1ucceeded, ordains in his Life-Time, 8 Deacons, 15 Presbyters, and 13 Bifbops: So Hyginus ordaining 5 Deacons, 15 Presbyters, and 6 Bishops, did but what his immediate Predeceffor had done. But Xytus or Sixtus, who was before Telefephorus, in the Year 130, according to the Calculation of fome, who governed that Church 10 Years, ordained 4 Bishops, 11 Presbyters, and 11 Deacons. Betore Xyftus, Alexander, living in the Beginning of the fecond Century, ordained 5 Bifhops, 5 Presbyters, and 3 Deacons. Evarifius who lived in the End of the first Century, before Alexander, ordain'd 5 Bishops, 6 Presbyters, and 3 Deacons. See Anaftaf Bibl. who lived in the Beginning of the Ninth Century. And Platina, Keeper of the Vatican Library.

It is against Rome, that the Outcry of Innovation is made; and fee how it is vindicated in the first three Centuries. Go we up to the Writers of the first Century, what more clear than Clem. Rom. 1 Ep. ad Corinth. S. 40. where he enumerates four Orders in the Church? His Words are,

To the high Prieft, proper Offices are committed to Priefts, their proper Station is affigned; Le vites have their proper Miniftries; and a Lay-man is bound by Laick Precepts. Let every one of you, Brethren, give Thanks to God, living confcientiously, without tranfgreffing the prescribed Rule of his Service or Miniftry.

Hermas, his Shepherd, makes three Orders, viz. Bishops, Prefbyters and Deacons, in these Words. Thofe fquared and white Stones, are the Apoftles, Bifhops, Doctors, or Teachers, Minifters and Deacons.

For S. Ignatius is fo plain, that the Adverfaries have no other Refuge, but to deny them to be real; although Dr. Uber a Bishop, and Voffius a Prefbyterian, have, from different Libraries, prefented us with the genuine Copies; and others have vindicated them, against the criti cal Quibbles of thofe who will not part with their baffled Opinions, for Truth and Demonftra

tion.

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, ordained thereto by the Apoftles, in his Letter to the Philippians clearly diftinguishes himself as Bishop, from his Prefbyters, thus: Polycarp and his Presbyters to the Church of God lodging at Philippi.

I fhall only mention Alexandria, which I have done in my Vindication of S. Ignatius's Epiftles; becaufe Prefbyterians think, that a Paffage in St. Jerom, and Eutychius, Patriarch in Alexandria, in the 9th Cent. who tells us, it was a Custom in that Church, for the Prefbyters of the Place (from St. Mark's Days downward to Heraclas and Dionyfius) in the Time of a Vacancy, to chufe one of their own Number, whom they ftiled their Bishop. To which I anfwe red, That if this be true in their Senfe, it was contrary to the Practice of the univerfal Church. 2dly, We may take feveral Paffages out of St. Jerom, his Letter to Evagrius against himself, and retort his own Question upon him, Why doft thou object the Custom of one City to me? 3dly, He calls the Bishops, the Succeffors of the Apostles; and how could Prefbyters make fuch, who were not fo themselves? For it can never be gathered from St. Jerom, that the Prefbyters did ordain or confecrate the Bishop, or that their fimple Nomination was confummative: But it was ratified by Confecration, and Epifcopal Acts of neighbouring Bibops. For Eufebius, a Bishop in Paleftine, a Country divided from Alexandria by the Red-fea, obferves there no different Forms of Confecration and Ordination from other Churches: For Anianns was ordained by St. Mark, Eufeb: Ecclef. Hift. Lib. 2. C. 24. Abilius fucceeded to Anianus, Eufeb: Lib. 3. C. 13. was ordained by St. Luke, by the Traditions in the Apoftolical Conftitutions Cerdon fucceeded, Eufeb: Eccl. Hift. Lib. 3. Sec. 21. & was ordained by feveral Bishops that went to the City for, that Purpofe, according to Severus Alexandrinus, cotemporary with Eutychius, and who wrote the Lives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. Primus fucceeded to Cerdon, and was confecrated by neighbouring Bishops, according to the fame Severus. This Primus lived in the Days of Adrian the Emperor, who knew there were many Bishops in Egypt, and wrote a Letter to Severianus the Conful, which is inferted in the Life of Saturninus by Vopifcus a Latin Hiftorian. This Letter was written about the Year 132; it gives a Character of the People of Egypt, and, by the By, the faid Adrian mentions their Patriarchs, Bishops and Prefbyters. Surely this Heathen Emperor had no Design against Presbyterians, or to flatter Bishops, but meerto relate Matter of Fact.

As for Eutychius, who lived in the tenth Century, I know not what to make of him; fome make him learned, and others ignorant and fabulous. But I find, that William Prynn, in his Unbishopping of Timothy and Titus, p. 145. pays a great deal of Deference to his Authority, meerly upon the Account of his afferting the Prefbyters Power to elect their own Bishop, though in that Letter of Eutychius, which Mr. Pryn fets down in the forecited Place, there is a Story his Shoe

as fabulous like as Legends arc, to wit, That St. Mark, having the Larace, there is a Story

he called for a Cobler Hananias, who is Anianus, and he mending St. Mark's Shoe, pierced with the Awl his own Finger, whence flow'd a great deal of Blood; and murmuring in his Mind againft St. Mark, Patriarch of Alexandria, tor the Mifchance that befel him, the Patriarch told him, Fear not, believe in Chrift, and thou shalt be well, and, in the Name of Jefus, bealed his Finger, and fo Anianus was baptized, and ordained Patriarch of Alexandria by St. Mark himfelt. This Story of Eutychius will pass for Truth with the Prefbyterians, merely for afferting the coequal Power of Prefbyters with Bishops, which I have proven not to be true.

All thefe Things are pretty plain, yet not prevailing; and no Wonder, when plain Scripture feems to as little Purpofe with them; for fure I am, that Infant Baptifm, the changing of the feventh Day into the first Day of the Week, and Proofs for Canonical Scripture, are not fo clear

from

from Scripture, as an Imparity, or of one Order above another of the Clergy. Is there any Thing more clear, than that there were High Priests, Priefts and Levites in the Old Tellament? And St. Jerom tells us, that Bishops, Prefbyters and Deacons anfwered to thefe Orders in the New Testament.

Is there any Thing more clear, than that the Prophet Ifaiah foretold, that there should be fuch an Order in the New Teftament, Ifa. 66. 21. And I will take of them for Priests, and for Levites? That Priefts were above the Levites, is not debated; now that there were Chief Priefts in the Old Teftament,is as clear, I Chron. 24. 6. 31 Ezra 8. 29. Numb. 3. 24. and 30. 35. 30.35. So Nebem. 11. 14, 15, 16. there are two named Overseers, which is the fame with Bishops, the one of the Priests, the other of the Levites.

And now in the New Teftament, did we not fee our Saviour inftitute Twelve,and Seventy; if they were all one Order, why ought they not to be called the Eighty?

Did not our Saviour confecrate the Twelve to preach the Gospel, adminifter Sacraments, with a Power of binding and loofing, thrufting out the Difobedient, receiving Penitents, and to make their own Succeffors, with that Power that God gave the Son to fend his Apostles, 20 St. Job. 21.

Did not thofe Apoftles ordain their Fellow Labourers and Helpers, and founded Churches, and kept Jurifdiction over Colonies of their own Plantations, as is evident in the Writings of St. John and St. Paul, who wrote with an Air of Authority, which their Humility and Holinefs would not allow them to do over their Equals? That St. Paul governed his own Plantations,is plain, when he fays, The Care of all the Churches came upon me, 2 Cor. 11. 28. He governed in his own Abfence, I Cor. 5. 3. and Col. 2. 5. He tells, 1 Cor. 4. 18, 19. that he fhould come and vifit them, as you may read. And to 2 Cor. 13. 2. If he had not Authority, would he threaten them after fuch a Manner?

The first three Chapters of the Revelation fhew us, how St. John governed the Seven Churches of Afia in the Time of his Banifhment; and the Dioceffes, he had under him, were greater than fome Metropolitans now adays.

A

The High Prieft of the Jews was the Metropolitan of all the Jewish Church; and I told before, in my Vindicarion of St. Ignatius's Epiftles, pag. 47, that three Millions of Jews legally clean, communicated with the High Priest, and partaked with the Altar in the Temple of erufalem,though they approached it not in their own Perfons,and that in theSpace of two Hours in the fame Afternoon. And may not a Chriftian Diocefs, though never fo large, communicate at the fame Rate.

So that the Presbyterian Objection against Diocefan Bishops proceeds from grofs Ignorance or Antichriftian Defign, to keep up a Schifm against the Apoftolick Order. For it is not a Diocefs that makes a Bishop more than a Paroch, Manfe and Glebe makes a Minifter. The Apoftles were confecrated Bishops, before ever they founded Churches.

That Bishops had Dioceffes, is clear in the Apoftolick Days from S. James, when as Hegefie pus fays, the Apoftles conftituted Bishops of Ferufalem, Timothy at Ephefus, Titus in Crete, and there might be titular Bishops, or a College of them in one Place or City waiting to be called to a fixed Place by the moving Bifbops, I mean the Apoftles that planted the Gospel in all Nations, is, according to the Opinion of learned Men, neither unprobable nor unreasonable. And that S. Peter and S. Paul might be Bishops at Rome, the one for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles, because these different Profelytes to Chriftianity, had their different Rituals, and Ceremonies, is very reasonable.

However,that there was oneOrder above another,the first 3 Centuries,is clear from many Books written on the Controverty; and if it be true what is faid in this fhort Sheet, it is impoffible for a Thousand Sheets to confute it. And I wifh, that the Peers and Gentry, or the learned Laity could fatisfy themselves in a Meeting allowed by Authority, in great Libraries where the Ancients are to be had, and if they came with Design to hold faft what is Good; they fhould find in a fhort Time, by their very Eyes and Ears the Truth of what is faid.

The beft of the Presbyterians allow, that there was a fix'd Moderator or Prefes in the great Churches, but not a Bifhop over Presbyters, for both were called Bishops or Presbyters, fay they. To which I answer, that fuppofe the Community of Names (which needs not be granted) yet it is it is proven, that there was one Order above another, as Priefts had their Chief Priests of Presbyters their Chief Presbyter, who was a fix'd and unchangeable Moderator: Now if this Mo derator had all the Right or chief diftinguishing Power, which we grant to a Bishop, and all that he claims, then why may he not be called the Bishop as well as the Moderator? For Example, when Tertullian, in his Book of Baptifm, fays; The High-prieft, who is the Bishop, bas the Right of giving Baptifm, after him the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's Authority, and that for the Honour of the Church, which being fafe, the Peace is fecured. Now call him, if you will, the fix'd Moderator, yet you fee, what Authority he had over the Prefbyters and Deacons. St. Ignatius allows nothing to be done without the Bishop. Call him Moderator, if you will, yet he was above the Prefbyters and Deacons.

As they were fixed Rulers, or Bishops, fo the Apoftolick Succeffion was continued by them, and not by the inferior Clergy, as may be feen in the Catalogue of the four PatriarchaĺChurches, in the History of Eufebius to his own Time, and from Hiftorians of other, Churches, fince the Plantation of Religion.

I add, That thefe Bishops were called by their own Names, as the Twelve Apostles were named, but not the Seventy Difciples, which was a Title of Eminency, as James of Jerusalem,

for

for it was a Rabbinical Rule, Rabbi is greater than Rab, and Rabban is greater than Rabbi ↳ but be that is called by his bare Name, without any Title, is greater than Rabban.

Thefe, who were fimply called by their own Names, were greater than the Doctors and Rabbies of the Jews.

And now let me argue a little with thofe, who tell us, that there was nothing but Prefbyte ry in the firft Three Hundred Years; others will plead as well, and to better Purpofe for Independency; others will debate against Infant Baptifm; but feeing at this Time I have to do with the Prefbyterians, because they plead their Parity from the firft Three Ages: Which, if true, will it not follow, Firft, That in the 4th Century, thefe great Lights, holy Writers, Fathers and Councils were Apoftates in turning Epifcopal: Yea, that S. Auguftine, Athanafius, St. Bafil, Eufebius, &c. were all Antichriftian; and that either they were Block-heads, who did not understand the Practice of the first Three Centuries as well as Scotifh Prefbyterians do now a-days? 2. Will it not follow, that Aerius, who was condemned as an Heretick by the Church, was the only Orthodox Perfon that was in his own Time? 3. Will it not follow, that the venerable and great Council of Nice was guilty of horrid Ufurpation, that was made up of 318 Bishops; and that the Prefbyters were very filly and mean-fpirited Bodies, that protelted not their own Right against Prelatical Encroachments? 4. Will it not follow, that the Promise of being with the Apoftles to the End of the World, did fail? And that he was with them, but for Three Hundred Years; fince the Church has continued Epifcopal through the World from the End of the third Century? 5. Will it not follow, that Prophecies have fail'd, which foretold, that Kings should become nurfing Fathers, and Queens nurfing Mothers; and that the Chriftians were in a better Condition under the bloody Perfecutors, than they were under Con Atantine the Great, the firft Chriftian Emperor; and that Magiftrates became a Curfe instead of a Bleffing? 6. Will it nor follow, that if the Church-men of the first three Centuries were Prefbyterian, and had not, yea rather refuled Bishopricks in the Time of Perfecution; yet that they accepted of thefe Antichriftian Pofts in the Time of Profperity, efpecially fuch as were alive in the End of the third Century, and in the Beginning of the fourth? 7. Will it not follow, that Mr. Calvin is extreamly mistaken, who affirms, That Epifcopacy was in the first three Centuries, and that he knows not what Curfe is great enough for thofe that refuse the Cyprianic Epifcopacy, which he acknowledges to be the fame with all our modern high flown Cyprianifts.

And now let any Perfon of a quiet and calm Spirit, a fincere Lover of the Truth, confider, Whether or not it be a Spirit of Contradiction, Intereft, Ignorance or Malice, to argue againft the Substance for a Ceremony, and against a Principal for an Acceffory, from an Infant State against that of Manhood? How many Things would the first Chriftians be at, and wifh they had, that was not in their Power? Would they not be content with a Tabernacle or Temple, when they were hiding themselves in Grotts and Caves; in Holes and Bores? If an Enthufiaft fhould argue against a Prefbyterian thus, the firft Chriftians had not Steeple Houfes,nor Stipends, nor Glebes, nor Manfes, would not this Question be waved by Presbyterians with Contempt? Or elfe would they not be forced to give the Anfwer which we give to them in this Point?

If a brain-fick Fellow fhould have commenced a Schifm, and raised a Set in the Land of Canaan, and endeavoured to overturn their rational and folemn Conftitutions, and bring them to the State their Forefathers were in when in the Wilderness: And cry out, That there was no Circumcifion in the Wilderness, there were no ftately Temples norSynagogues there; nor fitting or leaning at raking the Pafchal Lamb there, for they took it standing,in Hafte, and their Staves in their Hands; there was no Feast of Tabernacles there: Yea more, Mofes and Aaron were protefted against, by the Saints of the Lord, Core, Dathan, and Abiram, who fuffered Martyrdom for the Congregational Way, and for the Rights of the People; did not they boldly tell them, Te take too much upon you, for all the Congregation is holy as well as your? Yea did not the Survivers of the Congregation for all they faw, rife against Mofes boldly to his Face, and tell him, You have finned in killing the People of the Lord? If, I fay, fuch a troublesome fchifmatical Pack fhould have rifen in the Land of Canaan, with fuch an Harangue and tell them, nay let us be in the State of our honeft Forefathers in the Wilderness: I think the best Thing that the Government of Church and State could have done with them, had been to have fent them to the Wilderness; and not let a peaceable Land be difturb'd with fuch crack-brain'd Incendiaries. But I fuppofe, they would have reply'd,They could give Scripture for all they faid, and tell us,Numb. 16. 3, 4. and prove the reft by Scriptures. What would follow upon their Difpute, but the Children of Ifrael fhould live, as their Fathers did in the Wilderness, and not as they did in Canaan?

The Presbyterians argue as wildly with us in feveral Cafes, when it is told them, That the firft Chriftians did not rife in Arms against their Perfecutors, they tell us, It is, because they were not in Condition to take Arms, being few in Number: Which is very falfe, for we underftand the contrary by the Chriftian Apologifts. But the Presbyterians look upon it as a better Condition, when they were able to make Solemn Leagues and Covenants, and to fight against their Kings,and bring them to the Scaffold. Which the poor primitive Chriftians would not do, tho' they were harafs'd with Perfecution. This much then for Epifcopacy in the first three Centuries.

ANIMADVERSIONS upon Mr. William Jamefon's Writings in general, and upon The Sum of the Epifcopal Controverfy in particular.

F Mr. Famefon, handling Cloaths of different Colours, fhould call Black, White; or White, Black, he fhould be excufed, becaufe blind Men are not to judge of Colours: But for a Man to call Good, Evil; and Evil, Good; Truth, Falfhood; and Falfhood, Truth, fhews a judicial Blindness. A Man to advancé monstrous Opinions, and Chymerical Singularities, and that with a petulant Confidence, and fupercilious Difdain of the moft Learned Men of the Church, as if they were not worthy to loose his Shoes, and to proclaim his own imaginary Victory, with flandering. and uncivil Language, both malicioufly and ignorantly, fhews, that the God of this World has blinded his Understanding. To make good my Indictment against him, I refer to the indifferent World, or to the judicious Part of Mankind, if this Man, who writes 20 or 30 Sheets of Paper in pedantick Latin, to prove that the Papifts are Socinians, and the Socinians, Papifts, does not difcover a Lunatick Fancy, and Brain-fick Imagination, rather than folid or common Sense: For Black and White cannot be more different than Papifts and Socinians are. The Papifts will have Controverfies decided by the Authority of the Church or a publick Judgment: The Socinians Rule is Reafon or a difcretive Judgment. The Papifts own the Divinity of Chrift and the Three Persons in the Trinity, which Socinians deny: And can there be any thing more abfurd than to fay, that these are both one and the fame thing?

Mr. Jamefon's Ambition and Pride of being called a Learn'd Man, would not allow him to write his Roma Raccoviana in his Mother Tongue, but in Latin, that he might be admir'd Abroad, as he is among the ignorant Phanaticks at Home. But behold the juft Character that is given of this worthy Piece of his by Learned Foreigners, That his Book is Sport for Papists, and that all Proteftants should be ashamed of it, and abhor it with Indignation, is very well refuted in fewer Lines than there are Leaves in his Book. See Memoirs de Trevoux, Tom. 7. P.401.

Alas! but Mr. Jamefon wants his Trumpeter to counter thefe Foreigners; I mean the learned Mr. David Williamfon, who in Pulpit at a General Affembly, if I be not mistaken,told, We have confounded the Prelatick Clergy upon the Point of Controversy; ay, our blind Jamefon has defeat their great Gun, Dr. Monro. And what was he this Mr. David? One that preached and printed, That Chrift died a Martyr for Presbyterian Government, and gave Scripture for it, John 19. 19. Jefus of Nazareth King of the Jews. Was not this a very learned Judge to give a Character of a Presbyterian Champion? But it is very like their Caufe, it will not do otherwise for them.

It does not ferve Mr. Jamefon to fall upon particular Perfons of the Church of England, fuch as calling Mr. Dodwel a Brute, tho' the learned World admires him; yet this he does in his Preface to the Re-printing of Mr. Davidson's Catechifm,

But

he muft caft a general Reflection upon the whole Church of England, telling, that That Kingdom where Prelacy is of moft Account, is fill'd with the most idle, naughty, and . prophane Clergy-men that are to be found, at least, in the Proteftant World. See his Nazianzeni Querela, Page 107, 108.

Are the ancient Fathers better treated by Mr. J.? Not they, for of St. Ignatius that holy Martyr, his pathetick Stile of Writing,he declares, Page 117. is altogether infulfe, putide, and more tasteless than the White of an Egg: Again, in his Sum of the Epifcopal Controversy, he treats Epiphanius in thefe Words; an ancient Writer indeed, but one of the moft prejudic'd, paffionate, and fuperftitious, that the Sun had readily feen.

Scul

tetus is of another Mind, and endeavours to defend the Antiquity of the Proteftant Tenets against Papifts by Epiphanius's Authority; but Mr. Jamefon's Character of him (which he never offers to prove) must pass for Demonstration.

Shall

Shall I enlarge this Indictment any farther? Yes, I fhall from his Preface to his Sum of the Epifcopal Controversy, Page 3. and 4. he boldly and blafphemously afferts, that the Spirit of God had a peculiar View of Scotland: He adds, (to make his Words more emphatick) Reforming Scotland, when he fays, by Ifaiah 55. 3. I will make an everlafting Covenant with you, even the fure Mercies of David; and Page 4. when he faith by Jeremiah 50. 5. Come and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual Covenant that shall not be forgotten.

We are not only, (fays Mr. Jamefon) to be numbred among these Islanders, of whom the Holy Ghoft faid, that they should wait for Chrift's Law, living in thofe uttermoft Parts of the Earth that were promised to Chrift for his Poffeffion. For till of late, Scotland was reckon'd one of the utmoft Parts of the Earth or known World. Who may not believe the blafphemous Expreffions in the Presbyterian Eloquence, whereby they extol the Covenant, when this rare Champion publishes fuch Stuff to the World? And not only fo, but gives his Advice to all Presbyterian Teachers in the Kingdom to preach upon it, which is accordingly done in Eaft-Lothian, and King Charles II. call'd a Covenant-Breaker, and the Royal Family is ftill malign'd in their Pulpits.

Now what Chriftian in the World, that understands any thing of the Spirit of Chriftianity, can fay,that this Covenant was prophefied for Scotland, as a Gofpel Bleffing? A Covenant! which was an Engine to bring in the worft of Men, into a rebellious Confederacy. High-way Men, Bankrupts, Rogues,Rebels, Atheists were all canonized for Saints, if they were zealous Covenanters, to pull down the Apoftolick Government and the Royal Family.

Who but a mifled ignorant or a brazen-brow'd Reprobate can deny, that this Covent brought the Royal Martyr to the Scaffold? Did not he, who understood the Covenant Principles, Mr.Shields,the Author of the Hind let loofe, avow that it was an Act of great Justice? And does he nor vindicate the Murder of the Arch-Bishop of St. Andrew's for his Breach of Covenant? And was he not preferr'd to St. Andrews, where he had Occafion to preach up the Covenant and Presbyterian bloody Principles? Behold Mr. Jamefon's profound Discovery of the Words of the Prophets Ifaiah and Jeremiah, That the Holy Ghost had a View of Scotland, reforming Scotland, Chrift's Poffeffion, when the Prophets uttered fuch Expreffions.

Now, judicious Reader, after fuch wild, frantick Speculations of Mr. Jameson of which I have not touch'd the tenth Part, tell and judge, if there be any Credit in anfwering fuch a wild pitiful Scribbler, who is fo full of himself, that he values his blafphemies and Dreams for moft wonderful Discoveries, to wit, the Solemn League and Covenant, was prophefied of by Ifaiah and Jeremiah.

I admire, that fuch a wonderful Difcoverer as Mr. J. does not tell us, That the Book of the Covenant fpoken of, Exod. 24. 6, 7. and the Book of the Wars of Battles of the Lord,fpoken of, Numb. 21. 14. which Books are faid to be loft in the Old Testament, are now found in the New Teftament, to be the Solemn League and Covenant, which occafioned the valiant Battles of the Lord,to wit the Rebellions against King Charles I. and II. Mr. Famefon can work Wonders, who finds out Books that were loft in the Old Teftament.

Yet I fhall touch one Point by which Mr. J. thinks,he has ruin'd and overturn'd the Epifcopal Caufe for ever, and if this be found lighter than Vanity when put in the Balance, and both abfurd and false, then all he fays falls to the Ground, and that is, That neither the Ancient nor Modern Advocates for Epifcopacy agree among themselves; herefore there can be no Truth in their Pretences, and they contend for meer nothing, and there is no real Foundation for Epifcopacy: And that because the Defenders of it differ in their Opinions

about it.

If this be Truth, that there is no fuch thing in the World, because Men have various Opinions about it, then there is nothing in the World certain. Put his Argument in the Mouths of Jews and Heathens againft Chriftians, then the Chriftian Relegion is nothing, because the Profeffors divide among themselves, fome afferting the Divinity of its Founder, others denying it. Put it in the Mouths of Deifts, who deny reveal'd Religion, then off goes the Certainty of the Scriptures, because Men debate upon the Canonicalnefs of fome Books therein. Put Mr. J's Principle in the Mouths of those who affert,that there is fuch a thing as Antichrift, it will presently by his Pofition be concluded that there is no fuch a thing as Antichrift, because of the different Opinions about it. Put this Pofition in the Mouths of Herod and Pontius Pilate, who agreed a

mong