The Antipathy of the English Lordly Prelacy

CHAP. IX. Comprising an Answer to the Principal Objections alleged by the Prelates in defense of the Divine pretended Institution, and for the continuance of their Episcopacy in our Church.

HAving thus given you a taste what our own Authors ancient and Mode • ne, Protestants and Papists, Martyrs, and Prelates have formerly written touching the pretended Divine Jurisdiction, the Treasons, Conspiracies, Seditions, Antimonarchicall practices, Lordlinesse, secular employments, courtship, and great Temporal possessions of our prelates, I shall only Answer two A • guments, or rather bare Allegation • now principally insisted on, for the maintenance of Episcopal Superiority by a Divine right, with three more Objections for the continuance of Episcopacy still in our Church, and so conclude.

The first Allegation for Episcopacies Divine institution; is taken [unspec 1] • rom the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, whom B • shop Hall, Bishop Usher and others will ne • d • s have • o be a Bishop Superior in Authority and Jurisdiction to other Ministers, because he writes only in the singular number to the Angel, not to the Angels of that Church, which say • hey implies a Sup • riority of one special Minister in that Church, to whom this Epistle is principally directed, over the other Presbyters not once mentioned in this Epistle.

To which I answer: First, that • his word Angel is but a metaphorical Title, proper only to the heavenly Spirits in strictness of speech, and in a large sense, as it signifies a Messenger, or Servant, it may as aptly deno • e a Minister or Presbyter, as a Bishop. The Ti • le therefore of it self, as it is used by S. John, makes nothing • or Episcopacy, since ordinary Presbyters are in Scripture sometimes styled Angels, but Bishops (distinct • rom Presbyters) are never so named there.

Secondly, our Bishops themselves if not the whole Church of England with our late famous King James, in the Contents annexed by them to the Bibles of the last Translation, now only used & permitted in our Churches, in express Termes, expound the Angels of • he 7. Churches to be the Ministers of them, the Contents of the second Chap. of the Revelation running thus. What is commanded to be written to the ANGELS, that is, The Ministers of the Churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thiatyra, &c. had these Angels been such as you now call Bishops, you would have rendered the Contents thus, What is written to the Angels, that is, to the Bishops of Ephesus, &c. But since you expound Angels thus, to be the Ministers of these Churches, who in vulgar appellation and acception are distinct from Bishops, and as you hold inferior to them; you must now either renounce your own and our Churches exposition, or your Episcopacy: For if the Angels of these Churches be the most eminent persons and rulers in them, as you argue; and these, as the Contents testify, be not Bishops, but Minister • , it follows infallibly, that Ordinary Ministers and Presbyters, are superior to Bishops, not Bishops to them. And that these Angels were the Ministers of these Chur • hes, is evident by the express resolution of our own learned James Pilkington, late Bishop of Durham, in his Exposition upon the Prophet Aggeus. cap. 1. v. 13. London. 1562. where he writes thus: That more worshipful names are given to the Preaching Minister, than to any sort of men. This name Angel, is given to the Preachers for the heavenly comfort that they bring to man from God, whose Messengers they be. In the Revel. of S. John, he writes to the 7. Angels, • . to the 7. Ministers (not Bishops) of the 7. Congregations or Churches in Asia. By this Bishops resolution then, and by Pope Gregory the firsts too, these seven Angels are seven Preaching Ministers, not Lordly Non-Preaching Prelates. And Master Fox in his Meditations on Apoc. c. 2, p. 27.28. concurs with them; averri • g, That by the seven Angels, is meant either the Ministers of the seven Churches, or the Churches themselves; which exposition is as ancient as Aretas, Primasius, and Ambrosius Ansbertus, who in their Commentaries on Apocalypsis, write thus. Septem stellae Angeli sunt septem Ecclesiarum. Nec putandum est quod hoc loco Angeli singuli singulis deputentur hominibus, quod incongrue ab aliquibus aestimatur, sed potius Angeli Eccles. hic intelligendi sunt rectores populi, qui singulis Ecclesiis praesidentes, verbum vitae cunctis annunciant. Nam & Angeli nomen, nuncius interpretatum dicitur. Et Angelo Ecclesiae Ephesi scribe. Darivo hic casu Angelo posuit, non genitivo. Ac si diceret, Scribe Angelo huic Ecclesiae, ut non tam Angelum & Ecclesiam separatim videatur dixisse, quam quis Angelus exponere voluisset, unam videlicet faciens Angeli Ecclesiaeque personam. Quamvi • enim Sacramenti dispensatione praeponatur, compaginis tamen unitate connectitur. Nam hanc regulam a principio servans, non septem Angels, sed Septem Ecclesiis scripsisset; Johannes, inquiens, Septem Ecclesiis quae sunt in Asia, & dominus quem vidit ; Scribe, inquit, in libro quae vidisti, & mitte septem Ecclesiis. Postea tamen Angels jubet scribi, ut ostenderet, unum esse. Sed etiam siqua singulis partiliter Ecclesiis praedicat, universam generaliter conven • re docetur Ecclesiam. Neque enim dicit, Quid spiritus dicat Ecclesiae, sed Ecclesiis. Angelum ergo Ecclesiam significans, duas in eo partes ostendit, dum & laudat & increpat. In consequentibus autem manifestatur non eandem increpare, quam laudat, sic ut Dominus in Evanglio omne praepositorum corpus, unum servum dixit beatum & nequam, quem veniens Dominus ipse dividet, & non tantum servum sed partem, inquit, ejus cum hypocritis ponet : Yea, Ludovicus ab Alcasar a late Jesuit, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse. Antu. 1614. Proem. in c. 2. K 3. Notatio. 1. p. 250.251. writes, That Andreas, Aretas, Ansbertus, Anselmus, Pererius, Victorinus, Ticinius, Ambrosius, Haymo & Beda are of this opinion. Augelarum & stellarum nomine designari Ecclesias ipsas; That by the name of Angels the C • urches themselves are signified ; not the Lordly Prelates in them, not one ancient Commentator on this that I find, and few moderne expounding these Angels to be Bishops, as our Prelates against all sense will make them: yea, Andreas Cesariensis, Comment. in John • Apoc. c. 3. p. 8. writes, Probabile fit per 7. Angelos totius universi gubernationem, quae in dextera Christi, sicut omnes qu • que terrae fines, sita est, hoc loco significari. Since • hen by Angels is here meant either the Ministers of the Church of Ephesus, or the whole Church it self, or Christ's government over the Universe, as these Authors a v •• re; this Text makes nothing at all for our Prelates Hi • rarchy.

[unspec 3] Thirdly, it is observable that Saint John neither in his Gospel nor Epistle, nor in his Book of • he Revelation, doth so much as once use the name or word Bishop, but the name of Elder, or Presbyter very often, both in his Epistle, and in the Apocalypse. I then appeal to any reasonable Creature, whether it is not more probable, that Saint John by this word Angel, should rather mean the Elders or Presbyters of those Churches ; (a Title which he gives himself, 2 John 1. 3 John 1.) and which Title and Office he so frequently mentions in the 4. and 5. and 7. Chapters of the Apocalypse next ensuing, rather than the Lordly Bishops of those Churches superior to Presbyters, whose office (for ought appears) he never knew, and whose Title he never useth in his writings?

[unspec 4] Fourthly, it is rem •• ke • ble, that S. John doth • ever place the 24. Elders, sitting on so many seats, next unto the throne of Christ himself ; and the Angels standing further off from the Throne without the Elders. If then by the Elders (as is generally agreed by all) be meant the Presbyters or Ministers of the Church, and by Angels as you pretend, be meant Bishops; then the Presbyters must needs be more honorable by divine institution than Bishops, because they are next to the Throne of Christ, and sit on seats or chairs whiles the Angels stand about them. Add to this, that these Elders are still introduced by S. John in this book, Worshipping and adoring God and Christ, and giving thanks, honor, praise, and glory unto them : That they only are said to have Crowns of gold upon their heads (the badge of Sovereignty and Superioriority) and harps 〈◊〉 Golden Vials in their hands, full of Odours, which are the prayers of Saints: That they sing the new Song ; And among other passages praise Christ for this in special manner. Rev. 5.10. And hast made VS (not Bishops) unto our God KINGS and PRIESTS, and we shall reign on the Earth. There • ore Presbyters doubtless are the chief and principal Ministers and Priests in the Church of Christ by divine institution; and being thus made Kings and Priests, and adorned with Crowns, to the end that they may reign upon the Earth ; no Prelates or Lord Bishops ought to rule over them, or climb Paramount them, as they do. Besides, these Elders no • Bishops informed S. John himself and instructed him in the things he doubted of Revel. 5.4.5. c. 7.13.14.15.16. Therefore these Elders must certainly be the better, the most emin • nt Scient men, and so Paramount the Angel-Bishops.

Fifthly, though the Angel be here put in the singular number, [unspec 5] yet the Elders are still mentioned in the Plural. And as for the Church of Ephesus in those days, it is most certain by Acts 20.17.28. 1 Tim. 5.17. That there were divers Elders, of equal authority • uling in it, whom the holy Ghost expressly not only calleth, but made Bishops and Overseers of that Church, both to Rule and Feede it. To make therefore one special Bishop and Superintendent in this Church, superior to all the rest, and he only graced by the name of an Angel, is but a crazy conceit of a proud Episcopal brain, contrary to apparent Texts.

Sixthly, This Angel is not said to have any Jurisdiction or [unspec 6] Superiority over other Ministers or Presbyters in the Church of Ephesus, nor to be the supreme or general Superintendent Prelate of that Church, neither is there anything spoken of him with reference to any other Minister of Ephesus : What then can this poor title make for Episcopal priority and Jurisdiction? The Spirit writes to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus: Ergo this Angel was a Bishop, and sup • riour to all other Ministers of Ephesus, is a strange non sequitur, and yet this is all this • ext affords you.

Seventhly, Bishop Hall and other contenders for Episcopacy, grant that there were divers particular Churches & Congregations [unspec 7] in and about Ephesus, everyone of which had its several Minister or Presbyter to instruct them; else they could prove no Episcopacy or Diocesan superintendency from one particular Congregation. This being granted by him and his party: Let them then tell me seriously, whether this Angel, (which they will not have taken collectively and Plurally, for the whole Presbytery and Ministry of that Church as many ancient and moderne Commentators expound it, but individually for one particular person) should not rather be one particular Pastor of one of the Churches of Ephesus only, who had lost his first love, and therefore was worthily reprehended, then a Diocesan Bishop or Arch-bishop of that Church to whose Jurisdiction all other Presbyters and Bishops of that National Church were subordinate; for which there is no ground in Scripture.

[unspec 8] Eighthly, our Prelates all plead very hard, That Timothy was ordained the first Bishop of Ephesus, and died Bishop of that See : which if I admit (though I think untrue) then it is clear that this Angel of Ephesus, who lost his first love, was famous and zealous, Timothy not dead when this Epistle was written, as Pererius and Alcazar both Jesuits, with Lyra, Ribera, P. Halloix, and others confess. And who dare be so presumptuous as to think Timothy a man so eminent, famous, zealous, and so much applauded in Scripture, would prove an Apostate or backeslider; and lose his first love ? Either therefore you must deny Timothy, or this Angel to be the Bishop of this Church.

[unspec 9] Ninthly, grant this Angel to be a Bishop, yet it was only such a Bishop as was all one and the same with Presbyters, and of which there were many in one Church (no • one over many Churches) according to the holy Ghosts and the Apostles own institution as appears by Act. 20.17.28. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5.7. compared with the 1 Pet. 5.2.3. I am. 5.14. Act. 14.23. 1 Tim. 5.17. which maketh nothing for, but directly against that Episcopacy, you contend for.

[unspec 10] Tenthly, and finally, grant him such a Bishop as you would make him; yet at the best he was an Apostate, who had fallen from, and lost his first love, by being made a Lord Bp: And it will be but little credit for our Prelates, to found their Hierarchy upon an Apostate: And if I conjecture not amiss, this may be one probable reason, why so many Ministers prove turn-coats, and Apostates, losing their first love and zeal to God when they are made Lord Bishops, because they have an Apostate Angel, both for their foundation, and imitation; Happy man be their dole; let them make the best of this Apostate; I will not hinder but rather pity them in this folly.

[unspec 2] The second Allegation for the divine right of Episcopacy is, that Timothy and Titus were Bishops (such as our Lordly Prelates now are, the one of Ephesus, the other of Crete ) which Bishop White, and others endeavor to prove, especially by the Post-script of the second Epistle to Timothy. 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 : And by this Postscript to the Epistle to Titus: It was wri • ten to Titus, ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans, f • om Nicopolis of Macedonia ; which Post-scripts they say are very ancient, if not Canonical and irrefragable.

I shall not here enter into a large discourse to prove Timothy neither a Bishop • nor first, nor sole, nor any Bishop at all of Ephesus (who as some say preached the Gospel in our Island of Britain, whiles our Prelates would crea • e him the Apost • ate Angel residing in the Church of Ephesus to whom Christ writ an Epistle by S. John Rev. 2.1.2.) or to disprove Titus to be Lord Bishop, or rather Lord Arch-bishop of Crete, which had an hundred Cities in it in Homers days, and no less than 4. Arch-bishops, and 21. Bishops in former times; since I have sufficiently manifested this long since, in The Vnbishopping of Timothy and Titus, not hitherto answered. And indeed were there no other Arguments but two,

• First, that though Paul in his Epistles, mentions Timothy [unspec 1] and Titus more frequently than any other persons; yet we never find him so much as once styling them Bishops, no not in the Epistles to them.
• Secondly, that Paul doth never write to them in the Ordinary [unspec 2] style of our Lordly Prelates (which it seems he was not then acquainted with, and so not with their Office) viz. To the Right Reverend Father in God, Timothy, Lord Bishop of Ephesus: To the Most Reverend Father in God Titus, Lord Arch-bishop of Crete his Grace, Primate and Metropolitan of all that Island ; which doubtless he would have done had they been such Bishops as ours are, and this style had been due or fitting for them; but only: To Timothy my own son, or dearly beloved son in the faith. To Titus mine own son after • he common • aith, &c. these were sufficient to satisfy any indifferent man, that neither of them was a Bishop or Arch-bishop of these places; or at least, that they were no such Lordly Prelates as ours now are, who may well be ashamed of these pompous swelling Titles, which no Apostle nor Apostolical Bishop ever usurped. But the only thing I shall here insist on, shall be to take away • he grounds of this false Allegation, to wit, the pretended Authority and Antiquity of these two Post-scripts, wi • h which the world hath been much abused.

[unspec 1] For their Authority, It is confessed by all: First, that they are no part of the Text or Canonical Scripture.

Secondly, that they are not of infallible truth, many of [unspec 2] them being dubious, others directly false as Baronius, the Rhemists, Estius, Mr. Beza, Mr. Perkins, and sundry others prove.

[unspec 3] Thirdly, that they were not added to the Epistles Paul b • himself, when he writ the Epistles, as some have dreamed, but by some third pe • son since, as the whole frame of the words, running on • lie in the third person imports. For their Antiquity, when, and by whom they were first added? will be the sole question. To clear this doubt, I shall have recourse to the Post-script of the first Epistle to Timothy, which runs thus: The first to Timothy, was written from Laodicea, which is the chief City of Phrygia Pacatiana. This Post-script of the first Epistle, no doubt was written either before, or at the same time when the Post-script of the Second Epistle was penned, and that must needs be after Phrygia was commonly styled Pacatiana, since it is thus named in this Post-script. Now we shall not find Phrygia so styled in any Authors, till about 340. years after Christ, in the reign of Constantine the great, at which time it begun to be called Pacatiana, and that as some conjecture from Pacatianus, who (as the Code of Theodosius, M. Cambden and Speede affirm) was Vicegerent of Britain some 330. years a • ter Christ. Who it was who first annexed these Post-scripts to Paul's Epistles only [ • or the other Apostles Epistles have none] will be the greatest question. For resolution whereof, I take it somewhat clear, that Theodoret was the man, who flourished about the y • are of our Lord .430. For I find these Post-scripts added to his Commentary upon Paul's Epistles, and in no other Commentator before nor in any after him till Oecumenius, his Ape, and transcriber, who lived about the year 1050. Theodoret then being the first in whom Post-scripts are extant, and Oecumenius his follower, the next, it is probable that he was the first Author of them. And that which puts it out of doubt is this, that Theodoret in his Preface to his Commentaries on Paul's Epistles, is the first who doth modestly undertake (with scriptum esse existimo only) to show both the time when, and the place from whence Paul writ his several Epistles, which Preface fully accords with the Post-scripts placed, not after the text it self, but after the end of his Commentaries on every Epistle. Since then this Preface and Post-scripts both accord: and see • ng there are no Post-scripts in any Ancient Latin Authors or Copies of the New Testament, nor in any Greek ones, but those who followed Theodoret, and no Post-scripts added to any but Paul's Epistles on which he only Commented, not to Peters or John's which he interpreted not, I presume I may safely conclude, that Theodore • was the Original Author of these Post-scripts. But then I pray take notice of these material observations.

• First, that these Post-sc • ipts were added to Paul's Epistles at [unspec 1] least 430. years after Christ and not before.
• Secondly, that they are extant only in Theodore • , and not [unspec 2] found in any Commentator or ancient Copy of the New Testament succeeding him till Oecumenius time, Anno. 1050.
• Thirdly, that these Post-scripts both in him, and Oecumenius [unspec 3] are placed, not immediately after the Original text, as now they are in our Bibles, and some late Commentators; but after the end of their Commentaries, as a part thereof, and no part or appurtenance of the text it self.
• Fourthly, that these clauses (ordained the first Bishop of the [unspec 4] Ephesians, and ordained the first Bishop of the Cretans) whereon our Prelates found the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titu • , and their own Hierarchy too, are not extant in Theodorets Post-scrips to the Epistles of Timothy and Titus : which run only thus, The second to Timothy was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the Roman Emperor the second time. The Epistle to Titus was written from Nicopolis : his Post-scripts therefore will no ways aid but confound their cause, since I may well argue, neither Paul in his Epistles, nor Theodoret in his Post-scripts term Timothy or Titus Bishops of Ephesus or Crete, therefore they were no Bishops of these places, un •• sse better proof than these Epistles and Post-scripts be produced to evidence it. The rare Ancient Manuscript Parchment Copy of the Greek Bible, sent to his Majesty by Cyrillus late Patriarch of Constantinople, remaining in his Majesty's Library at Saint James, supposed by some to be as Ancient as Tecla : but undoubtedly one of the ancientest Copies this day extant; hath no other Post-script to the first Epistle to Timothy, but this; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : No other to the second to Timothy, but this; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 B. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : not from Rome : And no other Post-script to Titus but, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (all written in Capitals) with which the Syriac Copies accord. So that all the residue is but a late spurious addition. The first man I find these additional clauses (ordained first Bishop of th • Ephesians, and ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans ) extant in, is Oecumenius, who flourished not till the year 1050. being a patcher together only of other men's Commentaries and none of the Orthodoxest writ • rs. And withal, this is observable,
  • [unspec 1] First, that Oecumenius placeth these Postscripts after his Commentaries, as a part of them, not immediately after the Text as a Part, or appendant thereof.
  • [unspec 2] Secondly, that he first cites his own additions to these Post-scripts after his Commentaries in one distinct line, and then placeth Theodorets Post-script in another different line some good distance under it, in this manner,
    〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

    〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

    〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

    〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
  • Thirdly, from Oecumenius till about 450. years after that those [unspec 3] Additionall clauses are not extant in any Commentators or Translations of the Epistles into any other Language, and but in few Greek Copies, and those taken out of Oecumenius. Therefore doubtless he was the first Author of them. And so they are of no great Antiquity or credit.

Now that you may more clearly discern what a sandy foundation these Post-scripts are to build the weighty Hierarchy of our Lordly Prelates on, give me leave to inform you of some observable particulars touching these Post-scripts upon mine own search and observation.

• [unspec 1] First, that Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Sedullus, Chrysostom, Primasius, Remig • us, Beda, Raba • us Maurus, Haymo, Hugo Cardinalis, Bruno, Aquinas, Nicholaus de Lyra, Ghorran, Dionysius Carthusianus, John Salesbury, Anselm, and Peter Lombard, the ancientest Commentators on the Epistles of Paul, have no postscripts at all extant in them, neither after the text, nor after their Commentaries; no nor yet Erasmus, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Zanchius, Alfonsus Salmeron, Benedictus Iustinianus, Ambrosius Caterinus, Cornelius a Lapide, Claudius Espencaeus, Antonius Scaynus, Estius, Hemingius, Ioannis Arboreus, Sotto Major, nor any other Commentator almost, whether Protestant or Papist.
• Secondly, That in sundry ancient English and Latin Manuscripts, [unspec 2] New Testaments and Bibles which I have seen; in the Printed New Testament, set forth in Greek and Latin by Franciscus Xemenez, in Academia Complutensi ; in the Bible of Isiodor Clarius Venetiis, 1557. in all the Latin vulgar Bibles, attributed to Saint Jerome ; In the New Testament, set forth by Erasmus ; in the Latin Bible Printed at Rome by command of Pope Sixtus the fifth, Anno 1592. In the New Testament, comprising the Latin vulgar translation, that of Guido Fabricius out of the Syriac, that of Arias Montanus and Erasmus, set forth altogether by Laurentius Bierlinke An • werpiae, 1616. In the New Testament set forth by Miles Coverdale in Latin and English, Anno. 1536. in Master Tyndalls English Bible, and in the English Translation, which Doctor Fulke follows in his answer to the Rhemish Testament, and in many ancient Greek Copies, there is no Postscript at all to be found.
• Thirdly, That in the Latin Bible, set forth and Printed by [unspec 3] Robert Stephen, Parisiis 1532. And in the Latin Bible of Ioannis Benedictus, Parisiis 1558, the Postscripts are thrust out and put into the Margin, as nor worthy to stand under the Text, and being of small or no account.
• Fourthly, That in the Latin Bible set forth by Robert Stephen [unspec 4] Parisiis 1532. In the Latin and Greek Bibles of Philip Melanctons Edition Tiguri 1543. and Basileae 1545. In Sebastian Castalio his Edition of the Bible, Basileae. 1551. In the Translations of the New Testament out of the Syriac both by Guido Fabritius, and Immanuel Tremellius, in the Dutch Bible set forth by David Walderus, Hamburgae 1596. In the Frenc • Bible set out by the Doctors of Louvaine a Paris 1616. In the Latin Bible of Ioannis Benedictus, Parisiis, 1558. In the Bible translated into English by Thomas Matthew. Anno. 1537. In • he English Bible set forth by diverse excellent Learned men, Printed Cum privilegio, by Thomas Petit and Robert Redman. London 1540. In the English Bible appointed to be read in Churches, Printed at London, 1568 • And in sundry other Bibles and New Testaments which I have seen, these clauses ( Ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Ephesians, and ordained the first Bishop of the Church of the Cretans) are not to be found in the Postscripts to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus ; And indeed, you shall seldom find them in any but Master Beza, and in those that follow his Edition, (as Master Calvin and some few others do in their Commentaries) whereas both he and they are professed Enemies to Episcopacy, and disclaim those Postscripts as false and spurious.
• [unspec 5] Fi • thly, Master Beza, and the • et • ers forth of the Greek Bible, Printed by the Heirs of Andrew, Francofurti. 1597. pass this sentence upon these Postscripts: and this clause, Ordained the first Bishops of Ephesus, or, of the Church of the Ephesians. Non exta • in quibusdam vetustis Codi • ibus, & sane supposttum fuisse pu • o. And Guilielmus Estius, a famous Roman Doctor, in his Commentary on 2 Tim. 1.4. writes thus of the Postscript to it. Grae • a subscriptio post finem Epistolae sic habet; Scriptae Roma ad Timotheum secunda, cum Paulus iterum sisteretur Caesari Neroni, (where he omits this addition Ephesiorum Ecclesiae primus Episcopus ) and then passeth this verdict upon it, Sed hujusmodi Graecae subscriptiones, ut incerti sunt authoris, ITA NON Magnae authoritatis. And Thom • s de vio Cajetan, Andreas Hyperius, Estius with others, de •• the subscription to Titus; That this Epistle was written from Nicopolis of Macedonia ; and the Century writers with others, that the Second to Timothy was written from Rome a • Paul's second appearing before Nero, a mere falsehood and mistake: All which considered, I wonder our great learned Prelates, B • shop Downeham, Bishop White, and Bishop Hall, and especially our great Antiquary, Bishop Usher, should so much insist upon these spurious false postscripts, and draw a main Argument from, to prove their Episcopacy of Divine Institution; when Bellarmine and those Papists, who write most eagerly for the Prelates Hierarchy, are ashamed to produce such a false and impotent proof for their groundless Episcopal jurisdiction. If these Answers satisfy not this Objection from these Postscripts, you may receive more full satisfaction and further Answers to it in my Vnbishoping of Timothy and Titus. p. 52. to 58. To which I shall remit the Reader.

From these two Arguments for the pretended Divine right of Episcopacy, I shall next proceed to answer the most considerable reasons produced for the continuing of Lordly Prelates in our Church.

The first, for order and moment, is the Antiquity of Lordly Bishops in our Church, who (if we credit Bishop Hall, and others ) are not only of Divine institution, but their Episcopal Government hath continued in this our Island, ever since the first plantation of the Gospel, without contradiction : Therefore, it will be neither decent, nor expedient, but dangerous and inconvenient to remove them now.

To this I answer; first, that though Bishops have been very ancient in our Church, yet how ancient, and what kind of Bishops these were, will be the question. Metraphrastes writes, that Saint Peter continued long in Britain, constituted Churches, and ordained Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and then returned to Rome, the 12 year of Nero Caesar. But as this Author is very fabulous in other things, so without doubt he is false and singular i • this, as I could easily manifest, did not Bishop Vshers, siquidem Symeoni Metaphrastae credimus ; and Baronius his sicut in aliis multis ibi a se positis errare Metaphrastum certum est, ita in his hallucinatum esse constat, John Speed his, For a dream we leave it, &c. and Francis Godwin Bishop of Landaffe, in his Discourse of the first conversion of this Island of Britain unto Christian Religion, p. 3, 4, 5, 6. (where he largely and professedly proves against this Impostor, That Peter was never in Britain ) ease me of this Labor, and sufficiently refute the vain confidence of those, who have lately produced this branded Authority to derive the Antiquity of our Lordly Prelates from the Apostles themselves, as if they had first planted them in our Church.

That which is likewise alleged out of the Greek Martyrologe and Dorotheus his Synopsis, That Aristobulus was ordained Bishop of the Britain's by Paul, and by him sent Bishop into England ; seems to be of the same stamp with the former in Bishop Godwins judgment, who rejects it as fabulous, because none of our own Authors or Histories so much as once mention his so memorable labor and martyrdom among us. But grant it true, ye • since the word Bishop, is here used only for an ordinary Minister or Preacher of the Gospel, and Aristobulus ( sent only to convert our Nation being Pagans ) had no Bishopric or Diocese here, nor any Inferior Presbyters under him for ought appears, over whom to play the Lord, as our Lordly Prelates have, this Authority will stand those in small steed, who with more confidence then judgment have objected it in defense of our Lordly Bishops, which by the common consent of all our Writers, began not till King Lucius his reign, about the year of Christ 179. So that from the Preaching of the Gospel in our Island by Jacobus Zebedee, Anno Christi 41. of Simon Zealots, Anno 47. of Joseph of Ara • at • aea, Anno 48. of Saint Paul Anno 60. of Philip the Apostle and his twelve associates. Anno 63. till Lucius erected Bishops and Bishoprics ; to wit, for the space of about one hundred and forty years after the first Preaching of the Gospel here, our Church of Britain had no Bishops at all to govern it, but only Presbyters, for ought app • ares by any credible Author, the Christian faith all this while continuing un-extinguished among us at Glastenbury, and in some other places; as our Antiquaries manifest. If then that rule of Tertullian be infallible, That is best and truest which is first : and that of Jerome most certain: That the Church of God, immediately after the Apostles times, before the erection of Lord Bishops, was governed by a common Council of Presbyters, not by Bishops ; and our Church, as is probable, and the Church of Scotland (as some Authors write for certain) was governed in this manner by Presbyters, for above an hundred years, together; it will rather follow, that our Lord Bishops should now be totally suppressed, and a Presbyterial government re-erected in our Church, because it is ancienter than that of Bishops, and planted among us by the Apostles when our Island first received the Gospel; then that the government of our Lordly Prelates should be perpetua • ed among us, because ancient only, yet not so old as that of Presbyters, by above one hundred years.

Touching the first erection of Arch-bishops, Bishops, and Bishoprics among us, there is great variance, obscurity and incertaine • y in Writers; yet this is the general verdict, both of our own and foreign Authors; That in King Lucius his time, before the conversion of our Island to Christianity, there were in it 28 Flamines and three Arch Flamines, to whom the other Judges of manners and Priests were subject; that upon the conversion of King Lucius and his people to the Christian Faith, by Fagan and De • wan, they by command from Pope Eleutherius, with the Kings consent, placed Bishops where there were Flamines, and three Archbishops where there were Arch Flamines, turning the three Arch • flamines Sees in the three chief Cities, into Arch-bishoprickes, and the 28. Flamines Sees into 28 Bishoprics. This is punctually averred for Truth by Geofry Monmoth: Histor. Brit. l. 2. c. 1. Edit. Ascent, & l. 4. c. 19. Edit. Heidelb. by Gild • s in his Book, De victoria Aurelii Ambrosii, by Gervasius Tilburiensis, de Otiis Imperialibus ad Othonem Imperatorem, Historiolae Wintoniensis Ecclesiae, Alphredus Beuer lacensis, Radulphus de Diceto, Bartholomaeus de Cotton, Gerardus Cornubiensis Ranulphus Cestrensis, the Authors of the History of Rochester, of the Chronicles of Hales, and Dunstaple, of the Book of Abingdon, of the Geneologicall Chronicle of the Monastery of Hales, and of the Abbreviated Chronicle of the Britain's, Thomas Rudburne, Thomas Stubs, Thomas Harfield, Ponticus Virunnius, Polydor Virgil, Martinus Polonus, P • olomaeus Lucensis Tuscus, cited by Ioannis Leydensis in Chronico Belgico, l. 2. c. 1. Ioannis B • ptista Platina, in vita Eleutherii, Jacobus Philippus Bergomiensis. Suppl. Chron. l. 8. Nauclerus. vol. 1. Chronograph. gen. 30. & Vol. 2. Gen. 6. Tritemius compend. l. 1. Pope Leo the ninth Epist. 4. Guilielmus Durand, Rationale • l. 2. c. 1. n. 21, 22. Polydorus Virgilius, de Jnvent • rerum • l. 4. c. 11. All quoted to my hand by that excellent learned Antiquary, Bishop Usher. De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum primordiis. c. 5. p. 56, 57, 58, 59.99.100. To whom I might add Matthew Parker his Antiquitates. Ecclesiae, Brit. p. 7. John F • x his Acts and Monuments: Edit ult. Vol. 1. p. 138, 139. John Speed in his History of Great Britain, p. 132. Richard Grafton in his Chronicle, part 7. p. 83. William Harrison in his Description of England. l. 2. c. 1, 2. With many more of our own Writers, and generally all the Canonists and Glossers on Gratian, Dictinctio 80. and the Schoolmen on Peter Lombard, sent. l. 4. distinct. 24, who concu • re in this opinion. For in Gratian distinct. 80. f. 130. I find these two decrees cited; the one of Pope Lucinus with this Rubric prefixed. In what places Primates and Patriarchs ought to be ordained. The Cities and places wherein Primates ought to preside, were not ordained by moderne times, but long before the coming of Christ, to whose Primates even the Gentiles did appeal for their greater businesses; In those very Cities after the coming of Christ, the Apostles and their Successors placed Patriarchs and Primates to whom the businesses of Bishops (yet saving the Apostolical authority in all things) and the greater causes after the Apostolic See are to be referred. On which John Thierry and others make this gloss. Primates are constituted there, where heretofore the proto-Flamines of the Gentiles were placed, Arch-Bishops, where there were Arch-Flamines, Bishops where their Flamines were, and this for the most part (if we may credit them) was done by Saint Peters appointment. The second is this Decree of Pope Clemens, which warrants this gloss. In those Cities wherein heretofore among the Ethnics, their chief Flamines and prime Doctors of the Law were placed, Saint Peter commanded (but God knows when and where) Primates or Patriarchs of Bishops to be placed, who should agitate the causes of the rest of the Bishops, and the greater businesses in Faith. But in those Cities in which in times past among the foresaid Ethnics, their arch-Flamines were, whom yet they held to be less than their foresaid Primates, he commanded Arch-bishops to be iustituted; but in every other particular City • he commanded one sole Bishop and not many to be ordained, who should only • btaine the name of Bishops, because among the Apostles themselves, there was the like institution, sed unus praefuit omnibus, but one had authority over the rest, (which is most false:) On which the gloss thus descants. The Gentiles had three Orders of Priests: to wit proto-Flamines, arch-Flamines, and Flamines. In the place of the proto-Flamines, Peter commanded Patriarchs to be placed, who should take conusance of the greater causes of other Bishops; in the place of arch-Flamines, Arch-bishops, in the place of Flamines, Bishops, of whom there ought to be but one in every City. Which Grai • an himself thus backs in his 21 Distinction. There is a certain distinction observed among Priests, whence others are called simply Priests, others arch-Priests, others chorall Bishops, others Bishops, oth • rs Arch-bishops or Metropolitans, others Primates, others chief Priests ; Horum discretio a Gentibus maxim introducta est; The distinction of these was principally int • oduced by the Gentiles, who called their Flamines, some simply Flamines, others Arch-flamines, others Proto-flamines. All which Peter Lombard the Father of the Schoolmen affirming after Gratian in his lib. 4. Senten • iarum Dist. 24. made this to pass as an undubitable verity among all the Canonists and Schoolmen. There is only one thing needs explanation in these Popes d • crees, and that is what is meant by Saint Peter, who is made the Author of this Institution? For this we need resort no further then to the Decree of Pope Nicholas recorded by the same Gratian: Distinct, 22. c. Omnes f. 33. Omnes sive Patriarchy cujuslibet apicem, sive Metropoleon primatus, Episcopatuum cathedras, vel Ecclesiarum, sive cujuscunque ordinis dignitatem instituit Romana Ecclesia. By which it is evident, that by Saint Peter, is meant the Church and Popes of Rome, who style themselves oft times Peter, in their bulls and writings, as well as his successors. By all these Authorities compared together, it is evident, that our Arch-bishops and Bishops had their Original Institution from the Church and Popes of Rome, and that not out of their imitation of any divine pattern, or form of government prescribed by Christ in Scripture, and settled in those primitive Churches of the Gen • iles, which the Apostles planted, and to whom they directed their Epistles, but out of an apish imitation of the Heathenish Hierarchical government of the Idolatrous Proto-Flamines, Arch Flamines, and Flamines used among the Pagan Gentiles, and Britain's before their conversion to the Christian Faith, in whose very places, Sees, and form of government they succeeded; Eleuther • us instituting and ordaining, that all, or the most part of the Arch-Flamines, which is to mean Arch-bishops, and Bishops of the Pagan Law, which at that day were in number, three Arch Flamines, and 28 Flamines should be made Arch bishops and Bishops of the Church of Christ, as Graf • on and others write in positive terms: which if it be true, (as this cloud of witnesses aver) it will thence necessarily follow, that our Arch • bishops and Bishops are not of divine and Apostolical, but rather of Papal and E • hnicall institution, and a mere continuance of the Diabolical, heathenish Hierarchy, exercised among the Idolatrous Priests in times of Paganism, within our I • land; and so by necessary consequence they and their government, are rather to be utterly extirpated then perpetuated in our Christian reformed Church, which ought wholly to abandon all Relics of Idolatry, and to have no fellowship nor communion with Infidels and unbeleavers in their discipline or Church government. Wherefore to avoid this dangerous rock and necessary consequence, some of our Prelates (as Bishop Jewel, Bishop Godwin, Bishop Usher, together with Doctor Sutcliffe, and that learned Knight, Sir Henry Spelman, reject this original of our Archbishops, Bishops, and Bishoprics as false and fabulous, informing us:

First, that Roger de Wendover, Matthew Paris, Matthew Westmin. William of Mal • esbury, the Poet under the name of Gildas, Giraldus Cambrensis and Radulphus Niger (to whom I may add William Caxton in his Chronicle. part. 4. in the life of King Lucie ) omit this figment of the Arch Flamines and Flamines, (which they say, was first invented wi • hout any ground by Galfridus Monu • etensis • ) and relate only that Lucius erected 28 Bishops and three Arch bishops among us, but record not that it was done in imitation of the Arch Flamines or Flamines, or that they were substituted in their places, and enjoyed their Lands, and Sees, as the former Historians write. But this is no argument to disprove the premised Authors, far more in number, since these few Historians silence of what sundry others record expressly, is no conviction of their falsehood, seeing one may relate, what another pretermits, either out of brevity, ignorance, or negligence.

Wherefore in the Second place Bishop Godwin affirms; that there is nothing more absurd in this History, then the imagination of • itting the Sees of Bishops and Arch bishops, according to the place and number of Flamines for sooth, and arch Flamines of the Pagans. A devise (writes he) so childish and ridiculous as I cannot but wonder, that any man of learning and judgment should approve it, and yet I perceive not (saith he) any that have gainsaid it before Master Sutcliffe, but contrariwise dive • s, both ancient and learned are to be found, that have partly broached and partly applauded the same; among whom he reckons up two, especially; Fenestella de Sacrif. Rom. c. 5. and Gratian Distinct. 21. & 80. To confute whose mistakes he produceth these two Reasons.

• [unspec 1] First, That not so much as the name of proto Flamin, or Arch Flamine is to be found in any author or monument of credit, before Gratians time.
• [unspec 2] Secondly, that it is manifest, that divers Cities had many Colleges of Priests and consequently many Flamines, which he proves at large. Therefore it is not possible that there should be any manner of proportion at all, between our Bishops and their Flamines, they having divers Flamines to almost every town, and we one Bishop not so much as for every whole shire. To which Sir Henry Spelman adds in the third place: That the Flamines were no other but ordinary Priests among the Romans, so called, a filo, quasi Filamines, or a pilo, quasi Pilamines : that everyone of them received his name from the God he served, as Flamen Dialis, Flamen Martialis, Flamen Quirinalis, Vulcanalis, Floralis, Volturnalis, Pomalis, Furinalis, Falacer, Caesaris Flamen, and the like. That none of these had any Priestly Jurisdiction over any certain Province, or did solely administer in any one cure, but that every cure or Parish had two Flamines at least set over it. Neither were these subject to any superior Flamin who from thence might be called an Arch- Flamin or Proto-Flamin, (whose names are nowhere to be found among the ancients unless it be in Fenestella, which Author he proves to be spurious) Sed toti Pontificum Collegio, but to the whole College of Pontifs, and to the chief Priest that governed it, not to an Arch-Flamin: and though some Flamines were called greater, others lesser, yet this (writes he) was not from their power, but from their Antiquity, the three first being instituted by Numa and the Senators, the others afterwards by the people. Admit then these their reasons true, that the Flamines were but ordinary Priests among the Pagans, and not in nature of Arch-bishops or Bishops: that they were all of equal authority and had no Jurisdiction one over another: that there were many of them in every City, and not one of them set over an whole City, much less a Diocese; and that they were subject only to the whole College of Priests, and not to any Arch- Flamin, or Proto-Flamin : I • our Arch-bishops and Bishops be derived from them, and successors to them in our Island, as the first recited Authors affirm; this quite overturns their Archiepiscopall and Episcopal, pretended Jurisdiction over other Ministers, and their sole Episcopacy and Jurisdiction in or over one City and Province; since the Flamines were all equal, and many in each Parish and City; and directly proves, that there ought to be a parity between Arch-bishops, Bishops and our Ministers now, and no disparity, because there was none among the Flamines, & that no Ministers ought to be subject to our Arch-bishops and Bishops but only to the whole Synod or Convocation of Presbyters, because the Flamines were so: and that there ought to be not one sole, but many Bishops of equal Authority in every City, because it was so among the Flamines their Predecessor • , yea in the first Christian Churches, (planted by the Apostles) as appears by Act. 14.23. c. 20.17.28. Phil. 1.1. Tit. 1.5.7. 1 Tim. 5.17, Jam. 5.14. with other Texts. If they be not these Arch- Flamines and Flamines Successors, as these last Authors testify, then I fear our Prelates can hardly derive their pedigree as high as King Lucius, nor yet certainly define at what time, or by whom Arch-bishops and Bishops were first erected in our Island: For Bishop Godwin, (who rejects the conceit of King Lucius his erecting of Arch-bishops and Bishops in steed of Arch- Flamines and Flamines ) gives these three very probable Reasons against his erecting of three Arch-bishoprickes, and 28. Bishoprics in this Isle, or any Bishoprics at all.

[unspec 1] First, because he saith and proves by Histories, that Lucius was never King of all Britain, but rather some petty King, or King happily of some principal part thereof; therefore he could not erect Archbishoprickes and Bishoprics throughout the Island, as the recited Authors Fable.

[unspec 2] Secondly, because the multitude of Bishops and Bishoprics said to be ordained at that time, seemeth unlikely, and that they had any fixed Sees: For in the Council of Arles in the year 325. mention is made of one Restitutus a British Bishop, not entitled to any certain See, but only called Bri • anniarum Episcopus ; and even so likewise after him Fastidius, is mentioned by Gennadius by the same style, which being considered (saith he) together with the rare and seldom mention that we find of British Bishops, whose Antiquities I have hun • ed a • ter with all diligence, I cannot but rest persuaded, that our Britain's had very few Bishops until the coming over of Germanus and Lupus to suppress the Pelagian Heresy; which after they had rooted out, the History of Landaff saith, they Consecrated Bishops in many places of Britain, and over all the Britain's dwelling on the right side of Britain, they consecrated for Arch-bishop, Saint Dubritius who was chosen for the Supreame Doctor by the King and all the Diocese : which dignity being bestowed upon him by Germanus and Lupus, they with the consent of Maurice the King, the Nobility, Clergy and people, appointed his See to be at the manner of Lantani, and founded his See there • This was about the year of Christ 430. about which time also, or somewhat later, Palladius, did first appoint Bishops and ordain Bishoprics in Scotland, as Buchanan hath delivered. Upon these testimonies, I reason thus: If before these times we had so many Bishops, and Bishoprics, how cometh it to pass, that in no Monument whatsoever, we find any name or mention of any Bishop of this Land, saving some few that (as we say) had their See at London ? and if so many Sees had been furnished before, what occasion had Germanus and Lupus to consecrate so many Bishops (and erect new Bishoprics too) as is before mentioned in the History of Landaff ? Thus Bishop Godwin argues, against the pretended first erection of our Bishoprics and Arch-bishoprickes, most of which now extant, ( London only excepted) were erected long after King Lucius reign, above 600. years after Christ, and five of them in King Henry the 8. his reign; so that William of Malmesbury one of our most juditious writers, and the most diligent searcher out of the Antiquities of our Bishops Sees, who writ the History of our Bishop • and their Sees above 500. years since could find no Arch-bishops See in our Island ancienter than Canterbury (erected about the the year of Christ 600. or 602.) and determines positively Ibi Prima sedes Archiepiscopi habteur, qui est totius Angliae Primas & Patriarcha. Caeterum ubi fuerit Archi-Episcopa • us (if there were any such) tempore Britonum, cognitio l • hat, quia vetustas consumpsit nostri seculi memoriam ; Whence our most diligent Antiquary Sir Henry Spelman concludes thus, concerning the Original of our Arch-bishops and Bishops, (the certain time of whose Primitive institution among us he cannot determine) Sufficit quidem, &c. Truly it is sufficient that we had many Bishops here, and some Metropolitans; either under Lucius himself, or soon after his age, licet de ipsorum sedibus a • que numero lucide satis non constiterir; although their Sees and number do not plainly enough appear. So that upon the whole matter, when all things are thoroughly scanned, we can find no undoubted Bishops at all in our British Church till Restitutus his time, who was present at the Council of Arles about the year of Christ 325. and he a Bishop without any particular See or Diocese known only by the name of Britanniarum Episcopus, as Godwin writes (though others style him Civitate Londinensi Restitutus Episcopus ) who for ought we find had no Presbyters at all under his Jurisdiction, and was no more than an ordinary Minister as the Bishops in the Apostles time were. Act. 20.17.28. Phi. 1.1. Tit. 1.5.7. And so by this computation, our Church after the first preaching of the Gospel among us continued without Lord Bishops and Archbishops, about 280. years or more. And if she remained and flourished without Bishops for so many years then, why may she not without any great Soloecisme or prejudice remove, and flourish without them now? yea, why should she not (by the Objecters own argument from antiquity) now quite abandon them, and set up a Presbyterial government without any scruple, since Presbyters by some hundred • of years, are the ancientest, and those by which our Church, and the Church of Scotland were first governed, for so long a space before any Lord Bishops were instituted in them?

Secondly, grant our Bishops as ancient as King Lucius, yet these ancient Bishops, no doubt, were far different from ours.

[unspec 1] For first, I conceive it cannot be proved, that they had any Diocese, Parishes or Presbyters under them: for there was no division of Parishes made in England till Archbishop Theodores time, who first divided the Province of Canterbury into Parishes about the year of Christ 670. And for ought appears they were no more than ordinary Presbyters.

[unspec 2] Secondly, they had no great but very small revenues, as appears by three of the British Bishops present at the Council of Ariminum, under Constantius, Anno 379. who were so poor that they were maintained at the Emperors cost, inopia proprii publico usi sunt, cum collatam a caeteris collationem respuissent, sanctius putantes fiscum gravare, quam singulos. By the Bishopric of Rochester, Putta and Quichelmus the 6. and 7. Bishops of this See, being forced to leave it through want and poverty ; and by other [unspec 3] of our ancientest Bishops, who lived commonly upon Alms, or contribution, and had no temporal Lands or possessions.

Thirdly, they had no stately Palaces and Cathedrals, as is evident by the first Bishops of York and Lindisfarne, who lived in poor Cottages, and had either no Cathedrals a • all, or some built only of wattle or boards, and covered over with reed; stately stone Churches being not in use among the Britain's, Scots, or Irish, for many hundred years, as Bishop Usher proves out of Beda, Eccles. Hist l. 3 cap. 4.5. and S. Bernard in the life of Malachi. Therefore stone Altars (no doubt) were not then in use, when as the very walls of their [unspec 4] Churches were but wattle or Timber.

Fourthly, they had no stately Coaches and Palfryes as our Lord Bishops have, neither were they unpreaching, or rare-preaching Prelates, but they went about the Country on foot from place to place (as Christ and his Apostles did at first) and Preached the Gospel to the people day by day: Witness Aidan the first Bishop of Lindisfarne (now Durham and a Count Palatine) who purposely avoiding the Pomp and frequency of York chose the little Island of Lindisfarne for his See, and for 15. years space together travelled up and down the Country 〈◊〉 , even on foot, to preach the Gospel to the people, not seeking nor having anything in this world, and giving whatsoever he could get unto the poor : So Paulinus, the first Arch-Bishop of York for 36. days together never rested one moment, but either instructed the people by preaching that flocked continually about him, or else imparted Christ unto them in Baptism, and that in the open field • and Rivers, there being then no Churches built.

Fifthly, they intermeddled not with any secular affairs; and when some began to tamper with them they made this Canon [unspec 5] in the Council of Cloueshow under Cuthbert Anno. 747. That Bishops should follow their pastoral cure with their uttermost endeavor, and instruct the people with wholesome doctrine, and not addict themselves to secular affairs more than to God's s • rvice, as most of our Lordly Prelates do now.

Sixthly, Bishops in those days were not reputed very necessary [unspec 6] nor useful in the Church: for after the death of Paulinus the first Bishop of York, that See continued void of a Bishop 30. years. So after the translation of Mellitus to Canterbury, Anno. 617. that See continued void near 40 years: and how these and other Bishoprics have continued void in several ages, 2.3.4.6.10.15.20. and 30. years together without any prejudice, I have elsewhere manifested more at large. If then our Bishoprics may want Bishops for so many years space without any inconvenience to our Church (when as no Parish Church by our Common, and the Canon Laws, ought to be void above six months at most ) I presume by the self-same reason, our Church may well subsist without for all future times, especially now when there are so many complaints and petitions against them, and so many Bishoprics void of Prelates already.

Finally, in those primitive times, Bishops were not so great but that some of them, were subject unto Presbyters: For our venerable Beda informs us of an Island in Ireland, which in those days had an Abbot Presbyter for its governor, to whose jurisdiction the whole Province, Et etiam Episcopy sunt subjecti, and even Bishops themselves were subject, according to the example of the first Teacher thereof, who was no Bishop, but a Presbyter and a Monk. So the Abbot of Glastonbury exempt from all Episcopal Jurisdiction, had a kind of superiority above the Bishop of Bath and Wells, which Bishop by the Charter of King Ina, was bound with his Clerks at Wells every year, Ipsam matrem suam Glastoniensem Ecclesiam feria secunda post ascensionem Domini cum Litania recognoscere, to do his homage to his mother Church of Glastonbury with a Litany; quod si superbia inflatus distulerit, and if he refused to do it out of pride, then he was to forfeite two houses which this King gave him. And in the Excerptions of Egbert Archbishop of York, Anno. 750. I find these Canons of the fourth Council of Carthage revived here among us, as Ecclesiastical Laws, That Bishops and Presbyters should have Hospitiolum, a little Cottage (not a Lordly Palace) near the Church. That the Bishop in the Church by the consent of the Presbyters should set somewhat above them, but within the house, Collegam Presbyterorum se esse cognoscat, should know himself to be the Colleague (or Companion) of the Presbyters. That a Bishop should not ordain Clerks without a Council of his Presbyters. That a Bishop should hear no man's cause without the presence of his Clerks, except the cause of confession, because a decree cannot be firm which shall not seem to have the consent of many. All which considered, it is evident, that our Bishops in those days had no Lordly Jurisdiction over other Ministers, no such sole power of Ordination and judicature as our present Lord Bishops now claim and exercise as their peculiar right. Therefore their Antiquity and Episcopacy, can be no warrant at all for the lawfulness or continuance of our Lordly Prelacy.

Thirdly, admit our Bishops as ancient as King Lucius days, or there abouts, yet this is no good Plea for their continuance.

First, because our Abbots, Priors, Monks could make as good if not a better prescription for themselves as our Lordly Prelates, who can allege nothing for their continuance but what these either did or might have done when they were suppressed. [unspec 1]

For first our Monks, Abbots, Priors and their Abbeys were every way as ancient, if not elder then our Lordly Bishops and Bishoprics, the Monks and Abbey of Glastonbury deriving their pedigree from Joseph of Aramathea (which Church and Abbey our writers call, Prima Ecclesia; fons & Origo totius Religions, &c. the first Church, the fountain and Original of all our Religion. ) And many other of our other Abbeys [as that of Winchester, S. Albans, Westminster with others] being ancienter than all or most of our Bishoprics. [unspec 2]

Secondly, Most of them were confirmed by more Acts of Parliament, Bulls of Popes, and Charters of our Kings, endowed with greater privileges than any of our Bishoprics whatsoever, as is evident by the Charters, Bulls, and exemptions, granted to Glastonbury, Saint Albans, Berry, Redding, Westminster, Saint Augustine, [unspec 3] of Canterbury, Abingdon and W •••••• ster.

Thirdly, many of our Abbots and Priors, (sometimes above an hundred) were mitred, had Episcopal Jurisdiction, and sat in Parliament as Barons and Peers of the Realm as well as Bishops; yet notwithstanding they were all suppressed by Acts of Parliament even in time of Popery, though double in number to our Bishops; therefore our Bishops and Bishoprics being now found by long experience not only unprofitable, but pernicious to our Kings and State, as here I have manifested, and to our Church, our Religion, as our Book of Martyrs largely demonstrates, may lawfully be extirpated, notwithstanding this Plea of Antiquity, as well as they.

Fourthly, the Bishops in other reformed Churches, could and did plead as large Antiquity and prescription for their continuance, [unspec 4] as our Prelates do: yet that could not secure them from dissolution, but these Churches wholly suppressed them: therefore it is no good Plea for us to continue our Prelates; yea, in my weak judgment it is an argument not for, but against our Bishops continuance, that they have been tolerated so long, since evils and grievances [as our Lordly Prelates have ever been to our Church and Kingdom] are so much the more speedily and carefully to be suppressed, by how much the more inveterate and lasting they have been. In a word, the government of our Church by a Presbytery hath been more ancient, more profitable, and less prejudicial to our State, Kings, Church, than the Government of our Lordly Prelacy: therefore it is most reasonable that it should be revived, reestablished, and the Prelacy suppressed. All which I hope, may suffice in Answer to the first part of this grand objection, which hath stumbled many.

To the second branch of it, touching the danger and inconvenience of this change in suppressing Episcopacy.

I answer: First, that there can be no danger or inconvenience [unspec 1] at all therein, because the people generally most earnestly desire, pray for, expect it, and have preferred many Petitions to the High Court of Parliament to effect it.

[unspec 2] Secondly, because all things are now prepared for this alteration, the wickedness, misdemeanors, profaneness, superstition, oppression of our present Prelates, with the great troubles and combustions they have raised in our Church, our State, to their intolerable charge and molestation, deserve and call for this alteration; the present constitution of our Church, State, people: yea our correspondency with Scotland, with other reformed Churches requires it: the divisions and distractions in our Church (which in many wise men's apprehensions cannot be reconciled, nor any unity or uniformity in God's worship established among us without it;) call for it Episcopacy being now grown such a root of bitterness, and wall of partition, as there is little hope of any unity, peace, or harmony in our Church if it continue.

[unspec 3] Thirdly, admit some petty inconveniences may arise by such an alteration and extirpation of Episcopacy, yet these are nothing comparable for weight or number to those mischiefs which will certainly accrue by its continuance: Since therefore of two evils the less is ever to be elected, it will be far more expedient to our Church and State totally and finally to suppress, then to support our Lordly Prelacy. And thus much for this Capitall Objection.

The second Allegation for the continuance of Episcopacy is this, that if Bishops be taken away, we shall have nothing but Sects, Schisms, and divisions in our Church, and almost as many Religions as men.

To this I answer. First; that the tyranny, Lordlinesse, profaneness, Superstition and Innovations of our Prelates both in Ceremones, Doctrine, Worship, have been the Original, Principal, if not only cause of all those Sects, divisions, and Separations lately sprung up in our Church; for proof of which I appeal only to every man's conscience and experience, it being a most known undubitable truth: the removing therefore of our Bishops (the cause of all our Schisms and devisions) must needs be a means of future peace and unity, not cause of Schisms, or divisions in Religion, as is vainly suggested.

Secondly, Episcopacy it self is now a main ground of [unspec 2] Separation from our Church, the great stumbling block which causeth many daily to fall off from us, and hinders others from closing with us; all other grounds of Separation and division depending on, or arising from Episcopacy. And unless this be removed, in my poor apprehension, there can be no hopes at all of any reconciliation of those who are fallen off from us, or keeping others from separation, but the rent will still grow greater, what ever course else be taken to effect a Union. Therefore questionless the abolishing of Episcopacy cannot be a means of increasing Schisms or divisions, but the best, and readiest way to remedy and prevent them.

Thirdly, Saint Jerome and others inform us, that Episcopacy [unspec 3] was first instituted to prevent and extirpate Schisms ; but it hath been so far from effecting this, that it hath on the contrary occasioned all or most of those Schisms and divisions that ever happened in the Church of God since its first institution, both at home and abroad, as is evident by all Ecclesiastical Histories, by the several Schisms of the Popes and other Prelates in foreign parts; of Canterbury, York, and other Lordly Prelates at home, which if God send life and opportunity, I shall irrefragably manifest in a peculiar Treatise of that Subject, if there be occasion. It cannot be then, but that their suppression should rather remedy than procure Sects and Schisms.

Fourthly, in the reformed Churches of France, and Geneva, [unspec 4] where there are no Bishops, there are no Sects, or Schisms at all, or at least not so many as where there are Bishops. And though im Germany and the Netherlands there be many Sects, yet this is not through want of Bishops, but by reason of the connivance of the temporal Magistrates who permit them, and will neither suppress them themselves, nor suffer their Presbyteries to do it, out of I know not what State policy, permitting all Religions and Sects.

[unspec 5] Fifthly, our Bishops ever since the Reformation, and before, have been the greatest opposers and hinderers of the reformation of those abuses and fooleries, the introducers and maintainers of those Ceremonies and Superstitions which have been the grand occasions of Schisms and Separation. How often have Pluralities, Non-residence, abuses of Excommunication, Ex Officio Oaths and proceedings, Visitation, Fees and extortions, abuses of Ecclesiastical Courts and processes, Selling of Orders, of licenses to preach, keep School, and the like, commutations of penance, admission of profane and scandalous persons to the Sacrament, toleration of scandalous, superstitious, lazy, non-preaching, rare-preaching and insufficient Ministers, Altars, Images, Tapers, Cathedral chaunting and music, bowing at Altars, and to the name Jesus, with those Superfluous Ceremonies of the Cross, Ring, Surplice, and kneeling at the Sacrament, which scandalize many, and may be better omitted than retained, been complained against from time to time in Parliament and elsewhere, without any the least redress or reformation; and all by reason of our Prelates obstinacy, who peremptorily maintain, and will not suffer them to be either amended or removed to the glory of God, the honor of our Religion, the satisfying of tender Consciences, the peace of our Church and State; and do they not now in this present Parliament, which threatens ruin to their Lordly chairs, oppose with all their might • the reformation of all or most of those corruptions which are the occasions of our Schisms and distractions? Yea did they not in their late new Canons, in affront of the whole Parliament and Kingdom, not only justify, but establish as much as in them lay, and that for perpetuity, all those Innovations, extravagances and grievances which were chief occasions of our late unhappy divisions, and of many thousands separations from our Church? This being then an experimental known • ruth, the removing of these incorrigible Prelates, who will neither refo • me themselves, nor suffer any abuses in our Church to be redressed, must of necessity be the only cure of our ren • s and divisions for the present, and the best means to prevent them for the future.

Sixthly, I appeal to all indifferent men, whether Schisms [unspec 6] and diversities in matters of Religion may not be better prevented, suppressed by good Laws, by godly Magistrates and Ministers, specially authorized to suppress them, than by a company of corrupt Prelates and their Officers, who for their own private Lucre (as experience manifests) will be content to tolerate, and connive at any erroneous doctrines, Sects and Schisms (especially Papists and Arminians, the chief patriots and supporters of their Hierarchy) but those who directly oppose their Prelacy and corruptions, as • hose they nickename Puritans do, who shall be sure to smart and feel the Bishops severity to the uttermost, how ever others scape. If so; then I hope there is no need at all to continue our Lordly Prelates to suppress these mischiefs, which may be better reformed, and suppressed by others, than by our Bishops and their Officers. I shall conclude this point with the words of learned Antony Sadeel, in his answer to Turrian the Jesuit, who made the same objection for the defense and continuance of Bishops, as our Prelates do here. I answer in few words, That this superior degree of Bishops is an ancien • , but yet ONELY a human Institution, whereby the pious Ancients intended to prevent Schisms. And although perchance considering those times, this remedy was not unuseful, yet experience hath taught us, that these good Fathers while they desired to shun • Charybdis, fell into Scylla. For the ambition of Prelates which followed soon after, was no less pernicious to the Church than those Schisms. And to speak truly: THIS WAS THE MOST PERNICIOVS SCHISME OF ALL OTHERS, when a Divorce was made from the parity and true doctrine of the Gospel, and the Spiritual Discipline of the Church changed into a kind of Regal Authority, and terrene power. This I hope will abundantly answer this second Objection for Episcopacy.

The last Objection is this. That by the Statute of 16. R. 2. cap. 5. Bishops are declared to be profitable and necessary to our Lord the King and to all his Realm, and that by the removal of them the Realm should be destitute of Counsel. That they are one of the greatest States of the Land • settled by many Acts of Parliament, which cannot well be held without them. That the removal of them will breed a great confusion both in the Common and Statute Law; and that the King is sworn to defend and protect them to his power: Therefore it must needs be dangerous and inconvenient to remove them.

This Objection consists of several heads, to all which I shall give a particular answer, with as much brevity as may be.

• [unspec 1] First, for the words of the Statute of Richard the 2 ^d . I doubt not but they were inserted into that Act by the Bishops themselves, or by their procurement, who ought not to be Trumpeters of their own praises, nor witnesses in their own cause.
• [unspec 2] Secondly, I hope the premised Histories of their Treasons, Rebellions, Oppressions, and desperate Counsels in all times, will manifestly declare the contrary to this Act, That Bishops are neither necessary, nor profitable to the King, nor to all his Realm, but pernicious to both, and that the Kingdom will be no ways destitute of Counsel if they should • e removed, especially in our days when there are so many learned Lord's, Lawyers, and Gentlemen of all sorts, to Counsel and advise his Majesty in all State affairs.
• [unspec 3] Thirdly, The Prelates in this very King Ricard the second his time, were so far from being profitable and necessary to him, as their Lord and King, and to all his Realm, that some of them were the chief men that miscounselled him, as appears by the Statut • of 11. R. 2. c. 1 • 5.6. which recites; that for cause of great and horrible mischiefs and perils, which were fallen by evil Governance which was about the Kings person by all his time before, by Alexander late Arch-Bishop of York, Thomas Bishop of Chichester and other their adhaerents, thereby the King and all his Realm were very nigh to have been wholly undone and destroyed, for which cause these Prelates were attainted, removed from the King, and their lands confiscated by this Act. And the residue of them were the principle agents that opposed, deprived, and thrust him (as they did King Edward the second before him) from his Crown and royal dignity, as appears by the premises. Now if this were to be profitable and necessary to our Sovereign Lord the King, let all men judge. How necessary they were to all the Kingdom in his time, let the Histories of this Kings life, and the Treasons of Arch-Bishop Arundell, fore related declare. How well they used the people and their tenants, you may see by a Commission granted about this time, to inquire of • he Bishop of Winchesters oppressions and abuses of the Kings people, recorded in the Register of Writs, part. 2 f. 125. b. Rex Vicecomiti salutem. Ex clamosis quer • mon • is diversorum hominum de comitatu tuo ad nostium saepius pervenit auditum, quod A Episcopus Wintoniensis, nec no • ballivi, c • nstabulari • & alii ministri & servientes ipsius Episcopy, plu • imas & diversas oppressiones, extortiones, duritias, damna, excessus, & gravamina intolerabilia, dictis • ominibus in diversis partibus Comita • us praedicti, tam infra liber • ates quam extra multipliciter & diversimode intulerunt, & de die in diem infer non desistunt, plures de dictis hominibus vi & armis multotiens verberando, vulnerando, eosque capiendo, imprisonando, & in prisona forti & dura super terram nudam & absque alimento, fame, frigore, & nuditate fere ad mortem cruciando, & eos in prisona • ujusmodi, donec fines & redemptiones ad voluntatem suam fecerint, null • modo deliberari permittendo, nec non domos quorundam hominum hujusmodi vi armata, & bona & catalla sua capiendo & asportando, eosdemque uxores & servientes suos verberando, vulnerando, & male trac • ando, & hominibus super hujusmodi duri • iis conqueri volentibus in tantum comminando, quod iidem homines in hundredis & aliis curiis dicti Episcopy vel alibi negocia sua inde prosequi metu mortis non sunt ausi, & alia hujusmodi mala, damna, & excessus inhumaniter indies perpetrando, in nostri dedecus & contemptum, & populi nostri partium praedictarum destructionem & depressionem manifestam, unde plurimum conturbamur, Nos oppressiones, dur •• ias damna & excessus ac gravamina praedicta, si perpetrata fuerint nolente • relinquere impunita, volentesque salvationi & quieti dicti populi nostri in hac parte prospicere ut tenemur, assignavimus dilectis & fidelibus nostris, &c. sciri poterit, de oppressionibus, exto • tionibus, duritiis, damnis & gravaminibus praedictis, per dictos episcopum, ballivos, constabularios, ministros & servientes suos & alios quoscunque de confederatione sua in hac parte existentes qualitercunque perpetratis, & de praemissis omnibus & singulis plenius veritatem, & ad querelas omnium & singulorum pro nobis vel prose ipsi • inde conqueri & prosequi volentium, nec non ad praemissa omnia & singula tam ad sectam nostram quam aliorum quorumcunque audiendum & terminandum secundum legem & consuetudinem regni nostri Angliae, Et ideo ti • i praecipimus quod ad certos &c. quos, &c. tibi scire facias, venire facias coram, &c. tot & tales probos & legales homines de balliva tua tam infra libertates quam extra, per quos rei ver • tas in praemissis melius sciri poterit & inquiri, Et habeas, &c. For their profitableness and necessary use in our Church in that Kings reign, let the Statute of 5. R. 2. c. 5. surreptitiously procured by t • e Prelates, and complained against by the Commons the next Parliament, and with several bloody persecutions of the true Christians • in that age under the name of Lollards by William Caurtney, Thomas Arundell and other our Prelates (related at large by Master Fox in his Acts and Monuments ) testify to the world. For mine own part I could never yet find any good at all that our Lordly Prelates ever did in our Church or State, quatenus Prelates. If any o • them have done any good by their preaching and writing (as some of them have, which is rare,) I answer, that the most of them who have done any good in this kind, did it not as, or whiles they were P • elates, but as, or whiles they were Private men, their Episcopacy making none of them to preach, or write more than otherwise they would have done, but less, as experience manifests. So that their Bishoprics made them not to do more good, but rather hindered them to do so much good as they would have done, had they still continued private Ministers only.

[unspec 2] For the second, that they are one of the greatest States of the Land, settled by many Acts of Parliament, and necessary members of the Parliament, which cannot well be held without them.

I answer, first, that our Lord Abbots and Priors might and did plead this as well as Bishops, yet this was held no Plea at all, no not in times of Popery, and shall we allow it now in times of clearer light?

[unspec 2] Secondly, the wohle body of Popery it self, together with the Pope, his Popish Clergy, Orders and Ceremonies were all settled among us by sundry Acts of Parliament, and the Statutes of Magna Charta, c. 1. with all other Acts of Parliament since, enacting, that holy Church, (or the Church of England ) Bishops and Churchmen shall enjoy • all their • ranchises, Rights, Liberties, Privileges, &c • are meant only of our Popish Prelates, Abbots, Priors, Monks Nuns, Mass-Priests; and of exemption from secular Jurisdiction, Sanctuaries, with other Anti-Monarchical privileges granted to them by Kings, Popes, or Parliaments in times of Popery? shall then our Popish Recusants or any other argue thence, therefore it is fit that Popery, with all Popish orders, Bishops, Sanctuaries, and exemptions should be now revived and perpetuated among us, because established by so many Laws? If this be no argument for the continuance of Popery, or Popish Prelates, who were principally established by these objected Laws, then certainly it can be no good Plea for the continuance of such of our Prelates who are true Protestants, whom most of these Acts never established, nor intended to continue.

Thirdly, It is a rule in Philosophy and Law, Eodem modo [unspec 3] quo quid constituitur, dissolvitur : Since therefore our Lordly Bishops were first erected and constituted such Bishops and States of the Land by Acts of Parliament only, not by any divine institution, which prohibits them all such secular Lordly Sovereignty, and dominion, as I have largely manifested in the premises, They may lawfully without any injury or inconvenience, by an Act of Parliament, be unbishopped, unlorded again, and thrust out of our Church as well as the Pope, Abbots, Priors, Monks and Mass-Priests were, upon the reformation of Religion, both at home and in foreign parts. As for our Prelates necessity of sitting in Parliament; I answer.

• First, that though they have been anciently admitted to • it in Parliament, yet there is no necessity of their sitting there, [unspec 1] seeing it hath been long since resolved, and Bishop Jewel, with Bishop Bilson, confess and prove at large, that a Parliament may be, and some Parliaments have been kept without Bishops, as I have formerly demonstrated.
• Secondly, many • imes all, some, or a great part of our Bishops have been secluded the Parliament, and yet this hath been [unspec 2] no impeachment to the proceedings there. In the Parliament 〈◊〉 Saint Edmond's-bury, Anno 1296. all the Bishops were brought in a Premunire, and secluded the House. In King Edward the sixth his time, Stephen Gardner Bishop of Winchester, and Bonner Bishop of London were sequestered and kept out of the House: In the first year of Q • eene Mary all the Married Protestant Bishops ; and in the first of Queen Elizabeth, many of the Popish Prelates were secluded and thrust out of the Parliament. yea, many Parliaments have been held when one, or both the Arch-Bishoprics, with many other Bi • hoprickes have been void, and no Proxies admitted to supply their places: All which proves, that there is no necessity of their Session there, and that all of them may be excluded thence at all times as well [unspec 3] as all of them at sotimes, and most of them at others.
• Thirdly, our Bishops sit not in the Parliament, quatenus Bishops • but as they a • e Barons, and hold by Barony, as is clear both by our Histories, Law Books, and their own confessions: Now most of them at this day are no Barons, nor hold of the King by Barony; therefore they have no legal Right to sit there, being no Peers of the Realm nor yet to be tried by their Peers in case of Treason or Felony, but only by an Ordinary Jury, as hath been adjudged in our Law Books, & practiced in point of experience.
• Fourthly, Abbots and Priors who were spiritual Lord's [unspec 4] of Parliament as well as Bishops, and more than treble in number to them, have been long since suppressed and cast out of the house without any prejudice: Therefore Bishops by the same reason may be suppressed and put out of Parliament without any inconvenience, being sewer in number • han they.
• Fifthly, In cases of Felony and Treason, the Bishops by their own Laws and practice neither are nor ought to be present in the [unspec 5] House, nor to give any vote at all but only the Temporal Lord's ; And in cases of Lands and possessions, or in passing of Laws for the Civil Government of the Realm, they have no judiciary nor Legislative power at all, as Bishop Bilson and others forecited prove at large; therefore their Session in Parliament is not necessary nor expedient by way of vote.
• [unspec 6] Sixthly, the Temporal Lord's and Prelates make but one house, and if all the Bishops be dead or absent, or if present, if all the Temporal Lord's vote one way, and the Bishops, the lesser number, another: the vote is good. Therefore their presence and votes in Parliament are nor simply necessary, and may be spared withou • any mischief or inconvenience.
• [unspec 7] Seventhly, if reason might determine this con • roversie, I suppose every man will grant, that it is far more necessary, reasonable, and expedient, that the Judges, Sergeants, and Kings Council, learned in the Laws of the Realm, and best able to descide all legal controversies, and to make good Laws to redress all mischiefs, should have votes in Parliament than Bishops; yet we know they have no votes at all by way of descition, because no Barons nor Peers of the Realm, but only by way of direction and advice, when their Judgments are demanded. Why then our Bishops (especially those who are no Barons, as few or none of them are) should not now be ranked in equipage with the Judges, and have no other but a directive, not voting, descitive or Legislative voice in Parliament, I think no reason can be given; and indeed many think there is little reason why they should have any votes at all, since ancient, that I say not present, experience manifests, that they cross or oppose all, or most good Bills, and motions, for the advancement of religion and reformation of Ecclesiastical abuses; and for the most part vote with the Popish Lord's, or worser side against the better; and so by Pope Gregory his own rule, approved by Bishop Jewel, ought to lose their privilege of voting: Quia Privilegium meretur amittere, qui abutitur potestate.

Now whereas some Object that if the Bishops were put out of the Upper House of Parliament, the Clergy could not grant subsidies to the King.

I answer, it is a most gross mistake, for the Clergy ever grant their subsidies in the Convocation, not in the Lord's house, and if the Major part of the Clerks in Convocation grant subsidies without the Bishops, and then send their Bill by which they grant them, to the Commons and Lord's House to be confirmed, (as they usually do) if the Commons and Temporal Lord's, without the Bishops pass it, this, with the Kings Royal assent, will bind all the Clergy and Bishops too. So as their presence and votes in Parliament is no ways necessary for the granting of Subsidies. Wherefore they may be thence excluded without any prejudice to the King or Subject, if not with great benefit unto both.

For the third clause of the Objection; that the removal of them will breed a great confusion in the Common and Statute [unspec 3] Law.

I answer, first, that the same Objection might have been [unspec 1] made for the continuance of the Pope, and Popery; yea against the several Statutes for Creating estate Tayles, levying of Fines, Uses, Devises, Ioyntures, and the like, which bred greater alterations in the Common and former Statute Laws, than the removing of Bishops can do.

[unspec 2] Secondly, that one Act of Parliament, • nabling certain Commissioners to execute all those Legal Acts which Bishops usually did, will prevent all this pretended confusion; so that this part of the Objection is scarce worthy answer.

[unspec 4] For the fourth clause, that the King by his Coronation Oath, is sworn to preserve to the Bishops and their Churches all their Canonical privileges, and to protect and defend to his power the Bishops and Churches under his government.

[unspec 1] I answer, First, that this Oath was at first cunningly devised and imposed on our Kings by our Bishops themselves, out of a policy to engage our Princes to maintain them in their usurped authority; possessions, and Jurisdictions, which had no foundation in the Scripture, and to captivate our Kings to their pleasures, as the Popes by such a kind of Oath enthralled the Emperors to their Vassallage.

[unspec 2] Secondly, that this Oath was first invented by Popish Prelates, and meant only of them and their Popish Church and Privileges, and so cannot properly extend to our Prelates if Protestants.

[unspec 3] Thirdly, this Oath doth no way engage the King to defend and maintain our Bishops, if the Parliament see good cause to extirpate them. For as the King and Judges who are obliged by their Oaths to maintain and execute all the Laws of the Realm, are not bound by their Oath to continue former inconvenient Laws from alteration, or repeal, or to execute them when repealed, for then all ill Laws should be unalterable and irrepealeable: So the King by this his Oath, is no ways obleiged to defend, protect, and preserve the Bishops, if there be good cause in point of piety and policy to suppress them, especially when any of them prove delinquents: For as Bishops and other Subjects by their misdemeanors may put themselves out of the Kings Protection, and forfeite both their goods, lives, and estates, notwithstanding this Coronation Oath; So by the same reason when Bishops (and Bishoprics, by their misdemeanors) prove intolerable grievances both to Church and State (as now they have done) they have thereby deprived themselves of the Kings Protection and de • ence specified in this Oath • and thereupon may be justly suppressed by the King and State, without the least violation of this most solemn Oath, as Abbots, Monks, and Sanctuaries were. Having thus removed all the principal Objections for the continuance of our Lordly Prelates; I shall in the last place answer one Evasion whereby our present Lord Bishops think to shift off this Antipathy from themselves, as having no relation at all to them; They say, that those Prelates whose Treasons, Rebellions, Seditions, Oppressions, and Antimonarchicall practices, I have here collected, were Popish Bishops, Limbes of that body whose head they all abjure; the fault of their wickedness was in the Popery, not in the Episcopacy, in the men, not the calling; and so utterly unconcerneth them, and haveth no reflection at all on them, who are generally taxed for being excessive royalists, and siding too much with the King and Court.

To this I answer, first, that most of all the premised rebellious, disloyal, seditious, extravagant actions of our Bishops have proceeded from them only as Lordly, not Popish Prelates, and issued from their Episcopacy, not their Popery, their Prelatical functions, not personal corruptions, as the Histories themselves sufficiently demonstrate.

Secondly, I answer, that some of the recited Bishops were [unspec 2] no Papists but Protestants, who were no limbs of that body of Rome, whose head our Bishops say they have abjured therefore it is evident, that their Episcopal function, not their Religion, was the ground both of their disloyalties and extravagancies.

Thirdly, I suppose our Prelates will not renounce Arch-Bishop [unspec 3] Laud, Bishop Wren, Peirce, Montague, and other of their fellow Bishops yet alive, or lately dead, as Popish Prelates, and members of the Church of Rome, as some account them: yet their impious, seditious, oppressive, profane, not trayterly Actions, equal or exceed many of our Popish Arch-Bishops and Bishops, as he that will but compare them may easily discern. It is not then the leaven of Popery, but of the Lordly Prelacy it self which infected our Bishops, and made them so treacherous and impious in all ages. It is true indeed, that Popery (some of whose positions are treasonable; and seditious ) and dependency upon the Pope, hath made some of our Bishops more disloyal and Rebellious than otherwise they would have been, as is evident by the first proceeding of Stephen Langhton and his confederates against King John ; but yet afterward when the Pope sided with King John and Henry the third, against Langton, and the other Bishops, who stirred up the Barons Wars, these Bishops continued as traiterous and rebellious to these Kings as ever they were before whiles they adhered to the Pope, and the Pope to them; therefore their Hierarchy (the cause of all these stirs) not their Popery was the ground work of their Treachery and enormities. Now because our present Prelates boast so much of their loyalty to his Majesty, whose absolute Civil Royal prerogative, they have lately overmuch courted and endeavored to extend beyond due limits to the impeachment of the Laws and Subjects hereditary liberties, not out of any zeal to his Majesty's service, but only to advance their own Episcopal power and Jurisdiction, and to usurp a more than Royal or Papal authority over all his Majesty's Subjects for the present, and over himself at last; I shall make bold to present them with some particular instances, whereby I shall demonstrate, that all or most of our present Lordly Bishops have been more seditious, contumacious, disloyal and injurious to his Majesty's royal prerogative, more oppressive to his Loyall Subjects, and more destructive to the fundamental Laws of the Realm, and liberties of the Subject, than all other professions of men whatsoever.

[unspec 1] For first, they have presumed to keep Consistories, Visitations, Synods, and exercise all manner of Episcopal Jurisdiction in their Diocese without his Majesty's special Letters Patents, or Commissions under the great Seal of England, authorizing them to do it, contrary to the Statutes of 26. Hen. 8. c. 1.37. Hen. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1.5 Eliz. c. 1. and 8. Eliz. c. 1.

[unspec 2] Secondly, they have dared to make out all their Processes, Citations, Excommunications, Suspensions, Sentences, Probates of Wills, Letters of Administation, Writs of Iure Patronatus, accounts of Executors, and the like in their own names and Stiles, and under their own Seals alone, not the Kings, as if they were the only Kings, the Supreame Ecclesiastical heads and Governors of the Church of England, not his Majesty, contrary to the Statutes of 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1 Eliz. c. 1. 1 Jac. c. 25.

Thirdly, they have presumed in Printed Books to justify [unspec 3] these proceedings to be Lawfull; and not content herewith, they have most audaciously caused all the Judges of England to resolve, and moved his Majesty to d • clare and proclaim these their disloyal unjust usurpations on his Crown to be just and legal; when as I dare make good the contrary, against all the Prela • es and Lawyers of England, and have done it in part, in my Breviate of the Prelates intolerable encroachments upon the Kings Prerogative royal and the Subjects Liberties. This resolution of • he Judges against the Kings Prerogative the Prelates have caused to be • nrolled both in the High Commission at Lambeth and York and in all their Ecclesiastical Courts throughout England in perpetuam rei memoriam, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury keeping the Original certificate of the Judges among the records of his Court, as a good evidence against his Majesty and his successors.

Fourthly, they have pillored, stigmatized, banished, close [unspec 4] imprisoned, and cut off the ears of those who have opposed these their encroachments upon his Majesty's Prerogative Royal, according to their Oath and duty, to deter all others from defending his Majesty's Title.

Fifthly, they have taken upon them to make, Print and publish [unspec 5] in their own names, by their own authorities, without his Majesty's or the Parliaments special License, new Visitation Oaths, Articles, Injunctions, Canons, Ordinances, Rites, and Ceremonies; enforced them on Ministers, Church Wardens, Sidemen and others, and excommunicated, suspended, silenced, f • ned, imprisoned and persecuted his Majesty's faithful, and loyalest Subjects for not submitting to them, contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19.21.27. H. 8. c. 15.3 Ed. 6. c. 10.11. 1 Eliz. c. 2.13 Eliz. c. 12. Magna Charta, c. 29. and the Petition of Right.

Sixthly, they have presumed to grant Licenses to marry [unspec 6] without banes, and to eat flesh on fasting days in their own names; a Prerogative peculiar to the King alone; who only can dispense with penal Laws, and the book of Common Prayer, which enjoin no marriages to be solemnized, unless the Banes be first thrice asked in the Church.

Seventhly, they have adventured to hold plea of divers cases in their Consistories of which the Conusance belongs only [unspec 7] to the Kings temporal Courts; which the forms of Pro • ibitions, and Ad Iura Regia in the Register, determine, to be a dis-inheriting of the Kings Crown and Royal dignity, a contempt, derogation, and grievous prejudice to his Royal authority, and intolerable rebellion, affront, disloyalty and contu • acy to his Sovereign Jurisdiction.

[unspec 8] Eighthly, they have stopped the current of the Kings own Prohibitions to their Ecclesiastical spiteful Courts, in cases where they have been usually granted in former ages, even in times of Popery, and of the most domineering Prelates; and oft questioned, threatened, convented the Kings Judge • before the King and Lord's of the Council for granting them. An insolency and affront to Sovereign Justice, which no former ages can Parallell.

[unspec 9] Ninthly, they have disobeyed his Majesty's Prohibitions, proceeded in contempt and despite of them; yea they have committed divers to prison who have sued for, and delivered Prohibitions in a fair dutiful manner in the High Commission Court, and Articled against one Mr. John Clobery in the High Commission, only for suing out of a Prohibition to that Court, as if it were a Capitall o • fence. For which contum • cy and Rebellion their temporalities might be justly seised into the Kings hands, and themselves attainted in a Pre • unire Add to this, that the now Archbishop of Canterbury hath many times openly protested in Court; that he would break both the neck and back of Prohibitions. And Matthew Wren whilst Bishop of Norwich, in the 14. year of his M • jesties reign, procured his Majesty to declare under his Highness great Seal of England, his royal pleasure; That if any person within the said City of Norwhich should refuse to pay according to the rate of two shillings the pound in lieu of the Tithes of Houses, unto the Minister of any Parish within the said City, that the same should be heard in the Court of Chancery, or in the Consistory of the Bishop of Norwich. And that in such Case no Prohibition should be granted against the said Bishop of Norwich their Chancellors, or Commissaries in the said Courts of Consistory.

[unspec 10] Tenthly, they h • ve disobeyed and contemned his Majesty's just and lawful-commands, in a most p • remptory and insolent manner, of which I shall give only one memorable instance. His Majesty about the year of our Lord 1629. taking notice of the Bishops Non-residence from their Bishoprics, and how they lived for the most part idly in London, hunting after new prefe • ments, to the ill example of the in • erior Cl • rgi • , the delapidation and ruin of their mansion houses, the decay of Hospitality, the impairing of their woods and temporalties, the increase of Popery and decrease of Religion; was pleased to send a letter to Doctor Abbot, then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury for the redress of the said inconveniences, commanding him in his Royal name, to enjoin every Bishop then residing about London, upon his Canonical Obedience, under pain of his Majesty's displeasure forthwith to repair to his Bishopric, and no longer to abide about London. The Arch-Bishop hereupon, sends his Secretary with this his Majesty's Letter, to the Bishops then in London and Westminster ; charging them upon their Canonical Obedience, according to this Letter, presently to depart to their several Bishoprics. His Secretary repaired with this Letter and the Arch-bishops instructions to Dr Howson, the Bp of Durham lodging on Snowhill, near Sepulchers Church, and required him in the Arch-bishops name by virtue of his Canonical obedience, to repair to his Bishopric according to his Majesty's command. He hereupon in a great rage giving the Secretary some harsh words, told him plainly, that he neither would nor could obey this mandate, for he had many great suits in Law with Sr Henry Martyn, and others, of w ^ch be would