Section 13

It is true the Remonstrant soars above these after-times, even as high as the Apostles: as if you knew not this before; when as all this while, you have endeavored to show that the Apostles' Bishops and ours are two. We do again profess, that if our Bishops challenge any other power than was delegated to, and required of Timothy and Titus, we shall yield them usurpers: you kindly tell us, so we deserve to be, if we do but challenge the same power; and why so, I beseech you brethren? Because Timothy and Titus (you say) were Evangelists, and so moved in a higher sphere; liberally and boldly spoken; but where is your proof? For Timothy, you say the text is clear: but what text, what the least intimation have you for Titus? Surely not so much as the least ground of a conjecture; yet how confidently you avow for both: and even for Timothy your gloss is clear, not your text. St. Paul bids him do the work of an Evangelist — what then, that rather intimates that he was none: for he does not say, do your own work: but the work of an Evangelist. When I tell my friend, that I must desire him to do the office of a Solicitor, or a Secretary for me; I do herein intimate, that he is neither; but so for the time employed; why is it not so here? And what I beseech you is the work of an Evangelist, but to preach the Evangel, or good tidings of peace? So, as St. Paul herein gives no other charge to his Timothy, than in 2 Timothy 4:2: Preach the Word, be instant in season and out of season — and this you say and urge, to be the work of a Bishop too; well, therefore may Timothy, notwithstanding this charge, be no other than a Bishop: what need these words to be contradistinguished? St. Paul says of himself, to which I am appointed a Preacher, and an Apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles; what shall we say — St. Paul was an Apostle, he was not a Preacher, or not a Doctor, but an Apostle? You distinguish of Evangelists; the word is taken either for the writers of the Gospel, or for the teachers of it, and why then was not St. Paul an Evangelist, who professed to be a teacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles. These teaching Evangelists, you dream to be of two sorts; the one, those that had ordinary places and gifts; the other extraordinary: but tell me sirs, for my learning; where do you find those ordinary-placed, and ordinary-gifted Evangelists? Unless you mean to [reconstructed: comprise] all Preachers under this name? and then a Bishop may be an Evangelist also; so, as the difference of a Bishop and an Evangelist vanishes. The truth is, these ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction; their true employment was to be sent by the Apostles, from place to place, for the preaching of the Gospel, without a settled residence upon any one charge. Upon this advantage, you raise a slight argument, that St. Paul besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), which had been a needless importunity if he had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus; for then he must have necessarily resided there. Whereas you recite several proofs and occasions of his absence, which will appear to be of little force, if a man does duly consider the state of those times: the necessity thereof in that first plantation of the Gospel, made even the most [reconstructed: fixed stars] planetary, calling them frequently from the places of their abode, to those services which were of most use for the success of that great work. Yet so, as that either after their errands fully done, or upon all opportune intermissions, they returned to their own Chair. The story therefore of those journal computations might well have been spared.

Your argument from Paul's calling the Elders of Ephesus to Miletus, however you lean upon it, it will prove but a reed.

You yourselves confess (I know not upon what certain ground) that Timothy was at the meeting (Acts 20) with St. Paul. Had he been Bishop there, the Apostle (you say) instead of giving the Elders a charge to feed the flock of Christ, would have given that charge to Timothy, and not to them. Besides, the Apostle would not have so forgotten himself, as to call the Elders Bishops, before the Bishop's face; and would have given them some directions, how to carry themselves to their Bishops. In all which, brethren, you go upon wrong ground; will you grant that these assembled persons were Presbyters, and not Bishops? Under some Bishop, though not under Timothy? Otherwise, why do you argue from the want of directions to them, as inferiors? But if they were indeed Bishops, and not mere Presbyters (as the word itself imports), your argument is lost: for then the charge is equally given to Timothy, and all the rest; and it was no forgetfulness to call them as they were. You are straight ready to reply, how impossible it is (according to us) there should be many Bishops in one city; and here were many Presbyters from Ephesus. But let me remind you, that though these Presbyters were sent for from Ephesus, yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus: there they were called to meet St. Paul in all likelihood, from various parts, which he seems to imply, when he says; You all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God; intimating the superintendents of several places. So as, notwithstanding these urged probabilities, Timothy might have been, both before this time and at that present, Bishop of Ephesus. After which, if Paul took him along with him to Jerusalem, this is no derogation to his Episcopacy. And if Timothy were yet, after this, prisoner with St. Paul at Rome (as you argue from Hebrews 13:23), this is no derogation from his Episcopacy at Ephesus. But to cut the sinews of all this strong proof of your computation; it is more than probable, that, whereas the whole history of the Acts ends with Paul's first being at Rome, that Apostle survived various years, and passed many travels, and did many great matters, for the plantation, and settling of churches, of which we can look for no account from Scripture, save by some glances in his following Epistles. Into which time these occurrences concerning Timothy and Titus, his ordination did fall, as may be justly proved out of the Chronological table of the experienced Jacob Cappellus, compared with Baronius. Now then, the Reader may take his choice, whether he will believe all antiquity (that have meddled with this subject) affirming Timothy to have been bishop of Ephesus, or whether he will believe a new hatched contradiction of yesterday, raised out of imaginary probabilities. In short, it is far enough from appearing, that Timothy was no Bishop, but a Minister, an Evangelist, a fellow-laborer of the Apostles, an Apostle, a Messenger of the Church; it rather appears that he was all these in various senses, and upon several occasions.

The like you say of Titus, whom you are pleased to create an Evangelist, not being able to show that ever God made him so; save in that general sense that might well stand with Episcopacy; you tell us a story of his peregrination in the attendance of Paul, wherein you shall not expect any contradiction; but you shall give me leave to take you tripping in your own tale: from Cilicia, you say, Paul passed to Crete, where he left Titus for a while to set in order things that remain: this (for a while) you put into a different character, as if it were part of the text; and guiltily translate ([in non-Latin alphabet]) things that remain, whereas ours turn it (in a more full expression of an episcopal power) things that are wanting, or left undone; but this is not the matter, you do yet again repeat the (for a while) urging the short time that Titus could be left at Crete, and yet, in your own marginal computation there is no less distance of time, between this placing in Crete, and sending for him to his next remove, to Nicopolis, than between the year 46 and 51, the space of five years, which was a large gap of time, in that unsettled condition, and manifold distractive occasions of the Church. If afterwards he were by apostolic command called away to tend the more concerning services of the Church, this could not at all have impeached the truth of his Episcopacy; but the truth is, he was ordained by St. Paul after all those journeys mentioned in the Acts, (and as Baronius with great consent of antiquity computes it) a year after Timothy; so, as you may well put up your conclusion, as rather begged than enforced, and cast it upon the reader's courtesy to believe you against all antiquity, that Titus was an Evangelist and no Bishop; whereas these two may well agree together, he was an Evangelist when he traveled abroad; he was a bishop afterwards, when he stayed and settled at home.

You object to yourself the authority of some Fathers, that have called Timothy and Titus Bishops: some? Name, if you can, that Father that has called them otherwise: away with these envious diminutions, when you have a cloud of witnesses of much antiquity, which aver Timothy and Titus to have both lived, and died Bishops, the one of Ephesus, of Crete the other: yes, but some Fathers have called them archbishops and Patriarchs too: what of that? In that they have then acknowledged them bishops, paramount; and if Titus were Bishop of Crete, which was of old ([in non-Latin alphabet]) the hundred-citied island, and Timothy of Ephesus, the Metropolis of Asia, the multitude of the territories under them, while it enlarges their charge, detracts nothing from the use of their office.

Secondly you tell us from learned Doctor Raynolds, that the Fathers, when they called any Apostle Bishop, they meant it in a general sort and signification; because they did attend that church for a time, and supply that room in preaching the Gospel, which Bishops did after, not intending it, as it is commonly taken for the overseer of a particular Church, and Pastor of a several flock: but, what is this to Timothy and Titus? You say, the same may be said of them, but the Doctor gave you no leave so to apply it; neither do we. Although to say truth, all this discourse of yours is ([in non-Latin alphabet]) needless and extravagant: whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists, or no, sure we are, that here they stand for persons charged with those offices, and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church governors, in all succeeding generations: and we do most justly take them, as we find them; and with our first confidence maintain, that we challenge no other spiritual power, than was delegated to them, and to the Angels of the Asian Churches; you mean to confute us by questions; and those so poor and frivolous, as are not worth answer; fastening that upon some particular abuse, which we disclaim from our calling; as if under this claim, we were bound to justify every act of a Bishop. To answer you in your own kind: when, or where did our bishops challenge power to ordain alone, to govern alone? When (though you ignorantly turn an Elder in age, to an Elder in office) did our Bishops challenge power to pass a rough and unbecoming rebuke upon an Elder? Where did our Bishops give commission to Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, to rail upon Presbyters, or to accuse them without just grounds, and without legal proceedings? As for your last question, I must tell you it is no better raised than upon an ignorant negative. Did the Apostle say, reject none but a heretic? Did he not wish, would to God they were cut off that trouble you? Is it not certainly proved true, that some schismatic may be worse than some heretic; which I speak not so, as to traduce any of our nonconforming brethren, whose consciences are unsettled in the point of this mean difference, as guilty of that hateful crime: but to convince the absurdity of our questioners; after whose ill-raised cavils, thus fully answered, we have no cause to fear, upon their suggestions, to be disclaimed as usurpers.

From Timothy and Titus you descend to the Angels of the seven Asian Churches; which no subtlety at all, but the common interest of their condition, has twisted together in our defense.

In the generality whereof I must forewarn my reader, that this piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand, that cared not how oft boiled cabbage he dished out to his credulous guests; I shall (what I may) prevent their surfeit.

Your shift is, that the Angel is here taken collectively, not individually: A conceit, which if yourselves, certainly no other wise man can ever believe; for if the interest be common and equally appertaining to all, why should one be singled out above the rest? If you will yield the person to be such, as had more than others, a right in the administration of all, it is that we seek for: Surely, it did in some sort concern all that was spoken to him, because he had the charge of all: but the direction is individual, as Beza himself takes it; as if a Letter be endorsed from the Lords of the Council to the Bishop of Durham or Salisbury, concerning some affairs of the whole Clergy of their Diocese, can we say that the name Bishop, is there no other than a collective; because the business may import many? Verily I do not believe that the authors of this sense can believe it themselves. To your invincible proofs; In the Epistle to Thyatira you say it is written ([in non-Latin alphabet]) I say to you, and to the rest: where (by you) must (as you imagine) be signified, the Governors; by the rest, the people: but what if the better Copies read, ([in non-Latin alphabet]) I say to you, the rest in Thyatira, without the copulative, as is confessed by your good friends; where then is your doughty Argument? Here are no divisions of parties, but the Pastor and Flock. And truly thus it is; and my own eyes have seen it, in that noble Manuscript, written by the hand of Tecla (as is probably supposed) some 1300 years ago, as Cyril, the late renowned Patriarch of Constantinople avows; your goodly proof therefore is in the suds. But to meet with you in your own kind, if you will go upon diverse Readings; what will you say to that verse 20 where the Angel of Thyatira is charged: you suffer ([in non-Latin alphabet]) (your wife Jezebel) (for so it is in very good Copies) to teach and seduce (Revelation 2:24); Cyprian, Book 4, Letter to Antonianus. Yes, so it is in that memorable Copy of Tecla, aforementioned, which is to be seen in the Prince's Library, under the custody of the industrious and learned Mr. Patrick Young, as my own eyes can witness: and thus St. Cyprian reads it of old: What? Shall we think she was wife to the whole company, or to one Bishop alone? I leave you to blush, for the shame this very proof alone casts upon your opinion. Secondly, you tell us, it is usual with the Holy Ghost, even in this very book, to express a company under one singular person: as, the Beast is the Civil state; the Whore, and the false Prophet, the Ecclesiastical state of Rome: But what if it be thus in visions, or emblematical representations? Must it needs be so in plain narrations, where it is limited by just Predicates? Or because it is so in one phrase of speech, must it be so in all? Why do you not as well say, where the Lamb is named, or the Lion of Judah, this is a collective of many; not an individual subject: The seven Angels, you say, that blew the seven trumpets, and poured out the seven phials, are not to be taken literally, but synecdochically; perhaps so, but then the synecdoche lies in the seven, and not in the Angels, so I grant you the word Angel, is here metaphorical; but you are no whit nearer to your imagined synecdoche.

The very name Angel, (you say) is sufficient proof, that it is not meant of one person alone, as being a common name to all God's Ministers, and Messengers: As if he did not well know this that directed these Epistles and if he had so meant it, had it not been as easy to have mentioned more as one? Had he said, the Angels of the Church of Ephesus, or Thyatira, the cause had been clear: now, he says the Angel ([in non-Latin alphabet]) the denoted person must be singular; for surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Ephesus were one Angel. The same reason holds for the Stars: had he said, to the Star of Ephesus, I suppose no body would have construed it of many, but of one eminent person: Now he speaks of so many Stars, as Angels, to wit, seven in those seven Churches.

Your fourth Argument from the Text itself, is no better than ridiculous: poorly drawn from what it does not say: Lo, he says, the 7 Candlesticks which you saw are the 7 Churches: but he does not say, the 7 Stars are the 7 Angels of the seven Churches: but, the Angels of the 7 Churches. Forbear, if you can, Readers, to smile at this curious subtlety: because, the seven is not twice repeated, in mentioning the Angels, there is a deep mystery in the omission: what Cabalism have we here? Had he said, the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the seven churches, now, all had been sure; but he says not so, but only thus; the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches. It is plain, that every Church has its Angel mentioned; and there being seven Churches how many Angels, I beseech you, are there? Now because he does not say expressly in terms, seven Angels of the seven Churches, we are foiled in our proof; judge Reader, what to expect of so deep speculations (Revelation 1:20).

Lastly, it is evident (you say) though but one Angel be mentioned in the front, yet the Epistles themselves be dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers, and to the Churches themselves; who ever doubted it? The foot of every Epistle runs (what the Spirit says to the Churches) not to one Church, but to all seven: If therefore you argue, that the name Angel is collective, say also that every of these seven Angels, is the whole company of all the seven Churches; which were a foul nonsense; you might have saved the labor both of Ausbertus, and the rest of your Authors, and your own. We never thought otherwise, but that the whole Church is spoken to; but so, as that the Governor or Bishop is singled out, as one that has the main stroke in ordering the affairs thereof, and is therefore either praised, or challenged, according to his carriage therein; although also there are such particularities both of commendations, and exceptions, in the body of the several Epistles, as cannot but have relation to those several Overseers, to whom they were endorsed, as I have elsewhere specified. Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love; had each of them tried the false Apostles? Had all those of Sardis a name to live, and were dead? Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper? These charges were no doubt of individual persons, but such as in whom the whole Churches were interested.

As for those conjectural reasons, which you frame to yourselves, why the whole company of Presbyters should be written to under the singular name of an Angel, if you please yourselves with them, it is well, from me they have no cause to expect an answer: they neither can draw my assent, nor merit my confutation.

Take heed of yielding that, which you cannot but yield to be granted by Doctor Raynolds, and Mr. Beza, Doctor Fulke, Pareus, and others, that the Angel is here taken individually; but still if you be wise, hold your own; that our cause is no whit advanced, nor yours impaired by this yielding: Let him have been an Angel, yet what makes this for a Diocesan Bishop? Much every way: For if the Church of Ephesus (for example) had many Ministers or Presbyters in it to instruct the people in their several charges, (as it is manifest they had) and yet but one prime Overseer, which is singled out by the Spirit of God, and styled by a title of eminence, the Angel of that Church, it must needs follow, that in St. John's time there was an acknowledged superiority in the government of the Church: if there were many Angels in each, and yet but one that was the Angel, who can make doubt of an inequality?

It is but a pitiful shift that you make, in pleading that these Angels (if Bishops) yet were not Diocesan Bishops; for that Parishes were not divided into Dioceses (I had thought Dioceses should have been divided into Parishes rather) in St. John's days: for by the same reason, I may as well argue, that they were not Parochial Bishops neither, since that then no Parishes were as yet distinguished. As if you had resolved to speak nothing but absurdities and solecisms; you tell me, that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks; whereas those Stars are said to be in the right hand of the Son of God. But (say you still) not one Star was over diverse Candlesticks: truly no; who ever said, that one Angel was over all the seven Churches? But that each of these famous Churches were under their own Star, or Angel; but those churches (you say) were not Diocesan: how does that appear? Because first Tyndale, and the old translation calls them seven congregations: for answer, who knows not that Tyndale, and the old Translation are still wont to translate the word church, wherever they find it, by Congregation, which some Papists have laid in our dish. Learned Doctor Fulke has well cleared our intentions herein from their censure: Tyndale himself professes to do it out of this reason, because the Popish Clergy had appropriated to themselves the name of the Church; but however, they rather made use of the Word; yet not so as that hereby they intend only to signify parochial meetings. So (Ephesians 3) to the intent that now to the Rulers and Powers in heavenly places, might be known by the Congregation, the manifold Wisdom of God; do we think this blessed Revelation confined to a Parish, or common to the whole Church of God? So (1 Corinthians 15) they translate, I am not worthy to be called an Apostle, because I persecuted the Congregation of God: do we think his cruelty was confined to a Parish? So (Matthew 6:16) Upon this Rock will I build my Congregation: was this a Parish only? So (Acts 11) Herod the King stretched out his hands to vex certain of the Congregation: was his malice only parochial? But secondly, you tell us, that in Ephesus, which was one of those Candlesticks, there was but one flock (Acts 20:28). Indeed, but can you tell us what kind of flock it was, whether National, or Provincial, or Diocesan? Parochial (I am sure) it could not be: you have heard before, that those Elders or Bishops were sent for from Ephesus. But that they were all of Ephesus it cannot be proved; when all of them then are bidden to take heed to the flock of Christ, whereof they are made overseers, each is herein charged to look to his own; and all are in the next words required to feed the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood. So as your second argument is fully answered in the solution of the first, and in the former passages of this Section. The advantage that you take from Epiphanius, affirming that diverse Cities of that time might have two Bishops, whereas Alexandria held close to one, can avail you little, when it shall be well weighed; first, that your tenet supposes and requires that every Presbyter should be a Bishop, and therefore (if your cause succeed) there should be no fewer Bishops than parishes. Secondly, that the practice of the whole Church, both before and after Epiphanius, is by such clear testimonies convinced to be contrary: famous, and irrefragable, is that Canon of the Nicene Council, [illegible], that in one City there might not be two Bishops. So before this, Cornelius writing to the Bishop of Antioch objects it scornfully to Novatian, that he did not know [illegible], that in a Catholic Church there ought to be but one Bishop. And it is a known word of the confessors of old, in Cyprian's time, one God, one Lord, one Bishop. Make much (if you please) of this conceit of yours, that Epiphanius his neighborhood might acquaint him well with the condition of the Asian Churches: but let me add, that you shall approve yourselves mere strangers to all the rules and practices of antiquity, if you shall stand upon the general plurality of Bishops in the same City, or Diocese. And last of all, remember, that Epiphanius reckons up Aerius as a heretic, for holding Presbyters equal with Bishops.

Your third argument, that there is nothing said in these seven Epistles, that implies a superiority, is answered by the very Superscription of each Letter, which is, [in non-Latin alphabet] To the Angel: and much more by the matter of the several Epistles: For what reason were it for an ordinary Presbyter to be taxed for that, which he has no power to redress? That the Angel of Pergamus should be blamed for the having of those which hold the Doctrine of Balaam or the Nicolaitans, when he had no power to proceed against them? Or the Angel of the Church of Thyatira, for suffering the Woman Jezabel, (if it must be so read) to teach, and seduce, when he had no power of public censure to restrain her? But what need we stand upon conjectural answers, to convince you in this plea, as likewise in the supposed Decision of the kind of superiority, which you urge in the next paragraph; when we are able to show both who the parties were, to whom some of these Epistles were directed, and to evince the high degree of their superiority; Ignatius the Martyr (besides Tertullian) is witness for both, who tells us that Onesimus was now the Angel or Bishop of Ephesus, Polycarpus of Smyrna; and as commenting upon this very subject, oft ingeminates the duty of subjection owing to the Bishop; and the divers degrees of those 3 several stations in the Church; as we already instanced; Away then with those your unproving illustrations, and unregardable testimonies, which you (as destitute of all Antiquity) shut up the Scene withal: And let the wise Reader judge, whether the Remonstrant has not from the evidence of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels, of the Asian Churches, made good that just claim of this sacred Hierarchy, against all your weak and frivolous pretentions. From the Remonstrant (lest your discourse should not be tedious enough) you fly upon some other Defenders of the Hierarchy, and fall upon the two post-scripts of Saint Paul's Epistles (to Timothy and Titus, wherein Timothy & Titus are styled the first bishops of Ephesus, and Crete) which I am no way engaged to defend: You say they are not of canonical authority; so say I too; but I say they are of great antiquity, & so you must confess also.

Fain would I see but any pretense of so much age against the matter of those Subscriptions: the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, cited by these confident antiquaries: Surely he were senseless, that would imagine the Post-scripts as old as the Text, or as authentic; but we may boldly say they are older than any Records of the gain-sayers.

Where these Subscriptions are not seconded by authority of the ancient Church, there I leave them; but where they are so well backed, there is no reason to forsake them. The Exception therefore which you take at the Post-script of the Epistle to Titus, is not more stale than unjust. You say peremptorily, it was not written from Nicopolis; neither was Paul then there: How appears it? Because he says in the body of the Epistle, come to me to Nicopolis, for I am determined there to winter: He says not, Here to Winter, but there: as speaking of a third place: But how slight this ground is, will be easily apparent to any man that shall consider, that Saint Paul was in perpetual journeying from place to place: And therefore, though now at that instant at Nicopolis, yet how soon, occasions might call him away, and how long, he knew not: Therefore it was most fit that he should pitch upon a certain place, where Titus should direct his way toward him: Notwithstanding your guess therefore, since holy Athanasius plainly tells us, that Saint Paul wrote this Epistle from Nicopolis; and is therein followed by Oecumenius, and Theophylact, and in that famous ancient Manuscript, sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople; I find it plainly dated [in non-Latin alphabet] It must needs follow, that either this Subscription was before Athanasius and Teclaes time; or else that they went upon some other good ground of their assertion.

Lastly, it may well go for a reason of your own making, that the Post-script styles Titus Bishop of the Church of the Cretians; whereas it would be said of the Churches of the Cretians; for the Christian Churches, of any Nation, are called by Luke and Paul Churches, and not Church: Who would not yield you this truth, that the Christian Churches are called Churches? What can they be called else, when they are mentioned in their several diversities; but when they are upon some entire Relation, conjoined & united, as these of Crete, under one Government, they may well be called not the Churches, but the Church. That flash of Wit might well have been forborne, wherein you make an envious Comparison between the Authority of these Subscriptions, and Episcopal authority, of urging Subscription to their Ceremonies: And why theirs, I beseech you? Have you been urged to subscribe to any other Ceremonies, than have been established by the Laws of this Realm & Church? Was it Episcopal power that enacted them? Had you been but as obedient, these Ceremonies had been equally yours: Now out of pure Love you impose that upon us, which you repined that the Laws should impose upon you: Go on thus charitably & prosper.

Because you wanted work from the Remonstrance, you will cut out some for yourselves: An Objection of your own must be answered; That is, From the inequality that was between the Twelve Apostles, and the seventy Disciples: And well may you shape and fashion your own Answer to your own Objection: It cannot be proved, (you say) that the Twelve had any Superiority over the Seventy, either of Ordination, or Jurisdiction. What? Have you forgotten, brethren, that the Apostles ordained the Deacons, Acts 6:6. by Prayer and imposition of hands? That the Apostle Paul laid his hands on Timothy? Have you forgotten how by virtue of his Apostleship he charges, Commands, Controls, Censures? What is, if this be not Ordination and Jurisdiction? But (say you) suppose it were so; yet a superiority and inferiority between Officers of different kinds, will not prove a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kind. Deeply argued; Surely hence you may infer, that one Bishop is not superior to another; nor one Presbyter above another; but that a Bishop should not be superior to a Presbyter, were an uncouth consequence: If the twelve Apostles therefore were superiors to the seventy Disciples, and Bishops (as your own Jerome tells you) succeed those Apostles, and Presbyters come in the room of the seventy, where is that identity or sameness of kind which you pretend? All Antiquity has acknowledged, [in non-Latin alphabet] three several ranks in the Church Hierarchy; and if you have a mind to jumble them together, take away the difference between Presbyters, and Deacons, as well as that between Bishops and Presbyters, Jam sumus ergo pares.

And now we appeal to the same bar, how far you have been from disproving the divine right, or Apostolical institution of Episcopacy; and whether your reliance upon Jerome's authority in this point has been grounded upon any other reason, but your own weak presumption. Yet still like (as I have heard) some beaten cocks, you dare crow; and tell your reader, that though Scriptures fail us, yet we support ourselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious princes: surely, if God should have withdrawn himself, in vain should we make flesh our arms. Our calling we challenge from God: some accessory titles, dignities, maintenance, we thankfully profess to have received from the bounty of royal benefactors: what of this? Herein, you say, the author acknowledges a difference, between our bishops, and the bishops of old. Yes verily, so he gladly does, with all humble thankfulness to God, and good princes: make your best of this concession. Suddenly you fall fair, and profess your well-pleasedness, with the liberal maintenance of the Church, although somewhat yet sticks with you: when the Ministry came to have agros, domos, locationes, vehicula, as you say from Chrysostom, then Religio peperit divitias, Religion brought forth riches, and the daughter devoured the mother; and a voice was heard from heaven Hodie venenum: and then you tell us of wooden priests, and golden chalices. But, brethren, take no care for this danger; our last age has begun to take sufficient order for the redress of this evil: and if in time you shall see wooden chalices, and wooden priests, thank yourselves.

However, you grant there is not an incompossibility between large revenues, and a humble sociableness; yet you say, it is rare; and tell us, that the rich provision of bishops has ushered in, both neglect of their Ministry, and pompous attendance, and insultation over their brethren. And you instance in the pride of Paulus Samosatenus, and shut up with the grave complaint of Sulpitius Severus. It is not to be denied, brethren, that some such ill use has been made, by some, of their abundance: but surely, in this ablative age, the fault is rare, and hardly instanceable; both the wings and train of many of ours have been so clipped, that there is no great fear of flying high. But if it be so, the fault is fixed to the person, who with more grace might otherwise improve the blessing. Cast your eyes upon others, even your own great patrons, and tell me if you do not espy the same ill use of large means, and flattering prosperity; yet you desire not to abridge their store, but to rectify the employment of it: learn to be so charitable to your spiritual superiors.

And now at last you give a vale to your Remonstrants' arguments, and shut up with a bold recollection, concerning which, let me say thus much. Truly, brethren, had you as good a faculty in strewing, as you have in gathering, there were no dealing with you: but it is your ill hap to tell the reader in your recapitulation of great feats that you have done in your former discourse, when as he must needs profess that he sees no such matter. I appeal to his judicious eyes, whether in all this tedious passage, you have proved anything but your own bold ignorance, and absurd inconsequences.