AN ANSWER TO A BOOK ENTITLED, AN HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE.  
In which, The Original of LITURGY, EPISCOPACY is discussed. And Quaeres propounded concerning both.  
The PARITY of Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture Demonstrated. The occasion of their IMPARITY in Antiquity discovered. The DISPARITY of the Ancient and our Modern Bishops manifested. The ANTIQUITY of Ruling Elders in the Church vindicated. The PRELATICAL Church Bownded.  JEREMY 6.16. 
Thus saith the Lord, stand in the ways, and Behold, and ask for the Old Way, which is the Way, and walk therein.  Tertul. de praescr. adv. haeres. 
Id Dominicum & verum, quod prius traditum: id autem extraaeum & falsum quod sit posterius.  
Written by SMECTYMNWS.  
LONDON, Printed for I. Rothwell, and are to be sold by T. N. at the Bible in Popes-Head-Alley. 1641.   

MOST HONOURABLE LORDS, AND YE THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS, AND BURGESSES, of the Honourable House of COMMONS.  
ALthough we doubt not, but that book which was lately directed to your Honours, bearing the name of an Humble Remonstrance, hath had access unto your presence: and is in the first approaches of it, discovered by your discerning spirits, to be neither Humble, nor a Remonstrance; but a heap of confident, and ungrounded assertions; so that to your Honours a Reply may seem superfluous: Yet lest the Author should glory in our silence, as a granting of the cause; we humbly crave your Honour's leave, to present, not so much to yourselves, as to the world by your hands, a review of this Remonstrance; in which the Author after too large a Preface, undertakes the support of two things, which seem to him to be threatened with danger of a present precipice, the Liturgy, and the Hierarchy.  
It was a constitution of those admired sons of justice the Areopagis; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that such as pleaded before them should plead without prefacing and without Passion: had your Honours made such a constitution, this Remonstrance must have been banished from the face of your Assembly: for the Preface fills almost a fourth part of the Book, and the rest swells with so many passionate Rhetorications, as it is harder for us in the multitude of his words to find what his argument is, that we have to answer, then to answer it when it is found.  
We would not trace him in his words, but close immediately with his arguments; did we not find in him a sad exemplification of that Divine Axiom, in Multitudine verborum non deest peccatum, in the multitude of words there wants no sin: 
Pag. 23.  for though the Author is bold to call upon your Honours to hear the words of truth and confidence, yet how little truth there is in this great confidence, the ensuing discourse shall discover.  
His very first words are confident enough, and yet as false as confident; wherein he Impropriates all honesty unto these his Papers, and brands all others with the name of Libelers, and yet himself sins deeply against the rule of honesty, and lies naked to the scourge of his own censure.  
First, in setting a brand upon all writings that have lately issued from the press, 
Pag. 1.  as if they had all forgotten to speak any other language then Libellous: it seems himself had forgotten, that some things had issued by Authority of the King and Parliament.  
Secondly, in taxing (implicitly) all such as will not own this Remonstrance for theirs: as, none of the peaceable and well-affected Sons of the Church of England.  
Thirdly, in censuring the way of petitioning your Honours, the Ancient and ordinary free way of seeking redress of our evils, 
Pag. 2.  for a Tumultuary underband way.  
Fourthly, in condemning all such as are not fautors of this Episcopal Cause, 
Pag. 3.  as none of his Majesty's good Subjects, engrossing that praise only to his own party, saying, The eyes of us the good Subjects of this whole Realme are fixed upon your Success, etc.  
Fiftly, in Impropriating to the same party the praise of Orthodox, 
Pag. 6.  pag. 6. as if to speak a word, or think a thought against Episcopacy, were no less Heresy, than it was in forme time to speak against the Pope's supremacy, or the monks fat Belly; whereas whether the Episcopal part be the Orthodox, peaceable, well affected part, and his Majesties only good Subjects, we leave to your Honours to judge, upon the numerous Informations that flow in unto you from the several parts of this Kingdom.  
Nor can they decline your judgement, 
Pag. 2.  seeing now you are (through God's blessing) happily met in a much longed for Parliament: but whether so much longed for by him and his accomplices; as by those against whom he whors his Style, the Prayers that have obtained this happy meeting, and the praises that do attend it, will decide in that great day.  
The Helena, whose Champion this Remonstrant chiefly is: is that Government which he calls Sacred, viz. that Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacon's, &c. which, saith he, through the sides of some misliked persons some have endeavoured to wound. Misliked Persons? and why not offending persons? why not guilty persons? when this Honourable house hath found just cause to charge some of them, with crimes of the highest nature. Our zeal for your Honours make us fear, lest your assembly should suffer in this word; as if your proceedings against such persons should be grounded upon compliance with such as do mislike them, rather than upon their own demerits, or the justice of this Court.  
But what ever those Persons be, 
Pag 7.  the Government itself is Sacred; which by the joynt confession of all reformed Divines, derives itself from the times of the blessed Apostles, 
Untruths.  without any interruption, without contradiction of any one congregation in the world unto this present age. This is but an Episcopal Bravado, therefore we let it pass, till we come to close and contend with him in the point; where we shall demonstrate, that in the compass of three lines he hath packed up as many untruths, as could be smoothly couched in so few words, as any man of common understanding, that looks upon the face of the Government of almost all reformed Churches in the Christian world, may at first view discover.  
But before we come to this, there are yet two things in this Preface which we count not unworthy observation. The First is, the comparison which he makes between the two Governments, the Civil which with us is Monarchy: and the sacred which with him is Episcopacy. Of the first he saith, 
R●mo●● pag 8.  if Antiquity may be the Rule; (as he pleads it for Episcopacy) or if Scripture (as he interprets Scripture) it is VARIABLE, and ARBITRARY: but the other DIVINE and UNALTERABLE, so that had men petitioned for the altering of Monarchical Government, they had (in his judgement) been less culpable, both by Scripture and Antiquity, then in petitioning the alteration of the hierarchical: Had he found but any such passage in any of his Lewd Libelers (as his modesty is always pleased to term them) certainly if we may borrow his own phrase, the ears of the three Interessed Kingdoms, yea, all the neighbour Churches, and if we may say, the whole Christian world, and no small part beyond it, had rung with the loud cries of no less than Treason, Treason.  
Truth is, in his Antiquity we find that this his uninterrupted sacred Government, hath so far invaded the Civil, and so yoked Monarchy, even in this Kingdom, as Malmesbury reports: That William Rufus oppressed by Bishops, persuaded the jews to confute them; 
Malmesbury lib. 4.  promising thereupon to turn England to their Religion, that he might be free of Bishops. And this is so natural an effect of unalterable Episcopacy, that Pius the fourth to the Spanish Ambassador, importuning him to permit Bishops to be declared by the Council of Trent, 
Hist. Concil. Trid.  to be jure Divino, gave this answer: That his King knew not what he did desire, for if Bishops should be so declared, they would be all exempted from his Power, and as indepedent as the Pope himself.  
The second thing observable is the comparison he makes between the late Alterations attempted in our Neighbour Church by his Episcopal faction, and that Alteration that is now justly desired by the humble petitioners to this Honourable House. The one being attempted by strangers, endeavouring violently to obtrude Innovations upon a settled Church and State, The other humbly petitioned to the Heads and Princes of our State by Multitudes therein almost ruined by an Innovating Faction: yet doth not this Remonstrant blush to say; if these be branded, (so he calls the just censures of this Honourable House) For Incendiaries, 
Pag. 9  how shall these Boutefeux escape, etc. thus cunningly endeavouring either to justify the former by the practice of the latter, or to render the latter more odious than the former.  
The attempts of these men whom he would thus render odious, he craves leave to present to your Honours in two things, which are the subjects of this quarrel: The Liturgy and Episcopacy, and we humbly crave your Honours leave in both to answer.  

SECT. II.  
FIrst, the Liturgy of the Church of England (saith he) hath been hitherto esteemed sacred, 
Liturgy.  reverently used by holy Martyrs, 
Pag. 10.  daily frequented by devout Protestants, as that which more than once hath been confirmed by the Edicts of religious Princes, and your own Parliamentary Acts, etc. And hath it so? whence then proceed these many Additions and Alterations? that have so changed the face and fabric of the Liturgy, that as Dr. Hall spoke once of the pride of England: if our forefathers should revive and see their daughters walking in Cheapside with their fans and farthingales, etc. they would wonder what kind of creatures they were, and say Nature had forgot herself and brought forth a monster: so if these holy Martyrs that once so reverently used the Liturgy should revive and look for their Litany stamped by Authority of Parliament, they would be amazed, and wondering say; England had forgotten herself and brought forth, etc. Martyrs? what do we speak of Martyrs when we know Sir, that one of your own 
a Ad hoc malarum dev●lutae est Ecclesia Dei & spon●a Christi ut haereticorum exempla Sectentu● & ad celebranda Sacramenta coelestia, disciplinam. Lux mu●uetur de teneb●●● & ●d faciant christiani quod Antichristi faciunt. Cypr. Ep. 74.  Bishops said it in the hearing of many not so long since, but you may well remember it. That the service of the Church of England was now so dressed, that if the Pope should come and see it, he would claim it as his own, but that it is in English.  
It is little then to the advantage of your cause, that you tell us, it is translated into other languages, and as little service have they done to the Church of England, who have taught our Prayers to speak Latin again: For if it be their Language chiefly that overthrows the Pope's claim, take away that, and what hinders then, but the Pope may say, these are mine.  
As for other Translations and the great applause it hath obtained from Foreign Divines, which are the fumes this Remonstrant venditates; what late days have produced we know not, but the great lights of Former ages have been far from this applauding: we are sure judicious Calvine saith, that in the Liturgy there are sundry Tolerabiles Ineptiae, which we think is no very great applause.  
To vindicate this Liturgy from scorn (as he calls it) at home, or by your Honour's aid to reinforce it upon the Nation, is the work of his Remonstrance; for the effecting whereof he falls into an unparallelled discourse about the Antiquity of Liturgies; 
Page 13.  we call it unparallelled, because no man that we have seen ever drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done.  
Concerning which, if by Liturgy this Remonstrant understand an Order observed in Church assemblies of Praying, reading, and expounding the Scriptures, Administering Sacraments, etc. Such a Liturgy we know and do acknowledge both jews and Christians have used. But if by Liturgy he understand prescribed and stinted forms of Administration Composed by some particular men in the Church, and imposed upon all the rest (as this he must understand, or else all he saith is nothing) we desire and expect that those forms, which he saith are yet extant, and ready to be produced, might once appear.  

Iust. Mar. Apost. 2.  Liturgy of this former sort we find in justine Martyr and Tertullian. 
Tert. Ap. ad Gen. c. 39  But that there were not such stinted Liturgies as this Remonstrant disputes for, appears by Tertullian, in his Apol. Cap. 30. where he saith the Christians of those times did in their public assemblies pray sine monitore quia de pectore, without any Prompter but their own hearts. And that so it should be the same Father proves in his Treatise, the Oratione: Sunt quae petantur, etc. There are some things to be asked according to the occasions of every man: the lawful & ordinary prayer (that is the Lords Prayer) being laid as a foundation; It is lawful to build upon that foundation other prayers according to every one's occasions. And to the same purpose S. Austin in his 121. Ep. Liberum est, etc. it is free to ask the same things that are desired in the Lord's Prayer, 
Iust. Mar. Apost. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  aliis atque aliis verbis, sometimes one way and sometimes another: And before this in that famous place of Iust. Mar. Apo. 2. He, who instructed the people, prayed according to his ability, Nor was this liberty in prayer taken away, and set and imposed forms introduced, until the time that the Arian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church, and then because those Heretics did convey and spread their poison in their forms of Prayer and Hymns, the Church thought it convenient to restrain the liberty of making and using public forms: And first it ordained that none should pray pro Arbitrio, sed semper eaedem preces, that none should use liberty to vary in prayer; but use always the same form, 
Concil. La. Can. 18.  Conc. Laod. Can. 18. yet this was a form of his own composing, as appears by another Canon, wherein it was ordered thus: None should use any form, unless he had first conferred Cum fratribus instructioribus: with the more learned of his brethren. Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. and lastly that none should use set prayers, 
Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 23. Anno 397.  but such as were approved of in a Synod, which was not determined till the year 416. Conc. Milev. 2. Can. 12. And had there been any Liturgies of Times of the first and most venerable antiquity producible, 
Conc. Milev. 2.  the great admirers of them, and inquirers after them would have presented them to the world ere this. 
Can. 12. An. 416.  we know that Bishop Andrews in his zeal for Liturgies pursued the inquiry after the jewish Liturgy so far, that he thought he had found it; and one there was which he sent to Cambridge to be translated: but there it was soon discovered, to have been made long after the jews ceased to be the Church of God; and so himself suppressed it, that it never saw the light under a translation.  
We wonder therefore, what this Remonstrant meant to affirm so confidently, 
Pag. 10.  that part of the form of prayer which was composed by our blessed Saviour, was borrowed from the forms of prayer formerly used by God's people. An opinion we never met before; indeed, we have read that the Rabbins since the days of our Saviour have borrowed some expressions from that Prayer, and from other Evangelicall passages: But we never read till now, that the Lord Christ the wisdom of the Father borrowed from the wisdom of the Rabbins expressions to use in Prayer.  

Pag. 12.  And as much we wonder by what Revelation or Tradition (Scripture being silent in the thing) he knew, that Peter and john, when they went up to the Temple to pray, their Prayer was not of a sudden and extemporary conception, but of a Regular prescription. Sure we are some as well read in jewish antiquity, as this Remonstrant shows himself to be; have told us that the hour of Prayer was the time when the Priest burned Incense; and the people were at their private prayers without, as appears, Luke 1.9. where we read, that while Zachary the Priest went in to offer Incense, all the people stood with out praying in the time of the Oblation. Which Prayers were so far from being Prescript Forms or Liturgies that they were not vocal but mental Prayers, as Master Meade tells us in his exposition upon the eighth of the Revelations.  
And what ever Peter and john did, this we know, that when the Publican and the Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray (as the Apostles did at the hour of prayer) their prayer was not of Regular prescription, 
Pag. 18.  but of a present Conception.  
But if this Remonstrant be in the right, concerning the jewish Liturgies, than the Evangelicall Church might better have improved her peace and happiness, 
Pag. 11.  then in composing Models of Invocation and Thanksgiving, when there is one extant and ready to be produced, that was constantly used by God's people ever since Moses days, and put over to the times of the Gospel and confirmed by Apostolical practice: or else great is our loss, who are so unhappily deprived of the best improvement, the Church made of her peace and happiness in the first 300. years: for rejecting those Liturgies that are confessed by the Learned to be Spurious; 
Euseb. de vit. Con. li 4. cap. 18.  We challenge this Remonstrant to produce any one Liturgy that was the issue of those times. And blessed Constantine was herein as unhappy as we, who needed not have composed forms of prayer for his Guard to use upon the Lord's day, but might and would have taken them out of former Liturgies, if there had been any; And can ye with patience think that any ingenuous Christian should be so transported, 
Pag. 11.  as upon such weak and unproved premises to build such a Confident conclusion, as this Remonstrant doth? and in that Conclusion forget the state of the controversy sliding from the question of a prescribed and imposed Liturgy to an arbitrary book of prayer.  
In his Rhetorical Encomium of conceived prayer we shall more willingly bear a part with him, than they whose cause he pleads; for had that been in their hearts, which is in this book: 
Pag. 12.  to hate, to be guilty of pouring water upon the Spirit, and gladly to add oil rather: so many learned, able, Conscientious Preachers had not been molested and suspended, for letting the constant flames of their fixed conceptions mount up from the altar of their zealous heart unto the throne of grace: nor had there been so many advantages watched from some stops and seeming solecisms in some men's prayers, 
Pag. 12.  to blaspheme the spirit of prayer, which though now confessed to be so far from being offensive, that they are as pleasing Music in the ears of the Almighty: yet time hath been, when they have sounded as mere Battologies; nay no better than mere Blasphemies in the ●ares of some Bishops.  

Pag. 13.  And if this conceived prayer be not to be opposed in another, by any man that hath found the true operation of this grace in himself: with that spirit than are those possessed, that have not only thus raged with their tongues against this way of prayer: but by sealing up the mouths of Ministers for praying thus in public, and imposing penances upon private Christians for praying thus in their Families: and compelling them to abjure this practice, have endeavoured with raging violence to banish this divine ordinance from our Churches and dwellings, 
D. Corbet. M. Novel.  and professed in open Court: it was fitter for Amsterdam than for our Churches.  
But howsoever this applause of conceived prayer may seem to be Cordial, yet he makes it but a vantage ground to lift up public forms of sacred Church Liturgy (as he calls it) the higher, that they may have the greater honour, that by the power of your authority they be reinforced, which work there would have been no need to call your Honours to, 
Pag. 13.  had not Episcopal zeal broke forth into such flames of indignation against conceived prayers, that we have more just cause to implore the propitious aid of the same Authority to re-establish the Liberty of this, than they to reinforce the necessity of that.  
Yet there are two specious Arguments which this Remonstrant brings to persuade this desired re-inforcement, the Original and Confirmation of our Liturgy.  
For the first, he tells your Honours, it was selected out of ancient Models not ROMAN but CHRISTIAN, 
Pag. 13.  contrived by the holy Martyrs and Confessors of the blessed reformation of Religion; where we beseech your Honours to consider how we may trust these men, who sometimes speaking and writing of the ROMAN Church, proclaim it a true Church of CHRIST, and yet here ROMAN and CHRISTIAN stand in opposition: sometimes they tell men, their Liturgy is wholly taken out of the Roman Missal, only with some little alteration: and here they would persuade your Honours there is nothing Roman in it. But it is wholly selected out of pure Ancient Models, as the Quintessence of them all. Whereas alas the original of it, is published to the world, in that Proclamation of Edward the sixth.  
And though here they please to style the Composers of it, holy Martyrs, and contrivers of the blessed Reformation: yet there are of the Tribe for whom he pleads, not a few that have called them Traitors rather then Martyrs, and Deformers rather than Reformers of our Religion.  
His other Argument for the Liturgy is taken from that supply of strength, it hath received from the recommendation of four most Religious Princes, & your own Parliamentary establishments: 
Pag. 13, 14.  and more especially from the Proclamation of King james of famous memory: the validity of which plea, your Honours are best able to judge, and therefore we leave it at your Bar; yet these two things we know: first, that this form was never established to be so punctually observed, so rigorously pressed, to the casting out of all that scruple it, or any thing in it (as many of his Majesty's Subjects now do) to the (almost) justling out of the preaching of the Word, and Conceived Prayer altogether.  
And secondly, as sure we are, that your Honours think neither your own Laws, nor the Proclamation of that most famous and ever admired Prince, to be as unalterable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians.  
And now having briefly showed, that Liturgies are not of that antiquity that this Remonstrant pretends, but that conceived prayer was in use in the Church of God before Liturgies, and is justified from their own mouths, and not to be found fault with by any but a graceless man: and having likewise showed that our Liturgy was taken out of Models, not only Christian but Roman, and hath since the first compiling of it suffered alteration to the worse; and though established by Law, and confirmed by Proclamation, was never intended to the justling out, either of preaching or conceived prayer; these things declared, we humbly crave your Honours leave to propound these two Queries.  

QUERE I.  
Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the present Liturgy.  
First, because it symbolizeth so much with the Popish Mass, as that the Pope himself was willing to have it used, if he might but confirm it.  
It was made and composed into this frame, on purpose to bring the Papists to our Churches, which we find to be with so little success, as that it hath rather brought many of us to them, than any of them to us, and hath lost many of ours from us.  
Because many things therein contained are stumbling blocks before the feet of many: such as these, the clogging it with Ceremonies, and the often and impertinent reiterating of the Lords Prayer, the ill translation of the Psalms, and other Scriptures, the many phrases in the very prayers, which are liable to just exception. And whereas the Minister by the Scripture is the people's mouth to God, this book prescribes Responsories to be said by the people, some of which are unsuitable to what the Minister pronounceth, some of them seem to savour of Tautology, some are made to be so essential to the prayer, as that all which the Minister saith, is no prayer without them; as in the Litany.  
Because it is so much Idolised, as that it is accounted the only worship of God in England, and is now made the upholder of a non-preaching Ministry, and is cried up to that height, as that some are not ashamed to say, that the wit of men and Angels cannot mend it: 
Abbot against Church forsakers.  and that it is a sufficient discharge of the Ministers duty to read this Book.  
There are such multitudes of people, that distaste this book, that unless it be altered, there is no hope of any mutual agreement between God's Ministers and their people.  
There is such a vast difference between it, and the Liturgies of all other reformed Churches, as that it keeps them at a distance from us, and us from full Communion with them.   

QUERE II.  
Whether the first reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgy further, then to be an help, in the want, or to the weakness of a Minister.  
All other reformed Churches, though they use Liturgies, yet do not bind their Ministers to the use of them.  
A Rubric in King Edward's book left it unto the discretion of the Minister, what and how much to read, when there was a Sermon.  
The Homilies which are appointed to be read, are left free either to be read or not, by preaching Ministers, and why not then the Liturgy? especially considering that the ability to offer up the people's wants to God in prayer is part of the Ministerial office, as well as preaching. And if it can be thought no less than sacrilege, to rob the people of the Ministers gift in preaching, and to tie them to Homilies, it can be no less, to deprive them of their gift in prayer.  
The ground of the first binding of it upon all to use, was not to tie godly men from exercising their gift in prayer; but the old popish Priests, that by a seeming return to our Religion, did through indulgence retain their places; from returning to the old Mas●e.  
That which makes many refuse to be present at our Church service, is not only the Liturgy itself, but the imposing of it upon Ministers. And we find no way to recover our people to a stinted prayer, but by leaving it free to use or not to use.  
If it be objected, 
Ob.  that this will breed divisions and disturbances in Churches, unless there be a uniformity, and that there are many unable.  
It hath not bred any disturbance in other reformed Churches. 
Answ.   
Why should the free liberty of using or not using a Liturgy, breed more confusion than the free liberty of reading or not reading Homilies, especially when Ministers shall teach people, not to condemn one another in things indifferent.  
If there be a care taken in those that have the power to make Ministers, to choose men gifted as well for prayer as preaching, there cannot be conceived how any inconvenience should follow. Or if afterwards it should appear, that any Minister should prove insufficient to discharge the duty of prayer in a conceived way, it may be imposed on him as a punishment, to use set forms and no other. But why any Minister that hath the gift of prayer, in an abundant measure, as well as of preaching, should be hindered from exercising his gift well, because another useth it ill, is a new Divinity never heard of in God's Church, till Bishop Wrens days, who forbade all use of conceived prayer in the Church.    

SECT. III.  
WE come now with your Honour's favour, to the second point disputed in this Remonstrance; Episcopacy itself: against which, whatsoever hath been either spoken or written by any, either learned Divines, or well reform Churches (as his conscience knows, 
Pag. 17.  there are of both that have writ against it) is Taxed by him as no other than the unjust Clamours either of weak or factious persons. Sure the man thinks he hath obtained a Monopoly of learning, 
Pag. 17.  and all Knowledge is locked up in his bosom; and not only Knowledge but piety and peaceableness too; for all that are not of his opinion, must suffer either as weak or factious, if he may be their judge. We know not what this Arrogancy might attempt to fasten upon your Honours, should the bowels of your compassion be enlarged, to weigh in the Balance of your wisdoms, the multitude of Humble petitions, presented to you from several parts of this Kingdom, that hath long groaned under the Iron a●d Insupportable yoke of this Episcopal Government, which yet we doubt not, but your Honours will please to take into your prudent and pious consideration: Especially knowing it is their continual practice to load with the odious names of Faction all that justly complain of their unjust oppression.  
In his address to his defence of Episcopacy, 
Pag. 17.  he makes an unhappy confession that he is confounded in himself. Your Honours may in this believe him, for he that reads this Remonstrance, may easily observe so many falsities and contradictions, (though presented to public view, with a face of confident boldness,) as could not fall from the Pen of any, but self-confounded man: which though we doubt not but your Honours have descried; yet because they are hid from an errand, and unobserving eye, under the Embroideries of a silken Language, we Humbly crave your Honours leave to put them one by one upon the file, that the world may see what credit is to be given to the bold assertions of this confident Remonstrant.  
First, in his second page, he dubs his Book 
* Pag. 2.  the faithful messenger of all 
a One of these Sons of the Church of England whose messenger this Remonstrance is, was he who swore by the Eternal God, he would be the death of those that did appear to move against the grievances of Episcopacy, and if the rest of these Millions mentioned pag. 2. whose thousands are so punctually calculated p. 41 be of his spirit: they are an army of very peaceable & right-affected men.  the peaceable and right affected sons of the Church of England: which words (besides that unchristian Theta, which as we already observed, they set upon all that are not of his party,) carry in the bowels of them a notorious falsity and contradiction to the phrase of the book; for how could this book be the messenger of all his own party in England, when it is not to be imagined, that all could know of the coming forth of this book before it was published: and how can that book crave admittance in all their names, that speaks in the singular number, and as in the person of one man almost the whole book thorough.  
But it may bosom will say this is but a small slip; well be it so: but in the seventh page he lays it on in four lines, asserting these four things: First, that Episcopal Government, 
Pag. 7.  (that very same Episcopal Government, which some he saith seeks to wound, that is Government by Diocesan Bishops) derives itself from the Apostles times, which though we shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more fully confute anon, yet we cannot here but rank it among his notorious—: for how could there be such Government of a Diocese by a Bishop derived from the Apostles times: when in the Apostles times there were no Bishops distinct from Presbyters, as we shall show, and if there had been Bishops, yet they were no Diocesans, for it was a hundred years after Christ, or as most agree 260. before Parishes were distinguished, 
Evaristus. 100  and there must be a distinction of Parishes before there could be an union of them into Dioceses. 
Dionysius. 260.   
Secondly, it is by the joint confession of all reformed Divines granted, 
Some say 267. as Pol. Virg.  that this sacred Government is derived from the Apostles: What all reformed Divines? was Calvin, Beza, junius, etc. of that mind? Are the reformed Churches of France, Scotland, Netherlands, of that judgement? we shall show anon that there is no more Truth in this Assertion then if he had said with Anaxagoras, snow is black, or with Copernicus, the Earth moves, and the heavens stand still.  
Thirdly, he saith this Government hath continued without any interruption: What doth he mean, at Rome? for we read in some places of the world this Government was never known for many years together: as in Scotland ● we read that in Ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monks, 
joh. Mayor l. 2. Hist. de gest. Scot Cap. 2.  and were without Bishops 290. years: yea to come to England, we would desire to know of this Remonstrant whether God had a Church in England in Q. Mari●s days or no? and if so, who were then the Bishops of this Church, for some there must be, if it be true that this man saith, this Government hath continued without any interruption unto this day; and Bishops than we know not where to find but in the ●ine of Popish succession.  
Fourthly, he saith it hath thus continued without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world. It seems he hath forgotten, what their own darling Heylin hath written of the people of Biscay in Spain, that they admit of no Bishops to come among them, for when Ferdinand the Catholic came in progress accompanied among others with the Bishop of Pampelone, 
Heylins' Geog. p. 55.  the people rose up in Arms, drove back the Bishop, and gathering up all the dust which they thought he had trodden on, flung it into the Sea.  
Which story had it been recorded only by him, 
Gener. Hist. of Spain l. 22  would have been of lighter Credit. But we read the same in the Spanish Chronicle, who saith more than the Doctor, for he tells us that the People threw that dust that the Bishop or his Mule had trodden on, into the Sea with Curses and Imprecations: which certainly saith he was not done without some Mystery, those people not being void of Religion, but superstitiously devout as the rest of the Spaniards are: so that they is one Congregation in the Christian world in which this Government hath met with contradiction.  
And are not the French, Scottish, and Belgic Churches worthy to be counted Christian Congregations, and who knows not that amongst these this Government hath met not only with verbal, but real contradiction?  
Yet he cannot leave his—: But within two pages is at it again; 
Pag. 9  and tells us of an unquestionable clearness wherein it hath been from the Apostles derived to us, how unquestionable? when the many volumes written about it, witness to the world, and to his conscience, it hath been as much questioned as any point (almost) in our Religion.  
And that assertion of his that tells us that the people of God had a form of prayer as ancient as Moses, which was constantly practised to the Apostles days, and by the Apostles, etc. though we have showed how bold and false this assertion is, yet we mention it here as deserving to be put into the Catalogue.  
And that he may not seem Contra Mentem ire: but to be of the same mind still, 
Pag. 18.  p. 18. he saith Episcopal Government hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel without contradiction. Had he taken a less space of time, and said but since the resuscitation of the Gospel: we can prove it to him and shall, that since the reformation, Episcopacy hath been more contradicted, then ever the Papacy was before the extirpation of it.  
Yet still the man runs on, thinking to get credit to his untruths by their multiplications, for pag. 21. he saith; Certainly except all Histories, all Authors fail us, nothing can be more certain than this truth: O● Durum! Nothing more certain: what is it not more certain that there is a God? is it not more certain that Christ is God and man? is it not more certain that Christ is the only Saviour of the world? Nothing more certain: must this than be an Article of our Creed, the corner stone of our Religion: must this be of necessity to Salvation? Nothing more certain. O that men should not only forget themselves, but God also: And in their zeal for their own Honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy.  
Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities of his any further; we will leave this displeasing service, only retorting the words of this Remonstrant upon himself; Surely could he look with our eyes (or any eyes that were not partial) he would see cause to be throughly ashamed of these his gross injurious miscarriages, 
Pag. 18.  and should be forced to confess, that never good cause (if cause be good) had more reason to complain of a sinful prosecution.   

SECT. IV.  
WE will now come with your Honour's patience to weigh, whether there be any more strength in his arguments, than there is truth in his assertion●.  
His Plea for Episcopacy consists of two parts. In the ●irst he brings arguments for the supporting of it. In the second he undertakes to answer the objections that may be made against it.  
His first argument for it, is couched in these words; Were this Ordinance merely humane or Ecclesiastical, 
Pag. 18.  if there could no more be said for it, but that it is exceeding Ancient, of more than 15 hundred years, etc. The strength of which argument lies in this, that they have been in peaceable possession of this government fifteen hundred years and upwards; and in this Island ever since the Gospel, without contradiction.  
In which words he speaks two things, which deserve just censure. First, that the hierarchical Government hath continued for fifteen hundred years, therefore should not now be altered, which may well be called, as Hierome in another Case; Argumentum Galeatum, an argument calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy, and may indifferently serve for all Religions in the world: For thus the jews might have pleaded against Christ the Antiquity of more than so many hundred years; and thus the Heathens did plead against the Christian Religion, which justin Martyr in his Apology answers. And by this Argument the Pope sits as fast riveted in his chair at Rome, as ours in theirs: whose plea for Antiquity runs parallel with theirs. It is a good observation of Cyprian, that Christ said, Ego sum via, veritas & vita, not Ego sum consuetudo; and 
a Frustra consuetudinem nobis opponunt, quasi consuetudo major sit v●ri●tate, aut non id sit in spiritualibus s●quendu●, quoth in melius ●uerit à Spiritu Sancto R●velatum, Cypr Ep. 73.  that Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris, Christ is Truth, and not Custom, and Custom without Truth, is a mouldy error: and as Sir Francis Bacon saith, Antiquity without Truth, is a cipher without a Figure.  
Yet had this 
b It is well observed by Gerha●d, that a Bishop ●hrasi Apostolicâ, that is, a Bishop that is the same with a Presbyter, is of fifteen hundred years standing; but a Bishop, ●hrosi Pon● si●iâ, that is, a distinct order superior to a Presbyter invested with sole power of Ordination and jurisdiction, is but a Novel Inventions  Remonstrant been as well versed in Antiquity, as he would bear the world in hand he hath, he might have found Learned Ancients affirming, there was a Time when the Church was not governed by Bishops, but by Presbyters. And when by Bishops, he might further have seen more affinity between our Bishops and the Pope of Rome, then between the Primitive Bishops and them. And that as King james, of famous memory, said of the Religion of England, that it differed no more from Rome, than Rome did from what it was at first; may as truly be said of Bishops, that we differ no more from them, than they do from what Bishops were, when first they were raised unto this eminency: which difference we shall show in our ensuing Discourse, to be so great, that as he said of Rome, he did Romam in Roma quaerere, he sought Rome in Rome; so we Episcopatum in Episcopatu, may go seek for a Bishop among all our Bishops.  
And whereas in his application of this Argument to the Bishops of this Nation, 
Pag. 19  he saith, It hath continued in this Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel, without contradiction; which is his Second in this Argument: How false this is we have declared already, and we all know, and himself cannot but know, that there is no one thing since the reformation, that hath met with so much Contradiction as Episcopacy hath done; witness the several Books, written in the Reigns of our several Princes, and the many Petitions exhibited to our several Parliaments, and the many speeches made therein against Episcopal Government: many of which are yet extant.  
As for that supply of Accessary strength, which he begs to this Argument, 
Pag. 19  from the light of nature, and the rules of just policy, which (saith he) teacheth us not easily to give way to the change of those things, which long use and many 
a What the establishment of Episcopacy by the Law's i●, and upon what grounded, the learned Sir Edward Cook informs us, who reports, That in an Act of Parliament holden at Carlisle in the 25. year of Edw. 1. it is declared that the holy Church of England was founded in the state of Prelacy within the Realm of England, by the King and h●s progenitors, etc. for them to inform the people in the Law of God, and to keep hospitality, and give alme●, and do other works of charity. And the said Kings in times past were wont to have their advice and counsel for the safeguard of the Realm, when they had need of such Prelates and Clerks so advanced. Cook de jure Regis Ecclesiast●co. But whether Bishops have observed the Orders of their first foundation, etc.  Laws have firmly established, as Necessary and Beneficial; it is evident, that those things which to former Ages have seemed Necessary and Beneficial, may to succeeding Generations, prove not Necessary but Noxious, not Beneficial but Burdensome. And then the same light of nature, and the same just policy, that did at the first command the establishment of them, may and will persuade their abolishment; if not, either our Parliaments must never Repeal any of their former Acts (which yet they have justly and wisely done) or else in so doing must run Counter to the light of nature, and the Rules of just policy; which to think were an impiety to be punished by the judge.   

SECT. V.  
THe Second Argument for the defence of Episcopal government, 
Pag. 19, 20.  is from the Pedigree of this holy Calling, which he derives from no less than an Apostolical, and in that, right divine institution; and assays to prove it from the practice of the Apostles; and as he saith, the clear practice of their Successors, continued in Christ's Church to this very day: and to this Argument he so much confides, that he concludes it with this Triumphant Epiphonema, What scruple can remain in any ingenuous heart? 
Pag. 21.  And determines, if any continue yet unsatisfied, it is in despite of reason, and all evidence of History, and because he wilfully shuts his eyes, with a purpose not to see the light. Bona verba.  
By your favour Sir, we will tell you notwithstanding the supposed strength of your argumentation, there is one scruple yet remaining, and if you would know upon what ground, it is this, because we find in Scripture (which by your own Confession is Original Authority) that Bishops and Presbyters were Originally the same, 
Pag. 8.  though afterwards they came to be distinguished: and in process of time, Episcopacy did swallow up all the honour and power of the Presbytery; as Pharaohs lean Kine did the fat.  
Their Identity is discernible; first, from the same names given unto both; secondly from the same office, designed unto both in Scripture. As for the names, are not the same names given unto both in sacred Writ? Let the fifth, sixth, and seventh verses of the first Chapter to Titus testify: in the fifth verse, the Apostle shows that he left Titus in Crect to ordain Elders in every City: in the sixth verse, he gives a delineation of the persons that are capable of such Ordination: and in the seventh, the Reason, why the person to be ordained, must be so qualified; for a Bishop, etc. Now if the Bishop and Elder be not here the same, but names of distinct office and order, the Apostles reason rendered in the seventh verse of his direction in the fifth and sixth verses, is (with reverence be it spoken) inconsequential, and his demand unjust. If a Chancellor in one of the Universities should give Order to his Vicechancellor to admit none to the decree of Bachelor in Arts, but such as were able to preach, or keep a Divinity Act; For Bachelors in Divinity must be so; what reason or equity were in this? So if Paul leaving Titus as his Locum teneus, as it were in Crect for a season, should give order to him not to admit any to be an Elder but one thus and thus qualified, because a Bishop must be so: Had a Bishop been an Order or Calling distinct from, or superior to a Presbyter, and not the same, this had been no more rational or equal then the former; therefore under the name of Bishop in the seventh verse the Apostle intends the Elder, mentioned in the fifth verse. Consonant to this is the Language of the same blessed Apostle, Acts 20. verse 17.18. where such as in 17 verse he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders in the 28. he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in ordinary English, Bishops, though our Translation there, (we know not for what reason) reads it Overseers; not so rendering the word in any other Text.  
And though this Remonstrant undertakes to show a clear and received distinction, of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, 
Pag. 24.  as three distinct subordinate Callings in God's Church, with an evident specification of the duty & charge belonging to each of them; or else let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted out of the Church: Yet let us tell him, that we never find in Scripture these 3 Orders, Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons, mentioned together: but only Bishops & Deacons, as Phil. 1. and 1 Tim. Nor do we find in Scripture any Ordination to the office of a Bishop, differing from the Ordination of an Elder: Nor do we find in Scripture, the specification of any Duty charged upon a Bishop, that Elders are secluded from: Nor any qualification required in a Bishop, that is not requisite in every Presbyter; some of which, if not all, would be found, were they not the same.  
But if this Remonstrant think to help himself by taking Sanctuary in Antiquity (though we would gladly ●est in Scripture, the Sanctuary of the Lord) yet we will follow him thither, and there show him that Hierome from the Scriptures proves more than once, Presbyters and Bishops to be the same. 
Hierony. Ep. ad Euag. & ad Ocea.  And chrysostom in Philip. 1. Homil. 2. with his admirer Theophilact in Philip. 1. affirms that while the Apostles lived, the Names of Bishops and Presbyters were not distinguished: and not only while the Apostles lived, 
Iren. adver. haer. l. 4. cap. 43.44.  but in after ages. Doth not Irenaeus use the name of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a promiscuous sense. Are not Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, Sixtus, whom the Papists call Bishops, and the pope's predecessors, 
Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 23.  termed by Eusebius presbyters? Nor was it strange in the primitive times to hear Bishops called presbyters, when Presbyters writing to their Bishops have called him Frater. So Cyprian (Epist. 26. in the beginning) is styled by his Presbyters, Deacons and confessors, nor was that holy Martyr offended with that title, nor they condemned of insolency that used it.  
But what should we burden your patience with more testimonies? when the evidence of this truth hath shined with so strong a beam, 
Bellarm. de Cleric. Lib. 1. cap. 15.  that even our Adversaries have stooped to it, and confessed that their Names were the same in the Apostles time. But yet say they, the Offices were distinct.  
Now here we would gladly know, what these men make the distinct Office of a Bishop.  
Is it to edify the Church by word and Sacrament? is it to ordain others to that work? is it to rule, to govern, by admonition and other censures? if any of these, if all these make up the proper work of a Bishop; we can prove from Scripture that all these belong unto the Presbytery, which is no more than was granted by a Council 
a 
Presbyte 〈◊〉 secut Ep●s●●pis 〈…〉 D●icommissa est: Presunt eum Ecclesiae Christi: in Consecrat●one Domi●ici 〈…〉 conserves 〈…〉 E●i●copis: & 〈◊〉 in Doctrina Populorum & in 〈…〉 propt●r autorit●tem, summo Sacerdott Clericorum Ordina●io reserv●●a ●st: Co●●●. 1 〈◊〉. pri●. m, Can. 8.  
E●●ngeli●m ●●but his qui prae●unt Ecclesie Ma●●atum docendi Evang●lii, rem●tt●●di pec●●●●, adm●●●stra●di Sa●ramenta: prae●erea jurisdictionem; videlicet Ma●datum Excomm●n●andi eos q●●rum 〈◊〉 sunt crimina, & Resipiscen es rursum absolvendi: Ac Oma●● 〈◊〉, etiam advers●rioru● 〈◊〉, hinc potesta●em Jare Divino comm●● 〈…〉 qui presant Ecclesiae, sive Pastores vo●●atur, sive Presbyteri, Sive E●is●opi. S●rip●●● Philip. Melanch. in Conventu Smalcald. Anno. 1540 a precipuis illar●m Ecclesiarum Dictoribus commani Consensu comprobatum de potestate & jurisdictione Episc●porum.  .  
For the first, Edifying of the Church by word and Sacraments, though we fear they will some of them at least scarce own this as their proper work (for some have been cite● into the High Commission for saying, it belongs to them) yet Sir we are sure, Scripture makes it a part, a chief of the Episcopal office; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  for so in the 1 Pet 5.2. they are said to do the work of a Bishop, when they do feed the flock of God. And this is such a work as we hope their Lordships will give the poor Presbyters leave to share with them in: or if not, we will tell them that the Apostle Peter in that forecited place, and the Apostle Paul, Acts. 20. binds this work upon our hands, and Woe unto us if we preach not the Gospel.  
But this branch of Episcopal and Presbyterial office we pass with brevity, because in this there lies not so much controversy as in the next; which they do more wholly Impropriate to themselves: the power of Ordination.  
Which power, that it was in former times in the hands of Presbyters appears 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift which was given thee by Prophecy, and by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. The gift here spoken of is the Ministerial gift, the exercise whereof, the Apostle exhorts Timothy not to neglect, which saith he, he had received, not by the laying on of the hands of one single man, whether Apostle, or Bishop, or Presbyter; But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbytery, that is, the whole company of Presbyters, for in that sense only we ●inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in Scripture, as in Luke 22. vers. 66. Act. 22. vers. 5. which the Christian Church called the Ecclesiastical Senate, as jerom in Isay 3. Nos habemus in Ecclesia Senatum nostrum, 
jerom. Isa. 3.  Coetum Presbyterorum, & an Apostolical Senate: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius Epis. ad Magnes: 
Igna. Epis. ad Magnes.  and some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Concil. Ancyr. Can. 18.  
And though the Apostle in his second Epistle to Tim. 1.6. makes mention of the laying on of his hands; 
Conc. Ancyr. Can. 18.  yet to maintain the Harmony of Scripture, it must not be denied, but there was imposition of hands by the Presbytery, as well as by himself, & so it was a joint act; So that in this there is no more difference then in the former.  
And if there be no difference between Presbyters in feeding or ordaining, let us see if there be any in the third part of their office of Ruling, which though our Bishops assume wholly to themselves, yet we shall discover, that it hath been committed to and exercised by Presbyterial hands.  
For who are they of whom the Scripture speaks, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account, etc.  
Here all such as watch over the souls of God's people, are entitled to rule over them. So that unless Bishops will say, that they only watch over the souls of God's people, and are only to give an account for them: they cannot challenge to themselves the sole rule over them. And if the Bishops can give us good security, that they will acquit us from giving up our account to God for the souls of his people, we will quit our plea, and resign to them the sole rule over them.  
So again in the 1 Thessa. 5.12. Know them which labour amongst you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.  
In which words are contained these truths; First that in one Church (for the Thessalonians were but one Church, 1 Ca) there was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not one chief Bishop or Precedent, but the Presidency was in many.  
Secondly, that this presidency was of such as laboured in the word and Doctrine.  
Thirdly, that the Censures of the Church were managed not by one, but by them all in Communi. Them that admonish you.  
Fourthly, that there was among them a Parity, for the Apostles bids know them in an Indifferency, not discriminating one from another: yea such was the rule that Elders had, that S. Peter thought it needful to make an exhortation to them to use their power with Moderation, not Lording it over God's Heritage, 1 Pet. 5.3.  
By this time we have sufficiently proved from Scripture, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same in name, in Office, in Edifying the Church, in power of Ordination and jurisdiction; we sum up all that hath been spoken in one argument.  
They which have the same Name, the same Ordination to their Office, the same qualification for their Office, the same work to feed the flock of God, to ordain pastors and Elders, to Rule, and Govern; they are one and the same Office: but such are Bishops and presbyters, Ergo.   

SECT. VI  
BUt the dint of all this Scripture, the Remonstrant would elude, by obtruding upon his reader a commentary 
Pag. 20.  (as he calls it) of the Apostles own practice (which he would force to contradict their own rules) to which he superadds the unquestionable gloss of the clear practice of their immediate successors in this administration. For the Apostles practise, we have already discovered it, from the Apostles own writings; and for his Gloss he superadds, if it corrupts not the Text we shall admit it; but if it do, we must answer with Tertullian, 
Tertull.  Id verum quodcunque primum: id adulterum quod posterius, whatsoever is first is true; but that which is latter is adulterous.  
In the examination of this Gloss, to avoid needless Controversy. First, we take for granted by both sides, that the first and best Antiquity, used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously. Secondly, that in process of time, some one was honoured with the name of Bishop and the rest were called Presbyters or Cleri. Thirdly, that this was not Nomen inane, but there was some kind of Imparity between him and the rest of the Presbyters.  
Yet in this we differ; that they say, this Impropriation of name, and Imparity of place, is of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution: we affirm both to be occasional, and of humane Invention; and undertake to show out of Antiquity, both the occasion upon which, and the Persons by whom this Imparity was brought into the Church.  
On our parts stands Jerome and Ambrose, and others, whom we doubt not but our Remonstrant will grant a place among his Glossators: Saint Jerome tells us in 1 Tit.  

Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: & antequam Diaboli instinctu, studia in Religione ●ierent, & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego Cephae, Communi Presbyterorum Consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi; in toto Orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae Cura pertineret, & schismatum semina ●olicrentur. Putat aliquts non Scripturarum, sed nostram esse sent●ntiam, Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse, & aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii, rel●gat Apostoli ad Philippenses verba, dicentis, Paulus & Timotheus servi jesis Christi qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis & Diaconis, etc. Philippi una est urbs Macedoniae, & certè in unâ Civitate non poterant plures esse (ut nuncupantur) Episcopi, etc. sicut ergo Presbyteri sciant se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei qui sibi praepositus fuerit esse subjectos; Ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores, & in Communi debere Ecclesiam regere.   

A Presbyter and a Bishop is the same: and before there were through the Devil's instinct, divisions in Religion, and the people began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, The Churches were governed by the Common Counsel of the Presbyters: But after that each man began to account those whom he had baptised his own, and not Christ's; it was decreed thorough the whole world, that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest; to whom the Care of all the Church should belong, that the seeds of schism might be taken away. Thinks any, that this is my opinion, and not the opinion of the Scripture, that a Bishop and an Elder is the same, let him read the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, saying, Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to them that are at Philippi, with the Bishops & Deacons. Philippi is one City of Macedonia, and certainly in one City there could not be many Bishops (as they are now called, etc.) and after the allegations of many other Scriptures, he concludes thus; as the Elders therefore may know, that they are to be subject to him that is set over them by the Custom of the Church; so let the Bishops know, that it is more from custom, then from any true dispensation from the Lord, that they are above the Presbyters, and that they ought to rule the Church in common.   
In which words of Jerome, these five things present themselves to the Readers view;  
First, that Bishops and Presbyters are originally the same; Idem ergo est Presbyter qui Episcopus.  
Secondly, that that Imparity that was in his time between Bishops and Elders, was grounded upon Ecclesiastical Custom, and not upon divine Institution; Episcopi noverint, etc.  
Thirdly, that this was not his private judgement, but the judgement of Scripture; Putat aliquis, etc.  
Fourthly, that before this Priority was upon this occasion started, the Church was governed Communi Presbyterorum Consilio, by the Counsel of the presbyters in common, and that even after this imparity, it ought to be so governed; Sciant Episcopi se Ecclesiam debere in communi regere.  
Fifthly, that the occasion of this Imparity and Superiority of Bishops above Elders, was the divisions which through the Devil's instinct fell among the Churches; Post quam verò Diaboli instinctu.  
Saravia would take advantage of this place, to deduce this Imparity as high as from the Apostles times, because even then they began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's: but sure S. Jerome was not so weak as this man would make him, to speak Inconsistencies; and when he propounds it to himself, to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are in Scripture the same, to let fall words that should confute his own proposition: whereas therefore S. Jerome saith, that after men began to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo's, etc. it was decreed that one of the Presbyters should be set over the rest, etc. This is spoken indeed in the Apostles phrase, but not of the Apostles times, else to what purpose is that coacervation of texts that follows?  
But suppose it should be granted to be of Apostolical antiquity (which yet we grant not, having proved the contrary) yet it appears: it was not of Apostolical intention, but of Diabolical occasion: And though the Devil by kindling Divisions in the Church, did minister Occasion to the invention of the primacy or prelacy or one for the suppressing of Schism; yet there is just cause to think, that the Spirit of God in his Apostles was never the author of this Invention.  
First, because we read in the Apostles days there were Divisions, Rome 16.7. and Schisms, 1 Cor. 3.3. & 11.18. yet the Apostle was not directed by the holy Ghost to ord●ine Bishops for the taking away of those Divisions; Neither in the rules he prescribes for the healing of those breaches, doth he mention Bishops for that end: Nor in the Directions given to Timothy and Titus for the Ordination of Bishops or Elders, doth he mention this as one end of their Ordination, or one peculiar duty of their office. And though the Apostle saith, O portet haereses inter vos esse, ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant inter vos; yet the apostle no where saith, Oportet Episcopos esse, ut tollantur haereses, quae mainifestae fiunt.  
Secondly, because as Doctor Whitaker saith, the remedy devised hath proved worse than the disease, which doth never happen to that remedy whereof the holy Ghost is the author.  
Thirdly, because the holy Ghost, who could foresee what would ensue thereupon, would never ordain that for a remedy, which would not only be ineffectual to the cutting off of evil, but become a stirrup for Antichrist to get into his ●addle. For if there be a necessity of setting up one Bishop over many presbyters for preventing schisms, there is as great a necessity of setting up one Archbishop over many Bishops, and one patriarch over many Archbishops, and one pope over all, unless men will imagine, that there is a danger of schism only among presbyters, and not among Bishops and Archbishops, which is contrary to reason, truth, History, and our own Experience.  
And lest our adversaries should appeal from Hierome as an incompetent Judge in this case, because a Presbyter, and so a party, we will therefore subjoin the judgements of other ancient Fathers who were themselves bishops.  
The Commentaries that go under the name of Saint Ambrose upon Ephes. 4. mention another occasion of this Discrimination or priority; and that was 
a At ubi omnia ●oca Circumplexa est Ecclesia, ●Conventicula con●itula sunt: & caeperunt R●ctores: & Caetera Ossi●●a in Ecclesia sunt ordinata. Caepit aliot ordine & Providentia g●bernari Ecclesia. Ideo non per omnia conveniunt Sc●ipta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc in Ecclesia est, quia haec inter i●sa primordia scripta sunt. Na● & Timothe●m à se Presbyterum Creatum Episcopam uncap, etc. Sed quia cae●erunt sequentes Presbyteri indigns inventri ad pruratus t●nendos, immu●ata est 〈◊〉, etc.  the increase and dilatation of the Church, upon occasion whereof they did ordain rectors or Governors, and other officers in the Church; yet this he grants, that this did differ from the former orders of the Church, and from apostolical Writ.  
And this Rectorship or Priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by Succession, when he who was in the place was removed, the next in order among the Elders Succeeded. But this was afterwards changed, and that unworthy men might not be preferred, it was made a matter of election, and not a matter of Succession. Thus much we find concerning the occasion of this imparity, enough to show, it is not of Divine Authority.  
For the second thing, the persons who brought in this Imparity, the same Authors tells us: the Presbyters themselves brought it in; witness Hierome ad Evag. Alexandria Presbyteri unum ex se electum in Excelsiori gradu collocatum, 
Hierom ad Evag.  Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faceret, aut Diaconi de se Archidiaconum. The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree, as if an army should make an Emperor, or the Deacons an Archdeacon.  
Ambrose upon the fourth of the Ephesians tells us, 
Ambros. ubi prius.  it was done by a Council, and although he neither name the Time nor place of the Council, yet ascribing it to a Council he grants it not to be Apostolical: this gave occasion to others to fix it upon Custom as Hieronym. in Tit. and August. Epist. 19 secundùm honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyterio major est. And had that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Prelacy had the Seal and confirmation of Divine or Apostolical Authority, Gregory Nazianzen would never in such a Patheticke manner have wished the Abolition of it, 
Grego. Naz. Orat. 28.  as he doth in his 28. Oration.  
And now where is that acknowledgement, 
Pag. 21.22.  and conveyance of Imparity and jurisdiction which saith this Remonstrant was derived from the Apostles hands, and deduced in an uninterrupted line, unto this day: where is it? we find no such Imparity delivered from Apostolical hands, nor acknowledged in Apostolical writings; yet had there been such an acknowledgement and conveyance of imparity: how this should have been deduced to us in an uninterrupted Line, we know not, unless our Bishops will draw the Line of their Pedigree through the loins of Antichrist, and join issue, and mingle blood with Rome: 
Greg. Nazi. ubi prius.  which it seems they will rather do then lose this plea for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: their tyrannical prerogative, as Nazianzen calls it.  
Suffer us therefore humbly to appeal to your Honours, whether this Remonstrant hath not given sentence against himself, who is so confident of the Evidence of his cause, that he doth not fear to say, if there can be better Evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact then there is for his Episcopacy: 
Pag. 22.  Let EPISCOPACY BEFORE EVER ABANDONED OUT OF THE CHURCH OF GOD.   

SECT. VII.  
YEt it seems himself in the height of his confidence was not without Jealousies, of some thing might be spoken against his Cause, therefore he seems to hear, what is spoken against it.  

Pag. 23.  That the Apostles Bishops and ours are two: there was no other than a Parochial Pastor, a Preaching Presbyter without inequality, without any Rule over his brethren. Ours claim an eminent Superiority, and a power of Ordination and jurisdiction unknown to the Primitive times.  
That this which he supposeth he hears us say is Scripture Truth we have showed already, etc. that there was a parity between Presbyters and Bishops: and that eminent superiority and power of Ordination and jurisdiction which our Bishop's claim, was unknown to Scripture, and are now prepared by God's assistance to prove, it was unknown to primitive times.  
But how doth this Remonstrant meet with this Reply: 
Pag. 23.  ALAS ALAS HOW GOOD PEOPLE may be abused by misinformation! It seems the man Judged this Reply so poor as in his thoughts it was more worthy of his pity, then of his pains to answer, or rather knew there was more in this Reply, than he knew how to answer, and therefore waves it with his Rhetoric.  
And this we rather think, because he knows but little in Antiquity, that knows not, that there is so vast a difference between our Bishops, and those that were not only in the Apostles days (whom we have proved to be undistinguished from Presbyters) But those Bishops that were in the Church 400 years after, when there began to be some discrimination, that Episcopacy may well be likened to the Ship Argo, that was so often repaired, as there was nothing left of the First Materials; yet still it challenged the first Name.  
Which difference we spread before your Honours in three particulars: first in point of Election to their office; secondly, in point of Execution of their office; thirdly, in point of state-employment.  
First (having discovered already upon what occasion this priority began to have existence in the Church, and from whom it first received its being, not from God but from Consent and Custom of the Churches, according to Ambrose, jerom, Augustine, etc.) We come now to Declare what was the manner of Election unto this Priority in these times, and to show first, how therein these Bishops did differ from ours: for all their Elections were ordered by the privity, consent, and approbation of the people, where the Bishops was to serve. Were there no other Authors to make this good, Cyprian alone would do it, among other places let his 68 Epistle witness, where he saith 
a Plebs ipsa Maximè habet potestatem vel Eligendi. Dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi, quod & ipsum Videmus de Divina Authoritate descendere: ut sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur, & dignus atque Idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur. By Priests the Author here understands bishops, as the whole Series of the Epistle shows.  plebs Maxime habet potestatem, etc. The people specially have power either of choosing worthy Priests, or rejecting the unworthy: for this is derived from Divine Authority, that the Priests should be chosen in the presence of the people, before all their eyes and approved as fit and worthy by their public vote and Testimony. This he proves by the Testimony of Sacred writ both Old and New. Where we observe first, that the special power of Judging of the worthiness or unworthiness of a man for the Prelacy was in the breast of the People. Secondly, the special power of choosing or rejecting to his place according as they Judged him worthy or unworthy resided in the People. Plebs maximé Habet potestatem, etc. Thirdly, that this power did descend upon the People De Divina Authoritate.  
Nor was this the Judgement of one Sole man, but of an African Synod consulted by the Spanish Churches in point of Election, as the inscription of the Epistle shows.  

a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athanas. Epist. ad Othodoxos.  The Obtrusion of a Bishop upon the Church of Alexandria without the Presence, desire and vote of the Clergy or People is Condemned by Athanasius not only as a breach of Canon, but as a Transgression of Apostolical prescript, and that it did compel or necessitate the heathen to blaspheme.  
Nor did only Christian Bishops, but Christian Princes acknowledge the Right and power of Election of Bishops to be in the People; so that admired Constantine the great Promover and Patron of the peace of the Christian Church writing to the Church of Nicomedia against Eusebius and Theognius, tells them the ready way to lay asleep the Tumults that did then disturb the Church about the Election of a Bishop was, si modo Episcopum fidelem & integrum nacti fuerint, quod quidem in praesentia in vestrâ situm est potestate, quodque etiam dudùm penes vestrum judicium fuerat, nisi Eusebius de quo dixi pravo eorum, qui cum juverunt Consilio hâc praeceps ruisset & rectum Eligendi Ordinem impudenter conturbasset. Gelas in Act. Concil. Nicen. part. 3. if they would get a faithful and upright Bishop which saith he, is in your power presently to do; and was long ago, if Eusebius with the aid of his faction, had not rushed in upon you, and impudently disturbed the right Order of Election.  
That which this sacred Emperor calls the right order of Election; what is it but the Election by the people? in whose power, he saith, it than was and long had been to choose a Bishop: and by whose power the next Bishop was chosen. 
Idem ubi supra.  So the same Author tells us, that after Eusebius and Theognius were cast out of their several seats for Arianism, by the Council of Nice, others were appointed in their rooms by the Clergy and people of each Diocese.  
To this Election in Nicomedia, 
Cyprian, Cornelius, Athanasius, and others.  we could (if it were needful in so clear a Truth) add many the like Precedents of popular Elections; which for brevity's sake, we pass over. Not questioning, but that which hath been spoken, is sufficient to inform the intelligent Reader, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times, are Two in point of Election.   

SECT. VIII.  
A Second thing wherein we have undertaken to show, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times, are Two, is in the Execution of their Office: and here there are three things, wherein he that will not wilfully shut his eyes against all light, may see a Latitude of difference between ours and former Bishops. First, in that Sole jurisdiction which our Bishops assume to themselves. Secondly, in the Delegation they make of the power of exercising this jurisdiction unto others. Thirdly, in the way of the exercise of that power.  
For the first of these, Their sole jurisdiction; That our Bishops assume this to themselves, it is known and felt, and that this Sole jurisdiction was a stranger, a Monster to former times, we shall now prove, and make clear, that the power of Ordination, Admonition, Excommunication, Absolution, was not in the hands of any sole man.  

Cypr. Epist. 33.  First, for Ordination, Cyprian in his exile writing to his Charge, certifies them, that Aurelius was ordained by him and his Colleagues, who were present with him; who were these Colleagues, but his Presbyters? as he himself expounds it, writing to Lucius in his own name, and the name of his Clergy and people, 
Epist. 58.  Ego & Collegae & fraternitas omnis, etc. I and my Colleagues, and my whole people send these Letters to you, etc. So that it is clear in Cyprians time, Presbyters had a hand in Ordination, and Bishops did not Ordain alone. Firmilianus saith of them that rule in the Church, 
apud Cypr. Epist. 75.  Quod baptizandi, MANUM IMPONENDI ET ORDINANDI, possident potestatem. And who those be, he expresseth a little before, SENIORES & Praepositi: by whom the Presbyters as well as the Bishops are understood.  
And as these places prove, that Bishops in the Primitive time, could not ordain alone without the Presbyters; so there are that give us light to understand, that the Presbyters might ordain without the Bishop. 
Cumjure divino non sint diversi gradus Episcopi et pastors: Manifestum est ordinationem in suâ Ecclesiâ factam IVRE DIVINO RATAM esse. Itaque cum Episcopi ordinarii fiant hostes Ecclesiae aut nolunt ordinationem impert●re, Ecclesia retinet jus suum. Melanch. ubi supra, pag. Concil. Antioc. Can. 10. & Aneyr. Can. 13.  The Author of the Comment upon the Ephesians, that goes under the name of Ambrose, saith, Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit Episcopus, In Egypt the Presbyters ordain, if the Bishop be not present, so saith Augustine in the same words; and the Chorepiscopus, who was but a Presbyter, had power to impose hands, and to ordain within his precincts, with the Bishop's Licence. Now Licences confer not a power to him that hath it not, but only a faculty to exercise that power he hath.  
The Iniquity of our times hath been such, that a Minister may not Preach to his own flock, without a Licence: doth this Licence make a man a Minister, and give him power to preach, or only a faculty and liberty to exercise that power? Should a Bishop give a Laike a Licence to preach, or to ordain, doth that Licence make him a Minister, or a Bishop? Sure all will say, no: why? because in the Laike there is not Actus primus, the root and principle of that power, which Licence only opens a way to the exercise of; and therefore that must be concluded to be in those Chorepiscopi, or Presbyters, by virtue of their place and calling, and not by virtue of a Licence. So that the power of Ordination was so far from residing in the Bishop alone, as that the Presbyters and Chorepiscopi had power to ordain as well as he.  
Neither was this only a matter of Ecclesiastical Custom, but of Ecclesiastical Constitution, which binds the Bishop;  
First, 
Council 4. Carthag.  in all his Ordinations to consult with his Clergy; Vt Episcopus sine Consilio Clericorum suorum Clericos non ordinet; That the Bishop shall not ordain a Clergy man without the counsel of the Clergy; 
Can. 2●.  this was Cyprians practice, Epist. 33.  
Secondly, in his Ordinations to take the concurrent assistance of his Presbyters; 
Ibid. C●n 3.  Cum ordinatur Presbyter, Episcopo cum benedicent●, & manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes Presbyteri qui praesentes sunt, manu● suas juxta manum Episcopi super caput illius teneant; When a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, all the Presbyters that are present, shall likewise lay their hands upon his head, with the hands of the Bishop. In which Canon, we have the unanimous vote of two hundred and fourteen Bishops, declaring that the power of Ordination is in the hands of Presbyters as well as Bishops.  
And whereas it may be objected, that Hiorome and chrysostom, 
Hicronym. in Epist. ad Evag. Chrysost. Hom. 1●. in 1 ad Tim  affirming Bishops to differ from Presbyters in the power of Ordination; seem to imply, that that power is solely theirs: Here we desire it may be observed;  
First, that these Fathers put all the difference that lies between Bishops and Presbyters, to be in point of Ordination. Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ Ordinatione. And therefore chrysostom himself confesseth, that in his days there was little or no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter. 
Chrysost. upon the 1 Tim.  Inter Episcopum et Presbyterun interest fermè nihil, etc.  
Secondly, That this difference is not so to be understood, as if these Fathers did hold it to be by divine right (as Bellarmine and our Episcopal men would make us believe) but by a humane constitution. And therefore they do not speak De jure, but de facto, Quid facit, etc. not quid debet facere. And this Hierom confesseth. 
Libro d● settem Ordinabus.  So Leo prim. ep. 88 upon complaints of unlawful Ordinations, writing to the German and French Bishops, reckons up what things are reserved to the Bishops, Among which he set down Presbyterorum & Diaconorum consecratio, 
Concil. Aquisgra. 1. Can 8. Solum propter author●tatem Clericorum ordinatio et consecratio reservata est summo Sacerdoti.  and then adds, Quae omnia solis deberi summis Pontificibus Authoritate Canonam praecipitur: So that for this power of Ordination, they are more beholden to the Canon of the Church, then to the Canon of God's Word.  
Thirdly, we answer that this very humane difference was not in the Primitive Antiquity. It was not so in Cyprians time, as we even now showed. And when it did prevail, it was but a particular custom (and sometimes usurpation) of some Churches. For it was otherwise appointed in the Council of Carthage, and in Egypt, and other places, as is declared in the former part of this Section; And even in Chrysostom's time, it was so little approved of, that it was one great accusation against chrysostom himself, That he made Ordinations without the Presbytery, and without the consent of his Clergy. This is quoted by Bishop Downam, lib. 1. cap. 8. pag. 176.   

SECT. IX.  
NOr had the Bishop of former times more right to the power of sole jurisdiction, 
Bilson. Spalat. Franc. à Sancta Clara.  then of sole Ordination: And here we have Confitentem reum, our very Adversaries confess the Votes of Antiquity are with us. 
Cyp. Epist. 6. & 28.   
Cyprian professeth, that he would do nothing without the Clergy; 
Concil. 4. Carthag. Can. 23. Vid Russ Hist. lib. 10. cap 9 Soz●. li. 2. c 23. Possidon. de vital Aug. c. 4. Orig. Hom. 11. in Exo. pag 97.  nay, he could do nothing without them; nay, he durst not take upon him alone to determine that which of right did belong to all: and had he or any other done so, the fourth Council of Carthage condemns the Sentence of the Bishop, as Irrita nisi Clericorum sententiâ confirmetur.  
Would ye know the particulars, wherein the Bishops had no power of Judicature without their Presbyters.  
First, in judging and censuring Presbyters themselves, and their Doctrine; For this the Canon Law in Gratian is full and clear: 
Decret. part. 2. Can. 15 quae. 7. Per totum & parte ● Dis. 93. cap. 5.6.  Episcopus non potest judicare Presbyterum vel Diaconum sine Synodo & Senioribus: Thus Basill counselled and practised, epist. 75. So Ambr. lib. 10. epist. 80 cyril in epist. ad johannem Antiochen. Thus Gregory ad johan. Panormitan. lib. 11. epist, 49.  
Secondly, in judging of the Conversation or Crimes of any of the members of the Church: 
Clem. Alex. Stroma●. lib. ●.  Penes Presbyteros est Disciplina quae facit hom ines meliores; That Discipline that works emendaion in men, is in the power of the Elders. 
Tertull. Apol. advers. Gent.  And therefore when any was questioned in point of conversation, he was brought, saith Tertullian, into the Congregation where were Exhortations, Castigations, and Divine censures: And who had the chief stroke in these Censures, he tells us after: President probati quique seniores; All the approved Elders sit as Precedents.  
And those censures that passed by the whole Presbytery were more approved by the Church in Ancient times, than such as were passed by one man; for we find that when Syagrius and Ambrose passed Sentence in the same case, the Church was unsatisfied in the Sentence of Syagrius, because he passed it sine alicujus fratris consilio, without the counsel or consent of any of his Brethren. But were pacified with the sentence of Saint Ambrose: 
Ambros. Epist. ad Syagrium.  because, saith he, Hoc judicium Nostrum cum fratribus & consacerdotibus participatum processerit.  
Nor was there any kind of censures that the Bishops did administer alone: Admonitions were given by the Elders; 
Aug. de verb. Apost. Ser. 19  Augustine tells us the Elders did admonish such as were offenders; to the same purpose speaks Origen contra Celsum. Lib. 3.  

a Constat, jurisdictionem illam excommunicandi reos manifestorum criminum pertinere ad omnes pastors, hanc ad se solos tyrannicé transtulerunt, & ad quaestum contulerunt Episcopi, Melanc. ubi sup.  So excommunication, though that being the dreadfullest thunder of the Church, and as Tertullian calls it, summum praejudicium futuri judicij, the great forerunner of the Judgement of God, was never vibrated but by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine: yet was no one man in the Church invested with this power more than another.  
Therefore saith 
b Hieron. Epist. ad Heliodor.  Hierom; Presbytero si peccavero licet me tradere satanae in interitum carnis. If I sin, a Presbyter (not a Bishop only) may deliver me to Satan, to the destruction, etc. where the Reader may please to take notice that Saint Hierom speaks not of one particular Presbyter, but of the Order of Presbyters.  
The same S. Hierom saith again, Sunt quos Ecclesia reprehendit, quos interdum abijcit, 
Ep. ad Demet.  in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum & Clericorum censura desaevit. There be some whom the Church reproves, and some which she casts out; against whom the censures of Bishops and Presbyters sharply proceed; where we see, the Censures whereby wicked men were cast out of the Church, were not the sole hands of the Bishops, but likewise in the hands of Presbyters.  
Syricius Bishop of Rome signifies to the Church of M●llaine, that jovinianus, Auxentius, etc. were cast out of the Church for ever, and he sets down how they did it, Omnium Nostrum tam Presbyterorum quam Diaconorum, quam totius etiam clerisciscitata fuit sententia. There was a concurrence of all Presbyters, 
Ambros. lib 10 Epist. 80.  Deacons, and the whole Clergy in that sentence of Excommunication.  
The truth herein may be further evidenced by this, because the whole Clergy as well as the Bishops imposed hands u●on such, as repenting were absolved: Nec ad communicationem (saith Cypr●an) venire quis possit, 
Cypr. Epist. 12. Ana this was the custom saith Cyprian in minoribus delictis.  nisi prius ab Episcopo & Clero Manus illi fuerit imposita: No man that hath been excommunicated might return to Church-Communion, before hands had been laid upon him by the Bishop and Clergy.  
Also writing to his Clergy concerning lapsed Christians, he tells them, Exomologe si facta & manu eye a vobis in poenitentiam impositâ, etc. that after confession and the laying on their hands, they might be commended unto God: so when certain returning from their heresy were to be received into the Church at Rome in the time of Cornelius, 
Cypr. Epist 46 vide etiam Cypr Epist. 6.  they came before the Presbytery, and therefore confessed their sins, and so were admitted.  
But though the sentence of Excommunication was managed one●y by the hand of those that laboured in the Word and Doctrine, yet we will not conceal from you, that neither Excommunication nor absolution did pass without the knowledge and approbation of the body of the Church, to which the Deliquent did belong.  

Tertul. Apol. adver Gent. cap. 39  So we have learned out of Tertullian, that their censures were ordered in their public assemblies; and good reason, because the people were to forbear communion with such. 2 Thes. 3.6, 14, 15. and public Censures of the Church were inflicted not only for the Emendation of delinquents, but for the admonition of others, and therefore aught to be administered in public that others might fear. 1 Tim. 5.20. Origen speaking of the Duty and Power of the Church in cutting off a scandalous Person though a Presbyter: 
Origen. Hom. 7. in J●sh.  making the case his own he saith thus: In uno consensu Eccl●sia universa conspirans excidat me dextram suam & projiciat a se, He would have the consent of the whole Church in that Act.  
And when the lapsed Christians were received again into the Church, the People's consent was required therein; else why should Cyprian say, 
Cypr. Epist 55.  Vix plebi persuadeo imò extorqueo ut tales patiantur admitti: I can scarce persuade the people to suffer such to be admitted: and in another Epistle written to his people in his Banishment, he promiseth to examine all things, they being present and judging. 
Cypr. Epist. 11. ad plebem.  Examinabuntur singula praesentibus & judicantibus vobis.  
But of this power of the People we shall have a further occasion to speak afterwards, when we come to discourse of Governing Elders.  
Only may it please your Honours from hence to take notice, how unjustly our Bishops have invaded this right and power of Presbyters and people in Church censures, and divesting both of it, have girt it wholly upon themselves, and how herein they and the Bishops of former times are TWO.   

SECT. X.  
ANd as our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times are TWO in point of Sole jurisdiction, so also in the Delegation of this power of jurisdiction unto others: 
a Indecarum est Laicum vicarium esse Episcopi, & seculares in Eccl●sia judicare: in uno ●●nim eod●mque o●er● non decet d●sp●r prosessio quod etiam in lege Divina prohibetur dicen●● Mose, Non ●rabis in ●ove & asino simul, Concil. Hispal. 2.  to their Chancellors, Commissaries, Officers, etc. Was ever such a thing as this heard of in the best primitive Times? that men that never received Imposition of hands, should not only be received into assistance, but be wholly entrusted with the power of Spiritual jurisdiction: Even then when it is to be exercised over such persons as have had hands laid upon them.  
We may observe in Cyprian, whilst persecution separated him from his Church, when questions did arise among his people, he doth not send them to his Chancellor or Commissary; No, he was so far from substituting any man (much less a lay man) to determine or give Judgement in such cases, that he would not assume that power wholly to himself, but suspends his Judgement, till the hand of God should restore him to his Church again, that with the advice and Counsel of the Presbyters, he might give sentence: as may appear to any that shall peruse his Epistles.  
Sure if God had ever led his Church to such a way of deputation, it would have been in such a case of Necessity as this was: or had any footsteps of such a course as this been visible by this holy Martyr in the goings of former ages, he needed not have deferred the determination of the question about the receiving of some penitent lapsed ones into the bosom of the Church again, till his return and the return of his Clergy, as he doth.  

Cyp. Epist. 28.  We will instance in his 28 Epistle, wherein giving direction for the excommunicating of such as would rashly communicate with lapsed Christians, he gives this charge not to his Chancellor or Commissarie, or any other man upon whom he had devolved his power, and set him as his Deputy or Vicar general in his absence, but ad clerum, to the whole Presbytery.  

Downam in the defence of his Sermon. lib. 1. cap. 8.  This Truth is so clear, that Bishop Downam the great Advocate of Episcopacy confesseth, that in Ambrose his time, & a good while after (which was about 400 years) till the Presbyters were in a manner wholly neglected, the Bishops had no Ordinaries, Vicars, Chancellors, or Commissaries, that were not Clergymen: but this is but a blind, wherewith the Bishop would Dorre his Reader, for we challenge any man to produce the names of any Clergyman that was Vicar to Ambrose, or Chancellor to Augustine, or any other of the Bishops of these times; so that herein our Bishops and theirs are TWO.   

SECT. XI.  
A Third branch wherein the difference between our Bishops, and the Bishops of former times, inpoint of Exercising their Jurisdiction, is visible, is the way or manner of exercising that power.  
For brevity's sake we will only instance in their proceedings in Causes Criminal; where let them tell us, whether any good Antiquity can yield them one Precedent for THEIR OATH EX OFFICIO, which hath been to their COURTS, as Purgatory fire to the Pope's Kitchen: they have forgotten that old Maxim in the Civil Law, Nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, which as it is grounded upon natural equity, so it is confirmed by a Law enacted by Dioclesian and Maximilian, Nimis grave est quod petitis, etc. 
Cod. li. 4. Tit. 20. L. 7.  It is too grievous that the adverse part should be required to the exhibition of such things as should create trouble to themselves. Understand therefore that you ought to bring proofs of your intentions, and not to extort them from your adversaries against themselves.  
Shall the Lamp of Nature in the night of Ehtnicism enable Heathen Princes, (yea Persecutors) to see and enact thus much, and shall not the glorious Sun of the Gospel convince these of their iniquities in transgressing this Law, that call themselves the Fathers of the Church?  
If neither the light of Nature, nor Gospel's light can, yet the Custom of the Church, to which they so oft appeal, may both convince them of this iniquity, and discover to all the world the contrariety of their proceedings, to the proceedings of former times, in this particular.  
For of Old, both the Plaintiff and Defendant were brought face to face, before the parties, in whose power it was to judge: which way of proceeding, Athanasius affirms to be according to Scripture, the Law of God. And because those that condemned Macarius, 
Athan. Aso. 2.  did not thus proceed, he condemns their Sentence as malicious and unjust.  
Of old, no Sentence passed against any man, but upon the Testimony of other witnesses besides the Accusers: after Complaint exhibited, the first thing they applied themselves to, was to consider the person and qualit●e of the Accuser, 
Apud Zonaram.  Concil● prim Constant. Can. 6 Then they heard the Witnesses, who were two at least, Can. Apost. Can. 75. And these witnesses must be such, as might not be imagined to be partial, nor to bear enmity nor malice against the party accused. Ambros. Epist. 64. so Gratian, Caus. 3. quae 5. cap. Quod suspecti.  
Of old, None might be party, witness, and judge, which Gratian proves at large, Caus. 4. qu 4. cap. Nullus unquam praesumat accusator simul esse, & Iudex & testis.  
We grant indeed the Canon Law permits in some cases Trial without witnesses: 
Greg. Decret. lib. 3. Tit. 2. cap. 8 q●● vos.  Si crimen ita publicum est, ut meritò debeat appellari notorium; If the crime be so public, that it may deservedly be called Notorious. Which Law further determines what is notorious, sa●ing, Offensam illam nos intelligimus manifestam, 
Decret. Greg. ●ib. 5. Tit. 4. cap. 24.  quae vel per confessionem vel probationem legitime nota fuerit, aut evidentiâ Rei, quae nulla possit tergiversatione celari; We count that offence manifest, which either by confession, or by lawful proof comes to be known, or by evidence of fact, so as it can be hid by no tergiversations.  
So that all was done in former times with mature deliberation, upon examination and evidence produced, and proved by such witnesses, as against whom the defendant could lay in no just exception. And not as now an accusation whispered against a man, he knows not by whom, to which he must take his Oath to answer, before he knows what his accusation is. Which Oath, if he takes, without further witness, he is censured upon the witnes●e of his own Oath. If he takes it not, he is sent presently to prison, there to lie without Bail or Mainprize, till the insupportable miseries of his long durance, compel him to take an Oath against Nature, Scripture, Conscience, and the just Defence of his own innocence.  
That our Bishops therefore and former Bishops are Two, in the point of executing their Judicatory power, we need spend no more time to prove. But come to the third thing, in which the difference between ours and former Bishops is to be evidenced.   

SECT. XII.  
ANd that is State Employment, or attendance upon Civil and Secular affairs, etc. which both Christ and Saint Paul prohibits, which prohibition reacheth every Bishop (to speak in Chrysostom's words) as well as Timothy, to whom it is directed; 
Chrysost. Hom. 40● in 2 in Ti.  Nullus ergo Episcopatu praeditus haec audire detrectet, sed agere ea omnia detrectet; Let no man that is a Bishop, refuse to hear what the Apostle saith, but to do what the Apostle forbids.  
We deny not but that Bishops were in the Primitive times often encumbered with secular business; but these were put upon them, sometimes by Emperors, who sought the ruin of the Church, as julian, of whom Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 13. doth report, 
Recording this among those things that he did Dolo malo ducere.  that in Clerum coaptatos Senatorum munere & ministerio perversè fungi jussit Sometimes the gracious disposition of Princes towards Christian Religion, made them thus to honour Bishops, thinking thereby to advance Religion; as Constantine the Great enacted, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. 1.9.  that such as were to be tried before Civil Magistrates, might have leave to appeal ad judicium Episcoporum, atque eorum sententiani ratam esse tanquam ab ipso Imperatore prolatam: And this the Historian reckoneth as one argument of his reverend respect to Religion. Sometimes the excellency of their singular parts cast Civil dignities upon them. 
Niceph. 18.5.  Tiberius' granted a Questors dignity unto a Bishop for his eloquence. chrysostom for his notable stoutness and freedom of speech, was sent as the fittest man to Gainas, with the Emperor's command. Sometimes the people observing the Bishops to be much honoured by the Emperor, would solicit them to present their grievances to the Emperor. And sometimes the aspiring humour of the Bishops raised them to such places, as appears by cyril, who was the first Bishop in Alexandria, 
Socra. 7.7.  who had civil dignities conferred upon him, as Socrates relates it, from whom Civil authority did descend upon succeeding Bishops. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: of whom Nicephorus therefore recorded, Episcopatum majoricum fastu, prophanorum Magistratuum more, quam praedecessores ejus Episcopi, ingressus est, unde adeo initium sumptum est in Ecclesia Alexandrina ut Episcopietiam profana negotia curarent; 
Lib. 14. c. 14.  He entered upon his Episcopacy with more pomp than his predecessors, with a pomp conformable to the Heathen Magistrates.  
Both these Historians relate the sad consequence that followed upon this, that Orestes the Roman Governor seeing his power much weakened by the Bishops interposing in secular affairs, 
Soc. Li. 7. c. 19  hated the Bishop; and this (as the Historian calls it) his usurped power. 
Niceph. ●. 14. cap. 14.   
This precedent of the Alexandrian Bishop, the Bishop of Rome did soon follow; Et Romanus Episcopatus non aliter quam Alexandrinus, quasi EXTRA SACERDOTII FINES egressus ad secularem principatum erat jam delapsus; The Bishop of Rome as well as the Bishop of Alexandria breaking the limits of the Priestly function, did degenerate into a secular Principality: which purchased no less envy to him then that to the other.  
And though these two Bishops went at first abreast in this point, yet in a short time the Roman had outstripped the Alexandrian in that power, till the Church degenerating more and more, that Roman Priest advanced his power not only above all the Bishops, but all the Monarches in the Christian Orb.  
Yet notwithstanding, he that shall look into the Ancients, shall find; first, that the best of them held, that they were not to be molested with the handling of worldly affairs, Cyprian Epist. 66.1. Singuli divino Sacerdotio honorati non nisi altari & sacrificiis deservire & precibus atque orationibus vacare debent, Molestiis secularibus non sunt obligandi, qui divinis rebus & spiritualibus occupantur.  
Secondly, 
Possidon. in vita August.  that they complained of them as of heavy burdens, Aug. calls it Angaria, yea Austin himself in his 81. Epistle Complains, that worldly business hindered his praying, and so pressed him, that vix respirare potuit: and Gregory the great, non sine dolore in secularibus versabatur, praefat. in Dial.  
Thirdly, Cyprian construed it as one great cause of persecutions raised against the Church, de lapsis, Sect. 4.  
Fourthly, it was much cried down as unlawful by the holy Fathers, many Canons forbidding it, and that under pain of being removed from their places. Can. Apost. Can. 6. Can. 81. he that did presume to administer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Roman command or Administration of Military affairs or civil place (as Zonaras there) he should be deposed, Can. Apo. Can. 83. hiring of ground, meddling with worldly affairs is to be laid aside by them: Otherwise they are threatened to be liable to Ecclesiastical censures, Conc. Cal. Cano. 3. Conc. Carth. Can. 16.  
We will add this for a conclusion in this point, it is observed by Athanasius, Sulpitius, Severus, and other Ecclesiastical Historians, that the Arians were very expedite in worldly affairs, which experience they gained by their constant following and attendance upon the Emperor's Court; and what troubles they occasioned to the Church thereby, is notoriously known to any that have seen the Histories of their times. And in this our Bishops have approved themselves more like to the Arian Bishops then the purer Bishops of purer times: but how ever clear it is, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are Two: Two in election to their office; Two in the discharge of their office; Two in their Ordination, jurisdiction, processes, Censures, Administrations, and the difference between our Bishops and those of former times, is greater than between the great Bishop of Rome and them.   

SECT. XIII.  
BUt it seems our Remonstrant soared above those times even as high as the Apostles days, for so he saith, If our Bishops challenge any other spiritual power, than was by Apostolic Authority delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches, let them be DISCLAIMED as USURPERS. And the truth is, so they deserve to be, if they do but challenge the same power that the Apostle did delegate to Timothy and Titus; for Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and so moved in a Sphere above Bishops or Presbyters. For Timothy, it is clear from the letter of the Text, 2 Tim. 4.5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Do the work of an Evangelist: if Timothy had been but a Presbyter or Bishop, Paul had here put him upon employment, Vltra Sphara Activitatis.  
And to any man, that will but understand and consider what the Office of an 
a Let the Reader plea●e to consult Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 33 according to some, after others. cap. 37. and view the description, he there makes of an Evangelist, and then judge of what we speak.  Evangelist was, and wherein it differed from the Office of a Presbyter or Bishop, it will be manifest that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists, and no Bishops: for the title of Evangelist is taken but two ways; either for such as wrote the Gospel, and so we do not affirm Timothy and Titus to be Evangelists: or else for such as taught the Gospel; and those were of two sorts, either such as had ordinary places and ordinary gifts, or such whose places and gifts were extraordinary; and such Evangelists were Timothy and Titus, and not Bishops, as will appear if we consider, what was the Difference between the Evangelists and Bishops● Bishops or Presbyters were tied to the particular care and tuition of that flock over which God had made them Overseers, Acts 20.28. But Evangelists were not tied to reside in one particular place, but did attend upon the Apostles by whose appointment they were sent from place to place, as the necessity of the Churches did require. As appears first in Timothy ● whom S. Paul besought to abide at Ephesus. 1 Tim. 1.3 which had been a needless importunity, if Timothy had had the Episcopal (that is the Pastoral) charge of Ephesus committed to him by the Apostles, for than he might have laid as dreadful a Charge upon him to abide at Ephesus, as he doth to Preach the Gospel. But so far was Paul from settling Timothy in Cathedrâ in Ephesus, that he rather continually sends him up and down upon all Church services, for we ●inde Acts. 17.14. That when Paul fled from the tumults of Berea to Athens, he left Silas and Timothy behind him, 
Anno. Aera Christi receptae, 47.  who afterwards coming to Paul to Athens, Paul sends Timothy from Athens to Thessalonica, to confirm the Thessalonians in the faith, as appears 1 Thes. 3.1.2. from whence returning to Paul to Athens again, the Apostle Paul before he left Athens and went to Corinth, sent him & Silas into Macedonia, who returned to him again to Corinth, 
Anno 48.  Act. 18.5. afterwards they traveled to Ephesus, from whence we read Paul sent Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, 
Anno 51.  Act. 19 22. whither Paul went after them, & from whence they & divers other Brethren journied into Asia, 
Anno. 53.  Acts 20.4. All which Brethren Paul calls, as it is probable, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the messengers of the Churches, 2 Cor. 8.23. And being thus accompanied with Timothy, and the rest of the Brethren he comes to Miletum, 
Anno 53.  and calls the Elders of the Church of Ephesus thither to him, of which Church had Timothy been Bishop, the Apostle in stead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them.  
And secondly, the Apostle would not so have forgotten himself, as to call the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before their Bishop's face.  
Thirdly, It is to be conceived, the Apostles would have given them some directions, how to carry themselves towards their Bishop, but not a word of this, though Timothy were then in Paul's presence, and in the presence of the Elders. The clear evidence of which text demonstrates, that Paul did not leave Timothy at this time as Bishop of Ephesus. But it is rather evident that he took him along with him in his journey to Hi●rusalem, and so to Rome; for we find that those Epistles Paul wrote while he was a prisoner, bear either in their inscription or some other passage of them, the name of Timothy, as Paul's companion, viz. The Epistle to the Philippians, Colossians, Hebre●es, Philemon, which Epistles he wrote in bonds as the contexture, which those two learned professors, the one at Heydelberge, 
Paraeus.  the other at Saulmur, make of Saint Paul's Epistles, 
Capellus.  doth declare.  

Heb. 13.23. We find not only that Timothy was with Paul at Rome, but a Prisoner with him there.  So that it appears that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist, a fellow labourer of the Apostles, 1 Thess. 3.1. an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church, 2. Cor. 8.3. a Minister of God, 1 Thess. 3.2. these titles the Holy Ghost gives him, but never the title of a Bishop.  
The like we find in Scripture concerning Titus, whom Paul as it is conceived by learned men, did first assume into the fellowship of his Labours in the place of john, and made him his companion in his journey through 
a Anno 43.  Antioch to Herusalem, 
b Anno. 45.  so we find Gal. 2.1, from thence returning to Antioch again; from thence he passed through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches, & from Cilicia, he passed to Crect, where having Preached the Gospel, and planted Churches, he left Titus 
c Anno 46.  there for a while, to set in order things that remain.  
Yet it was but for a while he left him there, for in his Epistle which he wrote to him not many years after, he enjoins him to come to him to Nicopolis 
d Anno 51.  where he did intend to winter, but changing that purpose sends for him to Ephesus, where it seems his Hyemall station was, and from thence sends him before him to Corinth, to inquire the state of the Corinthians 
e Anno 51. . His return from thence Paul expects at Troas 
f Anno 52. , and because coming thither he found not his expectation there, he was so grieved in his spirit, 2 Cor. 2.12. that he passed presently from then●e into Macedonia, where Titus met him; and in the midst of his afflictions joyed his spirits with the glad tidings of the powerful and gracious effects, his first Epistle had among the Corinthians, 2 Cor. 7, 5, 6, 7. Paul having there collected the Liberalities of the Saints, sends Titus again to the 
g Anno 53.  Corinthians, to prepare them for the same service of Ministering to the necessities of the Saints, 2 Cor. 8.6. And makes him with some others the Conveyers of that second Epistle to the Corinthians.  
All these journeys to and fro did Titus make at the designment of the Apostle, even after he was left in Crect. Nor do we find, 
h Anno 64.  that after his first removal from Crect, he did ever return thither. We read indeed, 2 Tim. 4.10. he was with Paul at Rome; and from thence returned not to Crect, but into Dalmatia. All which doth more than probably show, it never was the Intendment of the Apostle to six Titus in Crect as a Bishop, but only to leave him there for a season for the good of that Church, and to call him from thence, and send him abroad to other Churches for their good, as their necessities might require. Now who that will acknowledge a Distinction between the Offices of Bishops and Evangelists, and knows wherein that Distinction lies, will not upon these premises conclude that, Timothy and Titus were Evangelists and NOT Bishops.  
I but some of the Fathers have called Timothy and Titus Bishops. We grant it true; and it is as true, that some of the Fathers have called them Archbishops, and Patriarches; yet it doth not follow, they were so. We add, secondly, that when the Fathers did call them so, it was not in a proper but in an improper sense; which we express in the words of our Learned Orthodox Raynolds;  
You may learn by the Fathers themselves, 
Raynolds contra Hart. Ca 6.  saith he, that when they termed any Apostle a Bishop of thi● or that City (as namely Saint Peter of Antioch or Rome) they meant it in a general sort and signification, because they did attend that Church for a time, and supply that room in preaching the Gospel, which Bishops did after; but as the name of Bishop is commonly taken for the Overseer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a several flock; so Peter was not Bishop of any one place; therefore not of Rome. And this is true by Analogy of all extraordinary Bishops, and the same may be said of Timothy and Titus, that he saith of Peter.  
But were it true that Timothy and Titus were Bishops; will this remonstrant undertake, that all his party shall stand to his Conditions? If our Bishops challenge any other power than was by Apostolic Authority delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the seven Asian Churches, 
Pag. 23.  let them be disclaimed as usurpers. Will our Bishops indeed stand to this? then actum est. Did ever Apostolic authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus, to ordain alone? to govern alone? and do not our Bishops challenge that power? Did ever Apostolic authority delegate power to Timothy and Titus, to rebuke an Elder? no; but to entreat him as a Father: and do not our Bishop's challenge to themselves and permit to their Chancellors, Commissaries, and officials pour not only to rebuke an Elder, but to rail upon an Elder? to reproach him with the most opprobrious terms of fool, knave, jack-sauce, etc. which our paper blushes to present to your Honour's view. Did ever Apostolic authority delegate to Timothy and Titus power to receive an accusation against an Elder, but before two or three witnesses? and do not our Bishop's challenge power to proceed Ex officio, and make Elders their own Accusers? Did ever Apostolic authority delegate power to Timothy or Titus, to reject any after twice admonition, but an Heretic? and do not our Bishop's challenge power to reject and eject the most sound and orthodox of our Ministers, for refusing the use of a Ceremony; as if Nonconformity were Heresy. So that either our Bishops must disclaim this remonstrance, or else themselves must be disclaimed as usurpers.  
But if Timothy and Titus were no Bishops, or had not this power, it may be the Angels of the seven Asian Churches had; and our Remonstrant is so subtle as to twist these two together, that if one fail, the other may hold.  
To which we answer; first, that Angel in those Epistles is put Collectively, not Individually; as appears by the Epistle to Thyatira, cap. 2. vers. 24. where we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But I say unto you (in the plural number, not unto thee in the singular) and unto the rest in Thyatira, etc. Here is a plain distinction between the members of that Church. By you, is signified those to whom he spoke under the name of the Angel. By the rest, the residue of the people. The people governned, and the governor's in the plural number. What can be more evident to prove, that by Angel is meant not one singular person, but the whole company of Presbyters that were in Thyatira.  
This also further appears, because it is usual with the holy Ghost, not only in other books of the Scripture, but also in this very book of the Revelation, to express a company under one singular person. Thus the Civil state of Rome, as opposite to Christ, is called, A beast with ten horns: and the Ecclesiastical state Antichristian is called the whore of Babylon, and, the false Prophet: and the devil and all his family is called An old red Dragon. Thus also the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets, Revel. 8.2. And the seven Angels that poured out the seven Vials, are not literally to be taken, but Synecdochically, as all know. And why not then the seven Angels in those Epistles? Master Meeds in his Commentaries upon the Revelation, pag. 265, hath these words; Denique (ut jam semel iterumque monuimus) quoniam Deus adhibet angelos providentiae sitae in rerum humanarum motibus & conversionibus ciendis, gubernandisque administros: idcirco, quae multorum manibus peraguntur, Angelo tamen tanquam rei gerendae praesidi & Duci pro communi loquendi modo tribuuntur.  
Add, thirdly, that the very name Angel is sufficient to prove, that it is not meant of one person alone, because the word Angel doth not import any peculiar jurisdiction or pre-eminence, but is a common name to all Ministers, and is so used in Scripture. For all Ministers are Gods Messengers and Ambassadors, sent for the good of the Elect. And therefore the name being common to all Ministers, why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to one Minister, that doth not belong to all? The like argument we draw from the word Stars, used Revel. 1.20. The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. Now it is evident, that all faithful Ministers are called Stars in Scripture, whose duty is to shine as lights unto the Churches, in all purity of doctrine and holiness of conversation. And in this sense, the word is used, when it is said, that the third part of the stars were darkened, Revel. 8.12. and that the Dragon's tail drew the third part of the stars of Heaven, & cast them to the Earth, Revel. 12.4. Which is meant not only of Bishops, but of other Ministers, unless the Bishops will appropriate all corruption and Apostasy unto themselves.  
Add, fourthly, out of the Text itself, It is very observable, that our Saviour in opening the mystery of the Vision, Revel. 1.20. saith; The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest, are the seven Churches, but he doth not say. The seven stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches, But the Angels of the seven Churches; wherein not without some mystery the number of the Angels in omitted, lest we should understand by Angel, one Minister alone, and not a company. And yet the septenary number of Churches is twice set down.  
Lastly, though but one Angel be mentioned in the forefront, yet it is evident, that the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church, and to the Churches themselves. And if to the whole Church, much more to the Presbyters of that Church. This is proved Revel. 1.11. What thou seest write in a Book and send it to the seven Churches which are in Asia. And also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle; He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches. Upon which words, Ambrose Ausbertus in his second book upon the Revelation, saith thus; Vnâ ead●mque locutione & Angelos & Ecclesias ●num esse designat. Nam cum in principio locutionum quae ad sep●em fiunt Angelos dicat, & Angelo illius Ecclesiae scribe; in ●ine tamen carundem non dicit, qui habet aurem audiat quod spiritus dicat Angelo, sed quid Ecclesiae dicat. By one and the same phrase of speech he showeth, the Angels and the Churches to be one and the same. For whereas in the beginning of his speech, which he makes to the seven Churches, he saith; And write to the Angel of the Churches; yet in the close of the same, he doth not say, He that hath an Ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Angel, but what he saith to the Church. And this is further proved by the whole argument of those Epistles, wherein the admonition●, threatenings, commendations, and reproofs, are directed to all the Ministers of all the Churches. Revel. 2.10. The devil shall cast some of you into prison, etc. Rev. 2.16. I will fight against them with the sword of my mouth, Rev. 2.24. I will put upon you no other burden, etc. I say unto you and the rest of Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, etc. And when it is said in the singular Number (as it is often) I know thy works and thy labour, etc. vers. 2. & vers. 4. Repent and do thy first works; and verse 13. Thou hast not denied my Faith, etc. and cap. 3.26. Because thou art neither hot nor cold, etc. All these and the like places, are not to be understood as meant of one individual person, but of the whole company of Ministers, and also of the whole Church, because that the punishment threatened, is to the whole Church; Revel. 2.5. Repent and do thy first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and remove thy Candlestick out of his place; Rev. 2.16. Repent, or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth; Revel. 2.24. I will not put upon you any other burden. Now we have no warrant in the Word to think that Christ would remove his Gospel from a Church for the sin of one Bishop, when all the other Ministers and the Churches themselves are free from those sins. And if God should take this course, in what woeful and miserable condition should the Church of England be, which groaneth under so many corrupt Prelates? By all this it appears, that the word angel, is not to be taken, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not properly, but figuratively. And this is the judgement of Master Perkins upon the second Chapter of the Revelation; and of Master Brightman; and of Doctor Fulke, who in answer to the Rhemists in Apoc. 1.20. hath these words; S. john by the angels of the Churches meaneth not all, that should wear on their heads mitres, and hold crosier staves in their hands, like dead Idols, but them that are the faithful messengers of God's Word, and utter and declare the same. Again, they are called the angels of the Churches, because they be God's messengers.  
Master Fox likewise in his Meditation upon the Revelation (pag. 7. 9.17●.) is of this opinion, and hath gathered to our hands the opinions of all Interpreters he could meet, and saith that they all consent in this, that under the person of an Angel, the Pastors and Ministers of the Churches were understood. Saint Austin in his 132. Epistle, saith thus; Sic enim in Apocalypsi legitur Angelus, etc. Quod si de angelo superiorum coelorum, & non de Praepositis ecclesiarum vellet intelligi, none consequenter diceret, habeo adversum te, etc. And so in his second Homily upon the Revelation (if that book be his) Quod autem dicit angelo Thyatirae ● habeo adversum te pauca, dicit Praepositis Ecclesiarum, etc. This also Gregory the Great, lib. 34. Moral● in job cap. 4. Saepè sacrum scripturam pr●dicatores Ecclesiae, pro eo quod patris gloriam annunciant, angelorum nomine solere de signare: & hinc esse, quod johannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens, angelis Ecclesia●um loquitur, id ●st, Praedicatoribus populorum. Master Fox citeth Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, and others, to whom we refer you.  
If it be here demanded (as it is much by the hierarchical side) that if by angel be meant the whole company o● Presbyters, why Christ did not say, to the angels in the plural number, but to the angel in the singular?  
We answer, that though this question may savour of a little too much curiosity, yet we will make bold to subjoin three conjectural reasons of this phrase of speech.  
First, It is so used in this place, because it is the common language of other Scriptures in types and visions to set down a certain number for an uncertain, and the singular number for the purall. Thus the Ram, Dan. 8.3. is interpreted vers. 20. to be the Kings of Media and Persia And the enemies of God's Church are set out by four ho●nes. And the deliverers by four Carpenters, Zach. 1.18 20. And the wise and foolish Virgins are said to be five wise and five foolish. And many such like. And therefore as we answer the Papists, when they demand why Christ if he meant figuratively when he saith, this is my body, did not speak in plain language, this is the sign of my body? We say, that this phrase of speech is proper to all Sacraments: So we also answer here, this phrase of speech, Angel for Angels, is common to all types and visions.  
Secondly, angel is put, though more be meant, that so it may hold proportion with the Vision which john saw● Chap, 1.12.20. He saw seven golden Candlesticks, and seven Stars. And therefore to hold proportion, the Epistles are directed to seven angels, and to seven Churches. And this is called a mystery, Revel. 1.20, The mystery of the seven Stars, etc. Now a mystery is a secret, which comprehends more than is expressed; and therefore though but one angel be expressed, yet the mystery implies all the angels of that Church.  
Thirdly, to signify their unity in the Ministerial function, and joint commission to attend upon the feeding and governing of one Church, with one common care, as it were with one hand and heart. And this is more fitly declared by the name of one angel, then of many. We often find the name of (one) Prophet or Priest to be put for the general body of the Ministry, or whole multitude of Prophets or Priests, in the Church of Israel or judah, when the Spirit of God intendeth to reprove, threaten, or admonish them. Thus it is jere. 6.13.18.18. Isa. 3.2. Host 9.8. Ezek. 7.26. Host 4.6. Mal. 2.7. Neither should it seem strange, that a multitude or company of Ministers should be understood under the name of one angel, seeing a multitude of Heavenly angels (employed in one service for the good of God's Saints) is sometimes in the Scripture shut up under one angel in the singular number, as may be gathered from Gen. ●4. 7. 2 Kings 19.35. Psal. 34.7. compared with Psalm 91.11. Gen. 32.1.2. Kings 6.16, 17. And also a multitude of devils or evil angels, jointly labouring in any one work, is set forth under the name of one evil or unclean spirit, 1 Kings 22.21, 22. Mark. 1 23, 24. Mark● 5.2.9. Luke 4.33, 34. Luk. 8.27.30. 1 Pet. 5.8. Heb. 2.14. Ephes. 6.11.12.  
But now let us suppose (which yet notwithstanding we will not grant) that the word Angel is taken individually for one particular person, as Doctor Reynolds seems to interpret it, together with Master Beza, yet nevertheless, there will nothing follow out of this acception, that will any ways make for the upholding of a Diocesan Bishop, with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, as a distinct superior to Presbyters. And this appears.  
First, because it never was yet proved nor ever will (as we conceive) that these angels were Diocesan Bishops, considering that Parishes were not divided into Dioceses in S. john's days. And the seven stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks or Churches, not one star over divers Candlesticks. Neither can those Churches be thought to be Diocesan, when not only tindal and the old translation, calls them seven Congregations, but we read also Acts 20. that at Ephesus which was one of those Candlesticks, there was but one flock.  
And secondly, we further find that in Ephesus one of those seven Churches, there were many Presbyters, which are all called Bishops, Acts 20.28. and we find no colour of any superintendency or superiority of one Bishop over another. To them in general the Church is committed to be fed by them without any respect had to Timothy, who stood at his elbow and had been with him in Macedonia, and was now waiting upon him to jerusalem. This is also confirmed by Epiphanius, who writing of the Heresies of the Meletians, saith, that in ancient times this was peculiar to Alexandria, that it had but one bishop, whereas other Cities had two. And he being bishop of Cypress, might well be acquainted with the condition of the Churches of Asia, which were so nigh unto him.  
Thirdly, there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implieth any superiority or majority of rule or power that these angels had over the other angels that were joined with them in their Churches. It is written indeed, in commendation of the angel of the Church of Ephesus, that he could not bear them that were evil, and that he had tried them which say they were Apostles and are not, & had found them liars. And it is spoken in dispraise of the angel of Pergamus, that he suffered them which held the doctrine of Balaam, etc. But these things are common duties, requirable at the hands of all Ministers, who have the Charge of Souls.  
But suppose that there were some superiority and preeminency insinuated by this individual angel, yet who knoweth not that there are divers kinds of superiority; to wit, of Order, of dignity, of gifts and parts, or in degree of Ministry, or in charge of power and jurisdiction. And how will it be proved that this angel if he had a superiority, had any more than a superiority of order, or of gifts and parts? Where is it said, that this angel was a superior degree or order of Ministry above Presbyters? In which Epistle it is said that this angel had sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction? and therefore as our learned Protestants prove against the Papists, that when Christ directed his speech to Peter in particular and said, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, etc. That this particularization of Peter did not import any singular pre-eminence or majority of power to Peter more than to the other apostles. But that though the promise was made to Peter, yet it was made to him in the name of all the rest, and given to all as well as one. And that therefore it was spoken to one person, and not to all, that so Christ might fore signify the unity of his Church, as 
a Hoc erant utique & cateri Apostoli quod fuerat Pe●rus, par● consort●o pr●di●i & honoris & potestatis, sed exordium ab 〈◊〉 pro●icistitur, ut Ecclesia una menstretur.  Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, Optatus, and others say. So when Christ directs a● Epistle to one angel, it doth not imply a superior power over his fellow angels, but at most only a presidency for order sake. And that which is written to him, is written to the rest as well as to him. And therefore written to one, not to exclude the rest, but to denote the unity that ought to be between the Ministers of the same Church in their common care and diligence to their flock. And this is all that Doctor Reynolds saith, as you may read in his conference with Hart, cap. 4. divis. 3. ad finem. For it is evident that Doctor Reynolds was an utter enemy to the I●● Divinum of the Episcopal preeminency over Presbyters by his Letter to Sir Francis Krolls. And learned Master Beza also saith something to the same purpose in his annotations upon Revel. 2.1. Angelo. i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quem nimirum oportuit imprimis de his rebus admoneri, ac per eum caeteros collegas, totamque adeo Ecclesiam. Sed hinc statui Episcopalis ille gradus postea humanitus in Ecclesiam Dei invectus certe nec potest nec debet, imo ne perpetuum quidem istud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 munus esse necessariò oportuisse, sicut exorta inde Tyrannis oligarchica (cujus apex est Antichristana bestia) certissima cum totius non Ecclesia modo, sed etiam orbis pernicie, nunc tandem declarat.  
If therefore our Remonstrant can produce no better evidence for his Hierarchy then Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the Asian Churches, Let not this Remonstrant and his party, cry out of wrong, if this claimed Hierarchy be for ever hooted o●t of the Church, seeing it is his own Option. And yet we cannot conceal one refuge more out of Scripture, to which the Hierarchy betake themselves for shelter. And that is the two Postscripts in the end of Paul's second Epistle to Timothy, and of that to Titus; where in the one, Timothy is said to be the first bishop of Ephesus, and in the other, Titus is said to be the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians: to both which places we answer.  
That these two Postscripts (and so all the rest) are no part of Canonical Scripture. And therefore our former and ancienter English translations, though they have these Postscripts, yet they are put in a small character different from that of the text, that all men might take notice they were no parts of the text. Although our Episcopal men of late in newer impressions have enlarged their Phylacteries, in putting those Postscripts in the same full character with that of the text, that the simple might believe they are Canonical Scripture. The Papists themselves (Baronius, Serrarius, and the Rhemists) confess that there is much falsity in them. The first Epistle to Timothy, is thus subscribed: the first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. Here we demand, whether Paul when he writ the first Epistle to Timothy, was assured he should live to write a second, which was written long after? And if not; How comes it to be subscribed, th● first to Timothy, which hath relation to a second? Besides, the Epistle is said to be writ from Loadicea, whereas Beza in his Annotations proves apparently, that it was written from Macedonia; to which opinion Baronius and Serrarius subscribe. It is added, Which is the chiefest City of Phrygia Pacatiana. But this Epithet is no where read in the Writers of those ages, saith Beza, Sed apud recentiores illos, qui Romani imperii jam inclinantis provincias descripserunt. So that by this place it is evident, that the subscription was added a long while after the writing of the Epistles by some men, for the most part vel indoctis, saith Beza, vel certe non satis attentis, Either by a learned, or negligent man.  
The second Epistle is thus subscribed; the second Epistle unto Timothy ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time. Now these words Ordained the first Bishop, is wanting, saith Beza, in quibusdam vetustis codicibus, in veteri vulgate editione, & apud Syrum interpretem. If Saint Paul had written this Postscript, he would not have said, to Timothy the first Bishop, etc. whereas it was not yet certain whether ever there should be a second. Neither would it be said when Paul was brought, etc. But when I was the second time brought before Nero. The Syriack Interpreter reads it, Here ends the second epistle to Timothy written from Rome.  
The Epistle to Titus is thus subscribed: Written to Titus, ordained first Bishop of the Church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia. Here it is said that this Epistle was written from Nicopolis, whereas it is clear that Paul was not at Nicopolis when he wrote it, Tit, 3.12. Be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis, for I have determined there to winter. He doth not say, Here to winter, but there; Where note, for the present he was not there. And besides, it is said, that Titus was ordained the first Bishop, etc. And who was the second? or was there ever a second? And also He is said to be Bishop, not only of a Diocese, but of all Crect. Was there ever such a second Bishop? Add, lastly, that it is said, Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; Whereas it would be said of the Churches of the Cretians. For the Christian Churches of any Nation are called Churches by Luke and Paul, not Church. Therefore Codex Claremontanus subscribes; Here ends the Epistle to Titus, and no more. So the Syriack; Finitur Epistola ad Titum quae scripta fuit è Nicopoli. The old Vulgar Edition hath nothing of the Episcopacy of Titus. By all this it appears, that if the Bishops had no more authority to urge us to subscribe to their Ceremonies, than they have authority for their Episcopal dignity by these Subscriptions, there would be no more Subscription to Ceremonies in the Churches of England.  
But some will say, that there is one objection out of Scripture yet unanswered, and that is from the inequality that was between the twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples.  
To which we answer;  
First, that it cannot be proved that the twelve Apostles had any superiority over the seventy, either of Ordination, or Jurisdiction. Or that there was any subordination of the seventy unto the twelve. But suppose it were yet we answer.  
Secondly, that a superiority and inferiority between Officers of different kinds, will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kind. No man will deny but that in Christ's time, there were Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and teachers, and that the apostles were superior to Evangelists and Pastors. But it cannot be proved, that one apostle had any superiority over another apostle, or one Evangelist over another. And why then should one Presbyter be over another? Hence it followeth, that though we should grant a superiority between the twelve and the seventy, yet this will not prove the question in hand. Because the question is concerning Officers of the same kind, and the instance is of Officers of different kinds, amongst whom no man will deny but there may be a superiority and inferiority, as there is amongst us between Presbyters and Deacons.  
And now let your Honour's judge (considering the premises) how far this Episcopal government is from any Divine right, or Apostolical institution. And how true that speech of Hierome is, that a bishop as it is a superior Order to a Presbyter, is an Humane presumption, not a divine Ordinance.  
But though Scripture fails them, yet the indulgence and Munificence of Religious Princes may support them, and to this the Remonstrant makes his next recourse, yet so as he acknowledgeth here, Engagements to Princes only for their accessary dignities, titles, and Maintenance; not at all for their stations and functions, (wherein yet the author plainly acknowledgeth a difference between our Bishops and the Bishops of old by such accessions.)  
For our parts, we are so far from envying the gracious Munificence of pious Princes, in collating honourable maintenance upon the Ministers of Christ, that we believe, that even by Gods own Ordinance, double Honour is due unto them.  
And that by how much the Ministry of the Gospel is more honourable than that of the Law; by so much the more ought all that embrace the Gospel, to be careful to provide, that the Ministers of the Gospel might not only live, but maintain Hospitality, according to the Rule of the Gospel. And that worthy Gentleman spoke as an Oracle, that said; That scandalous Maintenance is a great cause of a scandalous Ministry.  
Yet we are not ignorant, that when the Ministry came to have Agros, domos, locationes, vehicula, equos, latifundia, as Chrysost. Hom. 86. in Matth. That then Religio peperit divitias, & filia devoravit Matrem, religion brought forth riches, and the Daughter devoured the Mother; and then there was a voice of Angels heard from Heaven; Hodie venenum in Ecclesiam Christi cecidit, this Day is poison shed into the Church of Christ.  
And then it was that Jerome complained, Christi Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit, potentiâ quidem & divitiis major, sed virtutibus minor facta est. Then also was that Conjunction found true; That when they had wooden Chalices, they had golden Priests; but when their Chalices were golden, their Priests were wooden.  
And though we do not think, there is any such incompossibility, but that large Revenues may be happily managed with an humble sociableness, yet it is very rare to find. History tells us, that the superfluous revenues of the Bishops not only made them neglect their Ministry, but further ushered in their stately and pompous attendance; which did so elevate their Spirits, that they insulted over their brethren, both Clergy and People, and gave occasion to others to hate and abhor the Christian Faith, Which Eusebius sets forth fully in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus, who notwithstanding the meanness and obscurity of his birth, afterwards grew to that height of Insol●nc● and pride in all his carriage; especially in that numerous train that attended him in the streets, 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 29.  and in his stately throne raised after the manner of Kings and Princes, that Fides nostra invi●●ia, & odi●, propter fostum & superbi●m cordis illius, facta fuerit obnexia; the Christian faith was exposed to envy and hatred through his pride.  
And as their ambition (fed with the largeness of their revenues) discovered itself in great attendance, stately dwellings, and all Lordly pomp, so Hierom complains of their pride in their stately seats, qui velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti, vix dignantur vid●re mortales & alloqui conservos suos: who sitting aloft as it were in a watch tower, will scarce deign to look upon poor mortalis, or speak to their fellow servants.  
Here we might be large, in multiplying several testimonies against the pride of Ecclesiastical persons, that the largeness of their revenues raised them to: but we will conclude with that grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus.  
Ille qui ante pedibus aut asello ire consueverat, spumante equo superbus invebitur: paruá prius ac vili cellula contentus habitare, erigit celsa Laquearia, construit multa conclaviu, sculpit posts, pingit armaria, vestem respuit gressiorem, indumentum molle desiderat, etc. Which because the practice of our times hath already turned into English, we spare the labour to translate.  
Only suffer us (being now to give a Vale to our remonstrants' arguments) to recollect some few things.  
First, whereas this remonstrant saith; If we do not show out of the true & genuine writings of those holy men, that lived in the Apostles days a clear and received distinction of Bishops● 
Pag. 24.  Presbyters, and Deacons, as three distinct subordinate callings, with an evident specification of the duty belonging to each of them: Let this claimed Hierarchy be for ever rooted out of the Church: We beseech you let it be rememred how we have proved, out of the genuine and undeniable writings of the Apostles themselves: that these are not three distinct callings: Bishops are Presbyters, being with them all one, Name and Office, and that the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters was not of Divine Institution, but Humane: and that these Bishops, in their first Institution did not differ so much from Presbyters, as our present Bishops differ from them.  

Pag. 23.  Secondly, Whereas this remonstant saith, If our Bishops challenge any other power than was by Apostolic authority delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels of the Asian Churches: Let them be disclaimed as usurpers. We desire it may be remembered, how we have proved first; that Timothy and Titus and the Angels were no Diocesan bishops; and secondly, that our bishop's challenge (if not in their polemics, yet in their Practics) a power that Timothy and Titus, and those angels never did.  

Pag. 22.  Thirdly, Whereas this remonstrant saith, If there can be better evidence under Heaven for any matter of fact, let Episcopacy be for ever abandoned out of God's Church: We beseech you remember how weak we have discovered his Evidence to be; and then the Inference upon all these we humbly leave to your Honour's Wisdom and justice..   

SECT. XIIII.  
HAving thus considered the validity of those arguments, whereby this remonstrant would suffult Episcopacy, we descend now to inquire what satisfaction he gives to those objections, which himself, frames as the main, if not the sole arguments, that Episcopacy is asfaultable by, and they are two.  
First, that pleading the Divine right of Episcopacy, is to the prejudice of Sovereignty: Secondly, that it casts a dangerous imputation upon all those reformed Churches that want this Government.  
To the first, the prejudice of Sovereignty; he answers there is a compatibleness in this case of God's Act, and the Kings: it is God that makes the Bishop, the King that gives the Bishopric.  
But we have proved already, that God never made a Bishop, as he stands in his Superiority over all other Presbyters, he never had God's Fiat: and if they disclaim the influence of sovereignty unto their creation to a priority, and assert, that the King doth not make them Bishops, they must have no being at all. Sure we are, the Laws of the Land proclaim, 
37. Hen. 8. cap. 17.  that not only Bishoprics, but Bishops and all the jurisdiction they have is from the King: whereas the Remonstrant acknowledgeth no more, but the bare 
a The Remonstrant here acknowledges the same of the King, that Friar Simon, a Florentine, did of the Pope, who affirmed the degree of a Bishop was the jure divino, but every particular Bishop de jure Pontificio. Hist. con. Trid.  place and exercise to be from Regal donation, which cannot be affirmed without apparent prejudice of that Sovereignty which the Laws of the Land have invested our Princes with.  
And for his unworthy comparison of Kings in order to Bishops and Patrons in order to their Clerks, when he shall prove that the patron gives ministerial power to his Clerk, as the K●n● according to our Laws gives Episcopal power to the Bishop ● it may be of some conducement to his cause, but till then, we leave the unfitness of this comparison, and the unthankfulness of those men to the indulgence of their Sovereign, to their deserved recompense.  
His learned answer to such men as borrowing Saint Ieroms phrase, 
Pag. 28, 29.  speak Saint Paul's truth, is in sum this: That he knows not how to prescribe to men's thoughts, but for all his Rhetoric, they will think what they list; but if they will grant him the question, they shall soon be at an end of the quarrel: which one answer if Satisfactory, would silence all controversies to as good purpose as he did Bellarmine, who said, Bellarmine saith it is thus, and I say it is not, and where is Bellarmine now?  
To the second objection, that Episcopacy thus asserted casts an imputation upon all the reformed Churches, 
Pag. 29.  that want that Government, he saith; that the objection is intended to raise envy against them; who (if they may be believed) love and honour those sister Churches, and bless God for them.  
But do they not pluck all this envy upon themselves, who in their Conferences, Writings, Pulpits, Universities, Disputes, High Commission, Declamations, have disclaimed them us no Churches, that have disclaimed the Prelates? and have honoured the most glorious Lights of those Reformed Churches, Calvin, Beza, and others with no better titles than of Rascals, Blasphemers, etc.  
But the pith of his answer after a few good words is this: that no such consequent can be drawn from their opinion, for their Ius divinum pleads only for a justifiableness of this holy calling: Not for an absolute necessity of it, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had; but not fixing upon the Church that wants it, the defect of any thing of the Essence of a Church, but only of the glory and perfection of it; neither is it their sin, but their misery.  
And is it so, doth not this Ius divinum argue a Necessity, but only a justifiableness of this calling; nor is the want of it a want of any thing of Essence, but only of perfection? we had thought, that page the twentieth, where this Remonstrant strives to fetch the pedigree of Episcopacy from no less than Apostolical, and in that right Divine institution he had reckoned it among those things, which the Apostles ordained for the succeeding administration of the Church in essential matters: but here it seems he is willing to retract what there fell from him: there it was to his advantage to say, this government was a thing essential to the Church, and here it is no less advantage to say, it is not essential.  
But if it be not Essential, than what is the reason that when a Priest who hath received orders at Rome turns to us, they urge not him to receive ordination among us again: but when some of our brethren, who flying in Queen 〈◊〉 days, had received Imposition of hands in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas returned again in the days of Queen Elizabeth, they were urged to receive Imposition of hands again from our Bishops, and some did receive it. If those Churches that want Bishops want nothing essential to a Church; then what Essential want was there in the ordination of those Ministers that received Imposition of hands in those Churches, that might deserve a Re-ordination, more than if they had first received their ordination at Rome?  
And what is the reason that Bishop Montague so confidently affirms, 
Originum Ecclesi●st. car●m 〈◊〉 prioris pars posterior 463, 464  that Ordination by Episcopal hands is so necessary, as that th● Church is no true Church without it, and the Ministry no true Ministry, and ordinarily no salvation to be obtained without it? And if this Remonstrant should leave Bishop Montague to answer for himself, yet notwithstanding he stands bound to give us satisfaction to these two questions, which arise from his own Book.  
First, whether that Office, which by divine right hath the sole power of Ordaining, and Ruling all other Officers in the Church, (as he saith Episcopacy hath) belong not to the being, but only to the glory and perfection of a Church. Secondly, there being (in this man's thoughts) the same Ius divinum for Bishops, that there is for Pastors and Elders, 
Pag. 32.  whether if those Reformed Churches wanted Pastors and Elders too, they should want nothing of the Essence of a Church, but of the perfection and glory of it?  
But this Remonstrant seems to know so much of the mind of those Churches, that if they might have their option, they would most gladly embrace Episcopal Government, as littl● differing from their own Moderatorship, save only in the perpetuity of it, and the new Invention (as he odiously calls it) of Lay Elders. But no question those learned Worthies that were entrusted by the Churches to compile their confessions, did comprise their judgements better than the Composer of this Remonstrance. And to his presumption, we oppose their Confession. We will begin with the French Church, who in their Confession speak thus.  

Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere ea politia, quam Dominus noster jesus Christus sancivit, ita videlicet, ut sint in ea pastors, Presbyteri, sive Seniores, & Diaconi, ut doctrinae puritas retineatur, etc. Ar. 29. Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sunt, cádem & aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos sub uno illo capite summoque & solo universali Episcopo jesu Christo. Art. 30. Gallicae confessionis. Credimus veram hanc Ecclesiam debere regi, ac gubernari, spirituali illâ politiâ quam nos Deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit; it a ut sint in ea Pastores ac ministri qui pure & concionentur, & Sacramenta administrent; sint quoque Seniores, & Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant, ut his veluti mediis vera R●ligio conservari, Hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi & emendari possint. Tunc enim ritè & ordinate omnia siunt in Ecclesia, cum viri fid●les, & pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Divi Pauli praescriptum, 1 Tim. 3. Confes. Belgic. Art. 30. Caeterum ubicunque locorum sunt verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem Omnes habent tum Potestatem tum AUTHORITATEM, ut qui sunt aeque Omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi & capitis Ecclesiae Ministri.   

We believe that the true Church ought to be governed by that policy which Christ Jesus our Lord established, viz. that there be Pastors, Presbyters, or Elders and Deacons. And again, We believe that all true Pastors where ever they be, are endued with equal and the same power, under one chief Head and bishop Christ Jesus. Consonant to this the Dutch Churches. We believe (say they) the true Church ought to be ruled with that spiritual policy which God hath taught us in his Word, to wit, that there be in it Pastors to preach the Word purely; Elders and Deacons to constitute the Ecclesiastical Senate, that by these means Religion may be preserved, and manners corrected. And so again, We believe where ever the Ministers of God are placed, they All have the same equal power and authority, as being All equally the Ministers of Christ.   
In which harmony of these Confessions, see how both Churches agree in these five points:  
First, That there is in the Word of God, an exact form of Government set down, Deus in verbo suo edocuit.  
Secondly, That this form of Government Christ established in his Church; jesus Christus in Ecclesiâ sancivit.  
Thirdly, That this form of Government is by Pastors, Elders, and Deacons.  
Fourthly, That the true Church of Christ ought to be thus governed; Veram Ecclesiam debere regi.  
Fifthly, That all true Ministers of the Gospel are of equal power and Authority.  
For the reason he assigns, why those Churches should make this Option, we cannot enough admire that such a passage should fall from his pen, as to say, there is Little difference between their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and our Episcopacy, save only in perpetuity and lay Elders, for who knows not that between these two, there is as vast a difference as between the Duke of Venice and an absolute Monarch. For, 1. the Moderator in Geneva is not of a superior order to his Brethren; nor 2. hath an ordination differing from them; nor 3. assumes power of sole Ordination or Jurisdiction; nor hath he 4. maintenance for that office above his Brethren; nor 5. a Negative voice in what is agreed by the rest; nor 6. any further power than any of his Brethren. So that the difference between our Bishops and their Moderators is more than Little: But if it be so little as this Remonstrant here pretends; then the Alteration and Abrogation of Episcopacy will be with the less difficulty, and occasion the less disturbance.   

SECT. XV.  
BUt there is another thing, wherein our Episcopacy differs from the Geneva Moderatorship, besides the perpetuity; and that is the exclusion of the Lay Presbytery, (which if we may believe this Remonstrant) never till this age had footing in the Christian Church.  
In which assertion, this Remonstrant concludes so fully with Bishop Hall's Irrefragable Propositions, and his other book of Episcopacy by divine right; as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said.  
Now, though we will not enter the Lists with a man of that learning and fame that Bishop Hall is, yet we dare tell this Remonstrant, that this his assertion hath no more truth in it, than the rest that we have already noted. We will (to avoid prolixity) not urge those 
a 1 〈◊〉. ●. 17 1 Cor. 12.28. Rom. 12.8.  three known Texts of Scripture, produced by some for the establishing of Governing Elders in the Church, not yet vindicated by the adversaries.  
Nor will we urge that famous Text of 
b Vnde & Syn●goga, & postea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine Con●il●o n●hil agebatur in ●●c. ●lisi●i. Quod qua negligent●i obso verit nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desid â, aut magis superbia, dumsoli volunt aliq●id videri.  Ambrose in 1 Tim. 5. But if there were no Lay Elders in the Church till this present age, we would be glad to learn, who they were of whom Origen speaks, when he tells us, it was the Custom of Christian Teachers, first to examine such as desired to hear them, of whom there were two orders; the first were Catechumeni, or beginners; the other was of such as were more perfect: among whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & c● Nonnulli praepositi sunt quì in vitam & mores eorum qui admittuntur inquirant, ut qui turpia committant iis communi Caetu Interdicant, qui vero ab istis abhorrent, ex anima complexi, meliores quotidiè reddant: There are some ordained to inquire into the life and manners of such as are admitted into the Church, 
Origen. Lib. 3. contra Ceisum.  that they may banish such from the public Assembly, that perpetrate scandalous Acts; which place tells us plainly:  
First, that there were some in the higher form of hairs (not Teachers) who were Censores morum over the rest. Secondly, that they were designed or constituted to this work, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, that they had such Authority entrusted into their hands, as that they might interdict such as were scandalous from the public Assemblies. We would gladly know, whether these were not, as it were, Lay Elders.  
That there were such in the Church (distinguished from others that were called to teach) appears. 
Ep. 137.  Augustine writing to his Charge directs his Epistle, Dilectissimis fratribus, clero, senioribus & universae Plebi Ecclesiae Hipponensis: where first there is the general compellation. Fratribus, Brethren, than there is a distribution of these Brethren into the Clergy, the Elders, and the whole People; so that there were in that Church Elders distinguished both from the Clergy, and the rest of the People.  
So again, Contra Cresconium Grammaticum: Omnes vos Episcopi, 
Lib. 3. cap.  Presbyteri, Diaconi, & Seniores scitis; All you Bishops, Elders, Deacons, and Elders, do know. What were those two sorts of Elders there mentioned in one comma, & ibidem cap. 56. Peregrinus Presbyter & seniores Ecclesiae Musticanae Regiones tale desiderium prosequuntur; where again we read of Elder and Elders, Presbyter, and Seniors in one Church.  
Both those passages are upon record in the public acts, which are more fully set down by Baronius, ao. 303. Num. 15.16, 17. As also by Albaspineus, in his Edition of Optatus: in which Acts the Seniors are often mentioned. In that famous relation of the purging of Cecilianus and Felix, there is a copy of a Letter; Fratribus & filiis: Clero & Senioribus, Fortis in Domino aeternam salutem: Another Letter is mentioned a little before Clericis & Senioribus Cirthensium in Domino aeternum Salutem. These Seniors were interessed in affairs concerning the Church as being the men, by whose advice they were managed.  
The Letter of Purpurius to Silvanus saith, adhibete concl●ricos, & seniores plebis, Ecclesiasticos Viros, & inquirant quae sunt ista Dissensiones: ut ea quae sunt secundum fidei Praecepta fiant, Where we see the joint power of these Seniors, with the Clergy in ordering Ecclesiastical affairs; that by their wisdom and care peace might be settled in the Church; for which cause, these Seniors are called Ecclesiastical men; and yet they are distinguished from Clergy men.  
They are mentioned again afterwards by Maximus, saying; Loquor Nomine SENIORUM Populi Christiani. Greg. Mag. distinguisheth them also from the Clergy: Tabellarium cum consensu SENIORUM & Cleri memineris Ordinandum.  
These Seniors had power to reprove offenders, otherwise why should Augustine say, Cum ob errorem aliquem à Senioribus arguuntur & imputatur alicui cur ebrius fuerit, 
August. Ser. 19 de Verb. Dom.  cur res alienas pervaserit, etc. when they were by the Elders reproved for their errors, and drunkenness is laid to a man's charge etc. So that it was proper to the Seniors to have the cognizance of delinquents, and to reprove them.  

August. in Psal. 38. Conc. 2.  The same Augustine in Psalm 36. Necesse nos fuerat Primianicausam, quem, etc. Seniorun literis ejusdem Ecclesiae postulantibus audire. Being requested by letters from the Seniors of that Church, it was needful for me to hear the the cause of Primian, etc.  
So again, Optatus, who mentioning a persecution that did for a while scatter the Church, saith, Erant Ecclesiae ex auro & argento quam plurima Ornamenta, quae nec defodere terrae, nec secum portare poterat, quare fidelibus senioribus commendavit. Albaspin●us, that learned Antiquary, on that place acknowledges, that Besides the Clergy, there were certain of the Elders of the people, men of approved life, that did tend the affairs of the Church, of whom this place is to be understood.  
By all these testimonies it is apparent; first, that in the ancient Church there were some called Seniors. Secondly, that these Seniors were not Clergy men. Thirdly, that they had a stroke in governing the Church, and managing the affairs thereof. Fourthly, that Seniors were distinguished from the rest of the people.  

Pag. 32.  Neither wou●d we desire to choose any other judges in this whole controversy; than whom himself constituted; Foreign Divines, taking the general Suffrage and practice of the Churches, and not of particular men.  
As for the learned Spanhemius whom he produceth, though we give him the deserved honour of a worthy man: yet we think it too much to speak of him, as if the judgement of the whole Church of Geneva were incorporated into him, as this Remonstrant doth. And for Spanhemius himself, we may truly say, in the place cited, he delivered a compliment, rather than his judgement, which in Dedicatory Epistles is not unusual. We know that reverend Calvin and learned Beza have said as much upon occasion in their Epistles, and yet the Christian world knows their Judgement was to the contrary.  
Little reason therefore hath this Remonstrant, 
Pag. 33.  to declaim against all such as speak against this Government as unlawful, 
Pag. 33.  with the terms of Ignorant and spiteful Sectaries, because they call the Government unlawful: had they proceeded further to call it Antichristian, (which he charges upon them) they had said no more, than what our ears have heard some of their principal Agents, their Legati à Latere speak publicly in their visitations: That how ever the Church of England be as sound, and Orthodox in her Doctrine as any Church in the world, 
D. Duck.  yet in our Discipline and Government, we are the same with the Church of Rome, which amounts to as much as to say, the Government is Antichristian, unless they will say the Government of Rome is not so, nor the Pope Antichrist.   

SECT. XVI.  
NOw our Remonstrant begins to leave his dispute for the Office, and flows into the large pra●ses of the Persons, and what is wanting in his Arguments for the Place, thinks to make up in his Encomiastics of the Persons, that have possessed that place in the Church of God and tells us, that the Religious Bishops of all times are and have been they, that have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan and his Antichrist. It is well he sets this crown only upon the heads of Religious Bishops, as knowing that there are and have been some Irreligious ones, 
Pag. 34.  that have as strongly upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God. But the Religious Bishops are they that have all times upheld the truth. What? they, and only they? did never any uphold the truth, but a Religious Bishop? did never any Religious Minister or Professor preach, or write, or die, to uphold the truth, but a Religious Bishop? if so then there is some persuasive strength in that he saith; and a credulous man might be induced ●o think, If Bishops go down, truth will go down too: But if we can produce for one Bishop many others that gave been valiant for the truth, this Rhethoricall insinuation will contribute no great help to their establishment. Nor indeed any at all; unless he were able to make this good of our times, as well as of all others, 
Pag. 35.  which he assays; for saith he, even amongst our own how many of the reverend & learned Fathers of the Church now living, 
a We may ●ather think that they would have done ●o●e. Remembering what Marti●us was wont to say to his friend Su●●itius, N●quaqaum sib●m Epis●op●tu c●m ●●tulum Gra●i●m suppe●●sse, quam p●●● se 〈…〉. Sulpitius Severus Dial 2  have spent their spirits, & worn out their lives in the powerful opposition of that man of sin; how many? I sir; we would fain know how many: that there are some that have stood up to bear witness against that Man of sin, we acknowledge with all due respect, to the Learning and worth of their Persons. But that their Episcopal dignity hath added either any flame to their zeal, or any Nerves to their ability: we cannot believe, nor can we think they would have done less in that cause, though they had been no Bishops.  
But what if this be true of some Bishops in the Kingdom, Is it true of all? are there not some that have spent their spirits in the opposition of Christ, as others have in the opposition of Antichrist? & are there none but Zealous, Religious Prelates in the Kingdom? are there none upon whom the guilt of that may meritoriously be charged, 
Pag. 35.  which others have convincingly and meritoriously opposed? And are there not some Bishops in the Kingdom, that are so far from opposing the Man of sin, that even this Remonstrant is in danger of suffering under the name of P●ritan for daring to call him by that name, we doubt not but this R●monstrant knows there are.  

Pag. 35.  But if he will against the light of his own Conscience, bear up a known error out of private repects, (we will not say these papers) but his own conscience, shall own day be an evidence against him before the dreadful Tribunal of the Almighty.  
But there is yet a second thing that should endear Episcopacy, 
Pag. 36.  and that is the careful, peaceable, painful, conscionable managing of their Charges; to the great glory of God, and the comfort of his faithful people. Which (in not seeming to urge) he urgeth to the full and beyond. This care, conscience, pains of our Bishops, is exercised and evidenced, either in their Preaching or in their Ruling; for their preaching, it is true, some few there are that Labour in the Word and Doctrine; whose persons in that respect we honour: but the most are so far from Preaching, that they rather discountenance, discourage, oppose, blaspheme Preaching.  
It was a Non-preaching Bishop, that said of a preaching Bishop, He was a preaching Coxcomb. As for the discharge of their office of ruling, their entrusting their Chancellors, and other Officers, with their visitations, and Courts (as ordinarily they do, whiles themselves attend the Court) doth abundantly witness their care in it. The many and loud cries of the intolerable oppressions and tyrannies of their Court-proceedings witness their peaceableness, their unjust sees, exactions, commutations; witness their conscionableness in managing their Charges, to the great glory of God, and the comfort of his faithful people.  
And hence it is that so many at this day here ill; 
Pag. 36.  (how deservedly, saith this Remonstrant, God knows) and do not your Honours know, and doth not this Remonstrant know? and doth not all the nation (that will know any thing) know how deservedly Some, nay, Most, nay, All the Bishops of this nation hear ill, were it but only for the late Canons and Oath? 
Pag. 36.  But why should the faults of some, diffuse the blame to all? Why? by your own argument, that would extend the deserts of some; to the patronage of All; and if it be a fault in the impetuous and undistinguishing Vulgar, so to involve all, as to make Innocency itself a sin; what is it in a Man able to distinguish, by the same implication, to shroud sin under Innocence, the sin of many, under the Innocence of a few.  

Pag. 37.  But have our Bishops indeed been so careful, painful, conscionable, in managing their Charges? how is it then that there are such manifold scandals of the inferior Clergy presented to your Honour's view, which he cannot mention without a bleeding heart; and yet could find in his heart (if he knew how) to excuse them, and though he confess them to be the shame and misery of our Church, yet is he not ashamed to plead their cause at your Honour's BAR, Onuphrius-like, that was the Advocate of every bad cause; and to excite you by Constantine's example (in a different Cause alleged) if not to suffer those Crimes, which himself calls hateful, to pass unpunished, yet not to bring them to that open and public punishment they have deserved.  
But what, if pious Constantine (in his tender care to prevent the Divisions that the emulation of the Bishops of that age, enraged with a spirit of envy and faction, were kindling in the Church, lest by that means the Christian faith should be derided among the Heathens) did suppress their mutual accusations, many of which might be but upon surmises; and that not in a Court of justice, but in an Ecclesiastical Synod; shall this be urged before the highest Court of justice upon earth, to the patronising of Notorious scandals, and hateful enormities, that are already proved by evidence of clear witness.  

Pag. 37.  But oh forbid it to tell it in Gath, etc. What? the sin; alas, that is done already; Do we not know, the drunkenness, profaneness, superstition, popishness of the English Clergy rings at Rome already? yes undoubtedly; and there is no way to vindicate the Honour of our Nation, Ministry, Parliaments, Sovereign, Religion, God; but by causing the punishment to ring as far as the sin hath done; that our adversaries that have triumphed in their sin, may be confounded at their punishments. Do not your Honours know, that the plaistring or palliating of these rotten members, will be a greater dishonour to the Nation and Church, than their cutting off; and that the personal acts of these sons of belial, being connived at, become national sins?  
But for this one fact of Constantine, we humbly crave your Honours leave to present to your wisdom three Texts of Scripture, Ezek. 44.12, 13. Because they ministered unto them before their Idols, and caused the house of Israel to fall into iniquity, therefore have I lift up my hand unto them, saith the Lord, and they shall bear their iniquity. And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a Priest unto me, nor to come near unto any of mine holy things in the most holy place, etc.  
The second is jerem. 48.10. Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord negligently: and the third is, judges 6.31. He that will plead for Baal, let him be put to death while it is yet morning. We have no more to say in this; whether it be best to walk after the Precedent of Man, or the Prescript of God, your Honours can easily judge.   

SECT. XVII.  
BUt stay saith this Remonstrant; 
Pag. 39  and indeed he might well have stayed and spared the labour of his ensuing discourse, about the Church of England, the Prelatical and the antiprelatical Church: but these Episcopal Men deal as the Papists that dazzle the eyes, and astonish the senses of poor people, with the glorious Name of the Church, the Church; The holy Mother the Church. This is the Gorgon's head, as 
a In his Preface to his Book called The way to the True Church.  Doctor White saith, that hath enchanted them, and held them in bondage to their Errors: All their speech is of the Church, the Church; no mention of the Scriptures, of God the Father; but all of the Mother the Church. Much like as they write of certain Aethiopians, that by reason they use no marriage, 
Solinus.  but promiscuously company together, the children only follow the Mother; the Father and his name is in no request, but the Mother hath all the reputation. So is it with the Author of this Remonstrance, he styles himself, a Dutiful son of the Church. And it hath been a Custom of late times, to cry up the holy Mother the Church of England, to call for absolute obedience to holy Church; full conformity to the orders of holy Church; Neglecting in the mean time, God the Father, and the holy Scripture.  

Pag. 39  But if we should now demand of them, what they mean by the Church of England, this Author seems to be thunder-stricken at this Question; and calls the very Question, a new Divinity; where he deals like such as holding great revenues by unjust Titles, will not suffer their Titles to be called in Question.  
For it is apparent, Ac si solaribus radiis descriptum esset (to use Tertullia's phrase) that the word Church is an Equivocal word, and hath as many several acceptions as letters; and that Dolus latet in universalibus. And that by the Church of England; first by some of these men is meant only the Bishops; or rather the two Archbishops; or more properly the Archbishop of Canterbury: Just as the jesuited Papists resolve the Church and all the glorious Titles of it into the Pope; so do these into the Archbishop, or at fullest, they understand it of the Bishops and their party met in Convocation; as the more ingenuous of the Papists, make the Pope and his Cardinals to be their Church: thus excluding all the Christian people and Presbyters of the Kingdom; as not worthy to be reckoned in the number of the Church.  
And which is more strange, this Author in his Simplicity (as he truly saith) never heard, nor thought of any more Churches of England then one; and what then shall become of his Diocesan Churches, and Diocesan Bishops? And what shall we think of England, when it was an Heptarchy? had it not then seven Churches when seven Kings? Or if the Bounds of a Kingdom must constitute the Limits and Bounds of a Church, why are not England, Scotland, and Ireland, all one Church? when they are happily united under one gracious Monarch, into one Kingdom. We read in Scripture, of the Churches of judea, and the Churches of Galatia; and why not the Churches of England? not that we deny the Consociation, or Combination of Churches into a Provincial or national Synod for the right ordering of them. But that there should be no Church in England, but a national Church: this is that which this Author in his simplicity affirms, of which the very rehearsal is a refutation.   

SECT. XVIII.  
THere are yet two things with which this Remonstrance shuts up itself, which must not be passed without our Obelisks.  
First, he scoffs at the antiprelatical Church, and the antiprelatical Divisions ● for our parts we acknowledge no antiprelatical Church. But there are a company of men in the Kingdom, of no mean rank or quality, for Piety, Nobility, Learning, that stand up to bear witness against the Hierarchy (as it now stands:) their usurpations over God's Church and Ministers, their cruel using of God's people by their tyrannical Government: this we acknowledge; and if he call these the antiprelatical Church, we doubt not but your Honours will consider, that there are many Thousands in this Kingdom, and those pious and worthy persons, that thus do, and upon most just cause.  
It was a speech of Erasinus, of Luther, Vt quisque vir est optimus, ita illius Scriptis minimè offendi, The better any man was, the less offence he took at Luther's writings: but we may say the contrary of the Prelates, Vt quisque vir est optimus, ita illorum factis magis offendi, The better any man is, the more he is offended at their dealings. And all that can be objected against this party, will be like that in Tertullian, 
Tertull. adverb. Gent.  Bonus vir Cajus Sejus, sed malus tantum quia Antiprelaticus.  
But he upbraids us with our Divisions and Subdivisions, and so do the Papists upbraid the Protestants with their Lutheranism, Calvinisme, and Zuinglianisme. And this is that the Heathens objected to the Christians, their Fractures were so many, they knew not which Religion to choose if they should turn Christians: And can it be expected that the Church in any age should be free from divisions, when the times of the Apostles were not free? and the Apostle tells us, it must needs be that there be divisions: in Greg. Naz. days there were 600 Errors in the Church; do these any ways derogate from the truth and worth of Christian Religion?  
But as for the Divisions of the antiprelatical party, so odiously exaggerated by this Remonstrant: Let us assure your Honours, they have been much fomented by the Prelates, whose practice hath been according to that rule of Machiavelli: Divide & Impera, and they have made these divisions, and afterwards complained of that which their Tyranny and Policy hath made. It is no wonder considering the paths our Prelates have trod, that there are Divisions in the Nation. The wonder is our Divisions are no more, no greater; and we doubt not but if they were of that gracious spirit, and so entirely affected to the peace of the Church as Greg. Naz. was, they would say as he did in the tumults of the people, Mitte nos in mare, & non erit tempestas; rather than they would hinder that sweet Concordance, and conspiration of mind unto a Government that shall be every way agreeable to the rule of God's word, and profitable for the edification and flourishing of the Church.  
A second thing, we cannot but take notice of, is the pains this Author takes to advance his Prelatical Church: 
Pag. 2.  and forgetting what he had said in the beginning: that their party was so numerous, it could not be summed; tells us now, 
Pag. 41.  these several thousands are punctually calculated. But we doubt not but your Honours will consider that there may be mul●i homines & pauci viri. And that there are more against them then for them.  
And whereas they pretend, that they differ from us only in a Ceremony or an Organ pipe, (which however is no contemptible difference) yet it will appear that our differences are in point of a superior Alloy. Though this Remonstrant braves it in his multiplied Quere's. What are the bounds of this Church? 
Pag. ●1.  what the distinction of the professors and Religion? what grounds of faith? what new Creed do they hold different from their Neighbours? what Scriptures? what Baptism? what means of Salvation other than the rest? yet if he pleased he might have silenced his own Queres: but if he will needs put us to the answer, we will resolve them one by one.  
First, if he ask what are the bounds of this Church, we answer him out of the sixth of their late founded Canons: where we find the limits of this Prelatical Church extend as far as from the high and lofty Promontory of Archbishops, to the Terra incognita of an, etc.  
If what Distinction of professors and Religion; we answer their worshipping towards the East, and bowing towards the Altar, prostrating themselves in their approaches into Churches, placing all Religion in outward formalities, are visible differences of these professors and their Religion.  
If what new Creed they have, or what grounds of Faith differing from their Neighbours, we answer; Episcopacy by divine right is the first Article of their Creed Absolute and blind obedience to all the commandments of the Church (that is the Bishop and his Emissaries) election upon faith foreseen, the influence of works into justification, falling from grace, etc.  
If what Scripture, we answer; the Apocrypha and unwritten Traditions.  
If what Baptism? a Baptism of absolute Necessity unto salvation; and yet insufficient unto salvation: as not sealing grace to the taking away of sin after Baptism.  
If what Eucharist? an Eucharist that must be administered upon an Altar or a Table set Altarwise, railed in an Eucharist in which there is such a presence of Christ, (though Modum nesciunt) as makes the place of its Administration the throne of God, the place of the Residence of the Almighty; and impresseth such a holiness upon it as makes it not only capable, but worthy of Adoration.  
If what Christ? a Christ who hath given the same power of absolution to a Priest that himself hath.  
If what Heaven? a heaven that hath a broad way leading thither, and is receptive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulterers, etc. such a heaven as we may say of it, as the the Indians said of the heaven of the Spaniards: Unto that heaven which some of the Prelatical Church living and dying in their scandalous sins, and hateful enormities go to, let our souls never enter.  
If what means of salvation? we answer, confession of sins to a Priest as the most absolute, undoubted, necessary, infallible means of Salvation.  

Pag. 41.  far be it from us to say with this Remonstrant, we do fully agree in all these and all other Doctrinal, and practical points of Religion, and preach one and the same saving truths. Nay, we must rather say as that holy Martyr did, We thank God we are none of you.  
Nor do we because of this dissension fear the censure of uncharitableness from any but uncharitable men. 
Pag. 42.  But it is no unusual thing with the Prelates and their party, to charge such as protest against their corrupt opinions and ways, with uncharitableness and Schism, as the Papists do the Protestants: and as the Protestants do justly recriminate, and charge that Schism upon the Papists, which they object to us; So may we upon the Prelates: And if Austin may be Judge, the Prelates are more Schismatics than we. Quicunque (saith he) invident bonis, ut quaerant occasiones excludendieos, aut degradandi, vel crimina sua sic defond●re parati sunt (si objecta vel prodita fuerint) ut etiam conventiculorum congregationes vel Ecclesiae perturbationes cogitent excitare, jam schismatici sunt. Whosoever envy those that are good, and seek occasions to exclude and degrade them, and are so ready to defend their faults, that rather than they will leave them, they will devise how to raise up troubles in the Church, and drive men into Conventicles and corners, they are the Schismatics.  
And that all the world may take notice what just cause we have to complain of Episcopacy, as it now stands, we humbly crave leave to propound these Queries.  

Queries about Episcopacy.  
Whether it be tolerable in a Christian Church, that Lord Bishops should be held to be jure Divino; And yet the Lords day by the same men to be but jure Humano. And that the same persons should cry up Altars in stead of Communion Tables, and Priests in stead of Ministers, and yet not judaize, when they will not suffer the Lords day to be called the Sabbath day, for fear of judaizing. Whereas the word Sabbath is a general word, signifying a day of rest, which is common as well to the Christian Sabbath, as to the Jewish Sabbath, and was also used by the Ancients, Russinus in Psal. 47. Origen Hom. 23. in Num. Gregory Nazian.  
Whether that assertion, No Bishop, No King, and no Ceremony, no Bishop, be not very prejudicial to Kingly Authority? For it seems to imply, that the Civil power depends upon the Spiritual, and is supported by Ceremonies and Bishops.  
Whether seeing it hath been proved that Bishops (as they are now asserted) are a mere humane Ordinance, it may not by the same Authority be abrogated, by which it was first established; especially, considering the long experience of the hurt they have done to Church and State.  
Whether the advancing of Episcopacy into Ius Divinum, doth not make it a thing simply unlawful to submit to that Government? Because that many conscientious men that have hitherto conformed to Ceremonies and Episcopacy, have done it upon this ground, as supposing that Authority did not make them matters of worship, but of Order and Decency, etc. And thus they satisfied their consciences in answering those Texts, Colos. 2.20. 21, 22. Math. 15.9. But now since Episcopacy comes to be challenged as a Divine Ordinance, how shall we be responsable to those Texts. And is it not, as it is now asserted, become an Idol, and like the Brazen Serpent to be ground to powder?  
Whether there be any difference in the point of Episcopacy between Ius Divinum and Ius Apostolicum. Because we find some claiming their standing by Ius Divinum; others by Ius Apostolicum. But we conceive that Ius Apostolicum properly taken, is all one with Ius Divinum. For Ius Apostolicum is such a Ius, which is founded upon the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, written by them so as to be a perpetual Rule for the succeeding Administration of the Church, as this Author saith pag. 20. And this Ius is Ius Divinum, as well as Apostolicum. But if by Ius Apostolicum, they mean improperly (as some do) such things which are not recorded in the writings of the Apostles, but introduced, the Apostles being living, they cannot be rightly said to be jure Apostolico, nor such things which the Apostles did intend the Churches should be bound unto. Neither is Episcopacy as it imports a superiority of power over a Presbyter, no not in this sense jure Apostolico, as hath been already proved, and might further be manifested by divers Testimonies, if need did require. We will only instance in Cassander, a man famous for his immoderate moderation in controverted Points of Religion, who in his Consultat. Articul. 14. hath this saying; An Episcopatus inter ordines Ecclesiasticos ponendus sit, inter Theologos & Canonistas non convenit. Convenit autem inter omnes, in Apostolorum aetate Presbyterum & Episcopum nullum discrimen fuisse, etc.  
Whether the distinction of Beza, between Episcopus Divinus, Humanus, & Diabolicus, be not worthy your Honour's consideration. By the Divine Bishop, he means the Bishop as he is taken in Scripture, which is one and the same with a Presbyter; By the humane Bishop he means the Bishop chosen by the Presbyters to be Precedent over them, and to rule with them by fixed Laws and Canons. By the Diabolical Bishop he means a Bishop with sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction, Lording it over God's heritage, and governing by his own will and authority. Which puts us in mind of the Painter that Limmed two pictures to the same proportion and figure; The one he reserved in secret, the other he exposed to common view. And as the fancy of beholders led them to censure any line or proportion, as not done to the life, he mends it after direction. If any fault be found with the eye, hand, foot, etc. he corrects it, till at last the addition of every man's fancy had defaced the first figure, and made that which was the Picture of a man, swell into a monster: Then bringing forth this and his other Picture which he had reserved, he presented both to the people. and they abhorring the former, and applauding the latter, he cried, Hunc populus fecit: This the deformed one the People made: This lovely one I made. As the Painter of his Painting, so (in Bezaes' sense) it may be said of Bishops, God at first instituted Bishops such as are all one with presbyters; and such are amiable, honourable in all the Churches of God. But when men would be adding to God's institution, what power, 
Hunc populus fecit.  pre-eminence, jurisdiction; lordliness their fancy suggested unto them, this divine Bishop lost his Originali beauty, and became to be Humanus. And in conclusion (by these and other additions swelling into a P●pe.) Diabolicus.  
Whether the Ancient Fathers, when they call Peter Mark, james, Timothy, and Titus Bishops, did not speak according to the Language of the times wherein they lived, rather than according to the true acception of the word Bishop; and whether it be not true which is here said in this Book, that they are called Bishops of Alexandria, Ephesus, Jerusalem, etc. in a very improper sense, because they abode at those places a longer time then at other places? For sure it is, if Christ made Peter and james Apostles (which are Bishops over the whole world) and the Apostles made Mark, Timothy and Titus Evangelists, etc. It seems to us that it would have been a great sin in them to limit themselves to one particular Diocese, and to leave that calling in which Christ had placed them.  
Whether Presbyters in Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that it is an office, required at their hands, to rule and to govern, as hath been proved in this Book; The Bishops can without sin arrogate the exercise of this power to themselves alone; And why may they not with the same lawfulness, impropriate to themselves alone the Key of Doctrine (which yet notwithstanding all would condemn) as well as the Key of Discipline, seeing that the whole power of the Keys is given to Presbyters in Scripture as well as to Bishops; as appears, Mat. 16.19. where the power of the Keys is promised to Peter, in the name of the rest of the Apostles, and their successors; and given to all the Apostles, and their successors, Mat. 18.19. john 20.23. And that Presbyters succeed the Apostles, appears not only Mat. 28.20. but also Acts 20 28. where the Apostle ready to leave the Church of Ephesus commends the care of ruling and feeding it to the Elders of that Church. To this Irenaeus witnesseth, lib. 4. cap. 43.44. This Bishop jewel against Harding, Artic. 4. sect. 5.6. saith, that all Pastors have equal power of binding and losing with Peter.  
Whether since that Bishops assume to themselves power temporal (to be Barons and to sit in Parliament, as Judges, and in Court of Star-Chamber, High Commission, and other Courts of Justice) and also power spiritual over Ministers and People to ordain, silence, suspend, deprive, excommunicate, etc. their spiritual power be not as dangerous (though both be dangerous) and as much to be opposed as their temporal? 1. Because the spiritual is over our consciences, the temporal, but over our purses, 2. Because the spiritual have more influence into God's Ordinances to defile them, than the temporal. 3. Because spiritual Judgements and evils are greater than other, 4. because the Pope was Anticstrist, before he did assume any temporal power. 5. Because the Spiritual is more inward and less discerned: and therefore it concerns all those that have Spiritual eyes, and desire to worship God in spirit and truth to consider, and and endeavour to abrogate their Spiritual usurpations as well as their Temporal.  
Whether Acrius be justly branded by Epiphanius and Austin for a Heretic (as some report) for affirming Bishops, and presbyters to be of an equal power?  
We say, 

Epiphanius saith he did Arrium ip●um dogmatum novitate superare.  
Austin saith in Ar●anorum haeresin lapsum.   as some report, for the truth is, he is charged with heresy merely and only because he was an a Arian. As for his opinion of the parity of a presbyter with a Bishop; this indeed is called by Austin, proprium dogma Aerii, the proper opinion of Aerius. And by Epiphanius it is called Dogma furiosum & stolidum, a mad and foolish opinion, but not an heresy neither by the one nor the other. But let us suppose (as is commonly thought) that he was accounted an Heretic for this opinion: yet notwithstanding, that this was but the private opinion of Epiphanius, and borrowed out of him by Austin, & an opinion not to be allowed appears;  
First, 
Epiphall. accused him because he said that super●●●●m preces did not opitulari eis q●i ex hac vita discesserint. And Austin accused Aerius because he said, Non lic●t orare, vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem.  because the same Authors condemn Aërius, as much for reprehending and censuring the mentioning of the dead in the public prayers, and the performing of good works for the benefit of the dead. And also for the reprehending statu jejunia, and the keeping of the week before Easter as a solemn Fast; which if worthy of condemnation, would bring in most of the reformed Churches into the censure of Heresy.  
Secondly, because not only Saint Hierome, but Anstin himself, Sedulius, Primasius, chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, were of the same opinion with Aërius (as Michael Medina, observes in the Council of Trent, and hath written, Lib. 1. de sacr. hom. Origine) and yet none of these deserving the name of Fools, much less to be branded for Heretics.  
Thirdly, because no Counsel did ever condemn this for Heresy; 
Whitaker respons. ad Campian rat. 10. hath these words: A●●●um Esi 〈◊〉 & Augustinus in hear 〈…〉, & praeter eo an qui pa●●● 〈…〉 E●iscopo aequa●e ●it ●ae ●ticum, nihil Catholicum essi potest. Cum Aerio Hieronymus de Presbyteris omnino s●nsit. Illos enim jure divino Epis 〈◊〉 aequales esse ●lat●●t.  but on the contrary, Concilium Aquisgranens. sub Ludovico Pio Imp. 1. anno 816. hath approved it for true Divinity out of the Scripture: That Bishops & Presbyters are equal, bringing the same texts that Aerius doth, and which Epiphanius indeed undertakes to answer; but how slightly let any indifferent Reader judge.  
Whether the great Apostasy of the Church of Rome hath not been, in swarving from the Discipline of Christ, as well as from the doctrine. For so it seems by that text. 2. Thess. 2.4. And also Revel. 18.7. and divers others. And if so, than it much concerns all those that desire the purity of the Church to consider, how near the discipline of the Church of England borders upon Antichrist; least, while they endeavour to keep out Antichrist from entering by the door of doctrine, they should suffer him secretly to creep in by the door of discipline, especially considering, what is here said in this Book. That by their own confession, the discipline of the Church of England is the same with the Church of Rome.  
Whether Episcopacy be not made a place of Dignity, rather than Duty, and desired only for the great revenues of the place: And whether, if the largeness of their revenues were taken away, Bishops would not decline the great burden and charge of souls necessarily annexed to their places, 
Sozomen. hist. lib. 6. c●p. 10.  as much as the ancient Bishops did, who hid themselves that they might not be made Bishops and cut off their ears rather than they would be made Bishops: whereas now Bishops cut off the ears of those that speak against their Bishoprics.  
How it comes to pass, that in England there is such increase of Popery, superstition, Arminianism; and profaneness more than in other reformed Churches; Doth not the root of these disorders proceed from the Bishop's an● their adherents, being forced to hold correspondence with Rome, to uphold their greatness, and their Courts and Canons, wherein they symbolise with Rome; And whether it be not to be feared, that they will rather consent to the bringing in of Popery, for the upholding of their dignities, than part with their dignities for the upholding of Religion.  
Why should England that is one of the chiefest Kingdoms in Europe, that separates from Antichrist, maintain and defend a discipline different from all other reformed Churches, which stand in the like Separation? And whether the continuance in this discipline will not at last bring us to communion with Rome from which we are separated, and to separation from the other reformed Churches, unto which we are united.  
Whether it be fit that the name Bishop, which in Scripture is common to the Presbyters with the Bishops (and not only in in Scripture, but also in Antiquity for some hundreds of years) should still be appropriated to Bishops, and engrossed by them, and not rather to be made common to all Presbyters; and the rather because:  
First we find by woeful experience, that the great Equivocation that lieth in the name Bishop hath been and is at this day a great prop & pillar to uphold Lordly Prelacy, for this is the great Goliath, the masterpiece, and indeed the only argument with which they think to silence all opposers. To wit, the antiquity of Episcopacy, that it hath continued in the Church of Christ for 1500 years, &c, which argument is cited by this Remonstrant ad nauseam usque & usque. Now it is evident that this, argument is a Paralogism, depending upon the Equivocation of the name Bishop. For Bishops in the Apostles time were the same with Presbyters in name and office and so for a good while after. And when afterwards they came to be distinguished. The Bishops of the primitive times differed as much from ours now, as Rome ancient from Rome at this day, as hath been sufficiently declared in this Book. And the best way to confute this argument is by bringing in a Community of the Name Bishop to a Presbyter as well as to a Bishop.  
Secondly, because we find that the late Innovators which have so much disturbed the peace & purity of our Church, did first begin with the alteration of words; and by changing the word Table into the word Altar; and the word Minister, into the word Priest; and the word Sacrament into the word Sacrifice, have endeavoured to bring in the Popish Mass. And the Apostle exhorts us, 2 Tim. 1.13. To hold fast the form of sound words: and 1 Tim 6.20. to avoid the profane novelties of words. Upon which text we will only mention what the Rhemists have commented, which we conceive to be worthy consideration. (Nam instruunt nos non solum docentes, sed etiam errantes) The Church of God hath always been as diligent to resist novelties, of words, as her adversaries are busy to invent them, for which cause she will not have us communicate with them, nor follow their fashions and phrase newly invented, though in the nature of the words sometimes there be no harm. Let us keep our forefather's words, and we shall easily keep our old and true faith, that we had of the first Christians; let them say Amendment, Abstinence, the Lords Supper, the Communion Table, Elders, Ministers, Superintendent, Congregation, so be it, praise ye the Lord, Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and the rest, as they will, Let us avoid those novelties of words, according to the Apostles prescript and keep the old terms, Penance, Fast, Priests, Church, Bishop, Mass, Mat●in, Evensong, the B. Sacrament, Altar, Oblation. Host, Sacrifice, Halleluja, Amen; Lent, Palme-Sunday, Christmas, and the words will bring us to the faith of our first Apostles, and condemn these new Apostates, new faith and phrase.  

Quest. 16.  Whether having proved that God never set such a government in his Church as our Episcopal Government is we may lawfully any longer be subject unto it, be present at their Courts, obey their injunctions and especially be instruments in publishing, and executing their Excommunications and Absolutions.  
And thus we have given (as we hope) a sufficient answer, and as brief as the matter would permit, to The Remonstrant. With whom, though we agree not in opinion touching Episcopacy and Liturgy; yet we fully consent with him, to pray unto Almighty God, Who is great in power, and infinite in wisdom, to pour down upon the whole Honourabe Assembly, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of Council and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. That you may be able to discern betwixt things that differ; separate between the precious and the vile, purely purge away our dross, and take away all our tin; root out every plant that is not of our heavenly Fathers planting. That so you may raise up the foundations of many generations, and be called The Repairers of breaches, and Restorers of paths to dwell in. Even so, Amen.    
FINIS.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
THough we might have added much light and beauty to our Discourse, by inserting variety of Histories upon several occasions given us in the Remonstrance, the answer whereof we have undertaken; especially where it speaks of the bounty and gracious Munificence of Religious Princes toward the Bishops, yet unwilling to break the thread of our discourse, and its connexion with the Remonstrance, by so large a digression, as the whole series of History producible to our purpose, would extend unto: We have chosen rather to subjoin by way of appendix, an historical Narration of those bitter fruits, Pride, Rebellion, Treason, Unthankfulness, etc. which have issued from Episcopacy, while it hath stood under the continued influences of Sovereign goodness. Which Narration would fill a volume, but we will bond ourselves unto the Stories of this Kingdom, and that revolution of time which hath passed over us since the erection of the Sea of Canterbury. And because in most things the beginning is observed to be a presage of that which follows, let their Founder Austin the Monk come first to be considered. Whom we may justly account to have been such to the English, as the Arrian Bishops were of old to the Goths, 
Bed. Holinsh. Speed.  and the Jesuits now among the Indians, who of Pagans have made but Arrians and Papists. His ignorance in the Gospel which he preached is seen in his idle and Judaical Consultations with the Pope, about things clean and unclean; his proud demeanour toward the British Clergy, appears in his counsel called about no solid point of faith, but celebration of Easter, where having troubled & threatened the Churches of Wales, and afterwards of Scotland, about Romish Ceremonies, he is said in fine to have been the stirrer up of Ethelbert, by means of the Northumbrian King, to the slaughter of twelve hundred of those poor laborious Monks of Bangor. His Successors busied in nothing but urging and instituting Ceremonies, and maintaining precedency we pass over.  

Holinsh. out of Capgrave. Osborn, Higden.  Till Dunstan, the Sainted Prelate, who of a frantic Necromancer, and suspected fornicator, was shorn a Monk, and afterwards made a Bishop. His worthy deeds are noted by Speed to have been the cheating King Edred of the treasure committed to his keeping; the prohibiting of marriage, to the increasing of all filthiness in the Clergy of those times; as the long Oration of King Edgar in Stow well testifies.  

Edw. Conf.  In Edward the Confessors days, Robert the Norman no sooner Archbishop of Canterbury, but setting the King and Earl Godwine at variance for private revenge broached a civil war, 
Holinsh. 191 Will. Conq.  till the Archbishop was banished.  
Now William the Conqueror had set up Lanfrank Bishop of Canterbury, who to requite him, spent his faithful service to the Pope Gregory, 
Speed. pag. 442.  in persuading the King to subject himself and his state to the Papacy as himself writes to the Pope, Suasi, sed non persuasi.  

Will. Ruf.  The treason of Anselm to Rufus was notorious, who not content to withstand the King, obstinately in money matters made suit to fetch his Pall or investiture of Archiepiscopacie from Rome, which the King denying as flat against his regal Sovereignty, he went without his leave● and for his Romish good service received great honour from the Pope, by being seated at his right foot in a Synod, with these words, Includamus hunc in orbe nostro tanquam alterius orbis Papam. Whence perhaps it is that the Sea of Canterbury hath affected a Patriarchy in our days. This Anselm also condemned the married Clergy.  
Henry the first reigning, 
Henry 1  the same Anselm deprived those Prelates that had been invested by the King, and all the Kingdom is vexed with one Prelate, who the second time betakes himself to his old fortress at Rome, till the King was fain to yield. Which done, and the Archbishop returned, spends the rest of his days in a long contention and unchristian jangling with York about Primacy. 
Holinsh. 3●  Which ended not so, but grew as hot between York and London, as Dean to Canterbury, striving for the upper seat at dinner, till the King seeing their odious pride put them both out of doors.  
To speak of Ralf. and Thurstan, 
Holinsh. 3●  the next Archbishops, pursuing the same quarrel, were tedious as it was no small molestation to the King and Kingdom, Thurstan refusing to stand to the King's doom, and wins the day, or else the king must be accursed by the Pope; 
Holinsh. 42.  which further animates him to try the mastery with William next Archbishop of Canterbury, 
43.  and no man can end it but their Father the Pope, for which they travel to Rome. In the mean while, marriage is sharply decreed against, Speed 448. and the Legate Cremonensis, the declamor against matrimony taken with a strumpet the same night.  
In King Stephen's Reign, 
K. Stephen.  the haughty Bishops of Canterbury and Winchester bandy about precedency; and to Rome to end the duel. 
Holinsh. 57  Theobald goes to Rome against the Kings will; 
58.  interdicts the Realm, and the King forced to suffer it; till refusing to Crown Eustace the King's son, 
59  because the Pope had so commanded, he flies again.  
Beckets pride and outrageous treasons are too manifest; 
Henry 2.  resigning the King's gift of his Archbishopric to receive it of the Pope; requiring the Custody of Rochester Castle, and the Tower of London, as belonging to his Seignory. Protects murdering Priests from the temporal sword; 
Speed 467. out of Nubrigens.  standing stiffly for the liberties and dignities of Clerks, but little to chastise their vices, which besides other crying sins, were above a hundred murders since Henry the seconds crowning, till that time to maintain which, 
Yet this man's life is lately printed in English as a thing to be imitatest  most of the Bishops conspire, till terror of the King made them shrink; but Becket obdures, denies that the King of England's Courts have authority to judge him. And thus was this noble King disquieted by an insolent traitor, 
Holinsh. 70.  in habit of a Bishop, a great part of his Reign; the land in uproar; many excommunicate, and accursed. France and England set to war, 
Speed. 469.  and the King himself kerbed, and controlled; and lastly, disciplined by the Bishops and Monks, first with a bare foot penance, that drew blood from his feet, and lastly, with fourscore lashes on his anointed body with rods.  
In the same King's time it was that the Archbishop of York, striving to sit above Canterbury, squatts him down on his lap, 
Hol. pag. 98.  whence with many a cuff he was thrown down.  

Richard 1. Pag. 129.  Next the pride of W. Longchamp, Bishop of Elie was notorious, who would ride with a thousand horse, and of a Governor in the King's absence, became a Tyrant; for which ●lying in woman's apparel he was taken. 
130.   

132.  To this succeeds contention between Canterbury and York, about carriage of their crosses, and Rome appealed to: 
144.  the Bishop of Durham buys an Earldom.  

K. john.  No sooner another King, but Hubert another Archbishop to vex him, and lest that were not enough, made Chancellor of England. And besides him, Geoffrey of York, who refusing to pay a Subsidy within his Precincts, and therefore all his temporalities seized; excommunicates the Sheriff, beats the King's Officers, and interdicts his whole Province. Hubert outbraves the King in Christmas house-keeping: hinders King john by his Legantine power from recovering Normandy. 
Speed. 503  After him Stephen-Langton, set up by the Pope in spite of the King, who opposing such an affront, falls under an interdict, with his whole Land; and at the suit of his Archbishop to the Pope, 
Speed. 509  is deposed by Papal Sentence; his Kingdom given to Philip the French King, Langtons' friend, and lastly resigns and ●nfe●ds his Crown to the Pope.  
After this tragical Stephen, 
Hen. 3.  the fray which Boniface the next Archbishop but one had with the Canons of Saint Bartholmews is as pleasant; 
Stow 188.  the tearing of Hoods and Cowles, the miring of Copes, the flying about of wax Candles, and Censors in the scuffle, cannot be imagined without mirth; as his oaths were loud in this bickering, 
Hol. 247.  so his curls were as vehement in the contention with the Bishop of Winchester for a slight occasion. But now the Bishops had turned their contesting into base and servile flatteries, to advance themselves on the ruin of the Subjects. For Peter de Rupibus Bishop of Winchester persuading the King to displace English Officers and substitute Poictivines, 
Speed 529.530.  and telling the Lords to their ces, that there were no Peers in England, as in France, but that the King might do what he would, and by whom he would, became a firebrand to the civil wars that followed.  
In this time Peckam Archbishop of Can. in a Synod was tempering with the King's liberties, 
Edward 1.  
Hol. 280.  but being threatened desisted. But his successor Winchelsey on occasion of Subsidies demanded of the Clergy, 
Hol. 301.  made answer, That having two Lords, one Spiritual, the other Temporal, he ought rather to obey the Spiritual governor the Pope, 
Hol. 315.  but that he would send to the Pope, to know his pleasure, and so persisted even to beggary. The Bishop of Durham also cited by the King flies to Rome.  
In the deposing of this King who more forward, 
Edward 2.  than the Bishop of Hereford? 
Speed 574.  witness his Sermon at Oxford, My head, my head acheth concluding that an aching, and sick head of a King was to be taken off without further Physic.  
john the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
Edward 3.  suspected to hinder the King's glorious victories in Flanders, 
Speed 586.  and France, by stopping the conveyance of moneys committed to his charge, conspiring therein with the Pope. But not long after was constituted that fatal praemunire, which was the first nipping of their courage, to seek aid at Rome. And next to that, 
Hol. 409.  the wide wounds, that Wickleffe made in their sides. From which time they have been falling, and thenceforth all the smoke, that they could vomit, was turned against the rising light of pure doctrine.  

Richard 2.  Yet could not their pride miss occasion to set other mischief on foot. For the Citizens of London rising to apprehend a riotous servant of the Bishop of Salisbury then Lord Treasurer, who with his fellows stood on his guard in the Bishop's house, 
Hol. 478  were by the Bishop, who maintained the riot of his servant, so complained of, that the King therewith seized on their liberties, and set a Governor over the City. And who knows not, that Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury was a chief instrument, and agent in deposing King Richard, 
Pag. 506.  as his actions and Sermon well declares.  

Henry 4.  The like intended the Abbot of Westminster to Henry the fourth, who for no other reason, but because he suspected, that the King did not favour the wealth of the Church, drew into a most horrible conspiracy the Earls of Kent, 
Pag. 514.  Rutland, and Salisbury, to kill the King in a tournament at Oxford, who yet notwithstanding was a man that professed to leave the Church in better state than he found it. 
Speed 631.  For all this, soon after is Richard Scroop Archbishop of York in the field against him, the chief attractor of the rebellious party. 
Hol. 529.   

Henry 5.  In these times Thomas Arundel a great persecutor of the Gospel preached by Wifclefs followers, dies a fearful death, his tongue so swelling within his mouth, that he must of necessity starve. His successor Chickeley nothing milder diverts the King, that was looking too nearly into the superfluous revenues of the Church, 
Speed 638.  to a bloody war.  

Henry 6.  All the famous conquests which Henry the fifth had made in France, were lost by a civil dissension in England, which sprung first from the haughty pride of Beaufort Bishop and Cardinal of Winchester, 
Hol. 596.  and the Archbishop of York against the Protector, Speed 674. In the civil wars the Archbishop sides with the Earl of Warwick, 
Pag. 620.  and March in Kent, Speed 682.  
Edward the fourth, 
Edward 4.  Montacute Archbishop of York, 
Speed 699.  one of the chief conspirators with Warwick against Edward the fourth, and afterwards his Jailor, being by Warwick's treason committed to this Bishop.  
In Edward the fifth's time, 
Edward 5.  the Archbishop of York was, though perhaps unwittingly (yet by a certain fate of of Prelacy) the unhappy instrument of pulling the young Duke of York out of Sanctuary, into his cruel Uncle's hands.  
Things being settled in such a peace, 
Richard 3.  as after the bloody brawls was to the afflicted Realm howsoever acceptable, though not such, as might be wished: Morton Bishop of Ely, enticing the Duke of Buckingham to take the Crown, which ruin'd him, opened the veins of the poor subjects to bleed afresh.  
The intolerable pride, 
Henry 8.  extortion, bribery, luxury of Wolsey Archbishop of York who can be ignorant of? 
Hol. 845.  
462.  selling dispensations by his power Legantine for all offences, insulting over the Dukes and Peers, of whom some he brought to destruction by bloody policy, playing with State affairs according to his humour, or benefit: causing Turnay got with the blood of many a good Soldier, to be rendered at the French Kings secret request to him, not without bribes; with whom one while siding, another while with the Emperor, he sold the honour and peace of England at what rates he pleased; and other crimes to be seen in the Articles against him, Hol. 912. and against all the Bishops in generally 911. which when the Parliament sought to remedy, being most excessive extortion in the Ecclesiastical Courts, the Bishops cry out; sacrilege, the Church goes to ruin, as it did in Bohem, 
Speed 784.  with the Schism of the Hussites, Ibid. After this, though the Bishops ceased to be Papists; for they preached against the Pope's Supremacy, to please the King, yet they ceased not to oppugn the Gospel, causing Tindals' translation to be burnt, yet they agreed to the suppressing of Monasteries, leaving their revenues to the King, to make way for the six bloody Articles, which proceedings with all cruelty of inquisition are set down Holinsh. pag. 946. till they were repealed the second of Edward the sixth, 
Hol. 992.  stopping in the mean while the cause of reformation well begun by the Lord Cromwell. And this mischief was wrought by Steven Gardiner, 
Speed 792.  Bishop of Winchester. The six Articles are set down in Speed, 
Speed.  pag. 792. 
Statut. Hen. 8. Anno. 35. cap 5.   
The Archbishop of Saint Andrew's, his hindering of England's and Scotland's Union, for fear of reformation, Speed 794. 
Edward 6.   
As for the days of King Edward the sixth, we cannot but acknowledge to the glory of the rich mercy of God, t●at there was a great reformation of Religion made even to admiration. And yet notwithstanding we do much dislike the humour of those, that cry up those days as a complete pattern of reformation, and that endeavour to reduce our Religion to the first times of King Edward, which we conceive were comparatively very imperfect, there being four impediments which did much hinder that blessed work.  
The three rebellions. One in Henry the eighths' time, by the Priests of Lincoln and Yorkshire, for that reformation which Cromwell had made. The other two in King Edward's days. One in Cornwall, the other in Yorkshire.  
The strife that arose suddenly amongst the Peers emulating one another's honour. Speed pag 837.  
The violent opposition of the Popish Bishops, which made Martin Bucer write to King Edward in his book de Regno Christi. Lib. 2. cap. 1. and say, your Majesty doth see, that this restoring again the Kingdom of Christ, which we require, yea, which the salvation of us all requireth, may in no wise be expected to come from the Bishops, seeing there be so few among them which do understand the power and proper Offices of this Kingdom; and very many of them by all means (which possibly they can and dare) either oppose themselves against it, or defer and hinder it.  
The deficiency of zeal and courage even in those Bishops who afterwards proved Martyrs, witness the sharp contention of Ridley against Hooper, for the ceremonies. And the importunate suit of Cranmer and Ridley for toleration of the Mass for the King's sister, which was rejected by the Kings, not only reasons, but tears; whereby the young King showed more zeal than his best Bishops. 839.  
The inhuman butcheries, bloodsheddings, and cruelties of Gardiner, Bonner, and the rest of the Bishops in Queen Mary's days, are so fresh in every man's memory, as that we conceive it a thing altogether unnecessary to make mention of them. Only we fear lest the guilt of the blood then shed, should yet remain to be required at the hands of this Nation, because it hath not publicly endeavoured to appease the wrath of God by a general and solemn humiliation for it.  
What the practices of the Prelates have been ever since, from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth to this present day, would fill a volume (like Ezekiel's roll) with lamentation, mourning, and woe to record. For it hath been their great design to hinder all further reformation; to bring in doctrines of Popery, Arminianism, and Libertinism, to maintain, propagate and much increase the burden of humane ceremonies: to keep out, and beat down the Preaching of the Word, to silence the faithful Preachers of it, to oppose and persecute the most zealous professors, and to turn all Religion into a pompous outside. And to tread down the power of godliness. Insomuch as it is come to an ordinary Proverb, that when any thing is spoilt we use to say, The Bishops foot hath been in it. And in all this (and much more which might be said) fulfilling Bishop Bonner's Prophecy, who when he saw that in King Edward's reformation, there was a reservation of ceremonies and Hierarchy, is credibly reported to have used these words; Since they have begun to taste of our Broth, it will not be long ere they will eat of our Beef.  
FINIS.