prelatists. He was thus an unexceptionable witness to adduce in
favour of the apostolic origin of the distinction between bishop and
presbyter. Usher, in editing Rainolds' opinions, had backed them up
with all the additional citations which his vast reading could supply.

Milton could not speak with the weight that attached to Usher, the
most learned Churchman of the age, who had spent eighteen years in
going through a complete course of fathers and councils. But, in the
first paragraph of his answer, Milton adroitly puts the controversy
upon a footing by which antiquarian research is put out of court.
Episcopacy is either of human or divine origin. If of human origin, it
may be either retained or abolished, as may be found expedient. If of
divine appointment, it must be proved to be so out of Scripture. If
this cannot be proved out of inspired Scripture, no accumulation of
merely human assertion of the point can be of the least authority.
Having thus shut out antiquity as evidence in the case, he proceeds
nevertheless to examine his opponent's authorities, and sets them
aside by a style of argument which has more of banter than of
criticism.

One incident of this collision between Milton, young and unknown, and
the venerable prelate, whom he was assaulting with the rude wantonness
of untempered youth, deserves to be mentioned here. Usher had
incautiously included the Ignatian epistles among his authorities.
This laid the most learned man of the day at the mercy of an adversary
of less reading than himself. Milton, who at least knew so much
suspicion of the genuineness of these remains as Casaubon's
_Exercitations on Baronius_ and Vedelin's edition (Geneva, 1623) could
suggest, pounced upon this critical flaw, and delightedly denounced
in trenchant tones this "Perkin Warbeck of Ignatius," and the