispensing of the Word. And 2. Sacraments. 3. Imposing of Hands. 4. Guiding the Keys to shut or open the Kingdom of God. The first Two belong to all Pastors or Presbyters, but it belongs to some selected persons who succeed in the Apostles places, to moderate the Presbyters of each Church, and to take the special Charge of Imposition of Hands. And this singularity in succeeding, and superiority in ordaining, hath been observed from the Apostles times, as the peculiar and subsiantial Marks of Episcopal Power and Calling.  
As to the Power of the Keys, the private use of them in appointing Offenders, upon the acknowledgement of their sins, to for bear the Lord's Table for a time, we deny not to Presbyters; but the Bishop is by Christ's own mouth, pronounced to be the Angel of the Church, the chief Steward of his Household, to hear and determine Grievances, with whom the Presbyters sat at first as Assessors; but when Councils began, only as Beholders and Advisers of his Judgement; and he adds, that the right by imposing Hands to Ordain Presbyters and Bishops, was at first derived from the Apostles to Bishops, and not to Presbyters. N. B. And for 1500 Years without instance or example to the contrary, till this our Age, remained in Bishops, and not in Presbyters; for which he quotes St. Hierome: Quid faecit excepta ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter. J. H. observes, that whereas it is objected, That Imposition of Hands was by the Presbytery; he answers out of St. Chrysostom, that by the word Presbytery in SS, must be understood Bishops not Presbyters; because Presbyters in the Apostles time did not impose Hands on a Bishop. And from this Bishop he adds, All that we can say for Bishops above Presbyters out of SS is, that the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of St. Paul, hath given the Bishop of each place Authority to Ordain the worthy, to examine such as be faulty, to reprove and discharge such as be guilty, either of unsound Teaching, or offensive Living; and this he saith belongs to all Bishops of Christ's Church forever. I have transcribed so much of these Quotations, because the very repetition of them is a confutation of that Design, which Mr. H. attempts, and will show it to be not a healing, but a very hurtful Attempt, as precluding that way of Peace and Reconciliation which is generally intended, if the unreasonable Demands of some unquiet Men do not put a bar to it.  
Thus saith Mr. J. H. I have gone through the principal Writers about Church Government in Queen Elizabeth 's Reign: And indeed he hath culled out such Foundations on which he would build his Hay and Stubble, as will no way suit with them. I shall not prepossess the Reader with the inferences which J. H. would force from them; but leave every Man to consider, whether he can fix his Half-sheet Model on these Concessions; and now briefly inform the Reader of the Judgement of some of these Divines, and some Statesmen, what Qualifications he and such Master-Builders are endowed with, for the Building of a Temple fit for the Public Worship of God and our Saviour: And I shall begin with,  
The Speech of the Lord Keeper Puckering to the House of Lords, by Order of Queen Elizabeth.  
ESpecially you are commanded by Her Majesty, to take heed that no ear be given, nor time afforded to the wearisome Solicitations of those that are commonly called Puritans, wherewithal the late Parliament have been exceedingly importuned; which sort of Men, while in the giddiness of their Spirits they labour and strive to advance a new Eldership, they do nothing else but distract the good Repose of the Church and Commonwealth, which is as well grounded for the body of Religion itself; and as well guided for the Discipline, as any Realm that professeth the Truth; and as the present case standeth, it may be doubted, whether they or the Jesuits offer more danger, or are to be more speedily suppressed; for albeit the Jesuits do poison the Hearts of Her Majesty's Subjects, under a pretence of Conscience, they do it but closely, and only in corners, but these Men do both publish in their printed Books, and teach in all their Conventicles, sundry Opinions, not only dangerous to the well-setled State and Policy of the Realm, by putting a Pique between the Clergy and the Laity, but also much derogatory to her Sacred Majesty and her Crown, as well by the diminution of her Ancient and Lawful Revenues, and by denying her Highness' Prerogative and Supremacy, as by offering Peril to Her Majesty's Safety in her own Kingdom; in all which things (however in many other points) they pretend to be at War with the Popish Jesuits, yet by the separation of themselves from the Unity of their Fellow-Subjects, and by abusing the Sacred Authority and Majesty of their Prince, they do both join and concur with the Jesuits in opening the Door, and preparing the way to the Spanish Invasion that is threatened against the Realm.  
And in the Year 1588., as Cambden observes in his Annals, the King of Spain being thereto encouraged by an Information of the great Divisions and Animosities among us, by Reason whereof he expected either a greater Party to join with him, or a less Opposition, sent his Invincible Armado upon our Coasts; at which time the Protestant Dissenters, instead of Arming in Defence of the Queen and themselves, did with greater Importunity and Confidence assault her with Petitions and Libels, taking advantage of the Times, as if they were more ready to assist the Spaniards than Her Majesty, in case their unreasonable Requests were not granted. As for Bishop Jewel, if he said any thing in their favour, they ill requited him, for on his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's Cross, in defence of the Orders of the Church, and Obedience to them, he was so spitefully used by them, that in his own Vindication, he made a Solemn Protestation on his Deathbed, that what he then said, was neither to please some, nor displease others, but to promote Peace and Unity among Brethren; of which Archbishop Whitgift in his Defence, p. 433. says, It is the manner, except you please their Humour in all things, though you otherwise deserve never so well, all is nothing with them, but they will deprave you, rail on you, backbite you, invent lies of you, and spread false rumours, as though you were the vilest persons on Earth. By these insolent proceed of the Sectaries and Papists in Confederacy, the Queen was necessitated to pass those Acts of the 23 and 35 of her Reign, to retain Her Majesty's Subjects in due Obedience. And this also gave occasion to that Proclamation of the Queen 1588. against Seditious and Schismatical Books and Libels.  
By the QUEEN. A Proclamation against certain Seditious and Schismatical Books and Libels, etc.  
THE Queens most Excellent Majesty, considering how within these few years past, and now of late, certain seditious and evil-disposed persons towards her Majesty, and the Government established for causes Ecclesiastical within her Majesty's Dominions, have devised, written, printed, or caused to be seditiously and secretly published and dispersed, sundry schismatical and seditious Books, defamatory Libels, and other Fanatical Writings amongst her Majesty's Subjects, containing in them Doctrine very erroneous, and other matters notoriously untrue, and slanderous to the State, and against the Godly Reformation of Religion and Government Ecclesiastical established by Law, and so quietly of long time continued, and also against the persons of Bishops, and others placed in Authority Ecclesiastical under her Highness by her Authority, in railing sort, and beyond the bounds of all good humanity: All which Books, Libels, and Writings, tend by their scope to persuade and bring in a monstrous and apparent dangerous Innovation within her Dominions and Countries, of all manner of Ecclesiastical Government now in use, and to the abridging, or rather to the overthrow of her Highness lawful Prerogative, allowed by God's Law, and established by the Laws of the Realm, and consequently to reverse, dissolve, and set at liberty the present Government of the Church, and to make a dangerous change of the form of Doctrine, and use of Divine Service of God, and the Ministration of the Sacraments now also in use, with a rash and malicious purpose also to dissolve the Estate of the Prelacy, being one of the three ancient Estates of this Realm under her Highness, whereof her Majesty mindeth to have such a reverend regard, as to their places in the Church and Commonwealth appertaineth. All which said lewd and seditious practices, do directly tend to the manifest wilful breach of great number of good Laws and Statutes of this Realm, inconveniencies nothing regarded by such Innovations.  
In-consideration whereof, her Highness graciously minding to provide some good and speedy Remedy to withstand such notable, dangerous, and ungodly Attempts, and for that purpose to have such enormous Malefactors discovered and condignly punished, doth signify this her Highness misliking and indignation of such dangerous and wicked Erterprises; and for that purpose doth hereby will and also straightly charge and command, that all persons whatsoever, within any her Majesty's Realms and Dominions, who have or hereafter shall have any of the said seditious Books, Pamphlets, Libels, or Writings, or any of like nature already published, or hereafter to be published, in his or their custody, containing such matters as above are mentioned, against the present Order and Government of the Church of England, or the Lawful Ministers thereof, or against the Rites and Ceremonies used in the Church, and allowed by the Laws of the Realm: That they and every of them do presently after, with convenient speed, bring in, and deliver up the same unto the Ordinary of the Diocese, or of the place where they inhabit, to the intent they may be utterly defaced by the said Ordinary, or otherwise used by them. And that from henceforth no person or persons whatsoever be so hardy as to write, contrive, print, or cause to be published or distributed or to keep any of the same, or any other Books, Libels, or Writings of like nature and quality, contrary to the true meaning and intent of this her Majesty's Proclamation. And likewise that no man hereafter give any instruction, direction, favour, or assistance to the contriving, writing, printing, publishing, or dispersing of the same, or such like Books, Libels, or Writings whatsoever, as they tender her Majesty's good favour, will avoid her high displeasure, and as they will answer the contrary at their utmost perils: and upon such pains and penalties, as by the Law any way may be inflicted upon the offenders, in any of these behalves, as persons maintaining such seditious actions, which her Majesty mindeth to have severely executed. And if any person have had knowledge of the Authors, Writers, Printers, or Dispersers thereof, which shall within one Month after the publication hereof, discover the same to the Ordinary of the place where he had such knowledge, or to any of her Majesty's Privy Council: the same person shall not for his former concealment be hereafter molested or troubled. Given at her Majesty's Palace at Westminster, the thirteenth of February, 1588. In the One and thirtieth Year of her Highness' Reign.  
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.  
Archbishop Grindall expressed in a Letter of his, his great fear of two things (viz.) Atheism and Popery, and both arising out of our needless Divisions; by these means the Enemies of our Religion gain this, that nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion, whose every part is not opposed by one or other of her own Professors; so that things continuing lose and confused, the Papists have their Opportunity to urge their way, which is attended with Order and Government. And our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided, some vile wretches lay hold on the Argument on one side to confute the other, and so at last to destroy all. And it is observed in the Life of Mr. Hooker, p. 9 they persuaded men to believe that the Bishops were Antichrist, and Antichrist was to be destroyed by the Sword; and beginning with Petitions, they proceeded to Admonitions, then to Remostrances, then to numbering their Party, then to that boldness, that one told the Queen in a Sermon, She was like an untamed Heifer, that would not be ruled by God's people, but obstructed his Discipline. And we have heard and seen worse things in our days.  
Archbishop Whitgift in his Defence of the Answer to T. C. p. 605. tells the Puritans, That the Papists could not have met with better Proctors than they. And 55. That they did the Pope very good Service, and that he would not miss them for any thing: for what is his desire, but to have this Church of England, which he hath accursed, utterly defaced and discredited, to have it by any means overthrown, if not by Foreign means, yet by Domestical Dissension. And what fit Instruments could he have had for that purpose, who under pretence of Zeal overthrow that which other men have builded; under colour of Purity, seek to bring in Deformity; and under the Cloak of Equality and Humility, would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over their Parishes, as ever the Pope did over the whole Church, and that they were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave, whereby they intent to overthrow this Church even by these men's Folly, which they could not compass by all their Policy. The Epistle of the Archbishop to the Reader, before his Defence of the Answer to T. C's Admonition, is worth pernsal.  
As for Bishop Bancroft, the whole design of his Book is to manifest what disturbance the endeavours of the Presbyterians to establish their Eldership, did create in the Nation by such dangerous Positions and Practices, as were in his time with equal violence and malice carried on for the destruction of the Church, as it was then established. There are some other of the mentioned Divines, whose Writings I have not, nor is there need to inquire farther into them, seeing there is nothing alleged from them by Mr. J. H. but what being compared with their other say and practices doth fully frustrate his designs. And when the Bishops of our Church do so ingenuously mention all that may be said for their Adversaries, with so much Veracity, Candour, and Moderation, what a Reproach is it to their Opponents, to deal with them with so much Scorn and Contempt, such Bitterness and Passion, such Slanders and Falsehoods, as too many do, and as T. C. did with the Archbishop Whitgift, whom Queen Elizabeth called her black Husband, and upheld him against the Contrivances and contrary Designs of Lechester, and those Conformists whom he favoured, to promote his own Sacrilegious ends.  
As for Mr. Hooker, whom Bishop King calls Malleum Hereticorum, who was as meek and modest a man, as well as judicious, as any in his Generation, he did profess to the Archbishop, See p. 17. of his Life, That he believed his Adversary, Mr. Travers. to be a good man, and that occasioned him to examine his own Conscience concerning his Opinions, and to satisfy that, he consulted the Holy Scripture and other Laws Humane and Divine, whether the Conscience of him, and others of his judgement, ought so far to be complied with, as to alter the frame of Church-Government, and manner of Worship and Ceremonies as oft as their tender Consciences shall require it; in which examination he had not only satisfied himself, but begun his Ecclesiastical Polity for the satisfaction of others, which he justly calls, a Demonstration of the Reasonableness of our Ecclesiastical Laws, and a hopeful Foundation for the Church's Peace, and not to provoke either Mr. T. C. the Archbishop's Adversary, nor Mr. Travers, whom, saith Mr. Hooker, I take to be mine (not mine Enemy) God knows this to be my meaning. Yet his Adversaries that could not answer his Arguments, contrived to blot his Reputation, and accused him of Incontinency, which by a Trepan, as the Author of his Life relates, p. 22. they endeavoured to fasten on him; he kept this Grief to himself many Months, with great anxiety, until he revealed it to Mr. Edwin Sands and George Cranmer, who had been his Pupils, who enquiring into the Imposture, so followed it, that they brought his Accusers to open Confession and Punishment, which Punishment he endeavoured to prevent, but was denied; at which he replied, That however he would Fast and Pray, that God would give them Repentance, and Patience to undergo their Punishment; and the first part was granted, if we may believe, saith my Author, the penitent Behaviour, and open Confession of his Accuser.  
How his Adversaries dealt with his Books after his Death, is thus related. That one Mr. Clark and another Minister desired of his Widow a Month after his Death to search his Study for some Papers, whereof they burned some, and tore others; but Dr. Jackson having transcribed some draught of his three last Books, they were completed by Dr. Spencer, who was acquainted with the Design of those Books. The Doctor left them with Dr. King, Bishop of Londo, and he to his Son, Bishop of Chichester, he to Dr. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, in whose Library they continued till the Death of Archbishop Laud, and then the Library was given to Hugh Peter for his good Services, and then many alterations and additions were made in them, to make them speak for the power of the People above the King, for which, when the Lord Say quoted Hooker's Authority to King Charles the First, he replied, That the Books were not Hooker's; but however he would consent to what was proposed out of those doubted Books, if that Lord would consent to Mr. Hooker 's Judgement in those Books which were undoubted. The same may I say concerning the Judgement of such Divines as Mr. J. H. hath quoted, we will stand to what is but weakly and impertinently quoted from those Divines, if they will stand to what is more maturely and pertinently by them alleged and proved, agreeably also to their own practice for Diocesan Episcopacy, as established in the Church of England.  
If those Dissenters who were so importunate and industrious to advance their Discipline on the ruins of the established Church, had proceeded on the Principles laid down by the Divines , whereof this is one that they lay hold on (viz.) That the forms of Government not being plainly expressed in Scripture, are alterable, and may by the Authority of the Civil Magistrate be determined to this or that species (which yet they will not grant of their own Discipline) they ought then to acquiesce in that Government which was established, and to which all those Divines most willingly submitted, as the best in all the Christian World; and though by reason of their dissent from it, they had drawn on themselves the execution of some moderate Penalties, yet if they had been fully persuaded that they did suffer for a good Conscience, and for Righteousness sake, they ought like good Christians to have taken it patiently, and not by Railing, by Sedition, by forming Schisms, and meditating Rebellions, seek to avenge themselves, and return evil for evil, but contrarily blessing, being thereto called by the Example and Precepts of their great Master; but when they returned evil for good, and hatred for goodwill, and thought themselves persecuted, because they could not grasp a Power to persecute their Superiors; this was not agreeable to that wisdom that comes from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated. And if our present Dissenters be satisfied of the purity of our Doctrine, they may by the Principles which are laid down, submit to that Discipline and Government that Authority doth establish, there being nothing in it contrary to the Word of God, but wholly agreeable to the constant practice of the Universal Church.  
I think it sufficient to solve all that hath been alleged out of our Divines to clear these two things.  

1. What kind of Government was settled by the Apostles.  
2. What Answer may be given to the Objections so often mentioned from St. Hierom.   
As to the first, it is evident, that there was a Superiority in the Apostles to those to whom they committed the care of the several Churches, whether they were Bishops or Presbyters; and as the Apostles died, their Successors in Ecclesiastical Power, who in all Ages were the Bishops, were the Subjects of that Superiority; such as Timothy, Titus, Clemen, Linus, etc. and their Successors as they stand recorded in Ecclesiastical History; for what the Apostles did for the perpetual Order and Government of the Church, was agreeable to our Saviour's Institution, and all Antiquity bears proof to this Truth, that from the Apostles days there were settled in the most eminent Churches of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, several Bishops that had a Superiority over the Presbyters, in their respective Churches, and that the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were established in those Churches in those purest and most Primitive times; insomuch that they who will not admit those Testimonies, will be to seek for one of the best Proofs for the Canon of the Scripture. As therefore we believe the Succession of Roman Emperors from the Writings of such Historians as lived near their times, so may we believe the truth of such Orders of Men, and of their Successions, as it is delivered by Men of good Credit and Honesty, that lived near those times, and have handed down in undoubted written Records, from Age to Age, St. Polycarp, Ignatius, Clemens, who conversed with the Apostles; Ireneus, Justin Martyr, and others, that lived with them; then Origen, Clem. Alexandrinus, Tertullian, who succeeded them, and many others, who lived within two hundred years after the Apostles, from whom Eusebius had the Materials of his History, and refers to them for the truth of his Relations.  
He had the Acts of the Martyrs, and the Books of Hegesippus, concerning the Acts of the Church; from which, and other helps, from the very Persecutors of the Christians, he compiled his History, and particularly the Succession of Bishops. Clemens Rom. in his Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of the Officers of the Church in his time, alluding to those under the Law: The Highpriest hath his Office, the Priest his Station, and the Levite his Ministry, the Layman his Office; let every one worship God in his Order. Ignatius mentions these Three Orders in his Epistles so plainly, that the Enemies of those Orders have martyred him again in his Reputation, denying his Epistles to be genuine, which the Learned Bishop Pearson hath irrefragably asserted; and so hath Dr. Beveridge the Authority of Apostolical Canons, which have been owned by the Councils, and expressly assert the Three Orders; so that tho' while the Apostles lived the Names might be confounded, yet immediately on their deaths, all Ancient Writers have distinguished them; because such as succeeded to their Power were Bishops; and yet all the Minister's or Elders were not so, for a Parity is usually the Parent of Confusion; and if such a Parity had been settled by Christ or his Apostles, how could it be, that as St. Hierom says, The whole World should agree for prevention of Schism, to alter what Christ had established: Was the whole World (i. e.) every particular Church (which are it seems agreed on setting up a Bishop above Presbyters) wiser than our Saviour; or had they Authority so to do? And if they did so by sufficient Authority, why will the Presbyters as generally agree to pull them down now, as their Ancients did to set them up? So that I see no shadow of Reason, why we may not subscribe to that which is said before the Book of Consecration, That it is evident to all Men diligently reading the Holy Scripture, and Ancient Authors, that from the Apostles time, there have been ever these Orders of Ministers in the Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  
2. As to St. Hierom's Testimony, the import of it is this, That tho' the Apostles had a Superiority over Presbyters, yet when they died they did not bequeath that Power to others, but left it in common to the Presbyters, whose management of it was such, as it begat Schisms and Animosities; for suppression of which it was thought fit through the whole World, to choose out of the body of the Presbyters, one that should have a Presidency over the rest; so that this Presidency was not an Apostolical Institution, but Ecclesiastical and Prudential Constitution, wherein St. Hierom doth not only contradict the Joint Suffrage of all the Ancients, but his own Testimony. Against this Opinion of St. Hierom some affirm, that what he said was in a Discourse against some proud Deacons, that would equal themselves with the Presbyters, which was as great a presumption as to invade the Office of the Bishops, seeing in most things (as St. Hierom says) the Bishops and Presbyters were of the same Power; for, Quis patiatur, saith St. Hierom, etc. Who can endure that they whose Office it was to attend on Tables and Widows, should equal themselves to those, at whose Prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is consecrated. But to let this pass, I say, 2. This Opinion of his reflects on our Saviour and his Apostles, as if they had not sufficiently provided for the future Peace of the Church; and that if the Presbyters in after-Ages had not been more provident, the Church would have wanted a Remedy against Schisms: And if such a Remedy were thought necessary by the whole World, (of Presbyters) then is the Office of a Bishop founded on Natural Reason, for it is most true that the Peace of the Church (which consists of a great number of the Clergy, which are as subject to Passions as other Men) cannot be secured in St. Hierom's Opinion, without a Superior Power over them: Cui si non exhorts & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur Schismata quot Sacerdotes: To which, if all the rest of the Clergy do not yield Obedience, there may be as many Schisms in the Church as there are Priests. And thus it would follow, that neither Christ nor his Apostles did provide so well for the Church's Peace, as common Prudence, and Natural Reason would direct.  
3. It being granted there was a Superiority in the Apostles, it is alleged, That after their Deaths, the Government, for a long time, fell to the several Presbyters, until the inconveniency of it appeared by the increase of Schisms; and than it was agreed, Toto orbe, through the whole World, to advance one Presbyter with Power over the rest. But when the Succession of Bishops is apparently recorded in most of the eminent Churches, immediately after the decease of the Apostles, it is an incredible story to tell us, that the Power of Governing the Church was in the Body of the Presbyters, of which there is not the least Testimony in Antiquity for any one Church, nor any for the Time, Place, or Persons, when this Toto orbe decretum, this new alteration should be made; nor is it probable that all the World would agree at once to make an alteration in Church-Government; so that the result is this: There was a Superiority in the Apostles days, which ceased for a while, and then the Presbyters raised in common; but that Rule or Government was found to be the occasion of many Schisms, and then the Apostolical Superiority was decreed by all to be Re-established. 4. St. Hierom's words do not consist with themselves; for when he says these Presbyters did exalt one chosen from among themselves, to a higher degree, whom they named a Bishop, how can that consist with what immediately follows: That a Presbyter had not the Power of Ordaining. Quid enim facit exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod non faciat Presbyter: It seems by this the ancient Presbyters did first for necessary Causes, first set up Bishops, and then it will sound ill if our new Presbyters should put them down, unnecessarily. So that the most of what hath been alleged from the Divines of the Church of England in favour of Mr. J. H's New Model, depending on the Testimony of St. Hierom, and that being proved to be a single and slender Opinion, contrary to the Practice of all Churches, and not consistent with itself: I suppose the Reader will not be of Mr. H's mind, to destroy the established Constitution, for a new, dangerous, and impracticable Invention, which indeed was no elder than Socinus, the first Inventor of Independent Churches, granting to every Congregation a Power to Elect their Church-Officers for Governing their Affairs, and deciding of Controversies. And by this Design I perceive Mr. J. H. is of the same Judgement with Dr. Owen, as well in Church-Discipline, as in Doctrine, whose Treatise of The Indwelling of the Spirit, and Praying by the Spirit, (not without a Contempt of our Lord's Prayer) Mr. J. H. in his peaceable Disquisitions and Animadversions on a Discourse writ against Dr. Owen's book of the Holy Spirit, he attempts to reconcile to the Truth, as now he doth the Independent Principles and Practices with the Church of England.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. line 2. after the word Controversy, add the Less is blessed of the Greater. P. 4. l. 35, for of read or.