A VINDICATION OF THE ANSWER TO THE HUMBLE REMONSTRANCE FROM THE UNJUST IMPUTATION OF frivolousness AND FALSEHOOD. Wherein, The cause of LITURGY and EPISCOPACY is further debated.  
By the same SMECTYMNUUS.  
LONDON, Printed for john Rothwell at the Fountain and Bear in Cheapside.   

TO THE MOST HONOURABLE LORDS AND THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS, AND BURGESSES OF THE HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS.  
IT was the expectation that the whole Kingdom had of your high worth, and faithful resolutions, to reform what was amiss both in Church and State, which gave us the confidence to present unto you our former treatise. And now your real performance, and noble Actions tending to the public peace and good, have added much more cheerfulness in our second address towards you; the rather, for that the cause in question between us and the Remonstrant, about Episcopacy and Liturgy, is a great part of that work to which God hath directed your present consultations. Seeing therefore it belongs to you next under God and his Majesty, to dispose and order these things: We leave our endeavours at your feet, beseeching you to consider, not only how we have vindicated ourselves from the accusations of our adversary, but more especially what may be gathered out of it for the advancement of the reformation now happily begun among us. The Lord of life and glory be a Sun and shield unto you.   

TO THE READER.  
Good Reader,  
THE Book which we here undertake to answer, is so full fraught with bitter invectives, false aspersions, hyperbolical confidence, self contradictions, and such like extravagancies, as that we have thought fit to lay them all before thee in one full view by way of preface, rather than to interrupt our following discourse by observing them as they lie scattered in the book itself. Suffer us therefore to give thee notice of these few particulars.  
First, we are deeply charged and accused not only to the ordinary Reader but even to the King's Majesty himself, of misallegations, misinterpretations, mistranslations, and false quotations, and that in such an high nature as that the Author calls God to witness, before whom he is shortly to give an account that he never saw any Author that would dare to profess Christian sincerity so fowl to overlash. And this is not once or twice but often repeated with great asseveration & exclamations. Which when we first read (being conscious of our innocency and fidelity) we could not but stand amazed and wonder to see ourselves so unexpectedly and we hope undeservedly transformed into men (or rather monsters of men) so transcedently perfidious, and so supersuperlatively unfaithful and wicked. And indeed, if to be accused to a fault be a sufficient argument to make us guilty, we must needs be for ever branded with such an high measure of ignominy, as that it is not a whole sea of water that will serve to wash off the filth of such accusations. But we doubt not but that the ingenuous peruser of this book will find that as it was the glory of one of the Cato's that he was thirty times accused and yet never sound guilty: so it will be our honour and credit when he shall see that all this clamour and noise is but a bearing of false witness against his brethren. Si accusasse sat est quis erit innocens. It was the the wicked counsel of Matchiavell Calumniare fortiter & aliquid adhoerebit. This counsel the Papists have made use of in answering of Protestant writers, and the Bishops themselves in their answers to some of the unconforming Ministers books. And we have good reason to think that the Author of this Defence hath trod in the same steps. For after all his general exclamations and accusations, there are but four places in which he undertakes to prove us false. The first is for half citing of Hieroms testimony. The second is for abusing Nazianzen. The third is for misinterpreting Origen about Lay Elders. The fourth is for foisting in Cyprian. True it is, he tells us of want of fidelity in citing the Counsel of Antioch and Ancyra, of misalledging of Whitakers, of misenglishing Tertullian, and of guilty translating of justin Martyr. But he doth not so much as endeavour to make good what he tells us, and therefore we cannot but believe that he used more Machiavelisme then honestly in such aspersions. As for Authors which he himself hath both misalledged and misinterpreted, we do not only say it, but the Reader shall find it demonstratively proved in the ensuring treatise.  
Secondly, if to be railed upon, reviled, slighted, and scorned be sufficient to bring men into discredit, then certainly, we must be esteemed as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the dung, of scouring, and filth of the world. For never man since Mountagues Appeal, wrote with more scorn and contempt. We are ca●led Vain, frivolous, Cavillers, insolent, spiteful, riotous, proud, false, unjust, triflers, factious, Brotherly slanderers, sullen and crabbed pieces, Liars, egregious and palpable calumniators, wilfully shutting our eyes against the truth such as the Readers may be ashamed off, witless, malicious, uncharitable, envious, frivolous wasters of unseasonable words, swelling up a windy bulk with groundless exceptions against our eyes and conscience, tedious and loose disputers, Patronizers of branded Heretics, impotent, weak, and absurd men, grossly ignorant, such as foully overreach, men of weak judgement, and strong malice; commonly spiteful, and seldom witty, violent and subtle machinators against, and disturbers of God's ordinances, some whole sections mere declamations, worthy of nothing but of contempt and silence, ill bred sons of the Church, spitting in the face of our Mother, fomentors of unjust dislikes against lawful government, making wickedly false suggestions, wanting wit and grace to understand the true meaning of the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy, worthy to be punished for their presumption, & disobedience, men that make no conscience by what means we uphold a side and win a Proselyte. These are the flowers with which his defence is garnished, and the titles with which he honours those whom he calls his Brethren. We will make no other Apology for ourselves, but what Austin did in the same kind, who when he was told that his railing adversary was to hard for him, he said it was and easy thing that way to conquer Austin, but the Reader should perceive it was Clamore not veritate, by loud crying not by truth: And what Hierom saith against Helvidius, Arbitror te veritate convictum a maledicta converti. It is a sign of a man not able to stand before the truth, when he betakes himself to reproachful language.  
Thirdly, if multitude of daring protestations and bold asseverations be sufficient proofs of arguments propounded, and if confident slight, and scornful denials be sufficient answers to us, and our arguments, never any man hath better defended Episcopacy or more strongly confuted those that oppose it. In his very first page he begs the question, and affirms his cause to be God's cause, God's truth, and if his opposers were as many Legions as men, he would meet them undismayed, and say with holy David; Though an host should encamp against me, my heart should not fear, but with just confidence I gladly fly to the bar of this high and Honourable Court, (And yet by his leave he thought it his best wisdom to fly from this bar, and to dedicate his book to the King's Majesty alone, and not to the two houses:) And in another place he saith, the Apostles practice is so irrefragable for them, that if we do but add the unquestionable practice of their immediate successors: he knows not what more light can be desired for the manifestation of the truth of his opinion. In his Epistle to the King he saith, That if he doth not make it appear that we have abused our Reader with false shows of misalleadged antiquities, and merely colourable pretences of proofs, let the blemish of his reputation lead way to the sharpest censure upon his person. (Just like the Author of Episcopacy by Divine right, who is so confident against Lay Elders; That he offers to forfeit his life to justice, and his reputation to shame, if any man living can show that ever there was a Ruling Elder in the world till Farel and Viret first created them: (And yet he could not but know that Archbishop Whitgift (as well seen in Antiquity as himself) confesseth that there were Ruling Elders in the Primitive Church. Thus also doth Bishop King; Saravia himself thinks the government of Ruling Elders to be good and profitable.) In his answer to our arguments, sometimes he tells us that we prove nothing but our bold ignorance and absurd inconsequences: Otherwhile he saith, Poor arguments scarce worthy of a pass. These are trifling cavils not worth the answer. Verbal exceptions which will sink like light froth. Mere declamations worthy of no answer but contempt and scorn. forbear Reader, if you can to smile at this curious subtlety: What Cabalism have we here? Our queries are made up of nothing but spite and slander. His ordinary answer toour Testimonies out of Antiquity is: This Author is misalledged. That Father abused. This Council shuffled up with little fidelity. Away with your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies. And this is all the answer he gives. Throughout the whole book he endeavours to render us to the Reader as destitute of all learning, as if our reading had never gone beyond a Polyanthea. He calls us boldly ignorant. And that we would make the Reader believe that we had seen a Father. And that we would seem to have seen the Canon Law. And that it is enough we can show a little reading to no purpose. But in all these and many more such like Sarcasmes and vain Rhetorications he doth but act the part of his hierarchical predecessors whose chief answers have been scoffs and scorns; and therefore what learned Rivetus saith of Bishop Montague may with as much truth be averred of this nameless Author. Montacutius vir certedoctus, sed admodum praefidens, & tumidus aliorum contemptor, & suggillator. And in another place. 
Apol. pro Sancta Manic. pag. 77. 95.  Non potest vir ille sine convitijs quemquam a quo dissentit vel in levissimis nominare. But what strength and weight there is in such kind of arguments and answers, let the wise Reader judge.  
And yet not withstanding all this confidence & Thrasonical boasting we desire thee to observe:  
Fourthly, That if the whole book were divided into four parts, there is one quarter of which he makes no mention, but passeth it over either with scorn or silence. And where our arguments are strongest there he slides away without answering, which cannot but make the judicious Reader believe that he thought the iron to hot for him, and therefore would not touch it lest it should burn his own fingers; as himself saith pag. 21. And even in those things wherein he undertakes to answer us we cannot but give notice that we have confitentem reum, and in effect the cause granted in those things which are most material. For when we prove from Scripture the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters both in name and office, he tells us with a little varying of our words; We idly lose our labour. It need be no scruple to us: It is in express terms granted, when we prove that there are not three degrees of Ministry in the Scripture (to wit, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacous) he answers, it is granted; you speak of the Apostles writings, but I of their successors. He granteth also that the Primitive Bishops were elected by the Clergy, and people. That Bishops ought not to have sole power in Ordination, and jurisdiction. That they ought not to delegate their power to others. That the ordinary managing of secular employments is improper for them. And he doth almost grant that there were Lay-Elders in antiquity. For whereas the Author of Episcopacy by Divine right affirmeth, that the name of Elders of the Church in all antiquity comprehendeth none but Preachers, and that therefore they only may be called Seniores Ecclesiae, though some others may have the title of Seniores populi, because of their civil authority. This Author acknowledgeth that besides Pastors, and besides the Magistrates and Elders of the City there are to be found in antiquity Seniores Ecclesiastici. Indeed he saith, that these were but as our Churchwardens, or Vestry men. But how true this is, the Reader shall see in due place: Lastly, he grants that all that we say in the Postscripts about the Popish Prelates is true, Celari non potuit negari non debuit. And for what we say of the Protestant Bishops he denies not the truth of it only he chides for taxing all for the fault of some.  
And in these things wherein he doth diametrically oppose us, he doth frequently contradict himself and his best friends. In his Epistle dedicatory he professeth that he taxeth not our ability, yet in the same Epistle he calls us impotent assailants, and afterwards. Men of weak judgements and strong malice. And Men that would seem to have seen a Father. And that all that we say is nothing but bold ignorance. Pag. 94. he saith, That to acknowledge an Ordinary Evangelist is a fancy and a dream. And yet elsewhere he makes every Preacher of the Gospel to be an Evangelist. In his Remonstrant and in his defence he saith, that Bishops had been every where throughout all the Regions of the Christian world. And that all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have uniformly and constantly maintained Episcopacy. And yet elsewhere he denies that ever he said, That Bishops were every where, and confesseth that there are less noble Churches that do not confer to Episcopal Government. Pag. 161. he tells us, that for 1600 years the name of Bishops hath been appropriated (in a plain contradistinction) to the governors of the Church: But in other places he often grants that the Name was confounded, and ascribed to Presbyters are well as Bishops. In his 36. pag. he saith, That in his Remonstrance he made no mention of Diocesan Bishops, whereas all know that he undertook the defence of such Bishops which were petitioned against in Parliament, whom none will deny to be Diocesan Bishops. In his 5. pag. (speaking of the changing of Civil government mentioned in the Remonstrance) he professeth that he did not aim at our Civil Government. Let but the Reader survey the words of the Remonstrance pag. 8. and it will appear plainly ac si solaribus radijs descriptum esset. That the comparison was purposely made betwixt the attempts of them that would have altered our Civil government, and those that endeavoured the alteration of our Church government. And whereas he bids as pag. 135. to take our soleordination and sole jurisdiction to sole our next pair of shoes withal, yet notwithstanding he makes it his great work to answer all our arguments against the sole power of Bishops, and when all is done, allows the Presbyter only an assistance, but no power in Ordination nor jurisdiction. Lastly, in the stating of the question he distinguisheth between divine and Apostolical authority, and denyeth that Bishops are of Divine authority as ordained immediately by Christ. And yet he saith, That Christ himself hath laid the ground of this imparity in his first agents. And that by the evidence of Timothy and Titus, and the Asian Angels (to whom Christ himself wrote) he hath made good that just claim of the sacred Hierarchy.  
This is the sum of that (good Reader) that we thought fit to praemonish thee of. We now dismiss thee to the book itself, and commend thee and it, to the blessing of God.   

A Vindication of the ANSWER to the humble Remonstrance.  

SECT. I.  
IF we thought our silence would only prejudice ourselves, we could contentedly sit down and forbear Replies, not doubting, but intelligent men, comparing cause with cause, and reason with reason, would easily see with whom the truth rests: but we fearing that many who have not either ability or leisure to search into the grounds of things themselves, would fierce think it possible, that so much confidence as the Remonstrant shows, should be severed from a good cause, or so much contempt should be poured upon us that are not the bad defenders of a cause much worse. We must discharge our duty in clearing the cause and truth of God, and that will clear us from all the foul aspersions which the Remonstrant hath been nothing sparing to cast upon us. Whose Defence in every Leaf terms us either ignorant, liars, witless, falsifiers, malicious, spiteful, slanderous, violent, and subtle Machinators against the Church, and disturbers of her peace, etc. and this not only in a cursory way, but in such a devout and religious form, 
Pag. 1●3.  as we make question whether ever any man before him did so solemnly traduce, speaking it in the presence of God, that he never saw any Writer professing Christian sincerity so foully to overlash. To the presence of God before whom his protestation is made, our access is equal, and at that Tribunal we doubt not, through the grace of Christ, but to approve both ourselves & our cause. And had we the same access unto our Sovereign, we should less regard those bitter invective accusations, wherewith he hath so profusely charged us in his Sacred ears.  
But our meanness forbids us to make immediate addresses to the throne, which he hath made his refuge: yet may it please that Royal Majesty, whom God hath anointed over us, to vouchsafe an eye unto these papers, we have that trust in the Justice of our Sovereign, the goodness of our Cause, the integrity of our consciences in all our Quotations, as we doubt not but his Majesty will clearly see, that our Persons, cause, and carriage, have been misrepresented to him.  
The cause our Remonstrant saith is Gods; it is true of the cause agitated, though not of the cause by him defended: and we desire (what ever he hath done) to manage it in God's way; to love in the truth, and speak the truth in love.  
The charity of our Remonstrant we will not question, though in the first congress he doth as good as call us Devils: because so often in his book he calls us Brethren. But that which he calls truth, and the truth of God, we must crave leave to do more, then bring in question, notwithstanding the impregnable confidence of this Irrefragable Doctor.  
Our Histories record of Harold, Cupbearer to Edward the Confessor, that waiting on the Cup, he stumbled with one foot, and almost fell, but that he recovered himself with the other; at which his father smiling said, Now one brother helps another. The Remonstrant calls us Brethren, and supposeth he sees us stumbling in the very entrance of our answer, and what help doth our Brother lend us? Only entertains us Sannis & Cathinnis, and tells us, it is an ill sign to stumble at the threshold. Yet not always an ill sign Sir, we accept this stumbling for such an Omen, as Caesar had at his Landing in Africa, and our William the Conqueror at his first landing in England, which they took for the first sign of their victory and possession.  
a what's this Stumble? The Answer mentions the Areopagis instead of the Areopagites, Grande nefas! Of such an impiety as this, did Duraeus once accuse our Learned Whitakers, from whom we will in part borrow our answer: 
Bone habet his incubus non ve●tuntur fortune Ecclesiae.  It is well the good of the Church depends not upon a piece of Latin.  
But can our Remonstrant persuade himself, that his Answerers should have so much Clarklike ignorance, as never to have heard of Areopagita? If he can, yet we are sure he can never persuade his ingenious Readers, but some one at least of that Legion, which he fancies conjured up against his Remonstrance, might have heard of Dionysius Areopagita, that by a man that had not studied to cast contempt upon us, it might have been thought rather a stumble in the Transcribers or Printers, than the Authors.  
But what if there be no stumble here? What if the fault be in the Remonstrants' eyes, and not in the Answerers' words? What if he stumble and not they? and what if it be but a straw he stumbles at? For though Areopagus be the name of the place, and Areopagitas the name of the persons; yet it is no such impropriety in speech, to signify the persons by the place: had we said the Admired sons of justice, the two Houses of Parliament, had this been such a Solecism? and will this Remonstrant deny us that liberty, for which we have Nature's Patent, and the example of the best Authors in other Tongues, To smooth, or square, to lengthen, or cut off Exotic words, according as will best suit with our own Dialect? If we were called to give an account of this Syllabicall Error before a Desk of Grammarians, we could with ease produce precedents enough in approved Authors: but we will only give an instance in the word itself from joan. Sarisburi. lib. 5. de Nugis Curialibus, cap. 9 Eum [Senatum] vero Athenienses Areopagum dicebant eo quod in illis totius populi virtus consisteret.  
We hope our Remonstrant hath now recovered his stumble, and next we find him leaping, being as good at leaping over blocks, as he is at stumbling at straws: it is his practice through his whole book, what ever objection made by us, he finds too heavy to remove, he over-leaps it.  
This course he begins here, for we having charged him with some words sounding to contempt in his Preface, he falls a quarrellling with our Logic, for calling that a Preface, which he intended as one of the main pieces of the substance of his book. Which certainly, if Captatio Benevolentiae be the work of a Preface, he that reads the Remonstrance to the ninth page, will find that the preceding pages have been but by way of insinuation; and there he comes to the proposition and narration of his cause.  
But if our Logic was bad, he knew his Ethics were worse: and therefore these misdemeanours which we justly charged upon him, and he knew not how to excuse or answer, his Politics taught him to leap over. Counting all to the fourth page, as light froth that will sink alone; which seems to us a strange piece of physic; and if we would cry quit with the Remonstrant, & make our Reader as merry with him, as he would make his Readers with us, we could tell him a Tale in the margin 
* A Gentleman student in Philosophy, that was by chance present at the reading of this passage, took such a fancy to this rare mystery of light froth, sinking aloan, that he would take no nay, till he had entreated us to obtain so much of the Remonstrant, as to publish his receipt of making light froth sink alone, that it may be added to the Secrets of Alexis, or the rare experiments of Baptista Porta. . But some thing it seems is of a little more solid substance, it is as scum that will not so easily sink alone; wherein you appe●l to indifferent eyes to judge whether we do not endeavour to cast unjust envy upon you against the clear evidence of any knowing man's conscience. Content. Only put the case right: you tell your Judges that you had said, That if Antiquity may be the rule, the Civil policy (as in general notion) hath sometimes varied, the Sacred never; the Civil came from Arburary Impos●rs, the Sacred from men inspired: now these gracious Interpreters would draw your words to the present and particular government of our own Monarchy, as if you implied that variable and arbitrary; and are not ashamed to mention that deadly name of Treason. Our charge upon this is, that in the judgement of this Remonstrant, if any had dared to attempt the alteration of Monarchical Government, they had been less culpable than in petitioning the alteration of Episcopal, and conclude, that if he had found such a passage in any of those whom he calls lewd Libelers, all had rung with Treason, Treason.  
Now let the indifferent Reader, let the most Honourable Parliament, let the Sacred Majesty of our King Judge whether we do the man wrong. First, this we know, that one of the most confident Advocates of Episcopacy hath said it, 
〈◊〉. 25.  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 an● hereditary Monarchy, and to affect many headed Sovereignty: which we think is an assertion insolent enough, that sets the Mitre as high as the Crown: God bless our sacred Monarchy from such friends.  
But this Remonstrant rises higher, and sets the Mitre above the Crown. Telling us, that Civil Government comes from arbitrary Imposers, this from men inspired, and is in that respect by the Remonstrant challenged to be of divine right. If Civil Government here include Monarchy, as by the Remonstrants own explication it doth, certainly this is to advance Episcopacy above Monarchy, and to make it more sinful and dangerous to alter Episcopacy, which, according to the Remonstrant, challenges God for the founder, than Monarchy, which saith this Remonstrant according to original Authority had its foundation in the ●●ee Arbitrement of men.  
Yet did we never say that this was Treason; knowing such crimes to be above our cognizance; we mentioned indeed the name of Treason, but as from your mouth, not our own. We said, If you had found any such in any, etc. the world would have rung with the loud cries of treason, treason: it was our conjecture which you have now made good in this defence, For you that are so full of charity to impute it to us, as if that we had vilified the judgement of King james, as you do pag. 23. whom we mentioned not, but as a most famous, and ever admired Prince, had any ●ord fallen from us (which through the grace of God we hope never shall) tending to the disparagement either of the Royal Person or power, What work would you have made with that? Be sparing, Sir, of charging your poor Neighbours so impetuously with malice and uncharitableness, till ye have taught yourself to be more charitable, and less malicious.  
To what we alleged in the instance of William Rufus King, and Pope Pius, to show that Episcopal Government, which he calls sacred, naturally tends not only not to depend upon, but to subdue the civil authority to itself; His answer is, first, That William Rufus was a Prince noted for grossly irreligious. That those were tyrannical Popish Bishops. That the Pope was Antichrist. That he answered so because he was unwilling they should show as good cards for their standing as he pretended for his own. And lastly, all this makes nothing against our Bishops, who profess, notwithstanding the divine right of their calling, to hold their places, and the exercise of their jurisdiction wholly from the King.  
So then here is no Falsification: all that was produced is granted true, only exception taken against the persons produced. King William he was irreligious. Daniel observes that former times being unhappy in their compilers of History (the Sceptre which rules over the fames of Princes) who for the most part were Monks, had all their Princes personated either Religious or irreligious as they humoured or offended the Bishop's Rochet, and the Monk's belly. No wonder then if so small a friend to Bishops be condemned as irreligious.  
But then those Bishops were Popish, Tyrannous Bishops. But it was not their Popery, but their Episcopal dignity that made them tyrannize; and it was their Tyranny and not their Popery that made them odious to their King, who was Popish as well as they. And it hath been ever usual to both former and latter Bishops to tyrannize over such as fear them, and to flatter such as they fear.  
The Pope he is Antichrist; we are glad to hear you call him so; some thought a year ago you would scarce have given him such a nickname, unless you meant to have fall'n out with the rest of your brethren: and what if the Pope be Antichrist? may we not bring the testimony of Antichrist against Antichristian Bishops? As Paul brought the witness of a Cretian Poet, against Cretian Liars. May not we allege Beelzebub against belial without honouring him?  
But the Pope so answered because he was unwilling they should show as good cards for their standing as he pretends for his own; grant it so, what will follow upon that but this? That Bishops claiming the same grounds for their standing that the Pope doth, aspire to be as independent from Princes as the Pope is, and that they have no more Divine Right, than the Pope: But what's this to our Bishops who profess, notwithstanding their Divine Right, to hold their places, and exercise of jurisdiction wholly from the King? Surely ours have begun to affect the same Exemption from Secular power, to make large and haughty strides towards an independent Hierarchy. So that it is no envious upbraid to parallel ours with the former Bishops. For it hath well appeared that the hierarchical Episcopacy is full of such high and large principles of Pride, Ambition, Tyranny, as can be circumscribed in no moderate bounds: But is always swelling to the affectation of an Absolute Ecclesiastical Monarchy. And it is worth the enquiring, whether the three last books of hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity be not suppressed by him that hath them, because they give the Prince too much power in Ecclesiastical matters, and are not for the Divine Right of Bishops.  
But we shall be chid anon, and accused of spite for this, as we are for the observation formerly made upon his comparison between the attempts of Alteration in our Neighbour Church by the Episcopal faction, and that which is now justly desired by the humble Petitioners to this Honourable House. This saith the Remonstrant, is a foul slander to charge the name of Episcopacy with a Faction For a fact imputed to some few. Were they but a few that did attempt and prosecute that alteration? the more is our misery, that a few Bishops can put both Kingdoms into so dangerous a combustion, what stir would they all make if they should unite their powers? And were they but a few that were the Factors for that Attempt? how then was it that one of the Episcopal Tribe in public Court called the Scotch design Bellum Episcopale? and where were the rest of the peaceable Orthodox Bishops the while? that might in love to peace & truth have opposed those bold attempts, & not have suffered a few, upon whom you now leave the guilt of faction, to expose the dear and precious name of Episcopacy to that obloquy.  
Let the Remonstrant never cry fie upon his brethren, that dare challenge Episcopacy of Faction: but fie upon his Fathers the bishops, that have subjected it to that challenge: had bishops done so in Cyprians time, we doubt not but the●e would have been fonnd Presbyters who would have said as much, and need never have feared Gaoles nor Pillories, nor high Commissions, the holy Discipline wherewith the Fathers of the sacred Hierarchy have of late years visited such offences.   

SECT. II.  
WE are in this and the following Sections not to contend for words, but things, things precious to the Remonstrant, Liturgy, and Episcopacy, for which he fights, tanquam pro aris & focis.  
The subject of this Section is the Liturgy, where first he falls upon us for the Alterations, and Additions, mentioned by us, which he calls such an envious and groundless suggestion as must needs cover our faces with a blush. Truly, Sir, If we were able to produce no fuller evidence of this than you have done of your jewish Liturgy ever since Mosestime, we should blush indeed; but if we can bring forth instances of such Alterations as shall prove this present Liturgy to be none of that, which hath been confirmed by Parliamentary Acts; keep your blushes to make Liveries for yourself and friends.  
The Liturgy confirmed by our Parliamentary Acts is the same which was made and confirmed in the fifth and sixth of Edward the sixth, with one alteration, and additions of certain Lessons to be used upon every Sunday; and the form of the Litany altered and amended, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament: And none other or otherwise. But this book is so altered from that, that in it is left out,  
First a clause in the Litany, From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us, etc. 32. Chapters of the Old Testament, a Prayer against death, a Rubric, or declaration of the manner of the presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament. Besides some other things of less moment.  
Secondly, added 26 Apocryphal Chapters, more to be read 47 Proper Lessons, The Prayers for Bishops and Curates, many Collects after the Communion, A Rubric in the examination of private Baptism. In the Calendar Fish days are now called Fasting days. A Catalogue of Holidays.  
Thirdly, many things changed; in the title of Confirmation, the words for imposition of hands are added. In the Epistle for Palm-sunday, in the Name of Jesus, turned into, at the Name of Jesus, besides such smaller alterations, which himself acknowledges. These are sufficient to evince that the Liturgy now in use is not that Liturgy that was established by Act of Parliament, and therefore that Act binds not to the use of this Liturgy, as we conceive. Now if 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: we hope that these alterations are so visible, as any, that will not fully shut their eyes, will say it is with this misaltered Liturgy as with the disguised Dames mentioned of old by Doctor Hall.  
And we hope, nay we know we have some Bishops of our mind in this, as well as you have some of yours; & how ever you slight the words of one of them, not inferior to any of them that we know, with an effut●it labiis: yet it is a subtle shift you have to pervert the Bishop's words. For whereas he said that the Service of the Church of England was now so dressed, that if the Pope should come and see it, he would claim it as his own, but that it is in English, The Remonstrant would seem to understand by this only such an inoffensiveness, in the devotion of it, as the Pope himself could find no fault in it: whereas the Bishop meant such a symmetry and correspondency of our present devotion and service with the Popish, as was in his esteem just matter of Humiliation to all the Bishops in the Kingdom, in a day of solemn & national Fasting.  
Instead of bringing out those great applauses, that foreign Divines and Churches have given to our Liturgy, he falls (though more gently than he is wont) upon Master Calvin for his Tolerabiles ineptiae, as if that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It seems the Remonstrant did not either consider the occasion of that Censure, or else his not Omniscient eyes never saw the Epistle that the Learned Calvin wrote to the dispersed at Frankfort, which would tell him that the occasion of this Censure was the troubles raised up among the English Exiles then at Frankford, about the book of Liturgy (which was then as since a spring of unhappy contentions in the Church) hereupon he writes a Letter to them, wherein he useth that phrase of tolerable fooleries: and in a Christian way persuades both disagreeing sides to accord: which he puts not upon them by way of authority, but Christian advice: nay, he says more, that these fooleries were tolerable then, yet he doubted not if Religion flourished in England, many of these would be removed, and other things amended: and though they might begin with such weak rudiments, yet it was behooveful for the grave and pious Ministers of Christ to rise to a higher pitch, etc. So that here Master Calvin did not unwarrantably intrude in alienam rempublicam: Nor did any other than would become any of our grave and learned Divines, in the case of the Wafers, or Lords Day Markets of his Charge, if called unto that service, as Master Calvin was to this.  
The Remonstrant leads us from the English Liturgy, to a Discourse of Liturgies in general: which we call unparallelled, because no man that ever we have seen drew the line of Liturgy so high as he hath done, even as high as Moses time; to which his answer is, Perhaps there are some things our not omniscient eyes have not seen, and perhaps this may be one of them: and perhaps there are some things which he hath confidently avouched that his Lincean eyes have not seen, and perhaps this is one of them; or else we should see it too. But that needs not saith the Remonstrant for we almost yield the question before we argue it: the happier man he to obain that by concession that he never could by argumentation: but how do we yield the question? in granting an order of divine administrations observed in Church Assemblies, but denying an imposition of set forms. 
Iust. Mart. Apolog 2.  We find in antiquity, that when the Church met together upon the Lord's day, first the Scriptures were read of the old and new Testament, after the reading followed an Exhortation to the practice and imitation of what was read, than they all rose and joined in Prayer: Prayer being ended, they went to the Sacrament, in the beginning whereof the Precedent of the Assembly poured out Prayers and Thanksgiving according to his ability, and the people said Amen; then followed the distribution of the Sacrament: After that the collection of Alms, etc. this was justine Martyrs Liturgy. Will you now see Tertullias?  
First, the Congregation meets, 
Tertull. Apol. cap. 39  and do as it were besiege God with their prayers, wherein they pray for the Emperors, for their servants, officers, & c? then they went to repeating the Scriptures according to the time and occasion, than they edified themselves in faith and hope by holy exhortations. There they had also the exercise of Discipline, there they had their Love-feasts which began and ended with prayers, and were celebrated with singing of Psalms. This was Tertullia's Liturgy. From these two Writers of the purest times, it is evident that it was the custom or order of the Church in their Assemblies to pray, read, and expound the Scriptures, administer the Sacraments; but that there were set forms of Prayer prescribed and imposed upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they were tied to read such and such Scriptures, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had words of exhortation put into his mouth, that he must use without adding, or altering, or diminishing, all which are in a stinted Liturgy, this doth not appear, but rather the contrary, Tertullian saith, Coimus ad sacrarum literarum commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere.  
And now we hope our Remonstrant will see how we will avoid our own contradiction. To say there was an order of administrations although there were no set and prescribed forms is no contradiction: You see it in the Church's practice. To say there was an order of prophesying given to the Church of Corinth by the Apostle Paul, 
1 Cor. 14.  and yet no stinted forms of prophesying imposed upon them, we hope the Remonstrant himself will say is not contradictory.  
But these quotations are blasted already; it is but a silly ostentation of antiquity, that these men bring against the Liturgy; so is all we bring if the Remonstrant may be judge: but we appeal to the learned Reader. And what can our Remonstrant accuse us of: First in our quotation of Tertullian, We mis-english it, Sine Monitore quia depectore, without any prompter, but their own heart. Is this a mistranslation? what then will you say to that approved Glossator Zephyrus? who thus expounds this place; Our Prayers are not dictated to us as are the Prayers of the Heathens, by their Priests, but proceed from the bottom of our hearts, etc. Is not this to pray without any other prompter but their own hearts? Nor doth Heraldus contradict this sense. If Zephyrus his Gloss like not you, your English likes us, as well as our own, and proves what we desire. Sine Monitore: not being urged by any superior injunction, though we think Monitor may as well be translated prompter as injunction; 
Dictatas ●sacrificulo preces non concipimus, sed ex ipsa sede Animi Spiritusque nostri cum suspiriis gemituque, etc.  but if no injunction, how could it be a Liturgy, a commanded, imposed form? and if neither of these, neither Zephyrus nor your own please you, then take Nicholas Rigaltius. 
Nchol. Riga●●. 1. C. in Tertull. Animad. Apud Ethunicos, Monitor praeibat preces, ac de script. quidem ne quid verborum praete●iretur art praeposterum diceretur, rursusque alius cust●s erat, qui attenderet, alius qui linguis favere juberet.  The Heathens had a Monitor that led them along in their prayers, out of a writing, that they might miss nor mistake no words, etc. yet what is this to a prescribed form? yes, if they prayed sine Monitore, it overthrows a prescribed form, read it as you will; if you read it without a prompter it overthrows a form, if it be as you read it without any Superior injunction, it overthrows a prescribed form.  
But why may not we saith the Remonstrant, as well argue, that because our Ministers do ordinarily in their pulpits pray for the King in their own expressions, therefore there is no form of Liturgy enjoined? quite from the purpose; we show you in Tertullian, where there were prayers that were not stinted and prescribed forms, show us if you can in Tertullian, any such there were.  
Our other testimony out of Terullian and Austin, is full to the purpose we intended; we brought them to prove that it was free for Christians to pray as their occasions did require, without being limited to prescribed forms: 
The changing of orationes suay in the text, into orationes nostras in his margin is not overmuch faithfulness.  and though we will not say peremptorily there were no public Liturgies in Augustine's time, yet we dare say the place he brings proves it not, in which there is not one word of prescribed or public forms.  
The next place he quarrels with, is justin Martyr, the fault there is in the Translation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is guiltily translated the instructor of the people, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falsely turned according to his ability. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  We must quit ourselves of both these crimes: First, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we render not the word but the person, the instructor of the people, because the same Father but a few lines before told us, that was his proper work, and why should the Remonstrant call this a guilty translation? Did he think we were afraid to use the word President or Bishop, for fear of advantaging the adverse cause? 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  No such matter, take it, translate it you, Bishop if you please, make this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Apocalypse, what will you gain by it? but this, that such a Precedent or Bishop there was in every Congregation, whether in the City or Country.  
But besides the supposed guilt, we are charged with false Translation for turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to his ability, if this be a false Translation, let the crime lie upon Langius, and not contradicted by Sylburgius in his notes, who before us translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quantum pro virili potest, 
〈◊〉  which we know not how to construe better than according to his ability. And this Remonstrant grants they did pray according to their ability, and so (saith he) do ours, and yet we have a public Liturgy, and so had they. It followeth not, that they had because we have; we would fain see better proof of it.  
The Remonstrant thinks it is proof enough to pick a quarrel with what we have spoken, 
●●ssander.  and therefore scorns to trouble himself any further than to tell the Reader it is Magisterially said by these men that set and imposed forms were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian Heresies did invade the Church, and as Clerkly they confute themselves by their own testimony. So then, if we cite testimony, it is not Magisterially spoken, and how is it Clerkly confuted? Besides what we have done ourselves, he vouchsafes us the honour to bestow a marginal confutation upon us out of Conc. Laod. cap. 19 we will do the Canon and the Cause right, and give you the full view of it. Oportere seorsum primum post Episcoporum Homilias Catechumenorum Orationem peragi, & postquam exierunt Catechumeni eorum qui poenitentiam agunt fieri orationem, & cum i● sub manum accesserint & recesserint fidelium, preces sic ter fieri. Vnam quidem scilicet primam silentio, secundam autem & tertiam per pronuntiationem impleri; deinde sic pacem dari, & sic sanctam oblationem perfici & solis licere sacratis ad altare accedere & communicare.  
We desire the Reader to remember that the question is not about a set Order or Rubric, (as the Remonstrant calls it) of administrations, but about set and imposed forms of prayer. Now what doth this Canon require? that after Sermon, Prayer should be made first for the Catechumeni, Secondly, for the penitents, Thirdly, for the faithful. But doth it bind to set forms of prayer in all these? that the Reader sees it doth not, for some of the prayers required in that Canon are mental prayers, therefore not stinted, nor prescribed prayers, as appears by that clause in the Canon, 
Vn●m quidem, scilicet primam silentio.  which the Remonstrant (shuffling up with much less fidelity than we have done the Milevitan Council) leaves out in his quotation  
But Clerklike we confute ourselves. First, in going about to prove that set and imposed forms were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian heresy did invade the Church, by the testimony of a Council that was before arianism. He that is so quick to take others in their self confutations, doth as Clerklike confute himself, in granting that the Laodicean Council was between the Neocesarian, and the Nicene, and yet so long before Arrtanisme, as it seems ridiculous to refer from the one to the other: Now the Neocesarian Council was as Binius from Baronius computes in the year 314, and the Nicene was 325, or according to Eusebius, 320. And was the Arrian heresy just born at the period of the Nicene Council? if not, why may not the Arrian Heresy invade the Church before the time of the Laodicean Council, especially considering that the heresy of Arrius did trouble the Church sometime before it borrowed Arrius his name; and under his name, some years doubtless, before the Nicen Council. Yet our meaning was not, to affix the introducing of set forms into the Church upon that Council; the Remonstrant if that he had pleased might have conceived, that speaking of the bringing in such forms, we show how it was done by degrees. And first as a step, the Laodicean Council did forbid mens varying their prayers as they listed, and did enjoin all men to use the same prayers: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Remonstrant saith, we said, was a form of man's own prescribing. No, we said of a man's own composing; and how will the Remonstrant disprove it from the words of the Canon? To prove our assertion we brought the words of the Council of Carthage, which our Remonstrant derides as a gross absurdity to explicate the Council of Laodicea, by that of Carthage, which is yet no more than Z●naras did before us. But as the Remonstrant relates it, the Fathers of Carthage will afford us little help. You shall hear themselves speak Reader, and then judge. Vt nemo in precibus, velpatrem pro filio, vel filium propatre nominet, & cum ●ltari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio, & quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit non iis utatur nisi prius eas cum fratribus instructoribus contulerit. Where it appears first, that this Canon was made for poor ignorant Priests that knew not the difference between the Father and the Son. Secondly, that when this Canon was made, there was no set form in use in the Church, for it cannot come under the possibility of imagination, that a man having a set form lying before him, should so grossly mistake as to name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father. Thirdly, that the limiting or circumscribing the liberty in prayer was such as did not tie him to a set Liturgy, but he might use the help of any other prayer, so he did confer with the more learned of his Brethren.  
The Milevitan Council went something further, 
Quamvi 〈◊〉 haec precum & aliarum orationum conscribendarum privata ●bido imperitos homines usque adeo invas●rit ut necessum fuerit in Conciliis modum aliquem huic rei constitui ne temere quae●is orationes in usum praesertim Eccl●siasticum admitte●●tur.  wherein he challenges our fidelity in shuffling up the Council; our fidelity in citing of this Council is nothing inferior to his in this, and far above his in the former. Let the Reader consider how much difference there is between what we speak, and what the Remonstrant reports from this Council, and judge of the fidelity of both. If we have for brevity sake given too short a representation of the Canon, it will appear upon are view, to redound only to our own prejudice. The Canon is this, Placuit etiam illud ut preces vel orationes, etc. quae prob●tae fuerint in Concilio sive praefationes etc. ab omnibus celebrentur. 
Castand. p. 30● ubi cit. Conc● Carth. & Mil●  Nec altae omnino dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus Tractatae, vel à Synodo comprobatae fuerint ne forte, aliquid contra fidem, velper ignorantiam, vel per minus stu●ium ●it compositum.  
Where we observe that this is the first mention of prayers to be approved or ratified in a Synod and the restraining to the use of them.  
Secondly, that the restriction was not such but there was a toleration of such Prayers as were tractatae à prudentioribus used by the wise and prudent men in the Church as well as of those Prayers that were approved by the Synod.  
Thirdly, that the occasion of this restriction was the prevention of Error in the Church, ne aliquid contrae fidem, etc. So that here the Remonstrant may see how that we have made it good, that liberty in Prayer was not taken away, 
Concil. Milevit. cont. celest, & Pelag.  and set forms imposed, till the Arian and Pelagian Heresy invaded the Church: his own quotations would have told him this.  
Next to these Testimonies, as a strong inducement to us to think that there were no Liturgies of the first and most venerable antiquity producible, we added this consideration, that the great admirers of, and searchers after ancient Liturgies either jewish or Christian could never yet show any to the World. And now we verily thought that if the Sun did this day behold them, the Remonstrant whose eyes are acquainted with those secrets and rarities that we cannot be blest with the sight of, would have brought them to public view for the defence of his own Cause, but we fear if there ever were any such, the World hath wholly lost them: he cannot serve you with a whole Liturgy, such fragments as he found served in, we shall anon taste off.  
His miserable mistake in saying that part of the Lords Prayers was taken out of the jewish forms, we pardon because he doth half acknowledge it. 
The Seder Teph●ll●th to which he now refers being 700 years after Christ.  So do we, his prudent passing by in silence what we objected against his confident assertion of Peter and john's praying by a form, 
Answ. pag. 8.  and that which we brought of the Publican and Pharise to make good what we objected, because we know he cannot answer it.  
Three things he speaks of, The Lords Prayer, the jewish Liturgies, and Christian Liturgies, for the Lords Prayer he saith nothing can be more plain than that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples, besides the Rules, a direct form of Prayer, we grant indeed nothing can be more plain than that both our blessed Saviour and john taught their new Converts to pray, yet the Remonstrant will have a hard task 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.  
But though his proof fall short in the Lord's Prayer, yet it is sure he saith, that Christ was pleased to make use in the Celebration of his last and heavenly Banquet, both of the fashions and words, which were usually in the jewish Feasts, as Cassander hath showed in his Liturgica. Yet Cassander who is his sure proof saith but this, observasse videtur seems to have observed. Secondly, the evidence of all this comes from no better author than Maymonides who wrote not till above a 1000 years after Christ. Thirdly, though it were granted that our Saviour did pro arbitrio or ex occasione, use the fashion or words usually in the Jewish feast, it doth not at all follow that he did assume these words and fashions out of jewish Liturgies; an Arbitrary custom is one thing a prescribed Liturgy is an other.  
Yet to prove such a Liturgy, that he might (as far as he can) stand to his assertion, he brings something out of Capellus, the Samaritan Chronicle, and Buxtorfius his Synagoga judaica.  
We begin with what he brings out of a Samaritan Chronicle, sometimes in the hands of the famously learned joseph Scaliger, out of which he tells us of an imbezel'd book, wherein were contained the Songs & Prayers used before the Sacrifices: which although we might let pass without danger to our cause, and answer, that they were only divine Hymns wherein there was always some thing of prayer; because the Remonstrant himself in his second mentioning of them names only Songs: and were there any thing for set prayers, it is like he would have put down some thing of them in the Authors own words, as well as he hath burdened his margin with some thing which is nothing to the purpose.  
But we shall make bold (under correction) to examine the authority of his Samaritan Chronicle. 
De Emend. Tem●.  joseph Scaliger had certainly but two Samaritan Chronicles (had he had any other he would certainly have mentioned it when he undertook to speak of all accounts & Chronicles) whereof that shorter is printed in his Emendat. Temporum, lib. 7. which is so fond and absurd a thing, that he calls it ineptissimum: and there gives this censure of the Samaritans in point of antiquity: Gens est totius vetustatis, etiam quae ad ipsos pertinet, ignarissima: They are a people most ignorant of all antiquity, even of that which doth most concern themselves. And more he would have said against it, if he had lived to know how much it varied from the Samaritans own Pentateuch, as it is since discovered by that learned Antiquary Master Selden in his Preface ad Marmora Arundeliana.  
This we know is not the Chronicle the Remonstrant means: there is another which Scaliger had, of which himself thus: Habemus eorum magnum Chronicon ex Hebraica lingua in Arabicam conversum, sed charactere Samaritano descriptum: is liber incipit ab excessu Mosis, desinit infra tempora Imperatoris Adriani, etc. We have also their great Chronicle translated out of the Hebrew into the Arabic tongue, but written in a Samaritan character: which Book begins from Moses departure, and ends beneath the times of Adrian the Emperor, etc.  
Of which Book Scaliger his own censure is, that though it hath many things worthy of knowledge, Yet they are crusted ●ver with Samaritan devices, 
Commentis Samaritanis incrustat●.  and judge 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: doth not so much as speak of any of the ancient Kings of Samaria, nor the defection of the ten Tribes under Rehoboam, and doth only touch the names of Samson, Samuel, David, etc. as Scaliger speaks in the beginning of his notes; and so will let your Samaritan Chronicle pass, and give you leave to make the best of it.  
But to this testimony, what ever it be, we oppose the testimony of a learned jew, who is rather to be heard, than a Samaritan. The famous Rabbi Moses Maymonides, who pleaseth to read part of his first, second, and eleventh Chapters, in his Mishneh of the Law, Halachah Tephillah, shall evidently find, that from Moses his time to Ezra (above a 1000 years) there were no stinted forms of prayers heard of in the jewish Church, but every man prayed according to his ability. Secondly, that in Ezra his time eighteen short forms of Prayers were composed for the scattered jews, which had lost the use of the holy language; because they thought it best to continue their Prayers and Worship of God in that sacred tongue. Thirdly, but not a word of any set forms which the Priests or Levits were to use, but only to help the ignorant jews, to express themselves in prayer to God in the holy language; at the time or hours of prayer, Which the men of the great Synagogue had appointed: Peter and john went up together to the Temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.  
Though we allege not this of Maymonides, as a testimony to command belief, yet we conceive it far more to be regarded then any Samaritan Chronicle.  
Secondly, he hath some scraps of jewish Liturgies out of Capellus, concerning which a short answer may serve; first there is not one of the jewish Liturgies now extant, which was made before the jews ceased to be the Church of God: for besides the eighteen short forms before mentioned, there were no other made till Rabbi Gamaliel his time, who according to the judgement of learned Critics is that Gamaliel mentioned in the Acts, (from whom Paul got such bitter principles against Christian Religion.) But whensoever they began, Capellus would laugh, should he hear what a strange conceit this Remonstrant had gotten from him, that the jewish Liturgies were as ancient as the time of Moses, merely, because he parallels some jewish phrases which he found in them with certain phrases in the Gospel, which the jews retained by Tradition from their Fathers, and put into their Liturgies. 
Synag. judaiea, lib. 1.  But Buxtorfius would fall out with him, that he should so much abuse him, as to say he had affirmed that Maymonides took his Creed out of the Liturgy; for the man is not guilty of any such gross mistake: he saith indeed, that the Articles of the jewish Creed are printed in the Liturgies, but withal he tells the Remonstrant, that Maymonides was the first composer of them, whence therefore the jews put them into their Liturgy. Thus we leave his jewish Liturgy, which the Reader will easily see to be more jewish, than he could justly suppose our instance of William Rufus was, and that it affords him as little furtherance.  
For Christian Liturgies, which the Remonstrant had affirmed to have been the best improvement of the peace and happiness of the Evangelicall Church ever since the Apostles times, we challenged the Remonstrant, setting aside those that are confessedly spurious, to produce any Liturgy that was the issue of the first 300 years; in answer to which, he brings us forth the Liturgies which we have under the names of james, Basil, and chrysostom: to which our Reply may be the briefer, because he himself dares not vouch them for the genuine writings of those holy men. Only, saith he, we have them under their names: Secondly, he confesseth there are some intersertions spurious in them. Thirdly, all that he affirms is, that the substance of them cannot be taxed for any other then holy and ancient: what censure the learned Critics, both Protestants and Papists have p●st upon these Liturgies, we hope the Remonstrant knows; we will only mind him of what the learned Rivetus speaks of the Liturgies of james, Peter, Matthew, Mark, has omnes profectas esse ab inimico homine q●i bonae semenii Domini, nocte super seminavit z●z●nia solidis rationibus probavit Nobilisque & illustris Philip Morneus lib. 1. de Missae & partihus ejus. Which because the Remonstrant so often finds fault with our misenglishing, we leave to him to see if he can construe these Zizania to be any other than these Liturgies, and this inimicus homo to be any other than the Devil.  
Nor will his implication of the ancient▪ Council of Ancyra help him, which forbade those Priests that had not sacrificed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Will the Restrant say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was to serve in the holy Liturgies, that is, reading set Litnrgies, he may as well say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the reading of set Homilies. Balsamon, Zonaras, Dionysius, Isidore, and Gentian Harvet do all translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aliquod munus sacerdotale subire.  
And that the Remonstrant may not delude himself nor others with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if every mention of these did by implication prove such a Liturgy, as for which he contends. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Let him know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is variously used in Antiquity sometimes for all the Ministerial Offices, so Zonaras in Concil. Antioch. Can. 4. and so Concil. 4. Ancyra. Can. 1. quoted by himself, if he would either have observed, or acknowledged it: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost. Psal. 41  sometimes only for prayer, so Balsamon in Can. 12. Concil. Sardic. 6. Sometimes singing of our Psalms is termed by chrysostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same Father expounds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 13. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hom. 27. in Act. so that for the proof of such Liturgies as are the Subject of this question, it is not enough to show us the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in antiquity, let him show the thing before he so Dictator-like condemn those for giddy heads that will not take his word for proofs, and believe it was the undeniable practice of antiquity to use Liturgies and forms of prayer, because he saith so.  
His supercilious censure upon our passage about conceived prayer, is not worth the taking notice of, he saith, 
Quis tuler●s Grac●●os.  We are sullen and crabbed pieces, tecchy and quarrelsome men, and why? because we said his large praises of conceived prayer, were but a vantage ground to advance public forms the higher, how truly judge; what cause we had so to think we declared from the cruel and ungodly practices of the late times which he will scarce take notice of.  
Our arguing about the original and confirmation of our Church Liturgy, he calls wrangling. For the original, the Remonstrant said it was taken out of the ancient Models, not Roman but Christian: here we took notice of the opposition between Roman and Christian, because by the Remonstrant made Termini sese mu●u● removentes: which we perceive now he is not willing should pass for his meaning, he will not have it meant of an opposition, but of a different modification. Though his instances brought to exemplify it are not all ad oppositum.  
We will not make digressive excursions into new controversies, though we are not afraid of burning our fingers with his hot Iron. Only we tell him, that the Suffrages of unquestionable Divines are not so unanimous, but that from some of them we could fetch sparks to fling in the face of him that desired their suffrages, without burning ourown fingers. Compare what the book called the Old Religion speaks of the Church of Rome, p. 6. where a speech imputed to Luther is justified as a charitahle and not too indulgent a profession, viz. That under the Papacy is all good, true Christianity, the very kernel of Christianity, etc. Compare this with what 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.  
To disprove what he affirmed, that the Liturgy was taken out of Models not Roman but Christian, We produced King Edward's Proclamation, to which he answers nothing, only owns that, and scorns us: thinking to wipe off all exceptions with the glorious names of Martyrs and Confessors that composed it. For whom (though we dare not glory in man) yet we bless God as well as he. But with all if we should say there were some holy Martyrs and Confessors of the same reformed Religion that were Opposers of it, and suffered in opposition even to a persecution, the lives of some of them being pursued from City to City, (which he knows is most true, and so may any that will read the book called the troubles of Frankfort) Would this be a sufficient argument in his judgement for the remo●all of it? But this is not the strength by which our Liturgy stands, it stands confirmed by Parliamentary Acts, and King james his Proclamation; to which we answered, that neither the King nor the Parliament intended such a rigorous pressing of the Liturgy as we have felt. Secondly, that neither our own Laws nor the Proclamation of that ever admired Prince are as unalterable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians; this he calls a bold flout, of purpose to render us odious to our dread Sovereign, and the Honourable house; as likewise in the next page seems to impute that language to us, which is his own: our loyal hearts startle to think of a repetition of the words, they are in pag. 23. of the Defence, and are concerning King james, whom in the clause we had last in hand, we mentioned with the deserved memory of a famous and ever admired Prince. We confess in some passages of that book, we took liberty to use some cheerful expressions, provoked thereto by the strange confidence, and little strength of our Remonstrant, Remembering that of Tertullian, It well agrees with truth to laugh, because it is of a pleasant disposition, and to sport with her competitors, because it is secure, and fears not the walls of her bulwarks. But what ever we have done in other places, here (we attest the great Searcher of hearts) it never came into our thoughts to use a light expression, much less to flout in so bold a manner as he accuseth us. Nor do we think it possible that any charitable Reader could suppose we aimed at any other then what we express more plainly pag. 20. of our answer, of the power of Princes and Parliaments in changing their laws.  
His next business is with our queres, the first whereof was this, Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration of the Liturgy, which we hoped had been presented in such modest terms (speaking of an alteration, not an utter abrogation, of consideration of an alteration not prescribing the alteration, only of a fitness of such an alteration, not of the necessity of such an alteration as should never have occasioned such a sarcastical Declaration, as he their makes.  
The thing propounded is so equal that the Remonstrant who makes conscience to agree with us in as little as he may: here is forced to confess much against his will (for which we may thank the Honourable Parliament) there is some need of alteration, but this confession is joined with such a height of scorn'st seems to threaten those who ever they are that should dare attempt it, & expressed in such away of diminution, as gives just cause to suspect, it is a mere design to gain upon the Parliament, and by a pretended shadow of an alteration to prevent a real and total reformation; he tells us of wiser heads than our own, that will consider of the alteration: if here he mean the Parliament, he means the same to whom we have presented these considerations, concerning whom we doubt not, but they will make another manner of an alteration than the Remonstrant speaks of, consisting only of a bare change of a few expressions, and that in the manner of them Only.  
But if these wise heads he here speaks of, are such as his own, that it may be are complotting some kind of a castigation of the Liturgy, than we fear that although the times will not serve to make such an alteration, as that of the English Liturgy sent into Scotland: yet the alteration is like to be no better than in Queen Elizabeth's time, when the Parliament having given order for the alteration and correction of the Litany, all the Alteration that was made in it, was only the taking out of that one suffrage, from the Pope of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us.  
The Remonstraut tells us of a Martyr (whom he calls Silly and Ignorant, we dare not) Doctor Taylor that magnified the Liturgy to Bishop Gardiner, as complete; but where this story is you tell us not; we could answer story with story, which would please you much less than this doth us: we could tell you of a Martyr that said it was the Mark of the Beast to receive from the Bishop a Licence to preach; We could tell you of that Doctor Tailor, who when he was degraded, having his corner Cap, and the rest of his Priestly Robes put on, when they were taken off again, said he, now I am rid of my fools coat.  
That our proposition of entering into consideration about altering the Liturgy, might not seem unreasonable, we set down our reasons enforcing such alteration; all which the Remonstrant brings under the severity of his censure. First, (we say) it symbolizeth so much with the Popish Mass, as that the Pope would have approved it: which he denies not, if he had, we could have proved it from a man above suspicion in this cause, Doctor Morton. Only he saith, If the Devil confess Christ to be the Son of God, shall I disclaim the truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? but you know Sir, that Christ would not receive such a Confession from the Devil's mouth, nor Paul neither, Act. 16. and loath we would be to go to the Devil to learn a confession. It is true, Gold in the impurest Channel is not to be contemned, but what need we go to the Channel for gold, when we can have it in the purest stream? or what need we go to the Roman Portu●se for a Prayer, when we can have one more free from jealousies in another place? Will a wiseman go to the Stews to seek an honest woman to make his wife?  
Our second Reason why we propounded this quaere was, because this was composed into this form on purpose to bring the Papist to our Churches, which we find to be with so little success, etc. In answer to which the Remonstrant first commends the project as charitable and gracious. The nature of the project we never intended to dispute, only we produced this to show that there was not the same reason for the retaining of this form, that there was for the first introducing of it, 
We know the Apostles gro●●d, this 〈◊〉 tolerate the jewish Ceremonies a while, but wh●● th●y saw the I●ws remaining handled still, they quickly purged the Church of them.  because experience tells us it hath not prevailed to that end to which it was at first designed. Yes it did, saith the Remonstrant; for Sir Edward Coke tells us, till the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth all came to Church, those times knew no recusant. Pardon us Sir, If we tell you that it was not the converting power of the Liturgy, but the constraining power of the Law that brought them thither; which afterwards not being pressed with that life and vigour that it had been, gave encouragement to the Popish faction, to take heart: add also, that at the same time the Pope negotiated to have her Liturgy to be allowed by his authority, so as the Queen would acknowledge his Supremacy, which when it grew hopeless, than the Jesuitish Casuists begun to draw on the Papists to a recusancy. But might the complying of our Papists be attributed solely to the inoffensiveness of our Liturgy; Yet what credit is this to our Church to have such a form of public worship, as Papists may without offence join with us in, and yet their Popish principles live in their hearts still? How shall that reclaim an erring soul, that brings their bodies to Church, & leaves their hearts still in error? And whereas the Remonstrant would impute the not winning of Papists rather to the want or weakness in preaching; Be it so, in the mean time, 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. And when we said that this our Liturgy hath lost us many rather then won any, We meant not only of such as are lost to the Popish part. But let the Remonstrant take it so, it is neither paradox nor slander. For let an acute Jesuit have but this argument to wield against a Protestant not well grounded in our Religion (as too many such there are in England) It is evident that the Church of Rome is the ancient and true Church, and not yours, for you see your Service is wholly taken out of ours, How would a weak Christian expedite himself here? 
Among the rest Master Abbot whom we quoted ●n out answer but by a mistake it is referred to the fourth 〈◊〉 instead of this   
To the third reason, this quaere was grounded upon the many stumbling blocks the Liturgy lays before the feet of many. He tells us that these stumbling blocks are remould by many. We confess, indeed, endeavours used by many, whether effected or no that we question; we know it is no easy thing, when a scruple hath once taken possession of the conscience to cast it out again. Among the many, the Remonstrant is pleased to refer us to Master Fisher (for himself will not vouchsafe to foul his fingers with the removing of one of those blocks we mentioned) whose book, among all that have traveled in that way, we think that any intelligent Reader will judge most unable to give solid satisfaction to a scrupling conscience. Tell us we beseech you, is it enough for a conscience that scruples the Surplice, to say, That it is as lawful for you to enjoin the Surplice, and punish the omitting of it, as it was for Solomon to enjoin Shimei, not to go out of Jerusalem, and to punish him for the breach of that injunction? or, That the Surplice is a significative of divine alacrity and integrity, and the expectation of glory? Is it possible that a man that reads this should stumble at the Surplice after? The Cross is not only lawful in the use of it, but the removal of it would be scandalous and perilous to the State; Baptism is necessary to salvation; Children dying unbaptised are in a forlorn condition, therefore Midwives may baptise, etc. Let the Reader judge whether this be to remove stumbling blocks from before the feet of men, or to lay more. But if this Remonstrant think Master Fisher so able and happy a remover of those occasions of offence, we wonder how his quick sight could see cause of any alteration, so much as in the manner of the expression, knowing Master Fisher undertakes the defence not only of the Substance, but of the very Circumstances and Syllables in the whole Book. But his last put off is this, that if there be aught in it that may danger scandal, it is under careful hands to remove it. The Lord be praised it is so: it is under careful hands and hearts, more merciful than this Remonstrant is, to remit troubled Consciences to No Better Cure than Master Fishers Book, who we hope will do by those as the Helvetians did by some things that were stumbled at among them; though they were none but Anabaptists that stumbled at them, yet the State did by Authority remove them, and Zwinglius their professed adversary gives them thanks for occasioning the removal.  
To the fourth, which was that it is Idolised and accounted as the only worship of God in England, etc. At Amsterdame, saith he; but he knew we spoke of such as adore it as an Idol, not such as abhor it as an Idol, though it pleaseth him to put it off with a scoff, retorting upon us, others say, rather too many do injuriously make an Idol of preaching, shall we therefore consider of abandoning it? We hope, Sir, you are not serious, if you be, & that not a little yourself is guilty of Idolising the Liturgy. Dare you in cool bloodequalize this very individual Liturgy with God's Ordinance of preaching, and say there is as little sin or danger in considering of the utter abandoning of preaching, as there is in the abandoning of this present established Liturgy? Cave dixeris.  
The fifth Argument was from the great distaste it meets with in many. This he imputes to nothing but their ill teaching, and betakes himself to his old shifts of diversion, and saith, By the same reason, multitudes of people distasting the truth of wholesome doctrine, shall we to humour them abandon both?  
It is a grief to see this distaste grow to such a height as tends to a separation; and it is as strange to us that this Remonstrant should have a heart so void of pity as that the yielding to the altering or removing of a thing indifferent (which stands as a wall of separation betwixt us and our brethren) should be presented to public view under no better notion than the humouring of a company of ill taught men, or as the Remonstrant elsewhere calls them brainsick men, or as another Book, men that have need of dark rooms and Ellebore. For that ill teaching to which he imputes this general distaste, if there be any such, we for our parts are innocent; our care for our part hath been to inform our people, that such stumbling blocks as these are not sufficient causes of Separation. But we think, nay, we 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. Our last reason was from the difference between this and all other Churches. To which he answers, that difference in Liturgies will breed no dis-union between Churches. Secondly, if it be requisite to seek conformity, our is the more ancient Liturgy, and our the more noble Church: Therefore fit for them to conform to us rather than we to them. It is true, every difference in Liturgies doth not necessitate a dis-union of Churches: but here the difference is too large to be covered with a few fig-leaves. It is too well known, our Ceremonies and other things in our Liturgies will not down with other reformed Churches: to the second, it is not the precedency in times that gains the Glory, but the exactness of the work.  
Our first Reformation was only in doctrine, theirs in doctrine and discipline too. For the third, that ours is the more noble Church. We desire not to eclipse the glory of this Church, but rather to entreat the Lord to increase it a thousand fold, how great soever it be, and to ennoble it in this particular, in removing what ever is a stumbling block out of the way of his people. But why saith the Remonstrant should we rather conform to the Liturgies of the Reformed Churches, than those of all other Christians, Grecians, Armenians, Copths, etc. should we set down what we have read in the Liturgies of those Churches, we believe the Remonstrant would blush for intimating, there is as much reason to conform to their Liturgies as those of the Reformed Churches.  
Our second quaere is not so weak as this Remonstrant supposeth; it is this, whether the first Reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgy, further than to be a help in the want, and to the weakness of the Ministers? In way of Answer he asketh, Whether we can think that our Reformers had any other intentions than all other the founders of Liturgies. No, indeed, we think no other, and howsoever the Remonstrant according to his confidence tells us that the least part of their ear was the help of the Ministers weakness, yet their words tell us it was the main drift of those that first brought prescribed forms of prayer into the Church (and therefore we conceived it might possibly be the intention of our Reformers also) witness the 23 Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, ut nemo patrem nominet profilio, etc. So the Composers of the Liturgy for the French Church in in Frankfort, He formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus, nullius liberiati praescribitur. These forms serve only for the ignorant, not prescribing to any man's liberty. And were it so that the main drift of the Composers of Liturgies were to help the devotion of the people, yet (what a help to devotion many find it, though we dispute not) it will be hard f●r this Remonstrant to persuade many thousands who desire with devout hearts to worship God, that the being constantly bound to the same forms, though in themselves neither for matter nor composure subject to just exception, will prove such a great help to their devotion. But this we are sure, that if the knowing before hand the matter and the words wherewith it should be clothed make people the more intent upon devotion, if this be an infallible argument, it pleads against the use of present conception, either in praying or preaching, or any other administration either public or private: and how contradictory this is to what the Remonstrant hath professed of his reverend and pious esteem of conceived prayer, let himself see.  
It is neither boldly nor untruly said, that all other reformed Churches, though they use Liturgies, do not bind Ministers to the use of them: If we may trust the Canons and the Rubrics of those Churches we may both boldly and truly say it. 
Har. Synod. Belg. cap. 11. Ca●. 21.   
In the Canons of the Dutch Churches, agreed upon in their Synod, 
Minister preces vel dictante spiritu, vel certa sibi propos●●â for●ula concipiet.  we find a Canon enjoining some days in every week to be set apart for preaching and praying, and the very next Canon saith, the Minister shall conceive prayers either by the Dictate of the Spirit, or by a set form. So in the first Rubric of the Liturgy of Geneva, the Minister is to exhort the people to pray, quibus ei visum fuerit verbis, in what words he shall think fit; and though that Liturgy contain forms of prayer for public use, yet we do not find in all that Liturgy where they are tied to the use of those forms, and no other; we find, where they are left free, as in one place, in Dominico die mane haec ut plurimum adhibetur formula, Upon the Lord's Day in the morning, for the most part this prayer is used; for the most part, than not always. So in another, after the Lords Super, 
Peracta coena haec gratiarum aut aliqua ei similis adhibetur.  this thanksgiving or some other like it is used; then they are not absolutely tied to the use of that: and by this we have learned how to construe what he hath quoted out of Master Calvine. And indeed any man that reads that Epistle may easily construe what was Master Calvines judgement about Liturgies, not that men should be so tied to words and forms, as to have no liberty to recede from them. For in the same Epistle he doth advise to have a summary collection of doctrine which all should follow, and to the observing of which all, both Bishops and Ministers should be bound by Oath; Yet we hope the Remonstrant will not say that Calvine did advise that Bishops and Ministers should be bound by oath not to vary from that form of doctrine? Calvine advises a set form of Catechism, will the Remonstrant say that Calvine meant the Ministers should never vary from the syllables of that form, provided they did dictate pro captu populi, in quibus situs sit verus Christianismus? The very words by himself quoted show what Calvin's end was in advising a set Liturgy, viz. to help the simplicity and unskilfulness of some, to prevent the innovation of others, & that the consort of all Churches among themselves might more certainly appear, all which ends may be obtained without limiting all Ministers to the words and syllables of a set form, provided they pray to that effect. Which is all that is required in the Liturgies of other Churches.  
We could name you many other Liturgies, wherein there are not further bounds laid upon the Minister then thus, Hae sunt formulae, quas tamen sequitur Minister pro suo arbitrio, These are forms which the Minister follows according to his liking. And again, Spiritus sanctus non est alligandus formulis, The Holy Ghost is not to be tied to forms. Minister concludit Orationem, quam pro suo arbitrio dicit. Haec esto formula nisi quid ille suâ sponie possit melius. The Minister concludes the prayer, which he says according to his own discretion: let this be that form, except of his own accord he can do better. In another, Minister ad precandum hisce aut similibus verbis invitat ad hunc modum orat, in these or the like words.  
And by this, (we hope) the Remonstrant seeth that what we have said, was more truly then boldly spoken. As for the Lutheran Churches, though we bless God for that truth, that is among them, for that glorious instrument of their Reformation, yet we think the Remonstrant will not say, that the Lutheran Churches came out so perfectly in the first Edition, but that desiderantur nonnulla; nor can he be ignorant, that in the ordinary phrase of writing, they are called the Protestant Churches, the other the Reformed Churches: and what if the Reformed Churches be as the Remonstrant calls them, out of his respect he bears them, but a poor handful? yet is this handful in respect of purity, of truth, and worship among them, to be preferred before all the Christian World besides.  
The Rubric in the Liturgy of Edward the sixth, saith he, is misconstrued, Because it intends only the people's ease and more willing addiction to hearing. Two of the very ends for which we desire a liberty; which if some Ordinaries (upon his certain knowledge) have often yielded, many now upon our certain knowledge have denied it, and ordered Sermons should rather be constantly cut short then any part of the Liturgy omitted, why should it be a fault in us to desire that as a favour from this Honourable House, which the Remonstrant grants an ordinary may without offence yield at his own discretion?  
3 The Homilies we say are left free, reason therefore the Liturgy should: which argument he confesseth might hold force, did they utterly abridge all Ministers of the public use of any conceived prayers. We know some men have endeavoured sacrilegiously, to rob all Ministers of the exercise of the gift of prayer, on what occasion soever: And our argument is as strong against limiting in prayer, as it is against limiting in preaching, either in whole or in part, and he saith nothing against it, only determines tanquam è Cathedrâ, that it is no less sacrilege to rob the people of a set form, by the liberty of a free expression, Than it is to rob them of the Ministers gift of preaching or praying. But the Remonstrant must prove that set forms and Liturgies stinted and enjoined, are not only lawful, but Ordinances of God, and not only warranted but commanded, as well as preaching or praying, before he do so peremptorily conclude the taking of set forms away by the liberty of a free expression to be sacrilege; and his bold closure of this Answer, how true it is let him look in what we have said before of the Liturgies of other Churches.  
4 His fourth Answer, That it is a false ground, that the imposing of the book ties godly men from exercising their gift in prayer, would have been condemned for heresy in some Consistories in England, within these few years, by such as did, from the imposition of the one, forbid the other. Whether the liberty of prayer be infringed wholly, by a set Liturgy, we dispute not. But it is beyond dispute, that the not binding to a Liturgy would endanger the liberty of prayer less.  
5 Our fifth Reason was, because many deny their presence at our Church-meeting, in regard of those imposed prayers, and we find no better way to recover them from that distance in which they stand, then by leaving the Liturgy free. The Remonstrant saith, There is no reason of such alienation from our assemblies upon such grounds. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of this we determine not; in the mean time we are sure thus it is. For our parts we profess, that we are not against a free use of a Liturgy, nor do we count a Liturgy a sufficient ground of separation from the Church, we say with Augustine, Non putamus scindendas esse Ecclesias, propter ea quae nos ex se, neque digniores, neque indigniores, coram Deo facere possunt.  
Yet we fear it is not the Remonstrants' Dilemma that will reduce such as upon this ground are upon point of forsaking our Church assemblies. The Liturgy (saith he) is either good or evil, if evil it is not lawful to be used, if good it is not unlawful to be imposed. The persons of whom we speak, and with whom in this argument he hath to deal will deny both, and tell him the Liturgy is neither good, nor yet may lawfully be imposed if it were good, it may be the Remonstram might have work enough to persuade some men of either: and whether it be easier to satisfy the consciences of many thousands in England, that are troubled about this, by argument and disputing, or by losing the bond of imposition, and taking away the cause of dispute and trouble, or to behold the confusion that will follow, if the Lord do not in mercy direct to some means of prevention, is not hard to determine.  
The Remonstran● inclines to the third, and making it but a small matter, turns it off with O miserable misled people, whom nothing will reclaim but a perfect confusion! a perfect deformity, a more profitable nonsense! And so confident he is that this will be the issue, that though this confusion appear in no other Churches who perhaps (he grants contradicting himself) begun without a Liturgy; yet with us it could be no less than what he hath prophesied: yea, so resolute he is not to yield to a liberty in what is established, that whereas we said that liberty in Liturgies could breed no more confusion than liberty in the Homilies, 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. Yea, lastly, whereas we had said, that if enjoined at all, it might be as a punishment upon the insufficient, thereby to quicken them up to more diligence and care: he scoffs at this as a singular project and unheard of mulct; and yet himself comes out with a project about preaching, never a whit better, and doth as good as confirm our saying in the latter end; Surely where God hath bestowed gifts, it is fit they should be employed, and improved to the best advantage of his people: But where there is nothing but an empty, over-meening, and proud ignorance, there is great reason for a just restraint. Let the ingenious Reader peruse the words, and consider how much they differ from that which he calls our singular project: and withal judge whether this conclusion of the Remonstrant after all his wrangling against our Queres, be not as like Bellarmine's, tutissimum tamen, etc. 
This speech was spoken in the Lord's house by a Noble Peer, and had the approbation of many others.  as if it had been cast ●n the same Scull? How this way that the Remonstrant hath chosen would speed, let the Reader judge: In the mean time we bless God, who hath put it into the hearts of others, into whose hands he hath concredited the work, to judge more wisely, and consider more mercifully; and to profess in the hearing of some of us, that they would willingly part with that which was indifferent to themselves, if they were but truly informed, it was offensive to others. According to that of Gregory, 
Greg. l. 6. epist. 6 ep. 64.  Those customs which are known to bring any burdens upon the Churches, it becomes us to consider of the removing of them.  
Thus we have vindicated the first part of our answer concerning Liturgy, Wherein we profess, as in the presence of God, that we have written nothing out of a spirit of contention and faction, but only as lovers of the Truth, and the peace of the Church, which is now miserably divided in judgement and affections, and like a young Hart upon the mountains of Bether; which rents and distractions, 
Cam. 2. 17. Bether in Heb. is division.  we are so far from fomenting, that we would willingly go over divers Seas (as Calvin once said) to find out one uniform way of worshipping of God, in which all Christians might happily agree. We well know that peace is the Helena, 
Pocem Ecclesie Martyrio praeferim●●. Cypr. Pax sine veritate est execrabile adulterium. Cyp.  that all are suitors unto; and we know as well, that peace without truth is as a painted jezabel, and to be thrown down by all those who are on the Lord's side. And therefore it hath and always shall be our chief care and prayer, that peace and truth may kiss & greet each other: And we hope that the Worthies of that Honourable Assembly, who are the great Patrons of peace and truth, will give a candid interpretation to these our endeavours, and will do that for which present and succeeding generations may justly record them as the Nehemiahs, Ezrae's, and Zorobabels, of our decayed jerusalem.   

SECT. III.  
THe business of the third Section, is to extricate himself from those snares, in which his own words have entangled him: his affection to his cause, had transported him to use some overreaching expressions, lifting up the Antiquity, and extending the Universality of Episcopal Government beyond truth, vilifying (as we know his custom is) whatsoever hath been spoken or written to the contrary. Those things we laid to his charge; Now see how miserably he excuseth himself: read the Remonstrance, our c●llections from it in this Section, and judge whether he hath sufficiently redeemed his credit, who hath neither made any one ingenious confession of an oversight, nor yet made good what he had spoken; yet he enters with his wont confidence, persuading himself he hath blown away all the arguments of the former Section, and lays on us unmercifully, calling us Cavellers, Leasers, Slanderers, Calumniators, worthy to be spit upon, etc. Such let us be esteemed, if we be found deserving.  
His first care, and almost his greatest, is, to clear himself from that which we spoke of but by the way; His condemning all, that either writ or spoke against Episcopacy, as weak, or factious, The God of heaven knows this (saith he) never came within the verge of my thoughts. Sir, we cannot parley with your thoughts, but certainly if it were not in your thoughts, your words mistake their errand: For this proposition, Episcopacy is cried down abroad either by weak or factious persons, We beseech you, let your Logic (the want whereof you upbraid us with) tell us, quae, quanta, qualis; if any man should say it grieves his heart to hear, how the pure Protestant Religion is cried down abroad, by either weak or factious persons, would this have been interpreted to concern only such as cry down the Protestant Religion here in England? Certainly, abroad not being limited, as it was not in your Remonstrance, though now you would limit it in your Defence, is a word of such vast extent, as reacheth not only beyond the bounds of the Parliament, but of the Kingdom too.  
But see how justly you deal with us, where you personate us as saying, 
Pag. 35.  Sure the man is not in his right wits, hear how he raves, sure he is in a deep frenzy: who ever spoke of the Remonstrant so contumeliously? It is language more like his, who sends men to dark rooms, and to Ellebore. We said indeed, 
Episc. by divine Right, part. 2. p. 6.  the Remonstrant was self-confounded, and we know as well as you can tell us, there is a self-confusion that is the effect of extreme sorrow, such a sorrow as makes men speak they know not what; and so did this Remonstrant: some of which expressions he yet justifies, some he minces.  
This he justifies, and saith, 
Pag. 35.  he ever will; that he is no peaceable, nor well-affected son of the Church of England, that doth not wish well to Liturgy and Episcopacy. What? tell us now once for all, whither the Parliament do not here come under the verge of your Proposition? Whom before you were so careful to exempt by one word abroad. For this is well known, if all those of the Nobility, Gentry, and Commonalty, that at this time stand not well affected to the present Liturgy, and Hierarchy, are to be counted factious and ill affected, the Reverend Fathers will have multitudes of disobedient sons to dispel.  
In the next page, he endeavours to make good what he had spoken in the Remonstrance, that Episcopal government, by the joint confession of all Reformed Divines, derived itself from the times of the Apostles (without the contradiction of any one Congregation gregation in the Christian World) unto this present Age. His Defence is first, he said nothing of Diocesan Bishops (than as good have said nothing at all) but spoke only of Episcopal Government: But was it not that Sacred Government which some seek to wound? 
Pag 36. Bishop Hall saith expressly in Episcopacy by divine right, p. 29. that Timothy was a Diocesan Bishop, and Ephesus a Diocesan Church; it seems you dare ●ot say so.  and what is that but Government by Diocesan Bishops? which he must prove to derive itself from the Apostles times, or else eat his words. Nay, more than so, he must prove that the joint Confession of all Reformed Divines acknowledge it; and not think to put the Reader and us off, with telling us, no true Divines ever questioned, whether Bishops were derived from the Apostles or no, but what kind of Bishops they were; We know what kind of Bishops the Remonstrant pleads for, and of them he said, by the joint confession of all Reformed Divines, they were derived from the Apostles: prove this, or acknowledge your error. It is this kind of Bishops you must prove hath continued in the Christian World unto this age, without the contradiction of any one Congregation. We tell you of Scotland without Bishops: you would put us off with China and Brasile, etc. but are they parts of the Christian World, as Scotland is? You never meant that every place through the whole World hath had a continued line of Bishops ever since the Apostles, we thought you had; for we are sure it is the assertion of Episcopal men: 
Episc. div. Right 2 part. p. 113.  else what is the meaning of Doctor Halls semper and ubique? and what is the meaning of that 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, unto this present age. And what means that other expression? 
Episc. div. Right part. 2. p. 110, 111.  Turn over all Histories, seek the records of all times and places, if ever it can be shown, that any Orthodox Church in the whole Christian World, since the time of Christ, and his Apostles, was governed otherwise then by a Bishop, Superior to his Clergy (unless perhaps during the time of some persecution, or short interregnum) Let me forfeit my part of the cause. The instances brought to prove the falseness of that Assertion, that Episcopacy had never met with contradiction in any Christian Congregation, 
Pag. 39  The one he turns off with the evasion of a personal quarrel; whereas the Histories tell us it was an ancient custom; and adds an odious Marginal ill becoming his so deeply protested loyalty to his Sovereign, 
Pag. 39  as if it were no less crime to offer an affront to a Prelate, then to the King. The other instances of the Reformed Churches, he puts off with this shift; that if we did not wilfully shut our eyes, we might see he limited his time unto this present age. Good Sir, bethink you, take up your Remonstrance, read your own words, Mark the Parenthesis. Episcopal Government derives itself from the times of the Apostles without any interruption (without the contradiction of any one Congregation in the Christian World) to this present age. The limitation of time here, hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacy, not the contradiction of Episcopacy, that's hedged in with your parenthesis, which excludes your limitation. Just such another is your next, having said, Episcopal Government continued in this Island ever since the plantation of the Gospel, without contradiction; and being here taken in the manner, to salve your credit, you would here alter your words and sense, and make it, that it cannot be contradicted, 
Pag. 40.  that the form of this Government hath continued in the Island ever since the first plantation of the Gospel; pray review your words, and see how well they admit this sense. Were this Ordinance merely humane, and Ecclesiastical, if there could no more be said for it, but that it is exceeding ancient, of more than fifteen hundred years standing, and that it hath continued in this Island since the first Plantation of the Gospel, to this present day, without contradiction. You would make the sense to go thus, this proposition is true without contradiction, that Episcopal Government hath continued in this Island: we say the sense must be thus, that this Government hath continued without contradiction, or hath received no contradiction, during all the time it hath continued, until this present day.  
If any impartial Reader would not take the words in that sense we did, rather than in the sense you have drawn them to, let us be counted slanderers. But in excusing the last mistake, he would be a little more serious. The Remonstrant had said; Except all Histories, all Authors fail us, 
Pag. 41.  nothing can be more certain than this truth. We cry out here of such a shamelessness, as dares equal this opinion of his of Episcopal Government, to an Article of our Creed. This he doth seriously deny, professing he spoke it only as an ordinary phrase in hourly discourse; and did He so too, that in Episcopacy by divine Right, Part. 2. pag. 47. faith, That for his part, he 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. And the same Author in the same place professeth, that men may with much better colour cavil at those blessed Ordinances of God, viz. (consecration and distribution of the holy Eucharist, and baptising of Infants) than quarrel at the divine institution of Bishops. God give the man less confidence, or more truth: is not this to equalise this fancy to an Article of the Creed? We would not have cast away so much time and paper upon this worthless business, but only to clear ourselves from that uncharitableness, falsehood, lying, and slandering, wherewith the Remonstrant here bespatters us. It is in his power to save himself and us this ungrateful labour, if he will give less scope to his luxuriant pen, speak more cautiously, let his words be more in weight, and less in number.   

SECT. IV.  
IN the next Section, 
Pag. 42.  the Remonstrant according to his Rhetoric, saith, Now I hope, they will strike; it is a Trope, sperare pro timere. He had pleaded for the establishment of Episcopacy, the long continuance of it in the world, and in this Island: this we called Argumentum galeatum, quoting Hierom for that Epithet, for which his great learning scoffs us. Well, we must put it up; an argument, or if you will an Almanac, (for it is growing out of date apace) and calculated for the Meridian of Episcopacy, etc. meaning the argument, though applied to Episcopacy, might serve for any other Right, Custom, Order, Religion, that might plead antiquity, which he denies not, but plainly grants, saying, it is calculated for whatsoever Government; if so long time have given it peaceable possession; in so much, that could the Presbytery plead so long continuance, he should never yield his vote to alter it. No, should not? to bring in that Episcopal Government which (saith the Remonstrant) hath such a divine institution, as not only warrants it, where it is, but requires it where it may be had. How can these things consist? Surely if your grounds for the Divine Right of Episcopacy be Convictive and Irrefragable, you must renounce that Government which is merely humane, and Ecclesiastical, be the Antiquity of it never so venerable, if it stand in Competition with that which may plead a jus divinnm.  
To divert that which he saw would overthrow this plea, intitling the Pope to as much strength in this argument as the Bishops, he will needs add this: That long continuance may challenge an immunity from thoughts of alteration, vulesse where the ground of the change is fully Convictive and Irrefragable. But first, Sir, you must not make a limitation in your conclusion, above what was in your premises; but since you are at a dead lift, we will take it in, and yet tell you, that this helps you no more, than the Pope still: if he may judge, he will say there is no reason for his abolition: may others judge, the ground is fully Convictive and Irrefragable. The Bishops being Judges, and the Remonstrant, they determine; no reason in the world for the change of Episcopacy; but what if others that must be Judges in this controversy see grounds Irrefragable, and Convictive: where's your argument from the long standing of Episcopacy? The other things which he refers to their more proper place we shall expect there. Only for his confident challenge he makes to us, to name any man in this Nation that hath contradicted Episcopacy till this present age: 
Pag. 45.  We must put him in remembrance, that in his Remonstrance his words were unto this present day. Which unless he will have recourse to his Trope, is more than this Age, if by this age he mean this last Century: but let it be this age, we can produce instances of some (and that long before this Age) in this Kingdom that have contradicted Episcopacy; and our instances shall not be mean.  
That blessed man Wickliff ages ago did judge there ought only to be two Orders of Ministers, 
Catolog. Test. verit. Tom. 2.  and who these be he expresseth in the following words, 
Tantum duos ordines ministrerum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Diaconos.  viz. Presbyters and Deacons, if there be but two Orders of Ministers in the Church Presbyters and Deacons, then where is your Sacred Order of Episcopacy? And if Wickliff deny the being of that Order, doth he not contradict it? In the following page he saith, Pauli, etc. That in the time of Paul, two distinct Orders of Clergy men were sufficient, Priests and Deacons: Neither was there in the time of the Apostles any distinction of Popes, Patriarches, Archbishops; it was enough that there were Presbyters and Deacons.  
So, 
Wals. Hist. Aug. Rich. 2. p. 205.  there is one in this Nation, who before this age contradicts Episcopacy.  
Of him also Walsingham saith, That this was one of Wickliffs' errors, that every Priest rightly ordained, hath sufficient power to administer all Sacraments (and consequently Orders and Penance) for they were then esteemed Sacraments.  
Consonant to this of Wickliff, was the judgement of john Lambert, 
Fox Martyre●.  who in his answer to Articles objected against him saith, thus, As touching Priesthood in the Primitive Church; when virtue bore (as Ancient Doctors do deem, and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same) most room, there were no more officers in the Churches of God than Bishops and Deacons, that it Ministers; as witnesses, besides Scripture, Hierome full apertly in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul. Though these were but single men, yet they were Martyrs, therefore we hope their words will bear some weight. We could tell you further that Richardus de media Valla in 4. Sent. Dist. 24. quaest. 2. Non ordo qui est Sacramentum, sed potius quaedam ordinis dignitas Episcopatus dicendus est: Episcopacy is not to be called order, but a kind of a dignity of an order. 
Catal. Test. T. 2.   
Guli. Occam Anno 1330 Quod Sacerdotes omnes cujuscunque gradus existant, sunt aequalis autoritatis, potestatis, & jurisdictionis institutione Christi: sed Caesaris institutione Papam esse Superiorem, qui etiam potest hoc revocare. That all Priests of whatsoever degree they be, are of equal authority, power, and jurisdiction, by the institution of Christ: but by Caesar's institution the Pope is the Superior, who may also recall this.  
We could tell you further of one Gualther Mapes, a man whom History records famous for Learning, who flourished in the year 1210, that wrote many books: among the rest, one called A Complaint against Bishops. 
Silvest. Gi●ald. in specim. Eccles. li. 3. c. 1. & 14. Balcent. 3. c. 61.  Another against the Pope and his Court. Another to the wicked Prelates. In which he calls the Pope Plutonem & Asinum, Prelates, Animalia bruta, & stercora: Whether this man did contradict Episcopacy or no? let themselves judge. But we are sure, if any man a few years ago should have so written or spoken, it had been a crime next L●sae Majestatis: we could tell them of many more, but the Remonstrant desired but to name any one, we hope we shall indifferently well satisfy his desire, by that time we have mentioned one more, Robert Longland, a Scholar of Wickliffs', who put forth a Book in English, called the Ploughman's Dream, which ends thus, 
God save the King and speed the plough,  
And send the Prelates care enough,  
Enough, enough, enough, enough.   
If single instances will not serve the turn, we can give instance of a combination of learned and godly men in Oxford; who being called in question before the King, 
Math. Paris. l. 4. Anno 960.  and the Bishops of the Kingdom, were condemned to be stigmatised and banished the Kingdom (the fatal punishment of the Adversaries of Episcopacy) for saying that the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon, the barren figtree that God had cursed, and for saying, non obediendum esse Papae & Episcopis, that neither Pope nor Bishops are to be obeyed.  
If this be not enough, we can produce the combination of the whole Kingdom, Anno 1537 (somewhat above an age ago) out of a Book called, The institution of a Christian Man, made by the whole Clergy in their Provincial Synod, set forth by the authority of the King's Majesty, and approved by the whole Parliament, and commanded to be preached to the whole Kingdom, wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders, it is said expressly, that although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles, instituted certain inferior degrees of Ministry, yet the truth is, 
Quod in novo Testamento nulla mentio facta est ullorum graduum, aut dist●ncti onum in Ordinibus, sed tantum Diaconorum vel Ministrorum & Presbyterorun sive Episcoporum.  that in the New Testament, there is no mention made of any other degrees or distinction in Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and Presbyters or Bishops, and throughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters & Bishops the same: from whence it is evident, that in that age the whole Clergy knew not any difference made by the Scriptures between Presbyters and Bishops, and by this time (we hope) you have more than one in this Kingdom, who have contradicted your Episcopacy before this age. And if we should expatiate beyond the bounds of this Kingdom, we might with ease produce, not only testimonies of Schoolmen but of others, who acknowledge but two Orders in the Ministry; but seeing you required only home-born witnesses we'll trouble you with no other: and entreat you to make much of them. Only we shall entreat the Reader to view, to his abundant satisfaction, Doctor Reinolds his Epistle to Sir Francis Knowls, who shows out of chrysostom Hierom, Ambrose, Augustine, Theod. Primasius, Sedulius, Theophilact, that Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture, and that Aerius could be no more justly condemned for heresy, for holding Bishops and Presbyters to be all one, than all those Fathers with whom agree (saith he) Oecumenius, and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury, and another Anselm, and Gregory, and Gratian: and affirms, that it was once enroled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholic doctrine, and thereupon taught by learned men, he adds further that it is unlikely that Anselm should have been Canonised for a Saint by the Pope of Rome, and the other Anselm and Gregory so esteemed in the Pope's Library, that Gratians Works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law, if they had taught that for sound doctrine, which by the whole Church in her most flourishing time was condemned for heresy, and concludes that they who have laboured about the Reformation of the Church, these five hundred years (of whom he names abundance) have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equal authority and power by the Word of God, and by this the Reader may know Doctor Reinolds his judgement concerning Episcopacy.  
There is one thing more belongs to this Section, as to the proper seat, and that is the establishment which he seeks to Episcopacy from the laws of the Kingdom, to which we having answered, that Laws are repealable, the Parliament having a nomothetical power, He answers though laws are repealable, 
Pag. 46.  yet fundamental laws are not subject to alteration upon personal abuses: Secondly, that he speaks not against an impossibility, but an easiness of change, which our guiltiness would willingly overlook.  
But consider, we beseech you, how fitly is Episcopal Government made a piece of the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom? How did the Kingdom then once stand without Bishops, as in the very page, you had now to answer, you might have seen once it did? For doth not the Marginal tell you from Sir Edward Coke, or rather from an Act reported by him in the 23 year of Edward the first, that the holy Church was founded in the state of Prelacy, within the Realm of England, by the King and his progenitors, which your guiltiness will needs overlook, for fear you should see that there was a King of this Realm of England, before there was a Prelacy. And how then is Episcopacy one of the fundamentals of the Kingdom? And whereas you say you spoke only against an easiness of change, read your words in the eighteenth page of your Remonstrance, A man would think it were plea enough to challenge a reverend respect, and an immunity from all thoughts of alteration: is this to speak against an easiness, or rather against a possibility of change? For your conclusion, that things indifferent or good, having by continuance and general approbation been well rooted in Church and State, may not upon light grounds be pulled up, Good Sir, never trouble yourself about such an indifferent thing, as Episcopacy is. Never fear, but if Episcopacy be rooted up, it will be done by such hands as will not do it upon light grounds.   

SECT. V.  
THey that would defend the Divine right of Episcopacy, derive the pedigree of it from no less than Apostolical, and in that right, divine institution; so did this Remonstrant. This we laboured in this Section to disprove, and show, that it might be said of our Bishops, as of those men, Ezra 62. These men sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they as polluted put from the Priesthood. For the Bishops, whose pedigree is derived from the Apostles, were no others than Presbyters: this we evinced by four mediums out of Scripture, but insisted only upon two, the identity of their name and office.  
Before we come to the Remonstrants' answer, we will mind the Reader of what the Remonstrant saith, That we have a better faculty at gathering then at strewing: 
Pag. 128.  which if we have, we shall here make good use of our faculty, in gathering the choice flowers which himself hath scattered; yielding unto us the main Scripture grounds whereby the Patrons of Episcopacy have endeavoured to uphold their cause. For himself confesseth the Bishop's cause to be bad, if it stand not by divine Right, and compares the leaving of divine right, 
Pag. 125.  and supporting themselves by the indulgence and munificence of religious Princes, 
The Author of Episc. by divine Right, affirms the same part 2. pag. 49.  unto the evil condition of such men, who when God hath withdrawn himself, make flesh their arm. And whether himself hath not surrendered up this divine right, judge by that which followeth. Our main argument was, That Bishops and Presbyters in the original authority of Scripture were the same. He answers in the name of himself and his Party, 
Pag. 47.  This is in express terms granted by us. We argue it further, That we never find in Scripture any other orders of Ministry but Bishops and Deacons. He answers, Brethren, you might have spared to tell me that which I have told you before, And adds, That when we allege the Apostles writings, for the identity of Bishops and Presbyters, we oppose not his assertion, 
Pag 47. 48.  because he speaks of the monuments of immediate succession to the Apostolic times, but we of the writing of the Apostles. And for the two other arguments drawn from the identity of the qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters for their Office, and Ordination to their office, he answers Ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem. And yet notwithstanding, that the Reader may not perceive how the Remonstrant betrays his own cause, he deals like the fish Sepia, and casteth out a great deal of black ink before the eyes of the Reader, that so he may escape without observation. But we will trace him and find him out, where he thinks himself most secure. For first, he falsely quotes our answer. Whereas we say, That in original authority Bishops & Presbyters are the same, he tells us, we say, That Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same, That is, saith he, There was at first a plain identity in their denomination. Which two answers differ, Immane quantum! And yet howsoever this very identity of denomination in Scripture is of no small consequence, what ever the Remonstrant makes of it.  
For the proper ends of Names being to distinguish things, according to the difference of their natures, and the supreme wisdom of God being the imposer of these names, who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices, nor mistake the proper end of the imposition of names, nor want variety to express himself, the argument taken from the constant identity of denomination, is not so contemptible as the Remonstrant pretends. Especially considering that all the texts brought to prove the identity of names prove as intrinsically, the identity of Offices, which we did clearly manifest, by that text, Titus 1. 5, 6, 7. Where the Apostle requiring Presbyters to be thus and thus qualified, renders the reason, because Bishops must be so. Which argument would no ways evince what the Apostle intended, if there were only an idenditie of names, and not also of offices and qualifications When the names are the same, and the Offices distinct, who but one that cares not what he affirms, would infer the same offices as a consequent from the identity of their names? Who would say that the properties of the Constellation called Canis ought to be the same with the bruit creature so called, because they have both one name? And this we desire the Reader to take the more notice of, because the Remonstrant passeth it over in silence.  
Secondly, the Remonstrant seems to recant that which he had before granted, & 
Pag. 48.  tells us that though in the Apostolic Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles, yet here is a real distinction and specification of the duties, as we shall see in due place. But this place is in Utopia, and we shall find it paulò post finem, for we find it no where in this book; but we hope in due place faithfully to perform the contrary to what he hath deludingly promised, and also to show how these words of his do contradict what himself saith in other places of his book.  
The testimonies brought out of antiquities, to show that the names of Bishops and Presbyters were used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he calls trifling, and challengeth us to name any one of his Writers that hath stood up in the cause of Episcopacy that hath not granted and proclaimed this which we contend for. We answer first, the better is our cause, when our adversaries are forced to grant us thus much.  
Secondly, the Authors we allege, do as well hold the offices of Bishops and Presbyters, to be used in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as the names.  
Thirdly, though we cannot name the man, yet he who names himself the humble Remonstrant, in the 96 page of his Defence, doth impropriate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Acts 20. to Bishops in an imparity distinct from mere Presbyters, saying, If they were indeed Bishops, and not mere Presbyters as the word itself imports, etc. And we think you should know the name of this man.  
We mentioned Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, under the denomination of Presbyters. 
Pag. 48.  You Answer we could not have brought a stronger argument against ourselves. Why? They are called Presbyters as well as Bishops. Ergo, the names are used indifferently. Doth it not fully prove as much as we intended? 
Pag. 49.  But they are famously known (say you) to have been in a height of elevation above Presbyters.  
It is yet to be proved they were so: yet how ever, no such elevation as did advance them into an order above Presbytery.  
For Irenaeus speaking of the Successors to the Apostles saith, 
Irenaeus lib 4. cap. 44.  Cum Prebyterio ordine sermonem sanum & conversationem sine offensâ praestant, ad informationem & correctionem reliquorum, And our Remonstrant granting an identity of names, and yet thinking to maintain a distinction of offices out of Irenaeus, comes nearer to the sense of the Popish Commentator Fevardentius, then of the orthodox Father Irenaeus. 
Pag. 49.   
To Cyprian whom the Presbyters called frater, He replies that though the Presbyters were so familiar with him as to call him brother, yet he did never so condescend to them as to call them Bishops, but stiffly maintains the eminency of his superiority, and is sometimes honour ●dutth the st●le of Beatissimus Papa. To all which we answer, first, that as the Presbyters call Cyprian brother, so he calls them Brethren, Colleagues, Fellow-Presbyters, etc. And Augustine a Bishop, writing to Hierom a Presbyter, disdains not to write in this style, Domino dilectissimo, & 
Ep. 19  in Christi vesceribus honorando, sancto fratri & Compresbytero Hieronymo. So to Praesidius, Domino beatissimo & merito venerando fratri Consacerdoti Praesidio: 
Ep. 16.  Yet was Praesidius but a Deacon as Hierome saith. For Cyprians maintaining his Superiority stiffly, we are sure he never maintained it so stiffly as this Remonstrant 
Answ. p 38.  and our Bishops do: for he (as we fully showed in our Answer) never maintained any sole superior power, but disclaimed it wholly, yet this is the thing our Bishops contend for, as you may read, Episcopacy by Divine Right, part. 2 pag. 16.  
As for the glorious Title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus, we tell you, in that age, it was a title common to Presbyters as well as Bishops, as appears ex Bibliotheca Patrum, Primum, singulos habent Papas, 
Bibl. Pat. T●m. 15●. 170 de Gcrae●o 〈◊〉 rater Liturgica.  sic enim vocant Presbyteros vel Curiones, in singulis Parochiis, cum uno Diacono. It is therefore but a mere false supposition of the Remonstrant, that the title Papa was never given to a mere Presbyter. And we hope the name Papa is as great, and Rome will say as incommunicable, as the Remonstrant would make the name Episcopus, 
Pag. 49.  out of Cyprian.  
In the next Paragraph, the Remonstrant leaving the identity of names, addresseth himself to the great question about the distinction of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters. And here we demanded, and now demand again, What these men, that maintain the office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, make the Bishop's proper office? Is it to edify the Church by Word and Sacraments, etc. 
Pag. 49.  Here saith the Remonstrant, They fall somewhat unhappily upon the very words of the branded Heretic Aerius. 
So said S●●via of Hierom before.  Good Reader, compare the expressions, and see whether they be the very words: but had we fallen upon the very words, how can that man that hath said so often, the Liturgy is never the worse, 
Pag. 24.  because the words of it are taken out of the Roman Portuise, traduce either our persons or cause, for falling unhappily upon the words of Aerius? But it seems he is very willing to take all advantages, to involve us in the crime of Heresy; For in this, and several other passages, he chargeth us with being the Disciples of that frantic Heretic Aerius, which makes us almost suspect, that great deserving Champion of Episcopacy, 
Fran. Sancta Clara.  Franciscus à Sancta Clara, had a hand in this Remonstrance, who hath driven the Divine right of Episcopacy so high, 
Apol. Epis. pag. 67. 68  as to charge all with heresy that deny it.  
But how ever, the Remonstrant should have done well, to have given better satisfaction to our tenth Quere concerning Aerius, and taken away what we spoke, before he cry out against him as a stigmatised Heretic. But if he scorn to answer us, we would entreat him to lend Bellarmine a lift in answering the famous Doctor Whitakers, 
Whit. Contr. a● Quaest 5.  Who says, I answer, Aerius was not accounted by all for an heretic: Epiphanius indeed, and Augustine following him, reckon him among the heretics, but if he held nothing besides those things, he was not an heretic, for the Scriptures and Fathers themselves confirm all these: and Theodoret in his book of the Fables of the Jews, doth not rank him among heretics, nor the Ecclesiastical history, but rather Eustathius that did oppose him, etc.  
If your greatness will not stoop to answer a single Doctor, we will subjoin a second, Learned Doctor Willet Contr. Gen. 5. Quaest 3. and a third, Chemnitius in Exam. Concil. Trid. part 4. de Orig. jejunii, and a fourth, Springlius de hodiernis haeresibus part. 1. l. 3. c. 2. which have spoken as fully in the justification of Aerius his opinion, as ever your answerers did.  
But what saith the Remonstrant to this Aerian question? Brethren, God speed you with your question. Sir, if you speak this cordially, and seriously, we are glad of your ingenuity, 
2 john 10. 11.  that though you have called us Heretics, yet our heresy is not so damnable, but you dare bestow an Ave upon us. But if you speak this scoffingly, as we are verify afraid you do, than we beseech you in the fear of God, consider how you will answer this taking of God's Name in vain, before that great tribunal, to which you make such bold appeals.  
The office we distributed into administering, Word and Sacraments, Orders and Discipline. For the first, administering the Word and Sacraments, 
Pag. 50.  this the Remonstrant grants in common to Bishops and Presbyters without any difference but what our distance makes: Which exception we understand not, unless your meaning be that Bishops may preach as often, and as seldom as they please: and we must preach no oftener than they give us leave.  
The quarrel as he makes it (we called it controversy) lies especially in the power of Ordination and jurisdiction; which say we by divine Authority is common to all Presbyters, which yet our Bishops have impropriated to themselves. To prove that the power of Ordination was in the hands of Presbyters, we produced the 1 Tim. 4. 14. to this he answers nothing of his own: only tells us in an Hyperbole, it hath received answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and he gives but one, and that borrowed too from Calvine, who takes Presbyterium of the office, not of the persons. 
Pag. 51.  Wherein saith the Remonstrant he follows the judgement of Hierome, Primasius, Anselm, Haymo, Lyranus, Erasmus, and others, as Bishop Downham hath showed. We do believe that this is borrowed of Bishop Downham, for had he consulted with those Authors, he might easily have seen how little they favour that exposition. For what saith Hierome, whom Primasius follows in his very words? Prophetiae gratiam habebat cum ordinatione Episcopatus. Doth this prove that Presbyterium is there the name of the office? If so? You must grant Episcopacy and Presbytery to be the same office, which is the very question. But we would fain know, why cum ordinatione Presbyterii or Episcopatus should be understood rather of the office, then of the person: when, (in propriety of phrase) if they had meant it of the office they would rather have said ordinatio ad Episcopatum, then Episcopatus. For Anselm, what saith he? Impositionem manuum eam dicit, quae in ordinatione ejus facta est, quae manuum impositio fuit presbyterii, quia per hanc impositionem accepit presbyterium, id est, Episcopatum, vel haec impositio manuum fuit presbyterii, qui Latinis dicitur Senior, quia ipse Apostolus, qui juxta hunc sensum presbyter intelligitur, imposuit manus suas cap●● ejus dum illum consecraret Episcopum. The comment is a sufficient confutation of itself, for the first exposition wracks the text with a violent and unusual hyperbaton. And therefore he recedes from that, and falls upon a second, Presbyterii qui dicitur Senior, quia Apostolus ipse, etc.  
Now what an unlikely exposition is this? What Author can these followers of Anselm produce, wherein Presbyterium is called Senior. For those other, Lira, Haymo, and Erasmus, we will oppose to them the Fathers of the Greek Church, who are likely to know best the genuine sense of the Greek Text.  
The same Doctor Do●nham (from whom the defendant hath borrowed these interpretations) tells him that chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Greek Fathers understand it of the persons, and not of the office.  
As for learned Calvin, in his Institutions we grant he understands it of the office, yet in his Comments (wherein we may more justly expect the full sense of the Text) he compares these two interpretations together, and let any Reader judge, which he prefers, Presbyterium qui hic Collect●vum Nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum posi●um, RECTE SENTIUNT MEO JUDICIO: Tametsi omnibus expensis, diversum sensum non malè quadrare fateor, ut sit nomen officii, Ceremoniam pro ipso actu ordinationis posuit. Itaque sensus, Timotheum cum prophetarum voce ascitus fuit in Ministerium, & deinde solemni ritu ordinatut, simul gratiâ Spiritus Sancti instructum fuisse ad functionem suam exequendam. Now which sense doth Calvin prefer? Of that which we give, he speaks positively, Recte sentiunt. Of the other, he only saith, Non malè quadrat.  
And that this Text must needs be understood of the persons ordaining, and not of the office Timothy was ordained too, will appear by these reasons.  
For first, it cannot stand with the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The office or dignity (as learned Critics observe) is rather called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nor can it well stand with the sense and construction of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What shall it be governed of? Would not any Grammarian refer it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, immediately preceding, rather than to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from which it is so far disjoined. The words in the Greek lie thus. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Now according to the sense the Remonstrant strives for, it is thus. Neglect not the gift of the office of the Presbytery, which was given thee by the laying on of hands. Bishop Downham himself, without the bold foisting in (to use the Remonstrants' words) of a Parenthesis into the Text, cannot make this interpretation good.  
We thought we had sufficiently proved this interpretation in our answer, by producing all the Texts in the new Testament, in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used, and showing that in them it signifies the persons, and not the office, and several Texts out of Hierom, Ignatius, & Concil. Ancyr. to the same purpose. The Fathers and Counsels he is willing to pass by in silence. The Scripture he pecks at, and tells us we do merely delude the Reader; 
Pag. 51.  For there it is meant of Elders of the people not of the Church Good Sir, do not you delude yourself, & your reader too out of a desire to traduce us. Be they Elders of the people or of the Church, it is sufficient to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not the office of Presbytery, but the persons in that office. And this also may answer that objection, which he makes from the 2 Tim. 1. 6. For though we grant indeed Master Calvin was more skilled in the harmony than ourselves, (the Remonstrant might have let it pass so without putting it among his Errata, turning it to themselves) yet we must crave leave herein to descent from Master Calvin, as well as Beza, Cameron, Chameir, and others since him have done before us.  
And let not the Remonstrant call it boldness in us, to say that power of Ordination is communicated to Presbyters, because Hierome and Concil. Aquisgr. still except Ordination, we must rather marvel at his boldness in putting that upon us which we spoke not: we say indeed, pag. 24. of our answer, it was in the hands of Presbyters. The Remonstrant would have us say Communicated to Presbyters, that we might seem to acknowledge the power of Ordination to be originally in Bishops, and in Presbyters only by derivation from them, which we never meant; and if we ever did use the word Communicated, it was only to note a Community in that power, not a derivation of it: as for his authors which he alleages for sole Ordination, let the Reader please to view our answer, pag. 37. 38. wherein he may receive full satisfaction, and the rather because the Remonstrant passeth over it. The third part of that office which the Bishops call theirs, is ruling. To prove this to belong to Presbyters as well as Bishops, we cite Heb. 13. 17. Here the Remonstrant cries out, Oh injurious imputation! do we not give you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum? And do we not commit to you regimen Animarum? 
Pag. 53.  So than you grant this place is rightly both interpreted and applied; but you give us, say you, the title of rectores Animarum, & regimen Animarum. You give us? No, 
This Text is brought by a late Writer for Episcopacy, to prove that as yet there were no bishops over Presbyters in the Church of the Apostles, And for this purpose he brings Hirome upon the same text, affirming the same thing.  it is the Scripture gives it us: yet you would assume it to yourselves, and persuade, that as the Pope communicates to his Bishops partem solicitudinis, so you to us Presbyters: but if the Scriptures gave us no more than you do, it would prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You make yourselves the sole Pastors, us but the Curates; yourselves, Chancellors, Officials, the sole judges, us but the executioners of your and their sentences, whether just or unjust.  
The other Text 1 Thes. 5. 12. and those four things observed from thence for the confirming of this assertion, the Remonstrant passeth over: so he doth our argument which was this, They which have the same name, the same Ordination to their office, the same qualification for their office, the same work, to feed the flock of God, to ordain Pastors and Elders, to rule and govern, they are one and the same. But such are Bishops and Presbyters, ergo. And thus deals he also with the two quotations, the one of the Council of Aquisgra. the other out of the writing of Smalcald; all which being to hard for the Remonstrant to evade, he leaps over to a conclusion of such strange things, as he never went about to prove in his Section.   

SECT. VI  
HAving from Scripture manifested the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in their original institution; we applied ourselves in this section to find out the authors and occasion of this imparity which now appears between them.  
To expedite ourselves from needless controversies, we laid down three particulars, as consented to by both sides: First, that the first and best antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscuously; this the Remonstrant subscribes to. Secondly, that in process of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop, the rest were called Presbyters: 
Page 55.  this the Remonstrant quarrels, and desires to know what was this process of time, chargeth us either with error or fraud, confidently defends this time had no process at all, but was in the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles, and undertakes to make this good in the sequel. And how he doth that, you shall find in this very section page 59 where to that of Hierom, The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Council, he answers, So they did doubtless altogether, till Episcopacy was settled, who dare deny it?  
Here the Remonstrant grants a process of time between the planting of the Church by the Apostles, and the settling of Episcopacy in the Churches Shall we say now this is the Remonstrants either error or fraud, not to set down how long it was before Episcopacy was settled in the Church? let him take heed another time how he charge men with error or fraud, for affirming that which himself cannot but give his Suffrage to.  
The third thing agreed upon was, that this was not nomen inane, an idle title, but attended upon with some kind of imparity: the question was digested into these terms. Whether the impropriation of the name, and the imparity of the place and power of a Bishop be of divine right? The Remonstrant for fear of mistaking, desires to explicate the terms of the question, and therefore tells, how fetching the pedigree of Episcopacy from Apostolical (and therefore in that right divine institution,) he interprets himself to understand by divine right, not any express Law of God, 
Page 55.  requiring it as of absolute necessity to the being of a Church, but an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had; but, Nihil infelicius Retorico definiente: the Remonstrant if he would avoid mistaking, or at least would not say that he was mistaken, should have dealt a little more clearly and punctually in the stateing of the Question.  
For first he tells us, that it is an institution of the Apostles inspired by the Holy ghost: 
Def. p. 56.  if the Remonstrant be not here mistaken why doth he page 47. in express terms grant us, that in original authority of Scripture, Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same. For so were our words, not as the Remonstrant reports them, went for the same: and why again, when we tell him we never find in Scripture these three orders, Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons (we say not the names, but orders) why doth he grant that in the same page, and fly from the writings of the Apostles to the monuments of their immediate successers? can we imagine that the Apostles did by inspiration from the holy Ghost, ordain any thing in the Church of God as of perpetual use; the record where of is not found in sacred Scripture, which was given by the same inspiration to the same men; if we may imagine it, sure we cannot believe it. And if it be an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost, why must it be distinguished from the express law of God? doth he make it but an evangelical counsel; not requiring it as necessary to the being of a Church; sure this is some opinion of a newer cut; for the last defendant of Episcopacy before this Remonstrant says thus, 
Episcop. by divine right, part 2. p. 91.  The power of Ordination hath been ever held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy, that I would fain see, where it can be showed that any extremity of necessity was ever acknowledged a warrant sufficient for others to ordain. So that in his judgement, where there is no Bishop, there can be no lawful ordination, let it be in the case of extremest necessity; and where no ordination, no ministry, and so consequently no Word and Sacraments, and no Church: and how then in the judgement of these men is Episcopacy not required to the being of a Church?  
And if not requiring it to the being of a Church, how then? requiring it only where it may be had: what a strange limitation is this? where is it that Episcopacy may not, must not be had, if it be an ordinance of Christ? where is it that the Churches of Christ may not have Word, Sacraments, Pastors and Bishops too, if they be his ordinance? It is true indeed, some there are that cannot have Lord Bishops, pompous Bishops, and once a Canon provides that they should not be in little Villages, 
Can. Sardic. can. 6.  Ne vilesceret honos Episcopatus: but these himself acknowledgeth, are but the accessaries of Episcopacy by the donations of Magnificent Princes. But what is the meaning of this, where it may be had? what doth he mean, where it may be had with the favour of the Prince? then the Primitive Church had never had any. Or where it may be had with the willing subjection of the people? then Episcopacy shall be an ordinance, if the people will have it so. Where it may be had; what? with quiet and conveniency? then you make that which you call an ordinance of God subject to man's convenience. Or what? with possibility? requiring that where Episcopacy may be had possibly, it should? what's this less than a command? yet saith the Remonstrant, here is no express law of God requiring it. Now we pray you review your work, and see how well you have stated the question.  
To prove that Episcopacy was not a divine, but a humane institution; we produced out of antiquity some places, that mention the occasion and authors of Episcopal imparity, which are not (as the Remonstrant absurdly) the only countenance of our cause.  
Our first was, that known text of Hiereme in the 1. Titus, 
Page 56.  out of which we collected five things, which the Remonstrant sums up thus: First, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are originally one. Secondly, that the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiastical custom. That before this priority, the Church was governed by the common Council of Presbyters, and that Bishops ought still so to govern. And lastly, that the occasion of this imparity was the division, which through the devil's instinct fell among Christians: this the Remonstrant calls the sum of our collection. But if his Arithmetic be no honester than thus, he shall sum no sums for us; for he leaves out one Collection which is indeed principally considerable, That this was not Hieromes own opinion, but the opinion of the scriptures. This would have stopped the mouth of his satis imperitè. Well what says the Remonstrant? 
Beliar. de Script. Eccles.  You look now that I should tell you the book is of uncertain credit. No indeed sir, we looked for no such matter; because we know that book is approved by men both of as great learning and of as little affection to Hieromes opinion as the Remonstrant is, though his lesser commentaries on the epistles be questioned. Or else you look, that I should tell you Hierome was a Presbyter, and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity which he miss. Truly sir, this we looked for, and the rather because Doct. Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right, part 2. page 122. saith, that as he was naturally a waspish, & a hot good man, so being now vexed with some cross proceedings, as he thought, with john of jerusalem, he flew out, etc. but what a slender answer is this; Hierome was a Presbyter, what then? Hierome saith nothing here, but what he saith from Scripture; and is Scripture the less Scripture because produced by a Presbyter? Hierome was a Presbyter, and pleads for his own order; doth that make his argument the less creditable? the author of Episcopacy by Divine right was a Bishop; is it sufficient confutation of that book to say he was a Bishop that made it, he must plead for his own honour and order? Or you look, say you, that I should tell you that wiser men than yourselves have censured him in this point of arianism. No indeed, for fear you should thereby comfort us against the same censure past so often upon ourselves. If Hierome suffer under the name of Aerian, no wonder we do: but if wisermen than we have condemned him for Arianism, wiser men than the Remonstant have quitted him of that crime.  
But the Remonstrant thinks to decline these common ways, and set Hierome to answer Hierome; which yet is no more than Bellarmine did before him; and and puts us in mind that the same father passes a satis imperitè upon the same opinion in the Bishop of Jerusalem; but a satis imperitè doth not condemn the opinion, but the man; for it may be truth which a man speaks, though he speaks it imperitè: yet to make sure work the Remonstrant will set Hierome to answer himself: 
Page 57  what saith Hierome? at first saith he, Bishops and Presbyters had but one title: No, Hierome said not so, nor did we. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: How doth the Remonstrant construe this? Is this in English, a Bishop and a Presbyter is the same: or is it, at first Bishops and Presbyters had but one title? with what face can the Remonstrant charge us with infidelity in quotation and misenglishing, who useth no more fidelity himself? that which Hierome speaks of the office, he would restrain to the title; that which Hierome speaks in the present tense, as true in all the moments and fluxes of time, he would remit to the time past; They had but one title; This the Remonstrant passeth from, and slips from their Identity to their imparity; enquiring the time and occasion of that, and will needs force Hierome here to confess Bishops in the Apostles days: because than they began to say, I am of Paul, etc. but will take no notice at all of what our answer spoke for the removing of this inference, unless it be to slight it, as a poor shift: nor will take notice of that which Hierome himself speaks. Haec propterea ut oftenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos & Episcopos: paulatim verò ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur, ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam: intimating that Episcopacy was not presently invented as a cure of schism, but paulatim: so that should it be granted, that the schisms spoken of here were those in the Apostles days, yet it doth not follow, that Episcopacy should be coaetaneous to these schisms, because Hierome saith, Paulatim ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam. Let the Remonstrant now ask Hierome, not us; why the remedy should be so late after the disease? and here we desire the reader to observe that the Remonstrant doth merely abuse him in telling him that Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians taxeth the continuance of the distractions raised in the Apostles days: 
Def. 58.  when it is apparent that Clement speaks of a new schism different from that Paul speaks of, raised against their Presbyters, and the former schism mentioned in the Scripture was only among the people. As for those Bishops whom Hierome names as made by the Apostles, at present we say no more, but this: Hierome, as a Divine saith, Bishops and Presbyters are the same; and to prove this produceth Scripture: but Hierome speaking as an Historian, mentions Bishops made by the Apostles, and brings no Scripture for the proof of that, but only the testimony of Eusebius his history, who alone had writ before him of that subject: Now let the Christian Reader judge whether more credit be to be given to Hierome as an Historian quoting humane History, 
jerom de Scriptoribus Eccles.  or to Hierome as a Divine quoting Scriptures. And yet what can be brought to prove that those Bishops were not the same with Presbyters?  
For the diabolical occasion of bringing in Episcopacy into the Church: if there be any fault in the phrase, it is Hieromes, not ours: therefore the weakness and absurdity is slung in the face of that waspish, hot good man Hierome, not in ours.  
The institution of Episcopacy, Hierome saith, was rather by the custom of the Church then by the truth of the Lords disposition; to avoid the stroke of which, the Remonstrant would fain persuade Hierome to own that, which in the judgement of Belarm. Spalleto, and almost as many as have writ before the Remonstrant, never entered into his thoughts; nor can be the proper meaning of his words; That by the custom of the Church, the father means the Church Apostolic, and by the Lord's disposition, Christ's immediate institution.  
This were to make Hierome of their mind. How well this may be done, let their sworn friend Spalleto give his verdict. Sunt qui Hieronymum in rect am sententiam vel invitum velint trahere; one of these must this Remonstrant be.  
As for that passage of Hierome ad Euagrium, where he says, 
Page 59  this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is by Apostolical tradition, Hierome in that Epistle sharpens his reproof against some Deacons, that would equalise themselves to Presbyters; an opinion which the Remonstrant thinks more reasonable, than that Presbyters should be equal to Bishops: 
In his defence, p. 125.  to make this reproof the stronger he saith, Presbyteris ad est, Episcopis● and a little after, he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum at que Episcopum: and carries this proof by Paul, by Peter, and by john the longest survivor of the Apostles: then add, quod autem postea unus electus qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum. The reason why afterwards one was elected, and set over the rest was the cure of schism. It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolical tradition when Hierome having mentioned john the last of the Apostles, saith it was postea afterwards that one was set over the rest, yet should we grant it an Apostolical tradition in Hieromes sense, it would be no prejudice to our cause, seeing with him Apostolical tradition and Ecclesiastical custom are the same; witness that instance of the observation of Lent, which he writing ad Marcellum saith, is Apostolica traditio; yet writing adversus Luciferianos, faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo; whereby it fully appears that Hierome by Apostolical tradition meant not an Apostlicall institution, but an ecclesiastical custom, and so much we granted Episcopacy to have.  
Hierome saith toto orbe decretum est, and it was decreed all the world over (say you) in the time of the first divisions. Hierome said not so (say we) but after these divisions, not in the time of these first divisions. Is this faithful translating? By what power, say you, besides Apostolical could it be decreed so soon and so universally? But how if it were decreed neither soon nor universally? If we may believe Hierome, it was neither soone nor at once; but paulatim by little and little, not by Apostolical decree, but by the custom of the Church.  
Hierome saith, the Presbyters governed the Church by their Canon Council. So they did, saith the Remonstrant, altogether till Episcopacy was settled, who dare deny it? sure he dares deny it, who in the 55. page of his defence, chargeth us with error and fraud, for saying that though at first the name and office of a Bishop and Presbyter was the same, yet in process of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop; and confidently defends that this time had no process, but was the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the living Apostles: but how his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there without any process of time, can stand with his donec here●, and with Hieromes paulatim, postquam, postea, let him see to that. Hierome saith they ought so to govern still: so (saith the Remonstrant) say we also, 
Page 59  and so in some cases they do. Good sir, and why not in all cases? Church government, you say, is Aristocratical. True, when it is in the hands of the best men, than it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But when the men in whose hands the government of the Church is, are bad; than it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Kakistocraticall. But our present Church government is not Aristocratical, but Monarchical: because not only one Bishop Lords it over his Diocese, but also one Primate appoints to all other Bishops. Besides, if it were Aristocratical, then ought every Minister to be a member of that Aristocracy; for certainly no man will account the Minister de plebe: in the judgement not only of the ancient Fathers, but of reason itself, none can be accounted plebs but the Laics; seeing every Minister is elected optimatim, 
job 33. 23.  and is as one of a thousand: Next you tell us there is no Bishop so absolute, as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synod. It is much he should not, when all the fixed members of our Synod are the Bishop's mere dependants, & such packing used in the choice of the rest, as perhaps worse was not at the Council of Trent.  
Thus all the art the Remonstrant hath cannot persuade Hierome to befriend our Bishops in his judgement; and is it not strange boldness to persuade the Reader that Hierome should against his judgement befriend them in his history?  
After the allegation, we produced some reasons to show, that though it should be granted these were in the times of the Apostles▪ yet the Invention of Bishops for the taking away of th●se schisms is not Apostolical: our arguments the Remonstrant, 
Page 60.  according to his greatness calls poor negative arguments, which yet we entreat the Reader to view for his further satisfaction, and remember that in Sacrâ Spripturâ locus tenet ab authori●ate, negatiuè. And good sir, how do we in them g●e about to Confute our own Authors? what do these reasons conclude more, but that Bishops were neither of Divine, nor Apostolical institution, and what doth Hierome say less? Tell not us of striking our own friend, let him suffer as an Hieronymomastix, that when Hierome crosses his opinion, calls him a waspish hot, good man.  
In the next place you looked for Ambrose: 
Def. p. 61.  yet you might have taken notice that we spoke but of the Commentaries that go under the name of Ambrose; 
Down. def. 3. lib. cap. 4. pa. 80.  which if you call a foist, all your own side are as guilty as ourselves, that cite him as well as we, and some for Ambrose; how ever this is much less than yourself did in point of Liturgy. Where we desiring to see some Liturgies not Spurious, you produced the Liturgy of james, etc.  
For the persons that brought in this Imparity, we tell you, they were the Presbyters; and prove this from Hierome ad Euagrium. 
Page 62.  The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. This you call a faithless and a halved citation: Good sir, be not so hearty, it's neither false, nor halved: not false, because it fully proves the thing for which we brought it, which was, that the advancing of one to an eminency and superiority above the rest was not a divine, but a humane act; it was not God, but man that was the author of this imparity; and doth not the place fully prove this? Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, and say we any more? Nor is it halved, though he saith this was done a Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heraclam: yet this concerned not the purpose for which the text was quoted, and therefore might warrantably be omitted, especially having proved before that, which the Remonstrant would persuade his reader we are shy of here, that Bishops were not in the Apostles times: and if the leaving out a few words in a quotation, not pertinent to the question, be the halving of it, how will the Remonstrant clear himself of this sin, who citing the Council of Laodicea p. 15. makes bold to leave out a great deal more than we did here: where a most material passage was omitted, as before we have observed. Neither did we leave out a Marco Evangelista, for fear it should prove that there were Bishops as early as the Corinthian schism. Nor did our hearts tell us that Mark died many years within the Apostles time; 
Page 62.  for Irenaeus tells us lib. 3. Contra Haeres. that he writ his Gospel after Peter and Paul's death. That which we quoted proves abundantly that the Presbyters both chose and placed one of the Presbytersin a higher degree, by their own authority, giving him both the degree and the name. Do you (who brought in A Marco Evangelistâ to trouble your reader and to slander us) reconcile if you can, Authors about the time of his death.  
But the last place he bringeth out of Hierom, 
Page 63.  is a most rare place, and may well make any man wonder with what face we can say, Hiero me ever spoke against Bishops: and why so? because Hierome saith, Episcopacy is Gods own work: where is it? in Isa. 60. 17. what are the words? Hierome reading that text according to the 72 translation, says: Ponam inquit, Principes tuos in pacem, & Episcopos tuos in justisiam, in quo, saith Hierome, Scripturae sanctae admir anda Majestas, quod Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit, quorum omnes visitatio in pace est, etc. herein the majesty of the Scripture is to be admired, which hath named the future Princes of the Church, Bishops; all whose visitations are in peace. Good reader, consider this mighty mouth-stopping argument. God hath promised the Princes of the Church shall be as Bishops. Ergo, Bishops in imparity are Gods own work: good sir, your 
* Page 77.  Baculus in angulo take to yourself against you walk to find texts again in Hierome to prove Bishops to be of divine institution.  
The rest of your quotations out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and chrysostom, they are places have been oft alleged, and as oft answered: we will be brief with you. For if you had not lain hid under the equivocation of the word Episcopi, you might have spared yourself and us a labour. These Episcopi were Presbyteri, you yourself grant that their names were common in the days of Linus, Polycarpe, and Ignatius, which are the men you here cite for Bishops. And therefore unless you can show that they had a superiority of power over Presbyters, such as ours have; you do b●t delude the Reader with a gross homonymy, whom we refer to a passage in learned junius. controv. 3. lib. 2. c 5. not. 18. In which he labours to remove the contradictions of Historians concerning the order of succession of the Roman Bishops, Linus, Clemens, Anacletus etc. And he saith, That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time, ruling the Church in common. But the following writers, fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church, fell into these snares of tradition, because they supposed, according to the custom of their own times, that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time: which is quite cross to the Apostolical times.  
To that of Ambrose calling james Bishop of jerusalem, we gave a sufficient answer in our former Book page 51. out of Doct. Raynolds; and shall (God willing) add more in due place.  
Our slip as you tell us, 
Page 64.  talks of a council; No more ours then yours, for your party can, when he speaks for them, vouch him with much more confidence than we do. But what saith this slip? he talks of a council as false as himself. Why? because the Nicene was the first general Synod: but yet there were provincial Counsels before. And the Commentaries mentioned before do not say it was done by a general Council, but only by a Council; though you by subtle coupling this Council and Hieromes toto or be decretum erat, would fain force him to this sense: which toto orbe decretum est implies no Apostolical act, nor act of a general Council neither, as we have showed before. And yet this we tell you, the Nicene was the first Council, in which toto orbe decretum erat that there should be but one Bishop in a City.  
As for Saint Austin his phrase, 
Page 64.  that the original of Episcopacy above Presbytery was only secundum usum Ecclesiae, you say it was but a modest word, and it is a just wonder that we dare cite him. Well, let us put it to the trial; Hierome having taken distaste at Augustine, writes two sharp Epistles to him, 
Epist. 11. 13.  in both which Epistles be doth extol Augustine ironically as a great man, because he was in pontificali culmine Constitutus advanced to Episcopal dignity, and speaks of himself as a poor, contemptible underling: to which Augustine answering among other things saith thus: Rogo ut me fidenter corrigas, ubi mihi hoc opus esse perspexeris: quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est: tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor. This was Augustine's modesty say you. Well, and had not Augustine been as modest, if he had left out that phrase quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit? his modesty appears in these words, tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor; not in the former. In the diminution of his person, not of his calling. S. Paul knew how to speak humbly of himself, yet highly of his office, 
Rom. 11. 13.  and so might Austin; and if he had known that the majority of Bishops above Presbyters had been of Divine, or Apostolical institution, he might have said so much; and not have been the less modest, but the more; nay he would have said so much. Quis enim est humilitatis fructus ubi detrimentum est veritatis? 
August. contra Maxim. Arian. Episc. Lib. 3. August. de verbo Ap. sec. 29.  What profit is there in humility with the loss of truth. And he that could tell another non accipiet Deus mendacem humilitatem tuam, God will not accept of your lying humility, could tell himself as much. So than though it be in humilitate personae that he saith, Augustinus Hieronymo minor est, yet it is in veritate rei that he saith Secundum honourm vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Ep. scopatus Presbyterio Major est. Thus much for Augustine's modesty. And as for the Heraldry in blazoning Aerius for an heretic falsely objected ad nauseam usque & usque, We refer to former answers.  
The Remonstrant will put us and the Readers to more trouble in the next place, 
Page 65.  because he calls our fidelity into so deep question about the quotation of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 28. Where the father is mustering up the armies of evils that might seem to threaten him, showing the invincible magnanimity of his Spirit more than conquering, contemning all: Among those evils he reckons his ejection out of his Episcopacy: which what ever others would esteem, he counts as nothing, 
Suidas tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a principal place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aliis studio est princeps locus, & he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui primam tenet sedemet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est sedibus primis vel honoribus primis dignari.  and held it a principal part of wisdom in that age to shun it, and then wishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 utinam nulla sit princeps dignitas, that there were no principal dignity (to wit, in the Church) of which he is speaking. Secondly, he wishes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that there were no dignity or tyrannical prerogative of place, that they might be known only by virtue: to which belongs that Dextrum & sinistrum, those challenges of places of which the Remonstrant speaks. All which he speaks upon supposal of the loss of his Episcopacy. And for that Dextrun & sinistrum, Balsamon saith it was the manner of their distinguishing of the place of Bishops, 
Balsam. in Can. 89. Conc. Carthagin:  according to their seniority and this occasioned those competitions among Bishops of which he speaks. The Series of this discourse is long, we must not insert it all: but let the learned reader vouchsafe to view it at large, and if it do not appear that we have alleged the place according to the genuine sense of the Author, let us in his thoughts lie under all the reproaches, which our virulent Remonstrant labours to cast upon us in his whole book. However the Remonstrant hath little cause to reproach Nazianzen with that scoff of his Egyptian adversaries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he had out of an ambitious humour changed his seat: when he that peruseth his life shall find, it would be an easier matter to remove an English Bishop from one Bishopric to another till he come to Canturbury, than it was to remove Nazianzen from one place to another. And as little reason with open mouth to fall upon us, and bid us eat our words, for saying that if our Bishops will deduce their pedigree from the Apostles time in an uninterrupted line unto this day, 
Page 66.  they must draw the line of their pedigree through the loins of Antichrist: we tell him again, let him take it never so angrily: What ever Bishops have been in other places besides Rome, if our Bishops will draw their pedigree from the Apostles, they must draw it through Antichrists loins.   

SECT. VII, VIII.  
IN this seventh Section the Remonstrant hath cut us out little work: so much of our answer as he is loath to meddle with, he balks under the terms of idle words. The rest concerning the election of former Bishops, he seems to consent to in opinion and option: only that the shortest Section may not be closed without more frumps than one, he tells us we are besides the Cushion. The objection was, 
Page 68  that the Apostles Bishops, and ours were two in respect of managing their functions. The Remonstrant will give us leave (we hope) to form our own objection. He makes it indeed of the Apostles Bishops. We having proved no Bishops (ut nuncupantur as they are now termed) Apostolical. Bring it down to the Bishops of inferior times. He (as here he tells us) spoke only of the difference between the one and the other in managing of their function. We intending to present the differences between ours and former Bishops fully to view; instance not only in the managing of their function, but in their election and accessories; and is this to be beside the Cushion? This first point of difference our Remonstrant grants, that our Bishops and former differ in their election.  
And he makes half from hence to follow us into the execution of their Episcopal office. 
Page 69.  We make as much haste to meet him, and make good what we formerly laid down, that our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two: First, in the sole jurisdiction they assume to themselves, which former Bishops never did, nor durst; which jurisdiction (being taken here in a large sense for the execution of all Episcopal power) we distributed into the administration of orders and censures, which (saith the Remonstrant) 
* And yet the wise writer of this Defence did not contradistinguish them in his defence, p. 78. where he expresses ordination under spiritual jurisdiction.  in all wise writers were wont to be contradistinguished. Distinguished they are we grant, and so did we distinguish them, page 24, 25. of our answer, which the wisdom of the Remonstrant might have taken notice of and forborn this scorn. Yet not so contradistinguished, but that the power of ordination may be reckoned as a part of Episcopal jurisdiction; taking that word jurisdiction (which was unknown to first antiquity) for the whole execution of Episcopal power, as the Remonstrant here takes it.  
The first of these, the sole power of ordination; and the sole exercise of that power, which was a stranger, and a monster to former times. This our Bishops assume to themselves, and herein differ from the former Bishops. The latter of these he grants, That Bishops of former times did not assume to themselves the sole exercise of ordination. Only he cannot let us pass; without his usual courtesy. But the former he denies, 
Page 70.  the ordination is (he saith) the Bishops, but the sole in that sense we use it, is ours. Bishops did never challenge it nor practice it, we will wash off all this; and show first that our English Bishops have challenged to themselves this sole power, and have practised this power, and then make good our quotation: and when this is done, let it be tried not who can blush, but who hath more reason to blush; the Remonstrant, or his answerers.  
For the first: that Bishops challenge to themselves sole power of ordination. We did never think that in these knowing times we should have been put to prove the Snow is white, or the Crow black. But seeing the Remonstrant will have it so, we will show first out of Episcopacy by Divine right, part 2. Sect. 15. the title of which Section is this, power of ordination is ONLY in Bishops: and in the beginning of the Section he saith, This was one of the Acts that was APPROPRIATED to Bishops ALONE: and is not this to challenge sole power of ordination? afterwards in the same Section, he saith, Ordination is one of the things so Intrinsecall to Episcopacy, that in the judgement of the Church, no extremity of Necessity was sufficient warrant to diffuse it into other hands. The same power of ordination do Bishop Bilson, Andrew's, Davenant, Montague, etc. challenge to Episcopacy. Now Reader judge, is the sole theirs by challenge or no?  
And what they challenge, that they practise: we doubt not but the Remonstrants' conscience can tell him, there are many instances in England to be produced of men ordained in England without the hands of any Presbyter. The Remonstrant is as unhappy as peremptory in his challenge he makes. I challenge them to show any one instance in the Church of England.  
Sir, the instances are without number. Some of us are ocular witnesses of many scores at several ordinations ordained by a Bishop in his private Chapel without the presence of any Presbyter, but his own domestic Chaplain, and without any assistance from him save only in reading prayers. But alas what should we fall to instances! Put case an Irish or Welsh Bishop ordains one at London in his chamber, or some Chapel, and admits him which commends the person to him to join for fashion sake in the gesture of imposition of hands, be he of what place or Diocese he will: how little doth this differ from sole ordination, and how much from that Regular and ordinate ordination of former times? Sir, these are poor toys to mock the Church withal, if not God himself too. Could such a Bishop say, as well as Cyprian, Ego & Collegae? You tell us our Bishops may say no less than Cyprian did. But doth the stile of your Letters of orders speak any such thing? Let the Reader judge by a copy, Tenore praesentium nos N. N. Providentiâ Divinâ Episc. notum facimus universis quod die mensis Anno in Capella. Nos praefatus Episcopus sacros ordines dei praesidio celebrantes, dilectum nobis etc. E. B. de vitâ sua laudabili, etc. a nobis examinat: & approbat. ad sacro sanct. Presbyt. ordinem ad misimus rite & Canonicè ordinavimus & promovimus. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum Episcopale praesentibus apponi fecimus. Construe you this, Ego & Collegae, brethren?  
But you tell us, Cyprians phrase, Ego & Collegae, 
Page 70.  was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector, much to your advantage. If a Reader could not be ordained by a Bishop alone, do we think a Presbyter could? As for Cyprians 58. Epist. we produced it not as a proof of ordination in the hands of Presbyters, much less for the concurrent act of the people, as the Remonstrant would intimate, but only for the explication of the word Collegae. But it seems the Remonstrant was resolved to pick some quarrel, and rather to play at small game then stand out.  
And if it be the order of the Church of England as well as of the Council of Carthage, 
Page 71.  that when a Presbyter is ordained all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands, etc. if there be such an order, the more blame worthy the Bishops, who being such severe censurers of the breach of Church orders in others, are themselves in the same crime, for though you set a stout face upon the business, and tell us that this order is perpetually and infallibly kept by you; Yet the world knows it is no such matter unless you mean that all the Presbyters present do infallibly and perpetually lay on hands in ordination, because our ordinations are so carried, that for the most part there is but one, sometimes not one Presbyter there besides the Bishop.  
But why do you take notice here of one Canon of the Council of Carthage, 
Page 71.  and not of the other? ut Episcopus sine, etc. that a Bishop should ordain none of the Clergy without the Counsel of his Clergy, unless it be, because here is such a manifest deflexion in the practice of ours from former times, as all the wit and Rhetoric the Remonstrant hath cannot cover.  
Your next evasion is a plain leaving the question; we are to prove that Bishops in ancient times did not ordain without Presbyters. You challenge us to prove a Presbyters Regular ordaining without a Bishop; which is not the point in question. Who doth here most abuse the Reader, let himself judge: but we are accused not only of abusing our Readers, but our Authors too. And the Remonstrant hopes he hath us here at such a vantage, as shall try what modesty is in us. Three foul 'scapes are laid to our charge. First, we abuse Firmilianus, in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordaining, which he never held; let us once again view the place. Firmilianus speaking of the true Church, saith, ubi Praesident Majores natu, qui & Baptizandi & manum imponendi & ordinandi possident potestatem: the controversy is, who these Majores natu be? Bishops saith he. Bishops and Elders say we. To prove it, we explicate Firmilian by Firmilian, calling a little before those whom here he calls Majores natu, Seniores & praepositi. Which are not so far from that clause but that they may be brought without wire drawing or foisting; 
Page 72.  and are not so remote from that place, as those words which himself produceth, which we desire the courteous Reader to consider, because we are charged by him, for foisting in and wire drawing the words of the Author: and also because the very words there cited by the Remonstrant speak of a power of remitting sins, which we hope he will not engross to Bishops, excluding Presbyters. Pamelius himself is with us: who understands by Seniores & prepositi, the Presbyters and Bishops.  
Our next escape, is but gross ignorance, in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining. Every Novice knows consigning signifies confirmation, and not ordaining. Sir, we appeal from your Novices to judicious Readers, and entreat them to peruse the text: and we doubt not but upon due consideration they will conclude for our sense: let us then plead the case, and tell you first, 
In Arnob. li. 3.  That your Desiderius Heraldus shows both the word signare or consignare in the phrase of antiquity to be as much as consecrare, and so doth Cyprian Epist. 2. and therefore it is not incapable of such a sense as we have put upon it.  
2. If the Reader please to view the place in Ambrose, he shall find that Ambrose there is speaking of ordaining men to public offices in the Church; and not of confirmation.  
3. Though it should be taken for confirmation, yet you gain nothing; for the same Canon, that put power of ordination into the hands of Bishops, places the power of confirmation also in their hands. And they among us that challenge the sole power of ordination, 
Episc. Di. Right, part. 2. p. 91.  challenge also sole power of confirmation. If any man object that confirmation is not so appropriated to Bishops as ordination is, because (as some of you say) confirmation is only reserved to them honoris gratiâ ordination they have necessitatis gratiâ this objection we have satisfied in our answer page 38. wherein we have showed not only from Loo, that the power of ordination was reserved to them only authoritate canonum: but also that it was appropriated to them for their credit and authority. Augustine speaks almost in the same words: 
Quaest de utroque mixtim. 101.  Nam & in Alexandria, & per totum Aegyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter: that which in Ambrose is called consignat, is here called consecrat; and albeit the authors of both these books be questioned, yet both of them are acknowledged ancient, yea Doctor Raynolds affirms the last of them from the 44. question was written above 300. years after Christ: this is enough to us, that in antiquity consignat is expounded by consecrat; which clears us of that imagined guilt of a solecism, that he would fasten upon us: and this may satisfy (if this man be satisfiable) that bold challenge of the former page: show us but one instance of a Presbyters regular and practised ordaining without a Bishop, and carry the cause.  
Our third charge is double, first of skill not too much: secondly, 
Page 72.  of less fidelity. Our want of skill is, in not distinguishing of Chorepiscopi (whom we brought as instances of Presbyters ordaining without a Bishop) some of whom (saith the Remonstrant) had the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes: and therefore might well, by the Bishop's licence in his own charge impose hands. Now, we may return it to the Remonstrant, that he discovers not too much skill in saying that some Chorepiscopi had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes, and yet might not ordain in his own charge without the Bishop's licence. For what needs a Bishop's licence to enable a Chorepiscopus in his own charge to do that, for the doing of which he had before the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes. This is just as our Bishops are wont to do, who give a full power to a Presbyter at his ordination to preach the Gospel, with a charge also to do it, and yet will not suffer him to preach, no not in his own Cure, without a licence. But how doth the Remonstrant make good his distinction of his two sorts of Chorepiscopi from antiquity? Here we have ipse dixit and no more. The peremptoriness of Pythagoras the master in affirming, & the silence of his scholars when he comes to prove. Bellarmine indeed tells us that some Chorepiscopi were ordained by more Bishops than one, and these had power to ordain. Others were ordained by one Bishop, and those were mere Presbyters and might not ordain. But with how much fidelity Bellarmine, and after him the Remonstrant doth thus distinguish, 
De Clericis, l. 1. c. 17.  let the Council of Antioch determine: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let the Chorepiscopus be ordained by the Bishop of the City, to whom he is subject. From which Council we gather that the Chorepiscopi were mere Presbyters, and that there were but one sort of them. First, because the Chorepiscopus was to be ordained by one Bishop, ab Episcopo, not ab Episcopis: whereas by the Canons a Bishop was to be ordained by many, or two at least. As for Bellarmine, his Chorepiscopus ordained by more Bishops than one; we leave it to him to make good: indeed we find in the same Canon, the Chorepiscopi in the plural number had the imposition of the hands of Bishops, but when Chorepiscopus in the singular number is mentioned, then only one Bishop is said to ordain him.  
2. Because the Chorepiscopus was to be subject to the Bishop of the City, ab Episcopo civitatis cui subjicitur: now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another: Cyprian pleads the freedom of Bishops: telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christ's flock assigned to him, for which he is to give account to God.  
3. Because he could not, nay he durst not exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bishop: the Council of Antioch says, non audeat absque urbis Episcopo: Conc. Ancyr. says, non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit. None of this would have been said, if he had been a Bishop, as we have in part showed in our answer, page 36.  
We deny not, but that this power of ordaining was afterward taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons, and Ecclesiastical rules, by which it was first appropriated to Bishops themselves, as Leo. ep. 88 witnesses, which to us is a 4th argument to prove that they once had it, and that they had it as Presbyters: for if they had it as Bishops, the taking of it away would have been a degradation of them.  
5. We might bring an argument ad hominem, to prove the Chorepiscopi to be but Presbyters, because they are said Conc. Naeocaesar. Can. 14. to be after the manner, or in imitation of the seventy: now according to the opinion of hierarchical men Bishops succeed the Apostles, not the seventy.  
To all that we have said in this point, we might add that not only Damasus in that Epistle which goes under his name, ep. 4. but also Leo ep. 88 proves them to be but mere Presbyters, to whose sentence conc. 2. Hispal. can. 7. subscribes.  
Now leaving the Chorepiscopi we will give the reader a hint to prove, that not only the Presbyters of Alexandria, and the Chorepiscopi, but further, the Presbyters of the City with the Bishops leave might ordain, which we prove from cenc. Ancyr. can. 13. named before: where it is said, It is not lawful for Chorepiscopi to ordain Presbyters or Deacons: nor for the Presbyters of the City without the Bishop his letters in an other parish: from which it appears, that Presbyters of the City had the same power to ordain which the rural Bishops had. Because the restraint is laid equally upon both: this is not only our construction of the Canon, Bishop Bilson, Doctor Downam. def. lib. 1. cap. 8. say the same, 
Perpet●gon. c. 14.  and Doctor Downam gathers from thence, that Presbyters in the City might do more than rural Presbyters. 
Lib. 2. c. ●. 52, 53.  So doth Spalatensis, who endeavouring to elude the text hath no other way but by foisting in a passage, which is not in the Greek text. And by this time we hope we have cleared our fidelity in quoting of the Counsels of Antioch and Ancyra: both which the Remonstrant thought his bare word enough to blast. Now we appeal to equal judgements whether the labour of this section were merely cast away or no. The Remonstrant grants sole ordination was in regard of the exercise not challenged by Bishops in the Primitive times, Though he would persuade the reader we cannot but confess it out of Hierome and chrysostom. Yet let the reader consult the 37. page of our answer which the Remonstrant leaves unanswered, and judge between us, how far we are from such confession: his only shift now is to say our Bishops neither challenge nor exercise any such power. We have evidently proved they do both, manet ergo inconcussum, our Bishops and the Bishops of former times are two.   

SECT. IX.  
HEre saith the Remonstrant, 
Page 73.  we beat the air. And yet not the air, but the Remonstrant too into the confession of that which would not be confessed heretofore by such of them especially as have contended for such a Bishop as exercised spiritual jurisdiction out of his own peculiarly demandated authority. If jurisdiction exercised from an authority peculiarly demandated, how not solely? 
Episc. Di. Right, part. 2. p. 10.  Well, now it is granted that this sole is cried down by store of antiquity. So then here we do not falsify, 
Page 74.  and it is granted that Presbyters have and aught to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their own charge. But here the Remonstrant will distinguish again, it is in foro conscientiae. But consider Reader, whether this be the jurisdiction here under dispute. Whether that store of antiquity which he confesseth to cry down sole jurisdiction, speak of a jurisdiction in foro conscientiae, as his false Margin saith, Clem Alexan. (whom we cited) doth. But indeed this distinction of the Remonstrant of a jurisdiction in foro interno and in foro externo, is like that distinction of Reflexiuè and Archipodialiter. For all humane jurisdiction is in foro externo. If preaching the word (which is especially aimed at by the Remonstrant, be an exercise of jurisdiction, Then he that hath the Bishop's licence to preach in the Diocese, hath power to exercise jurisdiction through the Diocese, and an University preacher throughout the whole Kingdom. Away with these toys. He grants again, that Presbyters ought to be consulted with in the great affairs of the Church, but do our quotations prove no more? Bishops had their Ecclesiastical Council of Presbyters, with whom they did consult in the greatest matters: and was it only in the greatest matters? Is this all that Cyprian saith? All that the Council of Carthage saith when it determines ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum; alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi, nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur. 
In our former book sententia was by a mistake printed for presentia, the whole Canon not being quoted▪  Doth this speak only of great matters; when it saith Nullius causam audiat? Is this only of a jurisdiction the Presbyters had in foro conscientiae? Were Bishops with their Consistory wont to sit to hear▪ and judge causes in foro conscientiae? good Reader judge of this man's truth and ingenuity, who not being able to divert the stroke of that Antiquity we brought to manifest a difference between ours and the former Bishops in the exercise of their jurisdiction, would cast a mist before his Readers eyes, and persuade him he grants the whole section, when indeed he grants nothing, only seeks to slide away in the dark.  
But our Bishops have their Deans and Chapters (say you) and the laws of our Church frequently make that use of them. Yes you have Deans and Chapters, but who knows not that they have a jurisdiction distinct from the Bishops, in which the Bishop hath nothing to do with theirs, nor they with his. And the Bishops also derive the exercise of jurisdiction to others (we know it too well) to Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, and other of their underlings, even to the commanding of Christ's Ministers to denounce their censures without any discerning what equity is in the cause. And what advise or assistance of Ministers is required, appears by the very stile of your excommunications. G. R. Doctor of Law, Commissary, etc. to all Rectors, etc. For as much as we proceeding rightly, etc. have adjudged all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommunicated. We do therefore commit to you, etc. to denounce openly under pain and peril, etc. Given under our Seal such a day, etc. Let any footsteps of such a power be showed in antiquity.  
Presbyters he grants had their votes in Provincial synods: we from good authority say more, they had their votes in all ordinary judicatures.  
But after all these grants, 
Page 74.  which are as good as nothing; now he comes to plead his own. We justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop, as that Presbyters neither may, nor did exercise it without him? to what purpose is this? if the Remonstrant speak of Scripture times: We have proved there was no superiority in them: if of latter times, it is not to the question: we are proving Bishops never exercised jurisdiction without their Presbyters, as ours do. He puts us to prove Presbyters exercised jurisdiction without Bishops, quam iniquè?  
But the exercise of external jurisdiction is derived from, by, and under the Bishop: No, neither from, by, nor under the Bishop, but from God, who hath made them overseers and rulers, and by the same Ecclesiastical authority that hath made you Bishops: and under Bishops not in respect of divine power, but (if at all) in respect of Ecclesiastical Canons only. Your Timothy and Titus we shall meet in due place. Your Ignatius and the rest of your testimonies you could produce would (as you say truly) but surfeit the reader's eyes, 
Page 75.  unless you could bring them to prove, that Bishops did and might exercise sole jurisdiction. Only because you so triumph in our supposed 'scapes; let us entreat you, or the reader for you to look upon your cited Council of Antioch 24, 25, Canon; where you say the Bishop hath power of those things that belong to the Church, 
Page 75.  and see whether that speaks one word of jurisdiction: or be not wholly to be understood, of the distribution of the goods of the Church, as both the instance given in the Canon, and Zonaras on that place manifest.  
One shift yet the Remonstrant hath more: and that is to tell us, that this joint government was but occasional and temporary in times of persecution. 
Page 76.  But when a general peace had blessed them, and they had a concurrence of sovereign and subordinate authority with them, they began so much to ●emit this care of conjoining their forces, as they supposed to find less need of it. Doctor Downham to whom he refers in the page before, assigns other reasons. Namely Presbyters desiring their ease and Scholastical quietness (which he saith and proves not) and also the Bishops desiring to rule alone: 
Down. Defen. 1. lib. c. 8.  which we find to be the true cause by experience. For if the Bishops be of the Remonstrants' mind, persuaded that the more frequent communicating of all the important business of the Church, whether censures or determinations with those grave assistants, which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose, were a thing not only unprejudicial to the honour of Episcopacy, but behooveful to the Church. Why should not the Bishops do it? save only, that their ambitious desires of ruling alone sways them against their own judgement, and the determinations of the law. But indeed if this communicating of all the important business of the Church with those grave assistants you speak of or with the Presbyters of the whole Diocese, if you will, be only an assuming them into the fellowship of consulting and deliberating without any decisive suffrage, leaving the Bishop to follow or not to follow their advice; this is but a mere cozenage of the reader, and doth not hinder the sole power of Episcopal jurisdiction. And this is all that Downam grants lib. 1. c. 7. p. 161. where he saith that Bishops do assume Presbyters for advise and direction, as a Prince doth his Counsellors, not as a Consul doth his Senators who are cojudges with the Consul. And this we perceive the Remonstrant well likes of, as that which makes much for the honour of their function.  
And now sir, 
Page 76.  you see that we have not fished all night, and caught nothing: we have caught your sole jurisdiction: and might have caught yourself, were you not such a Proteus, such a Polypus to shift yourself into all forms and Colours. Having proved that Bishops in all times, succeeding the Apostles, had Presbyters joined with them in the exercise of their jurisdiction; and that our Bishops have none, is more evident than that it needs proof. This is more to you then Baculus in Angulo: it cannot but be Spina in oculis, & Sagittain visceribus, a thorn in your eye, and an arrow in your heart, convincing you to your grief, that the Bishops you plead for, and the Bishops of former times are two.   

SECT. X.  
OUr next Section the Remonstrant saith, runs yet wilder; 
Page 77.  it is then because we prosecute a practice of the Bishops more extravagant than the former: And that is the delegation of the power of their jurisdiction to others; which the Remonstrant would first excuse, as an accidental error of some particular man, not to be fastened upon all. But we desire to know the man, the Bishop in all England who hath not given power to Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, execute all censures, but one: and doth the Remonstrant think now to stop our mouths with saying, it is a particular error of some men? whereas it is evident enough that our English Episcopacy cannot possibly be exercised without delegating of their power to a multitude of inferior instruments. Can one Bishop having 500 or a 1000 Parishes under him, discharge all businesses belonging to testamentary and decimal causes and suits, to preach Word, and administer the Sacraments, etc. to take a due oversight also of all Ministers and people without the help of others. 
Page 77.  Nor will that other excuse do it, That it is but an accidental error, and though granted, concludes not, that our Bishops challenge to themselves any other spiritual power, than was delegated to Timothy and Titus, Sir we abhor it, as an unworthy thing, to compare our Bishops with Timothy or Titus; the comparison is between our Bishops and Bishops of former times.  
But to please you this once, we will admit the comparison and show howeven in this particular that you count so monstrous, our Bishops challenge a power never delegated to Timothy nor Titus. 
Page 78.  And we prove it thus:  
Timothy and Titus never had a power delegated to them to devolve that power of governing the Church, which God had entrusted into their hands upon persons incapable of it by God's ordinance. But our Bishops do so. Ergo.  
The Remonstrant thinks by impleading other reformed Churches, as guilty of the same crime; to force us either to condemn them, or to acquit him. But the reformed Churches, if they do practise any such thing, are of age to answer for themselves. Our business is with the Remonstrant and the persons and practices which he hath taken the tuition of. Whom we charging as in a generality with wholly intrusting the power of spiritual jurisdiction to their Chancellors, and their Commissaries: 
Page 78.  their good friend tells us we foully overreach. The assistance of these creatures they use indeed, but they neither negligently or wilfully divest themselves of that, and wholly put it into Laicke hands. This is a mere slander: that Bishops divest themselves of their power we never said. That they do either negligently or wilfully decline that office which they call theirs, we need not say, it is so apparent. And as apparent it is, that they do intrust the power of jurisdiction wholly into Laicke hands: for their Chancellors; and Commissaries having power of jurisdiction by patent settled upon them, and exercising that jurisdiction in all the parts of it, conventing, admonishing, suspending, excommunicating, absolving without the presence or assistance of a Bishop or recourse to him: we think impartial Judges will say we are neither slanderers nor over-reachers.  
In our former answer we fully cleared from Cyprian, 
Page 79.  how far he was from delegating his power to a Chancellor, etc. This he sleights as a negative authority, yet it is sufficient to condemn a practice that never had being in the thoughts of primitive times. And we believe it satisfies all others, because the Remonstrant saith it is very like it was so: Though according to his old way of diversion he tells us, 
Page 79.  as Cyprian did not refer to a Chancellor, so neither to the bench of a Laicke Presbytery: yet he that is but meanly versed in Cyprian, may easily see that it is no unusual thing in that holy martyr, to refer the determinations of causes ad Clerum & Plebe●.  
But the Remonstrant thinks to patronise the practice of our present Bishops by Silvanus the good Bishop of Troas. And what did Silvanus to the countenancing of this practice? perceiving that some of his Clergy did corruptly make gain of causes (civil causes, causes of difference between party and party, or as you phrase it, page 91. unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours) he would no more appoint any of his Clergy to be Judge, but made choice of some faithful man of the Laity. Now this is as much to the purpose (good sir) as Posthumus his pleading in Marshal. 
Lisest mihi de tribus capellis: Tu Cannae, Mithridati cumque bellum, Magra voce sonas jam dic Posthume, de tribus capellis. Mart. l. 6  We are confuting the practice of our Bishops in making over their spiritual jurisdiction to Laymen, and he brings in a story of a good Bishop, that having a bad Clergy, entrusted honest men with civil judicature rather than them.  
As full to the purpose is that of Ecclesiae ecdici, 
Page 80.  or Episcoporum Ecdici, to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors and Commissaries. 
Balsam. in Can. 78 Concil. Carthag. in can. 100 Zonar. in can. Concil. Carth. 81. & can. 108.  For their Ecdici were men appointed to be the advocates of the Church, to plead the Church's cause before the Emperors against the tyranny of their potent adversaries. But we never read that the Bishops did put over the government of the Church to them: we could with all our hearts give this honour to Civilians to be the Church's advocates, but not the Church's Judges, which the Bishops give them leave to be: to defend the Church against the tyranny of others, but not to tyrannize over the Church: Doctor Downeham was more ingenuous in this, than this Remonstrant; who grants that till about 400 years after Christ, Bishops had no ordinary Vicars that were not Clergy men; No, say we, nor Clergy men neither: the office was not known in those times: neither can they produce any instance of any, either of Laity or Clergy that ever those times saw in that office. This saith the Remonstrant, is a poor brave. 
Page 79.  But till he can produce such instances, our challenge will stand strong enough notwithstanding his great words. But his put off is poorer; 
Page 73.  to fly from officers entrusted with spiritual jurisdiction unto such inferior instruments, (Secretaries and Attorneys) as are of necessary service in all Courts of judicature, whether Civil or Ecclesiastical.  
To make all sure, the Remonstrant refers his Reader to Sir Thomas Ridley (whose Treatise he stumbled upon in an ill hour for the main of his cause: for he tells us page 116. that Chancellors are equal, or near equal in time to Bishops; as both the Law itself and stories show. So that while the Remonstrant is over studious to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors, he overthrows the Antiquity of Bishops: incidit in Scyllam, etc. As for that he spoke of the Ecclesiae Ecdici, that they were the same in former times that our Chancellors are now: If there be more credit to be given to his Papias and Gothofred, then to the original Canons themselves (where they are called not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) we yield the cause.   

SECT. XI.  
HAving entered upon the differences between ours and former Bishops in point of jurisdiction: we descended into a discovery of this in three particulars. First, in the sole jurisdiction ours assume. Secondly, In that delegation they make of this power. Thirdly, in their execution of that jurisdiction: and here we fall upon that unchristian and unnatural proceeding of theirs, by oaths Ex officio; which the Remonstrant is very angry at, and that he may still approve himself the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or advocate of the worst causes, engages all his strength and wit for the maintaining of that, which hath been the ruin of so many persons, the rack of so many consciences, the worst part of the Spanish Inquisition — quo siculi non invenere Tyranni Torm●ntum majus.  
To defend this, he cares not how he abuseth us, Mr. Calume, the Lawyes, the Scriptures; So that he may but uphold this oath, that is now sinking under the weight of its own guilt.  
First, 
Page 81.  he abuses Scriptures in producing, Exod. 22. 10, 11. Num. 5. 19 as precedents for the oath. Truly sir, the only text that would best have fitted your purpose, is that of Caiphas the High Priest adjudging our Lord in the name of the living God. 
Matth. 26. 63.  Which how tyrannous an adjuration it was will easily appear to any that consults interpreters upon that place. Your alleged texts help you not a whit; that of Exod. 22. 10, 11. speaks to this purpose: A man commits goods to his neighbour, they miscarry under his hand; it is known he had them, how they miscarried it is not known; in this case the man is to clear his innocence upon his oath: what is this to the compelling of a man in cases criminal to betray himself by an oath? The other text Numb. 5. 19 avails you less, for if such an oath were now lawful, 
Your Bishop of the Church of Thyatira, might have given his wife lezabel (as you call her) this oath.  than oaths Ex officio might be ministered in causes of death. It is known, Adultery was death by Moses his law; and it is as well known that this Law of the water of jealousy was not moral, but judicial, peculiar to the policy of the Jews, and that upon particular causes, to wit, the invate jealousy of that Nation which could no otherwise be appeased. As for your instance out of Master calvin's Epistle, wherein you would make your reader believe that the Consistory of Geneva did give such an oath to Camperell whereby he and the rest should be tied to discover their purposes and intentions; 
Calv. ad Farel.  No such thing appears in the Epistle. We find indeed that two of that company having confessed the wickedness wherewith they were charged, and the rest impudently denying it, Calvin thought it fit to make them confess the truth upon oath. Corneus, who had confessed all before, pressing them not to forswear themselves, prevailed so, as that they confessed all; and the dancing also above what was charged upon them. All that we can collect is, that an oath was thought meet to be given, to make them confess to God's glory, what was proved by two witnesses, but that they were bound to confess their intentions here is no syllable of it in the epistle. And therefore to what purpose you bring in this to warrant your oath Ex officio, unless it be for want of better instances, we know not.  
The Acts of Dioclesian Maxim. 
Page 83.  (Let them be blamed that called him Maximilian: poor men cannot have their Press waited on, as your greatness may:) You do as good as pass by, so do you the practice of the ancient times, and which is a greater jeofailer than our Maximilian; and think it is enough to tell us, this hinders not but in case of a justly grounded suspicion and complaint of a half approved offence, a man should manifest his innocency by oath. 
Page 84.  When as we produced these testimonies to show that of old no party was put to his oath upon half proof, nor proceeded against, but upon apparent testimonies of more witnesses than one, which might be conceived to be impartial.  
Whereby it is manifest that the proceedings in judicature, for which you contend herein, differ from them of old. So hot is the man in the quarrel of his oath, that he strikes his own friends, to reach a blow at us; charging his good friend Gregory with a plain contradiction (for the words are his not ours) in which he saith we contradict ourselves. 
Page 74.  This is the poor all he hath said in defence of the oath Ex Officio; and could he have said more, it is like we should have heard it. If the reader desire to see further how abominable this oath is, how cried down by learned men, how contrary to the Word of God, 
By Bishop Hall, in his Episcopacy by divine right.  the law of nature, to the civil and and Canon laws, and to the statutes of our kingdom, he may find it in that proud braying schismatic Master Parker; 
* Parker on the coss e, part. 2. c. 8. sect. 2.  for so he is called in print. For our parts, we shall need to say no more about this oath, God in mercy to his afflicted having put into the hearts of our Worthies to condemn it to hell from whence it came.   

SECT. XII.  
OUr next Section the Remonstrant tells us, he is resolved to neglect: we should have as soon believed him, if he had said so of all the rest: we believe the neglect springs neither from a desire to ease us, nor to anger us; but because he knows not what to say against it. If he did intend to anger us he is much mistaken, for it pleaseth us well to hear him give so full a testimony, that secular employments are unsuitable to the Ministers of the Gospel. Unless in those two excepted cases of the extraordinary occasions and services of a Prince or State. 
Page 90, 91.  And the composing of unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours. We take what he grants us here so kindly, that we pardon his unfit comparison between S. Paul's Tentmaking to supply his own necessities, that he might not be burdensome to the Church, & the State employment of our Bishops. And should in this Section fully have joined hands with him, but that we must needs tell him at the parting, that had our Bishops never engaged themselves in secular affairs; but ex officio generali Charitatis and had been so free from ambition as he would make the world believe they are (neither should we have been so large in this Section, nor so abundant in our process, nor would the Parliament have made that provision against the secular employment of Clergy men as they have lately done.   

SECT. XIII.  
THe best Charter pleaded for Episcopacy in former times was Ecclesiastical constitution, and the favour of Princes. But our latter Bishops suspecting this would prove too weak and sandy a foundation to support a building of that transcending loftiness, that they have studied to advance the Babel of Episcopacy unto, have endeavoured to under-pinne it with some texts of Scripture, that they might plead a Ius divinum for it: that the consciences of all might be tied up from attempting to pull down their proud Fabric; but none of them is more confident in this plea than this Remonstrant, who is content that Bishops should for ever be hooted out of the Church, and be disclaimed as usurpers, if they claim any other power then what the Scripture gives them, especially bearing his cause upon Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the 7. Churches.  
Now because one grain of Scripture is of more efficacy & esteem to faith, then whole volumes of humane testimonies; we endeavoured to show the impertinency of his allegations especially in those two instances.  
And concerning Timothy and Titus, we undertook two things: First, that they were not Bishops (in his sense) but Evangelists, the companions of the Apostles in founding of Churches, or sent by them from place to place, but never settled in any fixed pastoral charge, and this we showed out of the story of the Acts, and the Epistles. The other was, that granting ex abundanti they had been Bishops, yet they never exercised any such jurisdiction as ours do.  
But because the great hinge of the controversy depends upon the instances of Timothy and Titus, before we come to answer our Remonstrant, we will promise these few propositions granted by most of the patrons of Episcopacy.  
First, Evangelists properly so called, were men extraordinarily employed in preaching the Gospel without a settled residence upon any one charge. 
Def. p. 94.  They were Comites, & Vicarii Apostolorum, Vice-Apostles, who had Curam Vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum, as the Apostles had Curam principalem. And did (as Ambrose speaks) Evangelizare sine Cathedra.  
Secondly, 
Page 100  It is granted by our Remonstrant, and his appendent Scultetus, and many others. That Timothy was properly an Evangelist, while he traveled up and down with the Apostles.  
Thirdly, It is expressly granted, that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops till after Paul's first being at Rome. 
Page 97.  That is after the end of the Histories of the Acts of the Apostles.  
Fourthly, The first Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus, from whence all their grounds for Episcopacy are fetched, 
Vide Lud. Capell. hist. Eccles. p. 66. 74.  were written by Paul before his first going to Rome. And this is acknowledged by all interpreters and Chronologers, that we have consulted with upon this point, Baronius himself affirming it. And the Remonstrants own grounds will force him to acknowledge that the second Epistle to Timothy was also written at Paul's first being at Rome. 
Page 60.  For that second Epistle orders him to bring Mark alone with him, who by the Remonstrants account died five or six years before Paul. Which could not have been, 
Estius in Arg. in secundam ep ad Tim.  if this Epistle were written at Paul's second coming to Rome. Estius also following Baronius gives good reason that the second Epistle to Timothy was written at Paul's first being at Rome.  
Fiftly, If Timothy and Titus were not Bishops when these Epistles were written unto them, than the main grounds of Episcopacy by divine right sink by their own confession. Bishop Hall, in his Episcopacy by divine right, part 2. sect. 4. concludes thus peremptorily. That that if the especial power of ordination and power of ruling and censuring Presbyters be not clear in the Apostles charge to these two Bishops, the one of Crete, 
So Bilson.  the other of Ephesus, I shall yield the cause, and confess to want my senses. And it must needs be so; for if Timothy were not then a Bishop, the Bishops power of charging Presbyters, of proving and examining Deacons, of rebuking Elders, and ruling over them, and his imposition of hands to ordain Presbyters, etc. do all fail. And Bishops in these can plead no succession to Timothy and Titus by these Scriptures more than other Presbyters may. For if they were not Bishops, than all these were done by them as extraordinary Officers, to which there were no successors.  
Sixtly, By the confession of the patrons of Episcopacy. It is not only incongruous, 
Vide Episc. by Di. Right, p. 2.  but sacrilegious for a Minister to descend from a superior order to an inferior, according to the great Counsel of Chalcedon.  
Seventhly, In all that space of time from the end of the Acts of the Apostles until the middle of Trajan's reign there is nothing certain to be drawn out of Ecclesiastical Authors about the affairs of the Church, thus writeth josephus Scaliger. Thus Tilenus when he was most Episcopal, 
Prolegum. in Chron. Euseb.  and Eusebius long before them both saith, It cannot be easily showed who were the true followers of the Apostles, no further than it can be gathered out of the Epistles of Paul.  
If the intelligent Reader weigh and consider these granted propositions, 
Euseb. lib. 3. c. 4.  he may with ease see how the life-blood of Episcopacy from Timothy and Titus is drained out: for if they were not Bishops till after Paul's first being at Rome, than not when the Epistles were written to them according to the fourth proposition, and then their cause fails: if any shall say they were Bishops before Paul's first being at Rome, contrary to the third proposition, than they make them Bishops, while by the story its apparent they were Evangelists, and did Evangelizare sine cathedra, and so clash against the second.  
In a word, the office of an Evangelist being a higher degree of Ministry then that of Bishops, 
Ephes. 4. 11.  make them Bishops when you please, you degrade them contrary to our sixth proposition: whiles the Remonstrant tries to reconcile these things, we shall make further use of them in our scanning his allegations in this section, to which we now proceed.  
Where first the Reader may please to observe that the Remonstrant slideth by our marginal wherein we showed the delineation that Eusebius makes of an Evangelist, and desired the Reader to judge thereby whether Timothy and Titus were not Evangelists. 
Page 92.  Only he chargeth us with boldness for calling them so, though himself afterward confesseth it, page 98: p. 100 But why must this be boldness? Forsooth, because though Timothy be expressly called an Evangelist, yet there is no text, no not the least intimation, no not so much as the least ground of a conjecture, that Titus was an Evangelist. And if so, why do you afterwards grant it? But whether you do or no, that it was so we have proved sufficiently in our answer. But let any indifferent man here consider the iniquity of the Remonstrant that challengeth us for call Titus an Evangelist without a text for his name; and yet thinks himself much wronged if we grant him not, that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Church were Bishops, though he hath no text for the name, nor for the office? Secondly, To our text, 2. Tim. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do the work of an Evangelist, saith he, 
Page 93.  rather intimates he was no Evangelist, then that he was: as if it were no more, then for the Remonstrant to desire his friend to do the work of a Secretary or Solicitor for him, this implies he is neither. A very clear gloss. Paul doth not here entreat, as we conceive, but charge. He speaks Imperative, not Impetrative. Compare this, not with the phrases of the Remonstrant, but with the phrases of the same Apostle: and then judge. In the same Epistle 2 Chapt. 3. The same Apostle saith to the same person, endure hardness as a good soldier of Christ: doth that imply Timothy was no soldier of Christ, but only so employed for the time? So again, in the 15. verse of the same Chapter, when the Apostle saith, study to approve thyself a workman that needs not to be ashamed: doth this prove that Timothy was not a workman but only for the time? When Paul saith, 1 Cor. 16. 13. quite yourselves like men, doth that show they were not men? but only so employed for the time. How would the Remonstrant have triumphed over such a high piece of ridiculous learning in our answer? had we turned off all these texts which use to be produced as proofs of Episcopal authority in Timothy and Titus with such a shift as this? this doth not show it was their work, but only they were so employed for the time.  
We add further, That when you acknowledge Timothy was to do the office of an Evangelist (for so your comparison of your friends doings the office of a Secretary warrants us to interpret you) you must necessarily mean the extraordinary Evangelist (for you scoff page 94. at an ordinary Evangelist, as a new fiction) which if so, then consider how absurd a thing it is to bid the inferior do the work of a superior. Superiors may be entreated to do the work of inferiors, because they come within the sphere of their activity, and comprehend either virtually or formally what the inferiors are to do. As Apostles have power to do all that Evangelists, Presbyters and Deacons can do; and Evangelists all that Presbyters, etc. but not è converso. Would it not be absurd to bid a Curate do the office of a Bishop? Or a Presbyter the office of an Apostle? From all this we conclude, That when Paul bids Timothy, Do the work of an Evangelist: he bids him go on with speed to execute his Vice-Apostolicall office in watering the several Churches in Asia, etc.  
But saith he, if he were an Evangelist, 
Part 2. p. 2. An Evangelist in the natural sense of the words is he that preacheth the glad tidings of the Gospel.  he may be that, and a Bishop too. For we do but dream when we distinguish of Evangelists. Truly sir, this dream was the fruit of our reading, the fancy of the Author of Episcopacies divine right, and there we find our ordinary guifted Evangelist, under which name indeed we comprise all preachers.  
The other branch of that distinction; Evangelists of extraordinary gifts and employments we find in Scripture: and in this defence too, Truth is, their ordinary Evangelists are a new fiction. 
Page 94.  True, if we speak of the office of the Evangelists, but to give the title of Evangelist, according to the natural signification of the word to ordinary preachers of the Gospel, is neither new nor fiction.  
Well, our argument we raise upon this ground is slight. Paul besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus, 1. Tim. 1. 3. which had been a needless importunity, 
Page 95.  if he had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus, for then necessarily he must have resided there. But what's his answer to this argument? Nothing, only saith it is slight.  
And that other argument brought from Timothy's perpetual moving from place to place, to prove that he was never fixed in an Episcopal station, is of as little force with him. The necessities of those times were such, as made even the most fixed Stars planetary, calling them frequently, from the places of their abode to those Services that were of most use for the success of that great work: yet so that after their errands fully doom they returned to their own charge. Let us once profess as much confidence in our cause as the Remonstrant doth in his: We challenge him to show in all the new Testament, any one that was appointed overseer of a particular Church, whose motion was as planetary as we have showed that of Timothy and Titus to have been. Or if that fail, let him but show that after Timothy or Titus went abroad upon the Service of the Churches, they did constantly or ordinarily return either to Ephesus or Crect, and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment. And let them take Timothy and Titus as theirs, the patrons and precedents of Episcopacy. But till they can show this, we must believe and affirm Timothy and Titus are Evangelists and no Bishops.  
Our next argument, from Act. 20. is but a Reed. Happy Remonstrant that deals with such impotent adversaries; our first argument is slight, 
You cannot shake it out so easily.  our second is of no force, our third is but a reed. Yet let us tell you, Haeret Lateri Lethalis Arundo. We affirmed, & upon certain grounds, Acts 20. 4: (though the Remonstrant know it not) that Timothy was with Paul at the meeting at Miletum, and from thence argued that had Timothy been B. of Ephesus, Paul would have given him a charge of feeding the flock, and not the Elders, but would have given them direction for their carriage, at least, would not so have forgot himself as to call the Elders Bishops, before their Bishop's face.  
In all which the Remonstrant saith, 
Page 96.  we go upon a wrong ground: But sure sir, you are not so ignorant of our meaning, as by your questions you would seem to be. We grant that these assembled persons, were Presbyters or Bishops in a parity, but neither in imparity, neither under Timothy nor any other Bishop. And to this purpose is our argument, from the want of directions to them as inferior: yet notwithstanding the Remonstrant would be glad to pick what holes he can in our argument; yet in part he grants what we conclude: That they were all Bishops, only with this addition, they were not mere Presbyters: but upon what ground? The word itself imports they were Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And doth not the other word▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import as strongly they were Presbyters? And the truth is they were Presbyters, whom the holy Ghost had made Bishops. Foreseeing how his own words would snarl him, if he should grant them all Bishops, he must grant there were more Bishops than one in Ephesus; he puts by that blow telling us that though they were sent for from Ephesus, yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus Thither they were called from divers parts, which seems to be employed in these words ye all amongst whom, etc. This is but a poor evasion: For first the holy Ghost tells us, that Paul did now study expedition, and did decline Ephesus of purpose because he would not spend time in Assia: Now if Paul coming to Miletum had sent from thence to Ephesus, for the Elders of that Church, and they had sent for the rest of the Asian Churches, & Paul had stayed at Miletum till they could assemble to him, this would have been such an expense of time, as Paul's haste to jerusalem could not admit. Secondly, these Elders were all of one Church made by God, Bishops over one flock; and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the Elders of the Church of Ephesus. For the Apostles were always exact in distinguishing Churches; that of a City, they always called a Church; those of a Province, Churches; Churches of Galatia, Churches of Macedonia, Churches of judea, etc. And that evasion which you use, page 12●▪ that they might be all called one Church because united under one government, makes your cause far worse. Because notwithstanding this union you speak of S. john joining them all together in one Epistle, 〈◊〉 1. calls them the Churches of Asia, and now here the Church▪ Besides this, the Syriack translation (thought by some to be almost as ancient as the Church of Antioch) reads it, the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, not only the Elders of the Church. Thirdly, you say they were Bishops or Superintendents of other Churches as well as Ephesus. But yourself grants in this very page, that Timothy was not yet Bishop of Ephesus, and yet you all say that he was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had. And that Ephesus was the Metropolis of all Asia. How then came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their mother as you call it. Lastly, that we may cut asunder the sinews (as your phrase is) of your farfetched answer, borrowed from Bishop Barlow and Andrew's. Whereas you lay the weight of it upon those words, Ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God. Collecting from thence, that there must be some Superintendents present from all those places, where he had traveled preaching; Yourself would quickly see the weakness of it, were you not pleading your own cause. Should any man speaking with three or four of the members of the late convocation, say, you all who had your hand in the late oath and Canons are in danger, etc. would it imply a presence of all the members of the Convocation because the speech concerned them all? you know it would not. But if this do not suffice, then tell us, Why must his (Alderman) be meant as such superintendents as you plead for, except because they were called Bishops, and so you would raise an argument from the name to the thing; which kind of argument if it may prevail, you know your cause is lost.  
But the Acumen of this answer by which he makes account to cut asunder the sinews of all our proofs, is this; That it is more than probable, that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops after, Paul's first being at Rome. 
Page 97, 98.  Truly sir, here you desert your old friend, Episc. by Diu. right, (out of whom you have hitherto borrowed a great part both of your matter and words. 
Epist. 2. part. p. 39  He saith, Timothy was at this time a Bishop and present, and Paul's assessor. You it seems think otherwise. Agree as well as you can; we will not set you at variance. We think he was as much bishop before as after; only we desire to learn when, where, and by whom Timothy received his ordination to Episcopacy: The first Epistle to Timothy tells us of an ordination which he had received to another office. And Chronologers tell us, that that Epistle was writ many years before Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus, according to your computation: and we leave to you to tell us when, and where he received ordination to your Episcopal office: we have perused the Chronological tables of Lud●vicus Capellus, whom you call jacob Cappellus, and have compared him with Ba oniu●, & from thence have learned that the Epistle was writ to him before Paul's going to Rome, but cannot learn from their Chronologie that ever he was made Bishops afterwards.  
The same answer (say you) may serve you for Titus; and the same reply serves us: 
Page 98.  only whereas you accuse us of guilt for our translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (every variation from the ordinary translation must be guilty) know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be translated things that remain, 
Page 99  when you and we are dead and rotten▪ And if our translators did not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so, yet so they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Revil. 3. 2.  
Your second quarrel is to these words (for a while) to which because our margin allots the space of between five or six years, you think you have us at a great advantage. If we had said he tarried there but a little while, you might have had some what whereon to fasten; but we spoke of a while, not in respect of the shortness of his residence at Crect, but as it stands in opposition to residence for term of life. He was left there but for a while. Ergo not fixed there during life. 
Chrys. in Tit. c. 1. Hom. 2.  The end why the Apostle left Titus at Crect was to ordain Elders or Bishops in every City, and not to be Bishop there himself. For as chrysostom saith, Paul would not commit the whole Island to one man, but would have every man appointed to his charge and Cure. For so he knew his labour would be the lighter, and the people that were under him would be governed with the greater diligence. For the Teacher should not be troubled with the government of many Churches, but only intend one, and study for to adorn that. Therefore this was Titus his work, not to be Bishop in Crect himself, but to ordain Elders in every City, which was an office above that of a Bishop. For Crect was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Now you know sir, that i● is above the work of an ordinary Bishop to plant and erect Churches to their due frame, in an hundred Cities. Bishops are given to particular Churches when they are framed to keep them in the Apostolical truth, not to lay foundations, or to exaessifie some imperfect beginnings. This service Titus did in Crect, (the same work which the Apostle did when he visited the Churches of Asia, Acts 14. 23.) which being finished, the same Apostolical power which sent him thither, removed him thence again for the service of other Churches, as we have formerly showed from Scripture. And though the Remonstrant tells us this calling away could no whit have impeached the truth of his Episcopacy; We must crave leave to tell him, that though it may be one journey upon some extraordinary Church service might consist with such a fixed station as Episcopacy is. Yet an ordinary frequent course of jornying, such as Titus his was cannot; unless he will grant that Timothy might be a Bishop and an Evangelist at the same time. But this is contrary to the Remonstrants one definition of an Evangelist, page 94. And therefore he chooseth rather to say Timothy was first an Evangelist when he traveled abroad, and afterward a Bishop when he settled at home. 
Page 100  This is more absurd than the former. For if ever Titus were a Bishop; it was then when Paul left him in Crect to ordain Elders in every City: And after that time was the greatest part of his travels, as we have showed in our answer. 
Ans. p. 51.  All these journeys did Titus make after he was left in Crect, nor do we find any where record of his return thither: Therefore according to this rule, Titus should be first a Bishop, and afterwards an Evangelist. Or if the greatest part of Titus his travels had been before his delegation to Crect, yet it had been no less absurd to say that afterwards he did descend from the degree of an Evangelist to the station of Episcopacy. We hope the Remonstrant will not deny but an Evangelist was as far above a Bishop as any Bishop can fancy himself to be above a Presbyter. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And if for a Bishop to quit his Episcopacy and suffer himself to be reduced to the rank of a mere Presbyter, be a crime so heinous, so odious, 
Epis. Diu. Rig. part 2.  that it had been much better to have been unborn then to live to give so heinous a scandal to God's Church, and so deep a wound to his holy truth and ordinances, a river, an ocean can neither drown nor wash off the offence. What is it to reduce an Evangelist to the form of a Bishop?  
We had granted that some Fathers call Timothy and Titus Bishops; the Remonstrant replies, some, nay all, Be it so, as long as himself hath granted the Fathers did use the titles of Bishops and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, But there is a Cloud of witnesses of much antiquity which avers Timothy and Titus to have liv●d and died Bishop of Ephesus & Crect. But this cloud will soon blow over. 
Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10.  The Magdeburgenses tell us, That there is nothing expressly or certainly delivered by any approved writer to show how, or how long Timothy was Doctor or Governor of the Church of Ephesus. Therefore we cannot certainly affirm that he suffered martyrdom at Ephesus, being stoned to death for reproving the idolatry of the Ephesians at the porch of Dian●s Temple, which yet the most have reported. Let the Reader further know that his cloud of witnesses, who aver Timothy and Titus to be Bishops, have borrowed their testimonies from Eusebius, of whom Scaliger saith, and Doctor Raynolds approves of it. That he read ancient Histories parum attente, which they prove by many instances. And all that Eusebius saith, is only sic scribitur. It is so reported. But from whence had he this History? even from Clemens fabulous, and Hegesippus not exstant. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And therefore that which is answered by our learned Divines concerning Peter being at Rome and dying there (which is also recorded by Eusebius) That because Eusebiu● had it from Papias an Author of little esteem: hence they think it a sufficient argument to deny the truth of the History, though asserted by never so many Authors relying upon one of so little credit. The same answer will fully serve to all the authorities produced for Timothy's and Titus being Bishops from antiquity. And that which Thucydides saith of the ancient Greek Historia●s, may as truly be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others: Quae a majoribus acceperant Posteri, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 securi examinis suis item posteris tradiderunt.  
We further showed how the Fathers called Timothy and Titus Bishops viz. in the same sense which learned D. Raynolds says, they also used to call the Apostles Bishops, even in a general signification, because they did attend that Church for a time. etc. This the Remonstrant will not give us leave to do, but without his leave we shall make it good. We say therefore further: That when the Apostles or Evangelists (perhaps james at Jerusalem, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Crect) did stay longer at one Church, and exercised such a power, as the Bishops in succeeding ages did aspire unto: when the Fathers would set forth this power of an Apostle or Evangelists long residing in one Church, they (labouring to do it in a familiar way) did similitudinarily call them Bishops, and sometimes Archbishops or Patriarcks, which all confess were offices not heard of in the Apostles times; not meaning they were so formally, but eminently: neither could they call them so properly, for the power they exercised was in them formally Apostolical or Evangelicall, reaching not only to the Church where then they resided, but to all neighbouring and bordering Churches, as far as was possible for them to oversee, or the occasions of the Church did require; they having no bounded Dioceses, but had the care of all the Churches. In this sense they might call them so, but for either an Apostle or Evangelist to be ordained a Bishop or Presbyter had been both unnecessary and absurd: unnecessary, because the higher degree includes the inferior eminently, though not formally; and absurd to descend lower, that after they had been Apostolically or Evangelically employed in taking care of all the Churches, they should be ordained to a work which should so limit them, as to make them less useful to the Church of God.  
But, saith he, all this discourse is needless, whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists or no; sure we are, here they stand for persons charged with those offices and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church-governors' in all succeeding generations: Here first you give us no ground of your sureness, nor can give us any other then what may be said of the Apostles, for they also stand as persons charged, etc. Secondly, it is true the substance of those cares and offices, which belong to Apostles and Evangelists is transmitted to the ordinary Church-governors', as far as is necessary for the edification of the Church, else the Lord had not sufficiently provided for his Church: all the question is, whether these Church-governors' are by way of Aristocracy the common Council of Presbyters, or by way of Monarchy Diocesan Bishops? Now unless you prove that Timothy and Titus were ordinary officers (or as Doctor Hall calls them, Diocesan Bishops) to whom as to individual persons such care and offices were individually entrusted, you will never out of Timothy and Titus defend Diocesan Bishops. Thirdly, though the substance of these cares and offices were to be transmitted to ordinary Church-governors', yet they are not transmitted in that eminency or personal height, in which they were in the Apostles and Evangelists: an Apostle where ever he lived might govern and command all Evangelists, all Presbyters etc. an Evangelist might govern all Presbyters, etc. but no Presbyter or Bishop might command others, only the common Council of Presbyters may charge any or many Presbyters, as occasion shall require. In a word, these ordinary Church-governors' succeed the extraordinary officers, not in the same line and degree, as one brother dying, another succeeds him in the inheritance; but as men of an other order, and in a different line. Let the Remonstrant therefore take Timothy and Titus as he finds them, that is, Evangelists, men of extraordinary dignity and authority in the Church of Christ: Let him with his first confidence maintain that our Bishops challenge no other spiritual power than was delegated to them. We shall upon better grounds maintain with better confidence, that if they challenge the same, they ought to be disclaimed for usurpers.  
But much more challenging such a power as was never exercised by Timothy and Titus, as we demonstrated in our former answer in several instances; which are so commonly known as our Remonstrant is ashamed to deny them: only plays them off, partly with his old shift, the abuse of the person, not of the Calling. But we beseech you sir, tell us whether these persons do not perpetrate these abuses (though by their own vice, yet) by virtue of their place and Callings. Partly by retorting questions upon us; when, or where did our Bishop's challenge to ordain alone; or to govern alone? we have showed you when and where already, when or where did our Bishop's challenge power to pass a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder? 
Page 102.  Sure your own conscience can tell that hath taught you to apply that to an Elder in office which we only spoke (in Scripture phrase) of an Elder in general. It was your guilt, not our ignorance that turned it to an Elder in office. Where did, say you, our Bishops give Commission to Chancellors, Commissaries, etc. to rail upon Presbyters; to accuse them without just ground, etc. where have not Chancellors done so? and what power have they but by Bishop's Commission to meddle with any thing in Church affairs? And where is the Bishop that hath forbid it them? Qui non prohibet facit. Only there is one practice of our Bishops he is something more laborious to justify: That is, their casting out unconforming brethren, commonly known in their Court language by the name of schismatics and heretics, which Timothy and Titus never did, nor had any such power delegated to them; heretics indeed the Apostles gave them power to reject: but we had hoped the refusal of the use of a ceremony should never have been equalised in the punishment either to heresy or schism. But the Remonstrant hath found Scripture for it. Loth not the Apostle wish that they were cut off that trouble you? but sure it is one thing to wish men cut off by God, and another thing to cut them off by the censure of the Church. Besides this was written to the Galatians; and they that troubled them, were such as maintained doctrines against the foundation, i. Justification by works of the Law, etc. which we think are very near of kin to heretics. I am sure far above the crime of the Remonstrants unconforming brethren, who are unsettled in points of a mean difference, (which their usual language knows by no better terms then of schismatics and factious) yet even such have fallen under the heaviest censures of suspension, excommunication, deprivation, etc. which the Remonstrant unable to deny would justify, which when he shall be able to do, he may do something towards the patronising of Bishops. But in the mean time let him not say they are our own ill raised suggestions, but their own ill assumed and worse managed authority, that makes them fear to be disclaimed as usurpers.  
The second Scripture ground which the Remonstrant is ambitious to draw in for the support of his Episcopal cause, is the instance of the Angels of the seven Churches, which because it is locus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and cried up as argumentum verè Achilleum, we did on purpose enlarge ourselves about it. And for our pains the Remonstrant, as if all learning and acuteness were locked up in his breast (Narcissus like in love with his own shadow) professeth that this piece of the task fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand, etc. Which if it be so, 
Page 103.  it will redound the more to the Remonstrants' discredit, when it shall appear that he is so shamefully foiled and wounded by so dull an adversary. He objects Colemorts oft sod, when he cannot but know that the whole substance of his own book is borrowed from Bishop Bilson and Doctor Downham. And that there is nothing in this discourse about the Angels, but either it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But before we come to answer our Remonstrants' particulars, we will premise something in general about these Asian Angels.  
It may seem strange that the defenders of Episcopacy lay so much weight of argument upon the word or appellation of Angel; which themselves know to be a title not impropriated to the chief Ministers of the Church, but common to all that bring the glad tidings of the Gospel; yea to all the messengers of the Lord of Hosts. We conceive there are 2. main reasons that induce them to insist so much on this: First they find it the most easy way of avoiding the dint of all the Arguments brought against them out of the History of the Acts and Epistles, by placing one above the rest of the Presbyters in the period of the Apostles times. And so finding in the Revelation (which was written the last of all the parts of the Scripture, except peradventure the Gospel written by the same pen) an expression which may seem to favour their cause, they improve it to the utmost. Partly because hereby they evade all our arguments which we bring out of the Scripture. Do we prove out of the 20. of Acts, Presbyters and Bishops to be all one? Do we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter? Do we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum? All shall be granted us, and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight, by telling us, that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men. Demand where this is extant? The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded presently. And partly because we have no other Scripture of latter inspiration and edition, whereby to prove the contrary.  
Another inducement is, because the writers near the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bishop, and as they would have us believe, some ways distinguished from a Presbyter. Some of them mentioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches; as Polycarpus of Smyrna & Ignatius (who is said to have been martyred within twelve years after the Revelation was written,) wrote letters to the several Churches, wherein he mentioneth their Bishop's distinct from their Presbyters. 
Episc. by Di. Right, 1 pt. 35.  Now (saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right) the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did. Who can better tell a man's pace then he that follows him close at heels? And this hath so plausible a show, that all are condemned as blind, or wilful, who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostolical institution, or think that the Church of Christ, should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles. But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabric as Episcopacy by Divine right, or Apostolical institution we desire the Reader to judge by that that follows.  
First, the thing they lay as their foundation is a mere metaphorical word, and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common.  
Secondly, the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop, he names Presbyters frequently; especially in this book, yea where he would set out the office of those that are nearest to the throne of Christ in his Church, Revel. 4. And whereas in Saint john's days some new expressions were used in the Christian Church, which were not in Scripture: As the Christian Sabbath began to be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Christ himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now both these are found in the writings of S. john; and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase, and not mention a new office erected in the Church, as you would make us believe.  
Neither thirdly, in any of his writings the least intimation of superiority of one Presbyter over another, save only where he names Diotrephes as one ambitiously affecting such a Primacy. Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopal authority may be collected. So that did not the testimonies that lived soon after make the argument plausible, it would appear ridiculous. But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely unable to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended.  
Suppose we were as verily persuaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which go under his name (which yet we have just cause to doubt of, as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them, and some all) as we can be persuaded that Tully wrote his: All this can persuade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors, but only by a humane faith: but neither is that so. The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give clear evidence to the contrary. It is granted on all sides that there is no piece of antiquity that deserves more esteem than the Epistle of Clement, 
For the further high commendation of Clement and this his piece, See Epilogue. by div. right part ●●●ct. 10. p. 59, 60. Whom yet he hath wronged in his quotations.  lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patrick Young. And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one, as appears by what follows: The occasion of that Epistle seems to be a new sedition raised by the Corinthians against their Presbyters, page 57 58. (not as Bishop Hall says, the continuation of the schisms amongst them in the Apostles days:) Clemens to remove their present sedition tells them how God hath always appointed several orders in his Church, which must not be confounded; first, telling them how it was in the Jewish Church; then for the times of the Gospel, tells them, that Christ sent his Apostles through Countries and Cities, in which they constituted the first fruits (or the chief of them) unto Bishops and Deacons, for them who should believe afterward, p. 54. 55.  
Those whom he calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he calls Presbyters, pa. 58, 62, 69. All which places do evidently convince that in Clement his judgement, the Apostle appointed but two officers (that is Bishops and Deacons) to bring men to believe: Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jews, High-priests, Priests, and Levites, coming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospel, he doth mention only Bishops and Deacons: and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons, ever after he calls Presbyters. And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldness of the author of Epis. by divine right, who hath endeavoured to wiredraw this Author (so much magnified by him) to maintain his Prelatical Episcopacy: and that both by foisting in the word withal into this translation which is not in the Text, that the Reader might be seduced to believe that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices. And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbytery: whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus & Presbyter are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: And so also by the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) he would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name: whereas it appears by the Epistle itself, that the controversy was not about the name, but dignity of Episcopacy: for it was about the deposition of their godly Presbyters, p. 57, 58. And the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9 & Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By all this we see that the most genuine and nearest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference.  
Lastly, it is worth our observation, that the same writers who (as they say) testify that these 7. Angels were in a superior degree to Presbyters, do likewise affirm that the Apostle john sat many years B. of Ephesus, and was the Metropolitan of all Asia, in which we suppose the Remonstrant will allow his readers a liberty of believing him, and allow us a liberty to tell him that D Whitakers saith, Patres cum jacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum, non propriè sumunt Episcopi nomen, 
Whitak. de Pontif. qu. 2. cap 15.  sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in quibus aliquamdin commorati sunt. And in the same place, Et si propriè de Episcopo loquatur, absurdum est Apostolos suisse Episcopos. Nam qui propriè Episcopus est, is Apostolous non potest esse▪ quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae. At Apostoli plurium Ecclesiarum fundatores & inspectores erant. And again, Hoc enim non mul●um distat ab insaniâ, dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum, out reliquos Apostolos.  
Now we return to our Remonstrant. Our answer to his objection from the Angels was: That the word Angel▪ is to be taken collectively, not individually, which he calls, pro more suo, a shift and a conceit which no wise man can ever believe. 
Page 104.  And yet he could not but take notice that we alleged Austin, Gregory, Fulke, Perkins, Fox, Brightman, Mede, and divers others for this interpretation: which will make the world to accuse him for want of wisdom, for calling the wisdom of such men into question. Before he addresseth himself to answer our reasons, he propounds two queres.  
1. If the interest be common and equally appertaining to all, why should one be singled out above the rest? 
Page 104.  A very dull question, which is indeed a very begging of the cause. For the question in agitation is, whether when Christ writes to the 7. Angels, he meant to single out 7. individual persons above the rest, or else writes to the 7. Angels collectively meaning all the Angels that were in all the Churches.  
The second question is as dull as the first. If you will yield the person to be such as had more than others, a right in the administration of all, it is that weseeke for. But he knew we would not yield it. And therefore we may justly use his own words, that those questions are tedious and might well have been spared. And so also the instances of a letter endorsed from the Lords of the Council to the Bishop of Durham, concerning some affairs of the whole Clergy of his Diocese: No man will deny but that the Bishop of Durham is an individual Bishop. This example supposeth the Angel about whom we dispute to be meant individually, which you know is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between you and us. Quid haec ad Rhombum? We will give you instances more suitable to the purpose. Suppose one in Christ's time, or his Apostles had endorsed a letter to the Chiefe-priest concerning the affairs of the Sanhedrim, and another letter to the chief Ruler of the Synagogue concerning the affairs of the Synagogue, and another letter to the Captain of the Temple, concerning the business of the Temple; could any man imagine but that these indorsments must necessarily be understood collectively? considering there were more Chiefe-priests than one in jerusalem, Luke 22. 4. and more chief Rulers of the Synagogue than one, Math. 19 18. compared with Acts 18. 8. 17. And more Captains of the Temple than one, Acts 4▪ 1. compared with Luke the ●2. 4. and so also semblably more Angels and Ministers in the seven Churches then seven. But stay sir, we hope you are not of opinion, that any of your Asian Bishops had as much spiritual and temporal power as the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, and the Lord Bishop and Palatine of Durham, Cave dixeris.  
At last you come to our proofs, which you scoffingly call invincible. You should have done better to have called them irrefragable, like your good friends irrefragable propositions.  
Our first argument is drawn from the Epistle to Thyatira, Revel. 2. 24. But I say unto you (in the plural number, not unto thee in the singular) and unto the rest in Thyatira. Here is a plain distinction between the Governors, and the governed. And the Governors in the plural number; which apparently proves that the Angel is collective. The Remonstrant hath no way to put this off, 
Page 105.  but by a pitiful shift to use his own words. He tells us he hath found a better copy; which is a very unhappy and unbecoming expression, apt to make ignorant people doubt of the original text, and so in time rather to deny the Divinity of the Scriptures, then of Episcopacy. But this better copy is but lately searched into, for we find that Bishop Hall, in his Episcopacy by Divine right, reads it as we do. But I say unto you, and the rest in Thyatira. But what is this better Copy? It is a Manuscript written by the hand of Teela; which if it be no truer than Itinerarium Pauli & Teclae, it will have little credit among the Learned. But that which makes you to magnify it the more, is that doughty argument which it helped you to against us, concerning the same Church of ●hyatira, in which the Angel is charged for suffering that woman jezabel. And now you say, in that memorable copy of Tecla, it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you interpret, thy wife Iczebel. And just as Archimedes, you come with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, And call upon us to blush for shame. What say you in a different character, shall we think she was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone? 
Page 106.  But for our part we do think you have more cause to blush for making such a Translation, 
The memorable copy of Teclas may be translated, Thy woman jezebel, or That woman of thine jezebel. We see no shadow of reason why the Remonstrant should translate it, Thy wise jezebel. In the Arabic it is, Quod sivisti muli●rem ●ocatam jezebel, according to our ordinary Greek copies.  and rather than you will not prove the Angel of Thyatira to be an individual Bishop, you will un-Angell him, and make him an other Ahab, to marry a cursed jezebel. We wonder that never any protestant writer had the wit to bring this text against the papists to prove the lawfulness of Priests marriages; no not Doctor Hall himself in his defence of the married Clergy. Give us leave here to use your own words, page 108. Forbear Reader if you can, to smile at this curious subtlety, what Cabalism have we here? judge Reader what to expect of so deep speculations. And also to repeat what you say, page 110. If you please yourself with this new subtlety it is well from us you have no cause to expect an answer: it can neither draw our assent, nor merit our confutation. We believe it to be as true that jezebel was the wife of the Bishop of Thyatira, as that Tecla was the wife of Paul. But to return to the former text: Let any judicious reader survey the latter part of the 23. verse (which is the verse before that out of which we bring our reason) there he shall find Christ speaking to the Church of Thyatira, saith: And I will give to every one of you (in the plural number.) And then follows, But I say unto you and the rest in Thyatira. And he will not only contesse that though the 24. verse should fail, yet the 23. would prove the same thing, as effectually as the 24. but also will grant that from the conference it is evident that the old copies are better than that which this Remonstrant calls the better copy of Tecla. But besides this text, let the Reader cast his eye upon what Christ saith to the Angel of the Church of Smyrna, Revel. 2. 10. fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer, behold the devil shall cast some of you into prison, (of you in the plural number:) that ye may be tried (ye in the plural number) and you (in the plural again) shall have tribulation ten days; be thou faithful unto the death, and I will give thee a Crown of life. Observe here how our Saviour Christ changeth the number. Be thou faithful. And the devil shall cast some of you, etc. to show unto us, that the Angel is not meant of one singular person, but of all the whole company of Presbyters that were in Smyrna. So also Christ writing to the Angel of the Church of Pergamus saith, verse 13. in the beginning of the verse, I know thy works, in the singular number; but in the latter end, who was slain among you, in the plural number. We expect that the Remonstrant will when best at leisure bring tidings of another better copy, to avoid the dint of these texts that do as we think demonstratively prove the thing in question.  
Our second argument is drawn from the like phrases even in this very book of the Revelation, where it is usual to express a company under one singular person; as the civil state of Rome, as opposite to Christ, is called a beast with ten horns: and the Ecclesiastical state Antichristian, is called, the whore of Babylon. 
Page 106.  To which you answer. 1. That if it be thus in visions and Emblematical representations, must it needs be so in plain narrations? But good sir consider, this very thing we are about was seen by Saint john in a vision: and you yourself confess in the next page, that the word Angel is metaphorical. How then is it a plain narration? Secondly, you say because it is so in one phrase of speech, must it be so in all? We answer, 
Page 106.  that this argument was not brought to prove that the word Angel must needs be taken collectively, but only that it might be so taken, and that it was the likeliest interpretation, especially considering what was added out of Master Mede (who was better skilled in the meaning of the Revelation than yourself) that the word Angel is commonly (if not always) in the Revelation taken collectively. Thus the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets, and the seven Angels that poured out the seven vials, are not literally to be taken, but Synecdochically, you reply. Perhaps so, but then the Synecdoche lies in the seven, not in the Angels, and so you grant the word Angel to be metaphorical, but we are never a whit the nearer to our imagined Synecdoche. But this is but a mere fallacy. Let but the reader expect, till we make good our fourth reason, and then we shall see our imagined Synecdoche made real. For the present it is sufficient, that it is the ordinary custom of the holy Ghost in the Revelation, by Angel to mean Angels; by seven Angels, not seven individually, but collectively. But whether the Synecdoche be in the word seven, or in the word Angel, that is nothing to the purpose in hand.  
Our third argument, is drawn from the word Angel, which is a common name to all the Ministers and messengers, etc. And surely had Christ intended to point out some one individual person by the Angel, he would have used some distinguishing name to set him out by: he would have called him Rector, or Precedent, or Superintendent; but calling him by a name common to all Ministers, why should we think that there should be any thing spoken to him that doth not as much concern all the rest who are Angels as well as he? All that you answer is, that Christ knew this well enough, and if he had meant it, had it not been as easy to have mentioned many as one? 
Page 107.  But here we humbly desire the Reader to consider two things. 1. The unreasonableness of this answer: we brought three reasons why Christ when he meant divers Angels, spoke in the singular number Angel, not Angels. These reasons the Remonstrant passeth over with a scorn, (the commonest, safest, surest way of answering, the Remonstrant hath:) and yet he demands page 104. why should one be singled ou● above all, if the interest be common? And here, why doth not Christ say to the Angels? But let ●im first answer our Therefores, and we will quickly answer his Wherefores. Secondly, how justly we may retort this answer upon the Remonstrant and say, If Christ had meant by the seven Angels seven Bishops, how easy had it been for him to have written to the Bishop of Ephesus (as he was lately called at the spital by a Bishop) to the Bishop of Smyrna, instead of the Angel of Ephesus, and the Angel of Smyrna. But this Christ doth not do, and not only so, but Saint john also in all his books makes not any mention of the name Bishop. And therefore it seemeth strange to us that Episcopacy by divine right should be fetched out of his writings. I but saith the Remonstrant, 
Page 107.  it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore the denoted person must needs be singular. For surely you cannot say that all the Presbyters at Eph●sus were one Angel. Yes sir, we can say they were all one Angel collectively, though not individually And we can show you where Christ speaketh in the singular number, and joineth the Article with it also, and yet meaneth Synecdochically more, for one, as john 4. 37. john 10. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which must be all meant indefinitely, not individually. You suppose again, that if that Christ had said, To the Star of Ephesus, no body would have construed it but of one eminent person. But herein also you are much mistaken, for the word Star is as common a name to all Ministers as the word Angel, as we have showed in our answer.  
The fourth argument you account ridiculous, and in a proud scorn pass it over with a jeer. But you will see in the conclusion you yourself to be the ridiculum caput, not we. Our argument stands thus: Our Saviour saith, The seven Candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches: but he doth not say, the seven stars are the seven Angels of the same Churches. But the Angels of the seven Churches omitting not without mystery the number of the Angels, lest we should understand by Angel one Minister alone, and not a company. 
Page 108.  To omit your scoffs, you answer it is plain that every Church hath his Angel mentioned, and there being seven churches, how many Angels (I beseech you) are there? This answer is as easily blown away, as the wind blows away chaff. It is true, every Church hath his Angel mentioned, but whether Angel individually or Angel collectively, that is still the question, and therefore for aught you say, though there were but seven Churches, there might be seven, and seven times seven Angels in those Churches. But you intimate that Christ saith, the 7. stars, though he doth not say the seven Angels. Now here give us leave to put our Remonstrant in mind of the imagined Syneedoche. For we justly conceive that these words, The seven Stars are the Angels, are figurative, and that there are two figures in them, a metaphor in the word Star and Angel, and a Synecdoche in the word seven. For we do not think that the seven Stars signify seven individual Angels, for then indeed the reader might have justly smiled at our curious speculation, but we think them to be taken collectively. Thus Revil. 8. 2. john saw seven Angels which stood before God, by which seven Angels Doctor Reynolds doth not understand seven individual Angels, but by a Synecdoche all the Angels. For there are no seven particular Angels that do stand before God, but all do so, Dan. 7. The words of Doctor Reynolds are these, 
Censura lib. Apooryph. prael. 64.  Quare cum commune sit omnibus electis Angelis Dei stare coram throno, videtur nomine septem Angelorum significari universos Angelos Dei Item, Ita numero septenario saepe significari omnes, numeruni saltem infinitum numero finito docent, septem columnae Pro. 9 septem pastors Math. 5. septem oculi Zach. 3. sed imprimis in istis mysteriis Apocalypseos, septem Candelabra, septem lampades, septem phyaelae, septem plagae. And now let the Reader judge whether this argument be so ridiculous as the mocking Remonstrant would make it.  
But that you may see how dull the answerer himself, is whilst he accuseth others of dulness let us a little consider what pitiful shifts he useth in his answer to our last reason.  
Our last argument is; Though but one Angel be mentioned in the forefront, yet it is evident the Epistles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church, and to the Churches themselves: and if unto the whole Church, much more unto the Presbyters of that Church. To this you answer.  
1. By granting the argument which is to grant the cause, as will appear to any judicious Reader: For the reason doth not only say that the whole Church is concerned in the Epistles, and spoken unto in them, but that they are dedicated to all the Ministers as well as one, & to all the Churches as well as to the Angels, as appears Reuel. 1. 11. send it to the seven Churches: and also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle, he that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches, not only concerning the Churches, but to the Churches. But than you argue secondly, 
Page 109.  if every Epistle be written to all the Churches, than we must say that every of these seven Angels must be the whole company of all the seven Churches, which were a foul nonsense. But you must understand that though every Epistle be written to all the Churches, yet not eodem modo. As for example; the Epistle to Ephesus was written primariò, proprie & formaliter to the Church of Ephesus, but to the other Churches only, reflèxive & per modum exempli. And therefore we return your nonsense upon yourself. For we do not confound the Angels and the Churches (we know there is a distinction between the Stars and the Candlesticks) but we affirm that the Epistles are written to the Churches as well as to the Angels, and to all the Angels as well as to any one.  
Thirdly, 
Page 109.  you say we might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of our Authors, and our own. But surely unless you meant to yield the cause, you would never say so. For we proved out of Ausbertus, that according to his judgement, by Angel is meant the whole Church. And out of Perkins, Brightman, Fulke, Fox, Austin, Gregory, Primasius, Hamo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, etc. That the word Angel is to be taken not individually, but collectively. And further we showed that in these seven Epistles where one person is singled out and spoken unto in particular, either by way of praise or dispraise; that such places are not to be understood of one individual person, but of the whole company of the Ministers in all things equal with that our Angel: which are proved by such reasons, which because you knew not how to answer, you say we might have saved our labour; and in that indeed we should have saved your credit, but have done the cause much prejudice.  
Lastly, you say satis Magisterialiter (for you prove it not) That there are such particularities both of commendations and exceptions in the body of the several Epistles as cannot but have relation to those several overseers to whom they were endorsed, as you have elsewhere specified. But whom you are, and where this is specified you refuse to tell us. 
Page 110.  Only you put us to answer: Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love? Had each of them tried the false Apostles? Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead? Were all the Laodicean Ministers of one temper? You say, no doubt it was otherwise. But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. We say, No doubt that not only the Presbyters of Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicea, but that the whole Church had lost their first love, and were become lukewarm, and had a name to live and were dead, (we say all that is genera singulorum, not singula generum) and this we prove. Because the punishment threatened by Christ is threatened not only against that one Angel, but against all the Church, Reuel. 2. 5. I will remove thy Candlestick. Revel. 2. 16. 24. Now we have no warrant in the word of God to think that God would remove his Gospel from a Church, because one Angel in that Church hath lost his first love, when all the other, and the whole Church also are ●ervent and zealous in their love to Christ. Or that God would spew out a whole Church out of his mouth, for the lukewarmness of one man, when the Church itself and all the other Ministers are zealous. This is the reason that makes us believe that though one Angel be sometimes spoken unto in particular, yet it must necessarily be understood in a collective sense, not in an individual sense, which we hinted in our answer. But the Remonstrant comes with his Index expurgatorius, and answereth us only with a Deleatur. And thus he serves us also in the following reasons, why Christ did not write To the Angels in the plural number; but To the Angel in the singular. And this he doth throughout the whole book, passing by unanswered those things which are most material. Vas vitreum lambens, pultem non attingens.  
As for that tedious discourse that followeth in four leaves (about our overliberall concession, that, suppose the word Angel be meant Individually, yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce sand Bishop with sole power of ordination, and jurisdiction, as a distinct order superior to Presbyters) we will be very brief in our answer to it, to prevent surfeit, and because it is more than we need have yielded, and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant. And here let the Reader observe: 1. That of the four Authors cited in the upholding of the individual Angel, Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged, and the other three, Master Beza, Doctor Raynolds and Pareus, though they interpret the word Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for one singular person, yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right. For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witness: and for Beza and Pareus, it is well known that they were Presbyterians. We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation; but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency, and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation, if taken in the sense of these Authors.  
2. That the great question is: what makes this interpretation for a Diocesan Bishop, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, as a distinct order above Presbyters? But the Remonstrant cunningly conceals half the question, and answers, much every way. And why so? Because if there were many Angels in each Church, and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church, 
Page 111.  it must needs follow that there was a superiority, and inequality. But what is this to the question in hand? The thing to be proved is, not only that this Angel had a superiority, but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels; but of this altum silentium. Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was only a superiority of order; and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common. Beza will tell you, that this Angel was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that he was Angelus Praeses, not Angelus Princeps. And that he was Praeses mutabilis, and ambulatorius, just as a Moderator in an assembly, or as the Speaker in the House of Commons, which is only during the Parliament. Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speak of.  
Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually, that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presbyters was, because it was never yet, nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops; considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Dioceses in Saint john's days. And the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks, not one Star over divers Candlesticks. And tindal together with the old translation calls them seven congregations. And because we read that at Ephesus, that was one of those Candlesticks, there was but one flock, for the answer of all which we expected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan, and so consequently the Angel's Diocesan Angels. But the Remonstrant balks his work as too great for his shoulders, and instead of solid Divinity turns critic, and plays upon words and syllables Domitian like, catching at flies, when he should have been busied about greater matters.  
First, he tells, us, That if Parishes were not united into Dioceses (or were not so many as to be divided into Dioceses which we think all one notwithstanding your parenthesis) in Saint john's days, 
Page 111, 112.  and therefore no Diocesan Bishop; by the same reason we may as well argue, that there were no parochial Bishops neither, since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished. Which we grant to be very true. But if there were no Parochial Bishops in the Apostles days, much less Diocesan. The Apostolical Bishops were Bishops of one Church, and not of one parish (as we mean by parish) till many years after. But not to quarrel at the word parish, or diocese; let but the Remonstrant show us that these Angels were Bishops over divers settled Churches, or divers fixed congregations, & nobis erit alter Apollo. For our parts we are sure that at first the number of believers, even in the greatest Cities, were so few, as that they might well meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one and the same place; and these were called the Church of the City, and therefore to ordain Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are all one in Scripture. And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so numerous in the Apostles days in any great City, so as that they could not meet in one and the same place. But yet we confess that it is very probable that it was so in jerusalem, if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these several Asian Churches we know not; but however, this is agreed upon on all parts. That believers in great Cities were not divided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles days. And that therefore if when they multiplied, they had divers meeting places, that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously, and indistinctly, and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters promiscuously and in common, and were all called but one Church, as is evident in Jerusalem, Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18.  
So also in these seven Churches, where the believers of every City are called but one Church, and were governed in common by divers Angels, or Presbyters; as we see plainly proved in the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 28. Hen●e it followeth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops, nor one Bishop over divers Churches, or set Congregations in Saint john's days.  
Secondly, according to his wont language, 
Page 112.  he tells us of making Bulls and Solecisms, because we say that the seven Stars are said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks, whereas these Stars are said to be in the right hand of Christ, as if these two were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Know sir, That in regard of their protection they are said to be in Christ's right hand, but in regard of their ●unction and Office they may be truly said to be fixed in their seven Candlesticks. But instead of picking quarrels at words, you should have done well (if you could) to prove that these Candlesticks were diocesan Churches. We say each Star had its Candlestick, not one Star over divers. And we think that this Candlestick was but one particular Church, or one set Congregation (though happily when they multiplied, they might meet indistinctly in divers, under divers Angels equally governing▪) For this we alleged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations. All you answer is, 
Page 113  only to show that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals' sense cannot be meant a parishional meeting. But what if it be not so in other places, how do you make it appear that it is not so in this place? We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals' translation, and may very properly be taken here also. We allege also, that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlesticks, there was but one flock. You demand whether this flock were national, 
Page 114.  Provincial, or Diocesan? And why do you not demand whether it were not Ecumenical also? that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flock universal. But you are sure, you say, that this flock was not a parochial flock, because it cannot be proved, that all the Elders to whom Paul spoke, were only belonging to Ephesus. But can this Remonstant prove that there were more Elders or Bishops then those of Ephesus? This is to answer Socratically, and in answering not to answer. Howsoever it is not so much material. You yourself confess that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flock. And if divers Bishops were over one flock in the Apostles days, where is your individual Bishops over divers flocks in the Apostles days?  
Our second argument is also drawn from the Church of Ephesus, which was one of the seven Candlesticks, in which we are sure in Saint Paul's days there were many Angels, and those called Bishops, Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelihood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed, if the direction be meant individually. But yet we read not a word of any superiority, or superintendency of one Bishop over another. To them the Church in general is committed, without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow. But to all this ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quideu●, only he tells us it is answered in answering the first. But how true this is, let any Reader judge. 
Page 114.  At the end of this reason, we produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria, that it had but one Bishop, whereas other Cities had two. Here our Remonstrant takes a great deal of pains not to confute us, but to confute Epiphanius. All that we will reply is this; to desire the Reader to consider that this Epiphanius was the first that (out of his own private opinion) accused Aerius of madness, and (as this Author saith) of heresy, for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters. And if this Remonstrant think it no disparagement to himself to be a confuter of Epiphanius, why should we be cried down so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius?  
The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst. For whereas we say, that there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implieth any superiority, or majority of rule, or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joined with them in their Churches: the answerer makes it run thus, 
Page 116.  That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority; which indeed is to spoil the argument. For we grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people, but the question is of a superiority of power of one Angel over the other Angels which were joined with him in his Church. But this he conceals, because he knew it was unanswerable. Only he tells us; First, that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angel, not Angels. This is cram millies cocta. But what is this to a majority of rule or power? Secondly, he tells us it will appear from the matter of the several Epistles. For he asks; 
Page 117.  Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which he hath no power to redress? That the Angel of Pergamus should be blamed for having those which hold the doctrine of Balaam, or the Nicola●tans, when he had no power to proceed against them. Or the Angel of the Church of Thyatira for suffering the woman jezebel (if it must be so read) to teach and seduce when he had no power of public censure to restrain her? This discourse is very loose and wild, Vt nihil pejus dicamus. Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of jurisdiction (which he doth so much disclaim in other places of his book) when he would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira, to have power to proceed against offenders, either he doth this or nothing. For our parts we answer without lisping; That it was in the power not of one Angel, but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. To restrain that woman jezebel, or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife (if it must needs be so read) we do not think that one ordinary Presbyter (as you call him) was to exercise censures alone, nor one extraordinary Bishop neither. We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth. 5. And therefore we refer it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congregation with the advice, and consent of the Presbyters adjoining which we are sure, is more consonant to the word then to leave it to the hierarchical Bishop, and his Chancellor, Commissary, or Official.  
In the next paragraph, we challenge you to show us what kind of superiority this Angel had, if he had any at all? We require you to prove that he had any more than a superiority in parts and abilities, or of order. Where is it said that the Angel was a superior degree or order of Ministry above Presbyters? Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction? But you fly from those questions as far as from a Snake that would sting you, and disdaining all that we say (which is your accustomed way of answering) you tell us that you are able to sh●w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles 
Page 117.  were directed, and to evince the high degree of their superiority. Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Alas sir, you tell us but what we told you before, and what others have ingeminated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You say, 
Page 118.  That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angel or Bishop of Ephesus, and Polycarpus of Smyrna. But mark what we answer.  
First, we doubt of the truth of the story. For others tell us that Timothy was Bishop (as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle: and this opinion Ribera, Lyra, and Pererius follow. Others leave it in medio, and say it is uncertain. But suppose the story were true, we answer  
Secondly, it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint john's days, that therefore he was the only party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle. For Saint Paul tells us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus, and he may very well write to him, and to all the rest as well as him. That Christ wrote not only to Polycarpus (if he were Angel of Smyrna) but to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna, appears by what we said before out of Revelation 2. 10.  
Thirdly, you know sir, that by your own confession Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles days, and long after, even in Irenaeus his time. And therefore what though Polycarpus be called the Bishop of Smyrna; and Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus: still the question remains, whether they were Bishops phrasi Apostolica? (that is Presbyters) or phrasi Pontificiâ? Whether Bishops Antonomasticè and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so called, or whether Bishops in a general sense, as all Presbyters are called Bishops. And suppose they were Bishops properly so called (which we believe not) yet still it lies upon you to prove that these were hierarchical Bishops. That they had such power as our Bishops assume to themselves. That they were a distinct order superior to Presbyters. And that they had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction. We are confident that you are so far from being able to prove that they had a sole power, as that you cannot prove they had any superiority of power over their fellow Angels. For aught of any thing said by you in this large discourse, This individual Angel may be nothing else then a Moderator of a company of Presbyters, having only a superiority of order, and this also mutable and changeable, according as Paraeus and Beza hold, whom you follow in this interpretation.  
In the shutting up of this discourse concerning the Angels, the Remonstrant as if he were very angry, spits out nothing but scorn and contempt against his adversaries. We bring one example and two testimonies to prove that the Angels of the seven Churches were not superior one to another, and he cries out as one much displeased, Away then with these your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies which you as destitute 
Page 118.  of all antiquity shut up the Scene withal. But though you fling them away in your anger and fury, yet we trust the ingenious Reader will gather them up, and consider also that this Remonstrant (that like another Champion against Doctor Whitaker brags that all the Fathers, and all the Counsels are of his side and yet he) brings neither Fathers nor Counsels for to prove that these Angels are to be understood vidually: and so we take our leave of this discourse.  
In the next place we come to the two postscripts (which indeed were postscripta after the book was made, and inserted to avoid an hiatus) which all the defenders of Hierarchy cite for the averring of Episcopacy by divine right. To this you reply:  
First, That you are no ways engaged to defend these postscripts: It is true, not as you are a Remonstrant, but as you are juratus in verba Magistri, sworn to maintain any thing that may uphold hierarchical Episcopacy.  
Secondly, you confess ingeniously they are not canonical; yet you say they are of great antiquity; but you durst not set down how ancient. For we have good reason and authority to think that they are not ancienter than Theodoret who lived 435. years after Christ. We brought many arguments to prove not only the Apocryphalnes, but the falseness of these subscriptions. To all which you subscribe by your silence. Only you would fain (if you could) justify that clause in the subscription to Titus written from Nicopolis; and the rather because you find it so in that famous ancient Manuscript of Tecla sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople. 
Page 121.  It seems then you have seen that Manuscript. And if so, why do you not deal faithfully with your Reader, and discover what you find in it; for we are credibly informed in that copy there is no mention of Titus his being Bishop of Crect, or of Timothy his being Bishop of Ephesus. But this is your constant course, to conceal whatsoever makes against you, and to magnify whatsoever hath but a shadow of appearance for you, that all men may perceive you seek victory rather than truth.  
But before we leave the Postscripts we will answer to your two questions. First, 
Page 119.  you would fain see any pretence of so much age against the matter of these subscriptions, the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. For reply, we refer you to what is said before at large in answer to this demand. Only we will put you in mind of a speech of Bishop Barlows: We are not unwilling to be judged by antiquity, so it be such an antiquity to which Ignatius appeals. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nothing more acceptable to us then Histories, if such as are written by him who styles himself, The ancient of days. And for the Fathers, none more welcome to us than him whom justin Martyr calls Pater Patriae, and that is Saint Paul. Now Saint Paul, when he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy, and purposely undertook in his third Chapter to set out the Office of a Bishop, mentioneth nothing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter; and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter, including it in the Office of a Bishop; which he would never have done, if he had at the same time made Timothy an hierarchical Bishop, with a power to do that formally which was unlawful for a Presbyter to do. And besides we have proved that this Epistle was written before Paul's first being at Rome, and so before the time that you say Paul made him Bishop. As for his Epistle to Titus, he directly confounds the Offices of Presbyters and Bishops, and makes them one and the same, Chapter 1. Verses 5, 6, 7. Which he certainly would not have done if he had made them at that time distinct Orders with distinct Offices. The ancient Fathers indeed some of them call Timothy and Titus Bishops in an improper sense, because they stayed longer in Ephesus and Crect then Evangelists ordinarily did. And did preach, and ordain, and do those things which Bishops in their time used to do, which notwithstanding they did not formally do as Bishops, but virtually and eminently as Officers of an higher degree. Hence Salmeron himself saith in his first disputation upon Timothy, Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusquam Episcopus, eti●●si ad tempus in ea civitate ut pastor praedicaverit, & sacros ordines promoverit. Vnde quidam vocant eum Episcopum. Ambrose saith one while he was a Deacon, another while a Prethyter. Others a Primate, and others a Bishop. Lyra proveth him to have been an Archbishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. Aquinas thinks that Titus was Bishop of Dalmatia, because when Paul, wrote his second Epistle to Timothy he was at Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4. 10. Thus you see the Fathers agree not amongst themselves, and therefore help you little in this point.  
Your second question is: 
Page 122.  Whether ever we have been urged to subscribe to any other ceremonies than have been established by the Laws of this Realm and Church? And why these Ceremonies are the Bishops more than Ours? We answer: First, That to our knowledge some have been urged to subscribe to other ceremonies than have been established by the Laws of this Realm, and Church, and to promise obedience editis & ●dendis. Secondly, that this very urging of us to subscribe to the ceremonies established, is more than the Laws require; For the Laws require to subscription only to the thirty nine Articles. Thirdly, We cannot but justly dislike your distinction of, The Laws of this Realm and Church. For we know no Laws of the Church obligatory, but such as are established by the Laws of the Realm, as both Houses of Parliament have lately determined. And whereas you ask, Why these Ceremonies are the Bishops, more than ours? We answer: First, because it is ordinarily said, No Ceremony, no Bishop, But it was never said, No Ceremony, no Presbyter. Secondly, because in the Convocation (which you here term the Church) the Bishops, or rather the Archbishop sways all. And there are five or six which are there, Ex m●ero Officio, and for the most part are the Bishop's creatures, and hang their suffrages upon his lips: and but two Clerks for the Presbyters, which also for the most part are forced upon them by the Bishop, and his Officers. Thirdly, because they are ours, if ours as a burden. But theirs, as their crown, and glory, for which they fight as for a second Purgatory, to uphold their Courts and Kitchins.  
In the next place we propounded an objection framed by Bishop Andrew's and divers others from the inequality in the Ministry appointed by Christ himself, between the twelve Apostles and the seventy Disciples. To which we answered: First, that it cannot be proved that the Apostles had any superiority over the seventy, either of ordination, or jurisdiction. S●condly, suppose it could; yet, That superiority and inferiority between Officers of different kinds, will not prove that there should be a superiority and inferiority between Officers of the same kind. To which you reply; first, That the Apostles ordained the Deacons, 
Page 123.  that Paul laid hands on Timothy. But this is no solution of the objection, unless you can prove the Deacons and Timothy to have been amongst the number of the seventy Disciples, or Paul to have been one of the twelve Apostles. Secondly, you answer, That Bishops and Presbyters differ toto genere, 
Page 124.  and are Offieers of different kind, as much as the Apostles and the seventy Disciples. Which is an assertion not only contrary to the Fathers (who accounted the Bishop to be but Primus Presbyter; and as Hierome saith, 
Aquin. Aureol. Capreol. etc.  Vnum ex se electum celsiori gradu collocatum.) But also more unsound than most of the Papists who freely acknowledge that Presbyteratus is the highest order in the ministry, and that Episcopacy is but a different degree of the same order, and not a superior order from Presbyters. An order may be reputed higher, either because it hath intrinsically an higher virtue, or because it hath an higher degree of honour and dignity. Now we deny not but the latter antiquity did by their Canons make Episcopacy an higher Order in regard of dignity and honour, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as a Council speaks) but did never account it an higher power by divine right. This last branch the Remonstrant would fain prove (if he could) by an argument drawn from succession; because (saith he) the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters the seventy Disciples. And we are challenged, page 158. to show whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the successors to the Apostles, and not to the seventy Disciples rather. But here is nothing in which the Remonstrant shows more wilful ignorance then in this. For the ancient Fathers do make the Presbyters successors of the Apostles as well as Bishops. Thus Irenaeus liber 4. cap. 43, 44. Quapropter & eyes, qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obedire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus qui eum Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. So also cap 44. and lib. 3. cap. 2. Thus also our Jerome (as you call him) in his Epistle ad Heliodorum, Clerici dicuntur Apostolico grad●i successisse. So Origen in Matth. 16. saith, all Presbyters succeeded the Apostles in the power of the keys. And Ignatius ad Smy●nonses saith the same. Yet still like (as you say you have heard) page 125.) some beaten cock, you dare erow, and tell your Reader, that all antiquity hath acknowledged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three several ranks in the Church Hierarchy. 
Page 124.  But where will you begin your antiquity? We say with the Father, i● verum quod antiquissimum. Show us your three degrees in Scripture. You confess page 47. that these three orders are not there to be found. We read in Scripture, the Deacon to be a step to a Presbyter, but not a Presbyter to a Bishop. And we deny that ever it was accounted in antiquity, that a Bishop did ever differ from a Presbyter, as a Presbyter from a Deacon. For these differ Genere proximo (No ●erint Diaconi se ad ministerium, non ad sacerdotium vocari.) But a Bishop differs from a Presbyter as from one who hath that power of Priesthood no less than himself; and therefore the difference between these Priests be circumstantial, and not so essential as betwixt the other. Thus Bishops and Archbishops are divers orders of Bishops according to some Canons of the Church: not that one excelled the other, as a power of higher virtue, but of higher dignity than the other. Indeed of late years Episcopacy hath been a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preferment, and a ladder for all pious and conscientious men to be suspended upon, as Mordecai upon Hamans' gallows; but now is in danger to become (like Hamans' ladder) their own ruin and downfall. 
Page 125.  jam sumus ergo pares.  
In your transition to your next Paragraph, that you might disparage the opposets of the hierarchical Episcopacy by divine right, you endeavour to make them the Disciples of none but Jerome. But here in you cannot but know how injuriously you deal with them, considering the numberless number of Authors, both ancient and modern, that assert that, which you would fasten upon him alone. In the Paragraph itself, you confess what we undertook to prove; That the ancient Bishops and others differ in regard of their Accessories, dignities, titles, and maintenance. But only whereas among other instances we told you of golden Chalices and wooden Priests; You tell us, That if in time we should see wooden Chalicer, 
Page 127.  and wooden Priests, we may thank ourselves; Truly sir, we may thank you, and not ourselves; for the lordliness and in solent carriages of some Bishops under the great revenues and the multitude of wooden Priests which they have made, who have been intoxicated with the Golden Chalice of the whore of Babylon's abominations, hath so alienated the affections of people from them; as that what doom so ever they are sentenced unto, it is no other than what they have brought upon themselves. As for our part, we are still of the same mind, that honourable maintenance ought to be given to the Ministers of the Gospel, not only to live, but to be hospitable. Indeed we instanced in many that did abuse their large revenues. But you are pleased to say, That in this Ablative age the fault is rare and hardly instanceable. We think the contrary is more hardly instanceable. And as for your Ablative age, if you mean it of poor Presbyters, who have been deprived of all their subsistence by the unmercifulness of Bishops, whom they with tears have besought to pity their wives and children, we yield it to be too true. Or if you mean, in regard of the purity of the ordinances, the frequency of preaching, the freedom of conceived prayer; We deny not but in this sense also it may be called the Ablative age. But if you relate it to Episcopacy and their Cathedrals (with whom it is now the Accusative age) We hope that the year of recompense is come, and that in due time for all their Ablations they may be made a grateful ablation. We have done with this section, and fear not to appeal to the same judicious eyes the Remonstrant doth, to judge to whose part that Vale of absurd inconsequences and bold ignorance which he brands us withal doth most properly appertain. 
Page 128.    

SECT. XIV.  
IN this Section he comes to make good his answers formerly given to some objections by him propounded, 
Remonst. p. 26.  and by us further urged: The first objection was from that prejudice which Episcopacy challenging a divine original doth to Sovereignty, which was wont to be acknowledged, not only as the conserving but as the creating cause of it in former times. The Remonstrant thinks this objection is sufficiently removed, by telling us, there is a compatibleness in this case of God's act and the Kings. 
Pag. 129.  And what can we say to this? Sir, you know what we have said already, and not only said but proved it, and yet will confidently tell us you have made good by undeniable proofs, that (besides the ground which our Saviour laid of this imparity) the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference, etc. Made good? when? where? by what proofs? Something you have told us about the Apostles, but not a word in all the defence of any ground laid by our Saviour of this imparity; yet the man dreams of undeniable proofs of that whereof he never spoke word.  
We must therefore tell you again, take it as you please, that if the Bishops disclaim the influence of Sovereignty into their creation, and say that the King doth not make them Bishops; they must have no being at all. Nor can your questions stop our mouths: Where or when did the King ever create a Bishop? 
Pag. 130.  Name the man and take the cause. We grant you Sir, that so much as there is of a Presbyter in a Bishop, so much is Divine: But that imparity and jurisdiction exercised out of his own demandated authority, which are the very formalities of Episcopacy, these had their first derivation from the Consent, Customs, Council, Constitution of the Church, which did first demandate this Episcopal authority to one particular person; afterwards the Pope having obtained a Monarchy over the Church, did from himself demandate that authority that formerly the Church did, and since the happy ejection of the Pope's tyrannical usurpations out of these Dominions, our Princes being invested with all that Ecclesiastical power which that Tyrant had usurped, that same imparity and authority, which was originally demandated from the Church, successively from the Pope, is now from the King. Look what influence the Church ever had into the creation of Bishops, the same the Pope had after; and look what influence the Pope had heretofore, the same our Laws have placed in the King which is so clear that the Remonstrant dares not touch, or answer.  
There was a Statute made the first of Edward the sixth, enabling the King to make Bishops by his Letters patents Only: Hence all the Bishops in King Edward's the sixth time were created Bishops by the King's Letters patents ONLY; in which all parts of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction are granted them in precise words, praeter & ultra jus divinum, Besides and beyond divine right, to be executed only, nomine, vice, & Authoritate nostri Regis, in the King's royal stead, name, and Authority, as the patents of several Bishops in the Rolls declare.  
But besides the King's Letters, the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan, 
Pag. 130.  and other of his brethren, & these as from God invest him in his holy calling. As from God? Good sir prove that; prove that the Metropolitan and Bishops in such imposition of hands are the instruments of God, & not the instruments of the King: prove they do it by Commission received from God, and not by command of the King only. Produce one warrant from Scripture, one precedent of a Bishop so ordained by a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops, and without more dispute take all. Shortly, resolve us but this one thing; what is it that takes a man out of the ordinary rank of Presbyters, and advanceth him to an imparity and power of jurisdiction? is it humane authority testified in the Letters of the King, or is it divine authority testified by the significative action of imposition of hands by the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops? if the former, you grant the cause, if the latter, consider with what good warrant you can make a form of Ordination (by the hands of a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops) which is a mere humane invention, to be not only a sign, but a mean of conveying a peculiar and superior power from Divine Authority, and of making a Presbyter a Bishop juredivino.  
Finally, Sir, make as much as you can of your Ordination by a Metropolitan, slight as much as you please your unworthy comparison between the King and our Patrons, yet did the King's Congee d'eslire give you no more humane right to Episcopacy, than the hands of the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops give you of right Divine, you would be Bishops by neither. It is not your confident reinforcing of your comparison that shall call carry it, till you have first proved it from Scripture, that God never instituted an order of Presbyters or Ministers in his Church, as we have proved, God never instituted an order of Bishops. Secondly, that by the Laws of the land as much of the Ministerial power over a particular Congregation is in the patron, as there is of Episcopal power in the King. Till then (we beseech you) let it rest undetermined whether yourself, or we may best be sent to Simons Cell. We say no more, lest you should think we flout your modesty with an unbeseeming frump, which whither our answer be guilty of, as you here charge us, let the Reader compare the 28 and 29 pages of your Remonstrance, and our Answer to those pages, and determine.  
The second objection was from that imputation which this truth casts upon all Reformed Churches which want this government; this the Remonstrant must needs endeavour to satisfy, that he may decline the envy that attends this opinion. But what needs the Remonstrant fear this envy? Alas, the Reformed Churches are but a poor handful! Rumpantur ilia, need the Remonstrant care? Yet is it neither his large protestation of his honourable esteem of those Sister Churches, nor his solicitous clearing himself from the scandalous censures and disgraceful terms cast upon them by others (under whose colours he now militares) that will divert this envy, unless he either desert his opinion, or make a more just defence than he hath yet done. 
Pag. 132.  The Defence is, That from the opinion of the Di. right of Episc. no such consequence can be drawn, as that those Churches that want Bishops are no Churches. Episcopacy though reckoned among matters essential to the Church, yet is not of the essence of a Church, and this is no contradiction neither. If you would have avoided the contradiction, you should have expressed yourself more distinctly; knowing that things essential are of two sorts; either such as are essential constitutiuè;, or such as are essential consecutiuè, You had done well here, had you declared whether you count Episcopacy essential to a Church constitutive, or consecutiué; if constitutiuè, than it is necessary to the being of a Church, and it must follow, where there is no Bishop, there can be no Church: If essential only consecutiuè, we would be glad to learn how those officers which by Divine institution have demandated to them peculiarly a power of ordaining all other officers in the Church (without which the Church itself cannot be constituted) and such a power as that those officers cannot be ordained without their hands, should not be essential to the Constitution of a Church, or tend only to the well being, not to the being of it? Either you must disclaim your own propositions, or own this inference, and not think to put it off with telling your Reader. It is enough for our friends to hold discipline of the being of a Church, 
Pag. 133.  you dare not be so zealous. If heat in an Episcopal cause may be called zeal, you dare be as zealous as any man we know. Your friends we are sure are as zealous in the cause of their Episcopacy as any of ours have been in the defence of discipline. Did ever any of our friends in their zeal rise higher than to frame an oath, whereby to bind all men to maintain their discipline? You know some of yours have done as much: but them we know you will leave to their own defence, as you do your learned Bishop of Norwich, 
Pag. 134.  now he is dead. It is work enough for you to defend yourself, and give satisfaction to the questions propounded.  
First, we demanded the reason why Popish Priests converted to our Religion are admitted without new ordination, when some of our brethren flying in Queen Mary's time, and having received Ordination in the Reformed Churches were urged at their return to receive it again from our Bishops? This shameless and partial practice of our Prelates he could not deny, but frames two such answers of which the second confutes the first, and neither second nor first justifies their practice. In the first he denies a capability of admittance by our laws, and yet in his second, he confesseth many to be admitted without any legal exception, which how well they consist, let the Reader judge.  
The second question was, whether that office which by divine Right hath sole power of Ordination, and ruling of all other officers in the Church, belong not to the being, but only to the glory and perfection of a Church? The Remonstrant is so angry at this question, that before he can find leisure to answer it, he must needs give a little vent to his choler: Can we tell what these men would have? (saith he) have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that necessity and essential use of Episcopacy, which we dare not avow? What is that which you dare not avow? is it that Episcopacy hath sole power of ordaining and ruling all other Officers in the Church? But this we are sure you will avow, That imposition of hands in ordination and confirmation have ever been held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy, that I would fain see where it can be showed that ANY EXTREMITY OF NECESSITY was by the Catholic Church of Christ ever yet acknowledged for a warrant sufficient to diffuse them into other hands. 
Episc. div. Right part. 2. p. 91.  Is not this to say that the sole power of ordaining Officers is in the hands of the Bishop? And dare not WE avow this now? Blessed be they that have taken down your confidence. And where you are witty by the way, 
Pag. 135.  you tell us we still talk of sole Ordination and sole jurisdiction, we may if we please keep that pair of soles for our next shoes. Good Sir, we thank you for your liberality, but we doubt you either part with them out of fear you shall no longer keep them, or they will prove no longer worth the keeping. But consider one thing, we beseech you, if you make this donation not only in your own name, but in the name of the whole Episcopal order, you and they may turn Fratres Mendicantes, and go bare foot, if you part with these pair of soles, and what will become of your Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ ordinatione? You do not contend (say you) for such a height of propriety, etc. that in what case soever of extremity and irresistible necessity, this should be done only by Episcopal hands. You do not? It is well you do not, but did you never mean to affirm it none of you? Consider (we beseech) that forecited place Episcopacy Divine Right, part. 2. pag. 91. weigh the words and then speak, and tell the Author your judgement.  
Our third question was, There being in this man's thoughts the same jus divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders, whether if those reformed Churches wanted Pastors & Elders too, they should want nothing of the essence of a Church, but only of the glory and perfection of it? The answer (saith he) is ready, which is indeed no answer, it is in sum but this, that it would be better with them if they had Bishops too. But how it would be if they wanted Bishops and Pastors and Elders too, of that he saith nothing.  
The Remonstrant had presumed to know so much of the mind of the Reformed Churches as to aver, that if they might have their option, they would gladly embrace Episcopal government; 
Pag. 136.  a foul imputation saith the Remonstrant: we say so too; a foul imputation to charge the Reformed Churches of a secret inclination to Apostatise from their own confessions, which do not only maintain a justifiableness of their present government, but a necessity of it as the only government appointed by GOD in his Church, as we showed in five Corollaries drawn out of those confessions, which the Remonstrant slides over, wherein they do not only defend the condition they are in, but tell us by consequence they would not change it for any other form in the World: Because they tell us Theirs is the form God hath set down in his Word, the form Christ hath appointed in his Church, the form by which the Church ought to be governed. Can we think the Churches that thus profess and believe, can ever look for a better form? Or would accept another though propounded to them as better, when they profess this is that form by which they ought to be governed?  
The testimonies of particular Divines must not be put in the balance against the confessions of whole Churches. God forbid, that all that hath flowed from the pens of Divines of great Learning and place in England should pass for the Doctrine of the English Church abroad. We will believe you it is possible many eminent Divines of the Churches abroad have wished themselves in your condition, 
Pag. 137.  that is in Episcopal Government, not in our condition under Episcopal Government. And as easily we believe, they have magnified our Church as the most famous exemplary glorious Church in the whole Christian World. It better a great deal becomes them then Laodicean like to say (as you say, pag. 26.) their own is the most glorious and exemplary Church, the rest are but a poor handful, and reason they should conform to it, not it to them. But whether it be the beauty, perfection, and glory of Episcopal government, or the powerful and lively preaching of the World, the powerful and lively practice of piety, which through the special grace of God are found in this Church (than which there hath been nothing more hated or persecuted under Episco. government) that hath made them magnify the Church of England, there is the question, which is not hard to determine.  
To induce the Reader to believe the Reformed Churches would change theirs for our government, the Remonstrant hath told us that there is little difference between their government and ours, save in perpetuity of moderatorship and exclusion of Lay-elders. This saith the Remonstrant, You say is a passage of admirable absurdity. Sir, we said admirable; the absurdity is your own. To mend it, you would persuade yourself to fear, we know not what you speak of: You speak not only of the next Churches of France and the Netherlands. Sir, you spoke if we remember of the Neighbour Churches, and we conceive, between our Neighbour Churches, & the next Churches of France and the Netherlands, there is not much distance; sure any common understanding, by Neighbour Churches, would a great deal sooner understand the next Churches of France, and the Netherlands, than the Churches of Germany, Weteraw, Anhault, etc. Especially considering your instance in those Churches, from whose Moderators our Bishops differ only in perpetuity of Moderatorship: Which perpetuity the Lutheran Superintendents have as well as our Bishops. 
And even in these Churches of Germany, the Superintendents are nothing like our bishops. They are of the same degree with other Ministers, they are only Precedents while the Synod lasteth; when it is dissolved, their prerogative ceaseth: They have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers, They are subject to their Presbyteries. The Synod ended, they return to the care of their particular Churches, Zepper. lib. 2. cap. 10.  This made us instance in the Geneva form, as knowing no Churches whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not fixed, but such as follow their pattern, between which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our episcopacy we showed a sixfold difference: all which the Remonstrant wisely passeth; that he may not be forced to acknowledge the difference greater than he pretended. Only tells us with what authority Master Calvin and the deputati Synodi carried the affairs of the Church; which if the personal worth of the one or the other did procure, what is that to carrying all the affairs of the Church ex officio, by virtue of their own peculiarly demandated authority, as our Bishops do, and challenge right to do?  
You put us in mind, that you said the difference between them was little, and we need not put you in mind of what our answer was, Manet aliâ ment repostum: nor do we intend to change. You tell us our note is the note of Babylon, down with it, down with it. Yet as long as neither we are Edomits, nor speak of Zion, but of Zions enemies, the note is not Babylonish. As Babylon had her time to cry against Zion, down with it, down with it even to the ground, so the time is coming when Zion shall shout with as strong a cry against her enemies, and the God of Heaven, whose promise is to arise for the sighing of the poor, we doubt not will vindicate his Church from those proud adversaries that have so long time tyrannised over her, and Judge between the Sheep and the Goats. 
Ezek. 34. 16, 17, 18  Even he Judge, whether we that plead the truth against Bishops, or the Bishops whose cause the Remonstrant pleads, have by violent and subtle Machinations most disturbed Zions peace, and advanced Babylon's power.   

SECT. XV.  
THe Remonstrant had said that Lay Presbytery never had footing in the Christian Church until this age. Wherein, said we, he concludes so fully with Doctor Hals irrefragrable propositions, as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said. The Remonstrant, that it seems knows both better than we, will phrase it thus; how like the man looks to Doctor Hall: And answers, 
Pag. 140.  As like him as we are like ourselves, insolent and scornful. Truly Sir, we could scarce conceive this likeness by the Remonstrance, and we can less conceive it by this defence. For besides the flat contradictions which this Defence gives to Episcopacy by Divine Right (for which we doubt the Doctor will give the Remonstrant little thanks) the very language of the Defence inclines to the contrary. For though we acknowledge the Defence, for the substance of it wholly, and for the phrase of it in a great part, borrowed from episcopacy by Divine Right, yet the extreme disdainfulness that breathes in every page and line pleads with us, to think that it is not his, especially if he have made that vow of leaving his insolent and scornful language, which an ancient acquaintance of his hath put the world in hope he would. Your Errata bids us pag. 33. Read Invectives, truly we may read in every page Invectives: and if to be scornful and insolent be to be unlike Doctor Hall, you have done the Doctor exceeding wrong to say the Remonstrant looks like him.  
But be the Remonstrant who he will, we hope he will not take it ill, if coming into public nameless, he receive par pari, remembering especially the saying of Hierom concerning Domitius a Senator to his scornful Consul, si non vis me habere ut Senatorem, cur ego te habeam ut Consulem? Why should we use him as a Father, that doth not use us as Brethren? Make sport with our poor wit, triumph over it. It is truth, not wit we contend for; yet Ridentem dicere verum quis vetat.  
You might have done as wisely to omit the flourish of your wit in scorn of ours; 
Pag. 140.  as you say we did to omit those three known texts which we omitted, because the question between us was not whether ruling Elders are an ordinance of God and founded in the word or no, But whether ever they had existence in the Christian Church before this present age. For the determining of this question, (being the facto, not the ●ure) it is more proper to produce the practice of the Churches than texts of Scripture; this doth not please him. Alpatrons of Layeldership before us would not, 
Pag. 141.  after the rakings of all the channels of time, have forborn the utmost urging of those Testimonies, if they had not known them so far from being convictive that they are unprooving. Is this the man whose chief plea for his divine right is the monument of succeeding ages and Testimony of Antiquity, and will he now vouchsafe the search after the footsteps of antiquity, 
Pag. 141.  no better name Then the raking of the Channel of time? had we spoken so much in the vilification of Antiquity it would have been accounted hateful and intolerable insolency in us.  
But our evidences are not proving and convictive. Let us put them to the trial. Our testimony from Origen cannot (you say) but shame us if yet we can blush; belike you remember you have so often without just cause put us to the blush, you begin to fear the colour is spent; you charge us with willing concealing the Chap. on purpose that we might not be discovered.  
Were this a fault and worthy of blame, yet little reason hath the Remonstrant to quarrel with us, it is but this one place in which the Remonstrant chargeth us, we are punctual in our other quotations. Howmany quotations are there in this defence in which the Remonstrance hath not cited so much as the Book, only thinks it enough to name the Author?  
But here we are not so culpable as the Remonstrant makes us. The translation of Origen which we followed did not distinguish the book into Chapters, No more than the Original doth, Nor other translations with which we have consulted; Nor are we yet so happy as to meet with that edition where the Chapters are distinguished: so here is no just cause of suspicion either of fraud or fear.  
For the text itself, whether your collection or ours be most according to the sense of the Author, let the learned reader judge from the text itself, which we here set down translated faithfully according to the Original.  
Videamus an non Christiani magis & melius istis populum ad bonam frugem excitent, nam Philosophi quidem, qui in publico disputant, discrimen auditorum adhibent nullum, sed quisquis volet, adstet licet, atque audiat. Christiani vero, quoad possunt, eorum, qui ipsos audire cupiunt, animos prius explorantes, eosdemque privatimerudientes, cum videbuntur illi qui auditores sunt futuri, priusquam in publicum processerint, usque eò profecisse satis, ut velint benè vivere, tum demum eos introducunt, sive admittunt, separatim quendem ordinem constituentes eorum qui initiati recens, introductique sunt, signumque expiationis nondum acceperunt: alter autem ordo est eorum qui pro virili studium suum repraesentant, non aliud velle se, quam quae Christianis recta videntur. Apud quos (vel supra quos) sunt quidam constituti, qui in vitam & mores advenientium inquirant, ut qui flagitiosa perpetrant, illos à communi eorum coetu prohibeant, qui verò istiusmodi non sunt, eos ex animo amplexantes, indies reddant meliores. Cujusmodi quoque institutum habent in eos qui peccant, maximèque si proteruè se gerant, quos à suo coetu ejiciunt illi, qui Celso judice, similes sunt iis qui inhonestissimas quasque res in foro ostentant. Et Pythagoreorum quidem schola illa gravissima, illis qui ab ipsorum philosophia desciverant sepulchra inania conficiebat, eosque perinde aestimans ac si demortui planè essent. Hi autem quasi pereuntes & mortuos Deo, qui petulantiae aut gravi cuipiam facinori obstringendos se tradiderunt, tanquam mortuos lugent, & tanquam è mortuis excitatos, si non spernendam modo oftenderint resispicentiam, longiori temporis spatio, quam qui primo introducti sunt, tandem recipiunt, neque ad ullum gubernandi munus in Ecclesiâ Dei quae dicitur, eligimus eum qui prius fuerit lapsus, postquam ad verbum accesserit, etc.  
The sense of this place, saith the Remonstrant, is this, That those which were newly admitted into the Church, 
Pag. 142. 143.  who by reason of their late acquaintance with such as were left behind them in Pagan superstition, might be fit Monitors to know and notify the condition of such Candidates as did offer to come into the Church, were designed to that office of Monitorship.  
Here we desired the Reader to consider: first that the scope of the place is to vindicate the Christian assemblies from the imputations unjustly cast upon them by Celsus, as if they were a confluence of base and worthless people. To clear this, he divides all Christians into two Orders: the first were Catechumeni, or beginners; and first he shows the care they took about them, before they were baptised. The other order comprehends all such as were baptised, whom he describes in these words. There is another order of such who according to their ability express their endeavours to desire nothing but what seems right to Christians, which two orders are in antiquity distinguished in Catechumenos & Fideles. 
Austin. Serm. 14 de verb. Apost.  Now that this same alter ordo might be kept to live according to there profession; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there were some designed or constituted, who should look to the manners of all such as come to them; (that is to their meetings) that they that lived wickedly might be banished their assemblies, and heartily embracing such as lived well, they might make them better.  
Those persons here spoken of, the Remonstrant grants to be lay persons (as we term them) and doth not so much as once go about to affirm them Presbyters. Only the question is, who those so constituted were? He saith Novices newly added to the Church. Secondly of whom they had the inspection? he saith only of such as were coming out of paganism and offered themselves to be added to their Assemblies. Thirdly, what their power was? he saith, only to notify the lives of such: to be as it were Monitores, and no more.  
For the two first, we conceive it impossible for him to show in all antiquity that ever the Church did appoint Novices over Novices to be overseers of their manners, and much more impossible to collect it from this place, since Origen speaks indefinitely of any of this order (to wit of Fideles) and punctually of such who had attained such a measure of grace as they were able to express endeavours to do that which is right, and were fit and able by their acquaintance to better others, and therefore these could not be Novices. 
Pag. 142. 143.  For the second, to wit, over whom they had power? they were not only such as were lately admitted: for Origen speaks generally of all wicked or scandalous livers among them, who were to be inhibited their assemblies. For the third, the power they had, (which saith he was only to be Monitors) it appears from the text, that they had power either to keep back from their assemblies, or to receive into their assemblies, according as the lives of men were good or bad, and were of that ability, as that they could better them daily with their good counsel. And if any were froward or contumacious, what course was further to be taken with them the following words declare; and although it is true, the acts of casting such out of the Church is attributed primarily to the teachers; yet who dare exclude those former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all interest in this act? when Origen himself saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. the like custom they have about offenders, and chiefly such as are incorrigible.  
But this great Corrector of Translations cannot let us pass here without a castigation, for translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Praepositi sunt. Unfaithfully, deceitfully saith he. Sir it would have become you to spare your censure till you considered better; if you had but looked in your Lexicon you might have found that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only constituor, but praeficior, and between Praefecti and praep●siti certainly there is no such great difference as might deserve the censure of unfaithfulness for using the one instead of the other; besides Turrianus translated it thus before us, who, we persuade ourselves, was as able to understand the language of Origen as our Critical Remonstran●, if we may judge of him as he here discovers himself; would any man so confidently charge unfaithfulness upon the translation of others, and himself go & translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Pag. 142.  They do privately examine such as are bewitched with Paganism? it is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies incant● as well as frequenter admoneo, to inchaunt as well as to instruct or admonish, but here it must of necessity be rendered in the latter signification, because it is here the participle of the active voice, and the case agrees n●t with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Which is put in the beginning of that clause: so again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he t●anslates, the rest that are like themselves they may gladly Receive, whereas it should be thus, but receiving those that are not such (that is) as those wicked persons last spoke of.  
These are poor Grammarpec adillios not worth t●e taking notice of, but that our Remonstrant is so busy with his Ferula, that no sooner can he think we trip, but he is presently upon us, Corrig● Magn ficat.  
The rest of our testimonies produced in this cause, he thus answers, First, he could double our files, and produce many more. 
Pag 143.  But secondly, in sadierms, we do nothing herein, 
Pag 144.  but abuse our Reader: For all the places are nothing at all to the purpose in hand. For the first, The numbers he could add to our forces, are no more than our own, except one only place out of Gregory Turonen, is: all the rest were urged by us, Even that which he saith is more pregnant than any we have brought. Did ever poor man make so great a brag of nothing? Truly, Sir, you have much enriched us by paying us with our own colne. Only here we are beholding to you for your testimony of the pregnancy of some of them, when as you said before, All of them were nothing to the purpose in hand: it seems your second thoughts correct your former. For his second answer, he tells us, all these places are nothing to the purpose. And why? because those Seniors, are Civil Magistrates, such as we call Aldermen, whose advice and assistance was used in all great occasions of the Church. To prove this he brings the African Canons, Can. 100 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are mentioned, and expounds it by the 91 Canon of the African, which he calls a Commentary upon this point, Debere unumquemque no strum in civitate sua convenire Donatistarum Praepositos, aut adjungere sibi vicinum collegam, 
Pag. 145  ut pariter eos in singulis qnibusque civitatibus per Magistratus vel Seniores locorum conveniant.  
To which we answer, That this his Commentary corrupts the text; For in this 91 Canon there is no mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By the Magistrate, or those that are of chief authority in those places: these we grant were as it were our Aldermen, men of civil power and authority, but they were not as those Elders mentioned in the 100 Canon. And why should the Remonstrant choose rather to follow justellus, in reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seniores locorum, then Balsamon, and Zonaras, who read it, Quiprimas ferant, unless it were to deceive his credulous Reader, and induce him to think there were no other Elders in the Church, than such as were Civil Magistrates; whereas his own justellus in his exposition of the 100 Canon saith, Erant Seniores, Laici, extra Ecclesiam, de quibus supra ad Can. 91. Erant & Seniores Ecclesiastici; There were Lay-elders out of the Church, of whom we spoke, Can. 91, and there are Ecclesiastic or Church-elders: To prove which he brings forth the very testimonies which we produced from Baronius, and others. And certainly, he that compares the two Canons quoted by the Remonstrant, will see how absurdly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one Canon are drawn to expound the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other. For the former were the Magistrates, who having a coercive power, might compel the Donatists to meet for conference and disputations, if they did refuse it: The other were not Magistrates but Seniores, sent by the Church to accuse their Bishop. Now how well is the one expounded by the other?  
But if the Seniors were not Aldermen, yet they were (say you) but as our Churchwardens and Vestry-men, only trusted with the Viensils, 
Pag. 146.  Stocks, and outward affairs of the Church; business of seats and rates, etc. This the Remonstrant will, if you will believe him, evince out of our own testimonies, and yet meddles not with that, which is the most pregnant testimony to prove that the power of these elders did reach to things of a higher nature than seats and rates, and that is the Letter of Pu●purius, which gives to the Seniors a concurrent power with the Clergy, to inquire about the dissensions which troubled the Church, that by their wisdom and care peace might be settled in the same. These dissensions were not about seats or rates, but a contention between Silvanus the Bishop, and Nundinarius the Deacon, in a matter of a high nature, too high for our Church Wardens, 
Gest Purgationis 〈◊〉 & Faelicis.  or Vestrymen to meddle in; The Bishop being accused, that he was Traditor & fur rerum pauperum. Did ever Churchwardens, or Vestry men among us, hear, inquire, judge, compose such differences as these are? What should John a Nokes, and John a Styles, 
To answer your margin in a margin: why may not Presbyteri be as truly translated Elders as Seniors?  and Smug the Smith, meddle with a business of Bishops? saith Episcopacy by Divine Right, part. 3. pag. 32. But how doth he prove they were but as our Churchwardens, or Vestrymen? First, because Deacons are named before these Seniors where ever they are mentioned. Secondly, because Optatus reckoning up quatuor genera capitum, mentions not Elders. 
Pag. 147.   
For the first, though the order of reckoning them be not so much to be insisted upon, yet we can tell you (if here your confidence had not been greater than your consideration) that you might have observed, that in some places they are mentioned not only before Deacons, but the whole clergy; For so Gregory's letter cited by us; Tabellarium cum consensu Seniorum, & Cleri memineris ordinandum: Are not Seniors here mentioned before the clergy?  
His second proof, that these Elders were no better then mere Churchmardens and Vestry men was, because Optatus mentioning four sorts of men in the Church mentions not these Elders. But is this the man that hath with such height of scorn vilified poor negative arguments, though drawn from sacred Scripture? And will he now lay such weight upon a negative argument? Surely, if all the truth and practice of the primitive times were bound up in one Optatus, (as all Divine truth is lodged in the sacred Volume of the Scriptures) the Remonstrant might have made much of his negative argument, yet he scorns to hear us reasoning, that because we do not read that the holy Ghost did by the Apostles appoint Bishops, in remedium Schismatis, therefore we cannot believe Bishops are of Divine or Apostolical institution, but of humane. Away (saith he) with this poor negative argument. And because the Apostle, Ephesians the fourth, reckoning the Officers whom Christ hath given and gifted for the edification of his Church, reckons up only Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, & Teachers, if we should conclude, Ergo, there were no Bishops, The Remonstrant would cry out again, Away with these negative arguments, yet such an argument from Scripture may be valid, though from no other authority. As for Optatus, First, though in these places he mentions not Elders, yet that other place which we brought out of the same Author doth, which the learned Antiquary Albaspinaeus (though a Papist) with us acknowledgeth.  
Secondly, these places produced by the Remonstrant cross one another as much as they cross us, for Ministri are left out in one as well as Seniores in both. Thirdly, these Seniores are included in turba fidelium, as the Apostle, Rom. 10. 14. comprehends all the Church under these two, hearers and teachers, and so again, Heb. 13. 24. Rulers and Saints.  
Yet the Remonstrant is resolved to hold the conclusion. Elders in a rank above Deacons in a settled power of government with the Pastors, 
Pag. 147.  shall be damned by him for a new and unjustifiable opinion. Yet this is the man that would by no means be thought to condemn the Reformed Churches, Though he fall as unhappily near the very words of their professed enemies, the netherlands Remonstants', as ever we did the words of Aerius. Quod attinet Praxin antiquitatis ex ●â videlicet id demonstrari posse idoneis argumentis (ut Censor asserit) audaciae & temeritatis est: and again, Tota antiquitatis Praxis ei repugnat: but oh that our Remonstrant would once learn to take the counsel he gives! And he that adviseth us to give glory to God in yielding to undoubted and clear truth, would do so himself! For if it be not more clear, that there were elders anciently in the Church, then that there were none, and that these elders were not civil Aldermen, but ecclesiastical Officers, Not mere Churchwardens and Vestry men busied about inferior things of seats and rates, but employed in matters of higher nature, let the Remonstrant never renounce episcopacy. But if it be, let him take heed he do not renounce his word, which he utters, pag. 147. I do here solemnly profess that if any one such instance can be brought, I will renounce episcopacy for ever.   

SECT. XVI. XVII. XVIII.  
THe rest of our Answer (you say) is but a mere declamation. And good Sir, 
Pag. 148.  what was your whole Remonstrance but a declamation? And what is your Defence but a Satire? But ours is worthy of no other answer than contempt and silence. You are very dextrous and happy in those kind of Answers, your whole Defence is full of them. It is true you say, The religious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan, and against his Antichrist. And it is as true that we told you, that others have upheld the truth as strongly as Bishops ever did; Yea, & at sometimes when there was never a Bishop in the world to appear for the truth. And therefore never impropriate all the glory to Episcopacy. It is also true that we told you, that some irreligious Bishops have upheld Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God, and what can you say to this? What is this to their calling? Sir, their upholding Antichrist makes as much against their calling, as their upholding the truth makes for their calling. If you fetch an argument from the one for their calling, we may as Logically fetch an argument from the other against their calling with as much concluding strength; but you can tell us of Presbyters wicked and irreligious, shall the function itself therefore suffer? Like enough. And we could tell you that they find more countenance from Bishops then the painfullest Ministers. But if Presbyters should be as generally corrupted as Bishops now are, have as much strength to suppress the Gospel, and promote Popery, as the Bishops by their supreme power have, if they can bring no more evidence of Divine institution than Bishops can, and are of no more necessity to the Church than Bishops are, let the Function suffer.  
We told you what an unpreaching Bishop said of a preaching Bishop; this say you is our slander not their just Epithet, and challenge us to show any unpreaching Bishop in the Church of England this day. Sir, pardon us if we tell you that you put us in mind of a poor Sir john that because he had made one Sermon in 40. years would needs be counted a preaching minister: if you speak of preaching after that rate, than indeed you may call all the Bishops in England preaching Bishops. But the people of England can so well tell who deserves the name of a preaching Bishop, that it is not the preaching of a Sermon once a year, or a quarter, or a month, that will be sufficient to merit and maintain that name. Some indeed have taken some pains heretofore; But there are so few of them now, that sure the Remonstrant intended this book for posterity: The present Age will never believe that England is so full of preaching Bishops, that there is not an unpreaching Bishop to be found. But what if we should challenge the Remonstrant to show any preaching Bishop in England, such a preaching Bishop as chrysostom, Augustine, and the rest of those ancient worthies were 〈◊〉 who if they had preached no oftener then our Bishops, chrysostom had never mentioned his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so often, nor his Nudi●tertius, Nor his cras and perendie, Nor Austin his Nudius tertiani & hes●erni Sermons, Nor Cyprian his Quotidiani Tractatus.  
Indeed of old, one saith, Bishops gloried of their chair, and teaching, as the flower of their garland; preferring it far before government; but when they were fallen from spiritual felicity, and infected with Secular smoke, than they commended the labour of teaching to Presbyters, than the jurisdiction and Consistory did carry all the credit; Every Office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more or less jurisdiction annexed to it, & this dignity hath almost crowded out the duty.  
The scandal of inferior Ministers he professeth to bleed for, 
Pag. 149.  but saith, we blazon: No Sir, as we told you before, and tell you again, they have been the trumpets of their own shame, that like Hophne and Phineas made the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred. But we beseech you, what is the English of your desires to have had the faults made less public? Do you mean you would not have had them meddled withal in open Parliament? or that you would have had the Parliament do by all Petitions brought in against such seandalous persons, as Constantine did by those Papers that the proud contentious Bishops gave one against another, commit them to the fire? if so, then as you are Christian tells us, whether you do not think this had been the only way to involve the whole Parliament, and Nation in the guilt of those sins; and expose them to that wrath and vengeance that would from heaven pursue them?  
Bethink yourself how you will answer this at that great Tribunal to which you make so many rash and bold appeals, as also your profaning the glorious title of the God of peace, that you might under the sweet name of peace persuade an impunity for sin. Sir, we nothing fear but we shall answer our opposing the unerring rule of the Word of God (which texts you never went about to answer) against that example of Constantine (who as a man, though good, was subject to error) ten thousand times better than you will do either of these.  
In our next Section, saith our Remonstrant, we spit in the face of our Mother. 
Pag. 149.  Good Reader please to review our Answer, Section 17. and judge. The Remonstrant will deny presently, that he and the Bishops are the Church of England, and yet here, that which is spoken against them and their Perseus-like practices is spoken against our Mother the Church. Well, be what you please, Fathers, and Mothers, and Sons, and all.  
Only we desire the Remonstrant if he can, to tell us what the Church of England is. 
Pag 149.  For it doth not please him here that we should call the Convocation the Church of England, much less the Bishops, or Archbishops. Yet if we be not mistaken, you yourself call the Convocation the Church of England, pag. 122. 
In the late Canons the Bishop's Consistory is called the Church.  And the Canons and Constitutions made in the Convocation are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England, which the Convocation alone excluding the Parliament cannot be so much as a representative of, unless you will count the whole Laity of the Nation represented in Parliament none of the Church of England. Yet this is the Church so cried up, These Canons are the commands of the Church, so rigorously urged, Who ever breaks a Canon especially in point of Ceremony is no dutiful son of the Church; Indeed, in point of Morality, Drinking, Swearing, Gaming, there is more indulgence. Nay, how many Bishops in England are there that have urged their own private paper-injunctions as the commands of the Church, and proceeded against such as would not observe them, as disobedient or refractory against their Mother the Church? That Sir, upon the point there will appear to be more Churches in England then one. For tell us, we beseech you, when the Church of England at Norwich forbade all prayer before and after Sermon, but only in the words of the 55 Canon, forbade all preaching in the afternoons, all expounding of Catechism, or Scriptures, the Church of England in London forbade none of these things; when the Church of England in London enjoined railing in Communion Tables, and all communicants to make their approaches thither, the Church of another Diocese went further, and enjoined setting of them Altarwise. And all these were the commands of the church of England. The transgression of any one of these, 
No●e the sixteenth of the new Canons.  the omission of any other thing enjoined, was condemned as disobedience to the church. Now how many churches of England were there at this time?  
But you will play off all this as merriment with a Ridiculum caput. 
Pag. 150.  To deal with you therefore seriously; Because you make so strange a thing of hearing of more churches of England then one, and distinguish so deeply between Churches of England, and Churches in England, we beseech you consider whither the Scripture do not speak as properly, when it speaks of the Churches of judea and of Galatia, as if it had said the churches in judea, and in Galatia? And what difference between Saint john when ho writes to the Church of Ephesus, of Laodicea, and the church in Sardis, in Thyatira? Yet, we are not ridiculous enough: therefore the Remonstrant will help the matter, and to make his jeer will corrupt our words. For whereas we had said, if the bounds of a Kingdom must needs be the limits of a Churth, Why are not England, Scotland, and Ireland all one church? to make it nonsense, he adds of England; are not England, Scotland, and Ireland, all one Church of England? He that made it, let him take it.  
This discourse of Churches of England, cannot end without a descent into the Prelatical and Anti-prelaticall Church. We said, We acknowledge no Anti-prelaticall Church. The Remonstrant tells us if we make and condemn the Prelatical Church, what shall be the other part of the contradistinction. Our reply must be, that not we, but themselves make the Prelatical Church, we do but show it; and we show also the other part of the contradistinction which the Remonstrant pleaseth to call the antiprelatical Church. The Remonstrant had upbraided the Divisions of that part, we made our just defence, and therein declared that the Prelatical party were the chief Authors and Fomentors of those divisions, which the Remonstrant directly doth not deny, only bids us lay our hands upon our hearts, 
Pag. 151.  and consider whether our fomenting of so unjust and deep dislikes of lawful government have not been too much guilty of those woeful breaches. Sir, we have considered it, and can before the great heart-searching God plead not guilty. The dislike of present Church government, which its own exorbitancy hath caused, we have not fomented, but have smothered our thoughts and griefs even until this present, wherein the gracious hand of God hath inclined the heart of our gracious Sovereign to call a Parliament, that he and they might together consult of the pressures and grievances of his people, and conclude their removal. And now we cannot, we dare not hold our peace, but declare our judgements, that if it shall seem good to our dread Sovereign, and this Honourable Parliament, upon the many complaints brought in against Bishops and their hierarchical government, to remove the Hierarchy, This Act of State may appear to all to be far from sin; this not being a government appointed by Christ, nor stamped with a Ius Divinum, though some will make that their protection.  
As One that loves the peace of the Church, 
Pag. 152.  which we (you say) are willing to trouble, You ask after the Bounders, etc. Are you one that loves the peace of the Church? We pray of what Church? Sure that Church that is called Prelatical, and no other, Where of we give you the boundaries and characters, which it seems please you not.  
The bounders we showed from your late Canons, which (say you) are too narrow: let them see to that that first made them. It is apparent, that the Canons made by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Archdeacon's, in their Convocation, were never consented to, much less confirmed by Parliament, and yet those are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England. And therefore sure, though we do not exclude Bishops, Deans, etc. from being members of the Church, yet They have excluded all the rest of the Nation.  
For distinction we brought bowing to the East, to Altars, etc. Now these (say you) are not fit distinctions whereon to ground different Churches. Yes Sir, if it be true that some have held, 
Pag. 153.  that the outward Forms of worship, and ceremonies attending it are the characters whereby one Church is differenced from another; but especially when such as will not practise these, shall be disclaimed by such as do them, as none of the sons of the Church. When men shall be forced to subscribe to the practice of these things, or else they shall not be admitted either into Livings, or Cures, (as in the instanced particulars we have known it) than they make a difference of Churches. And who are the authors of such differences, but such as thus urge them? Next we brought their Creed and instanced in Episcopacy by divine right: He replies, Did ever man make this an Article of Faith? Judge you by what Bishop Hall saith in his Episcopacy by Divine right part 2. pag. 47. I am so confident of the Divine institution of the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters, that I dare boldly say, there are weighty points of faith that have not so strong ground in Scripture. Is this to make it an article of Faith or no? And if not an Article of Faith, yet we are sure it is made an Article of the Church. For whereas by the orders of the Church of England, a man upon the admission to his ministry is to be examined upon no other Articles than the Articles of Religion established in the Church of ENGLAND, we have known more than one, whose first question hath been, what do you think of Episcopaice?  
We added, absolute & blind obedience to all commands of the Bishop & Ordinaries: you bid us blush. But alas Sir we are not such strangers in England, nor yourself neither, we believe, as not to know but that this hath been the common doctrine, and almost the sole Doctrine preached by prelatical men these many years together. And the blinder the better. This we have heard, nor is it your limitation of the Oath of canonical obedience, in Omnibus licitis & honestis, will help you: when some in stead of that have put in, In omnibus editis & edendis?  
We added Election upon faith foreseen. The Remonstrant cries What? nothing but gross untruths. 
Pag. 153.  Is this the Doctrine of the Bishops of England, have they not strongly confuted it? Yes sure some few have, we know it. And doth not the Remonstrant know that these few have been had in suspicion, as no true friends of the Church, much less sons of the Church, more puritanical than prelatical, And we would none of them had said, They have been labouring these twelve years to get off the name of Puritan, and yet tt will not do, and because of this have been printed Tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani. And the same Author in an other book after that, Dico iterum iterumque dicam, Tantam non in Episcopatu Puritani.  
As for the Scriptures of Prelatical men, we mentioned Apocryphas and unwritten traditions: meaning that that generation lay as much weight almost upon traditions and Apocrypha, as upon a genuine text, and are more observant many of them of a custom, and tradition, then of the command of God. For Sacraments, we instanced, a Baptism of absolute necessity, an Eucharist that must be administered upon an Altar. What are these (say you) to the Church of England? Nothing, but to the Prelatical Church they are. Call them if you will, Popish fools, and addleheads, that maintain these opinions yet we know the number of them is not small, that have declined into these popish ways: we acknowledge also that these are men, if not that chiefly support the Prelacy, yet such as have been chiefly suppoted and countenanced by it. We acknowledge there are many men learned and orthodox, that have in their judgements approved of Episcopal government; but what little encouragement these have had from the Prelates, especially, if laborious in their ministry, or any way opposing the Prelatical innovation, in respect of the encouragements of those popish fools and addleheads as the Remonstrant calls them, a man may see with half an eye.  
You demanded what Christ the Prelatical Church had? Our answer is, a Christ that hath given the same power of obsolution to a Priest that himself hath: which answer, you say, is near to blasphemy: truly an opinion so near to blasphemy can hardly be delivered in a language much distant from it: but this (you say) is a slanderous fiction: no Christian Divine ever held Priests power of absolution was any other then ministerial. 
Page 155.  If we know the man bring him forth that he may be stoned. Truly sir, we knew the man that said the Priest's power in absolution was more than Ministerial, it was judiciary; 
● Montague.  but he is past stoning, he is dead: and we know another said as much; but he sung agag's song long ago, surely the bitterness of death is past. For when he was brought forth to be stoned, he was rescued by Prelatical power, and his Sermon for which he was questioned, printed with licence, and in print presented to the Consistory. We know a third that in a Commencement did openly affirm Absolution by a Priest to be absolutely necessary to salvation.  
Their Heaven we said was a receptacle of drunkards, swearers, adulterers; and surely justly we might say so, for when did your Consistories, that pretend to have the keys that open and shut Heaven, so shut the gates of Heaven against such sinners, as that a silver key could not open them again? and though your charity keep them in Heaven while they live such, yet our charity shuts them not out of Heaven, if they did not die such. But it may be you think confession to a Priest, when they lie a dying shall infallibly save them, what ever their lives have been; and that's the reason you slide by that prelatical opinion and do not question us who hold it?  
We profess still we had rather go on in our own ways, than theirs, and think it our duty to separate from these ways and opinions, rather than embrace them: yet far we are from any thoughts of separating from the Church of England; nor did we ever intent to affix those exotic positions of unsound teachers (as you call them) upon her: but on the faction who hath held promoted, countenanced them, and sheltered themselves all the while under the name of the Church. But if the Remonstrant hate these opinions as much as ourselves; we are glad, if he know others do (because he speaks in the plural) it is well. But we would be glad to know in what Palace that Prelate lives, that hath drawn out his assumed sword of discipline against these unsound teachers? Or if he hath drawn, hath struck, or if struck, hath not struck with the back; while the poor Non conformists hath been slain with the edge? or where he lives that hath opposed these exotic positions so far as to hazard the Archprelates' frown in the opposition.  
Having given sufficient answer to the Remonstrant, we thought it not unfit to subjoin some Quaeres about Episcopacy, for the Remonstrant, (if he pleased) to answer. Which though he saith are made up of nothing but spite and slander: 
Page 156.  yet surely his own conscience tells him, there is much truth and strength in them; else why doth he conclude we put so much trust in them? (when we never told him so.) And why doth he not else apply himself to answer? but like a Socratical disputant put off the question with question; knowing it is safer and easier to propound new questions, then to answer ours.  
1. Your first Quere is, who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to be jure Divivo? if no body, whether this be not to falsify and slander? you might have considered that we spoke not of the Lordships of Bishops in abstracto; but of Lordbishops in concreto: And who holds them to be jure Divino, is sufficiently known. But you ask why it is a greater fault in one of our Doctors to hold the Lords day to stand by humane right (and is there but one of our Doctors of that opinion?) than it is for Master Calvine, (whom for honour's sake no doubt you name here as else where, seldom through your whole defence mentioning that worthy, but in some disgraceful passage.) But did Master Calvin ever hold Bishops to be jure Divino, or did Master Calvine ever as one of our Lord-bishops, who having received a letter from a Gentleman of his City, against the publication of the Book of sports, returned no other answer then a sharp censure of his zeal as giddy and indiscreet? Or did Master Calvin ever cry up Altars instead of Communion Tables, or Priests instead of Ministers? yet in these terms our Quere was propounded, and what ever Master Calvin doth in his institution, yet in his Comment upon Deuteronomy he stands for the strict observation of the Lords day?  
2. Whether it were any other than King james himself, of blessed memory, 
Quaere 2.  that said, No Bishop no King, etc. King james of blessed memory, never spoke this of Bishops by divine right, which are the Bishops now contended for. And if King james of blessed memory said, no Bishop, no King: it was not he, but others that added, no Ceremony, no Bishop; nay some have risen higher, and said; if neither Bishop, nor a King, how a God?  
3. Whether since it is proved that Bishops are of more than mere humane ordinance, and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church and State, it be not fit to establish them for ever, and to avoid a dangerous motion of innovation? sure if the Remonstrants' words may go for proof it is proved, else not; that Bishops are of more than humane ordinance, and so long continuance, and how advantageous to the good of Church and State, Acta probant, and though motions of innovation may be dangerous, yet motions of Renovation are not. Non est pudor ad meliora transire, 
Ambr.  it's no shame to amend.  
4. Whether these Answerers have the wit or grace to understand the true meaning of the Divine right of Episcopacy? We will not impute it to want of wit, or grace in the Remonstrant; but sure himself doth not clearly understand it, he is so unconstant to his opinions: but whether the Remonstrant or his answerers understand the right of Episcopacy better, let the Readers to whose censure both in this controversy must stand or fall, determine: for our parts we hope, we understand what jus divinum means, but do ingenuously confess we have neither wit nor grace to understand the jus divinum of Episcopacy.  
5. Whether there be any question at all in the fifth question? 
Page 157.  yes certainly, if the Remonstrant would not have baulked that which he knew not how to take away; the distinction of Apostolical right, which say we, is either such as is founded upon the Acts, or Epistles of the Apostles, and is (we grant) divine: or such, as is not recorded in their writings, and is only of things reported to be introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living. Now if the Remonstrant hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolical right in the first sense, why doth he then grant us in express terms that in original authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are originally the sam●? 
Def. p. 47.  and why doth he in the same page make his retreat from the writings of the Apostles, to the monuments of succeeding times? If he hold it in the latter sense, these two things yet remain to be done: First, he is to prove that Bishops in a superiority of power over Presbyters, were introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living, and answer his friend Cassander, and our other testimonies produced to the contrary. Secondly, to prove, that such things may be of Divine right, whereof no record is found in Divine writings.  
6. Whether Master Beza have not heard sound of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy in the full and learned answer of Soravia? Yes, and Soravia, and others that have borrowed from him, have heard as fondly of their defences of Episcopacy, both by domestic and foreign Divines, who have sufficiently declared how well our story of the Painter suits with your Discipline: but i● that please you not, we can ●it you with an other of the Painter, mentioned in Plutarch; who having drawn a cock very unskilfully and rudely, could not endure any cock to stand within view, for fear of discovering the deformity of his picture: So our Bishops having drawn a form and line of government, which they propose to the world as divine; will not endure the true divine government to come in view, for fear of discovering the irregularity of theirs.  
7. Whether it were not fit that we also should speak as the ancient Fathers did? Sir, 
Page 158.  by your leave it is safe to speak in the language the Scripture speaks, but you should have done well to have spoken to the reason upon which our Quere was grounded, and what further reasons we then had, and still have to make this Quere may appear by what we have said before in vindicating Timothy and Titus from such like objections.  
8. Whether Presbyters can without sin arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of public Church-government, etc. to say nothing what honour here you give to your dear Sister-Churches: Our answer is, Yes they may take the exercise of that power without sin, though not without danger, if your High-Commission were standing. For our Saviour Christ when he gave to Peter the promise of the keys, made in one undistinguishable act, a donation of the power both of preaching and governing; and therefore if Presbyters may without sin publicly exercise the one by virtue of that donation, they may by the same charter as warrantably exercise the other. The last branch of your quere; Whether any Father or Doctor till this age held that Presbyters were successors to the Apostles? etc. We wonder that any man who hath but the repute of learning should● make such a quere. And for the answer, we refer you to what we have said before in this book.  
9 Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power temporal to be Barons? etc. Our answer is: You show better writts for your temporalties, than you have done yet for your spiritualties. And our quaere was directed to show the spiritual power of Bishops to be of more dangerous consequence than their temporal; to which purpose we produced five reasons, which we persuade ourselves you scarcely read over (for in the third there is a fault in the printing, which had you seen, your charity would scarce have let pass without an observation) which remaining unanswered, we conclude as before; it concerns all those that have spiritual eyes, to endeavour to abrogate their spiritual usurpations● as well as their temporal. As for the latter part of this Quere, it is a begging of the whole dispute, Et eadem facilitate rejicitur, quâ affirmatur.  
10. Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronising a noted heretic Aerius, etc. To this we answer: That if Aerius was accounted an heretic for denying Bishops to be all one with Presbyters by divine right, we are not ashamed to patronise him, till you have answered our allegations for his defence which are brought in this quere, and in divers places in this Book. But you could not be so ignorant but to know how Bellarmine and divers others do say. That Aerius was accounted an heretic, not for denying the inequality of Bishops and Presbyters by Scripture, but by the Canons of the Church. But we wonder how we escaped the brand of the heresy of the Audianis, who by the same Epiphanius are called heretics (though men of a blameless conversation) because they did not without just cause) freely and boldly reprove the vices of the Bishops of their days.  
11. Whether the great apostasy of the Church of Rome do, 
Page 160.  or did consist in the maintaining the order of government set by the Apostles themselves, etc. Sure no: we never said, nor thought it. But that a great part of the Apostasy of the Church of Rome consisted in swarving from the discipline of Christ and hi● Apostles, as well as from the doctrine and setting up and maintaining a new hierarchical form, which cannot enter into our hearts to think the Apostles did ever set up: and which the most part of the Churches in the Christian World, that are professedly opposite unto the Church of Rome do oppose, as much as they do Rome itself; though you bear the Reader in hand, they all maintain it no less constantly than Rome itself doth; which no man but he that hath captivated reason, & modesty to his cause, and will, would have so confidently and untruly spoken. Once again let us ask you, whether by this bold speech all the reformed Churches of Christ be not now shut out of the number of Churches?  
12. Whether if Episcopacy be (through the munificence of good Princes) honoured with a title of dignity, etc. it to be ever the more declined?  
Since the time that Episcopacy has been honoured with dignity, and revenues, the office hath not been declined; but the Bishops themselves have been declining. Yet our Quere was not whether this were a ground of declining the place, but rather of desiring the place. As for our crying up the Presbytery, because we hope to carry some sway in it. We acknowledge ourselves unworthy to bear any part in it; but we heartily desire that Christ may rule, and we shall most willingly subject ourselves to his government.  
13. Whether there be no other apparent causes to be given for the increase of popery and superstition in the Kingdom, besides Episcopacy (which hath strongly laboured to oppose it) etc. We deny not but there may have been other causes, but none so apparent as Episcopacy. But whereas in a parenthesis which you might well have left out without any detriment either to your sense or the truth, you say that, Episcopacy hath strongly laboured to oppose popery: we answer Quid verba audimus cum facta videmus? you ask again whether the multitude of Sects (you should have added which the tyranny of Bishops hath made,) And professed ●lovenlinesse in God's service have not been guilty of the increase of profaneness. We answer again, not so much as the forbidding of preaching and Catechising, as the countenancing of sports on the Lord's day, as the scandalous lives of too too many episcopal men, and the libertinism of the Bishop's houses and Courts.  
14. Your 14. Quere consists of a Paradox, and a Solecism. A Paradox in saying, That all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have ever observed, and do constantly and uniformly observe and maintain Episcopal government. When as you know all your dear sisters of whom you profess a tender care, do disclaim it. Of a Bull and solecism in saying That all Christian Churches do constantly and uniformly observe it. And yet confessing, that there are less noble Churches that conform not unto it.  
15. In your next Quere you contradict yourself and the truth as a self confounded man. For here you say, That the name of Bishop hath been for this 1600 years appropriated (in a plain contradistinction) to the governor's of the Church. But page 48 where we bring Iren●us calling Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, etc. Bishops of Rome Presbyters, And others also using the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; You cry out with a loud voice, Is this all? that your trifling may appear to all the World. Name but any one of our writers, who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacy, that have not granted and proclaimed this which you contend for. In the latter end of this quere, you think to stop our mouths with Balaams' wages, and demand. Whether if we will allow you to be Bishops, all will not be well? We are scripture Bishops without your allowance. As for to be hierarchical Bishops, since God will not allow it, we care not for your allowance. But what Patent or Monopoly have you among all the multitude of late Projectors obtained, that without your allowance a Presbyter may not be admitted into a Bishopric?  
16. To your last Quere we answer. That if God had set your episcopal government in his Church; we know it could not be lawful for us to deny subjection unto it. But we have proved the contrary in this discourse. Neither have the Laws of this land so firmly established it; but that it may be repealed by the same Laws, and suffer a just period for its matchless pride, and insufferable oppressions. Which for the present we perceive is out of fear a little aba●ed, and that makes you ask; Whether it were not most lawful and just to punish our presumption and disobedience, etc. Time was when the High commission and other Episcopal Courts would have made both our ears more than tingle for such a question without enquiring either the lawfulness and justice of it.  
Thus we have answered his 16. Queries, but before we end our book, we cannot but take notice of what the Remonstrant adds in the conclu●ion. For there he tells us, That he hopes he hath given a sufficient answer to our bold and unjust demands: And yet notwithstanding he doth not vouchsafe to give any answer at all, but only propounds new questions, instead of answers: which if the Reader will conceive a sufficient way of answering; we doubt not but we shall quickly give satisfaction to all that ever hath been written for Episcopal government, either by Bishop Bilson, Bishop Downham, Bishop Hall, or any other whatsoever.  

To all the Postscripts.  
We will not create trouble to the Reader, by a reiterated justification of our sincerity, though it be again prodigiously wounded. Here is much cry, and little wool. He cannot deny what in our Postscript we have proved to be the practices of Prelates, ever since Augustine's erection of the See of Canterbury, only first he salsely tells us, that we have borrowed a great part of it out of Zions plea. But if that Author hath collected any of the same Stories (which yet we know not) out of the Chronicles, why should we be thought to have borrowed them from him, (whom we durst not for fear of the Prelates keep in our studies) rather then from the Chronicles themselves?  
Secondly he answers, That they were popish Bishops, limbs of that body whose head we abjure, etc. But Sr you know that in Henry the eights time, when this head abjured, the Body of popery still remained. This Body of popery (comprehended in six Articles) was called a wh●p of six strings, And you with all your Rhetoric will hardly persuade the people, but that they have been lashed for these many years with a whip of six and twenty strings. Have not most of these denied this Head to be Antichrist? And that if wise men had the handling of it, we might be reconciled unto it? Hath not one of their abettors written, that the Religion of the Church of Rome is not only a possible, but a safe way to Heaven? What then will it avail to say that our Bishops and they have different heads?  
Thirdly, he answers, That a charitable man might have made a longer Catalogue of the good fruits of our Episcopacy, and reckons up a multitude of their good deeds, many whereof, ●hould ●ee wipe our eyes never so much, we fear we should not see, and the rest which are in any kind visible, will not, if weighed in a just balance, bear any proportion, to all those unnatural fruits mentioned in our Postscrips.  
In his close he tells us, That the Bishop's foot hath been in our book, which is quite spoiled by his just confutation. We confess truly the Bishops ●o 〈◊〉 hath left much dirt behind it; but could many hundred● of godly Ministers, have as easily got the Green Wax and Red Wax of the Bishops out of their mouths with which they have been a long time stopped, As we have wiped away the dirt that hath been thrown upon our book; The Church of England had never made so many sad complaints, and presented so many doleful petitions unto the high and supreme Court of Justice.  
2. His second Postscript is an advertisement to the Reader, for the vindication of the credit of the person of Doctor Hall, and his Episcopacy by divine right, from the censure which Doctor Voetius is reported to have passed upon them both. True it is, there was tendered to us a justification of what that angry Pamphlet (as he calls it) had published to the world. But because we found that it would deeply reflect upon the credit of Doctor Hall, and that in a language more disgraceful than that was before said, we refused to insert it. Our business is with a nameless Remonstrant, not with the undervaluation of any man's person in particular. If he please to call for it, he may have it.  
His third Postscript brings in the judgement of Scultetus to ●make the World believe that his new opinion of Episcopacy by divine right is not destitute of Patrons in the reformed Churches. But what is one Scultetus to the many hundred learned men amongst them of a contrary judgement? We might here retort upon our Remonstrant, that he saith concerning the moderator of Geneva page 138. You tell me of the moderator of Geneva as if all the Church of God were included in those straight walls. We could have translated Voetius his Theses for the justification of lay Elders both out of Scripture and antiquity. But 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. This was related to us by Doctor Twisse, who had it from Doctor Rivet himself.  
FINIS.     

The Printer to the Reader.  
Courteous Reader,  
WE cannot but confess, that the crowding in of many little Pamphlets into the Press hath for many weeks detained this Book, to the great grief of the Authors: We desire thee to correct with thy pen these following Errata, and to cover the lesser faults with thy Charity.  
PAge 12 line 11 deal more to be read●line 18 read ●r. p 14 l 5 deest Although. l 30 r obtain. p 18 d Zanchy and Cassander out of the marge●t. p 21 l 6 r ●nstruct●oribus. p 26 l 17 next appointed add, a hint thereof we have Acts 3. 1. p 18 l 17 r Presbyters for Priests. l 18 for not r once. p 29 l 27 d because. p 38 l 12 d for our part. l 31 r time. p 42 l pen. r Reform Protestant Churches. p 36 l 18 r Their. p 64 l 24 r Prebyterii. p 74 l 30 At That make a comma. p 81 l ult r Common. p 84 r hasty. p 86 l 15 r Contradiction. p 92 l 25 for are r have been p 93 l 16 r admisimus. p 96 l 14 r Leo● p 111 l 31 r proved. p 112 l 27 r please. p 113 l 18 r proofs for process. p 114 l ●6 for promise r. premise p 115 l 21 for alone r along. p 118 18 r office for work. p 126 l 24 make a comma at of. p 127 l 21 r of for as● p 129 l 14 r Capp●llus. p 132 l 29 to Dowah●m, add Epis●opacie by Divine Right. p 135 l 11 next to Thirdly add is there. p 136 l 26 add The in the beginning of the line p 159 l 27 r Campian. p 160 l 31 for we r you, and for you r we. p 174 l 11 deal particular. p 176 l 6 deal Call.