Presbyterial Ordination VINDICATED. In a Brief and Sober DISCOURSE CONCERNING EPISCOPACY, As claiming greater Power, and more eminent Offices by DIVINE RIGHT, than Presbytery.  
The Arguments of the Reverend Bishop Dr Davenant in his Determination for such EPISCOPACY are modestly Examined. And Arguments for the Validity of Presbyterial Ordination added.  
With a brief DISCOURSE concerning Imposed Forms of Prayer, and CEREMONIES.  
Written by G.F. Minister of the Gospel in Defence of his own Ordination, being questioned, because it was performed by PRESBYTERS.  Isa. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Patrum scriptanon sunt regulae, nee habent auctotitatem obligandi Bell. de Conc. l. ● c. 12. Is it so horrible an heresy as he [Harding] makes it, to say, that by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop and a Priest are all one? All these, S. Chrysostom S. Hierom, S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and other more holy Fathers, together with S. Paul the Apostle, for thus saying, by Mr. Hardings advice, must be holden for Heretics. Bishop Jewel Defen. Apol. p. 202. 
London, Printed for Nathanael Webb at the King's head in S. Paul's Church yard. 1660.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE ways of the Lord towards our KING in his Affliction, Preservation, and Restauration, were such, as upon them all we may write wonderful. Prayers were poured out for him in his Affliction, and for his Restauration Praises were not silent. Prayers, I say, were poured out from sympathising and enlarged hearts, they were not read out of a book: his Affliction was not common, no wonder though a prayer suitable could not be found in a Common-prayer Book: But had there been a Prayer in the Book answerable to his Condition, we could not have been content with that, our hearts had not room to work, had we been straitened by a Form: yet a Form of Prayer, when agreeable to God's Word, I do not judge unlawful.  
But Who heard those Prayers? Where were they made? say you: I tell you, God heard them, and men heard them: they were made in our Studies, between God & our own souls, they were made in our families: they were made in our days of private Fasting, and Prayer, which you call Conventicles] Would you have heard them in our Public Congregations? it may be you would; but would you then have judged us prudent? Yet some of us were so imprudent [knowing the tempers of our Congregators which could say hearty, Amen] to pray publicly for him in his lowest condition: The prison had witnessed it, had I not a friend who delivered me; and this year, had not his Majesty been restored, it had been proved, being threatened to my face, and the threats often repeated, That as sure as God was in heaven I should be called into question, only for praying for the afflicted Royal Family: If any desire other Proofs of Loyally to his Majesty in his low condition, I could give them, but I spare to name them, Such Subjects had his Majesty among the now despised Presbyterians, who, had they not been faithful and loyal to his Majesty, [as they were bound to be bythe Solemn Covenant] but would have closed with the Army, doubtless they could have carried such a Party with them, that I believe as yet our King had not set upon his English Throne, nor had the voice of Thanksgiving for his restoring been heard in our Island.  
The Lord than rebuke the spirits of those men who go about [notwithstanding his Majesty's gracious Declaration, to give Liberty to tender Consciences] to make sad the hearts of those men who have thus prayed, and praised GOD for our King, by labouring to impose upon us again those humane Inventions in the Worship of God, which were the first beginners of our troubles; I say, the first beginners: for I dare say, had it not been for those Humane devices, and tyrannical forcing upon the Ministry of Christ, what men only invented, but God never appointed: and for their not yielding to their wills, silenced abundance, imprisoned divers, and forced into banishment many of the eminent Servants of Christ, God had not been as yet so provoked (though I know there was guilt enough) the Spirits of people had not been so exasperated, to have raised a Civil War, and therein spill so much English blood, much less the blood of our Sovereign King, a person of rare and Princely Endowments, as before the Wars I was a little informed, in the Wars further confirmed, but after the Wars certainly assured, by that excellent Book of His, which who can read, and then think who did the fact, but must needs lament, the wound, the stain, the blot, which the Reformed Protestant Religion, accompanied (at least seemingly) with warm and powerful profession received, alas, how shall the glory of it be recovered again!  
See what Tentations drive men to, some to secure their own Lives and Estates, supposing they lay in danger: some from Ambition, some from a design to carry on their one private interest, and others out of a fond conceit of another a Fifth Monarchy, just now beginning, [Fools to fancy, as if, in that glorious time, which I doubt not the Church shall have, before the ultimate day of judgement, [according to the Soriptures; not men's fancies] Kings, who are the supreme, 1 Pet. 2.13. should not be Nursing Fathers, Isa. 49.23.] Thus several men from several Tentations and Principles were carried to act that which my pen shall not name, but only pray, Led us not into temptation.  
How well this was resented among the Presbyterians, besides what is published, and should have been published, but that they were so quick in doing that, which I could not believe they dared to do, were but the several Sermons which they preached, (some choosing Texts on purpose) gathered together; Were the lamenting Prayers they made in public and private recorded among men, as they are before God, no modest man that loveth truth would say, The Presbyterians brought, Him to the block, who ever did the next act which I love not to mention.  
But to return to the first Beginners which I mentioned of our troubles, as I have cause to judge them so, chief from the Word of a jealous God, Exod. 20.5. So I am something the more inclined to judge, from the Predictions of two Divines, whom Bishop LAUD silenced. I heard them both utter them, one before the Troubles began, the other after; this also had foretold before the troubles, but I heard him speak the words after, yet before the things fell out, or there were any such thoughts in the breasts of men, insomuch that I was amazed to hear him, and how confidently he spoke; Neither of these had any hand in beginning the troubles, (I am sure for one) both did detest with great abhorrency the death of the King, received the news with lamentation: I gave no great credence to them, for I thought we had no infallible Prophets living, but when I saw their words so exactly fulfilled, than I called to mind what I had heard them say, which I will not set down, only concerning Bishop LAUD, when he was in his height, one had these words, If that man die the ordinary death of men, then hath not God spoken by me; the man was an eminent Divine, a Master-workman, whether his words were not true you may judge. The Lord grant, that Reverend USHERS Prophesy come not to pass; I much fear it.  
Shall these Sovereign and trembling Acts of a jealous God cause no awe upon our Spirits? Must we presently, before we are healed perfectly of our wounds, provoke God again? will you try to force the Nation into Perjury, by violating the solemn Covenant? I beseech you do not cast such scorn upon it: I remember, the last year, when the Army, and that piece of Parliament, (so called) were united, and in their height, while one was dehorting me friendly from praying for the Royal Family, I said then, Though God may suffer these men to go on a while; yet if God be not revenged for the breach of that Covenant, I will not believe my Bible. God made good my words sooner than I was ware of: I do yet believe, The Lord will in his time have a regard to it, let men now despise it as they please. I do protest, in the presence of the living God, that it is not any envy that I bear to men's Honours, Riches, Greatness, or Power in the Church, or that I affect a Panty, which makes me engage in this Controversy, upon my one Defence, (for if my Ordination be null, I can hardly look on myself as a Minister) I can freely yield you the Honours and the Riches [though my poor Viccaridg doth afford one but half the Maintenance for my Family] and the power you should have also, would but that which you and we call the Rule of your and our Faith (the Scriptures) give you it. But if those Officers our Covenant engages against must be owned in the Church, than we must not own our Bibles for a perfect Rule, for Regula non est, si quid ei deest, saith BASIL, Now all those Officers mentioned in the Covenant, [even Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter, and superior in power] Desunt, they are wanting in that Rule, where all the Officers and their names are distinctly set down, and you cannot make new Officers by Consequences.  
The scope of the Covenant (though I never took it) so far as I can see as to the things of God, is to reduce all things to the Perfect Rule, the Holy Scriptures, which I think men do extremely vilify, in departing from it, and bringing in another Lesbian Rule of Antiquity, as if the Scriptures were not before the Fathers: and well may I call it Lesbian Rule, as Erasmus interprets the Adage. Lesbian Regula dicitur quoties pr●eposterè, non ad rationem factum, sed ratio ad factum accornmodatur. Cum Lex moribus applicatur, non mores ad Legem emendantur. And is not this the practice of men in all these Controversies about the Officers of the Church, and the Worship of God in this Nation, to tell us of the Fathers, and Primitive [but not Apostolical] Churches, they allege their Acts, [not in all things neither] and so carry the Scriptures to their Acts, but not their Acts to the Scriptures, and so judge them by the Perfect Rule. Calovius the Lutheran hath strongly proved, 
Syst. loc. Theol. 1. p. 422.  that The Testimony of the Church, or Consent of the Fathers in the five first Secula, or Centuries, after Christ, is not the Rule of Interpretation of the Scriptures, nor a medium so necessary, that without it by the Scriptures alone, the mouths of Adversaries cannot be stopped. I yield to the Fathers as much as he doth.  
Forth Common-Prayer-Book, I ever said there were some things in it good, nor did I ever condemn sober and Godly men who used it, yet I think, if a Litturgy were necessary, [which I cannot learn from the Seriptures] we have Divires in England, endued with grace, and gifts, able to compose one, for the matter agreeable to the Word, and Form, less effensive, then to be beholding to the Popish Puddles. And strange it is, that for the pleasing of a few Papists (prey God they prove not numerous now) who will not yet be drawn by it, we must displease and drive from the worship of God thousands of the best Protestants. Impose Forms of Prayers who will, before I would do such an Act upon those whom the Lord hath so graciously and excellently gifted, as are thousands in this Nation; I had rather with Gods love go to my grave.  
I have discoursed but briefly of these things: For Ceremonies I intended but to touch them. There is a Tract printed, entitled, A Modest Discourse concerning the CEREMONIES of the Church of ENGLAND: It came to my hand when I had almost done: where you have these things more largely and Learnedly discussed. The Lord divert our fears, and if it be his will, let us enjoy his Ordinances, in their purity and power, his Ordinances, and Himself in his Ordinances: So shall we rejoice in the Lord, and Prayers shall not be ●a●●ing for our KING.  
The unworhiest of Christ Ministers G. F.   

READER, There was some miscarriage when the Sheets were sent down to be corrected, for some came not to my hand, so that I must commit myself to thy Candour. These Faults I observed;  
Page 2. line 14. for them read him: for they r. he. p. 6. l. 28, 29. for more superior, r. above. p. 22. l. 36. Caepit. p. 32. l. 37. forms. p. 38. l. 39 for none, r. we.  
For the Ceremonies I intended but a few words, and but to name Kneeling at the Sacrament. I am told Mr Rutherford hath written strongly against it.   

Presbyterial Ordination VINDICATED.  

CHAP. I. Of Episcopacy, etc.  
IN all the changes which have passed over this Nation of late years, it hath been the portion of the Lords Ministers, to pass through unkind deal, and reproachful speeches from several sorts of men, no change proving to be on their side, but all changes against them. One while they were called Antichristian Ministers, because they were ordained by Bishops, who being Antichristian, all that were ordained by them, were such also: Hence Episcopal Ordination must be renounced, a new one taken [or Popular Election alone might serve the turn] else the people, will renounce their Ministry, separate from them, and so did. In this unexpected change [though much desired and prayed for, as to our King and the Royal Family, with our Ancient Civil Government, unto which by solemn Covenant we were engaged] many hundreds of Godly Ministers, and able for their work, are said to be no Ministers, because they were ordained by Presbyters: And let me give you the words of one of the great Doctors, who ask a godly and able Minister, who was ordained by Presbyters, Whether he were ordained by a Bishop? Whether he had his Institution, etc. from a Bishop? to which he answered, No; then said this Learned Doctor to him, Your Ordination and Institution is not worth a Fart. Sweetly spoken Sir!  
According to the Talon the Lord hath lent me, I wrote a little in defence of Episcopal Ordination, so far as to prove it not to be Antichristian: But now the Controversy is come home to my own door; for though in the presence of the people who elected me, with their hands lifted up to manifest their Election, in a day of Fasting and Prayer, I was by five Ancient, Godly and Grave Divines [the greater part eminent in their Generation] set apart to the work of the Ministry by Imposition of hands, Prayer, and words suitable to the Ordinance, yet my Ordination is questioned by such in whose defence I wrote before; (thank you Brethren) the ground being this, they judge Ordination to be a work proper to a Bishop, whom they make an Officer distinct from Presbyters, having more eminent Offices, and greater power belonging to them than Presbyters have. How they come by this power, is the question; that Reverend and Learned Bishop Dr. Davenant, in his 42 Determination, undertakes to prove that this eminency of the Bishop, is in verbo divino adumbrata, delineata, & abipsis Apostolis constabilita, and that it is an easy thing to demonstrate it.  
The reasons why I pitch upon this man rather than another, are these; 1. Because he undertakes to prove this eminency of power by the holy Scriptures [I wish all would hold here.] 2. He sums up all the Arguments that ever I heard for it. 3. He performs his work gravely, soberly, like a Christian, a Divine, not filling his Papers with such scorns, jeers and bitter Invectives, as the Episcopal men have done, who have wrote of late, that a sober man hath scarce patience to read them.  
For my part, I have bestowed but very little time in this controversy, neither have I so much as seen those who have written most largely and elaborately about it, as Blondel, Salmatius, nor others: Mr. Baxter came to my hand when I had almost done, so that I have not read him through, but cast my eye here and there upon him. I wish some body would answer him as soberly as he writes; but I think he will never be answered. Leaving the Reader to such able men for fuller satisfaction, I shall communicate my meditations, so far I hope, as to prove our Ordination by Pretbyters to be valid, holding weight in God's Balance.  
For those Episcopal men who have written of late, with such scorn, bitterness and confidence, the strongest Arguments I find, are these:  
1. Thus it hath been for fifteen hundred years, before Calvin risen, the Churches had ever Bishops; name the Church that had not: Thus these Brethren think, à facto ad jus, valet consequentia undeniably.  
2. The Fathers who lived in the Primitive times tell us, the Apostles did constitute Bishops in several Cities, as, Timothy, and Titus, etc. This is all their strength.  
But in sober words I beseech you, What kind of Bishops were fifteen hundred years ago? [if you begin to reckon from the Apostles time's] Bishops distinct from Presbyters in Power and Offices and that by Divine right? Verily you fall short in proving it. Or were they such Bishops that extended their power for forty mile's space or more, over many hundred Presbyters, and over many hundred thousand of persons, whom they never saw? I beseech you name us such Bishops in the three or four first Centuries, else you know what Bishops do not answer. I have read in a Learned Author, that in Augustine's time, there were in one Province under Carthage, of the Catholics and Donatists, above nine hundred Bishops, the Author sums up how many of each; surely these Bishops did not extend their power much further than some great Parishes in some countries' 
* Suppose Lancashire. , or some such Towns as Ipswich, Bristol, Colchester, etc. If you will have such Bishops, and give them no more power than Christ hath given them, for Order sake I will yield to them, and give them the Honour, and if more maintenance be conferred upon them by the King, than other Presbyters who join with them, I shall be very willing and glad of it. So that I am not against an Imparity in honour nor maintenance, neither would I be in power and office, if Christ had given more to them than others.  
As to the Second, I do honour the Fathers in their places. 1. Scripture. 2. Sound Reason. 3. Fathers or Antiquity.  
But yet I cannot yield that St. Paul and Ignatius, St. Peter and chrysostom, should be of equal authority; I am sure you make them but very little different, if any thing less, as will appear after.  
I am not a man versed in the Fathers as others are, yet some of them (the most ancient) I have read, and in them I find so many strange humane mixtures in the Worship of God, that I cannot yield to this consequence, The Fathers say it, or did it, ergo, It is lawful: Much less in this controversy, finding what the holy Ghost hath foretold of an Antichrist that should arise, whom out Godly Bishops before, and Learned Whitaker, with others, have thought and proved to be the Bishop of Rome, though Dr. Hammond and our latter Episcopal Divines, will not have it so: We fear, we fear, etc. [What a pitiful interpretation hath D. Hum. made of 2 Thes. 2. and so of several places of the Revelation, to the end the Bishop of Rome might be spared.] But following worthy Bishops, and the Learned and holy Divines, in their judgement of that Bishop of Rome, I am not so much carried with the say not practices of these ancient Bishops in this point, for there must be some preparation made to his rising into that usurped Chair, he came not there persaltum.  
To these Divines let me propound these questions.  
1. Quest. Whether are not the Holy Scriptures the perfect and only Rule for our Faith and Manners? Are they not able to Make a man of God (a Minister) perfect? 2 Tim. 3 17. If they be, I beseech you let us give more honour to them in these Controversies.  
2. Were those Fathers and Churches you so much mention, so guided, that they could not, or did not err? Were not the holy Scriptures a Rule to them as well as to us? Err they did in some points I am sure.  
3. Will the Lord judge us at that great day by these Fathers? Will it be a sufficient answer to give the Lord, if we sin in setting up Humane Inventions in his Worship, to say, Lord, thus the Fathers said, thus they did; Dare you say it is sufficient to excuse us?  
I beseech you then, Reverend Brethren, Why do you press us so much with these men, and with Antiquities, and not stick to pure Antiquity, the holy Scriptures: Blessed Augustine (whom I so much honour and love of all the Fathers) knew how to value Cyprian enough, 
Aug. tom. 7. pag. 240.390 F●●b.  but when Cresconius or other Donatists, would bring any thing out of him, to prove what Augustin judged an error, he knew how to set the Scriptures and Apostles above him. So doth Cyprian sharply speak against those who brought Tradition for their proof; qua ista obstinatio, qua presumptio, humanam traditionem divine dispositîoni anteponere, & c? Vnde ista traditio? Vtrumne de dominica & evangelica auctoritate descendens, 
Ep 74.  & c? So Tertullian. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de two infert. Bellarmine saith enough, Patrum scripta non sunt regula, nec habent authoritatem obligandi.  
To the Scriptures than let us go, which speak so clear in this controversy, that all men, even the Papists, who call those men Heretics, that deny this superiority of Bishops, yet are forced to yield it, that in the Apostles time, the Bishop and Presbyter were the same. Let Cajetan's interpretation be heard, upon Tit. 1.5, 7. Vbi adverte eundem gradum, idemquè officium significari à Paulo, nomine Presbyteri & nomine Episcopi; as cross to Bishop Davenant as can be, Anselm the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Comment upon the same verses, brings all Hierons' Comment, where he proves Bishops and Presbyters to be the same, and no way opposeth it. Estius, who in the beginning of his Disputation, calls them Heretics, who will not yield the superiority of Bishops, and that jure divino, in the midst of his Disputation, hath these words, Quod autem jure divin● sint Episcopi Presbyteris superiores, 
Senten. l. 4. d. 24. S. 25.  etsi non ita clarum est è saoris literis, aliunde ramen satis efficaciter probari potest; probatur tam ratione, quàm testimoniis veterum. It seems then the Scriptures are not clear enough to prove this superiority, in his opinion; and which is divinely spoken, though he could not prove the divine right of this Superiority out of the Scriptures, yet he would prove it by reason and testimonies of Ancients: Haddit a Presbyterian written thus, he should have been scorned to purpose.  
Take the Papists again, in their I. C. didst. 60. Sacres Ordines dicimus, Diaconatum & Presbyteratum, hos enimsolos primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia. According to these then, your Antiquity for Episcopacy must not go so high as the Primitive Church. One more Papist, and I have done with them: I find Greg. de Valen. 
De Sacr. Ord. disp. 9 q. 1. p. 2.  quoting of Michael Medina (one of their own) affirming that Hierem, and all the Fathers he had named before, which were Angustin, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Primasius, Theophylact and Otcumenius, fuisse planè in errore Acrii, but the Church did not condemn this error in them, but bare with them, because they were otherwise orthodox, but did condemn it in Acrius, being otherwise in multis nominibus hareticus. Then it seems Acrius, who was against this Superiority by divine right, had these worthy men in that point to agree with him, in Medina's judgement, with whom Valentia is not pleased.  
To conclude (as to Testimonies) Learned and Sober Jewel, (a Jewel indeed) in his defence against Harding, p. 101, 202. quoting testimonies out of Hierom, Ambrose, Augustin, concludes that by the Scriptures of God, a Bishop and Presbyter are all one: thus this Reverend Bishop. I wonder these Testimonies grounded also on Scripture, could not moderate our brethren's heat in this controversy. We hope Presbyterial Ordination will not be so contemptible at last.  
I have but one thing to add; and it is considerable, the Syriack Translation, which is so ancient, that in time it came near the Original, and is thought by some to have been made in the time of the first Antiochian Christians, do not use two words, one for Bishop, and another for Presbyter, as our Translation and the Greek, but it hath only the word which signifies a Presbyter, [unless in one place] Tit. 1.5, 7. For a Presbyter must be blameless, So 1 Tim. 3.1. If a man desire the Office of a Presbyter. V 2. A Presbyter than must be blameless. So in Phil. 1.1. With the Presbyters and Deacons. In Acts 20.28. There it altars, the word is originally Greek, the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, only it hath a Syriac termination, being Nomen plurale emphaticum in prima Declinatione. In 1 Pet. 2. ult. Where Bishop is referred to Christ, there it hath another word.  
Now this to me carries strong proof that this distinction of Bishop and Presbyter, was unknown, when that Translation was made, for there is not so much as any different names, but Presbyter is the only word. Whether any have taken notice of this before, I know not.  
And though some say, that it is a Trite Argument, that is drawn from the words Presbyter and Bishop, being used promiscuously, yet it is such an Argument as hath so much strength in it, that it was never answered. We use to say that Nomina sunt rerum notae & symbola, whence if the same persons are called Presbyters or Bishops, surely their power cannot be distinct. Officers are known by their names, and distinct Officers by distinct names in some places in the Scripture, though in others they may have a general name common to others: Though Paul in one place calls himself a Minister, and Peter an Elder, yet in other places we find they are called Apostles: So the Officers have their distinctions, Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, Eph. 4.11. But Presbyter and Bishop are never thus differenced, no not in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, where of all places they should have been, if in those Epistles the Apostle lay the foundation of Episcopacy (as say our Brethren) but there they are the same, as is plain to see, and confessed by the Fathers, Papists and Protestants. Yea and besides the same Names, what qualifications are required of one, are required of the other, the same work is enjoined both, Acts 20.28. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Names, the same Qualifications, the same Charge, conclude the same Function. How then Reverend Davenant comes to find this eminency of power to be given and confirmed by the Apostles, let us now consider.  
His first Argument is taken from the Jewish Church, thus, Arg. 1  
God appointed the High Priest superior in authority over the Priests, and the Priests over the Levites: Ergo,  
The like order is to be established in the Christian Church.  
To which I Answer,  
1. There was and is still superiority of Officers in the Christian Church; there was when there were Apostles, Prophets, Answ. Evangelists, Pastors, etc. there is now the Preaching Elder above the Ruling Elder, and the Ruling Elder above the Deacon. But he means amongst the Preaching Elders; then I answer,  
2. This Argument will better prove a Universal Bishop, 
Bellar. de Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9  than a Diocesan Bishop, and is used by Bellarmine for the same purpose, it is his third reason; the Jewish Church had not hundreds of High Priests that met at one time, as there hath been of Bishops in one Synod, so that all the Catholic Church visible must have one Catholic Bishop, else his Argument is lost.  
3. The High Priest being properly a Type of Christ, the most eminent Type, is not sufficient to make an argument here.  
4. Why not as well one Temple, though many Synagogues, if he will needs argue from the Jews, but we have more than one Cathedral in Christendom.  
5. Christ the Builder of that house then, hath built his house now under the Gospel: Why should we look back to that old building which in this sense is pulled down. Observe how differently he builds, there he set up no Officer, but all the Officers continued so long as that polity continued, but here his chief Officers were but for a short time, so that you see he makes a vast difference in the building. Also the Deacon was properly appointed to serve Tables, to regard the poor: Were there Deacons for the poor amongst the Jews?  
6. Had the Dr. mentioned the Heads of the 24 Orders of Priests appointed by David, which some say, were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Hebrews called them Roshe aboth, the chief of the Family, there had been more likelihood of an Argument, and it is likely we should have yielded as much now to the Ministers of the Gospel, if we were certain what the Head of the Order had more than the other Priests of that Order, which was not eminency of power and office sure enough.  
His second Argument is taken from Christ in the new Testament, Arg. 2 Who appointed Twelve Apostles, superior not only in gifts, but in amplitude of Authority and Power to the Seventy Disciples, Now Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, and Presbyters of the Seventy.  
This Argument I see is much insisted upon by others, Answ. let us try the strength of it. I Answer,  
1. Had the Apostles shown any of that power and authority in the mission of the Seventy, there had been some probability in this Argument, but there was not the least appearance of any such thing, the Seventy had their Mission as immediately from Christ, as had the Apostles, they contributing nothing towards it. But our Bishops tell us, our sending depends upon them, we can be no Presbyters without them, so that they will be ten times more superior than the Apostles.  
2. As there was no difference in their Mission, so neither in their Commission. Read both their Commissions and you find the same; Preach the Gospel, Heal the sick, Cust out Devils etc. Bishop's then and Presbyters have the same Commission and Mission: Agreed.  
3. That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, Bellarmine saith but impropriè: Haddit the Dr. drawn his Argument into form, I think I should have found a Fallacy in the Syllogism. Limit he must; then tell us how he can prove the Apostles were superior to the Seventy in the power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, so that the Seventy had not this Power: For if the Seventy had this power also, we are well enough, but this he cannot prove: Besides, to say, though the Bishops be not the Successors of the Apostles in all things, yet they are in Ordination and Jurisdiction, is but the begging of the question.  
4. Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles, but let the Bishop in the question be Ens first, which we cannot find in divine Writ.  
5. How proves he this, that Bishops are the Apostles Successors, and Presbyters of the Seventy, and not of the Apostles? This is his proof, it is omnium ferè patrum constans doctrina. Had he said unius Apostoli, it had prevailed much more with me. We are seeking for jus divinum, but he mentions some Fathers, and those not the most ancient neither. But have none of the Fathers said that Presbyters are the Successors of the Apostles also? Hath Irenaeus nothing to that purpose? the two Jesuits Bellarm and Greg. 
Lib. 3. cap. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 23.  de Val. are so kind to us to tell us they have said so.  
I see the Dr. adds a Scripture at the bottom of the Paragraph, 1 Cor. 12.28, 29. But surely this makes nothing to the proof of Episcopal succession. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? I think this Text he brings will pluck up this Episcopacy by the roots: God hath set in his Church, Where shall we find the Bishop in question set? not among the Apostles I hope, not among the Prophets, than it must be among the Teachers, so the Text, thirdly Teachers, but are not Presbyters Teachers? Well met honoured Dr.  
6. The Apostle Peter, 1 Ep. c 5. v. 1. Writing to the Presbyters, calls himself a Presbyter: Had the Apostle written thus, The Bishops which are among you I exhort, whs also am a Bishop, this would have been cried up for an invincible Argument to prove that Bishops were the Apostles Successors, for he writes to Bishops, and calls himself a Bishop. Gentlemen, give us fair play I beseech you, the Argument is ours, to prove Presbyters are the Successors of Peter the Presbyter.  
To say the Apostles and Seventy were extraordinary Officers, and so we cannot draw any thing from them, there may be something in it, but I add no more.  
His third Argument is, Arg. 3 The Apostles before they passed from earth to Heaven, did constitute in great Cities one Bishop, superior not only over the Laics, but also the Presbyters; as James in Jerusalem, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus in Crect, etc.  
I hope he takes Bishop properly, Answ. as we intent in the question, else he deceives us. I Answer,  
1. Why did not the Apostle Paul or some other Apostle constitute such a Bishop in Gorinth before his departure? I am sure Corinth was none of the least Cities: His Epistles to Corinth mention no such thing, and that is much if there were one. Paul wrote to them Anno 52, as Buchol. and Alsted. Or about 54, as Dr. Hammond. When Clemens wrote his Epistle to them is uncertain, saith Learned Mr. Young, but he supposeth, not before his banishment, which was two years before his Martyrdom, and gives his reasons for his opinion; he suffered Martyrdom in the third year of Trajan, Anno 103. saith Sixtus Senensis: Hence then almost fifty years passed between the Epistles of Paul and Clemens to the Corinthians, Clemens p. 8. mentions Paul's Martyrdom, but in all his Epistle there is not one word to show that there was such a Bishop in his time, for in the winding up his Epistle, p. 73. he exhorts them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not a word of such a Bishop, whom Clemens would not have forgotten had he been there. This Epistle is the most pure piece of all Antiquity, next the Scriptures.  
2. Is the Dr. sure that all those he mentions were Bishops propriè dicti, he saith indeed afterward, p. 195. Certum est Timotheum, Titum, Jacobum, multosquè alios propriè dictos Episcopos fuisse viventibus Apostolis, etc. yet adds in the conclusion, quasi affixos. Well then certum est, but how I pray, certitudine fidei divinae? else 'tis not certain to us in this controversy, I regard not men's words without Scripture: but what mean these words quasi affixos, this quasi spoils the certainty, for if but quasi affixi, they were but quasi Episcopi, as I could soon prove from the Scriptures, and the Canons of Councils.  
I wonder the Dr. should say, that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and that propriè dictus. I see Lapide and Lorinus giving that the reason why James spoke next to Peter, because James was Bishop of Jerusalem, where the Council was held: But,  
1. He was an Apostle, one of the Pillars, Gal. 2.9. whose sentence in this question swayed the Synod, but to have an Apostle a Bishop in our sense is strange: Had the Dr. forgot that on this ground our Divines against the Papists prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome, because he was an Apostle, and so not fixed.  
2. If James were a Bishop, why had he not his Title given him in Acts 15? For in v. 4, 6, 23. we have mention made of Apostles and Presbyters, but not a word of a Bishop, this is very far from this certainty: 'Tis certain indeed he was no Bishop.  
As for Timothy and Titus, there hath been a huge stir about these: I have heard that Mr. Prin hath written a Treatise, which he calls the unbishopping of Timothy and Titus, and that so strongly, that as none yet ever went about to answer him, so none can: I could never see the Book, but refer the Reader to him. I shall be the briefer.  
I see some Divines prove that Paul did constitute Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, because he said, 1 Tim. 1.3. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus. [Strange that a Bishop of a place should be besought to stay in his Bishopric.] And Titus because he said, Chap. 1.5. For this cause I left thee in Crete. I pray cast these two Texts into Syllogisms, and let us see how invincibly Timothy and Titus come out Bishops of those places in the Conclusions. Can not Timothy stay at Ephesus to oppose heresies and ordain with others [or if not with others] Ministers, and Titus left at Crete, to do the same, but it must follow necessarily, Ergo, they were constitued fixed Bishops of those places.  
But the Fathers say they were Bishops; that's a proof, not sufficient to make jus divinum. The Papists and Dr. Hammond say, they were Archbishops: both alike for truth.  
Do the Fathers speak properly when they say so? It was the saying of a great Bishop, that Histories are not curious in calling men by their Titles. Sure I am that Paul gives him another title, of which presently.  
If the Fathers did so, might they not be deceived with the subscriptions of the Epistles? which this Learned Dr. meddles not with, knowing they were not Canonical.  
Name I pray the most ancient Fathers, and tell us if they call these so in your sense. Sure I am that Ignatius calls Timothy a Deacon, and joins Linus with him, Epist. ad Tral. p. 71.  
But what if the Fathers call them so, if I find strong grounds in Holy Scripture to make me believe, they were of a higher order than ordinary Officers, if a hundred Fathers say they were ordinary Bishops, I regard them not. Searching the Scriptures, we find for Timothy, that,  
1. He is often joined with Paul in the Inscription of his Epistles, as Phil. 1.1. Col. 1.1. 1. Thes. 1. & 2 Thes. 1. Philem. 1.  
2. We find him journeying with Paul, and sent up and down by Paul.  
3. He is bidden to do the work of an Evangelist, 2 Tim. 4.5. Now though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken largely, yet, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is used but thrice in the New Testament, is never taken but for a peculiar Officer. He was one of those Paul mentions Eph. 4.11. To confine the word Evangelists to those who wrote the Gospels, is absurd: Matthew and John I hope were Apostles, and Philip was an Evangelist, Acts 21.8. yet wrote no Gospel. If he were no Evangelist, but bidden to do the work of one this is strange; an inferior order do the work of a superior: However I hope by this Presbyters may ordain as well, though they be of an inferior Order. But if Timothy must do the work of an Evangelist, he must not fix at Ephesus.  
No more fixed at Crete was Titus, though for a time left at Crete. In 2. Cor. 8.23. Paul calls him his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, words suitable to an Evangelist, sent up and down by Paul, as we may observe in the Epistles, and journeying with Paul. After he was at Crete, Paul sends to him to Nicopolis, Tit. 3.12. which was six hundred miles distant from Crete, as Bunting saith, p. 566. How long he stayed with him, or whither he went next, I find not. But towards the end of Paul's life, 2 Tim. 4.10, 11. he was at Rome with Paul, and by Paul sent to preach in Dalmatia, saith Lapide. How these things suit with a Bishop in our sense I know not: Hence Junius, Zanchy, Polanus, Beza, Calvin, Diodati, and the Lutherans conclude him to be an Evangelist.  
As for Evangelists, Ensebius will give us some light to understand them, Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 37. He speaks of divers then, who obtained the first step of Apostolical succession, and being as divine Disciples of the chief and principal men, builded the Churches every where planted by the Apostles, etc. Taking their journey fulfilled the work and office of Evangelists, that is, they preached Christ unto them, which as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith: These men having planted the Faith in sundry new and strange places, ordained there other Pastors, committing unto them the tillage of the new ground, passing themselves unto other people and Countries, being helped thereunto by the Grace of God, which wrought with them; for as yet by the power of the Holy Ghost they wrought miraculously, so that innumerable multitude of men embraced the Religion of the Almighty, etc. Thus Eusebius. If this description of Evangelists suit any, doth it not Timothy and Titus, who were indeed divine Disciples of Paul, a principal man, sent up and down by him; and if these wrought miraculously, must it be denied of Timothy and Titus: as for the gift of Tongues, that was also needful, for men travelling and preaching in so many several Countries.  
I find some forced to yield they were Evangelists at first, but afterwards were made Bishops of these places.  
1. Was the being made a Bishop a degree above an Evangelist, Answ. was an ordinary Officer above an extraordinary Officer? then some truth may be in this. I find Concil. Sard. Can. 13. that the Bishop must ascend through all degrees ad culmen Episcopatus, but what, must such eminent men descend, be degraded, when as Timothy also had a Prophecy concerning him, 1 Tim. 1.18? believe this who will.  
2. Was there need of these men to be Evangelists in Paul's life time, and not as much after? Did the Seducers and Wolves cease or decline when Paul was gone? Acts 20.29. Surely there was more need of being Evangelists now than before.  
3. After that time, when you say they were made Bishops, we find them sent up and down by Paul.  
4. If so, Titus had an advantage or honour above Timothy, to be made Bishop of an Island of 270 miles long, 50 miles in breadth, a hundred Cities (whence called Hecatompolis) and not only so, but Bishop of the Lands adjacent, and Timothy to be made Bishop of one City Ephesus, and it may be some Villages about there. But Dr. Hammond [if he speak truth] will be too hard for me, he tells me Timothy was Metropolitan of Asia: Then Timothy is equal; but take Metropolitan in our sense (else he saith nothing) as we call such Bishops, you may believe him, who think him to be one who could not err.  
But 3. Suppose they had been constituted thus, yet he hath not proved that they were invested with power to do such Acts which Presbyters might not do; which he doth afterwards assert indeed, how strongly he proves, I will consider.  
For the Angel in Rev. 2. what force is there in this to prove such a Bishop, I know not, though taken individually: Are not all Ministers (truly such) sent? then they are Angels I think, Rom. 10.15.  
But this is Angel, Object. only One.  
When our King sent his Letters from Breda, Answ. to the Speaker of the House of Commons, did it imply the Speaker had more power than other Members? When Christ sends his Letters to this Angel, doth it imply more power? The Speaker is there for Order-sake, and it is honour to him etc. So if you be men sound in the Faith, holy in your Conversations, Learned and able, fit for the place, I can allow you an Angel of the Church in London, in Ipswich, in Exeter, etc. So in the Country, you shall have the Honour and Maintenance, to be our Speakers; I have declared my Opinion and Reasons for this before this turn came; if you will have more, win it by Scripture, and wear it.  
Thus I have done with all his Arguments for the jus divinum; only I might mind him, that Bishop Jewel and Anselm, do subscribe to that of Jerom, Let Bishops understand that they are above Priests, rather of custom, than of any truth or right of Christ's Institution: And to that of Augustine, The Office of a Bishop is above the Office of a Priest, not by authority of the Scriptures, but after the names of honour, which the custom of the Church hath now obtained. I hope it will still be said, fifteen hundred years Bishops have been superior by Divine right. How did Jeroms and Augustins' sentence escape the Index expurgatorius?  
Then the Dr. comes to the Insignia Episcoporum propria. Let us see if he prove these also by the Apostles.  
His first is this;  
That in large and populous Cities, in which were many Presbyters made, the Apostles ordained one only Bishop.  
For the Bishop in the question, Answ. the Apostles were so far from ordaining unicum, that they ordained ne unum; not one Scripture or sound reason brought to prove it  
2. That the Apostles did ordain but one Scripture-Bishop in a great City, is an assertion pointblank against the Scriptures, which show the contrary. Let Jerom speak; some say he was angry, and I know not what, but the Scriptures he produces were not, 
Vide Chemnit. exan. Council Trid. de Sacr. ord. p. 224.  [Chemnitius gives us a better ground for his writing] but thus Jerom, Doth any one think it is our own opinion, and not the sentence of the Scriptures that a Bishop & a Presbyter are one? Let him read Phil. 1.1. With the Bishops and Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certainly as Bishops are now called, there cannot be more than one in one City, but then there were. 
non adversatur sacris eloquiis plures in una civitate appellari tunc temporis Presbyteros seu Episcopos, ut Acts 10.  Doth it still seem doubtful unless it be confirmed by another testimony, then take Acts 20.17, He calls them Elders. v. 28. calls them Bishops. Observe diligently, the Elders of one City he calls Bishops, then adds, Heb. 13.17. Thus he in Tit. 1. When in his Epist. ad Evagr. he had been proving the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, from Phil. 1. Tim. 4. Tit. 1. Pet. 5. He saith to him, Parva tibi videntur tantorum virorum Testimonia? To us these testimonies are not small, but more than if a thousand Bishops say the contrary. What Jerom saith, 
Cajetan. Tit. 1.5.  postea nuns electus, we regard not, being after the Apostles, and yet than not superior in power; that crept in by degrees.  
His Second is, The Right and Power of Ordination, which is denied to inferior Presbyters, 1. Tim. 5.22. Tit. 1.5.  
1. He hath not shown us such a Bishop as he speaks of, Answ. as yet in all the Scripture; how then can this be true?  
2. If denied to Presbyters, then to Bishops also: for they were both one in these Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Vnde & ad Titum & ad Timotheum de ordinatione Episcopi & Diaconi dicitur: 
Hieron. ad E vagr.  de Presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in Episcopo & Presbyter continetur, Hieron, ad Evagr.  
3. Was not Timothy himself ordained by a Presbytery? 1 Tim. 4.14. How then was it denied? The laying on of Paul's hands did not deny the laying on their hands.  
4. According to this, One Bishop alone may ordain, which as it is, 1. Contrary to the Instance before in Timothy's Ordination. So, 2. Contrary to the Canon 3. Council Carthag. 4. Where no Bishop alone must impose, but Presbyters with him. 3. And contrary to the 35 Canon of our English Bishops. Whence Dr. Featly in his Annotat. on 1 Tim. 4.14. saith, Timothy though he were ordained by St. Paul, 2 Tim. 1.6. yet this Ordination was performed in the Assembly of the Elders, and with the laying on of their hands also: agreeable whereunto is the Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, and the practice of the Church of England: So he. 4. Contrary to Cyprians practice, Ep. 33. Also what means the Constitution of Vrban? Ordinationes factae sine communi sensu clericorum, irritae, Take also the 22 Canon of the Council of Carthage, beforenamed;  Episcopus sine consilio clericorum suorum clericos non ordinet, etc. Now what is meant by consilium, the 3 Canon shows: All the Presbyters present were to impose hands with the Bishop. Much it is, that when we cannot find the Apostles did ordain alone, Paul had the Apostle Barnabas with him, Acts 14.23. that now a single Bishop can ordain alone. The Dr. forgot himself much, but this power of Ordination and Jurisdiction he had need to prove to reside as he saith, in illis solis, else he hath lost his cause: But see how much authority he opposeth; what woeful mischief might this soon produce to the Church?  
5. It may as strongly be gathered, that to preach in season and out of season [as do all Bishops] to meditate, to read, to oppose heretics, &c, do only belong to Bishops, because these Commands are given (the first I am sure) only to Timothy; as to gather, because Timothy is directed in Ordination how to act, that therefore Presbyters must not impose hands: Why this proper to him above all the rest?  
6. Consider I pray, that which is added, 1 Tim. 5.22. Neither be partakers of other men's sins, whether it may not infer the contrary thus, Timothy, though other Ministers may be rash, and not consider what they do in Ordination, but would ordain unfit, unworthy persons, yet do not thou lay on hanas suddenly, do not thou partake of their sins, in rash Ordinations, joining with them. A man may partake of the sins of Ordainers, as well as of the Ordained. I know nothing contrary to the Analogy of Faith, nor to the Context, if that sense be given.  
Why saith the Dr. Can not the Ministers of Ephesus ordain before Timothy arrived, or of Crete before Titus came thither?  
I cannot learn but Titus went along with Paul to Crete the first time of his preaching there, Answ. and having laid the Foundations of Churches, as Jerom saith, left Titus there ut rudimenta nascentis Ecclesiae confirmaret, ipse pergens ad alias Nationes, etc. But however,  
1. There is a difference between the arrival of Evangelists and the Bishops in question.  
2. There being abundance of enemies and errors spread about, as we see, it was the very reason why Paul besought Timothy to stay at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1.3. These men being so able and qualified above others, might very well there be lest for a time, as to oppose the heresies and errors, so to look to the Ministry, that none but sound and able men came into it: but because these being Evangelists, were far more able, does it conclude the Presbyters had not the Right to ordain with them?  
3. Remember, that Cajetan confesseth even in these Epistles, Presbyter and Bishop signify the same degree and the same office. Had not the Churches been in danger, Timothy had not need been there, so this denies not their power.  
The Dr. goes on to prove this sole power of Ordination from humane Authority.  
1. From that Saying of Jerome, Excepta Ordinatione quid facit Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat? Answ.  
Jerom speaks de facto, the Bishops had engrossed this power, but he does not say de jure, it ought to be so, for he had strongly proved the Bishop and Presbyter from several Scriptures to be the same.  
2. It should seem it was not a universal Custom: For it was one great complaint against Chrysostom (saith Bish. Downam) that he made Ordinations without the Presbytery: And in the year 398, about which time Chrysostom flourished, that fourth Council of Carthage, which opposeth Bishops sole power of Ordination, was held. However this is but humane.  
2. He brings in the example of one Colythus a Presbyter of Alexandria, who ordained Presbyters, but their Ordination was made void, and the Ordained returned into the Order of Laics.  
Still this is but a humane Act grounded on no Scripture, Answ. and yet there is something more to be said about this. For,  
1. I find this Colythus is reckoned among the Heretics by Augustine and others. One of his Opinions Augustin mentions, but what more he held I know not.  
2. He was a man infamis ambitione, say the Historians, and would make himself a Bishop, as the Epistle of the Presbyters of Mareotis, in the same Apol. of Athanas intimates, whence they call him non verum sed imaginarium episcopum; whence the general Council commanded, ut se pro Presbytero haberat, qualis antea fuisset.  
3. It appears in both places of Athanasins that this Colythus ordained alone, there are none mentioned that joined with him.  
4. That Ischyras who was ordained by Colythus, and about whom there was so much trouble, was not chosen of a Church; for so the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 570.  
Now for a Heretic, alone, ambitiously making himself a Bishop. to ordain a person not elected by a Church, is not the same with five Orthodox Presbyters, ordaining a Presbyter elected by a true Church.  
The Dr. before he hath done, does allow this which is so proper to Bishops, to be common to Presbyters in some cases, than it seems, the power may be ours, and whether our case be not as weighty, I will consider anon.  
The Third and last is, The power of Jurisdiction over both Laics and Presbyters: and instanceth in Excommunication.  
He will allow indeed Presbyters to be consulted with from Cyprians example [he might have added the 23 Canon Concil. Carthag. 4. which make else Sententia Episcopi irrita] but for the censure, this proceeds only from Episcopal Authority.  
Hence then Presbyters have not the power of Excommunication, nor are Judges in it, so he saith.  
2. A Bishop alone may excommunicate Presbyters.  
For the first, Presbyters have the power of Excommunication.  
1. Why else are they called Pastors and Rulers, Heb. 13.17. and the people commanded to obey them; they must feed the flock, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Pet. 5.1. So 1 Thes. 5.12. They are over them in the Lord.  
2. There was no Bishop in Corinth when Paul wrote to have the incestuous person cast out, yet they had the power of Excommunication, 1 Cor. 5.7, 12, 13. purge, judge, put away. Had they done it before, Paul would not have written so sharply.  
3. Those who have the power of the Keys have the power of Jurisdiction: but Presbyters have the power of the Keys; not denied by the Papists, 
Sent. l. 4. dis. 18. S. 14.  but affirmed, insomuch that Estius moves this Question; Vtrum Sacerdotes soli habent potestatem excommunicandi? and tells us some were of that opinion. Now by soli● Estius does not mean, whether they alone without a Bishop: For the question he is about, is this, Penes quos sit excommunicandi potestas? and his scope is to prove, that others besides Priests have the power, but for the Priests, that is taken for granted, that they had the power, and quotes 1 Cor. 5.5, 13. And Augustine, l. 3. contra Epist. Parmen. c. 2. Aquinas he also tells us, 
Supplem. q. 22. ●. 1.  that some were of that opinion, that the Parochial Priests might excommunicate; but thinks his own opinion to be more rational, that the Bishop should do it, had his distinction a foundation in Scripture.  
4. Those that have power to take into the Church, have power to cast out of the Church: Are the Keys given to Pastors to turn them but one way? Ridiculous.  
5. How does this agree with Jerom before quoted, excepta Ordinatione, etc. It seems Jurisdiction was not excepted, when they had engrossed Ordination, Presbyters had that power, and at first the Churches were governed by the common advice of the Presbyters, thus he, Tit. 1.  
6. The Priests had that power not only to discern between Lepers and Lepers, but as they could judge, they could separate them from the Camp of Israel, which did shadow out our excommunication.  
7. It seems very strange, that when a Pastor who hath taught (it may be baptised) a person, and now fallen into sin, the Church and he have dealt with that person according to rule, that now the Church must go to a Bishop to excommunicate this person, to whom yet he never bore relation: How came this Bishop to have power over this Church, which he never saw it may be? But let Dr. Fulks speak. It is manifest that the Authority of binding and losing, committing and retaining, pertaineth generally to all the Apostles alike, and to every Pastor in his Cure, Answ. to Rhem. 2 Cor. 2.  
Bishop Jewel, Reply p. 178. quotes Basil, speaking thus, Christ appointed Peter to be the Pastor of the Church after him, and so consequently gave the same power unto all Pastots and Doctors: A Token whereof is this, that all Pastors do equally both bind and lose as well as he, So Basil.  
8. In such Cities as Ephesus, etc. where the Church was one, and divers Elders in common governed that Church, let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pronounce the sentence of excommunication, I deny it not.  
For his Proofs, because Timothy must charge some that they teach no other Doctrine, 1 Tim. 1.3. So Tit. 1.11. Mouths must be stopped.  
But I beseech you what is there in this more than Presbyters might do, who govern the Church in common? that stopping may be meant partly, if not chief there by Argument, convince gainsayers, v. 9 I must confess I cannot see the Logic of this Argument; though it doth prove Jurisdiction, does it prove Presbyters have not the power? I thought he would have quoted 1 Tim. 5.19. But because he doth not, I let it alone.  
His next is, the Angel of Pergamus and Thiatira, blamed Rev. 2. for suffering of Jezebel, etc.  
1. Answ. Does this exclude the other Presbyters? What mean those words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 24. But to you I say. If the King writes to the Speaker, and reproves something amiss, or complains something is not done, does it lay the blame on him only, and not on the Members of the House as well?  
2. Suppose these Angels had been guilty of sins for which themselves had deserved excommunication, who should have cast them out? Are they Lords Paramount above all Christ's Laws in his Church? I know not but the other Presbyters with the consent of the Churches, obeying their Presbyters, might have cast these Angels out, or no way that I know of. The Scriptures know no Archbishops, though the Papists and Dr. Hammond do.  
But to have one Bishop alone excommunicate Presbyters, this would make as brave work as we have known before the wars begun. Let the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters, excommunicate a Presbyter, the Church consenting.  
Thus far the Dr. goeth, and then undertakes to answer our Arguments, but because I see nothing is there said which I have not spoken to before, and I am loath to exceed in this discourse, I shall only take notice of what he saith in his Answer to the third Objection, where he tells us the necessity of Bishops in these respects.  
1. To ordain Ministers, lest the Evangelical Ministry should fail.  
Cannot this evil be prevented by Presbyters as well? Answ. Are not divers thousands of Presbyters in England more likely to keep up a succession of Ministers in England, than 24 Bishops, of whom, how few now were left? Had the succession of Ministers depended upon them, in what a sad case had the Church been?  
2. For the Governing of Presbyters, lest by their impure manners, heresies and schisms, they should destroy the Church.  
And are not Bishops equally liable to these? Answ. How shall the Church now be saved? May we not read with our eyes in Histories, and hear with our ears what Bishops have been? Have we not seen the excellency of this Government in England? as to the impure manners of Ministers being corrected: Is it not a Cordolium to the godly in England to have so many who were justly cast out for scandal by the Parliament [though some were wronged I know, and do as much detest their ejectment] to return again, not one whit purged that we can fee?  
2. For Heresy and schism.  
1. We know what Bellarmine saith,  Heresiarchae ferè omnes aut Episcopi, aut Presbyteri fuerunt; and from these Heresies rise Factions among the people, saith he, so that Bishops are as deep in the mire for heresy and causing schism, as the Presbyters. Hence he will have a Pope; but that Monarchical Government hath not cured Schism we know, much less Heresy.  
2. As for Heresy and Schism both, name any National Church under Heaven more free from them, than the Church of Scotland, before these troubles began, and yet there Bishops are not approved of.  
3. For Schism, read but the life of Constantine, and there see whether Bishops were not guilty of Schism, and the Concil. Tolata 1. was called upon some Schism among the Bishops.  
4. We say that Rome is guilty of the Schism between us and them, because Rome gave the cause: I leave the Reader to inquire who gave the first cause of the Schisms now in England.  
5. Why then did not Paul appoint a Bishop in Corinth, when Schism was there, both in his time, and Clemens his time, but Clemens mentions none: Jerom saith indeed, that upon these Schisms Bishops were set up afterwards. [I writ not his known word] posted: But it is much that these ends of a Bishop, which are so great for the good of the Church, and it seems can be performed by none but him, should not be foreseen by Christ at first, and so this Bishop at first appointed; but the ordinary main Stud of Christ's House should be forgot to be set up, till many years after the House was up. Sure this means was none of his, and so it proves.  
6. How can the Bishop be a fit means to cure Schism or prevent it? I know no way but this, that Presbyters must resign all their judgements up to his Chair, and he infallibly determine, which is right or wrong, and so all must yield to his sentence. This were brave indeed.  
7. Let our King withdraw his tender and healing hand, and his power from assisting Bishops, & let us now see how the Bishops will show forth that wonderful virtue of Episcopacy in healing our Schisms: I doubt our King who is, as Constantine said of himself, the Bishop extra Ecclesiam, must be the great healer, under God, of our Schisms, else the Bishops within the Church will make them much worse, but never heal I am sure by all power Episcopal. If the Keys of the Gatehouse and other Prisons be at their command, than they may do more with those Keys than their Episcopal Keys. Yet I think Prisons will hardly heal us.  
8. There was an honest way found out how to cure wrangling, schismatical Bishops; and the same cure is proper and very apt for Schismatical Presbyters, Concil. Carthag. 4. Can. 25. Dissidentes episcopos si non timor Dei, Synodus reconciliet: A more apt means than a Bishop, because that is Apostolical.  
To wind up all my Discourse concerning this Episcopacy, which the Dr. hath asserted, & now commended as necessary against Schism, I will only give the Reader the judgement of Musculus upon the question, how effectual it is towards the cure. After he had proved, Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by Scripture, than he comes to give the original of the Bishop out of Jorom, 
Loc. come. ●. 195.  and thus he writes; Verum post Apostolorum tempora, cum inter seniores Ecclesiarum, sicuti Hieronymo placet, dissentiones & schismata subnascerentur, & ut mihi vere simile est, tentatio illa de majoritate mentes seniorum, pastorum at doctorum invaderet, paulatim capit de numero seniorum unus aliquis eligi, qui reliquis praeponeretur, & in sublimiori gradu positus, Episcopus nominaretur: atque ita quod caeteri antea communiter ipse solus ac singulariter vocaretur. Profueritus vel seous hoc consilium Ecclesi● Christi, quo tales sint Episcopi, magis consuetudine, ut Hieronymi verbis utar, quam Dominioa dispositionis veritate introducti, qui majores ossent Presbyteris, melius est posterioribus seculis deelaratum, quam dum haec consuetudo primum introduceretur, cui debe●●us omnem illam principalium & equestrium Episcoporum insole●tiam, opulentiam, & tyrannidem, imo omnium Ecclesiarum Christi corruptione●, quam si Hier. cerneret, dubio procul consilium agnosceret non Spiritus Sancti ad tollenda Schismata, sicuti praetexebatur, sed ipsius Satanae, ad vastanda & perdenda prisca pascendi Dominici gregis ministeria; quo fieret ut haberet Ecclesia, non veros pastors, Doctores Presbyteros & Episcopos, sed sub ●ominum istorum larvis oci●sos ventres ac magnificos Principes, qui non modo non pascant ipsi populum Domini doctrina sana & Apostolica, sed & improbissima violentia caveant ne id per quenquam ●lium fiat, etc. I am far from applying this to all our Bishops; no verily, This Learned Davenant, Hall, Brownrig; I do much reverence their names now dead and gone, and no man upon earth have I so much honoured as that Archbishop Usher; but what talk I of him? he was in all Respects, for Learning, soundness in the Faith, Humility, and Holiness, a None-such: In what an ill time (as to us) was he taken away! but God is wise.   

CHAP. II. Of Presbyterial Ordination.  
Whether that which made the greatest Argument against our Presbyterial Ordination be not taken away, I leave to the Christian Reader, who makes the Holy Scriptures his Rule to judge by. Now then for a few Arguments to prove, The validity of Presbyterial Ordination.  
These two Propositions, however denied by some, yet I presume they will be granted by these scorners of our Presbyterial Ordination.  

1. That Ordination is still an Ordinance of God, in force in the Church; and so shall be while there is a Ministry.  
2. That it is an Act of Authority, and can be performed by none but by those who are in Authority in the Church.   
Hence than I thus argue, Scripture Ordination is valid Ordination: Arg. 1 But Presbyterial Ordination is Scriptural Ordination; Ergo. Deny the major who dare: The minor I thus prove;  
That Ordination which is performed by persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture Authority, is Scriptural Ordination: But Presbyterial Ordination is Ordination performed by Persons invested with the power thereof by Scripture authority. Ergo.  
Minor, If the Scripture hath now invested any others with the power of Ordination, they are persons either of an Inferior or Superior Order, But neither: Ergo. Not Inferior is granted, not Superior, the whole Discourse before proves, by the judgement of the Scriptures, and many agreeing thereto; Presbyter and Bishop are the same.  
Objection, Presbyters are not where commanded to ordain.  
Answer, Prove that your Bishops are: and I will prove my Presbyters are.  
2. Where are Presbyters commanded to Administer the Lords Supper, or Baptise? Find that Command; and I will find other Authoritative Acts in it. I doubt not our Authority descends from that Command and Commission to the Apostles Matth. 28. Whatever Acts are requisite to increase, to edify, or continue the Church, we have the Authority by Succession; and so are Pastors and Rulers.  II. Arg. 2 That Ordination which is performed by persons which have the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven committed to them, that is valid Ordination. 
But Presbyterial Ordination is performed by such, 
Nomine clavium signisic. tur omnis potestas Ecclesiallica. Suppl. cham. lib. 4. chap. 4.  Ergo.  
Major, The Keys of the Kingdom do contain in them the power of Ordination, saith Cor. à Lapide, Chemnitius Bucer, etc.  
Minor, Though the Pope, Bishops and Presbyters contend for the Keys, yet that Presbyters have the Keys committed to them, is confessed by the Papists.  
Objection, The Key of Knowledge.  
Answer. I proved before the Key of Jurisdiction. I add, That Distribution of the Keys which is not grounded on the Scripture is a vain Distribution, (as we say) Distinguendum est ubi Scriptura distinguit: Sic distribuendum est, etc.  
But this distribution of the Keys, so as to give but the Key of Knowledge to the Presbyter, is not grounded on Scripture; Ergo, It is vain.  
To thee do I give the Keys, said our Lord; he did not civide the Keys, give one key to one, and both to another, he gives no single key to any person, but keys, and so whatever those Keys serve for: Busil and Dr. Fulk speak fully for the Keys of jurisdiction belonging to all Pastors, than the Key of Order as well.  III. Timothy's Ordination was valid Ordination, Arg. 3 but Timothy's Ordination was Presbyterial Ordination, Ergo. 
Laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. Against this is objected;  1. Paul did impose his hands in Timothy's Ordination, and that was sufficient without the Presbytery. 
Answ. 1. Diodati conceives, That by Paul's hands the miraculous gift was conveyed; by the Presbytery Timothy was installed in the Ministry. See him on 2 Tim. 1.6. I have spoken to this in another Treatise.  
2. However the Presbytery imposed hands, they had a power to do the work, else Paul would not have called them to it, Paul did not ordain Timothy, quatenus Apostle; then your Bishop is gone.  
3. In respect of the Precedent, and perpetual Order which was to be left to the Church of Christ, it was necessary that the Presbytery should impose their hands. Nec tantum dicit mearum manuum, 
Exam. Conc. Trid. de Sacra. ord. p. 226.  sed addit etiam Presbyterii, 1 Tim. 4. ne existimetur discrimen esse, sive ab Apostolis, sive à Presbyteriis quis ordinetur (saith Chemnitius.  Object. 2. But who knows what Presbyters these were? chrysostom saith Bishops. 
Answer, So saith Lorinus, Intelligit chorum Presbyterorum, i. e. Episcoporum: Be it so; for now I am sure Presbyters and Bishops were the same. Some say, It was the Presbytery of Ephesus,; if they could prove this it were to the purpose indeed. Junius saith, the Presbytery of Lystra, whence Paul took him. What Presbyters are, we know by the Scripture, and Presbyterium is a company of Presbyters, as Lorinus said: If it please you not, I pray teach us better. The Rhemists render the word Priesthood, and quote the 3d Canon, Concil. Carth. 4. before named, to open it by: This is more for us against chrysostom: Thus also Cajetan, Dicit pluraliter manuum Presbyterii, fortè ad significandum plurium Sacerdotum concursum. etc. This Presbytery imposing hands on Timothy was no doubt the ground of Cyprians practice, so of that Canon in the Council of Carthage, and of our Bishop's Canons, whence I wonder, any rational man should so scorn Presbyterial Ordination.  
Object. But there was Paul's Imposition, and so there was the Bishop's Imposition, but not Presbyters alone.  
Answ. As for Paul, the answer to the first Objection will satisfy: For the Bishop, true he was there, but how came he there? Jerome tells us, and we have reason to believe him, because he groundeth his discourse upon the Scriptures. However the Bishop did not superadd any thing to the perfection of the Ordinance, he put forth no more power than the other Presbyters, only for Order-sake he carried on the work: So had we our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Association, who was so, and should have continued so dur ante vitâ for me: But as in the absence of a Bishop, the sufftagan might supply his room, so as well in the absence of our Precedent another might supply his, being especially chosen, and earnestly desired by his fellow Presbyters to do it.  IU Arg. 4 If Prophets and Teachers may separate Apostles to their work by Fasting, Prayer, and Imposition of hands, then may Presbyters ordain Presbyters, and that Ordination is valid; but the Antecedent is true, Acts 13.1, 2, 3. Ergo. 
Teachers are inferior to Prophets, and all preaching Presbyters I hope are Teachers, but these imposed hands, the Prophets were inferior to Apostles.  
Object. But this was not Ordination.  
Answ. I have spoken to this in another Treatise more largely: but I could name (and have named there) several of the Fathers, Lutherans, and Calvinists, who say it was Ordination; and for the Papists, divers of those I could mention, who call it Ordination.  
If it was not Ordination, I pray what was it? We find Barnabas after this Act is called an Apostle, Acts 14.14. but so he was never before, he was at the highest but a Prophet, as the Text declares. So Jerom, 
Catal. Script. Keels.  speaking of Barnahas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It was a separation to a work, and what do you more in Ordination than is here set down? But I speak no more of it in this place, because (as I said) I have done it before.  V Arg. 5 Those who have Authority to perform the greatest ministerial Acts, they have power to perform the less. 
But Prebyters have Authority to perform the greatest. Ergo.  
For the Major, those who will deny it, give us a sound and convincing reason why they do so, I cannot imagine one, à majore ad minus valet consequentia in this case sure.  
For the Minor: When Paul saith, 1 Cor. 1.17. Christ did not send him to baptise, but to preach the Gespel, surely Paul mentioned the highest Ministerial Act; else Paul must say, not to baptise, nor to preach, but to ordain Ministers. Reverend Davenant saith, 
Pag. 194.  that in rebus maximi momenti ad salutem hominum, Presbyters have power as well as Bishops, and therefore the name, Bishop, may well agree to them, saith he, why not then in rebus minoris momenti? I wish he had given a sound reason for it; it seems they can do those Acts which tend to the end of the Ministry mainly and principally, and not the lesser; What rational man can swallow this? If Ability be the question, I think the Presbyters have shown enough to answer it. Compare Episcopal Ordinations and Presbyterial, where did the Majesty of God's Ordinance appear most? And as for the Ordained by them, compare them with others and see if not able for the work.  
I will add two or three Arguments ad homi nem.  VI If Ordination by Bishops be valid, Arg. 6 then ordination by Presbyters is valid: but you suppose the first is true, and we wish you had proved it more sufficiently, that our-people might not have separated from us upon that account. 
The consequence I prove thus:  
1. For Presbyters we are sure they are the Officers of Christ, but for your Bishops, especially such as are in England, extending their power (as I said in the beginning) after that manner so vastly, I dare say quâ tales, they are none of Christ's Officers, nor, as they take to themselves a power above other Ministers.  
2. Take Bishops in the fairest sense, so Bishops and Presbyters are of the same Order: If of the same Order, than Presbyters Ordination is as valid as the Bishops.  
That they are of the same Order, Learned Davenant doth, in the beginning of his Determination, name Gulielmus Parisiensis, Gerson, and Durandus among the Papists affirming it; to which, as a further confirmation, I may add that saying of Ambrose, on 1 Tim. 3. Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus Ordinationem subject; quare? Nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una Ordinatio est, uterque enim Sacerdos est: for that he adds, Episcopus est qui inter Presbyteros primus est. I shall not stick at that, still they are the fame Order. For the Consequence, I borrow this only out of Mr. Baxter, who saith, he had it from Bishop Usher, to prove Ordination by mere Presbyters, without a Prelate, is valid, for ad ordinem pertinet ordinare.  VII. Arg. 7 Ordination by Presbyters in case of necessity is valid: So saith learned Davenant, 191. But 
The Ordination by Presbyters now was in a case of necessity.  
The Minor: 1. Bishops were now put down by Authority. 2. Solemn Covenant against them (in part) taken, being imposed by Authority. 3. Bishops dared not to Ordain openly, why not we as much afraid to go to them? 4. The eye of the State not so favourable upon those who were ordained by them, and unless we were satisfied they were Officers of Christ, we had no reason to hazard ourselves for them. 5. We could not tell where to have them. 6. And how many were corruption Doctrine. 7. And what divers had been in persecution we know; so that we had no reason to seek to such. 8. Besides, the State set up Presbyterial Ordination. 9 Succession of Ministers must be continued.  VIII. Arg. 8 That Ordination which by the most learned and godly, Episcopal men is judged valid, cannot be denied by others to be invalid, without great defect of modesty, and humility, Unless they have good Scripture against it, which be sure they have not. But thus have a Presbyterial Ordination been judged by the most Learned, etc. as by that flower of all Episcopal men, Bishop Usher; so all our Bishops, and Episcopal men, who have asserted the Ministry of other Churches where no Bishops are, to be lawful and valid. 
And to go yet a little higher to Antiquity: those places in Augustine 
a Tom. 4. p. 780 Fro.  and Ambrose 
b Ephes. 4.  are well known, both of them speak to the same purpose: Name in Alexandria & per totam Aegyptum si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter, so saith Augustine. Consignant Presbyteri si praesens non sit Episcopus, saith Ambrose. Yea, it seems, that this Ordination by Presbyters did trouble Durandus, 
Sent. l. 4. Dist. 24. q. 5.  for speaking to this question. Utrum in Ecclesia sit aliqua potest as major Sacerdotali? In point of Jurisdiction he will allow the Bishop to be superior, but De potestate Consecrationis vel Ordinis est magnum dubium. By Jeroms Authority from the Scripture, and by a reason he brings himself, he could conclude Bishop and Priest in this point to be Pares, but that the Authority of the Church had determined it otherwise; Thus the Church is above Scripture and Reison, else Durandus will own our Ordination.  
I will conclude with the saying of that learned Lutheran Gerhard, who alloweth some Bishops: 
Loc come. de minist. Eccles. p. 261.  Ex toto codice biblico ne apex quidom proferri potest, quo demonstretur, immutabili quadam necessitate, a●●ipsius Dei Institutione potestatem ordinandi en modo competere Episcopo, ●t si Minister ab Episcopo ordinetur, ejus vocatio & ordinatio oenseatur rata, sin à Presbytero, quod tunc irrita coram Deo, & frustranea sit habenda.  
My Prayer is, Lord lead me not into temptation: But if it comes to this, that I must renounce my Presbyterial Ordination and be ordained by a Bishop, or I must be silenced, I shall desire grace from the Lord, and resolve to lay down my Ministry, before I will my Ordination: for in being re-ordained by Bishops,  
1. I must plainly condemn all Ministers of other Churches, who are ordained only by Presbyters: how abominable is this? To thursdays all other Ministers that have not Episcopal Ordination.  
2. I must establish an officer in the Church which Christ never did, not his Apostles, yea, and this the chief Officer.  
3. Episcopal Ordinations have other Appendices, of subscriptions which the Lord deliver us from. I omit the slightiness of Bishops in their Ordinations, above that I have seen among Presbyters.  
4. And with this I conclude: If they can prove us to be Heretics let them, else I give them the 67 Canon Apostol. Si quis Episcopus, aut Presbyter, aut Diaconus secundam ab aliquo ordinationem susceperit, deponitor tam ipse, quàm qui ipsum Ordinavit.   

CHAP. III. Concerning Imposed Forms of Prayer.  
HOw different men's opinions are concerning Forms of Prayer their Tongues, Pens, and Practices declare. Some are carried vehemently against them, and will own none but conceived Prayers, made by the Spirit; others are as high for Forms of Prayer, against conceived Prayer.  
us his Scriptures, he could have conveyed all his mind to us by Tradition, who doubts it? But I may go so far, and desire you to show us, in the very next Churches to the Apostles, that such things were in use, in the worship of God; and that those Churches affirm, they had them from the Apostles by Tradition. What? neither Apostolical Writings, nor Apostolical Traditions: Whence came these then? not that I will build my Faith upon a Tradition.  
When I read these words in Just. martyr, Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I thought, possibly some body might lay hold upon them for our Common-Prayers; and not long after, I found them used for that purpose by a Learned Doctor, But how do these words prove an Imposed form of Prayer: or, that they read them out of a Book: why he calls them common, the next words will give us a Reason, but they prove not the imposed form: Besides, had he turned over the leaf, in the next Page he might have found, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did pray. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which if Langus had any skill to translate, is, quantum pro virili sua potest. Tertullia's words are commonly known, That they prayed sine Monitore, Apol. c. 30. Then no Forms of Prayer were imposed.  
Arg. Arg. 2 If the grounds for imposing Forms of Prayer now were of as much or more force in the Apostles time, and yet they did not impose Forms of Prayer, than those grounds are insufficient now, and so the Act unwarrantable:  
But the Grounds that now are alleged had as much, yea and some of them more force then, then now. Ergo.  
For the Antecedent name your Grounds, the main one that I hear, is Uniformity; but this was of much more force in the Apostles time; for they, travelling into Europe, Asia, Africa, and planting of Churches in all these parts of the world, had they made such a Liturgy, and Forms of Prayer for the whole Catholic Church, there had been a Uniformity in all the Churches of the world; there should not have been so many Liturgies as there is now, every Nation following their own, what abundance have been and are? Yea, but Paul wanted wisdom, had he lived longer he might have learned from other men. Thus I will carry all those Arguments which the Scorners of conceived Prayer bring, and show they had as much force then as now: But had there been such form of Prayer in all the Churches, they would not all have been lost sure enough, some would have been reserved till now.  
One thing it may be will be alleged, Inability of men: But this speaks ill; it seems, neither the Apostles, nor Evangelists would ordain those to the Ministry, who had not a gift of Prayer, it being as requisite as a gift of preaching.  
2. However that troubles not my Question, for I speak of imposing upon men gifted and able.  
To say, The Churches were then newly planted; Therefore say I, the more need of Forms of Prayer, if needful at all, and yet the Apostles lived many years after the Churches were planted, and did not impose or appoint Forms of Prayers.  III. Arg. 3 That Act which in great part doth frustrate one fruit of Christ's Ascension is an unlawful Act. 
But the imposing Forms of Prayer on men already qualified, is in great part a frustrating of one fruit of Christ's Ascension, Ergo, it is unlawful.  
The major I think cannot be denied:  
The minor; One fruit of his Ascension was to give gifts to men, Ephes. 4.8. and as Gifts for Apostles, so for Pastors and Teachers, vers. 11. among which Gifts, I am sure Prayer is one; and this Gift, as he hath bestowed it variously, so he bathe eminently, upon some men, and without pride it may be spoken (for it is a gift, ergo free) as eminently upon the English Ministry, as any now this day in the world: But the imposing of Forms of Prayers doth frustrate this gift of Christ; for they are thereby hindered from the exercise of it; there needed no gifts to have been conferred, but upon those wh● compose the Forms of Prayer.  IU Arg. 4 That Act which takes off a Minister from his duty is not lawful: 
But imposing of Forms of Prayer takes off a Minister from his Duty, Engo.  
Minor, A Minister's Duty is, to stir up the gift of God which is in him, 2 Tim. 1.6. Unless you will say, the Epistle was written to a Bishop, and so doth not belong to Presbyters. But there is no place to stir up the Gift of Prayer; for he must read Prayer, the effect of the gift of others.  V That Act which directly fomenteth a corrupt frame, Arg. 5 to which we incline, is unlawful, [Means and occasions of sin must be avoided]. 
But imposing of Forms of Prayers do directly foment a corrupt frame to which we incline; that is laziness. Ergo.  
Do but impose Homilies also to be read, and a lazy heart will think you: And why not Forms of Preaching as well as of Praying? if hinder one gift, why not the other: A bare Form of Prayer doth not so directly foment laziness, but the imposing and tying to it will.  VI Arg. 6 That Act which exposeth the Ministers of Christ to contempt is unlawful: 
But the imposing of Prayers for Ministers to read, expose them to conteinpt, Ergo.  
Minor, Ministers are supposed to be persons gifted above others, and aught to be so I am sure; [notably doth Mr. Cartwright speak to this in his Comment upon Christ's words to Nicodemus, John 3.]  
But for a Minister to read Prayers [Prayer being a great part of his work] is to do no more than a boy of eight years old may do; and a reading Priest hath been the scorn cast upon Ministers.  VII. Arg. 7 That Act which will keep away many, and discourage the best worshippers of God; [I may add, and does but nourish carnal and formal worshippers in their sin] is unlawful: 
But so does this impossing of Forms of Prayer:  
How many are there of God's servants who walk holily with him, whom he hath endued with the gift and spirit of Prayer, even private men, for these to come to the public Worship of God, and there to hear Prayers read over, which their Children at home can do, but they themselves can pour out their hearts to God, without reading their Petitions, will they not be discouraged? I know, and it is already proved, many will not come, as judging it unlawful, and others will be much discouraged, that do come: and why should Gods best worshippers be offended: For others, if they can but say after a Minister, in a book, will not question but they have served God as well as the best, and in this their formal worship rest.  VIII. Arg. 8 That Act which hinders the actings of the Spirit of God in the hearts of his people, is an unlawful Act. 
But the imposing of Forms of Prayer do hinder the actings of the Spirit in the hearts of God's people, Ergo.  
Major, What the Word hath spoken of the Spirits helping the people of God in Prayer I need not mention, the places are well known in the Old and New Testament. But this hinders.  
It is commonly answered, The Spirit doth help, in working the heart and affections into a suitable gracious frame, fit for Prayer, which may be though we use a Form of Prayer.  
I deny it not, but yet as the Spirit doth stirt up affections, and sighs, etc. in the soul, so those Affections would express themselves in other words than I find in the Book.  
I can tell, (if the Lord hath gifted me) how to express my own desires and affections in my own words; and the words oftentimes have a reflection, and help to stir up the affection more. But when I am tied to the words of other men, I am straitened, they will not serve to express what lies upon my heart; and who is it that knows what the work of the Spirit of God, and the workings of a heart are in prayer, that will not soon find these hindered by being tied up to other men's words.  
2. The Spirit doth not only help to the Grace of Prayer, but the Gift of prayer, and that is hindered be sure in these Forms altogether.  
3. The Method in Prayer use to be this. 1. I feel my wants. 2. My Desires are stirred up to get these wants supplied. 3. My mind frameth words to express those desires to God. 4. Those words are uttered. But in Forms of Prayers, the heart must follow the words, they are first; in the other, words follow, and interpret my heart, where Prayer gins.  
I desire to know of these Imposers of Forms of Prayer, whether if they sent a Servant on their Message, and the servant is hail, lusty, and can go very well; if another man should meet this servant, who is going on his journey, and force him to go with crutches, which hinder him extremely, would you take it well? Why do you force the servant of God in his work to use your crutches, which are his hindrance in his Master's work, he can go better without them? I am afraid the bottom of this lieth here, that many of our great men, if you take away a Prayer-book, know not how to pray, wanting a praying heart, and they think it some dishonour to them to have other men, over whom they would tyrannize, to exceed them in a gift of Prayer; and so force men to their book, that no difference might appear. We leave these men to God.  
Do not these Composers of Forms of Prayer suppose their Gifts to be better than any Ministers upon whom they impose their Forms? If other Ministers can express the same Petitions in other words, as well, may be better, more lively, why are they hindered? Do they know the Gifts of all Ministers? do they know how the Spirit may assist them sometimes over other times? To think your Gifts to be the best, savours of such pride as becomes not a Christian.  
Object. But we find Forms of Prayer in the Scripture.  
Answ. What will you infer from thence? Ergo, Ordinary men now may impose their Forms of Prayer upon Ministers already gifted by God? I deny your Consequence.  
1. Will you compare your Forms now composed by you, with those Forms which the Penmen of the Scriptures were directed by the Spirit to compose?  
2. Impose no other Prayers upon us but Scripture-forms, and we shall not refuse to use them, though not them only. The Lord's Prayer is the most complete of all the Forms; yet we are not bound to that form only; I hope, we may use other prayers, keeping that substance.  
3. The 102 Psal. which was made for the afflicted Church a little before the time of their return out of Captivity, as the 13, 14, 15, 16 Verses declare, did not hinder Daniel, Chap. 9 to pray by his own gift upon the same occasion, where there is great difference in the Petitions and matter of prayer.  
Object. But other Churches have their Forms.  
Answ. Not all Churches, where men are as orthodox, and holy as ours are.  
2. Irenaeus bids us have recourse to those Churches in which the Apostles were conversant, and in them we find no such thing.  
3. Those who have Forms, do yet condemn ours: as witness Apollonius, in the name of the Walacrian Classis, p. 172. who rejecting Forms of Prayer, and Administrations of Sacraments, where the matter is vicious, or any Superstition cleaves to them, etc. He adds, For this cause we reject the Ceremonies, and Forms of Public Worship in the Church of England, in these last corrupt times, brought in by the Hierarehical Bishops: as those which being Superstitious and Idolatrous, have deformed the Church, and the worship of God, & obscurarunt gloriosa Reformationis facem & faciem, etc.  
In the next Section, the same Divines do reject those Forms of Prayer, though in respect of the matter of them good, whenas they are imposed tyrannically, and with violent command upon the consciences of men, as being absolutely necessary, and essential parts of God's Worship, etc. They speak more, and that notably, what cruelty they have been made the instruments of; and, Hath not ENGLAND felt it? See more in that Learned Author, page 173. though he maintains the lawfulness of a Form. So do the Leyden Professors, 
Synop pu. the. p. 499.  and yet say it is necessary that Pastors of Church; should stir up themselves to pray without forms, p. 499.  
And once more for our Common-Prayer Book lately used, Bishop Davenant hath commended it to us upon this ground, What is there in it that is not approved of the Papists themselves! 
Determ. 27.  and he confirms the truth of it thus, That some of the Bishops of Rome have offered to approve our form of Prayers, provided that we would accept it by their authority; A notable Argument to bring Orthodox and holy Christians to hear it; though his scope is to prove, Ergo, the Papists ought to be present at our worship, and the Magistrate neglects his Office, if he doth not compel them.  
Object. But the total use of Ministers gifts is not taken away.  
Answ. I think it was in some places; and every where it was in Baptism, and the Lords Supper, only before Sermon, and after, men had the use of their gifts, scarce that.  
Object. But all Ministers are not able.  
Answ. Whose fault is that? show us such Ministers ordained by the Presbyterians, that are not in some good measure able to pray without their book, though there is difference of Gifts: There are a Generation coming in again, that I think indeed are not, all of them, and but very few. I deny not but there was wrong offered to some, who were turned out, and let them come in withal my heart: But I speak of Superstititous men, pot-companions, swearers, etc. men who have not the Gift of Prayer, and despise it in others.  
2. But what is this to those who are able? why must they be forced to read, as other insufficient men must, wanting Gifts.  
Question, But what if a Form of prayer be imposed, so as not to take away the total use of Ministers Gifts in any Ordinance, they may have their liberty of their own gifts, but sometimes use that Form.  
Answ. I should a little desire to know the Authority that enjoins it, if a Synod of such Divines as aught to be (I mean not superstitious Arminians) Orthodox and holy men, did order such a thing in a sober way, not tyrannically, as absolutely necessary (as said Apollonius before) than I confess it would trouble me to refuse it, though I find, and have heard some of my Brethren say, Let the Forms of Prayer be what they will, they will submit to none; it is an offence, they conceive, and a wrong to that good spirit, who hath pleased to bestow on them the Gift of Prayer, to have that hindered, by submitting to men's injunctions: But I am not satisfied in this.  
1. Because you have the use of your gift in all Ordinances only sometimes you are required to use a Form.  
2. A Form of Prayer, in itself, the matter of it being agreeable to the Word, is not unlawful: thus godly and wise men judge.  
3. I find that the old holy Non-Conformists were not offended at a bare form of Prayer, but some particular things in the Common prayer-Book, and truly those are many. Yea, I find the congregational Divines, in New-England, though they use no forms, [they are able indeed] yet they dare not condemn all Forms of prayer in the Church, 
Defense of the 9 Positions, p. 34.  divers of them at least would not do it; so Master Shephard, Though all of us could not concur to condemn all set Forms as unlawful, yet for the English Liturgy, etc. And so after, in the same Page, 

Thus also Mr Norton, in his Answer to Apollonius, alloweth of a form of prayer for Ministers, but if they be gifted, then to impose is unlawful.  
But whether he means it is so, though they use their own gift, and the Forms sometimes, I find not. p. 138, 139.   But do any we now speak of condemn all use thereof? etc. So again, page 38. only there they say, That though the thing itself be lawful, yet, if not duly circumstantiated, it may be evil and scandalous in the use, as Meats, 1 Cor. 8.13. This to me (if we have liberty as in the Question) is the greatest trouble, how to answer the offence it will give to other Christians, in case we cannot satisfy there, being we have no command in the Word to use these Forms; how will you help us here? Will men give the Answer which Bishop Land, when he silenced my Father in law, gave to him? My Father pleaded that Text of Paul, He would not offend his weak Brother, Why then should the Bishop offend him by imposing the Surplice? To that speech of Paul, Bishop Laud answered, Yea, Paul said so when he was alone, but do you think Paul would have said so, if he had been in a Convocation? A rare Answer, worthy of a Bishop.  
4. What think you of this? Do we not many times when we are beaten with tentations, pray our own conditions more than the Congregations? though I know God hath his hand in this, and we do pray the conditions of others, though we know it not, while we pray our own: But yet way we not then use these Forms also, which are common to the whole Congregation, as it were to make amends? Burdened souls, when indeed tentations lie heard, cannot but mind themselves, though none should be the mouth of the Congregation.  
5. The thing being in itself good, and doubtless a man may pray graciously, though he doth use a form. Why may we not yield in such a point, to take off prejudices from our Ministry, and if they would join with us more willingly in Prayer, why should this be wholly denied.  
If you look on it as being such a thing as you will rather lay down your Ministry than use any form at all, I desire we might see those grounds which may warrant you and us thereunto, and we shall thank you   

CHAP. IU. Of Ceremonies, and in particular of the Surplice.  
I Intent but a few words; We are told, the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and this is swallowed down so readily, as if there were no bones in it. What they mean by the ambiguous word, Ceremony, and what by the Church, we must learn from their practice: And I pray see through all Paul's Epistles where the Church is often mentioned, whether you can find such a Church as decreed our Ceremonies. God having appointed his Day for Worship, what time of the day is fittest for it, we doubt not the Church may determine; so for place, and other things, which of necessity must be; as if there must be Wine and Bread at the Supper, etc. then Vessels must be, whether Woodden, (as when they had their golden Priests) or Pewter, or Silver, there is no determination by God, the Church may here appoint, but these deserve not the names of Ceremonies: Were we in our purest estate in Adam, had God appointed such Ordimnces, these things must of necessity follow, these things must be, place and vessels, etc. but it would not then have necessarily followed we must have garments; Considering sin indeed which hath brought this shame upon us, we must now from sin have garments, but it doth not follow properly from the Ordinance itself we must have Garments, as if Wine and Bread, we must have vessels to put the Wine into; if sin, than garments, is true; not properly if ordinances, than garments; though now it is true.  
The only Text brought for these Ceremonies is, 1 Cor. 14. ult.  
Let all things be done decently and in Order; whence thus the Argument runs.  
If all the Worship of God (for that I think the Apostle, by All things, properly aims at) must be performed decently in the Church, than the Church may decree Ceremonies.  
But the Consequence is denied; For,  
1. The Worship of God may be decently performed without humane Ceremonies, deny it if you can, I will prove it afterwards.  
2. The Worship of God may be very undecently performed though humane Ceremonies be annexed; we need not to prove what eyes have seen among your white Worshippers in your Cathedrals, and Colleges, how rudely have divers carried themselves? very much unbecoming the Worship of God I am sure.  
3. Had Ceremonies been so necessary, surely the Lord would have appointed them himself, and not leave his Worship to be dressed by a vain wretched head of man, opposite to him in all things: He whose name is Jealous, Exod. 34.14. and that in his instituted Worship, would not let man have this refuge to run to, while he was sinning against his Second Commandment, to say, I do it for decency.  
4. God would not suffer his Church of old to add one Ceremony; Moses did as he was commanded, repeated seven times over in Exod. 40. Did God take care of the pins of the Tabernacle then, and will he not now of the Curtains? Since God's wisdom seethe meet to appoint none, man's wisdom seethe meet to appoint what he please: yea, thus it must be, else he is not Man-fallen; i.e. Cross to God in every thing. It seems, God sends his worship into the Church under the New Testament naked, and we must make Garments to hid the shame of it, and with other Ribbons of our Inventions dress it up fine; Will the great God thank you for this, you, potsherd, man, who will mend his work?  
5. What the Apostle meaneth by decency and Order you may see in the eleventh Chapter, and this fourteenth Chapter; in which Chapters you shall find Undecency and Disorder, but not for want of Ceremonies.  
6. If from hence we may appoint Ceremonies, where shall we stand, 
Determ. 20.  may we not go in infinitum? What hinders? B. Davenant saith of these Ceremonies, Si nimis excreverint, in hoc graviter peccant, and quotes Austin in his 119. Epist. Complaining of the burden of Ceremonies, preferring the Jews Ceremonies, being Gods own Institutions, before theirs: But what saith the Ceremony-maker, all these make the worship to be performed decently? So this month he invents these, the next month he invents others: for so we are taught if we will believe, the Church may alter and change the Ceremonies, if she see cause; yea, and cast them out also, if she be so true to her husband as she should be.  
As for Apparel, I think people commonly come decently enough, some else will not come at all: And I see not but if a Ministers civil Garments, with his gown, be cleanly, as commonly they are; in these his Civil Garments he is decent enough, as to apparel. Such Decency and Order, as whose contrary is undecency and disorder, I think is there meant, and nothing more; but I hope that is not want of a Surplice, which I thus prove:  
I. If different Garments, appropriated to the worship of God, Arg. 1 [as a Surplice] be requisite to the decent performance of it, than neither the Apostles, nor the Primitive Churches did worship God decently.  
But they did, deny it if you dare; Ergo, Such Garments are not requisite, etc.  
For the Apostles, and those Churches, will any say they had Surplices? no man will I am sure. About the year 261. I find indeed Pope Stephen decreed, The Garments for Divine Worship should be consecrated, and used only in the Church: But his Decree is not early enough by many years to reach the Primitive Churches. Bishop Jewel quoting Valafredus Abbas, 
Des. Apol. 326.  tells us out of him, that the old Fathers ministered the Holy Communion having on their own common apparel: very undecently certainly: It is a wonder that holy Paul could not see his exhortation to decency did force in a Surplice, which he and others should have used; but older and wiser: I pray let the Rule of Irenaeus before mentioned here take place.  
II. Arg. 2 If a Surplice be requisite to the decent performing of the worship of God, Then all the Congregation ought to wear Surplices. The Reason is, Because they are all worshippers (at least pretend so) they come thither to worship, and have their acts of worship as well as the Minister: now Decency is as much enjoined them as the Minister, for All things must be done in decency: [this would be a handsome sight] So all those who have not Surplices, worship undecently, for they have not that Garment which is requisite to Decency, and such undecent Worshippers have our Congregations ever been.  
III. Arg. 3 That humane Invention which is supposed to make the worship of God better in itself, and more acceptable unto God, is unlawful: But the humane invented Surplice is supposed to make the Worship of God better in itself, and more acceptable to God: Ergo, It is unlawful.  
For the major, It supposeth the wisdom of the Commander to be defective, for here comes in a creature who can add a degree of goodness to his worship, which he hath not commanded, [and surely the more goodness in his worship, the more acceptance that worship must have] so that the Divine Rule for worship is not perfect. Regula non est, si quid ei deest: Regula & amussis neque appositionem neque ablationem admittit. But the Rule which Infinite wisdom hath given, which we suppose should provide best for what concerns himself, is short in this respect, for man may add a degree of goodness, and that is better.  
I know not how to free such an Invention from Superstition, concerning which I intent not now to discourse: But that which some say concerning these Ceremonies, to save them, and other inventions, They are not opposite to the Word, though not commanded; I confess, a Surplice, as it lieth in the chest, is not opposite to the Word, but when the Surplice is appropriated only to the Worship of God, and makes it better, etc. now in the use of it it is opposite; for Excessus Religionis, which is Superstition, is opposite to the Second Commandment, and this Excessus Religionis est in ordine ad actus, & media Religionis externa, & vanae observantia circa onltum, aut cum aliquo respectu ad cultum, qua formaliter non sunt indebitus seu falsus cultus: These by learned and godly Divines abroad are charged with Superstition, I know not how our Ceremonies will escape the charge.  
I pray prove unto us, That the washing of pots, cups, etc. in Mark 7.8. were forbidden by the Word: Had not the Pharisees the same Answer to give, We are not Superstitious in these, for they are not opposite to the Word: but the Lord charges them with vain worshipping, vers. 7. So say you, The Surplice and Ceremonies are not opposite to the Word: But they put Religion in such washings. They made no more of them, than ours have done of their Ceremonies. Also, I pray show us where the Word had commanded, that they must touch, taste, and handle those meres or things which their Men-Teachers taught them they must not touch, not taste, nor handle, Col. 2.21. if they meant of not eating Hogs, Coneys, Hare's flesh, as the Rhemists interpret it, [I know various Interpretations, but pass them by] might not they say, when Paul charged them with will-worship, and Superstition, Why Paul these things are not opposite to the Word, May we not forbear to eat these, as well as eat them? this who could deny; but such abstinence the Apostle blames, and other things there in the general mentioned; For men to put any Religion, Holiness, in what God hath not, and think to add to him, or mend his Rules or worship, as our men do in Ceremonies, the jealous God will not be pleased.  
But then the Minor will be denied: We do not suppose the worship of God to be better, or to have the least acceptance more with God for a Surplice, no, no?  
1. Why then do you use these Ceremonies, if the worship be not one whit the better, nor God accept the more? but that the worship is every whit as good, and God fully as well pleased with his worship, without these, as with these, than we shall show ourselves vain in our Imaginations indeed, and very foolish, having no rational end of our actions. Cui bono? To what end then serve they? You do use to quote the 1 Cor. 14. for your ground, and end. It is true, Decent Worship is better than Undecent Worship, and we may conceive more acceptable to God. Now, if you by your humane Ceremonies, can make it Decent, and without them it is Undecent, Then your Ceremonies add some goodness to the worship of God, and tend more to acceptation with him.  
2. If not, Why then have people been debarred from the Worship of God, because the Surplice hath been wanting? I read in the Writings of an eminent Minister of Christ [whom I knew when he lived] that in Suffolk the Surplice was lost in one Parish, There was a strict in junction to the poor Countrymen, that there might not be any Service or Sermon till they had got another, for which they were appointed Ten days, and this being upon a Friday, there were two Sabbaths without any Service. Now if the worship of God had been as good in itself, and as acceptable to God without the Surplice, why were the people hindered from woshipping of God, and God denied his due? See what men put in their Ceremonies.  
3. If not, what is the Reason so many eminent Servants of God, holy worshippers of God, have been silenced, mouths stopped, that they must not worship God at all in public, and other troubles and Persecutions befallen them, and that because of those Ceremonies? If the Worship was not the better, nor more accepted with God for the Ceremonies, What should cause this?  
Objection, No, they would not be obedient.  
Answer, No men in the world so obedient to their Superiors, [such as God had made Superiors] for conscience sake. But that was not the end of the injunction to try obedience, that came in accidentally. I never yet heard that our Civil Power did command Ceremonies in the worship of God, merely to try the obedience of the Subject: No nor those who took that power upon them, which God never gave them in the Church; it is not said in their Books, We enjoin these to try your obedience to us. So that there is an other End; of which before.  
4. Let us see whether our Ceremony-makers can better free themselves from Superstition, than those whom Tertullian charged with it, in his Exposition of the Lords Prayer; we shall find there, that the Ministers were not forced to read their Prayers out of a Book: After he had shown what frame we ought to bring with us to Prayer, as to our Brother, than he comes to speak of some who when they went to prayer washed their hands, and some their whole bodies, which cleanness, saith he, plerique superstitiosè curant adomnent orationem: yet it seems they had their Reason for it, as he allegeth. Then he adds, 
This Rule cut off those Ceremonies which were in use in Tertulliaxs' time; and out of use with us: (some at least)  Sed quoniam unum aliqued attigimus vacuae observationis, non pigebit caetera quoque denotare, quibus merito vanitas exprobranda est, si quidem sine ullius aut Dominici, aut Apostolici Praecepti auctoritate fiunt, hujusmodi enim non Religioni sed superstitioni deputantur, affectata & coacta, & curiosi potius quam rationalis officii. Certè vel eo coercenda quod Gentilibus adaquent. Then he names some who put off their cloaks when they went to prayer, and others had their vain Observations. Tertullian here speaks like a Christian, one who took his Bible for a perfect Rule. These things we may observe in him: 1. What ought to guide and rule us in Worship; the Authority of the Lords, and the Apostles Precepts.  
2. What he judged of such things that were practised in Prayer, and had not this Authority; he chargeth them with vanity, and Superstition, etc. Now let us examine, why the washing of hands before Prayer should not be as warrantable, as a Surplice in Prayer, to show how we lift up pure hands, 2 Tim. and to show innocency, the same I think which the Surplice doth, as good, as rational: And what is there more in putting on a Surplice, than putting off a Cloak; a man might fancy some spiritual thing in that, to signify the putting off the cloak of maliciousness, 1 Pet. 2.16. or of hypocrisy, etc. enough we may imagine; you may call this Religion, I call it Superstition, saith Tertullian: Then let the Surplice go under Tertullia's Censure.  
IV. Arg. 4 To follow Heathenish and corrupt Worshippers in the worship of the Holy God, is contrary to the Word of God.  
But to worship God in white Garments, appropriated only to the Worship of God, is to follow Heathenish and corrupt worshippers; Ergo.  
I know, Heathens may worship their Idols as God is, in some particulars; when Heathens follow God [as the Devil is God's Ape, to imitate his worship, as Justin Martyr, and Tertullian show] then the Worshippers of God are clear, for they follow Gods command in what he hath appointed, and they cannot hinder the Devil from imitating of God's worship, to set up himself: but when we have no command from God, but it is only our own wills which sets up such a Ceremony, and therein we make God to be served in that manner which Heathens and Idolatrous persons worship, this cannot be without some spot of sin: not hating the garment spotted with the flesh. It was upon this ground also, that Tertullian, in the place forequoted, did condemn these Observations about prayer; and in his Book, de Coro. mil. he reasoneth vehemently, that a Christian man ought not to go with a Laurel Garland upon his head, and that for none other cause, but only for that the Heathens used so to go.  
How the Lord warned his people against this we know, and hence would not allow them to pray towards the East, Ezek. 8.16. they must not be like the Heathens, worshipping the Sun rising in the East. Arias Montanus, in his Treatise of the Fabric of the Temple saith, That the Jews report of thirteen Tables of stone, that were in the outward Court of the Temple, at which men were wont to pray, and all of them were made, saith he, so as some looked to the North, and some to the South, and some to the West, but not one to the East. How many East-worshippers do England afford?  
Now for the Surplice; whence we took it, and how in it we follow the corrupt Romanists, whom our Episcopal men cannot deny but they are corrupt Worshippers, and how they did conform in their Ceremonies to Heathen Idolaters, to win them over to the Christian Religion; this is well known from Learned men who have written upon that Subject. But I add no more; these are only a few thoughts which ran in my mind, others have written more largely upon these subjects, whom I have not read, but only have heard of them.  
For the Cross in Baptism, which hath proved such a cross to many holy men, I only see Mr. Baxter in his Disput. about Church-Government, p. 418. expressing himself very much against it, but I have not had time as yet to read him over; I suppose the Reader may there find satisfaction.  
Mr. Fox, in his Martyrol. Vol. 3. p. 909. relates a Story concerning one Blomefield, a Persecutor, whom God followed with judgements upon his body and estate, This Blomefield a little before his death bragged, and threatened a good man, one Simon Herlestone, to put him forth to the Officers, because he did wear no Surplice when he said Service. Upon which Mr. Fox thus, Wherefore it is pity such baits of Popery are left to the enemies to take Christians in: God take them away, or else us from them; for God knoweth they be the cause of much blindness and strife amongst men. There is a notable Example of Gods dealing with one who urged a gracious Minister to read the Book of Common-prayer, and set him Whitsunday for the day, by which day if he did not read it, he threatened to complain of him; but for all his threats was in the grave before the day came, and glad to get that worthy Minister whom he threatened to pray with him in his sickness, but then no words of the Book of Common-prayer. This a fresh act of Gods. I thought to have added more Arguments, but that I intended brevity.  
Ravanel in his Biblioth. sacra, upon the word Mel, gives the Reason why Hony was forbidden in the Sacrifices, Leu. 2.11. To signify (saith he) that all devised Worships should be avoided, because sincere Religion is defiled with them, though they appear beautiful and pleasing to humane reason, as honey to the taste, etc. What he saith I am sure is true, namely, That devised Worship is very beautiful and pleasing to humane reason, sweet as honey; this is fully proved by sad experience, and the pure Worship of God is as basely contemned: also it is as true, that sincere Religion is defiled by such worship; but whether this was the Reason why Hony was forbidden I go not about to prove.   

CHAP. V Of Kneeling at Sacrament.  
FOR Kneeling at the Sacrament, it being but of later date, I thought, 
Irenaeus, p. 515.  those men who glory so much in Antiquity would not have heaped such a stir about it, knowing that the gesture of the Christians in the Primitive times on the Lord's day was quite opposite; for they stood, and must not kneel on that day; for not bowing of the knee on that day did signify their Resurrection: and thus Basil holds it forth, as one of the necessary Traditions, and saith, it was given us in secret charge by the Apostles of Christ, That it is not lawful for any man to kneel in the Church upon the Sunday, but every man is bound by the same Tradition, at Sermon, at Prayer, 
Reply, p. 282.  and at the Communion to stand upright. Gentlemen, How is it, that you who tell us so much of Antiquity, for the proof of your Episcopacy, do you now make so light of your own Bible?  
Harding tells Bishop Jewel, That if the blessed Sacrament of the Altar were no other than he and the rest of the Sacramentarians think of it, than were it not well done for the people to bow down to it. Transubstantiation was that which brought in Kneeling, and it seems, the Papists think if we do not own that, there is no reason to Kneel, nay, we do not well to bow down to the Bread and Wine.  
But that which hath much run in my mind is this, Suppose in the Mahometan worship, there were some dispute what gesture there should be used in it, and the mahometans should find in their Alcoran, that Mahomet and some of his chiefest followers whom they most reverence, did use such a gesture in the worship, and this is recorded in the Alcoran; do we think the Mahometans would not give so much honour to Mahomet, his chief followers, & their Alcoran, as to say, That is the gesture we must and will use, which by our Alcoran we find, our great Prophet and his Followers used? I am confident they would not disgrace their Alcoran, Mahomet, nor his Followers so much, to say, because we are not bound to it, we will use another. I beseech you Brethren, when as we find in our Holy Bible, that Jesus Christ administered, and the Apostles received the Sacrament, not kneeling, but with another gesture suiting a feast. If the Question be now moved, What gesture must we use at the Sacrament? do we when we have the gesture of sitting [to be sure it answered sitting at our feasts] recorded in our Bibles, that thus the Apostles received it, give due honour to our Bibles, and the Apostles with our Lord, when we cast by that, and use another? For the honour of my Bible, which I take to be the rule for my Religion, and for the honour of the Apostles, who first received it, and were the Lords Penmen, I would choose rather to use this gesture, because I would surely give as much honour to my Bible, as a Turk to his Alcoran.  
For CHRISTMASSE-Day, Mr. Baxter hath spoken very fully to it, in my apprehension, some of the Arguments he useth against it were in my own thoughts, he hath added more, and shown more Learning and Reading than I am acquainted with.  
If the Day be kept to show our Love to Christ, or our Thanks for Christ, Did not the Apostles love him as much as we? were not they as thankful for him as we? did they not exceed us abundantly in both? and had not they the same cause for a day that we have? Yet we never find that they kept such a day: For us to seem to be more wise, more holy, more enlarged in love to Christ, than the Apostles, is so abhorred in my thoughts, that this is it which hath kept me off from observing the Day as some men do, though I condemn not other Godly men who do keep it. To conclude;  
1. In things belonging to God, if we keep close to the Holy Scriptures, there is no danger: Why do we not choose the safest?  
2. If we set up that in his Church, for which we have not good warrant from the Word, there may be danger.  
3. To force others to yield to that in Religious things for which there is not sufficient warrant in the Word; or else to force them from their Ministry and worship of God, is certainly very sinful, and therefore very dangerous.   
FINIS.