A SHORT ANSWER TO THE Tedious Vindication OF Smectymnus.  
BY The author of the Humble Remonstrance.  
LONDON, Printed for NATHANIEL BUTTER in Paul's churchyard at the pied-bull near St. Austin's gate. 1641.   

TO The most High Court OF PARLIAMENT.  
Most honourable LORDS, And ye most Noble KNIGHTS, CITIZENS, and BURGESSES of the House of COMMONS:  
NOthing could fall out more happily to me, then that my bold Adversaries have appealed to your inviolable Justice; for sure I am, whiles you are (as you ever will be) yourselves, wise, and just, my cause cannot miscarry in your hands. With no less, therefore, but better grounded confidence, I cast myself upon your unpartial judgement; rejoicing to think, how clearly you will distinguish betwixt a facing boldness, and a modest Evidence of truth: How can I but receive courage from your pious, and just proceedings? It is I that vindicate, these men oppose that holy liturgy, which your most religious Order in this Active session commanded to be entirely observed. How busy Faction is to cross that your most seasonable Decree, every day yields new and lamentable proofs. If these endeavours of mine serve only for the pursuance of your so necessary, and gracious Act; they cannot fear to be unwelcome. But, if I have hurt a good cause, by a weak and insufficient handling, let me suffer in your censure, and let my Adversaries triumph in my sufferings. Contrarily, if after all their smooth insinuations, it shall be found, that this champertous combination hath gone about, by mere shows of proof, to feed the unquiet humours of men, in the unjust dislike of most justifiable, ancient, and sacred Institutions, and to cast false blames upon my peaceable and sincere managings of a certain Truth, let them pass for what they are, and feel that justice which they have appealed.   

An ANSWER TO A Calumniatory EPISTLE, Directed by way of PREFACE to the Reader.  
READERS,  
MY comfort is, that you have eyes of your own; and know how to use them: With what gravity would our Smectymnuans else persuade you, that my late Defence is fraught with such stuff, as you shall find undiscernable by any but their eyes? You cannot well judge of the management of this quarrel, unless it will please you to receive notice how this fray began. It is not long since I sent forth a meek and peaceable Remonstrance, bemoaning the frequency of scandalous Pasquins, and humbly pleading for the just and ancient right of liturgy and episcopacy. Wherein I could not suppose that any person could find himself touched, save only those, who profess friendship to libels, enmity to the established forms: When all on the sudden, the Smectymnuans, a strange generation of men, unprovoked, unthought of, cry out of hard measure, and fly in my face, as men wrongfully accused; I know them not, I hurt them not; If their own guilt have galled them, that is no fault of mine; A long and bitter Answer is addressed by them, where no question was moved: Insomuch, as I could hardly induce His majesty, when I presented my Defence to His royal hands, to believe, that any except on could be taken to so fair and innocent a Discourse: My labour was all for peace, even this is made the ground of the quarrel: What should I now do? I were worse than a worm, if upon this treading upon, I did not turn again; Yet, not so much out of respect to my own poor, and (if need were) despicable reputation, as to the public cause of God, and his Church, which I saw now engaged in this unjust brawl. According to my true duty, therefore, I published a short and defensive Reply to their long Answer; wherein, I hope the judicious will witness, that the Truth sustains no loss: Now, enraged with a moderate opposition, they heat their furnace seven times more, and break forth into a not more voluminous, then vehement Invective. I do not see them look cleeringly through their fingers, at their seeminglyunknown, (yet often discovered, and oft vilified) Antagonist; it is all one, so long as he is nameless; if he be a Consul, they are Senators; Civility is but a Ceremony; All faces under masks are alike; It matters not for the person, let it please you to look at the cause: In the carriage whereof, they first tax me, with over-lashing in my accusations; I had objected to them, misallegations, misinterpretations, misinferences, weak and colourable proofs; neither can their querulous noise make me go less, or be less confident in my charge. They liken themselves to Cato, and well may, they are extremely like; of thirty accusations, no one could be proved against Cato; of no fewer charges, which are laid upon them, I see not how they acquit themselves of one.  
Who can but wonder at this eminent boldness, that they dare tell you, 
Tertul. Apol. c. 30. pag. of The Defence— 13 August. Ep. 121. 14 Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. 14 Concil. Laodie. c. 8. 15 Concil. Carthag. 3. 15 Concil. Milevit. 2. 16 Hieron. ad Euagr. 61 Greg. Naz. Orat. 28. 65 Firmilianus in Cypr. Ep 75. 71 Ambr. in Presbyt. consignant. 72 Concil. Antioch. c. 10. 72 D. Raynolds. 101 Orig. contr. cells. 141 August. contr. Crescon. l. 3. 146  There are (after all my general exclamations) but four places, for which I tax them of falsehood? Falsehood, is their own word; misallegation is mine: Be pleased to cast your eye upon my Margin, and to count this quaternion of their imputed errors: But they are misinferences, and weak inconsequences, which (besides miscitations) were upon the file of my accusations; wherein I fear Cato's number will be outvied.  
Readers, such fidelity, as you find in the denial of my manifest exceptions against their allegations, look for in the demonstrative proofs of their exceptions against mine. There is belike, a Machiavel somewhere, find him out, I beseech you, and let him be brought forth to shame; certainly, where the falsehood lies, there he lurks.  
In the second place they tell you of railings, revilings, scornings, never the like since Montague's Appeal; and present you with a whole bundle of such strange flowers of rhetoric, as truly, I wondered should ever grow in my Garden; wherein, they have done passing wisely, in not noting the Pages, as the several beds, wherein such rare plants grew; for I have carefully reexamined the Book, and profess seriously, that some of them I cannot find at all; others I find, but utterly mis-applied; We are called (they say) Vain, frivolous cavillers, riotous, proud, false, envious, &c. Let me appeal to your eyes, Readers; where ever I thus wronged those, whom I call Brethren? Divers of these words I confess to have used, but to another purpose, upon a different subject; that which I speak of the things, they unjustly take of the persons: For example; I talk of false, and frivolous exceptions; They say, I call them false and frivolous men: I talk of vain cavils; They charge me to say, they are vain cavillers: I speak of a riot of assailants; They cry out, that I call them riotous men: I say, a suggestion is envious; They take it to themselves: I call the libelers, Factious persons; They misapply it, as spoken of them: I say an intimation is witless and malicious; I am taken to say the men are so: And not to weary you with so odious a rabble, I say, this is weakly and absurdly objected; They say, I call them weak and absurd men. Thus, I could easily pass through the rest; and show you, that what I speak by way of supposition, they take absolutely; what I speak as dehorting, they as accusing; what of speeches, they of persons; what of others, they of themselves: And thus rises the rare rhetoric which they have imputed to me; wherein I doubt not, but ye my Readers, will take occasion to think, what fidelity shall we expect from these men, in citing other Authors, when they do so foully misreport the Book in our hand? They arenot then my flowers, but their own weeds, which they have thus bundled up together.  
But had I so far over-lashed, as is pretended, your wisdom, Readers, would send you to inquire of the provocation: For surely, the occasion may, if not justify a man's act, yet abate his blame; When therefore ye shall look back, and see with what strange insolence I was entertained by these undertakers, ye will be so far from complaining of my sharpness, that ye will rather censure my patience; 
In the Answer to the Humble Remonstrance. Episcopal bravado. p. 3 Treason, treason. p. 4 Episcopal zeal broke into flames of indignation. p. 6. We know not what his arrogancy might attempt. p. 14 So many falsities and contradictions. p. 15 A face of confident boldness. p. 15 A self-confounded man. p. 15 Notorious falsity. p. 15 Notorious— p. 16 Not leave his— p. 16 Os durum p. 18 Forgets not himself, but God also. p. 18 Words bordering upon blasphemy. p. 18 Indignation will not suffer us to prosecute these falsities. p. 18 A stirrup for Antichrist. p. 30 Antichristian government. p. 65 We thank God we are none of you. p. 74 Borders upon Antichrist. p. 80 Pride, Rebellion, Treason, unthankfulness, which have issued from episcopacy. p. 85  How blind self-love will make men in their own concernments? These men will not see in themselves that true guilt, which they unjustly cry out of, in another: So, I have heard a man with a very noisome breath, censure the ill lungs of his neighbour; Let my Margin present thee, Reader, with but an handful out of a full sack.  
These are their terms in their very first papers; without any pretence of imitation: But if we should rake together the scornful, girding and (as some of their betters have styled them) unmannerly passages of this their angry vindication, it were enough to fill a Book alone. Readers, ye may, if you please, believe, how easy it were for me, to pay them home in their own coin; But I had rather to consider what is fit for me (how nameless soever) to give, than what they are worthy to receive: Some others may perhaps be more sensible of this indignity than myself; who have learned to think more meanly of myself, than they can speak; and at once both to pity this petulancy, and disregard it.  
In the third place they talk of daring protestations, and bold asseverations; and spend some instances of the particular expressions of my confidence. Do not think, Readers, that I will be beaten out with words; there is no one line of those passages, which they have recited, that I will not make good against all the clan of Smetymnuus.  
Neither can I, out of this assurance, decline any Bar under Heaven, for the trial of my righteous cause; It is therefore an unreasonably envious suggestion of theirs, that in dedicating my Book to His Sacred majesty, I did, ever the more, fly from the judgement of Parliament; when in that very Epistle, I made confident mention of my secure reliance upon the noble justice of their judicature; Besides, that it is not too wise, nor too loyal an intimation of these men, which would imply such a distance betwixt sovereign, and Parliamentary interest: For me, I would ever suppose such an entire union betwixt them, as the head and the body; that they neither should, nor can be severed in the rights of their several concernments.  
As for that resolute averment of the Author of episcopacy by Divine Right, That he offers to forfeit his life to justice, and his reputation to shame, if any living man can show any Lay-Presbyter (not as they please to report the word, a Ruling Elder) in the world, till Farell and Viret first created him; Let me be his hostage; let my life go for his, if any one such Lay-Presbyter can be produced. Let them search Records, and try their skill; and when they have overcome, triumph. But in the mean time, they may not think to fob us off, with the colourable testimonies of B. Whitgift, King, Saravia, who were all well known to be just so good friends to Lay-Presbytery, as themselves are to episcopacy. For the rest, If I have been somewhat bold with them, in telling them, rightdown, of poor arguments, verbal exceptions, mere declamations, shuffling of testimonies, unproving illustrations, I may crave your pardon, Readers, but theirs I cannot; as not conscious of any ill-placed word, in this easy Censure. Shortly, my much reverenced friend, learned Rivetus, will give them but a little thanks in misapplying his censure of Bishop Montague, to a man so differently tempered, whom he hath with particular respects vouchsafed to honour, and oblige.  
In the fourth place, they tell you, that after all these thrasonical boasts of mine, if their whole Book were divided into four parts, there is one quarter, of which I make no mention: Wherein, Readers, I think verily you may believe them; For in the first leaf of my Defence, I foretold you so much; as finding nothing in that swollen bulk, but a mere unsound tympany, instead of a truly solid conception; whereof you may easily perceive the one half (well near) bestowed either in mere verbal quarrels, or in real disputes of things uncontroverted. I am more thrifty of my good hours, then to follow them in so wild a chase: pitching, only, upon those points, which I conceived to be valuable, and pertinent; wherein my profession was, so to save time, as that I should not lose aught of truth: It is an injurious suggestion therefore, which these men make, that where their proofs are strongest, there I have glided away without answer; since I can safely call God to witness unto my soul, that I am not conscious to myself of any one considerable argument of theirs, that I have balked in my replicatory Defence: But if in their estimation, there be any such, as wherein they have placed an overweening confidence, let them not spare to reinforce it to the utmost; that the world may witness their valour, and my cowardice.  
What need is there of this, you will say, when they have already gloried in the victory; vaunting, that they have me, confitentem reum; and, in effect, the cause granted by me, in those things which are most material? Were it so, Readers, as they pretend, that I come nearer to their Tenets, than some others; one would think they should, in this, find cause to acknowledge, and embrace mine ingenuity, rather than to insult upon me, as in way of disgrace. I wis, it is not the force of their argutation, that could move me one foot forward; but if God's blessing upon my free disquisition of truth, should have so wrought upon my better-composed thoughts, as that I should have yielded to go some steps further than others, towards the meeting of peace, one would not think this should yield any fit matter of exprobration; But, the truth is, I have not departed, one inch, from either my own Tenet, or from the received judgement of our Orthodox Divines.  
Now that they may see the fault is not in my levity, but in their own misunderstanding; that Identity of the names and offices of Bishops and Presbyters, in the beginning of the Apostles times, whereat they take advantage, they may see averred, at large, in episcopacy by Divine Right, 2. Part.§. 4. and, to second it, they 
Defence, p. 48.  are challenged in my Defence, to name any one of our Writers, that hath not proclaimed this truth; Where then lies the contradiction?  
The clear nominal distinction of the three Orders of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, I professed to prove only out of the writings of those, who were the next successors to the Apostles; What is here of either yieldance or contradiction? And if I have ingenuously granted, that the Primitive Bishops were elected by the clergy, with the assent of the people; That Bishops neither do, nor may challenge to themselves such a sole interest in Ordination, or jurisdiction, as utterly to exclude Presbyters from some participation in this charge, and Act; That they ought not to divest themselves of their jurisdictive power, by delegating it to others; That the ordinary managing of secular employments is improper for them; If, in all these, I have gratified them, why do they complain? and if I have disadvantaged my cause, why is it not urged to my conviction?  
It is warily said of these men, that I almost grant Lay-Elders in Antiquity; I do so almost grant them in my own sense, that I utterly deny them in theirs: Why should I make any doubt to yield unto the justice of their complaints, in the postscript against the insolence, and tyranny of Popish Prelates? What lose we by this condescent? Or how can they plead they are not justly taxed for diffusing other men's crimes to the innocent, when their consciences cannot but fly in their faces for this injustice?  
Lastly, I am charged with shameful self-contradictions, which surely must needs argue great rashness, or much weakness of judgement. See the instances; In the same Epistle, I profess not to tax their abilities, and yet call them impotent assailants: And why not both of these? He that taxeth not their abilities, doth not therefore presently approve them; they may, perhaps, not want good abilities in themselves, and yet be unable to prove their cause; they may be able men, and yet impotent matches.  
The contradiction they would raise in the words concerning evangelists, is merely cavillatory; May you be pleased to turn to the ninety fourth Page of my Defence, you shall clearly acknowledge it. The word in a common sense, signifies any Preacher of the Gospel; but in the peculiar sense of the New Testament, it signifies some persons extraordinarily gifted, and employed; not settled in any one place, but sent abroad by the Apostles on that blessed errand: Now, to say that any of these latter were such as had ordinary places, and ordinary gifts, (as they do, Sect. 13. pag. 48.) I do justly blame as a mere fancy, not herein contradicting any thing, but their light imagination.  
In the contradiction pretended to be, concerning the extent of episcopacy, sure they cannot but check themselves; In my Remonstrance and Defence, they report men to say somewhere (but, where, no man can tell) that Bishops had been everywhere; and, that all Churches through the whole Christian world, have uniformly, and constantly maintained episcopacy; elsewhere, that I say they were not everywhere, and that there are less noble Churches that do not confer to episcopal government; Words are more easily accorded, then acknowledged; There are not, there have not been everywhere settled Christian Churches; Where ever there have been settled Christian Churches, there have been Bishops; From the Apostles times to this present Age, there have been Bishops in all Christian Regions; now, some late Reformed Churches have been necessitated to forbear them; Where, I beseech you, lies the contradiction?  
I have often granted, that the name of Bishops, and Presbyters was, at the first, promiscuously used, and yet, I do no less justly maintain, that for this sixteen hundred years, the name of Bishops hath been ordinarily appropriated (in a contra-distinctive sense) to Church-governors in an apparent superiority. Distinguish times, and reconcile Histories.  
The two next exceptions concerning Diocesan Bishops, and civil government, are fully cleared and convinced in the due places of this ensuing Answer; I shall not blur paper in an unseasonable anticipating my own Discourse.  
Sole Ordination, and sole jurisdiction, we so disclaim, as that we hold the power of both, primarily in the Bishop, the concurrent assistance in the Presbyters; What opposition is there in an orderly subordination?  
The last contradiction clearly reconciles itself: In stating the question concerning episcopacy, I distinguish betwixt Divine and apostolical Authority, professing, not to affirm that Bishops were immediately ordained by Christ; and yet averring, that Christ laid the grounds of this imparity in his first agents; What discordance is in these two? Is the groundwork of an house, the whole frame of it? Can they find the roof in the foundation? In the Epistles to the seven Asian Churches, Christ (I truly say) acknowledges (at least intimates) the hierarchy of those seven Angels: Do I imply that he did immediately ordain them?  
Readers, ye have seen the poor stuff of these their selected exceptions: believe it, such are all their contradictions to me, as these contradictions which they find in me, to myself, groundless, and worthless: As I shall make good in this following Discourse, concerning the ancient, holy, and beneficial use of set-liturgies in the Church. This subject, because, as it is untracked with any frequent pens of others, so it is that, wherein my Adversaries seem most to pride themselves, (as supposing to have in it the most probable advantages against me) I have somewhat largely handled, to your ample satisfaction. But, as for that other head of episcopacy, which hath already filled so many rheims of waste-paper, for as much as I see they offer nothing, but that which hath passed an hundred ventilations, Transeat. I have resolved to bestow my time better, then in drawing this saw to and fro, to no purpose. Let them first give a full, and punctual Answer to that, which hath been already, in an entire body of a Treatise, written concerning the Divine Right of episcopacy; and then, let them expect, that I should trouble myself with sweeping away these loose scraps of their exceptions. Till then, let them, if they can, be silent, at least I shall; as one that know how to give a better account of the remainder of my precious hours.   

A Short ANSWER To the Tedious VINDICATION OF Smectymnus.  

SECT. I.  
I Am sorry, Brethren, that your own importunity will needs make you guilty of your further shame: Had you sat down silent in the conscience of a just reproof, your blame had been by this time dead, and forgotten; but now, your impetuous Defence shall let the world see, you did in vain hope to face out an ill cause with a seeming boldness. I may not spend Volumes upon you, but some Lines I must: enough to convince the Reader of the justice of my Charge, and the miserable insufficiency of your Vindication; It is not your stiff denial that can make it other than God's truth, which I maintain, or that can justify your Errors; Let the cause speak for itself, and let that great Moderator of Heaven, to whom we both appeal, judge.  
It was a light touch, that I gave to your grammatical slip of Areopagi; wherein it would not have hurt you, to have confessed your oversight; had you yielded that you stumbled, though withal you say, You stumbled like Emperors, we could have passed it over with a smile; but now, that you will needs fall into a serious contestation, and spend almost a whole leaf in a faulty Defence; I must tell you, that you make this an heinous trifle: To face out wilfully the least error, is no less than a crime; and such is this of yours, as every true Grammarian knows: I doubt not, but you had heard of Dionysius Areopagita; but if you should have cited him under the name of Dionysius Ariopaguses, every Scholar would have laughed you to scorn: Had you said, The admired sons of justice, the Ariopaguses; I grant it had been good, according to that which you cite out of Sarisburiensis; but to say, The admired sons of justice, the Areopagi, no Grammar, no authority can bear you out; and however you face it, that you can bring precedents enough, out of approved Authors, name but one, and take all: That of Sarisburiensis, which you allege, is altogether for me, against yourselves: he says that Senate 
Doth he say, those judges were called Areopagi?  of Athens was called Ariopaguses; so said my Margin before: But what is this to your false Latin? Brethren, this matter of Latinity is but a straw, but let me say, this willing defence of a plain falsehood, is a block, which your very friends cannot but stumble at; and how can the Reader choose but think, he that will wilfully stand in the defence of a known falsehood in Language, will not stick to defend a known error in his cause? Before, ye stumbled; now, ye fall: rise up for shame in a just confession, and look better to your feet hereafter.  
But belike, you have not a better faculty in stumbling, than I in leaping: and talk of huge great blocks that I have over-skipped in this whole Book: Where are they, which be they, Brethren? If such were, they are, I hope, still visible; show them me, I beseech you, that I may yet try my skill: You instance in some words sounding to contempt; I thought what these blocks would prove: mere matter of words, not less windy, than the froth of your next Paragraph; wherein your gravity is set upon a merry pin; and, in a becoming jeer, tells us of the Gentleman student in Philosophy, that desires to learn the rare secret of the sinking of froth; for which, I remit you, and your deep student, to the next Tapster.  
IT is not all your shuffling that can shift 
Parag. 2.  the just charge of your gross uncharitableness; The Remonstrance comparing in a general notion, the forms of Civil government and ecclesiastical, expresses it in these Terms; [Since if antiquity may be the rule, the civil Polity hath sometimes varied, the Sacred, never; And if original authority may carry it, that came from arbitrary imposers, this from men inspired:] than which, no word can be in a right sense more safe, or more innocent: Your good gloss appropriates 
Answ. p. 4.  what (in thesi) was spoken of all forms of Civil government, to our particular Monarchy; and tells your Reader, that I deliver it as Arbitrary, & Alterable; than which, there cannot I suppose be any slander more dangerous; and to mend the matter now in your Vindication, you redouble your most injurious charge upon the Remonstrant, as if upon this ground, it could follow that to attempt the alteration of monarchical government, had been, in his opinion, less culpable than to petition the alteration of episcopal; quite contrary to the express words of my Remonstrance; whose implication is no other than this, That, if it were capital in them who endeavoured to alter the forms of civil government, they must needs seem worthy of more than an easy censure, that went about in a Libellous way to work the change of a settled government in the Church.  
See, Reader, this latter is in the Remonstrants' judgement, worthy of more than an easy censure, the others accusation is no less than deadly: Whether now doth he hold less culpable? Truly, brethren, if you be not ashamed of this unjust crimination, I hope some body will blush for you. With how bold a face dare you appeal to the Reader, yea to the most honourable Parliament, and to the Sacred Majesty of our sovereign, that you do the man no wrong? Join issue then and let all these judge: First you say, one of the most confident Advocates of Episcopacy, hath said, that where a national Church is settled in the orderly regiment of certain grave Overseers, to seek to abandon this form, and to bring in a foreign Discipline is as unreasonable, as to cast off the yoke of just and hereditary Monarchy, and to affect many-headed sovereignty; This you think an assertion insolent enough, that sets the Mitre, as high as the crown; But what a foul injury is this? Reader do but view the place, and see, where the Mitre stands: The words run thus: [So were it no less 
They cite it [No less heinous] These words [Ruling under one acknowledged sovereign] are purposely left out in their citation of them to make the proposition odious: what fidelity there is in this, let the Reader judge.  unreasonable where a national Church is settled in the orderly regiment of certain grave Overseers, ruling under one acknowledged sovereign, by wholesome and unquestionable Laws, and by these Laws punishable if they overlash: &c.] Say now, Reader, whether this man sets the Mitre as high as the crown? Neither doth he say, it were no less heinous, (for the difference of the morality is excepted before) but, no less unreasonable: as that which is there said to argue a strange brainsick giddiness in either offence.  
Yet more anger; The Remonstrant rises higher and sets the Mitre above the Crown? Wherein, I beseech you, brethren? What a Woolseian insolence were this? He tells us (you say) that civil government came from Arbitrary imposers, the Sacred from men inspired; now civil government here includes Monarchy; therefore this is to advance Episcopacy above Monarchy; since the one challenges God for the Founder, the other human arbitrement. Brethren, had your argument as much reason, as spite, it would press sore: now, as you have framed it, it is a mere cavil. The Remonstrant speaks of all civil government in general; the several forms whereof amongst several nations, and people, no reasonable man can deny were introduced variously, according to the first institution of their Founders; What error can your sharp eyes find in this proposition? Now, you will needs draw this by an envious application to Monarchy, as if I meant to derive it only from men, not from God: Ye are mistaken, brethren: they are your better friends, that thus deduce Monarchy; For us, we hold it is from God, by men, from God as the author & ordainer, by men, as the means; we fetch it not from earth, but from heaven; we know who said, By me King's reign; and from him we derive their crowns and sceptres: But ye may know (which we have oft blushed, and sighed to see laid in our dish, by Popish Authors) who it was that said; Kings, Princes and Governors 
The first and greatest zealot at Frankford. lib de obedient. And Buchanan in his book de jure Regni. Nos autem id contendimus, populum à quo Reges nostri habent quicquid juris sibi vendicant, regibus esse potentiorem, jus quidem in illos habere multitudinem, &c. Buchan. de jure Regni.  have their authority of the people, and upon occasion they may take it away again, as men may revoke their proxies: who it was that said, It is not enough for subjects not to obey, but they must withstand wicked Princes. Sure they were no fautors of Episcopacy, that have written so bloody lines against the safety, and lives of lawful Princes, as I dare not transcribe; that have so undervalued their power, and so abased their original; small reason had you to twit me with this hateful guilt.  
It is but a poor put-off, that you censure not my words as treasonable, from my pen, which from yours had received no better construction: The words are the same, the intimation evident; and not less evincible, than your vilifying of the judgement of that wise, & (above all examples) learned K. James; whom whiles you smooth in words, and directly oppose in his well-grounded Edict, concerning the Liturgy of the Church, what do you but verbally praise, and really check? Ye cannot therefore so easily wipe off these aspersions of uncharitableness, by either stiff denial, or unjust recrimination; For me, such is my malice towards you, that I can at once convince your want of charity, and forgive it.  
IF the Religion of King William Rufus, or 
Parag. 3.  the infallible judgement of Pope Pius may do you any service, make your best of them; to me they are much alike. Whatsoever Daniel (the Poet, not the Prophet) pleased to say; All Historians were not Monks, nor all Monks false-tongued; Would God all Divines were true: The actions of this Prince blazon him more, than the Historians pens; whereof some have taxed him for favour of Judaism, others for touches of atheism, all for indevotion: As for the Bishops of those times, I say they were Popish, and, in that notion, tyrannical; for that dependence which they had upon him, who exalts himself above all that is called GOD, exalted them to their proud contestation with Princes. It was their Popery therefore, that made them insolent, and their insolence, that made them odious to Kings.  
It hath been (ye say) the usual quality of former and later Bishops, to tyrannize over such as fear them, and to flatter such as they fear: Your tongues are your own; But, Brethren, if this be their quality, it is your fault that you will not suffer it to be their property: There are those that can do this, and more; can tyrannize over those whom they ought to reverence, and flatter those whom they should not fear.  
As for your Pius; should not the Pope have been my Antichrist, I am sure he is yours; Little reason therefore could you have, to use his testimony against your own profession. But, Why may we not (you say) use the testimony of Antichrist, against Antichristian Bishops? Brethren, I understand you not; I hope you have more grace, then to call ours so: If you have so much of the Separatist in you, many good hearts will justly grieve to see that ye pretend to come forth under licence; sure you dare not mean, you dare not say, that the public Government established here by Law, is Antichristian; this were to strike where you would not; or, if you could be so bold, authority might oversee, but would never allow so lawless an affront: If our Bishops be Antichristian, whence is your Ordination? Good speed may you have, Brethren, towards Amsterdam.  
Full witty, and sound is the inference which you draw from the grounds, which I give of the Pope's unwillingness to yield a Divine Right to Bishops; for that he would have them derive their authority merely from himself: Therefore (say you) it follows, That they have no more Divine Right, than the Pope: Just; for the Pope thinks so; pretending his own (false) Right, and disclaiming their true.  
But what's this (I ask) to our Bishops, who profess notwithstanding the apostolical, that is, Divine Right of their calling, to hold the places and exercise of their Jurisdiction, wholly from His majesty: You answer, [Surely ours have begun to affect the same exemption from secular power; to make large and haughty strides, towards an independent hierarchy.] Where, or wherein, Brethren? Will any Justice hold it enough to accuse? I challenge your instances, If you can find an universal guiltiness this way, spare us not; I shall yield, we cannot suffer too much: But if your exceptions be either none, (as your silence argues) or particular, why should not you smart for the unjust branding of a whole Order?  
Me thinks you should shame and fear to speak of our affected independence of Hierarchy, when ye know that an independent parochial Hierarchy (if it could be worth so high a name) is in public Pamphlets, and open Sermons set afoot with much earnestness by those, who would be thought no mean ones in your fraternity; And when you cannot but know, that the Bishop's Bench is openly challenged in the name of too much dependence upon sovereignty? Away with these idle slanders of your innocent, grave, and modest governors. For Mr Hooker, we know you love and honour his memory, dearly, nothing of his can be unwelcome to us; neither doubt we, but that you will be no less edified by his last works, if they may see the light, then with his first; That man doth not look, as if he meant to contradict his own truths.  
YE doubt to be chid for this licentiousness 
Parag. 4.  of your pen; and so you well may; for it can be no less than a foul slander to charge that faction upon whole Episcopacy, which you dare (upon urging) impute but to a few. The more (ye say) is your misery, that a few Bishops can put both the kingdoms into so dangerous a combustion. True; But, if it be your misery, it is not our sin; Blame the guilty, strike not the innocent: But, if but a few can do this (ye say) what a stir would they all make, if they should unite their powers? This is in your own phrase argumentum galeatum; If a few factious Preachers in our neighbour Pulpits, since the entering of this Parliament, have kindled such a fire in the City, and kingdom, what would they all do, if their seditious tongues were all united?  
But now, ye speak to purpose; If but a few were factors for this attempt; how was it that one of the episcopal tribe in open Court called the Scottish design, Bellum Episcopale? Who can forbear to smile at this doughty proof? Why, Brethren, was that word too big for one man's mouth? Could he not utter it without help of his fellows? Did they either say, or think it, the more, because he spoke it? What reason have you to feoff a private conceit on all? especially when the words may be capable of a less evil construction, as referring to the Northern rise of that quarrel, not to our prosecution.  
But, where (ye say) were the rest of the peaceable and orthodox Bishops the while? Truly in all likelihood, at home, quietly, in their own Sees; in their retired studies; without notice of any plots, without any intimation of dangers; much more without intermeddling in any secrets of State, or close stratagems of disturbance; So as, it was not their love to peace and truth, that could oppose, what they never could reach to know: Neither is it any fault of theirs, that the dear and precious name of episcopacy is exposed to base and vulgar obloquy. Let those who will needs pour contempt upon the guiltless, look for a just revenge from him, who hath said, Touch not mine anointed, and do my Prophets no harm.  
Still therefore must I take leave to cry, Fie, upon those my Brethren, that dare to charge faction upon episcopacy, and withal to deplore the unhappy miscarriages of any of our spiritual Fathers, that shall be found guilty of these woeful broils. What Cyprian would have done upon occasion of so high an indignity offered by you to that holy function, appears sufficiently in his Epistle to Rogatianus; 
Cypr. l. 3. ep. 9  though no instance can come home to the point; For, let me boldly say, that since Christianity looked forth into the world, there were never so high, and base scorns put upon episcopacy, as there have been by shameless libelers within the space of this one year in this kingdom; yea in this city: God in his great mercy forgive the authors, and make them sensible of the danger of his just vengeance.   

SECT. II.  
What a windy Section have you past, wherein you confess you have striven for words? Things, you say, shall now follow; Things well worthy to be not more precious to the Remonstrant, then to every well-minded Christian; liturgy and episcopacy.  
Liturgy leads the way; We had need to begin with our prayers. I challenged you for the instances of those many alterations you talked of, in the present liturgy; You answer me, Truly Sir, if we were able to produce no fuller evidence of this, than you have done of your Jewish liturgy ever since Moses time, we should blush indeed; but if we can bring forth such instances, &c. Truly Brethren, you could do little, if ye could not crack and boast: the greatest cowards can do this best; Do not say, what ye can do, but do what ye say; Put it upon this very issue. For the liturgy (ye say) we can bring forth instances of such alterations as shall prove this present liturgy to be none of that which was confirmed by Parliamentary Acts.  
Mark well, Readers, for certainly, in plain English, these men go about to mock you: The question is of the present liturgy, which is pretended to vary extremely much from that in Queen Elizabeth's days; Now come our braving Vindicators, and, after all their brags, labour to show that this our present liturgy differs from that in the days of Edward the sixt; and spend one whole Page, in the particular instances: Is not this pains well bestowed, think you? have they not hit the bird in the eye? utterly balking what they undertook, they undertake what no man questioned; and now beforehand crow, and triumph in these cockleshells of a famous conquest. But ye lay this for your 
Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer. 1●. Eliz.  ground, That the liturgy confirmed by our Parliamentary Acts, is the same which was made and confirmed in the fifth and sixth of Edward the sixt: With one alteration, or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the litany altered and corrected; and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the Communicant, and none other or otherwise; Thus says the Act. Now comes your rare sagacity, and finds notwithstanding, Queen Elizabeth's liturgy varying from the former in many omissions, in many additions, in many alterations: Wherein, what do ye other than give the check to a whole Parliament? they say flatly, None other, or otherwise; you say, The Book is so altered, that the liturgy now in use, is not the same that was established by Act of Parliament: But, be that as it may; there lies not the question: If Queen Elizabeth's Book did so much differ from King Edwards; What is that to us? Say, (as you have undertaken) what such huge difference there is betwixt King James his Book, and Queen Elizabeth's? Now, your loud vaunts end in flat silence; neither can you instance in any thing, save some two petty Particles, not worthy of mention; that in the title of Confirmation, the words For imposition of hands, are added; and, in the Epistle for Palm-Sunday, In, is turned into At: These are all (besides those which I fore-specified) which have so misaltered the liturgy, that it can no more be known, to be itself, than the strangely-disguised Dames, which were mentioned in Doctor Hall's reproof. Now let the Reader say, who is worthy to wear those Liveries of Blushes, which, in your Wardrobe of Wit, you have been pleased to lay up for your friends. But I have not yet said all: If (you say) to these we should add the late alterations in the use of the liturgy, bringing in loud music; uncouth, and unedifying Anthems; a pompous superstitious Altar-service, we think any indifferent eye will say, this is not the liturgy established by Parliament. What mean you, Brethren, thus to delude the Reader? are these things you mention, any part of the liturgy? are they prescribed by any law of the Church? are they found in any rubric of the Communion-book? Do not the allowed Forms of our public Prayers in all parochial, and some cathedral Churches, in chapels, in houses, stand entirely without these? Why do you therefore bring in these things, as essential to liturgy; In the meet omission of some whereof, no doubt, some Bishops of England (no less zealously conscionable, though better tempered, than yourselves) may be found to conspire with you: As for the nameless Bishop, whom you cite, you must pardon me, if I did not understand either you, or him; for the words in your Defence, run, [That the Service of the Church of England is not so dressed, that if a Pope should come and see it, he would claim it as his own.] Now you report them to be, That the Service of the Church of England is now so dressed, &c. so as you cannot blame me if I knew not the meaning or the man; But by this your description of his preaching it as matter of humiliation to all the Bishops of this kingdom, in a day of solemn and national fasting, I perceive it is the Reverend Bishop of Carlisle whom you thus cited, and whom you have, herein, not a little wronged; I acquainted that worthy Prelate with the passage, he disavows the words, and defies the reporters, vehemently protesting, that he never spoke either those words, or that sense; and to make it good, delivered me the pretended clause, transcribed out of his notes, with his own hand; which I reserve by me; no whit sounding that way; but signifying only a vehement dislike of some innovations, as the turning the Table to an Altar, and the low crindging towards the Altar so erected; but, as for the liturgy or Service of the Church of England, not a touch of either in his thoughts, or tongue: Now brethren, learn you hence just matter of private humiliation, for so foul a slander of a grave and religious Bishop, and in him, of this whole Church.  
For learned Calvin; if those who profess to honour his name, would have been ruled by his judgement, we had not had so miserable distractions in the Church, as we have now cause to bewail; all that I say of him, is, that his censure of some tolerable fooleries in our holy Service, might well 
Tolerabiles ineptiae.  have been forborn in alienâ Republicâ; your vindication is, that he wrote that Epistle to the English at Francford; Who doubts it? The parties were proper, the occasion just, but not the censure; Parciùs ista, when we meddle with other men's affairs: I may well be pardoned, 
In anglorun controversia moderationem tenui, cujus me non poenitet. Cal. Epist.  if I say that harsh phrase doth not answer the moderation which that worthy Divine professeth to hold in the controversy of the English.  
AS for that unparalleled Discourse, 
Parag. 2.  whereon you run so much descant, concerning the Antiquity of Liturgies deduced so high as from Moses time; you argue that it cannot be, because you never read it: Brethren, your not omniscient eyes shall see that my eyes are so Lyncean, as to see you proudly misconfident; you shall see that others have seen what you did not; and shall sample that which you termed, unparalleled.  
It is neither thank to your bounty, nor praise to your ingenuity, that the question is half-granted by you; but an argument of your self-contradiction; An order of Divine service you yield, but not a form; or a form, but not prescribed, not imposed; and for this, you tell us a tale of Justin Martyrs liturgy, and Tertullian's liturgy, how much to the purpose, the sequel shall show.  
In the former, you grant, that after the Exhortation they all rose, and joined in prayer; prayer ended, they went to the Sacrament; but, whether these prayers were suddenly conceived, or ordinately prescribed, there is the question; and whether that Sacrament were administered in an arbitrary, and various form, methinks yourselves should find cause to doubt: But, Justin says (to clear this point) that in the beginning of this Action, the precedent poured out prayers, and thanksgiving according to his ability, and the people said Amen. What ever his ability was, I am sure you have a rare ability in misconstruing the Fathers; and particularly these testimonies of Justin, and Tertullian.  
To begin with the latter; out of him you say, The Christians in those times did in their public assemblies pray, Sine monitore, quia de pectore; without any prompter but their own heart. Prove, first, that Tertullian speaks of public assemblies. Secondly, know that if he did, the place is to your disadvantage; for (as a late learned Author well urges) would ye have it 
Author of the use of public Prayer.  imagined, that the assembled Christians did betake themselves publicly to their private devotions, each man by himself, as his own heart dictated? this were absurd, and not more against ancient practice, than (as your 
This is that which is ordinarily termed by thena Sacrifice of fools, out Eccles. 5. 1.  selves think) piety.  
Was it, then, that not the people, but the Minister was left to the liberty of his expressions? What is that to the people? How did they ere the more pray without a prompter? How is it more out of their heart, when they follow the Minister praying out of unknown conceptions, than out of foreknown prescription? So as, you must be admonished, that your Sine monitore, without a prompter, is without all colour of proof of prayers conceived: your Zephyrus blows with too soft a gale to shake the foundation of this argument; and indeed is but a side-wind to my Heraldus, and the very same blast with your Rigaltius; though you would seem to fetch them out of different corners; If I give you your own asking, you have gained nothing: For what would you infer? Christians prayed for the Emperors without a monitor, as the heathens did not; therefore they had no forms of Christian prayers: He were liberal, that would grant you 
Precantes sumus pro omnibus Imperatoribus; vitam prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelen, populum probum, orbem quietum. Tert. Apol. c. 30.  this consequent; when rather the very place shows what the form was, which the Christians then used; We are praying still for all Emperors, that God would give them a long life, a secure reign, a safe Court, valiant hosts, faithful Counsellors, good people, and a quiet world; This was Tertullian's liturgy, wherein the hearts of Christians joined without a monitor; It is small advantage that you will find in my sense of Sine monitore; (not being urged by any superior injunction) If no injunction, you say, how could it be a liturgy, a commanded, imposed form? You are unwilling to understand, that the injunction here meant is general, a command to pray for the Emperor, not a particular charge of the forms enjoined in praying; this was therefore the praise of their Christian loyalty, that even unrequired, they poured out their supplications for Princes: Shortly then, after all these pretended senses, Tertullian will not upon any terms be drawn to your party.  
Those other two places of Tertullian and Austin are merely sleeveless, and unproving; not making any whit at all more for conceived prayers, then for prescribed; Who ever made question, whether we might build our prayers upon our saviour's form? or whether we might vary our prayers with our occasions? Those Fathers say no more, we no less; Ye dare not say there were no public liturgies in S. Austin's time; My Margin was 
Your cavil in the Margin of your book, shows you want matter of quarrel; The Suas, which you would have in stead of Nostras, is a disadvantage to yourself: Those are called the people's Prayers, which the Church ever had, and shall have; and those were to be looked on, therefore prescribed, and to be read; there being a clear opposition betwixt Audirent, and Intuerentur.  conviction enough; which ye touch as an Iron too hot, with an hand quickly snatched away. Your denial should have drawn on further proofs.  
Justin Martyr (though fifty years before Tertullian) follows him in your discourse; How guiltily you both translate and cite him, an Author of no mean judgement 
Justin Mart. Apol. 2. Use of public Prayers.  hath showed before me. I shall not therefore glean after his sickle; But shortly thus, take your ({non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}) in your own best sense (for quantum pro virile potest) what will follow? 
The word may as well imply all intention of voice, because the congregation was large. Pag. 15.  The precedent prayed, and gave thanks to the utmost of his power; therefore the Church had then no liturgy. What proof call you this? Look back, Brethren, to your own citation; you shall find Prayers more than once in their lordsday meetings; These latter were the precedents, the former some other Ministers; these in the usual set forms, those out of present conception; both stand well together, both agreeable to the practice, as of these, so of former ages.  
BUt whiles I affect overfull answers, I 
Parag. 3.  feel myself grow (like you) tedious, I must contract myself and them. Your assertion of the original of set forms of liturgy, I justly say is more magistral, then true, and such as your own testimonies confute.  
That of the council of Laodicea is most 
Conc. Laod. c. 19  pregnant for set forms, before Arrius or Pelagius looked forth into the world; wherein mention is expressly made of three forms of Prayer, one by and for the Catechumeni, the second for the Penitents, the third for the faithful. You cannot elude so clear a proof, by saying the council required prayers for all these, but did not bind to set forms in prayers; for the same council stops your mouth whiles it tells you in plain terms, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that the same form 
Conc. Laod. c. 8.  or Liturgy of Prayers was to be used morning and evening; And Clemens (though not the true, yet ancient) tells us, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, &c. and in the eight Book of his Constitutions, recites large prayers which were publicly used in the Church. Let the Reader now judge, where this shuffling lies: The Canon requires one of these prayers to be in silence; what then? So doth our Liturgy require in the Ordination of Ministers, that in one passage of this solemn act, our prayers should be secret and silent, yet the rest is no less in set forms.  
You might then be ashamed to object want of fidelity to me in the citation of that testimony, which I but barely quoted in my margin. Neither can you avoid a self-confutation in your own proofs; There was no noise of the Arian heresy till the Nicene council; The council of Laodicea (Wherein set forms are notified) was before the Nicene by your own account: Yea, but, say you, the heresy of Arrius was not just borne at the period of the Nicene council; True; but was it borne so long before, as that any council took notice of it, before the Nicene? This you dare not affirm: But (for a second shift) the heresy of Arrius troubled the Church sometime, before the name of Arrius was borrowed by it; Grant we (upon good authority of Fathers, and counsels) that the ground of the cursed error of Arrius, concerning the Son of God, was laid before by others; what is that to the question of set prayers? What is, if this be not a plain shuffle? Neither is it any other than a mere slur, wherewith you pass over the unanswerable pressure of the Laodicean council, before mentioned, by cavilling the difference betwixt prescribing, and composing; the council is flat in both, and enjoins one and the same Liturgy of prayers: Certainly, brethren, you find cold comfort at Laodicea; Let us see how you mend yourselves at Carthage. The Fathers 
Conc. Carthag. 3. c. 23.  there, enjoin that no man in his prayers should name the Father for the Son; or the Son for the Father; that in assisting at the Altar, their prayers should be directed to the Father; that no man should make use of any other form than is prescribed, unless he did first confer with his more learned brethren: Hence you gather, there was no set form in use in the Church; and no such circumscribing of liberty in prayer that a man should be tied to a set liturgy. The charge was doubtless given upon a particular occasion, which is buried with time; whether it were ignorance, or heedlessness in those African Priests, that they thus mistook in their Devotions, I cannot determine; But, why might it not be then, as it is with too many now, that notwithstanding the church's prescriptions, men will be praying as they list; and let fall such expressions as may well deserve censure and restraint? However, that they had set forms, seems to be sufficiently employed in their own words; Quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit; for what can that aliunde relate unto but some former prescription; which, that they had, even in these African Churches, we need no other testimony then of the Magdeburgenses, who cite Cyprian himself for this purpose 
Centur. Magdeb. cent. 3. c. 6.  in his book de Oratione Dominica; where he tells us that the Priest began with, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts; and the Congregation answered, we lift them up unto the Lord: To which they add, Formulas denique quasdam precationun sine dubio habuerunt; They had then without doubt certain set forms of prayers; and to suppose, that they had prescribed forms for public use, which no man should be required to use, it were a strange and uncouth fancy: Neither need we any better contest for our defence then him, whom you cite in your margin, learned Cassander, in the just allegation both of this council, and the Milevitane, the Canon 
Concil. Milevit. 2.  whereof runs thus; It pleaseth the Fathers that those prayers, or orisons which are approved in the Synod, shall be used by all men; And no other shall be said in the Church, but such as have been made, by some prudent Authors, or allowed of the Synod; lest perhaps something may be composed by them through ignorance, or want of care, contrary to the faith.  
Say, Readers, is not this a likely testimony to be produced against set forms of Prayer? What is it then that you would hence infer? First, that this being (Anno 416.) is the first mention of prayers to be approved or ratified in a Synod, and the restraining to the use of them: Grant that it were so, of prayers to be ratified, or restrained, Is it so of prayers to be used? Are you not sufficiently convinced herein, by the Synod of Laodicea? It is the occasion that draws on the Law; till now, this presumption of obtruding private men's prayers upon the public use of the Church, was not heard of in those parts; now only was it seasonable for correction.  
Secondly, you say the restriction was not such but that it admitted a toleration of prayers, framed by prudent Divines; no less, than those which were approved by the Synod; What gain you by that? when these prayers were said, and not conceived; and so said, that they were put into forms, not left to arbitrary delivery.  
Secondly, the occasion of this restriction (being the prevention of errors in praying) is so universal both for time and place, that it may well argue this practice to be most ancient for the original, and worthy to be perpetual for the continuance. And now, that the Vindicators may see how small cause the Remonstrant hath to be convinced of the lateness of set forms imposed, (not till the Arian and Pelagian Heresies invaded 
Vid. Author of the use of public Prayer. pag. 8, 9  the Church) let them be pleased to tell the Reader, what those {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Prayers prescribed were, whereof Origen speaks in his 6. book against cells. so frequently used; and if that word may undergo another sense, what those {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} can be construed, wherefrom he quotes three or four passages of Scriptures, in the fourth book against Celsus? Lastly, what the meaning and inference may be, of that 
Cent. 3. c. 6. Where we often in our prayer, say, Give us, O Lord Almighty, give us a portion with thy Prophets, give us a portion with the Apostles of thy Christ, grant that we may be found in the footsteps of thine only begotten Son.  which the Centuries allege out of Origen in his 11. Homily upon Jeremy; ubi frequenter in oratione dicimus, Da omnipotens, da nobis partem cum Prophetis, da cum Apostolis Christi tui, tribue ut inveniamur ad vestigia unigeniti tui. If this be not part of a set form of prayer, and long before Arrius or Pelagius, I have lost both my aim, and the day; if it be, repent of your confidence, and recant your error: and grant at last, that out of most venerable Antiquity, the approvers of Liturgies have produced such evidences for their ancient use, as your insolent wisdom may jeer, but can never answer.  
HOw I admire your goodness! Merciful men, you pardon that fault, which 
Parag. 4.  in justice ye could not find, or cannot prove: my confident assertion of the prayers wherewith Peter and John joined, when they went up into the Temple at the ninth hour of prayer, that they were not of a sudden conception, but of a regular prescription, shall be made good with better authority, than your bold and braving denial; I say the prayers wherewith they joined, not the prayers which they made; the prayers which they made, were their own, (which wipes 
So Hannah made her private prayers in the house of God, 1 Sam. 1. 10.  away your stout instance, in the Pharisee and Publican) but the prayers wherewith they joined, were public and regular. For in all their Sacrifices and Oblations, the Jews had their set Service of prayers, which gave life to those otherwise dead (or, at least, dumb) actions. The noble and learned Lord, Du-Plessis, the great glory of the Reformed 
Mor. de bless. de Missa. l. 1. c. 3. P. Fagius in Paraphras. Chald. in Lev. 16. & in 23. Du Pless. de Missa & ejus partibus. l. 1. c. 5.  Church of France, speaks home to this purpose; so doth the renowned P. Fagius the dead Martyr of our Cambridge, besides learned Cappellus, whom we cited in our late Defence. Confessio olim in sacrificio solennis; ejus, praeterquam in lege vestigia, in prophetis formulam habemus: In ipsis Iudaeorum libris verba tanquam concepta extant, quae sacerdos pronunciare solitus, saith the said Mornay Du-Plessis. There was a solemn confession in their sacrifice of old; whereof, besides that we have certain footsteps in the Law, we have the very form in 
(Verba tanquam concepta) the very words as conceived by him.  the Prophets; In the books of the Jews, the very express words are extant, which the Priest had wont to pronounce. Thus he. And Lyranus well acquainted with the Jewish practices (as being one of them himself) tells 
Lyran. in Lev. 16.  us, that the Priest was used to confess in general, all the sins of the people, as (saith he) we are wont to do in the entrance of our mass. But Ludovicus Cappellus, the French 
Lud cappel. Spic in Act. 3 Whence we may see, that the prayer for which Peter and John went up to the Temple, was that which the Jews called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}  Oracle of Hebrew learning, hath those very words, whereat you jeer so oft, as falling from my pen: Ex quibus videre est, orationem cujus causa Petrus & Johannes petebant Templum, fuisse eam, quae à judaeis dicitur {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} quae respondet oblationi vespertinae lege praescriptae, quae fiebat, ut loquitur Scriptura, inter duas vesperas; Thus he; whom I beseech you Brethren, laugh at for company.  
Admire with me, Reader, the subtlety of 
The lesser Oblation; which answered to the Evening Oblation prescribed by the Law, &c.  this deep exception; Our Saviour (I say) prescribed to his Disciples, besides the Rule, a direct form of prayer; What say my great Challengers to this? The Remonstrant will have an hard task (say they) to prove from Scripture, that either John or our Saviour gave to their Disciples public Liturgies, or that the Disciples were tied to the use of this form. Truly the task were as hard, as the very mention of it is absurd and unreasonable. For shame Brethren, leave this palpable shuffling; the Remonstrant spoke of a Prayer, ye ask for a liturgy; the Remonstrant speaks of prescribing, ye talk of tying; which (till your Reply) came not so much as into question; It must be a weak sight that cannot discern your gross subterfuges.  
The use that our Saviour was pleased to make in his last Supper of the fashions and words which were usual in the Jewish feasts, is plainly affirmed not by Cassander only, (whose videtur you please to play upon) but by Paulus Fagius at large, by Mornaeus, by Cappellus: And if these took it from Maimonides, who wrote not till a thousand years after Christ; yet, from whom I beseech you had Maimonides this observation? A man of yesterday may upon good grounds of authority tell a truth of a thousand years old.  
I let pass the mere nonsense wherewith you shut up this Paragraph, as more worthy of the Readers smile then my confutation; who will easily assume by comparing the place, how little I meant to fetch a Liturgy from a feast; or necessity out of an arbitrary act.  
TO prove that the Jews had a form of 
Parag. 5.  Liturgy even from Moses his time, I produced a monument above the reach of your either knowledge, or censure; a Samaritan Chronicle, now in the hands of our most learned and famous Primate of Ireland; written in Arabic, translated into that tongue, out of the Hebrew, as Ios: Scaliger (whose it once was) testifies; fetching down the story from Moses to Adrian's time, and somewhat below it; out of this so ancient Record, I cited the 
Postea mortuus est Adrianus, cujus Deus non misereatur; obiitque cum luctu & magna contritione; Tempus autem regni, anni sunt 21. (Deus conterat ejus ossa) ita ut computus annorum ab Adamo ad mortem ejus 4513. mens. 7. Quo tempore &c. abstulit librum optimum qui penes illos fuit, jam inde a diebus illis tranquillis & pacificis, qui comprehendebat cantiones & preces sacrificiis praemissas; Singulis enim sacrificiis singulas praemiserunt cantiones jam tum diebus pacis usitatas, quae omnia accurate conscripta in singulas transmissa subsequentes generationes à tempore Legati (Moses sc.) ad hunc usque diem per ministorium Pontificum Max. Hunc ille librum abstulit, &c. quo libro historia nulla praeter Pentateuchū Mosis antiquior invenitur, &c. Chron. Samaritan.  very words of the Author, which these men would fain mistake as my own; wherein he mentions a book of the old Liturgy of the Jews, in which were contained those Songs and Prayers which were used before their sacrifices: Adding; For before every of their several sacrifices, they had their several Songs still used in those times of peace; all which, accurately written, were transmitted to the subsequent generations, from the time of the legate (Moses) unto this day, by the ministry of the high Priest. Thus he. This is our evidence; now let us see your shifts: First, you tell us, Those were only Divine hymns, wherein there was always something of Prayer. If but thus, we have what we would; for what are praises, but one kind of prayers; And what can be more said for a set form of hymns, then of petitions? But, brethren, ye might have seen in the Authors own words, (which you are loath to see) Songs and Prayers, which were ever used before their Sacrifices; and were comprised in that ancient Service-book: See now Reader, whether there be not something for set Prayers in the Authors own words, which these men would wittingly outface, and not willingly see.  
The Testimony cannot be eluded, now it must be disparaged; [Joseph Scaliger had certainly but two Samaritan Chronicles] Who says he had more? I cited but one, what needed you (but to show the world you can tell something) to talk of two? What business have we with that shorter Chronicle, which you will needs draw into mention? Let that be as fond, as your exception is unseasonable; What is that to us? How else should we have known, that you had taken notice of a Samaritane Pentateuch, and learned Mr. Sel. dens Marmora Arundeliana? Away with this poor ostentation; speak to the purpose; What can you say against that large Samaritan Chronicle, which I produced, turned out of Hebrew into Arabic, written in a Samaritan Character, and now not a little esteemed by the great, and eminently judicious Primate, in whose Library it is? Surely, as I have heard some bold pleaders; when they have feared a strong testimony, pick quarrels at the face of the witness; so do you, brethren, in this case. Scaliger himself you say (the former owner) passes this censure upon it, that though it have many things worthy of knowledge, yet they are crusted over with Samaritan devices. Who can expect other but that a Samaritan should speak like himself, when it comes to a difference in Religion? but this is no reason, why in matters accorded, there should be any distrust: What a Bellarmine writes of the holy Trinity passeth for no less currant than the best of our own; If Ainsworth lived and died a Separatist, yet we dare believe him in his report of Jewish Antiquities, no less than Broughton, Weems, Drusius. So as this wind shakes not the authority of this relation.  
But, judge (you say) how much credit we are to give to this book for antiquity, as far as Moses, which makes no mention of their own original, any other ways, then, That they came out of Egypt by Moses; A poor and groundless exception: for that which we allege this Author for, is only the report of a book containing the forms of prayers used by the Jews since Moses; and as for the mention of their own original, it was their glory to fetch themselves from the first Jewish patriarchs, (as the Samaritan Woman did at Jacob's Well) neither would they challenge a lower rise; no marvel therefore if they passed in silence the history of the defection of the ten Tribes; as rather tending to their own blemish; especially considering, what Josephus reports of their fashion, That ever when the Jews prospered, they claimed brotherhood of them; when contrarily, they proclaimed hostility; And what if this Author doth only touch the names of Samson, Samuel, David, what doth this detract from the credit and validity of his history? So as notwithstanding your frivolous cavils, we will take leave to make so much of our Samaritan chronicle, as to avow it for a noble and ancient proof of that my confident assertion of the use of Liturgies since Moses.  
YOur pretended proof to the contrary, which you so gloriously bring out of 
Parag. 6.  your famous Rabbi Moses Maimonides in his Mishneh, will prove but a vain flourish; & if it work any thing, it will be for my advantage. For what is it that he says? It is (saith he) an affirmative precept, that prayers should be made to God, every day, &c. Caeterùm neque numerus, &c. But neither the number of those prayers, nor the obligation to this, or that prayer, nor the certain, and definite time of prayer, is enjoined in the Law: Thus he. Now, how doth that concern us? Who ever defended, that Moses in the Letter of the Law, had given order for either number, or time, or obligation of particular prayers of several Israelites? although, under your good favour, we know that even then there were solemn forms of words, to be used in the remove and resting of the ark; and in the solemn benedictions of Israel, and in the trials of jealousy, prescribed 
Num. 10. 35, 36. Num. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26.  by God himself to the Priests; whereof what can ye make other, than a shorter kind of stinted liturgy? Length, or brevity makes no variance. But what doth this imply other, then that there were of old, prescription both of number, and time, and forms, though not expressed in the Law? particulars whereof we shall produce in the sequel; such as were not only for the help of the ignorant, but for the direction of the Priests themselves, and for the better devotion of the people. That Ezra therefore and the men of the great Synagogue, made use of those eighteen forms of prayers, or benedictions, prescribed by them so long ago, it argues nothing, that the like forms were not in set practice before their times; so as your Maimonides (after all your proritation) holds no other then fair terms with our Samaritan Chronicle.  
And would learned Capellus (Think you) make himself so merry at the view of this passage? surely, brethren, it would be at your fond and ridiculous misprision, in playing not upon my words, but your own idle fancy.  
I cited Capellus for the forms of prayer 
Capell. spicil. in Act. 2.  used at the Minchah, and other Sacrifices, which you cannot gainsay, but that I should infer from him, that the Jewish Liturgies were as ancient as Moses; it is your mere dream, not my assertion: It would become you to make more conscience of your suggestions. As for the marginal note out of Buxtorfius, it is worthy of but a marginal touch; What such abuse were it to say, that Maimonides took those thirteen Articles of his Creed, from the Jews devotion; when the same Author confesses they had a being before; but were by Rabbi Moses Bar Maimon redacted into this Order, wherein they stand? Surely, that ever since Ezra's time they had a known form of prayer, is confessed clearly by the same Rabbin, in his Misnah, as we have formerly seen; and, what place could be more proper for the seat of a Creed? But, to meet a little with your crowing insultation, in this passage of the age of the Jewish liturgy, what say you to that express testimony of Paulus Fagius, (a man, one of the best 
P. Fagius in Chal. Parap. Levit. 16.  acquainted with Hebrew learning, of all ours in his age) who upon the Chaldee Paraphrase of Leviticus, Chap. 16. in the words [Et confiteatur super eum] hath thus, Forma confessionis quâ tum usus est summus Pontifex, secundum Hebraeorum relationem, haec fuit, &c. The form of confession which the high Priest (then, in the first times of the Law) used, according to the relation of the Hebrews, was thus, O Lord, thy people of the house 
O Domine, peccarunt, iniqua egerunt, &c.  of Israel have sinned, they have done wickedly, they have grievously transgressed before thee; I beseech thee now, O Lord, forgive their sins, and iniquities, and transgressions, wherein thy people, the house of Israel, have sinned, and done wickedly, and transgressed before thee? And when the said high-Priest 
Et cum offerret juvencum pro peccato.  offered a Bullock for a sin offering, than he said in this manner, O Lord, I have sinned, I have done wickedly, and have grievously transgressed; I beseech thee now, O Lord, be merciful to those sins, and iniquities, and grievous transgressions wherein I have sinned, done wickedly, and transgressed against thee. And when he should offer the other Bullock, he used much what the same form, adding, I, and my house, and the sons of Aaron, thy holy people, have sinned, &c. I beseech thee now, O Lord, pardon the sins, and iniquities, and transgressions, &c.  
This triple confession did the high-Priest solemnly use, in the feast of Expiation; And what the form of the high priest's prayer was when he appeared before the Lord, the said Fagius shows us out of the Thalmud. 
Ubi supra.   
Besides this, there was a set form (and that somewhat large) of prayer and benediction, which the Master of the family amongst the Jews, was privately wont to use in his holy feasts; which the same Author elsewhere in his Chaldee Paraphrase, upon Deut. 8. fully expresses; adding withal, (which you were pleased to make sport with, as mine) Verisimile est Christum quibusdam 
P. Fagius in Chal. Parap. Deut. 8.  quae in his precibus continentur, usum fuisse; It is very likely, that our Saviour made use of some passages which are contained in these prayers: And Paulus Burgensis tells us, it was an old Tradition amongst the Jews, that when they had eaten the Paschall lamb, they sung the psalms, from Laudate pueri Dominum, to Beati immaculati, that is, from the 113th. to the 119th. adding, Verisimile hos à Domino decantatos: It is likely, that these were sung by our Saviour in his last Supper.  
By this time the Reader sees there is somewhat more ground for a set form of prayer amongst the ancient Jews, than your deep rabbinism would condescend unto. I have dwelled somewhat longer in this point, because I see the chief pride of your Vindication lies in this passage of Jewish skill; wherein I well see with whose heifer you have ploughed; and what name you might add (if there were room) to your learned acrostics; but when all is done, I am deceived, if you may not put your gains in your eye.  
FOr Christian Liturgies, your like confidence 
Parag. 7.  challenges the Remonstrant, to produce any liturgy that was the issue of the first three hundred years: I name those under the stile of James, Basil, Chrysostom; as ancient, though spuriously interserted; You tell me of those of Peter, Matthew, mark, &c. (though peter's was the same with Mark's) and cite learned Rivetus, who censures these as zizania; the tares, which the enemy sowed whiles the husbandman slept; Quite beside the cushion: Those were such, as all wise Christians will confess (with St. Austin) were, A sutoribus fabularum, sub Apostolorum nomine conscripti; Broached by some cogging merchants, under the name of the Apostles: But these other were generally, both for matter and manner, holy; though interspersed with some passages that might argue a later hand; whiles others of them bear such age, as that they are cited by ancient Fathers, for authentic parts of the formerly received Liturgies: shortly then, to produce those entire Liturgies, which were in the first three hundred years, is as unreasonable to demand, as impossible to perform; How many noble monuments, besides these, have perished, as swallowed up by the devouring jaws of time, which it were a vain hope to revoke? But that there were such Liturgies in use, with those Churches, within the time required, I doubt not to evince; what else, I beseech you, was that Euchologium, which Origen (before that time) citys? whence were those passages of interchanged devotion, which the Centuriators themselves instance in, from Cyprian, forealleged by me? I dare boldly say, ye cannot answer these demands, and not yield your cause: To which let me add in the next succeeding age, those {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which Eusebius tells us, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Euseb. de vita Const. li. 4. c. 17.  that Constantine made use of in his Court: Our learned Christophorson renders it thus; Constitutas cum universo Ecclesiae coetu, preces reddebat; so as (notwithstanding your colourable proof in your Defence, of the frame of a prayer enjoined to the soldiers by that good Emperor) it is clear enough that, in those times, there was a set form of liturgy, enjoined to the use of the Church. Learned Morney, an Author past exception, shall attest with me; who, in that elaborate, and accurate Treatise of the mass and the parts thereof, dividing that divine Service, according to the distribution of the Laodicean Synod, (which you would fain have eluded by a pretence of no prescription of forms) into that of the Catechumeni, that of the Penitents, that of the faithful, hath thus; Hic jam mille 
Morn. de Pless. lib. de Miss. cap. 5.  fidelium locus, cujus ab oratione generali exordium, &c. This then is the place of the service of the faithful; whose entrance was always with a general prayer, for all the world, for the state of the Church, for the necessities both public and private. The Grecians call this a litany, or supplication, &c. Quae autem orationis illius forma fuerit ab incunabulis Ecclesiae, ad hoc usque seculum custodita, ex coaevis authoribus perspicuum: What the form of that prayer was, which hath been kept, even from the cradle of the Church unto this very age, it is apparent out of the Authors that lived in those times. Thus that famous Lord, Du Plessis; who seconds his own judgement by pregnant authorities from Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine; to which, out of the fear of tediousness, I remit my Reader. By all which it is (I hope) made evident enough, that, before ever Pelagius, or Arrius infected the world, prescribed forms of public prayers were commonly used in the Christian Church. It is indeed more than an implication, which the Remonstrant drew from the Ancyran Synod, The Presbyter that had once sacrificed, was forbidden, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, 
Concil. Anc.  to offer, to preach, to officiate in priestly administrations: What is the Ministers employment but the Word, Sacraments, and Prayers; all three here inhibited, and these last, under the name of Liturgies?  
And that these antiremonstrants may not delude the Reader with an opinion, that any either mistake, or fraud will follow upon the ambiguity of the word; it may please the Reader, to take notice of what these carpers will not see; a plain expression in my translated words, of Liturgies, or Ministrations. It is great pity that the Remonstrant did not know so well as these deep heads, that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is a word of both various, and general use: They needed not to send him to Zonaras, or Balsamon, for this parcel of philology, which he could have taught them nearer home, out of Saint Paul himself, and Saint Luke; in whom they shall find [{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}] applied to Zacharias 
Luke 1.  his sacrificing; and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which our last translation turns Vessels of the ministry: 
Heb. 9 21.  yea, the very collection of alms is Saint Paul's {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and Epaphroditus is his 
1 Cor. 9 12.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} What use then was there of this wast piece of Grammar-learning, when the Remonstrant himself interpreted Liturgies by Ministrations?  
I Extolled the due use of conceived prayer; even 
Parag. 8.  this doth not please, but invites suspicion rather; well might I complain of this sullenness and morosity.  
If the quarrels that you picked with the both original and Confirmation of our liturgy prove unjust, you may well allow me to call your arguing about it, no other then wrangling. For the original, I deduced it from ancient models, not Roman, but Christian; you except at the terms of pretended opposition, and still could fetch sparks to fling in the face of him, who by the suffrages of unquestionable Divines hath showed the just sense of the true visibility of the Roman Church. Truly, brethren, this is merely to bark where you have no power at all to bite. What faculty you have in flinging sparks I know not, but I am sure, if you blow this coal hard, the sparks will fly in your eyes. The question is so throughly settled by those (which you spitefully call begged) suffrages, that no wit of man can find but a probable colour to revive it.  
Fain would you have something to say to Doctor Hall, if ye knew what it were; In his book of the old Religion, he citys a speech of Luther's; that this good friend of Rome says, Under the papacy is true Christianity, yea the very kernel of Christianity: What of this? Did Doctor Hall fain that Luther said so? Or do these men fear that Luther is turned Papist? Compare this (you say) with that the Bishop of Salisbury saith, in his begged suffrage, who thus, speaks; That the Church of Rome is no more a true Church, than an arrant whore is a true wife to her husband. Well: Compare Luther with the Bishop of Salisbury; two worthy Divines, what then? They will, I hope, prove good friends, and Doctor Hall with them both; whose own suffrage hath been, and is no less peremptory against Rome, than this which he begged; A married woman, though she be a close harlot, is yet a wife; and though she be not true to her husband's bed, yet she is truly his wife, till she belegally divorced: Such is the state of the Roman Church, to Doctor Davenant, and Doctor Hall, and all other Orthodox Divines. Where now is your charity in raising such groundless intimations against your innocent brethren? Tell the Reader, I beseech you, where that scorn lies, which you say is cast upon you in this passage of my Defence. I justly boast of those our Martyrs and Confessors, which were the composers of our liturgy; You would fain counterpoise them with some holy Martyrs and Confessors of the same reformed Religion, that opposed it, even to persecution; and tell us of the troubles of Frankford. Pardon me, brethren; some Confessors you may talk of, but Martyrs ye can name none: One, who was the most vehement of all those opposers, I knew to live and die in a quiet submission to the liturgy established; none of them suffered death for Religion: they might be holy men, and yet might square in their opinions; even betwixt Paul and Barnabas there was a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. My praise of our Martyrs tended not to the disparagement of any other.  
AS for that slur which your answer seemed to cast upon the Edict of King 
Paragr. 9  James, and our Parliamentary Acts, that they are not unalterable, as the laws of the Medes and Persians; your so deep protestation clears you in our thoughts; I have charity enough to believe you; but I must tell you, that speech might have a good heart, but it hath an ill face; let it pass with favour: and as for those cheerful expressions which you confess you have taken liberty to make use of, in the passages of your book, you will pardon me, if they be entertained with as cheerful answers: Tertullian, shall be seconded by Horace, Ridentem dicere verum, Quis vetat? Let those laugh that win.  
For your Quaeres; It seems you think I am merry too soon, in receiving them with so sarcastical a Declamation: Your project is of the altering of our liturgy; I tell you seriously, if you drive at a total alteration (as your words seem to import) your quaere is worthy of no better reception than scorn: For, that any private person should (as of his own head) move for the entire change of a thing, established by so sacred authority, and such firm and full laws, can be no better than a bold and ridiculous insolence. It was truly told you, that if you intended only a correction of some inconvenient expressions, no doubt it would be considered of, by wiser heads than your own; whereby I meant, that honourable and reverend Committee, to which this great care was, by public assent, referred; you straight suspect a design to gain upon the Parliament; and, by a pretended shadow of alteration, to prevent a real and total reformation. Take heed, brethren; lest you heedlessly wrong them whom you profess to honour, and we with you: Is the Parliament (Think you) so easy to be gained upon by pretended shadows? Will those solid judgements be likely to be swayed by colours? Why do you cast that aspersion upon them, to whom ye say you have presented these considerations; and to whose grave wisdoms we do no less humbly submit? That God, who sits in the assembly of the Judges of the earth, will, we hope, so guide the hearts of those great, and prudent peers and Commons, that they shall determine what may conduce most to peace, and godly uniformity. But sure, brethren, you could not imagine, that by those wiser heads, we should mean our own; when you compare your own designs and success, with our plain credulity, and late unthriving proceedings. Enjoy your winnings without our envy, not without our pity of the poor Church of England, which will, I fear, too late rue your prevalence.  
THe alteration of the liturgy sent into 
Paragr. 10.  Scotland is a business utterly unconcerning us: whatever unhappy hands were in it, would God they had been prevented by some seasonable Gout, or palsy; in the report of the alteration made of the liturgy in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's time, I fear, you do not well agree either with truth or with yourselves, if we compare this passage with your first entry into this large Section; let the scanning of it be left to the Readers better leisure: as not worthy to retard our way. Doctor Taylor (whom you are pleased seriously to honour with the titles of my irony) hath made good amends, belike, for the praise he gave to our liturgy which he helped to compose, in his censure of a Bishop's Licence, and the Priestly robes; the one whereof (you say) he called the mark of the Beast, the other a fool's coat: But, what if the strange variety of Popish vestments, seemed to that holy Martyr, ridiculous? What if to take a licence to preach from the hands of a Popish Bishop, seemed to him no better than to receive the mark of a Beast? what is that to us? what to the cause? Were these tenets erroneous, is this sufficient to enervate his testimony, for the allowance of that litany, which he made his last prayer at his parting with his dear consort? And for the free use whereof he blessed that God to whom he was sending up his soul? Were it a good ground of judgement, that he, who once errs, can never say true? But, for this censure of the good Martyr, let those that feel the smart of it complain.  
Let us descend (since you will have it so) to the re-examination of those your reasons, which enforce your desired alteration: First, it symbolizeth with the Popish mass: I say, neither as mass, nor as Popish: you disprove me in neither, neither indeed can do. Could you instance, This prayer is Superstitious, that Idolatrous, this heretical, that Erroneous, you might have just reason to except at any touch of our symbolising with them; But, if the prayer be good, and holy, why should I more refuse it, as coming from a Papists mouth, than I would make use of a vicious prayer coming from the best Protestant? Where I said, If the devil confess Christ to be the son of God, shall I disclaim the truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? You answer, But you know Sir, that Christ would not receive such a confession from the devil's mouth, nor Paul neither, Act. 16. True, in respect of the person confessing, not of the truth confessed: As it came from an evil spirit, our Saviour, and St. Paul had reason to refuse it; but neither of them would disclaim the matter of that truth, which was so averred. There is great difference betwixt the words of a foul spirit, and a faulty man; but if you will needs make a parallel, it must be personal: Christ would not allow a devil to confess him; we will not allow a Popish sacrificer to usurp our good prayers; but if my Saviour would not disallow that I should make use of the good Confession of an evil spirit, much less would he dislike that I should make use of that good prayer, which was once the expression of an evil man: And yet these were not such, being taken from the composures of holy men, and ill places; so as this is no other, then to take up gold mislaid in a channel, which could not impure it: you may well ask why it was laid there; you have no reason to ask why a wise man should take it up: Your question therefore; What need we go to the Roman porteous for a prayer, when we can have one more free from jealousies in another place; might have been moved to those Worthies, which gathered this pile of devotion, who would easily have answered you, that your jealousy is causeless, whiles the prayers themselves are past exception; but can with no colour of reason be charged upon us, who take holy prayers from good hands, not needing to inquire whence they had them.  
YOur second reason is as forceless, as your first. Our liturgy was composed (you 
Paragr. 11.  say) into this form on purpose to bring the Papist to our Churches; that failing, there is no reason to retain it. The argument fails in every part: First, our liturgy was thus composed on purpose, that all Christians might have a form of holy devotion, wherein they might safely, and comfortably join together, both publicly and privately, in an acceptable service to their God; and this end, I am sure, fails not in respect of the intention of the composers, however it speed in the practice of the users of it. Secondly, there is no reason that where the issue of things faileth, the good intention of the agent should be held frustrate, or his act void: Our end in preaching the Gospel, is, to win souls to God; if we prevail not, shall we surcease, and condemn our errand as vain? But here, I say, the project sped; for till the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth, there was no Recusant. You tell me, It was not the converting power of the liturgy, but the constraining power of the Law, that effected this: But, brethren, what constraining power was of any use, where there was no Recusant? Every constraint implies a reluctation, here was none: If then our liturgy had no power of converting to our Churches, yet it had no operation of averting from them. What the Pope's negotiations were with Queen Elizabeth, at this time, imports nothing; I am sure I have those Manuscript Decisions of the Jesuitish Casuists, which first determined it unlawful to join with our assemblies; till which our liturgy had so good effect, that those, who differed from us in opinion, were not separated in our devotion. But how am I mistaken? That which I boasted of, as the praise, is objected to me as the reproach of our divine service. What credit is this to our Church (you say) to have such a form of public worship, as Papists may, without offence, join with us in, &c. Or, How shall that reclaim an erring soul that brings their bodies to Church, and leaves their hearts still in error? I beseech you, brethren, what think you of the Lord's Prayer? Is that a perfect platform of our devotion, or is it not? Tell me then, what Christian is there in the world, of what nation, language, sect soever, (except the Separatist only) will refuse to join with their fellow Christians in that form of prayer? And, What credit is it to our Christian profession to have such a form of public prayer, as Papists, Grecians, Moscovites, Armenians, Jacobites, Abassines, may, without offence, join with us in? I had thought you would have looked for the reclamation of erring souls by the power of preaching? Here is no unteaching or confutation of errors, no confirmations of either Doctrines, or Uses in the forms of our prayers: And if I should ask you how many you have reclaimed by your conceived prayers, you would not, I fear, need to spend too much breath in the answer.  
When I therefore impute the rare gain of souls to the want or weakness in preaching, you think to choke me by an exprobration of the fault of your Governors: Let the Bishops see how they will clear their souls of this sin, who, having the sole power of admitting Ministers into the Church, have admitted so many weak ones, and have rejected so many faithful, able Preachers, for not conforming to their beggarly rudiments: Let those whose guiltiness finds themselves galled with this crimination, fly out in an angry answer; but if there be those, who have been conscionably careful not to admit them that are not competently {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not to eject any peaceable, and conscionable Divine, for mere matter of ceremony, how injuriously have you fastened upon them other men's delinquences? although it is not unpossible, that men may be able Preachers, and yet turbulent; and there may be ceremonial rites, neither theirs, nor beggarly.  
You are deceived, brethren, it is not our liturgy that hath lost any; too many have lost themselves by a mistaught prejudice against our liturgy: as for the miscatholic part, tell me, I pray you, whether is it more likely that a staggering Papist will rather join with a Church that useth a liturgy, or one that hath none? With a Church that allows some of their wholesome prayers, or that which rejects and defies all, though never so holy, because theirs? And for our own, surely, if our acute Jesuits had no keener arguments, than this you bring, we should be in small fear to lose Proselytes; For what weak Protestant could not easily reply, The Church of Rome was ancient, but yours is new; that was orthodox, this false: The service was not yours, but borrowed and usurped from better hands; we make use of it (as we may) in the right of Christianity, not in any relation to you, and your errors? So much for you and your Jesuit in the second reason.  
YOur third Reason is grounded upon stumbling blocks, it is no marvel if it 
Paragr. 12.  fall: Those, you say, are laid by the liturgy; and I say, removed by many: So ye know they are by Hooker, Abbot, Hutton, Morton, Burges, Covell, and I know not how many others; amongst the rest I stumbled upon a blind man, whose inward sight abundantly supplied the want of his bodily eyes; who hath in many of those points given, in my opinion, very clear satisfaction; but sure you could not suppose me so weak, as to imagine that his lack of eyes could exempt him from error; although divers of your exceptions are (if they were worth our insisting upon) more groundless than his tenets; But whiles I allowed many of his passages, I never meant to justify all: It is far from me to excuse, or patronize other men's Paradoxes. We know the old distinction of Scandals, taken, and given; if there be any danger of the latter, it is (I say) under careful hands to remove it; and, however it pleases you to fall into choleric comparisons, perhaps those hands which you slight, may not be the least active.  
To the fourth, which is the idolising of the liturgy, I say truly, Separatists abhor it for such; never true Protestant adored it for such. Show us the man that ever worshipped the service-book, that we may wonder at that uncouth idolatry: Show us the man that holds it the only worship of God in England, as you unjustly pretend.  
I tell you of some others that stick not to say, Too many do injuriously make an Idol of preaching: (Why should you hope I am not serious in affirming so undoubted a truth?) yet we may not think of abandoning it: Even, in cool blood the argument holds firm, without equalizing one with the other. Some have made an Idol of their silver and gold, must I therefore cast away this metal? You needed not fear that I would speak aught to the derogation from my own profession; But if I compare God's ordinance of prayer, with his ordinance of preaching, and this individual liturgy, with that individual Sermon, I hope there is no danger in that collation.  
TO the fifth, The great distaste which these public prayers meet withal, is truly lamentable, 
Paragr. 13.  and the effect of that distaste, separation: yet more? Let those miszealous men who have infused these thoughts into well-meaning souls see how they will answer it in that great day, to the Judge of the quick and dead; surely, if the case were mine, I should fear it would fall heavy upon my soul; for, if it be granted, that there are divers passages in our liturgy faulty, and worthy of correction, yet no wise enemy can say, they are so heinous, that they bar all Communion: Did they contain heresy, or blasphemy, we could but separate from their use; now, their separation can no more be without our pity, then without their own sin: Your argument hence inferred, that the partition wall of our offensive liturgy should be removed, because some brainsick men (for that title is here merely your own, not mine) are scandalised thereby, will no less hold, if this our liturgy were either altered, or abolished: for, are there not thousands that profess to be no less scandalised with any set forms whatsoever? So then, if we have any prescribed, or stinted devotions at all, the partition wall stands still; and if that should be demolished, how many more, and more considerable thousands do ye think, would be scandalised with the want of those holy forms, whereto they have been so long, and so beneficially enured? Here is therefore a scandal on both parts, unavoidable; and it will be our wisdom and piety, to fall upon the least. You say, ye think, nay, you know that some few Prelates, by their overrigorous pressing of the service-book, and Ceremonies, have made more Separatists, than all the Preachers disaffected to the Ceremonies in England: I examine not the truth of your confident assertion; but will you to distinguish betwixt causes and occasions: The rigour of those few Prelates might be the occasion; but the mispersuasions of those disaffected Preachers were the causes of this woeful separation: Both might unhappily concur to this mischief; but those more, who are the direct and immediate agents in so bad a service.  
YOur last Reason is so slightly enforced, 
Paragr. 14.  that it merits rather pity than refutation; I do justly aver that, There is no reason why difference in Liturgies should breed disunion between Churches; or why union in religion should bind us to the same Liturgies; distinguishing (as I ought) betwixt essential points, and mere outward Formalities. How faintly you reply, that, [It is true, every difference in Liturgies doth not necessitate a disunion of Churches: But here the difference is too large to be covered with a few fig-leaves!] Grant it to be larger than it is; is it yet essential? The question is not, what may cover our differences, but what may disunite our Churches? It is not forms of Liturgies, but matter of obstinate and fundamental error, that can draw on such an effect: Tell not me therefore, or your Reader, of some Ceremonies of ours, that will not down with other reformed Churches; when ye may, as good cheap, hear of some fashions of theirs, which will not down with us: It is good reason, that as we give, so we should take liberty in things indifferent; without any reciprocal dislike. As for precedency of time in our liturgy, and of dignity in our Church, they may well have this operation with us, that our liturgy could not conform to that which had no being; and that other Churches should rather conform to ours, which was ever noted for more noble, and eminent. You desire not to eclipse the glory of this Church, as you profess; yet you are willing to overshadow it somewhat darkly; whiles you can say, Our first reformation was only in Doctrine, theirs in Doctrine and Discipline too: wherein you are double-faulty; first, in imputing a defect to our Church, most unjustly, in the extent of our Reformation. What? Was there no Reformation but in matter of Doctrine? None in matter of practice? None in Idolatrous or Superstitious rites? None in offensive customs? None in corruption of Government? None in laws ecclesiastical? What call you eclipsing, if this be none? Secondly, in imputing that to the reformed Churches as their perfection, which is, indeed, their unwilling, and forced defect: Reformation implies the renewing of a form that once was; now, show us, if you can, where ever in the world, that form of Discipline (whose erection you applaud to some neighbour Churches) found place, before it was in this last age provisionally taken up, by those, who could not be allowed, with the liberty of true religion, to enjoy their former government? As for the comparison you are pleased to mention, betwixt the Liturgies of the reformed Churches, and those of other Christians, Grecians, Armenians, &c. wherein you say, If you should set down what you have read in the Liturgies of those Churches, you believe the Remonstrant would blush for intimating, there is as much reason to conform to their Liturgies, as those of the reformed Churches: I must tell you, it is of your own making, neither did ever fall from my pen; I do blush indeed, but it is to see your bold mistakings, and confident obtrusions of things never spoken, never meant: I do not mention a conformity to their Liturgies, as equally good; but only ask, Why we should be tied to the forms of one Church, more than another, as those who are entire within ourselves, and equally free from obligations to any; so as you shut up your first quaere with a mere cavil, and the Reasons whereby you endeavoured to back it, are utterly reasonless.  
YOur second quaere is to seek of so much 
Paragr. 15.  as any good pretence of reason, yea of sound authority; Whether the first reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a liturgy further than to be an help in the want, and to the weakness of the Ministers? For first, have they ever professed their whole and sole intentions, or have they not? If not, how come you to know what they never expressed? If they have, why have you suppressed it? Secondly, it is obvious to every common understanding, that there were other reasons besides this, of framing set forms of public Liturgies; as, The uniformity of Divine services in every national Church, the opportunity of the better joining together of all hearts in common devotions, the better convenience of fixing the thoughts upon the matter of a foreknown expression: So as this, which you have so groundlessly intimated, cannot be imagined to be the only reason of prescribed Liturgies. Tell me, I beseech you, what think you of our saviour's Epitome of a liturgy, the Lord's Prayer? for certainly it was no other; a form of prayer enjoined by divine authority: Was that only intended to be an help in the want, and to the weakness of the Ministers? Was it not prescribed for the help of the devotion of all disciples? Your instances are (if it might be) poorer than your assertion. The 23. Canon of the 4th. Council of Carthage ordains, Ut nemo Patrem nominet pro Filio, &c. In a care to prevent the dangerous misprisons of some ignorant Priests in afric, in misnaming the sacred persons in the trinity, it charged them not to misapply the terms; Therefore all prescribed forms of prayer are only intended to supply wants, or weaknesses, of Ministers: A stout inference, and irresistible. The composers of the liturgy for the French Church at Frankford tell us, Hae formulae inserviunt tantùm rudioribus; nullius libertati praescribitur: These forms serve only for the ignorant sort; not prescribing to any man's liberty. What mean you, brethren, to urge so improbable a proof? First this was but a particular congregation, and therefore of no use or validity for the practice of the whole Church: Secondly, these prayers, which they set forth, were only for the private use of Christians; for I hope you will not imagine, that when they say [rudioribus tantum inserviunt, they serve only for the more rude and ignorant sort of people,] that they herein meant to point out the Ministers; so as your very allegation confutes yourselves, and seconds me. Your following enforcement in this Paragraph fails of sense, much more of reason; and doth but beg what it cannot evince. You tell me of thousands, who desire to worship God with devout hearts, that cannot be easily persuaded that these set forms, (though never so free from just exception) will prove so great an help to their devotion; I tell you of many more thousands then they, and no less devoutly affected, that bless God to have found this happy, and comfortable effect, in the fore-set prayers of the Church. Neither doth this plead at all against the use of present conception, whether in praying, or preaching; or derogate any thing from that reverent and pious esteem of conceived prayer, which I have formerly professed: Surely, I do from my sold honour both; I gladly make use of both, and praise God for them as the gracious exercises of Christian piety, and the effectual furtherances of salvation: there is place enough for them both; they need not justle each other: And, if experience had not made good this truth of mine to many, the most eminent Divines of these later times (eminent, I mean, not more for learning, then strict piety) why would they in their prayers, both after, and especially before their Sermons, have confined themselves to a set form of their own making, without the variation of any one clause, as I can abundantly instance? Certainly, they wanted not that freedom of either spirit, or tongue which is challenged by meaner persons, but did purposely hold themselves to the usual conceptions, wherewith their thoughts, and the people's ears were best acquainted.  
As for the difference which is pretended in the use of Liturgies in other reformed Churches, which you say do use Liturgies, but do not bind their Ministers to the use of them, it will prove no better than a mere logomachy. In this point, if we be understood, we shall not differ: If, as you explicate yourselves in the sequel, out of the Canons and rubric both of the Dutch, and Genevian Churches, you mean only, that the Ministers were not so tied up to those prescribed forms, that they might not at some times, and upon some occasions, make use of their own conceptions, you have herein no adversary: doubtless, all Christian Divines have ever had that liberty in all the Churches that have professed the name of Christ; neither ought it, neither can it be denied to any, either of theirs, or ours: All allegations to this sense, might well have been spared; we shall willingly concur with you, both in opinion, and practise: But, if by this [not binding to the use of a liturgy] you understand either an arbitrary power not in use in any liturgy at all, or an absolute release from any whatsoever usage of their publickly-prescribed forms, and a wilful rejection of them, as either unfit or unlawful, because set and stinted; none of your cited Authorities, no practice of any well governed Church will countenance so strange a paradox: In this Calvin fights directly against you, whiles he orders, Ut certa illa extet, à quâ pastoribus discedere 
Calvin Epist. to the Protector, &c. prius citat.  non liceat: That there should be a certain form, from which it may not be lawful for Ministers to depart: The contradiction whereunto, alleged out of your nameless liturgy, of Formulae pro arbitrio, I leave to your own reconciling.  
As for the Lutheran Churches, though they have more superfluity than want, yet why they should be excluded out of the List of the Reformed, I know no reason; since, if all Protestant Churches (which is the usual contradistinction from Popish) come under that stile, these are wont to challenge the deepest share in that denomination: Neither is it out of any disrespect to the Churches reformed (as your charity would fain suggest) that I say, they are but a poor handful in comparison of the world of Christians abroad; (I have ever honoured them, no less than yourselves) but in regard of the paucity of their professors; Their value is no whit the less, because their number is so. One spark of a Diamond may be worth large piles of Marble: But I might well argue, that in a point; wherein no judicious man can place an error, there can be no just reason that we should abandon the received practice of all the Christian Churches upon earth, for the late institution of a few: If herein I misjudge, I am willing to be convinced.  
THe rubric of King Edward the sixth, 
Paragr. 16.  agreeing with the liberty given by divers Ordinances, at this day, of omitting (upon some great occasions) part of the liturgy enjoined, makes nothing for the proof of the proposition, supposed in your Quaere, [That the Reformers of Religion did never intend the use of a liturgy, further, then to be an help in the want, or to the weakness of a Minister:] It will be an hard task to make these two other then inconsequent: You tell me of the practice of some stiff Ordinaries, that have denied this liberty; and plead, that what some Ordinaries have voluntarily yielded, you cannot be blamed to desire, as a favour from the high Court of Parliament: It is not for me to return the answer of my superiors; but I cannot but put you in mind, that there is a vast difference betwixt an act of occasional indulgence, and a constant claim; betwixt a particular dispensation, and an universal rule: Further than this, I prescribe not, but obey. However the state of Homilies and Liturgies be much different, these latter having been, even from the Primitive times, prescribed to the common usage of the Church, which the former offers not to challenge; yet I granted, that, If we did utterly abridge all Ministers of the public use of any conceived prayer, on what occasion soever, the argument might hold force against us. You tell me of some men that have sacrilegiously done so: I send you to those some men for your answer: The commands and practices of the Church of England are within the task of my Defence: Let private men speak for themselves. From the desk you leap into the Pulpit, and tell us, that your argument is as strong against limiting in Prayer, as limiting in Preaching; wherein you are unwilling to know, that our Church allows equal freedom in both; Who that hath sat within the report of our Pulpits, can but say, that our Ministers do there ordinarily pray, as freely as they preach? I pray God they may do it holily and discreetly in both: Whiles they are allowed this freedom in their Pulpits, what inconvenience can it be to be limited to solemn, public (but sacred) forms in their desk? We allow both, you would rob us of one, where is the sacrilege?  
So then, in all this eager passage, your Reader sees what fearful venies you give to your own shadow; for certainly, you have here no visibly real adversary: if by a set liturgy we went about to infringe all liberty of conceived prayer, you might pretend some ground of a quarrel; but when we allow, and commend, and practise both, in their due places, where can you fasten?  
THe reason is lamentable which you urge in the fifth place, that many deny 
Paragr. 17.  their presence at our Church-meeting, in regard of those imposed prayers; Our eyes can witness (not without tears) the too much truth of this sad assertion; we have seen, and pitied to see many poor misguided mechanics, waiting abroad in the churchyards, for the good hour; who, so soon as ever the long expected psalm calls in to the ensuing Sermon, have thronged into the Congregation, as now only worthy of their presence; Alas poor souls, were their knowledge (which they overween) but equal to their zeal, they would see, and hate their own misjudgement: In the mean time (shift it how you please) woe, woe be to those teachers that have misled well-meaning people, to this dangerous, and ungodly prejudice: It had been better for them never to have been borne, then to have lived to be authors of so pernicious a schism in the Church of God. I have no reason to accuse you, whom I know not; although I must tell you, your cold put-off doth little less than accuse yourselves: For your parts, you say, you profess that you are not against a free use of a liturgy; we thank you for this favour; what is this but to say, If a liturgy be not left free, we profess ourselves to be against it, we animate all others in that profession?  
You are yet more courteous, and tell us, ye do not count a liturgy a sufficient ground of separation from the Church: Mark, Reader, there is fraud in the words; they say, they do not count a liturgy a sufficient ground of separation; they do not say, this liturgy: such a liturgy as they could devise, and upon such terms, might perhaps be no sufficient ground of a separation; but this liturgy of our Church, as it now stands, they do not undertake for. Speak out, brethren, and do not smother your thoughts; declare freely to your Auditors, whether the liturgy established in this Church, be such, as wherewith they ought to join; and whether that come within Saint Augustine's rule of non-scindendas Ecclesias: were you less reserved, the Church would perhaps be more happy.  
The Remonstrants' Dilemma may peradventure come too late, when you have forestalled the minds of ignorant men with strong resolutions against all imposed Liturgies, but especially our own: Now, you can confidently say, [The persons concerned will deny, that either the liturgy is good; or lawfully imposed, if it were good;] and here (for aught I see) they and you are resolved to rest: in vain shall we go about to make good the premises, whiles you have taught them to hold fast the Conclusion: Disputes will not do it; you have found a way that will work the feat: By losing the bond of imposition, and taking away the cause of disputes, and troubles of many thousand consciences. Why now, Brethren, I like you well; plain-dealing is a jewel: The way not to be troubled with Liturgies, is to have no Liturgies at all; and the way to have no use of Liturgies at all, is not to enjoin them: as if you said, The way to lose the Gordian knot, is to cut it in pieces; the way to prevent the danger of violating laws, is to let them lose, or make them arbitrary; the way to remedy the discontent of Popish Recusants, is to retract the Oath; the way not to be barred by the gate, is to throw open the hedge: truly, brethren, if this be the only means of redress, you have reduced us unto a good condition; it is the established, and (as hath hitherto been thought) the wholesome Law of this kingdom, that this (and this only) liturgy should be used, and frequented by Ministers, and people; and this hath hitherto been obediently, and peaceably observed: now, upon some new exotic scruples, good people are taught to place piety in the disobedience of those acknowledged laws, and nothing will quiet their many thousand consciences, but an abrogation of the good laws they were wont to live under. What must the indifferent Reader needs think of this? The Law is the same it was, under which our religious forefathers went happily to heaven; the change is in us. Oh miserable men, whom some few tempestuous blasts from New-England, and Amsterdam have thus turned about, and made insensible of our former blessings!  
Mean while, that which pincheth you in my Reply, you are willing to pass over in silence. Were the imposition amiss, what were this to the people? The imposition (if faulty) is upon the Minister; how can that more concern the people, than their joining with him in an usual prayer, (whereto he ties himself) of his own making? If the case be equal, why do you not labour to convince your people of so unjust a partiality; and to reclaim them from so palpable an error? the end whereof (without a speedy remedy) can be no other than that I have most unwillingly fore-spoken, perfect difformity and confusion.  
I May not omit to proclaim to the Reader 
Paragr. 18.  your eminent charity to me, of whom you say, Yea, so resolute he is not to yield to a liberty, in what is established, &c. that we evidently see by his answer, that had the reading of Homilies been as strictly enjoined as the book of Common Prayer, the ablest Minister in England, (were the Law in the Remonstrants' hands,) must be held as strictly to them, as to this. How now, Brethren? What, in so angry a confidence? On what ground, I beseech you? The Remonstrant is well known to have been as diligent a Preacher as any in your Alphabet; and to be still (as not yet defective in that duty, so) as great an encourager of Preaching as the best of your Patrons; why will ye thus unjustly raise so envious a suggestion against him? [he is soresolute not to yield a liberty;] Alas, what power hath he, to either yield, or deny a liberty, who professeth (as he ought) nothing but humble obedience? But when a question is stated concerning the injunction, or freedom of a liturgy, you may be pleased to give me leave to defend that part which my conscience (and I think upon sure grounds) dictates to me for a certain truth: Non eadem sentire bonis, &c. had wont to be a received rule; but, as to this challenge itself, might the Readers leisure serve him to cast back his eye upon this passage of my Defence, he shall no less marvel at the injustice, than the uncharitableness of it: he shall there see with what inoffensive caution I marshal Homilies, and liturgy in the same rank; so making our obedience the rule of the use of both, as that I profess a just liberty yielded in both; showing, that if Homilies were enjoined to be read, and yet a free use of Preaching allowed, there were no more cause to refuse them, than we have now to refuse the liturgy, having withal a freedom to our conceived Prayers: In which position I would fain see what malice itself can find to carp at.  
AS for that strange project of yours, of 
Paragr. 19  imposing the use of set forms as a punishment to unsufficient Ministers, ye might well give me leave to smile a little at so uncouth a penance, and so unheard-of a mulct; whereat, others, perhaps, will laugh out. You answer me with a retortion of my own words, and seem to please yourselves much in the conceit, calling the ingenious Reader to record of your own gross mistaking: Be this once pleased, Readers, since you are called up, to examine these men's confident fidelity; I had (as I well might) taxed this rare project of theirs; Yet himself (say they) comes out with a project about Preaching, never a whit better, and doth as good as confirm our saying, in the latter end: View the place, I beseech you; see if you can find any the least intimation of either preaching, or project; All that passage is only concerning prayer, the gift whereof, I say, every forward artisan will be unjustly challenging: Away then (say I) with the book, whiles it may be supplied with his more profitable nonsense; and conclude, how fit it is, where is nothing but an empty overweening, and proud ignorance there should be a just restraint, a restraint, I say, in a limitation of the forms of prayer; For what should artisans have to do with preaching? Or what such absurd project is there, in this just restraint? Tell me now, Reader, whether this be not as like Bellarmine, as the man in the moon: truly, how either the Cardinal came into the line, or the Noble peer into the margin, he were wise that could tell. What was professed in the hearing of some of you, and some of your superiors, of a willing condescent to part with that which is indifferent to themselves, if they might be informed it is offensive to others, must be supposed to import, as a true information, so, a just offence; wherein they should be sure of the concurrence of some whom you are pleased to censure, as less merciful; than whom, none can be more ready to make good that of Gregory, in putting to their hand for the removing of customs truly burdensome to the Church.  
Thus you have very poorly vindicated the first part of your Answer concerning liturgy, having made good nothing which you have undertaken, disproved nothing which I affirmed: and if (as you profess) your desire was a sincere pursuit of truth, you are the more to be pitied, that you missed it; it is not yet too late for you to recover it; be but ingenuous, in confessing what you cannot but see, and we cannot differ: And if you do heartily join with me in lamenting the breaches, and miserable distractions of the Church, why should you not join with me in the effectual endeavours to make them up? Why do you suffer your hands to widen that, which your tongues would seem to close? If peace be the thing you desire, who is it that hath broken it? We are where we were; the change is on your parts: and if there have been some particular encroachments, and innovations in some few hands; what is that to the whole Church of England? what is that to those, whose proceedings have been square and innocent? We hope then that the Worthies of that High Court, the great Patrons of peace and truth, will soon see, and seriously consider where the grief of the Church lies, and by their wisdoms put a seasonable end to these miserable, and dangerous distempers.   

SECT. III.  
YOur third Section is nothing but a mere jangle of words; wherewith it was too much for the Reader to be once troubled; for whose sake, I shall cut you up short; making it apparent, that my affection to my cause, (however you are pleased to scandalize my discourse) hath no whit transported me to any overreaching expressions, in lifting up the Antiquity, and extolling the universality of episcopal government beyond truth. That which I spoke of the libelers abroad, your charity would fain have extended to foreign Churches; now, as ashamed of the misprision, you would fain salve it up with a pretended probability of your mistaken sense: for my part, now that my innocence is cleared, if you can put any honest colour upon your misunderstanding, I shall willingly connive at it; although I must tell you there is enough dissimilitude in your instance. In what sense you meant the self-confoundedness you impute to me, what matters it to the Reader? such a one you confess it was, that makes men speak they know not what; It is a fair Livery, and well beseeming the bounty of such munificent hands. I justly professed myself so self-confounded, as to say confidently, that he is no peaceable and well affected Son of the Church of England, that doth not hate Libels, and wish well to liturgy and Episcopacy. Your charity (presuming upon advantages) dares to choke me with the name of a Parliament; wherein how you will answer your injurious imputation to that High Court, I appeal to their Bar. To make the matter altogether envious, you guiltily leave out the first clause, concerning Libels, and aggravate the second; and that which I professedly spoke of Complainants, you spitefully draw home to the judges: whom I must still suppose, you do heinously wrong, in fastening upon them this bold imputation of ill-affectedness to a well established liturgy, and a well-regulated episcopacy: I believe those honourable peers, and noble Commons will give you small thanks for this insolent assertion.  
What I said, concerning the derivation of episcopal government from the times of the Apostles, without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian world, I am ready to make good against all your frivolous clamours; Purposely to lay the ground of a quarrel, you intersert, Diocesan; which came not within the terms of my proposition; and to confute your own addition, tell us how late Dioceses came into the Church, and now will needs enforce me to maintain what your so magistral power will put upon me: Pardon me, Brethren, I undertake to defend my own words, not yours: But you say, as good to have said nothing at all, as not this; and, we know what kind of government it is that the Remonstrant pleads for: I grant, you have reason to guess it; but what is that to my proposition? Whether they were Bishops of Cities, or dioceses, or Parishes, or Provinces, that is not essential to the question: Neither do we speak of them, quà Diocesani, but, quà Episcopi: if they were such as were placed in an imparity of degree above Presbyters, and were induced with an eminent power of jurisdiction and ordination, what ever the limits of their government were, my assertion holds good; On this ground well might B. Hall say, that Timothy was a Diocesan Bishop, that is, sustained that place, and did those offices, which his successors being formal Diocesans, held and performed; This kind of Bishops, I defend to have continued in the Christian world unto this age, without the contradiction of any one Congregation; You tell me of Scotland, as if I had affirmed, that there had been Bishops always, everywhere; It is no small wonder to me how you can with such sober vehemence press upon me so impossible an absurdity: when you plainly see, that all I contend for, is this, that there hath been no time, no age from the Apostles days, wherein this form of episcopal government hath not been without contradiction continued; Yet your importunity will force a Tenet upon me, mal-grè; and tells me you are sure it is the assertion of episcopal men; amongst whom you cite D. Hall's irrefragable proposition; No man living, no history can show any well allowed, and settled national Church, in the whole Christian world, that hath been governed otherwise, then by Bishops, in a meet and moderate imparity, ever since the times of Christ and his Apostles, until this present age; and the like passage you bring out of his Episcopacy by Divine right part 2. p. 110. What can you make of these Allegations? There is no one line in them, which I am not ready to justify; what one word is here liable to exception? Will it follow from hence, that I affirm Bishops to have been always everywhere? You see first it is limited to the Christian world, not the Pagan, and in that, not to every parochial Church, but a national; and not to every national Church, which is in fieri, and inchoatè; (such as that of Scotland in those first times was) but a settled national Church; and to make yet more sure, lest any schismatical company might put in for a share, it is superadded, a well-allowed, settled, national Church. I should have acknowledged you brave vindicators, indeed, if now, in the height of your learned valour, you could have choked me with direct and particular instances of any well-allowed, settled, national Churches in Christendom before this present age, that were otherwise governed.  
IN stead of this you tell me a tale of a sorry 
Para. 2.  quarrel taken up against the Bishop of Pampelona by some barbarous Biscainers; whose rudeness when I proved to you by their Savage deportment to their King, you give a very civil and charitable construction of my marginal, as intimating it no less crime to offer an affront to a Prelate, then to a King; Thus love creeps where it cannot go. But to mend the matter, you instance in the Reformed Churches; they have made contradiction to Episcopal government; True, but not till this present age; That period was set before in my assertion, whence now arises your sudden passion; Sir bethink you, take up your Remonstrance, read your own words, mark the Parenthesis: Sir, I have done all this, and wonder what it is that you would have me to see, or to say? The words are plain, without either welt, or guard; say what you would infer upon them. The limitation of time here (you say) hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacy, not the contradiction of Episcopacy; Certainly, in any indifferent Readers eye, to both: neither doth the very scope of the place evince any less; for could you suppose any man so utterly insensate, as to say; By the joint confession of Reformed Divines, the Reformed Churches of this age have never contradicted Episcopacy? This were indeed a paradox fit for none but a self-confounded man: fasten it upon those that are fit for dark rooms and Ellebore. just such another is the next, you say; Such another indeed, as truly affirmed, and as unjustly excepted to: That episcopal government hath continued in this island, since the first plantation of the gospel to this present day, without contradiction: what talk you of taking in the manner, and salving of credit? as if you had your adversary at a great advantage: {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, as the Greek proverb is, and as we are wont to say; Here is great cry, and little wool. For, whereas, the proposition may bear this double sense; The continuance of Episcopacy in this island, hath had no contradiction; or, There hath been no contradiction to the right of the continuance of it in this island; at the choice of the propounder, I am ready to make it good in both senses, neither are you able justly to oppose it in either; I am sure those instances which you bring, out of Wickliff, Lambert, Richardus de Mediavilla, Occam, Walter Mapes, Robert Langland, in your next Section, will shrink in the wetting, and come far short of your undertaking.  
BUt brethren, I must sadly tell you, that in 
Para. 2.  your next, and last exception, you have exceeded yourselves in malice; what loud and hideous out cries have you made against me, both in your Answer, and Vindication, for a safe and innocent passage in my Remonstrance? Speaking of the continuance and derivation of Episcopacy from the Primitive times, I had said; Certainly, except all Histories, all Authors fail us, nothing can be more plain than this truth: Now comes your charitable veracity, and, in your Answer (seconded now again by your Vindication) reports the words thus; Except all Histories, all Authors fail us, nothing can be more certain than this truth; and thereupon cry out, Os durum! and descant fearfully upon the word, Nothing more certain? What Is it not more certain that there is a God? Is it not more certain that Christ is God and man? Must this be an Article of our Creed, &c. Nothing more certain? Oh that men should not only forget themselves, but God also, and in their zeal for their own honour utter words bordering upon Blasphemy.  
Thus you; whether like sober, and honest men, let the Reader judge; who casting back his eye upon that passage of my Remonstrance, shall 
Pag. 21.  well find that I have used no such word at all, as you have thus insolently and injuriously played upon: My phrase was only, Nothing can be more plain, you falsify it, Nothing more certain; and run strange, and uncharitable descant upon it; such as whereof I think your friends will be ashamed; And when I, not urging the great difference of this expression, was willing to pass it over, with intimating only the ordinary use of this manner of speech, in our hourly discourse, wherein we would be loath to be called to an account of our Creed; yet still, as eager and unsatisfied, in this your Vindication, you redouble the charge upon me; we cry out (you say) of such a shamelessness as dares equal this opinion of his, of episcopal government to an Article of our Creed: When as here was no mention, no thought either of certainty, or of Creed; but only an harmless affirmation of the clear evidence of this truth: But I will not stir this puddle any more; only beseeching my Reader, by this one passage to judge of the spirit of these men, so set upon detraction, and contradiction, that rather than they will want colours of exception, they will devise them out of their own brains, and fasten them where they would disgrace.  
Lest this place should not yield you sufficient ground of so foul a crimination, you fly back to Episcopacy by Divine right, and thence will 
Episc. by D. R. p. 2. 127.  fetch a clearer conviction; where the Author saith, He for his part is so confident of the divine institution of the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters, that he dare boldly say, there are weighty points of faith, which have not so strong evidence in Scripture; He said it, and made it good by instances in the same place: Why do you snarl at the speech, and not confute the proofs? Try your skill in that one particular, the Baptization of Infants; which, I am deceived, if the Church holds not a weighty point of faith; Let us, if you please, enter into a serious contestation; show me more clear evidence of Scripture for this holy and universally received position, and practise, of baptising Infants, than I can produce for the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters; till then give me leave to return your own prayer; God give the men less confidence, or more truth; and let me add, more charity; for truly, in whether of these two latter you are more defective, it is not easy to judge; In the mean time you have as much failed in clearing yourselves from those just imputations, which are laid upon you, as you have overreached in the unjust bespattering of your staunch and innocent adversary.  
ANd now forbear (if you can) Readers, to 
Para. 4.  smile in the parting, at the grave counsel of our wise Smectymnuus, who after he hath tired his Reader with a tedious volume in answer to my short Defence, adviseth me very sadly, that my words may be less in number: Yet howsoever his weary loquacity may, in this causeless exprobration, deserve to move your mirth; I shall resolve to make good use of his counsel. Est olitor saepe opportuna locutus. In the sequel, my words (which were never yet taxed for an offensive superfluity) shall be very few; and such as, to your greater wonder, I shall be beholden for, to my kind adversaries: The rearward of my late Defence was backed by the sound testimony of Dr. Abraham Scultetus, the famous professor of Heydelburgh, and the great Oracle in his time of the Palatinate, who in both the Tenets of Episcopacy by Divine right, and the unwarrantableness of Lay-presbytery agrees so fully with me, as I do with myself, the grounds whereof, I dare confidently say, are such as no wit of man can overthrow, or weaken: Now what say my Smectymnuans to this? For brevity sake, we will content ourselves with what that learned Rivet spoke, when these two Treatises of Scultetus were showed to him, by a great Prelate amongst us, and his judgement required; Haec omnia jamdudum sunt protrita & profligata, All these have been long since overworne and beaten out and baffled. In good time, Brethren; And why should not I take leave to return the same answer to you in this your tedious velitation of episcopacy? There is not one new point in this your overswolne, and unwieldy bulk; No haycock hath been oftener shaken abroad, and tossed up and down in the wind, than every argument of yours hath been agitated by more able pens than mine: Haec omnia jamdudum sunt protrita & profligata; Why should I abuse my good hours; and spend my last age (devoted to better thoughts) in an unprofitable babbling? You may perhaps expect to meet with fitter matches, that have more leisure; The cause is not mine alone, but common to this whole Church, to the whole Hierarchy; to all the Fathers of the Church throughout the world; to all the dutiful Sons of those Fathers wheresoever; You may not hope that so many learned and eminent Divines, who find themselves equally interessed in this quarrel, can suffer either so just a cause unseconded, or so high insolence unchastised; For myself, I remember the story that Plutarch tells of the contestation 
Plutarch in vita Crassis.  between Crassus and Deiotarus; men well-stricken in age, and yet attempting several exploits, not so proper for their grey hairs: What, said Crassus to Deiotarus; dost thou begin to build a City, now in the latter end of the day? And truly, said Deiotarus to him again, I think it somewhat with the latest for you to think of conquering the Parthians: Some witty lookers on, will perhaps apply both these to me; It is the city of God, the evangelical Jerusalem which some factious hands have miserably demolished, is it for shaking and wrinkled hands to build up again, now in the very setting, and shutting in of the day?  
They are dangerous and not inexpert Parthians, who shoot out their arrows, even bitter invectives, against the sacred and apostolical government of the Church, and such as know how to fight, fleeing; are these fit for the vanquishing of a decrepit Leader? Shortly then, since I see that our Smectymnuans have vowed, (like as some impetuous Scolds are wont to do) to have the last word; and have set up a resolution (by taking advantage of their multitude) to tire out their better employed Adversary, with mere length of discourse, and to do that by bulk of body, which by clean strength they cannot, I have determined to take off my hand from this remaining controversy of Episcopacy (wherein I have said enough already, without the return of answer, and indeed anticipated all those threadbare objections which are here again regested to the weary Reader) and to turn off my combined opposites to matches more meet for their age and quality: with this profession notwithstanding, that if I shall find (which I hope I never shall) this just and holy cause (whether out of insensibleness, or cautious reservedness) neglected by more able Defenders; I shall borrow so much time from my better thoughts, as to bestow some strictures, where I may not afford a large confutation; I have ever held {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which as it holds in whatsoever matter of discourse, so especially in this so beaten subject of Episcopacy; wherein since I find it impossible for my Adversaries to fall upon any but former notions, oft urged, oft answered, For brevity sake we will content ourselves with what that learned Rivet spoke of the two Treatises of Scultetus, Haec omnia jam dudum sunt protrita & profligata: with this yet for a conclusion, that if in this their wordy, and wearisome Volume, they shall meet with any one argument, which they dare avow for new, they shall expect their answer by the next Post.   
FINIS.