THE Presbyterians Loyalty, AND ZEAL for RELIGION, Briefly Demonstrated: In a LETTER, By way of Reply to a late Fanatical Pamphlet, entitled, The Knave Uncloak'd; or, The Jesuit in its Colours.  
showing how industriously our Modern Rumpers endeavour, under the name of Protestants, to promote the Good Old Cause.  
Also proving Presbyterians to be schismatics, and Bishops Jure Divino superior to Presbyters.  
Together with a serious and seasonable Advertisement to all True and Loyal Protestants.  
There is a Generation that are pure in their own thoughts, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. Prov. 30.12.  
Presumptuous they are, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 2 Pet. 2.10.  
Men that introduce profaneness, are cloaked over with a name of imaginary Religion. Prosper. lib. 2. de contemptu vitae, cap. 4.  
Printed in the Year 1680.   

THE Presbyterians Loyalty AND ZEAL for RELIGION Demonstrated, &c.  

Good Sir Presbyter,  
YOur Letter I received, and have hitherto deferred to sand you a reply, as well because I could not certainly tell where to direct it, as also because I thought it altogether needless to spend any time in answering, such frivolous impertinencies, and idle whimseys; yet forasmuch as the Wise-man adviseth us to answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, Prov. 26.5. I concluded at last to sand you these ensuing Lines as a New-years-Gift, and direct them to your Worship at Billingsgate, where I judge by your dexterity in scolding and railing rhetoric you are a Master of Art, if not chairman to that quick-tongu'd and unsociable Society.  
Truly, to be railed at by the Presbyterians, is so far from giving me the least distaste, that I count it the greatest honour they can place upon me, it being now the common Character of a faithful Patriot, and true Loyalist: And had I been in the least praised by such factious Spirits, I would undoubtedly suspect my own actions, and say with Socrates, What evil have I done, that these Antimonarchical Levellers should commend me?  
'tis true, you pretend to be a Son of the Church of England, and to colour your knavery, you most unfortunately make a Cloak of that holy Church, whose candour and sincerity is so transparent, that your pernicious designs are plainly seen through it, to the utter confusion of such hypocritical dissemblers.  
But since the world knows, a Protestant Jesuit can equivocate as well as the Puritan Papist, I think we have reason enough to believe, that by the Church of England you mean nothing else but your own Presbyterian Synagogue, which alone you esteem the true Church of Christ; for it is evident, a Son of that Church, which is now through God's Providence established among us by the Laws of the Land, you cannot pretend to be, unless such a Son as Nero was to Agrippina, who scrupled not to procure the death of his unfortunate Mother, to satisfy his own monstrous voluptuousness.  
You undertake to roll sisyphus his ston, or wash a gipsy, to vindicate the Presbyterians, and make us believe they are harmless Lambs, though all true Protestants hold them for ravenous Wolves, and now apprehended them most dangerous both to Church and State: yet so pitiful a defence you make in their behalf, that I cannot tell whether the Church of England has greater reason to detest your Schismatical intention, than your own Synagogue to curse your ill-manag'd undertaking; for since, as the Poet well observed, 
Causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit.  
What shall become of an ill Cause very ill defended?   
But however you fail in the rest, you are sure not to forget the old contrivances of your Predecessors, the Parliamentarion Rebels, and their worthy Progenitors, in charging all those with Popery, that presumed to make the least opposition against their bloody Zeal for the Genevesion Reformation: Which intrigue, as it proved most successful to the treacherous Rumpers, so it has been no less destructive and pernicious to the Church of England, it being one of the chiefest stratagems, whereby the Rebels brought our Royal Martyr and his trustiest Ministers into an odium with the blinded Rabble.  
I could instance here several passages of this Presbyterian policy, but I shall content myself with two or three, and will begin with one remarkable example, which was a praeludium to all our former distractions, as their present proceedings, if not timely prevented, do infallibly prognosticate the like revolutions to be near at hand. In the year 1632. King Charles the First, of glorious memory, took a journey into Scotland, and thought by degrees to settle there the English Liturgy, with its usual Ceremonies; which the Ring-leaders of the Presbyterian Faction in that Kingdom understanding, not onely exclaimed against our Liturgy as erroneous and superstitious, but also doubted not to traduce his Majesty for very strong inclinations to the Religion of the Church of Rome. By which contrivance they quickly possessed the short-sighted Rabble with such tears and jealousies, as afterwards broken out into a flamme of open Rebellion, to the utter ruin and destruction both of King and country. See Bakers Chronicle, Edit. anno 1674. page. 473.  
And so effectual a contrivance was this piece of policy counted by our brave Machiavilians, that in England also in the year 1641, when the Spirit within them moved the blind Zealots to join with the Scotch Rebels,( as it is recorded by the same Historian, page. 535) in the dead of the night, the more to terrify the timorous vulgar, they used to cry in the streets of London, That all people should arise to their defence, for the King with his Papists were coming to fire the City, and cut their threats in their beds. Than which contrivance( saith the Author) though nothing were more false, yet found the effects of truth. Likewise in Novemb. 1642 Vicar, the Presbyterian Historian, in his Chronicle, Part 1. page. 212. speaking of the Battle of Edge-hill, gives this relation of his holy Brethren, The Sabbath day after their arrival to London, the godly and well-offected Ministers( i.e. the Presbyterian Predicants) throughout the City preached and praised the Lord publicly, for their joyful and safe return home to their Parents, Masters, and Friends, exhenting those young Solditers of Christs Army Royal still to retain, and be forward and ready to show their courage and zeal to the defence of Gods Cause, and their Countreys welfare: showing them the Plots of their adversaries, to have introduced Popery and Tyranny into the Kingdom; and assuring them, that this War on their parts was waged and managed by Papists, an Army of Papists being raised by the Kings command, contrary to his vows and protestations.  
It is needless, I suppose, to repeat here, how often most of our eminent Divines, and zealous Church men, ever since the Reformation, have been slandered in this manner by these hot-headed Enthusiasts, and compelled to make Apologies in their own vindication against such wicked aspersions. Was not the Learned Dr. montague, Bishop of Chichester, forced to writ a Book, entitled, Appello Caesarem, against the malicious Calumnies of the Puritan Party, where the godly man sheweth himself so far from being daunted with their bold attempts and bloody Menaces, that, with true Christian courage he openly exposeth to the world their mysteries of iniquety, and fully discovereth their pernicious contrivances to undermine our Church, and subvert our Government? and amongst the rest, he speaketh in this manner, The truth is, as with the Jesuit he is an heretic, that is not furloso more a Roman catholic, so with the Puritan he is a Papist that will not run a madding with them. It is not the first time( saith he) for this very cause I have been talked of, esteemed of, traduced as a Papist; which I can the better brook, because they have meted this measure to the Church of England itself, as sympathising with Papists in her Liturgy, Discipline, and Doctrine. In his Appeal to caesar, part 2. c. 1. p. 110.  
All true Protestants therefore, who prefer the Harmonious and Apostolical Order and Government of the Church of England, before the confused hodge-podge of the new-found Genevesian Discipline, have now( I think) sufficient reason to be ware of such dangerous contrivances for the future, and not suffer themselves to be gulled again by such gilded pretences, which, like the apple of Sodom, are specious indeed and beautiful without, but base and filthy within. The Presbyterians, to our sorrow, have by this policy once deceived us, and the Lord forgive them; but if they deceive us again, then the Lord forgive us. Improbe Neptunum accuset, qui iterum naufragium facit. As for my part, I declare before God and the World, that I renounce with all my heart and Soul as well the Idolatrous Papists, as the Anarchical Presbyterians, whose blind zeal and transparent hypocrisy, with their appurtenances, abjuro, denego, detestor.  
I must confess, the Presbyterians are something beyond the Papists in matters of Religion, neither did I ever compare them together in that point, but I supposed with the most Learned of our Church, and particularly with Englands Solomon, King James of glorious memory, in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, page. 19. That Papists were never persecuted in this Kingdom( if not by cromwell and his Rumpers) for matters of Faith, but for their wicked Principles, and destructive Practices against Temporal Government. And now I appeal to the judicious Reader, if I have not sufficiently demonstrated in my former Paper out of the prime Authors and Founders of the Genevesian Gospel, as Calvin, Beza, Knox, Buchanan, &c. that the Presbyterian Principles are altogether as dangerous and destructive, if not more pernicious to Temporal Government, than that of the Papists themselves. And if your Answer to this be not rather a plain confession of the crime, than any vindication thereof, let the Reader judge.  
First, you say, I am fain to go into other Countreys, as far as Scotland and Geneva, to prove the Rebellious Principles of the Presbyterians. But, good Sir Presbyter, is not that enough, or are not the Presbyterians every where of the same stamp and coin? And besides, why may it not be as good a way to prove the Princ●ples of the Presbyterians, by alleging the Doctrine of the Rope of Geneva, and his chief Incendiarites, as it is to demonstrate the Principles of the Papists, by alleging the Doctrine of the Pope of Rome, and his approved Emissaries? But if neither of these reasons be sufficient in your phantasy do but peruse Dr. Bancroft Archbishop of Canterbury's Book of dangerous Positions, and there you shall find enough even of English Presbyterians( though but Sucklings then) eagerly maintaining this Anarchical Doctrine; there you shall find a whole Chapter of that particular subject, with this Title, The Doctrine of certain English Ministers, which they learned at Geneva, and published of purpose to have procured the like course of reformation in England to that in Scotland. Behold now, Sir Presbyter, your Genevesion gospelers, and those English too, and English that to promote the good old Cause, would not scruple to destroy that ancient and Apostolical Hierarchy of the Church of England, and inflame their Native country into a total combustion of Sedition and Rebellion. But let us see whether your second Answer be any thing less ridiculous or impertinent than the former. Yet admit( say you) the Presbyterians in England hold the same Principles, put the question whether were more Antimonarchical or unsase to Government, an opinion, that Tyrants and opposers of God, might( propter id) be opposed by their Subjects, &c. or that a good King, one of the Reformed Religion, merely for being such, should be deposed, dethroned, and murdered,& c? But ( good Sir Phesbyter) what is more feasible, than for a Presbyterian to make a Tyrant of what Prince he pleases? We see now with what dexterity he makes Papists and Pensioners of the most zealous Protestants, and no less faithful Patriots; and we have lately seen with what Legerdemain he made a Tyrant of the best of Princes. What Sovereign then can be secure from these Presbyterians, if it lies in their breast thus to make him either a Titus or a Nero, a clement Prince, or a cruel Tyrant? or can he think himself a Sovereign, and not rather Tenant at will to his own Anarchical Subjects? Yet you would fain persuade us, your holy Puritans teach onely, that Tyrants may be opposed by their Subjects; whereas all the world can tell, how in our own days they have not onely opposed, but also deposed, dethroned, and cruelly murdered, not a Tyrant, but the most meek and Religious of Sovereigns, and that by a formality of Law too; a thing I never heard perpetrated by any Popish Subjects since the creation of the World, no, not by the most barbarous Heathens against the worst of Tyrants.  
As for a Kings being of the Reformed Religion, we know it signifies nothing to the Presbyterian Zealots, except he be of the Genevesian Doctrine and Discipline; the Church of England, say they, is neither hot nor could, neither Popish nor Reformed. And therefore in the Year 1648, when the late King and Parliament were like to agree, the Presbyterian Incendiaries exclaimed against such proposals, until the Genevesian Discipline were first established by Law. This restitution of his Majesty( say they) to the exercise of his Royal power, before security had from him for settling Religion, your Lordships know by our eight desires, and otherwise, is conceived by us to be inconsistent with the safety and security of Religion.— The bringing of his Majesty to some of his Houses in or near London, before satisfaction and security had from him in point of Religion, and in such other things as are necessary for the safety of the Kingdoms, could not( as we conceive) but be an exceeding great discouragement and offence to the Presbyterians in England, who will conceive that the remedy is worse than the disease. In the humble Representation of the Commissioners of the General Assembly to the Honourable Estates of Parliament, April the 28. 1648. Likewise, in the year 1649. the Rebellious-Zealots would not submit themselves in Scotland to their natural sovereign, his present Majesty, except he would by solemn Oath under his hand and seal, allow the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and would prosecute the ends thereof in his Royal station. See Baker's Chronicle, page. 613. Tell me now, Sir Presbyter, are not these rare examples of your Presbyterian-Loyalty to your natural Princes, and to Princes of the Protestant Church, and Reformed Religion too? But to set down exactly the true state of the question, admit( as you say, and cannot deny) the Presbyterians of England hold the same principles with the Genevesian-Gospellers; put you the question now, whether is more Antimonarchial or unsafe to Government, an opinion or rather a fundamental doctrine, that Tyrants and opposers of God,( i.e. any Prince that hinders the growth of presbytery) may propter id, be opposed, nay, deposed, dethroned and cruelly murdered by their Subjects, as Presbyterians undeniably hold, and as undeniably have practised: or that it is heresy in any Christian to affirm, that a Prince may be slain or deposed by his Subjects for any disorder or default, either in Life or Government, as very Eminent Papists expressly teach; as( to omit those two swindging Authorities, as you call them, of the Rhemists Commentaries, and of the Council of Constance) it sufficiently appeareth by Alphons. à Castro, lib de haeres. in verbo tyrant. Dominic. à Soto, lib. 5. de Just.& Jur. qu. 1. art. 3. and many others.  
Now do you if you can, produce such another Ecclesiastical Assembly or Synod, or such eminent writers of the Presbyterian party, thus declaring it Impious and Heretical to believe that Subjects may Lawfully depose or Murder their sovereign upon the account of any Tyranny or oppression whatsoever, and you will make the World have a better opinion of your Sect, than ever they had hitherto: otherwise, notwithstanding all your multiplied babblings, we must conclude, to give the Devil his due, that in matter of Temporal Government, the principles of the Papists are far Sounder and more Orthodox, than the Presbyterian Catechism. As for the practices of the one and the other, you tell me, could I prove my charge against the Presbyterians, as unexceptionably, as you can that of the Plot against the Papists, I would do something indeed. But I appeal to any man of common sense, if you be not as unexceptionably impudent in your bold assertions, as the Presbyterians are notoriously Treacherous in their pernicious practices. The blood of our late martyred sovereign, and the effusion of so much Protestant blood in the late Civil Wars,( you should say, Presbyterian Rebellion) you are so impudent as to plaster it upon the unfortunate Papists, without any colour or show of proof,( it being plain to all the World, that in the whole List of the Regicides, none is to be found but notorious Presbyterians) and withall to affirm, that the former are more evidently proved guilty of the present Plot, than the latter can be convicted of the Rebellious practices laid to their charge: whereas on the one side, we have but four or five persons to swear this horrid conspiracy against the Papists; but on the other side, all our Records, all our Histories, nay, our own memories, and all the World can testify the late Tragical transactions, as the inhuman Murder of our Royal Martyr, the effusion of so much innocent blood, the burning and pillaging of so many Cities, Towns and palaces, and in brief all the Massacres that have been committed, all the Miseries that have happened in this iceland of Great Britain these 50 years past, to have been wholly and solely perpetrated by these Monsters of Christianity the Anarchical-Presbyterians, as well dependant as independent, as well Scotch as English, the one beginning, the other ending the Tragedy, the one Selling, the other Killing their natural sovereign to the amazement of all the World.  
Oh! how happy would they think themselves now, had these villainies been as private, as the present conspiracy of the Papists? Had we been trusting to the discovery of Mr. Oats, Mr. Bedlow, or the rest, concerning these presbyterian treacheries, as well as the Popish Plot; Oh! how boldly the Puritan-Gospellers would outface our witnesses? with what black colours they would paint them, to extenuate the credibility of their informations? So far they would think the charge from being unexceptionably proved against them, that they would not doubt but they might easily persuade the World, nothing could be more unreasonable, than to believe it upon the credit of such inconsiderable witnesses, tho' now against the Papists they hold them for Delphian Oracles. What!( would they say) can it be Law, equity, or conscience, to take the oaths of some few despicable fellows, very obnoxious to be suspected of malice and corruption, against the lives of good and peaceable Subjects, men of worth and known integrity? to take the oaths of living Vagabonds, before the protestations of dying Christians! who can be safe, if this be admitted? or if this be justice, what can be termed injustice amongst us?  
In this manner, we may be sure, or rather in far higher terms, would our Supersanctified-Hypocrites rail against these very Persons, they now so much adore for Swearing against the Papists, had their crimes been so occult as to need a discoverer; and these, nay, people of greater credit, and much less obnoxious to exception, had come in to reveal their Mysteries of iniquity. The title of His Majesties Evidence could not in the least protect them from the snarling invectives of a Presbyterian. All that Papists now say of them, signified nothing to what the Presbyterians would then vomit against them. Witness their usage of Mr. Willoughby, alias Dangerfield, &c. who when he pretended to discover a Presbyterian Plot, was presently proclaimed in the Weekly Intelligenees and other Pamphlets, the greatest Knave and Villain upon Earth, and called Knight of the Post, Newgate-Bird, and such other titles of Honour, nay, affirmed to have been actually upon the Pillory for his misdemeanours. The Title of His Majesties Evidence, or his pretending to witness for the King, could nothing avail him against these Sanstified creatures, tho' now he is reputed among them an Holy Proselyte newly inspired and illuminated by the Lord. 'tis true, he gave then( as himself confesses) but false informations against the Presbyterians, being put on that design either by the Popish party to turn the Plot upon their adversaries, or by some Presbyterian Politicians to gain the greater credit to their new Informer, or perhaps by himself to gain such maintenance and allowance for the future, as may keep him henceforth from the tried punishments of the Pillory, seeing those of the trade do thrive so well. There are now in the World a great number of Foolhardy Desperadoes, of no Fortune, but less Honesty, who think their only way to Preferment is, to run upon desperate courses, and rather than fail of an Advancement, to venture Neck and all for a Livelihood, according to that witty saying of the satirist: 
Aude aliquid brevibus Gyaris, ant carcere dignum,  
Si vis esse aliquid; probitas laudatur& alget.  For as Virgil saith,— Quid non mortalia pectora cogis Auri sacra sames?— In St. Pauls days, Godliness was great Gain; but to these, Gain is great Godliness: of whom we may justly say with the Poet, Unde habeat quarit nemo, said oportet habere.  
As for Mr. Dangerfield, this only I say, altho' he gave but false Informations against the Presbyterians, yet this was not then known to the generality of the people; and tho' it is undeniable, that such a Plot might well be carried on by the Ring-leaders of that Faction, without communicating it to the Vulgar; nevertheless the Puritan-Rabble did so bark and snarl at Dangerfield, as if they had known by Revelation there was no such Plot at all.  
But to return from this digression to our intended purpose, since reason commands us to prefer the unanimous consent of the greatest and ablest men of our Country, together with all our Histories and Records, and our own experimental knowledge, before the oaths of four or five persons, tho' never so upright in their lives, or so positive and exact in their informations; and a fortiori, of people not so qualified, but obnoxious to several exceptions and suspicious circumstances, which mightily weakens their evidence, and leaves many judicious men in suspense, frustrated of their expected satisfaction of having the Plot cleared beyond all exception: surely, we cannot but conclude the late Rebellion to be far more unexceptionably proved against the Presbyterians, than the present Plot against the Papists. Not that I would in the least vindicate the Romanists from those horrid crimes laid to their charge, for I am fully satisfied they are as apt to commit any villainy to advance their Superstitions, as the Presbyterians are to promote the Good old cause; but to show that the late Hellish Rebellion of the one, is far more undeniable than the present Conspiracy of the other.  
And if your own Conscience did not accuse you of the known verity of this assertion, or if you thought the Presbyterians have not really committed these Hellish abominations objected against them, to what purpose did you set the Act of Oblivion, to bring up the rear of your ridiculous Apology? Surely, things that never have been, could not have been forgotten. Oblivio est praeteritorum. Yet you very confidently bid me red over the several trials, and other pieces extant by Authority, concerning the present Plot, and see whether it be Presbyterians or Papists that murdered Sir Edmundbury Godfrey; that hired the Ruffians to murder his Sacred Majesty, and to ruin both Church and State. But I desire you to red over the late Narratives of the Rebellion in Scotland, and see whether Bresbyterians or Papists murdered the good Bishop of St. Andrews; red over likewise the History of the late Rebellion in England, and see whether it be Presbyterians or Papists, that have( not hired Ruffians to murder, but themselves like inhuman Traytors, actually) murdered our late sovereign, and totally ruined both Church and State: and then see what you can get by the bargain, but that notwithstanding your ridiculous Apology the Presbyterians are still worse than the Papists, whereas the one did but design, the other have actually completed our ruin. You tell us for strange news, they are not concerned in the present Plot; and very strange it is indeed, that there should be any Plot or Conspiracy in this Kingdom, whereof the Presbyterians should nor be the chief Engineers. Yet, Sir Presbyter, in my opinion you have no great reason to brag of your Brethrens innocence of this Popish Plot, since the world knows, they have committed greater villainies, and that in the face of the Sun, and for Religion too. Besides, I advice you to observe the common saying, Lauda finem, and tho' your mysteries of iniquity be not yet revealed, yet beware least before the present discovery be at an end, your Presbyterians be not found as deeply concerned, as any Papist alive, either in this, or in another Plot of their own: for how can it be thought, that such politic and active Machiavels should let this occasion slip, or omit the fairest opportunity they could expect of overthrowing their greatest adversaries, the one as Idolatrous Papists, the other either as Popishly inclined, or as introducers of tyrannical and Arbitrary Government? I omit here, that I have seen several reasons and arguments, very specious indeed to outward appearance, strongly insinuating that the Presbyterians are the primum mobile even of the present Plot, and the chief, if not the sole contrivers of all these troubles, fraudulently corrupting and suborning most of those witnesses, that came in to swear against the Papists, purposely to draw the Kingdom into a confusion, and thereby restore the Cromwellian Gospel and Government.  
In this assertion, I know, there is no impossibility or contradiction to be found; I believe it very feasible( and without doubt it has been often done) to corrupt and suborn men of better credit and reputation than these witnesses have been, that have yet appeared in this discovery; and withall I am sure, the Presbyterians are too apt to commit any villainy to promote the Good old cause: yet nevertheless, because we must not insist upon unprov'd, tho' probabie suspicions, when we have enough even of plain demonstrations to or 〈◇〉 our intended purpose of showing how dangerous our Puritian 〈…〉 if not prudently and timely prevented, are to our Church a 〈…〉 probability of this charge, I leave to be weighed and 〈…〉 〈…〉 icious Reader. In the interim, tell me I beseech you, what may be the reason that the Presbyterians are the activest and most eager prosecutors of the Papists upon the account of this Plot, and also the greatest promoters and admirers of those witnesses, that appear against them. Are the Presbyterians the ablest men in the Kingdom? or do they only apprehended the danger of this Plot? Do they love their Religion, Lives, or Liberties, better than Protestants love theirs? or were not Protestants to be made away, had this Plot gon on, as well as the Presbyterians? why then are not the latter as moderate as the former, or the former as mad as the latter? Truly, I have heard several Judicious Protestants affirm, they could never believe, that the Presbyterians should be so hot or eager in prosecuting this Popish Plot against so inconsiderable a party, as Papists now are in this Kingdom, except they had greater designs, or were more concerned in that Plot themselves, than they would have the World believe. But time will tell truth.  
Your ignorance tells you, I have affronted the Clergy of the Church of England, by calling them Dumb-dogs; but you should know before you appeared in Print, that a Dog, for his natural vigilancy, is the common Emblem of an Ecclesiastical Pastor; and if our Prelates now be less active than is necessary for to prevent your Treacherous designs, and countermine your pernicious contrivances against their Flock, they may attribute this application of Gods word, Isa. 56.10. not to any ill meaning of mine, but rather to their own unreasonable carelessness in such a desperate juncture of times, when our greatest, if not our only enemies, the Presbyterians and Papists, are equally, tho' severally, bent for our destruction; those brethren in evil,( as the Bishop of Chiebester elegantly calls them) who looking and running two several ways, do like Samson's Foxes join together in the tail. in his appeal to caesar, part I c. 4. p. 48.  
Here I shall beg the favour of you, to ask that Reverend Prelate, who declared himself in the Parliament before the last, so favourable to your Sect, what does he think now of the Presbyterians, or whether in his opinion they took the Reverend Bishop of St. Andrews by the Lawnsleeves, or by the Throat? Ask likewise the rest of those learned Prelates, whether the Presbyterians have like waspish Curs barked at that holy man Archbishop Laud, or like your read Dragon utterly devoured him? Is it credible, think you, these eminent Divines should be of so short a memory, as to forget who so lately voted them out of the House of Peers, barbarously imprisoned them in the Tower, sequestered their Lands and Revenues,( which to an Englishman is worse then to lose his life) deprived them of all power and jurisdiction both Spiritual& Temporal, and in fine, quiter abolished the whole order and hierarchy of that Apostolical institution? or is it likely they would now Apologize for that faction which have lately so Antichristianly abused them? they know it is an old and true saying, Veterem ferendo injuriam, invitas novam: and I pray God, they may not find it verified in themselves, who through their excesive meekness and patience towards these ungrateful miscreants, I am afraid, will encourage them once more to attempt the suppressing of this Apostolical hierarchy; which we may plainly red in their libels and pamphlets; is their main design. Yet notwithstanding this, and all other eminent dangers, which daily threaten us from the Presbyterian party, you are so impudent, as to term yourself an Episcopal Protestant, and yet strain your empty noddle in apologizing for these Antiepiscopal Sectaries, and excusing their Schismatical separation from the Mother Church, thereby encouraging them to act over again their horrid villainies of 48. and sing the second part to the same tune.  
You tell us forsooth, they are our fellow-protestants, and therefore not to be reputed as enemies to our Church, but to be embraced as brethren of our Reformation. Protestants, 'tis true, they style themselves, but false ones they are always reputed by our Church, as Papists are false Christians; for( as the Apostle faith) they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, Rom. 9.6. Neither are they all Protestants, which are called Protestants; many do love the name, but hate the thing: and therfore why should not false Protestants be thought as dangerous to the true faith and worship of God, as false Christians, I could never yet understand. Papists are but false Christians, but the Presbyterians are false Protestants, and by consequence they are false Christians too: why then should the one be counted our Brethren, and the other our Enemies? or what can we gain by this our ill-bestowed kindness to the presbyterians, but to draw upon us the charge of all their monstrous contrivances, and make ourselves accountable for their wickedness, as the papists are now commonly charged with the horrid practices of the Jesuits? Do not we see how as the Primitive Christians were grievously slandered, and most vehemently hated by the Heathens, because of the multiplied villainies of the gnostics and other profane Sects of those times, that professed Christianity; so true Protestants now are obnoxious to those manifold calumnies unjustly heaped by the Papists and other Sectaries, upon our Church and Doctrine, and the whole Reformation; because of the seditious practices and wicked treacheries of the Presbyterian party, who commonly style themselves Protestants and Reformed, yea, Refined Christians? Nay, I do verily believe, that as the monstrous wickedness of the aforesaid heretics was then a great bar to the timely conversion of the Idolatrous Pagans; so now the unchristian proceedings of the presbyterians do mainly obstruct the Papists from receiving the true light of the Gospel.  
O, but they are our weak Brethren, and we must bear their infirmities. Weak Brethren, say you? I pray God keep them so, and grant they be never stronger to ruin our Church and State, as formerly they have done. Now the Pharisaical Hypocrites allege the weakness and tenderness of their Consciences for this Schismatical disobedience to their lawful Pastors, and separation from the Mother-Church; though in 48 no tenderness of Conscience could hinder them from murdering their natural Sovereign in England, and in 79 their onely Primate and metropolitan in Scotland. O blind Guides,( as our Saviour said of the Pharisees) which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, Matth. 23.34. Yet these blind Hypocrites you must hall in amougst Episcopal Protestants, and under the ridiculous name of dissenting Brethren, you endeavour to foster such Vipers in the bosom of our Church; a name so strange and self-contradictory, as if we had called them our odious Lovers, our loving Enemies, or the like; for if the Presbyterians obstinately dissent from our Church in Communion, or matters of Religion, as undoubtedly they do, how can they be our Brethren? or if they be our Brethren in Religion, how can they differ from us in Communion, or matters of Faith, which essentially is one and individual? for, as the Apostle testisieth, there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, Ephes 4.5.  
Ay, but they do not dissent from us as much as the Papists do, not in so many, nor in so necessary points of Religion. But this is to no purpose; first, because Heathens dissent from us more than Jews, Jews than Turks, and Turks than Papists; yet we must embrace neither Jew, Turk, nor Papist, for our dissenting Brethren in Religion. Secondly, Because even as it is nothing material whether a man dies of one mortal wound, or of twenty; so it skilleth not whether a Christian obstinately errs in one necessary point of Religion, or in a dozen. For it is in the Christian Religion, as St. James saith of the Law, Whosoever offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all, James 2.10. Now it is evident to all the world, that the Presbyterians grossly err in three of the chiefest Pillars of Christian Religion, as Charity, Unity, and Obedience: It cannot therefore avail them much that they agree with us in so many points of the Superstructure, while they disagree from us in the very Foundation. Hear what St. Augustin saith of the Denatists in afric, who much resemble the Presbyterians in England; In many things( saith he) they are with me, in few not with me; but in these few wherein they are not with me, the many things wherein they are with me do nothing avail them; in Psal. 54. ver. 19. Thirdly because all true Protestants aclowledge the Presbyterians are schismaticaly separated from the Church of England, as well as the Papists; and on the other side, in the sentiments of all Learned Divines, both ancient and modern, Schism is so heinous a wickedness, that without repentance and reunion with the Church( unless perhaps invincible ignorance may lessen the crime) it wholly excludes the Party from eternal salvation, according to the express words of our Saviour, If be neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a Publican, Matth. 18.17. There cannot possibly( saith St. Irenaeus) be made any reformation of such importance, as the mischief of Schism is pernicious, lib. 4. c. 62. For( as Dionysius Alexandrinus testifieth) It is a more grievous wickedness to divide the Church, than to sacrifice to Idols, ap. Euseb. lib. 6 hist. c. 37. Which is yet further affirmed by the Prince of Divines, the great St. Augustine, The sacrilege of Schism( saith he) surpasseth all wickedness, lib. 1. contra ep. Parmen. c. 4. And lest we should not believe his own single testimony, this assertion he solidly confirms by the fearful punishment inflicted on Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, for their schismatical disobedience to Moses and Aaron. At what time( saith he) God would teach his People by new and fresh punishments to beware of their former transgressions, when an Idol was made and adored,( Exod. 32.) when the Prophets book was burnt by the hosty King,( Jer. 36.) and the schism was attempted( Numb. 16.) by Corah and his complices; the Idolatry was punished with the sword, the burning of the book was revenged with wasting War and foreign Captivity; but the Schism was plagued with the sudden gaping of the earth, the Authors thereof having heen swallowed up alive, and consumed with fire from heaven. Who now( saith this great Logician) will doubt, but that was most wickedly committed, which was most grievoufly punished? lib. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 6.  
St. Cyprian goeth yet further, and of all schismatical Separatists, giveth this general sentence, Such people, though they were killed in the confession of Christs name, yet that blemish even by blood is not washed away; the unpardonable and grievous crime of dissension is not purged even with death. He cannot be a Martyr that is not in the Church. He cannot attain to the Kingdom, that forsakes her which is to reign. Such an one may be killed, but cannot be crowned. The enemy of the Altar, rebellious against the Sacrifice of Christ, despising the Bishops, and forsaking the Priests of God, presumes to erect another Altar, and make other prayers by his unlawful speeches. Lib. de Unit. Eccles.  
Neither are our Modern Divines less plain in this particular; and to begin with Calvin, the great God of the Presbyterians, he gives his verdict in these following words. We profess the unity of the Church( such as is described by St. Paul) to be most dear unto us; and we accurse them that shall any thing violate it; lib. de necess. Reform. Eccles. And again, The Lord doth so highly esteem the Communion of his Church, that he holds him for an Apostate, and deserter of Religion, who insolently separates himself from any Christian Society, so it be such a one as hath the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments; lib. 4. Instit. c. 1.§. 10. Either therefore we have not the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the Church of England, or else the Presbyterians are schismatics, nay Apostates and deserters of Religion, even in the judgement of their own Patriarch Calvin.  
Luther likewise in his explication upon the Creed, speaks to the same purpose: Neither gentle, nor Jew,( saith he) heretic, or any other sinner, is saved, unless he make Atonement with the Church, and in all things think, do, and teach the same. As for our own Divines, they are in this point both plain and positive: It is false( saith our Learned Whitaker) that Heretical and Schismatical Churches, are true Churches. controv. 2. q. 5. c. 9. And again: Whereas he proves, that heretics, Apostates, and Shismaticks are not Members of the true Church, it is nothing to us; for this none of us ever affirmed. controv. 2. q. 1. c. 4.  
And Dr. Fulk in his Treatise of the Succession of the Church, p. 390. saith: What skilleth it, whether one being drawn by heresy or Schism from the Body of Christ, be subject to Eternal Damnation?  
Mr. Casaubone also in his Letter to Cardinal Peron, written by the appointment of King James, page. 8. thus saith: The King doth condemn and detest those, who departed either from the faith of the catholic Church, and became heretics; or from her Communion, and became schismatics. And the same is taught by Dr. Humphrey, ad rat. 3. Campiani. p. 207. by Field, lib. 1. de Eccles. c. 7. Confess. Helvet. art. 17. Bulling. in compend, fidei. lib. 6. c. 11. Musculus in Locis, Tit. de Schismate, p. 621. and many others.  
Is it not evident therefore by the unanimous consent of so many Protestant Divines, so exactly concurring with the general vote of the Ancient Writers, and Gods express word, that Schism is so capital a crime, that it cuts off the party from the Church of God, and thereby from all ordinary means of obtaining eternal Salvation? And is it not likewise certain, that Protestants and Presbyterians( notwithstanding your ridiculous cementing of them together) do mutually censure and charge each other with Schism, if not with impious and Heretical Doctrines. None I think, can be so ignorant, as not to know what a Cloud of Writers have given their verdict on both sides in this particular. To the end therefore you may not hereafter exclaim against me, or allege that I make it my business to breed dissension and division between Protestants, by calling the Presbyterians Schismatical Sectaries,( tho' indeed it is my design to separate the Wheat from the Tares, true Protestants from counterfeit Religionaries, and warn them not to trust again such Hypocritical Dissemblers) and that you may be convinced, this is no particular opinion of mine, but the general tenet of our Learned Divines; hear some of them speak their own minds at a time, when Presbytery was not near so monstrous in itself, nor yet half so dangerous or formidable to our Church, as it is at present. The Puritans( saith Dr. Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury) do pervert the true meaning both of Scripture and Fathers, to serve their own turns. In his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, c. 5. &c.  
And Mr. parks, in his book dedicated to the Archbishop, in his Epistle Dedicatory, thus saith of your holy Brethren: They are headstrong, and hardened in error; they strike at the main points of faith, and shaking the foundation itself, and calling into question Heaven and Hell, the Divinity and Humanity, yea the very Soul and Salvation of our Saviour himself. And again, ibid. The Puritans have Pestilent Heresies, they are Heretical and Sacrilegious.  
Mr. Powel likewise, in his Considerations, saith of them: They are notorious and manifest schismatics, cut off from the Church of God.  
And this is further confirmed by Mr. Casaubons excellent Rule,( taken out of S. Cyprian's 69. Ep.) in Exercit. 15. contra Baron. nu. 6. Where he saith: It is an undoubted verity, that whensoever the pious People adheres to their true and lawful Bishop, they are Gods Church; unsomuch that whosoever separates himself from this Congregation, it cannot be doubted, but that he is not in the Church. Presbyterians therefore are not in the Church of God, who have Schi●matically separated themselves from the pious and orthodox Protestants adhering to their true and lawful Bishops. To be brief, the Bishop of Chichester gives us a full and short description of these Holy and Sanctified Bretheren: I must confoss( saith he) my dissent through and sincere from the fuction of Novelizing Puritans; men intractible, insociable, incompliable with those that will not aedificare ad dissensiones; but in no one point more, than in their desperate doctrine of Predestination; in his Appeal to Caesar, page. 60. And again p. 320. he speaks to the Presbyterians themselves in this manner: I go no farther, but leave you to yourselves, and( if ●●ssible) unto more charitable conceits of those that deserve no other imputation, but, they are no Puritans: Which God of his Goodness keep out of this Church and State, as dangerous as Popery, for any thing I am able to discern: The only difference being, Popery is for Tyranny, Puritanism for Anarchy; Popery is original of Superstition, Puritanism the Highway unto profaneness; both alike Enemies to Piety.  
But lest you should think this learned Prelate any thing transported with prejudice or partiality in this his censure of your Sanctified Brethren, hear what your own Patriarch and first founder speaketh of those, who had the first Fruits of his Spirit, his holy Proselytes at Genev●: It is certain( saith he) that a man shall not see so horrible monsters in the Papacy, as where the Gospel is preached and professed; for they will say they are reformed, and yet they seem to be Devils incarnate, neither have we need to go far off to find such sights. Calvin serm. 10. in ep. ad Ephes.  
Now the Presbyterians on the other side are nothing behind in slandering and charging the Church of England with all imaginable corruption; Schism, they think, is too small a crime to be alleged against her, whilst Popish Superstition and the dregs of Antichrist do compose the chiefest part of her Liturgy, Doctrine and Government. The form of the Communion-Book( say they) is taken from the Church of Antichrist; as the reading of the Epistles, and Gospels, &c. the most of the Prayers, the manner of administering the Sacraments, &c. in Dr. Whitgifts defence, p. 474. And in their Book entitled, The Petition of 22. Preachers in London, they say: In the Communion-Book there be things of which there is no sense, there is contradiction in it, even of necessary and essential points of Religion. And also in their Book of Cannons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, printed Anno 1604. they say: The worship in the Church of England is corrupt, superstitious, unlawful and repugnant to the Scriptures. Likewise the great Presbyterian Alexander Henderson, in his first Paper to our Royal Martyr, in the Book entitled Reliquiae Carolinae, pnrt 1. p. 314. thus speaketh: It is too well known that the Reformation of K. Henry 8. was most imperfect in the essentials of Doctrine, Worship and Government: And though it proceeded by some degrees afterwards, yet the Government was never reformed, the head was changed, Dominus non Dominium, and the whole limbs of the Antichristian Hierarchy retained. And for this cause( as our late sovereign well observes) their zealous Superstition thinks or pretends, they cannot do God and the Church a greater service, than utterly to destroy that Primitive, Apostolical, and anciently universal Government of the Church by Bishops; in his Eikon Basilike, c. 9. But to conclude, and if symmetry may tell us the true stature of a man by the proportion of his foot, surely we may easily guess what sense the Presbyterians have of those of our Church, by that prodigious Sermon of David black, a Ring. leader of the Kirk of Scotland, who in the year 1596. solemnly preached, That all Kings were the Devils Barns, that King James his heart was treacherous, and that the Devil was in the Court, and the Guiders of it; that Queen Elizabeth was an Atheist, and a wicked Woman; that the Nobility and Lords were miscreants, bribers, degenerated, godless, dissemblers, and enemies to the Church, &c. And yet this most seditious and Anarchical Sermon was so far from being censured by the holy Synagogue of the Presbyterians, that they openly  told King James, It was Gods cause, and they must protect and defend him to the hazard of their lives. See Spotiswood's History of the Church of Scotland, page. 423, &c.  
Speak now, Sir Presbyter, and tell us plainly your opinion of your holy dissenting Brethren; can you defend their going out of the Church of England from the brand of Schism? Is it not the infallible Badge of Sectaries, to depart from the Communion of Orthox Christians? Observe what the beloved Disciple saith, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us. 1 Joh. 2.19. Who therefore is to be esteemed in your judgement the greatest schismatic, the Church of England, for not complying with the Presbyterians pretended refining of the Reformation, or the Presbyterian Synagogue for not obeying the Church of England, and their lawful Bishops? For undoubtedly, in this Separation, and mutual exclaiming against each other, either Party must unavoidably be guilty of Schism; otherwise we must confess, the Novatians, Aerians, Luciferians, and Donatists, to to have been most unjustly reputed schismatics by the ancient Writers. Do not we know, that one of the chiefest points for which Aerius was anathematized even for an Heresiark by the Primitive Church, was his asserting the Parity or Equality of Bishops and Presbyters? as St. Augustine recordeth, Haer. 53. and as St. Epiphanius, Haer. 75. testifieth, and fully confuteth. And yet this very Doctrine is now the Characteristical note and badge of our holy Puritans. How then can Aerius be condemned for a wicked Novelist, and these his followers be extolled for refining Reformists? Can the same Doctrine be accounted Orthodox in the one, and Heretical in the other? or must we say, that of all Antiquity Aerius alone did see the truth, and all the rest were blind?  
Be not deceived, good Presbyterians, but consider with yourselves, whether it be agreeable to sense or reason, that a single opinion of a private Upstart, grounded upon no express Text of Scripture, should be preferred before the unanimous consent of all Orthodox Antiquity, and the whole Church of Christ, at that time especially, when all the world acknowledgeth her to have been in her greatest splendour and purity. Stand not blind folded with prejudice or partiality, and suffer not yourselves to be transported with any preposterous zeal or animosity, which will but obnubilate your understanding, and weaken your judgement; but rather examine with a sober and unbiased mind the grounds and motives of your Separation from your lawful superiors and Pastors, and consider impartially, whether it be not more reasonable for Christians to follow the Doctrine of the most learned and holy Doctors of the Primitive Church,( who have undoubtedly followed the Lamb, and are now glorified in Heaven) than the new found opinion and groundless assertion, either of Aerius, or his late sticklers, John Calvin and his Genevesian gospelers. Remember how the Lord saith, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls, Jer. 6.16. And this rest, if you expect to enjoy, forsake not the ancient form of Church-Government, which has continued in Christs Church since the Apostles time. Saepe viatorem nova, non vetus orbita sallit. Can you find in all Antiquity one Orthodox Christian asserting, or one faithful Church exercising this your Presbyterian Discipline? Do not all Ecclesiastical Histories tell us, how Christs Church, since his Ascension, has been always governed by Bishops? Was not St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo in Affrick, St. Ambrose of Millan, St. hilary of poitiers, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Chrysostom of Constantinople, St. Athanasius of Alezandria, St. Irenaeus of lions; and, in a word, were not the most eminent Ecclesiastical Wor thies, that flourished since the beginning of Christianity, Bishops of their respective Sees or Churches? Did you ever hear of any Society of Christians, since the Apostles time, governed onely by Presbyters or Elders, not subordinate to Episcopal Government? Or can you find in all the holy Scriptures one Text to warrant these your leveling Principles, of abolishing the ancient Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Christs Church? Can you deny, but that until our Saviour's time, there were in the Jewish Church Chief or High Priests, which by God's appointment were Superintendents and Presidents over the Levites and inferior Clergy? See 2 Chron. 19.11. Matth. 2.4. Heb. 9.6. And is it not as evident, that in the New Testament the Apostles were Presidents and Chief Superintendents, not onely over the Laity of their times, but also over all the Deacons, nay over the Priests and Elders of the Church of Christ? Since therefore it is incredible, that this Authority conferred by Christ on his Apostles, principally for the good of his Church, should die with their persons, and not rather descend to their Successors, and thereby continue in his Church to the end of the World; it cannot be doubted, but that the Apostles Power and Jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons was invested in others, who, as the Apostles Successors, should govern not onely the Flock, but also the inferior Pastors and Rulers thereof. Now that Bishops are the lawful Successors of the Apostles in this Spiritual Jurisdiction, may be gathered, first, out of that passage of holy Scripture, where the Apostleship of St. mathias is expressly called his bishopric, Acts 1.20. thereby infinuating, that Bishops are the same, or at least the next in Authority to the Apostles. 2. It may be confirmed by the universal consent of all ancient Writers, unanimously affirming, that Bishops onely have succeeded to the Apostles in the Government of Christs Church. See Cone. Neocesar. Can. 13. Damas. ep. 3. de Chorepiscopis. Hiero. ep. ad Marcellam de Erroribus Montani. Aug. in Psal. 44. lo ep. 88. Isidor. lib. 2. de Divin. Officiis. Beda in c. 10. luke. and several other ancient Writers of the Primitive Church.  
But before we launch further into the Testimonies of these ancient Writers, that we may at once both confirm our own Doctrine, and confounded yours, let us see what great proofs you can produce out of holy Scripture or Fathers, either for your Presbyterian, or against our Episcopal Government.  
First, you say, there is no mention in holy Scripture of a Bishops being above a Presbyter, therefore no such thing is to be admitted. A rare Argument indeed; but what if I say, that your Genevesian Discipline was never mentioned in holy Scripture, and therefore is not to be allowed or admitted in Christs Church? What can you answer to this retortion, or what silly Sophisters are you, thus blind-fold, andabatarum more, to run on head-long against your adversaries, and never consider how by this Argument you quiter undermine your own Congregational, Classical, Synodical, Provincial, and National Assemblies? Did you ever hear such barbarous terms in holy Scripture? or ever find them( at least in your sense) used by any ancient Writer? Why then should you reject Episcopal Government so universally practised, and set up the Presbyterian Democracy, never heard of in the Church of Christ before Calvin's days? Certainly though the one had been no better grounded on holy Scripture than the other, yet the antiquity of Episcopacy, and the quiter immemorial possession of Bishops in the Government of the Church so many hundred years together, is reason enough for any peaceable Christian to prefer it before any new found invention: It being an undoubted Maxim, In pari jure vel causa melior est conditio-possidentis. Moreover, according to the approved rule of St. Augustin, That, which the universal Church doth hold, and was not instituted by Councils, but hath been always retained, we most justly believe to have descended from no Authority, but the Apostles. lib. 4. de bapt. c. 24. ep. 119. and in several other places. Since therefore, the Original and beginning of Episcopal Government cannot be found from the Apostles downward, we must conclude it is at least of Apostolical, and consequently of Divine institution. But to be brief, does not St. Paul expressly allow Timothy, the first Bishop of the Ephesians, to judge the Priests or Elders of that Church? 1 Tim. 5.19, 20. does not he therefore own him to be their Lawful Superior? for surely, common sense can tell us, that no Magistrate whatsoever has any legal power to judge his equal in Authority; according to that approved Maxim, Paribus in pares nulla datur potestas. Since therefore it must be granted, either that Timothy had power and jurisdiction over the Presbyters. of his Church, or the Apostles instructions to him were vain and most impertinent, and that none can have any lawful jurisdiction over his equal, it evidently ensueth, he was by the testimony of holy Scripture, their true and lawful Superior.  
Secondly, you allege, that in holy Scripture the same persons are promiscuously called Bishops or Presbyters, Acts 20.28. Philip. 1.1. Tit. 1.5, 7. and 1 Tim. 3. therefore( say you) they are the same Function. A most excellent piece of logic. But are not the same persons promiscuously called Apostles and Disciples in the Gospel? Is it therefore the same thing to be an Apostle and a Disciple? If so, to what purpose was mathias,( who was already a Disciple, Acts 1.21.) so solemnly elected Apostle in the place of Judas? If not, then the identity of names doth not always import the identity of Functions. Likewise, do not we find in the old Testament the same persons called sometimes Priests, sometimes High-Priests? as Azariah( 2 Chron. 26.17.) is called only a Priest, yet v. 20. he is styled the Chief-Priest. Therefore either our Presbyterian argument is groundless and Sophistical, or else Chief-Priests differed nothing from the inferiour-Priests in the Old Law. And besides, the Apostles often called themselves Presbyters or Elders, 1 Pet. 5.1. and 2 Jo. v. 1. and 3 Jo. v. 1. &c. Yet I hope our present Religionaries will aclowledge they differed from single Presbyters both in order and jurisdiction. But to come nearer home, what is more common in our own days, than to hear Priests or Presbyters called Ministers, which word properly signifieth Deacons? and yet it is evident, we always count Deacons inferior to Presbyters, though the name properly belonging to the one, is often attributed to the other; why then should not we conclude, that Presbyters are always inferior to Bishops, tho' their names had been sometimes mutually communicated to one another? For we must observe, that Episcopus originally signifying only an Overseer, as Presbyter signifieth an Elder, or Aged man, such Presbyters as had the Cure of Souls, and charge of small Precincts, now called Parishes, under their true Bishop, might well be termed Overseers of their respective Flocks, and consequently in some sense be termed Episcopi or Bishops: yet forasmuch as they wanted the fullness of Ecclesiastical power, and besides Preaching the word of God and Baptizing bel●evers, which Deacons also might do, could only administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, but were not allowed to confirm the Baptized, much less to ordain other Priests or Elders in the Church, as hereafter it shall be proved; they were only Bishops by name, not by Ecclesiastical orders, even as aged persons were called Elders for their years, not for any Spiritual jurisdiction.  
But forasmuch as some think the Apostles have not been very exact in expressing either the Identity or Diversity of Bishops and Presbyters, but left it something ambiguous, and subject to be questioned; to clear this point we shall here observe that excellent method prescribed by our Royal Martyr, for to find out the true sense of any ambiguous passage of holy Scripture. If the practise of the Primitive Church( saith he) and the universal consent of the Fathers, be not a convincing Argument when the interpretation of Scripture is doubtful, I know nothing. And again: Albeit I never esteemed any Authority equal to the Scriptures; yet I do think the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and the universal practise of the Primitive Church to the best and most authentical interpreters of Gods word, and consequently the fittest Judges between me and you, when we differ, until you find me a better. In his 2. paper to Alexander Henderson, in the book entitled Reliquiae Carolinae, part 1. p. 323. &c. This rule therefore and prudent method we shall here observe, and for the better understanding of the foregoing texts of Scripture, we shall inquire into the doctrine and practise of the Primitive Church, concerning the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters; but let us first examine what you can produce out of these ancient monuments for your own Genevesian Discipline. Wherefore,  
Thirdly, you object, that some ancient Fathers affirm, the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters to have been introduced only by the custom of the Church, not by any institution of Christ. The same is a Presbyter( faith St. Hierom) which is a Bishop, and before divisions through the Devils instigation were made in Religion, and it was said amongst the people; I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common-council of the Presbyters: but when every one thought those he baptized, to be his own, not Christs, it was decreed in all the World, that one should be chosen from among the Presbyters and placed above the rest, to whom all the care or charge of the Church should belong, and the Seed of Schism be taken away. in cap. 1. ep. ad Tit.  
This is the strongest objection or argument you can produce out of the ancient Fathers for your pretended holy Discipline, and yet so far it is from warranting that new found device, that it quiter subverts and destroys it. For tho' St. Hierom seems to affirm, that our Saviour left his Church at the beginning to be governed, not by Bishops alone, but by the common council of the Presbyters, yet he plainly acknowledgeth that the Apostles,( in whose time people said, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, as appeareth 1 Cor. 1.12.) to avoid Schism( which from the Anti-hierarchical equality of Ecclesiastical Pastors should unavoidably ensue) appointed Bishops above the Presbyters to rule and Govern the Church, that so the seed of Schism might be taken away. Since therefore what the Apostles by virtue of their Function and Commission from Christ have done in the new, is with as much reason to be repu●ed done by Divine Authority, as what Moses did in the Old Testament by Gods command and inspiration: you cannot deny, if you stand to St. Hierom's Testimony, but that the pre-eminence of Bishops above Presbyters in the Law of Grace, is as much de jure divino, as the Superiority of the High-Priests over the inferior Priests and Levites in the Law of Moses.  
But let us hear what the rest of the Ancient Fathers,( from whom without doubt St. Hierom differed not in so material a point) speak of this subject. St. Ignatius, the Apostles Disciple, in his epistle to the Philadelphians writes in this manner: Good are the Priests and the Ministers of the Word; yet better is the Bishop, who is entrusted with the Holy of of Holies, to whom alone the mysteries of God are committed. And in the Canons which are commonly called the Apostles Canons, thus we find, can. 40. Let not the Priests and Deacons attempt to do any thing without the Bishop; for to him the people of the Lord is committed, and he is to give an account for their Souls. Tertullian likewise lib. de bapt. c. 17. saith: The High-Priest, which is the bishop, hath right to give Baptism, and then the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the Bishops leave. And St. Ambrose saith in like manner: In the Bishop there are all the orders, because he is the first Priest, that is Prince of the Priests. in c. 4. ep. ad Ephes. And here we are to observe, that the ancient writers attribute not unto Bishops a bare precedence only, or a civil respect due unto them from Presbyters for their Age, Piety, or Learning, but do plainly aclowledge them to be the true Magistrates of Christs Church, endowed with Power and Authority to rule and govern both Flocks and Pastors together, and accordingly they attribute unto them several Prerogatives and Ecclesiastical Functions( as we have now partly seen) that Presbyters were not allowed to perform; which could never have been so universally approved of, had Episcopacy been only a prudential constitution of human Wisdom, and not the absolute ordinance of Christ himself.  
First, in those ancient times Bishops alone were allowed to sit and vote in Ecclesiastical Councils, as evidently appeareth by the respective subscriptions of all the approved Councils held in the Church for the first 600. years after Christ. And therefore when some laics and others that were no Bishops, came into the Council of Chalcedon, to side with the heretic Dioscorus, the Prelates immediately caused them to be expelled, saying: Put out these superfluous persons, the Council belongs to the Bishops. And Theodosius junior the Emperour, in his Epistle to the Council of Ephesus, said: It is not lawful for any that is not in the order of the most holy Bishops, to meddle in Ecclesiastical consultations. To be brief, when any of the Ancient Writers do speak of thes Church-assemblies, they always call them the Councils of Bishops: For this cause( saith Eusebius) meetings and Councils of Bishops are called together throughout every Province. lib. 5. hist. c. 23 and to the same purpose speaketh St. Cyprian, ep. ad Julian. Athan. ep. ad solitar. Hilar. lib. de synodis. Ambros. ep. 32. Hierom lib. 2. Apol. contra ruffian. Aug. ep. 119. lo. ep. 16. and a numberless number of other writers, always naming Synods of Bishops and Metropolitans, but never giving the least hint of any inferior Presbyters( unless perhaps delegates) much less lay-Elders admitted to fit among them. Our present terms of Art, as Congregational, Classical, Provincial, National and Synodical Assemblies of lay-Elders or single Presbyters, were gibberish to them in those primitive times. Christianity perhaps was then but a suckling, and therefore unfit for such mysterious expressions, which by a new power of the Gospel are able to pull down the highest Crown, and stoutest mitre, and crush them both under the Cloak of Religion.  
Secondly, Bishops alone were admitted to confirm believers after Baptism, by imposition of hands. All the ancient writers, that speak of this Ceremony, do either call it the laying on of Bishops hands, or do expressly affirm, that none but Bishops can do it: Thus Eusebius speaking of the schismatic Novatus, saith; Neither has he obtained the rest, which according to the Cannons of the Church he should receive after Baptism, neither was he figured by a Bishop with our Lords Seal; which when he received not, how( I beseech you) should he obtain the Holy Ghost? lib. 6. hist. c. 35. And St. jerome, dial. adversus Lucifer. faith: I confess this is the custom of the Church, that to such as are by Presbyters and Deacons baptized a far off in lesser Cities, the Bishop goes to lay his hands upon them at the invocation of the Holy Ghost. And a little after: If you ask, why he that is Baptized in the Church, doth not receive the Holy Ghost, but by the band of a Bishop, which all aclowledge to be given in true Baptism. Know that this observation comes from that Authority, that after our Lords Ascension the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles, &c. In like manner Innocentius the first, Bishop of Rome and contemporary to St. Augustin, ep. ad Decent. c. 3. faith: As for Signing or Confirming Children, it is manifest, that it is not lawful to be done by any other, but by a Bishop: because Presbyters, tho' they be Priests, yet they arrive not to the height of Episcopacy. For such things to be due to Bishops alone, that they should Sign or give the Holy Ghost, not only the custom of the Church doth demonstrate, but also that lesson of the Acts of the Apostles,( c. 8. v. 14.) which tells us that Peter and John were sent, to give the Holy Ghost to those that were already baptized.  
And lest you should think that Bishops do not give the Holy Ghost, because the party confirmed does not speak with Tongues, as in the Apostles time, hear how St. Augustin preoccupates and censures that objection: Is there any one( saith he) of so perverse an heart, as to deny those Children, on whom we have laid our hands, to have received the Holy Ghost, because they speak not with tongues? tract 6. in ep. Joan.  
Thirdly, so considerable and so weighty a business was the consecration of a Bishop held by the Primitive Church, that this solemnity could not be Conoinically performed without the presence of all the Bishops in the Province, at least of three, the rest consenting and approving their proceedings; as it was expressly decreed in the Holy and Ge●um●nical Council of Nice, in these words: It is indeed very convenient, that a Bishop should be ordained by all the Bishops in the Province, but if this be difficult either for some urgent necessity, or for the longth of the journey; then three Bishops by all means meeting, and those that are absen● likewise decreeing and consenting by their writings, let the ordination be performed. Yet the validity of what is done through every Province, must be attributed to the Metropolitan Bishop, Conc. Nicen. 1. can. 4. And the like decree is made in the Fourth Council of Carthage, where St. Augustine also was present, Can. 2. in these words, When a Bishop is Ordained, let two Bishops bold the Book of the Gospels over his head and shoulders, and one of them pouring Benediction upon him, let all the other Bishops that are present touch his head with their hands. See Conc. earth. 2. Can. 12. & earth. 3. Can. 39. And in the next ensuing Canon, speaking of the Ordination of Presbyters, they speak in this manner, When a Presbyter is ordained, the Bishop blessing him, and holding his hand upon his head, let all the Presbyters also that are present lay their hands upon his head by the Bishops hands. And Can. 4. thus they prescribe the Ordination of Deacons, When a Deacon is ordained, let the Bishop onely that blesseth him lay his hand upon his head, because he is not Consecrated to the Priesthood, but to the ministry. These two last Canons I mention here, that by the different degrees of the Solemnities and Ceremonies used at the Consecration of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Primitive Church, people may understand how differently Christians in those days esteemed of these three Ecclesiastical Orders. If we may rationally gather, that Deacons were then counted inferior to Presbyters, because they were Ordained with less Solemnities, and fewer Ceremonies; surely we have here the self same reason to think Presbyters inferior to Bishops.  
Fourthly, in those Primitive times, Bishops alone were allowed to confer holy Orders, or ordain Ecclesiastical Ministers, as evidently appeareth by the constant practise of Christs Church since the very beginning of Christianity: I First, our Saviour himself, who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, 1 Pet. 2.25. while he conversed here upon earth, ordained first his twelve Apostles, then his seventy Disciples, Luke 9.1. and 10.1. and after our Saviours time, the Apostles( who were also Bishops, Acts 1.20.) either Ordained Presbyters and Deacons in those Churches they converted to the Christian Faith, Acts 6.6. and 14.23. or appointed others, whom they invested with Episcopal Authority to Ordain them; this appears by St. Pauls Epissle to Titus,( who was the first Bishop of Crete, as all Antiquity and particularly Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, lib. 3. c. 4. and our own Bibles, at the end of the aforesaid Epistle do testify) where the Apostle saith, he left Titus in that iceland, purposely to Ordain Elders in every City, Ti●. 1.5. But to what purpose( think you) should St. Paul leave Titus in Crete to Ordain Elders, if every inferior Presbyter could perform this duty? Was there no Presbyter in Crete but Titus alone? or if there were, why did not he enjoin them to Ordain those Elders, or at least join them in Commission with Titus? Moreover, if single Presbyters had power to ordain Clergy men in the Apostles time, how came they to lose this Authority in ensuing Ages? Is it not evident that all ancient Writers always attribute Ordinations onely to Bishops? nay, they thought this power so inseparable from them, that they held it the chiefest; and sometimes in comparison the sole Prerorogative belonging to the Episcopal Function, and much insisted upon this point, in proving the pre-eminence of Bishops above Presbyters, and all other Ecclesiastical Ministers, which had not the power of Ordination. See Conc. Antioch. cap. 10. Ancyran. cap. 12: Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylect, in 1 Tim. 3& 3 Hiero. ep. 85. ad Evagr. Epiphan. Haer. 75. Aug in Breviculo, collat. 3. c. 5. Damas. ep. 3. de Chorepiscopis. lo ep. 88. and many others. St. Hierom, though a great Patron to Presbyters, and a zealous maintainer of their just privileges, yet confesseth Bishops alone had the power of Ordination. What doth a Bishop do,( saith he) except Ordination, that a Presbyter may not do? Ep. 85. ad Evagr. And St. Chrysostom likewise, Hom. 11. in 1 Tim. 3. saith, Between a Bishop and a Presbyter almost there is no difference, for to Presbyters also the care of the Church is permitted; and what he said of Bishops do agree also to Presbyters, for by Ordination onely the Bishops are their superiors, and this alone they seem to have more than Presbyters. St. Ambrose also in 1 Tim. 3. saith, A Bishop and a Presbyter have one Ordination, and each of them is a Priest; but the Bishop is first, so that every Bishop is a Presbyter, but not every Presbyter a Bishop, for he is Bishop that is first among the Presbyters. Finally he signifieth, that Timothy was ordained Presbyter, yet because he had none before him, he was a Bishop, and therefore he shows him how he may Ordain a Bishop; for it was neither just nor lawful, that an inferior should Ordain his superior, for none gives what he hath not received. How is it possible( saith St. Epiphanius, Haer. 75.) that he should Ordain a Presbyter, who hath no right of laying on his hands to Ordain, or say that he is equal to a Bishop? And the Council of Laodicea, held Anno 320. cap. 26. expressly declareth, That such as are not Ordinaed by Bishops, cannot exercise(& a fortiori, administer the Sacraments) either in Churches or Houses. And likewise the Council of Ancyra, cap. 12.( anno 314.) saith, That it is not lawful for Chorepiscopi's to Ordain Priests or Deacons.  
But Demasus Bishop of Rome, contemporary to St. Hierom, expressly declares Ordinations given by single Presbyters not onely unlawful, but also voided and null from the beginning, for in his Third Epistle, speaking of the aforesaid Ecclesiastical Persons, called Chorepiscopi, who though no Bishops, but onely their Substitutes, or Vicar-Generals, presumed as Bishops to Ordain others Presbyters and Deacons) he writes in this manner, Whatsoever they have done in the aforesaid ministry of High-Priesthood, it is voided and null. Neither is this a new-found Paradox, or a private opinion of this Bishop, but rather so undoubted a Doctrine, that the invincible Antagonist of the Arians, the great Athanasius insisted upon it in the Council of Tyre,( where he was surrounded by all his enemies, as a Lamb among so many Lions) and used it as an uncontrollable argument against the malice of the wicked Ischyras, who pretending himself a Presbyter, Ordained by Colluthus a pretended Bishop, falsely accused this Champion of Christ with breaking the Cup, wherein himself administered the holy Communion; which calumny St. Athanasius openly confuted, by proving, that Ischyras was no true Presbyter, as not being ordained by a true Bishop, and consequently could not administer that Sacrament. This passage is related by St. Athanasius himself, in his second Apology, where he speaks in this manner, The Priest that is pretended to have been present, is that so often spoken of Ischyras, who was neither chosen Presbyter by the Church, nor when Alexander received the Prethyters Ordained by Miletius, was he ever counted in that number, nor by him created. How then is Ischyras a Presbyter, or by whom was he Ordained? Was he Ordained by Colluthus? for that is the onely shift now remaining; but that Colluthus died in the degree of Presbytery, and that all his imposition of hands were annulled, and all those that were Ordained by him reduced into the Order of laics, and under the name of laics admitted to the Communion, is so manifest a thing, that none can doubt thereof. And again in the same Apology, They suborned one Ischyras, a man that was no Priest, though he boasted of that name, for he was Ordained by one Colluthus, not a true, but an imaginary Bishop, who in a General Council was commanded by Osius and other Bishops then present, that he should be have himself onely as a Presbyter as he was before; and therefore all those that were Ordained by him, returned unto their own ancient state, among whom Ischyras also is to be counted.  
Now the force of this Argument confists not in the single testimony of St. Athanasius, though that same( in my opinion) ought to be preferred before the chimaera's of John Calvin, and a million of his Myrmidons; but it principally consists in these two points: The first is, That he produces a General Council, which likely may be the Nieene, to make good his assertion. The second is, That if this Doctrine had not been then unanimously received, as well by the Heterodox as by the Orthodox Believers, and consequently by all Christians in general, the Arrians, who left no ston unremov'd to confute their great Antagonist, would soon overthrow St. Athanasius his Plea, and tell him,( as Presbyterians now would do) Ischyras was a true Presbyter, though not Ordained by any Bishop, because single Presbyters could lawfully Ordain.  
To all these pressing arguments, which are enough to convince any man not wilfully blind, or possessed with the spirit of contradiction, we may add another insoluble demonstration ad hominem, out of our adversaries own concessions. For Presbyteri●ns cannot deny, but that the Sabbath was Jure Divino transferred from the Seventh to the First day of the Week; it being unlawful for any earthly power to alter what God has so solemnly established in the old Law: And likewise they cannot deny, but that Infants are Jure Divine capable of Baptism: Yet I defy any Presbyterian upon earth to show better proofs for either of these tenets, than I have shew'd hither to for the Superiority of Bishops above Presbyters. For the grounds of all these points is holy Scripture, not solely or simply taken, but as interpnted by the universal practise and tradition of Christs Church since the beginning of Christianity: why then ( good Presbyterians) should not these grounds prove the latter to be Jure Divino, as well as the former? or by what authority do you presume to admit the one, and reject the other?  
If you insist upon Scripture alone in maintaining either Paedobaptism or the translation of the Sabbath, you shall thereby gain no more, but make yourselves a laughing-stock to all learned and Judicious men. For as to the observation of Sunday, it is so obscurely delivered in the new Testament,( and the old is diametrically against it) that thereby you cannot convince any opposer whatsoever; the places alleged for it, are these that follow: Upon the first day of the Week the Disciples came together to break Bread. Acts 20.27. Upon the first day of the Week let every one lay by him in store, &c. 1 Cor. 16.2. I was in Spirit on the Lords Day. Revel. 1.10. Yet none of all these texts can convince the Sabbath to have been lawfully translated from Saturday to Sunday. For to the first it may be answered, that as the Disciples broken Bread upon the first day of the week, so( no doubt) they did sometimes upon every day of the week, as appeareth Acts 2.46. and therefore we cannot conclude hence the change of the Sabbath to the first, rather than to any other day. The second likewise proves no more but that the Apostle adviseth the Corinthians to begin the week with an Act of Charity, laying aside then some relief for their oppressed Brethren. And moreover, it is observable, that in both these places the Original Greek hath not, the first day of the week, but {αβγδ}, one of the Sabbaths, which renders the matter yet more obscure, and less decidable by Scripture. As for the last, it may be said, that every day is the Lords Day, and yet some are so called, because something remarkable relating to God happens in those days. Thus the Day of judgement is called the Lords Day, Mal. 4.5. and 1 Thes. 5.2. and 2 Pet. 3.10. yet no man, I think, can affirm, that it falls upon Sunday. And in this sense the day spoken of by St. John, might well be called the Lords Day tho' not Sunday, because of the manifold Mysteries, which God was pleased then to reveal to his beloved Disciple.  
Now as to the second point, so far it is from being warranted by any express Scripture, that the ancient Writers do commonly hold it only as an Apostolical Tradition. The Church( saith Origenes) received as a tradition from the Apostles to give Baptism even to Children, lib. 5. in c. 6 ep. ad Rom. And St. Augustin saith in like manner: The custom of our Mother the Church in Baptizing Children, is not at all to be despised, nor by any means to be counted superfluous, nor yet to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical Tradition, lib. 10. de Gen c. 23. And as for those passages of Scripture, which are commonly produced for Paedo-baptism, as the example of Circumcision, Christ's receiving little Children, and the Apostles Baptizing whole Families; tho' together with the universal tradition and practise of the whole Church since our Saviour's Ascension, they are indeed sufficient grounds for this custom, yet solely taken by themselves alone, they cannot satisfy or convince any inquisitive man. For to the example of Circumcision, it may be soon answered, that Baptism doth necessary presuppose Faith, which Circumcision did not: For in the Old Testament it was not said, Teach and Circumcise, or He that believeth and is Circumcised, &c. as it was said in the New, Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. Matth. 28.19. He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned, Mark 16.16. Wherefore tho' children could be circumcised in the Old Law, Gen. 17.12. Yet this proves not that we ought now to administer unto them the Sacrament of Baptism, which seemeth always to presuppose Divine Faith, whereof infants are uncapable, because they have no knowledge between Good and Evil, Deut. 1.39. And likewise to our Saviour's words; Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not: For of such is the Kingdom of God. Mark 10.14. It may be answered, first, that Christ admitted Publicans and sinners to come unto him, which yet could not be lawfully baptized without true Faith and Repentance; 2ly, that these Children, whereof our Saviour speaketh, were Circumcised, and consequently were in effect baptized according to the Rites of the Old Law. And as to those passages, where whole families are said to have been baptized, Acts 16.15, 33. and 1 Cor. 1.16. It cannot be denied, but it is probable there were some infants in those families; yet here we do not look for probable guesses, but for undeniable testimonies: for since it is evident, that Children cannot actually believe, Deut. 1.39. and that holy Scripture in several places expressly requireth saith in such as are to be baptized, Mark 16.16. Acts 8.37 I think, probable conjectures can be no sufficient warrant for us to do any thing so apparently repugnant to holy Scripture.  
It is plain therefore, that neither Paedo-baptism, nor the translation of the Sabbath can ever be proved by Scripture alone; all these texts are so ambiguous and uncertain, that had they not been confirmed by the constant practise and tradition of the Church in all Ages( which undoubtedly is the best gloss and comment we can find on Gods word) we could never be assured of either of these tenets, or convince any opposer of their verity.  
Now it is evident by all Antiquity, that nothing could be more universally practised, than the Superiority and Jurisdiction of Bishops above Presbyters have been in the Primitive Church; and withall it is manifest, that this practise is as much grounded on Holy Scripture, as either of the aforesaid tenets: Why then should we not conclude Episcopacy to be Jure Divino above Presbytery, as well as the Presbyterians hold Infants to be Jure Divino capable of Baptism, and the Sabbath to have been in like manner Translated from Saturday to Sunday?  
But our holy Brethren have got an invincible Argument to oppose against all these unanswerable Authorities, and what is this, but their own new-found Gloss upon St. Paul's ambiguous words; the Apostle( say they) declares, that Timothy was ordained by Presbyters, when he saith, Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, 1 Tim. 4.14. But this is a new-found Gloss indeed, for no ancient Writer, if not Aerius and his Sticklers, ever dreamed thereof before John Calvin and his illuminated Sectaries, have found it out by a new Revelation. St. Hierom, by those words, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, understands the hands, whereby Timothy received the Order of Presbytery or Priesthood.  
St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others, do understand it of Bishops, to whom alone it belonged to confer Ecclesiastical Orders. But however it be interpnted, certain it is, that Timothy was never Ordained by single Presbyters, St. Paul expressly affirming he consecrated him himself, where he saith, Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands, 2 Tim. 1.6. Wherefore if by Presbytery we understand the persons that were Presbyters, whether single Presbyters or Bishops, and not the Order of Presbytery or Priesthood, as St. Hierom expounds it, we must understand it not of any Presbyters Ordaining or Consecrating Timothy, whereas the Apostle himself was his Consecrator, but of such as assisted at his Ordination, who according to the aforesaid Second and Third Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, were, together with the Consecrator, to lay their hands on the head of the Person Ordained Presbyter or Bishop.  
Our godly gospelers have one Objection more, if yet it deserves that name, against Episcopal Jurisdiction, or rather against the undue exercise thereof. The fourth Council of Carthage( say they) has decreed, cap. 23. That no Bishop, without the assistance of his Clergy, should hear or determine Ecclesiastical Causes, otherwise the Bishops Sentence should be voided and null, unless it were confirmed by the presence of his Clergy. But what can this make for our Presbyterian Democracy, or against the Superiority of Bishops to be de Jure Divino, which is the chiefest Point controverted between us, I cannot in the least comprehend. As for our part, we always aclowledge, that since the beginning of Christianity, Bishops had commonly about them many of their ablest Priests and Divines, as it were their Spiritual Privy counsellors, to consult about Ecclesiastical matters, without whose consent and approbation, they seldom transacted any matters of moment, even as Kings and Princes seldom transact matters of State without consulting their Privy Council. Thus St. Cyprian saith, himself was accustomend to use the advice of his Priests and Learned Clergy in exercising his Ecclesiastical Function, and ordering the affairs of his Church. Yet this argues no more the parity of Priests and Bishops, than the aforesaid custom of Princes proves the equality of Kings and Privy counsellors. Nay further, though Bishops could not determine Ecclesiastical matters without the advice and consent of at least the mayor part of their Clergy, yet it should not immediately follow, that they are both of equal power, either of Order or Jurisdiction; even as many Kings of Europe can neither make new Laws, nor repeal the old, without the assent of the States of their Kingdoms, yet are far above any of these States in power and authority. Likewise Judges in England can seldom give sentence of death against any man, without the assent and verdict of the Jury, and yet the Jury is not of equal power and commission with the Judges in deciding such capital crimes.  
Wherefore we say( as it hath been already proved) that Bishops are truly superior to their Clergy, and have power from Christ to rule and govern both the Flock and Pastors together. Yet we confess, they must not rule arbitrarily, or domineer over their inferiors; not being Lords( as St. Peter saith) over Gods heritage, but being ensamples to the flock, 1 Pet. 5.3. surpassing the inferior Clergy in humility, as they exceed them in dignity; for as our Saviour saith to his Apostles, The Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many, Matth. 20.25, 26, 27, 28. But if the Apostles were not allowed to exercise any arbitrary or domineering power over Christians, without doubt Bishops, who are but the Apostles Successors, have no right to do it; yet this hindereth not, but they may use their Spiritual Authority against obstinate and rebellious persons, who( like Corah and his complices pretending an Arbitrary Government in Moses and Aaron, Numb. 16.3.) insolently depart from their lawful Pastors and Superiors, making themselves Ring leaders of Schismatical Factions; for in this case they may say with the Apostles, The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the pulling down of strong holds; casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into Captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10.4, 5.  
Having thus examined ( Good Presbyterians) the pretended grounds of your separation from our Church and Communion, I appeal now to your own consciences, if the Independent Presbyterians had not as much reason as you can here produce, to depart from your fraternity, and the Quakers, Levellers, and all those Leviathan monsters( which like Mushrooms sprung up in the late confusion) to depart from the Independents. show me I beseech you, some reason or authority warranting the one, and condemning the other. show me but one express text of Scripture, or one true president of antiquity for your Presbyterian Democracy, and I will be of your Communion. In the interim, I beg of you impartially to consider, how desperate is your condition, and upon what groundless grounds you separate yourselves from the Mother Church. Do not think that your usual pretence of differing from her, not in any necessary point of faith( as you say) but only in some inferior truths and few ceremonies, can justify your departing from her Communion. For undoubtedly, the less you dissent from her in Doctrine, the more you are to be suspected of the heinous crime of Schism, which is commonly defined by learned men, A wilful Separation from the Communion of a Christian Society without any sufficient cause. If therefore you dissent from the Church of England only in outward Ceremonies, and some few unnecessary points of Doctrine; surely, you have no sufficient cause to forsake her Communion; since in reason nothing less than a damnable and intolerable error either in faith or manners, can warrant us to disobey our Superiors, whom by the express word of God we are indispensably obliged to obey, Heb. 13.17. How then can you justify your departure from the Obedience of your lawful Bishops, or clear yourselves from the brand of Schism, if you differ from them only in such trivial points of Religion?  
Do but consider a little, what unspeakable miseries this your separation has caused this 100 years past in this iceland of Great Britain. What factions, what divisions, what massacres it occasioned among us? how strangely it weakened our Government both Spiritual and Temporal, and encouraged our enemies so often to design our ruin, they knowing that a Kingdom divided against itself, is easily brought to desolation? Matth. 12.25. What Locusts of unheard off Sectaries it produced, to the apparent ruin of so many seduced souls? Our Muggletonians, Quakers, Levellers, Brownists, and a numberless number of other Apocalyptical Enthusiasts, we must chiefly attribute to your pretended refining of the Reformation; for by your example they persuaded themselves, they might as well reform your Gospel, as you pretend to reform the Church of England. Consider, I say, this deluge of mischief brought upon your native Country, through your groundless separation and disobedience to your lawful Pastors, and tell me, what good has your pretended Holy Discipline ever done to the Church of Christ, to countervail these woeful calamities? Or do you think, it is possible, that such a discipline should be of God, which upon such trivial pretences is the occasion of so much trouble and confusion?  
Wherefore, Good and well-meaning Presbyterians( for such to be among you I must in charity believe, and with such only I have any hopes to prevail) if you expect the blessing of God, and the love of the Church of England, or if you desire not to be reputed, as well as Papists, sworn enemies to all Episcopal Protestants, lay aside this Spirit of contradiction, and since the Prophet assures us, that to obey is beter than Sacrifice, 1 Sam. 15.22. Obey you them that have rule over you( as the Apostle speaketh, Heb. 13.17.) and submit yourselves to those, who by the Laws of the Land, by the Canons of so many ancient Councils, and the universal uninterrupted custom of the Church of God since the Apostles time, are appointed your Pastors and Prelates to direct and guide you in spiritual matters. Forsake these factious Ring leaders, who make you but Asses for themselves to ride upon in state, and therefore to make themselves great, mind nothing but Sedition and Rebellion, tho' to you they pretend but Religion and Liberty, using( as St. Peter speaketh) their liberty for a Cloak of Maliciousness, 1 Pet. 2.16. like these wicked hypocrites described by lo the great, ep. 23. in these words: Private designs are carried on under the pretence of piety, and every one has Religion as the Handmaid of his ambition. For( as our Royal Martyr elegantly saith) It is no news to have all inovations ushered in with the name of Reformations in Church and State, by those, who seeking to gain reputation with the vulgar for their extraordinary parts and piety, must needs undo what ever was formerly settled, never so well and wisely; in his Eikon Basilike, c 16. For I have observed( saith he again c. 27.) that the Devil of Rebellion doth commonly turn himself into an Angel of Reformation; and the Old Serpent can pretend new lights. When some mens consciences accuse them of sedition and faction, they stop its mouth with the name and noise of Religion.  
Forsake you therefore such counterfeit Religionaries, and take notice of what the Angel said to Hagar in the Desert; Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands; Gen. 16.9. Return you to the Church of England, and if you intend to escape out of the Desert of Schism, submit to her Laws and Ordinances; she will receive you with as much tenderness and affection, as the Father embraced his Prodigal Son in the Gospel, Luke 15.20.  
By this you shall fully clear yourselves of all imputations of Schism and innovations, and shall avoid all future suspicions of contriving any Stratagems to ruin your native Country, or subvert the Government either of Church or State; you shall strengthen the Protestant interest both at home and abroad, be a means by degrees to suppress Popery and all those mushrums of Christianity, that spring up among us, and procure to yourselves peace and quietness both in this World and in the World to come; which God of his mercy Grant us all; Amen.   

An Advertisement to all true Protestants.  
My beloved Countrymen of the Church of England  
AS I have undertaken both this and the former treatise for your sakes, to make you sensible of the Presbyterians impostures, and deceitful contrivances against our Church and State; so now I humbly dedicate and recommend them to your serious considerations. Truly I have been always very loathe to rub up these old sores, which have so lately cost us so much Money and blood, to the draining both of Purse and Veins, or mention those monstrous Tragedies which within the memory of man have been acted upon the Stage of this unfortunate iceland; and had people now been as unwilling to tread the steps of their predecessors, as I am to rak up those cursed cinders, the world should be troubled neither with my papers, nor their frenzies. But forasmuch as there are at present such certain signs and symptoms apparently to be red in the words and actions of some discontented Religionaries, that whosoever hath but eyes to see, may apprehended some fatal Apoplexy to be near at hand: I think it no less than our interest, timely to look about us, least we be again surprised by these politic Machiavels, who unless prudently prevented by those who sit at the Helm, I am afraid, will once more attempt to restore their so much longed for Common-wealth.  
Yet this, I do not say, is( at least directly) intended by the generality, nor yet the mayor part of that faction. I doubt not, but there are, and have always been, even in that Communion some virtuous and godly men, who were rather moved by an ignorant Zeal and the pestilent influence of their Ring-leaders, to commit those prodigious actions, than of themselves any thing inclined to act such abominable wickedness. Wherefore, I think it is the duty of all Charitable Protestants, to distinguish, as far as possible, between a misled Presbyterian and a misleading Factioneer, and accordingly pity the one, but hate and detest the other. Pity those, who through their credulity and well-meaning Zeal are so deludedby their Primum Mobile's, that unawares they are forced to act against their inclinations; but hate and curse the rest, whose Religion we find by experience is Rebellion, whose Faith is Faction, and whose practise is the destruction of Kings and Kingdoms, whensoever they find opportunity, and their ability correspondent to their malice: yet still to take heed, and carefully beware of both, vigilantly watching over their proceedings, least our carelessness and stupidity may at any time encourage them to attempt our ruin.  
Wherefore, my beloved Countrymen, let us consider how as our Saviour was crucified between two Thieves, so is the Church of England now endangered between two extrems, the Presbyterians and Papists, both being equally willing, tho' not equally able to destroy us. The Papists, I know, are no less apt than the Presbyterians, to commit any treacheries to promote their superstition; but through Gods providence, their power now is so weak and inconsiderable, that whensoever they attempt our ruin, they will but hasten their own; for I dare venture my life, I might with a thousand, nay, 500. armed men destroy all the Papists in England at this present hour. But the Presbyterians are so numerous and of such formidable greatness, daily increasing by our malcontents and ambitious grandees, that if not timely prevented by our prudent Magistrates, our Orthodox Churches shall be ere long but ciphers to their Schismatical Conventicles. We see how boldly they speak every where, and especially in their Coffee-houses( those Shops of Sedition and Anvils of Rebellion) against our Bishops and Prelates, nay, against our King and Government, labouring to poison the short sighted rabble with their seditious libels and pamphlets. They often repeat those Antimonarchical expressions of the Rump-Parliament, that the King of England is entrusted with a limited power, and obliged to govern according to the Laws of the Land, insomuch that they count it a crime of the deepest die for any man to affirm, that the King can hinder or suspend the execution of any Law whatsoever; tho' they cannot deny, but that in several occurrences summum jus is summa injuria; whence our late Sovereign writing to his present Majesty, judiciously said: Your prerogative is best shewed and exercised in remitting, rather than exacting the rigour of the Laws; there being nothing worse than legal tyranny. In his Eicon Basilike, c. 27. And truly, had all the Laws formerly enacted and now in force against Nonconformists, been now put in execution against the Presbyterians, I doubt not, but we should often hear of Oppresion and tyrannical Government, from these very creatures, who now so vehemently press the execution of the Laws: so that we see, it is altogether impossible for any King to satisfy such unsatiable Republicans, unless he unkings himself and become a slave to the worst of Subjects.  
And yet notwithstanding all these Anarchical contrivances of the Puritans they are tolerated, they are countenanced, yea, seconded by persons, who by their places, by their oaths, and by their allegiance are obliged to maintain with the hazard of their lives the prerogatives of the Crown, and liberties of the Church of England. Nay. if we believe the Presbyterians themselves, they have the chiefest part of the great City of London to join with them in their great and unsearchable designs. Yet so incredible a story it is, that the Londoners, after their unspeakable losses by the late Presbyterian Rebellion, should now countenance, much less promote the like Insurrection, whereby whosoever wins, they are sure to be losers, that I admire if any man of fence can give credit to so unlikely a busrness. Is it possible, that this famous Metropolitan City should be insensible of all the indignities and losses they sustained by these disloyal gospelers? or forget what vast sums of money were daily squeezed out of their purses, without any sums of payment? How many thousands of their Children and Apprentices were pressed for Soldiers, and forced to fight against those very persons, to whom they owed their being and education? How can they digest to remember their Lord Mayor violently deposed, their Aldermen and chiefest Citizens barbarously imprisoned by these hellish Incendiaries, without any colour of Justice? And, in brief, can any length of time wear out of their memories the inhuman Butcheries committed upon their unarmed Apprentices in Easter, 1649. when the Arch-Tyrant cromwell himself cried to the Soldiers, to kill man, woman, and child, and fire the City about their ears? See the History of Independency, Part 1. page. 49 and 68. and Part 2. page. 150. These and many other indignities cast upon this great and famous City, for imprudently adhering to that Rebellious Faction, are so strong in my judgement, that I will sooner believe them destitute of all sense and reason, than inclined now to prostitute their Loyalty to so treacherous a Party. 'tis a common saying. If a man deceives me once, it is his fault; but if he deceives me again, it is my own. Wherefore since the Londoners, by the Presbyterians specious pretences, and promises of Reformation, have been once deluded to side with those sanctified Brethren, and have by woeful experience found they were deceived; if they should again upon the same grounds engage themselves into the like troubles, surely neither friend nor foe would pity their sufferings, neither God nor man would pardon their treacheries.  
Reformation indeed both in Church and State is so considerable a Treasure to the Weal public, that he must be reputed a sworn Enemy to God and his country that would in the least oppose it; yet to endeavour to introduce it by violent and tumultuous means, or without the joint and free concurrence both of Prince and People, is a remedy far worse than the disease, which will produce nothing but Anarchy and Irreligion. For even as people talk, that it's easy for Conjurers to raise the Devil, but to lay or conjure him away, is very hard and difficult; so, it is very feasible for factious fellows to create troubles and disturbances in a Kingdom, but to alloy the Tempest, and bring things again to a firm settlement, hoc opus, hic labour est. The reason is, because when a body politic is once in such a violent commotion, it is impossible for people to stand or rest where they designed, the throng will undoubtedly carry them beyond their aim, and at last make them either act against their consciences, or suffer against their wills. This we find true by experience in our late Tragieal confusion, when I am confident a great many of those, who voted for raising an Army against their Sovereign for to promote their pretended Reformation either in Church or State, never designed to Sacrifice his Sacred person for not consenting to their demand. Yet they were so over-acted by a prevailing party, that even as they did not assist his Majesty when they could, so when they would, it was not in their power to help him, according to that ancient saying: 
He that will not, when he may;  
When he will, he shall have nay.   
And yet after all these dismal combustions, which made England the Theatre of the Worlds wonder, so far were the three Nations from their promised and expected Reformation, that they grew daily worse and worse, and fell at last into all kind of Libertinism and profaneness. Their pretended Reformers have indeed made a thorough Reformation in the peoples purses, but never endeavoured to procure it either in Church or Commonwealth, but rather Crucified both with St. Peter's Crucifixion the heels upwards and the head downward. For as for the one, tho' in some sort they cast out the unclean Spirit of Popery, yet they brought in not seven( as the Gospel speaketh Matth. 12.45.) but rather Seventy other unclean Spirits, more wicked than the former. So that this iceland was a Pantheon, a Temple for all Gods and Religions. And the other they brought to that pass, that in April 1649. after the unparalelled Murder of their Sovereign, people openly said: We never suffered the thousandth part of the oppressions, we now groan under. And surely, they could not choose, having now instead of one pretended, so many real Tyrants, who like the 30. Tyrants of Athens insolently domineered over the oppressed people, and Arbitrarily governed the whole Kingdom. Of whom we may truly say with the Author of the History of Independency, part 1. p. 140. These are they, that with Hananiah break the wooden-yoke from our necks( Jer. 28.13.) and put on a yoke of Iron: free us from a little shipmoney paid thrice in an Age, and impose as much at once for a Monthly Tax: quit us of the Monopolies of Tobacco, and set up Excise on Bread and Beer. The first easeth the Wanton Rich man, and the later grindeth the needy and poor. Yet these are thy Gods, O London; these are the Idol-Calves the people have set up and do worship: These be the Molecs to whom ye Sacrifice Sons and Servants by Troops, Regiments and Armies, to maintain their sovereignty, Rebellion and Profit.  
Having therefore this woeful experience of the dismal consequences mevitably ensuing a violent Reformation, can any man be so senseless as to believe that the now Loyal as well as Prudent Citizens of London would side with these counterfeit Religionaries, in embroiling the Kingdom again in such intestine troubles, as have so lately cost them their reputation, their lives, their liberties and estates? If formerly they, or their predecessors rather; have been so imprudent as to be gulled by the plausible pretences and promises of the Presbyterians, I hope now they have acquired some Wit by their past calamities.  
Yet in one thing, I must confess, I cannot well excuse them from the censures of many judicious men, who admire what may be their reason to suffer so many mutineers and seditious fellows publicly to vent among them their pernicious and pestilent jugglings, which inflame the Short-sighted vulgar against the Government both Spiritual and Temporal, to the unspeakable reproach of the whole City, and imminent danger of the three Kingdoms.  
It was wisely observed by that ancient Author Arnobius, advers. Gentes, c. 4. Whosoever suffers sinners to sin, addeth strength to their boldness. And Seneca, In trod act 2. Qui non vetat peccare, cum posset, jubet. And before them no less judiciously delivered by the great Statesman Cicero, who orat. in Pisonem saith: It is not much different, especially in a Consul or Magistrate, whether he vexeth the Commonwealth himself by pernicious Laws and tumultuous Speeches, or suffers others to do it. What shall we say then of these Magistrates, whose duty and office it is to examine such matters, and who daily hear and see the pestilent jugglings of the Presbyterians, poisoning the blind rabble with their Seditious libels and Pamphlets( very ominous indeed to this Kingdom, if we remember 41.) yet do seldom or never inquire after those factious Spirits, but seem rather in a great proportion, either through fear or love, to countenance their insolency, which is already come to that height, that it is altogether intolerable, for tho' the dissembling hypocrites pretend to writ against the Papists, yet insensibly they fall from thence to rail against our Bishops and learned Clergy, not without open hints and reflections upon his Sacred Majesties Person and Government. Their writing against the Papists is onely to colour their cursed designs, and if they can but fill our senses with the horror of the Popish Plot, and daily bring us new alarms of the Papists treacheries against us, and thereby make us wholly intentive and bent against that Party, their work is done. They are sure to carry on their own designs with such dexterity and smoothness in so fair an opportunity, that insensibly they may surprise and destroy us. I think therefore in my conscience, it is our interest now so to beware of the plotting Papists, that yet we may have a vigilant eye over the treacherous Presbyterians, and narrowly sift and examine their proceedings and pretences, lest at last we find a Snake in the grass, as dangerous as that of the Rump-Parliament, whose steps our modern Presbyterians seem exactly to follow.  
Let not the name of Protestants, or reformed Christians, nor yet the smallness of our differences in Religion, promise us any security from these unsociable gospelers, since we have so lately seen, how the holy Brethren had no sooner overthrown the common Enemy, the Church of England, but they presently fell by the ears among themselves, one Faction endeavouring to suppress and destroy the other. So that what the Lord threatened to inflict upon the Egyptians, the same he exactly fulfilled in these pretended Reformists, I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians, and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour, City against City, and Kingdom against Kingdom, Isa. 19.2. But if the dependant Presbyterians were so eager against the Independents, who no less than the former stood for the Presbyterian Discipline, and differed from them onely in some small Formalities of Church-Government, is it possible they should be faithful to the Church of England, whose Communion they openly censure as Popish and Antichristian? Do not we see even in these present times, when we have the Sovereign Authority, and all the Laws of the Land against them, with what stratagems nevertheless they stop the mouths of his Majesties Loyal and Orthodox Subjects? They know, nothing can be more odious to Protestants than Popery and Popish Superstitions; nor to a Freeborn English Subject; than Tyrannical and Arbitrary Government; and whosoever is found endeavouring to introduce either of these two Monsters into this Kingdom, he must undoubtedly be reputed a sworn enemy to the People of England. Wherefore because these Puritaus chiefest aim and design is, to crush both Monarchy and Episcopacy under the Cloak of Presbytery: this plausible pretence they use with such wonderful dexterity, as a two-edged Sword against all their adversaries and opposers. For if any has the courage to speak in defence of his Majesty, or his present Government, he is immediately cried down as one disaffected to the Liberties of the English Nation; nay, as an introducer of Tyrannical and Arbitrary Government; and then, God be merciful to his Soul, for nothing but his downfall must satisfy these bloody cannibals. And likewise whosoever presumes to speak for the Church of England, or stand in her defence against the Schismatical Sectaries, he is presently cried down for a Papist, or at least Popishly inclined, and so exposed to the fury of the blinded Rabble, like those innocent Christians, exposed by the Tyrant Nero to the fury of his Dogs, in the skins of Bears and other savage Beasts; though it is evident to all the world, no Party can be apt to introduce Papists and Popery, if they find it for their advantage, than the Presbyterians themselves.  
We cannot surely forget how earnestly the Scottish Presbyterians, and particularly the Lord Lowdon, and others of the chief Confederates of that Kingdom, in the year 1639, courted the French King to favour their proceedings, and grant them his assistance against their natural Sovereign. We know what sway Cardinal Richlieu, the French Kings great Minister of State, bore among these holy gospelers,( who yet pretended to fight for Religion) sending his own Chaplain and a number of his chiefest Jesuits into Scotland, to foment the differences, and exasperate the Rebels there. See Bakers Chron. page. 489.  
How then do we know, but they are swayed by the same Faction even at this present time, and endeavouring to open the sluices for Popery, though they cry Whore first against the Church of England? Certain it is, the French King has now also many active Emissaries to promote his designs, and we may easily guess, it is not the least of his thoughts to inflame this Kingdom into a total combustion; neither can he excogitate fitter instruments for his purpose than those fiery spirits, who are, as it were, born to embroil Kingdoms, and, like Ishmael, to have their hand against every man, and every mans hand against them, Gen. 16.12.  
But they are the most inveterate against the French King and his interest, how th●● can they be inclined to promote his designs? They are indeed inveterate against him in some particulars, but in others they jointly concur; both Parties are agreed to divide and inflame this Kingdom, and thereby sacrifice it, the one to his Tyranny, and the other to his Anarchical Democracy. And this was the reason why the Presbyterians, in their late grand Rebellion, so much courted the French to their assistance against King Charles the first. The truth is, they are so eagerly bent upon the abolishing of Monarchical Government here, that to accomplish their desires, they would not scruple to say with that cursed Sorceress, Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.  
Monarchy is a sting that continually galls them, and the onely yoke( besides Episcopacy and Gods Commandments) they think insupportable and inconsistent with their Christian, or rather Antichristian. Liberty. To be rid therefore of this bondage, we need not doubt, they will leave no ston unremoved, no villainy unattempted. Yet because this great Work can hardly ever be accomplished, except first the very foundation of the present Government be vigorously shaken, and the whole frame put out of joint, by making this Kingdom of an Hereditary to become an Elective Monarchy, they use all possible arts and artifices to exclude the right Heir to the Crown, and raise a King of their own making, who has no better Title to the Sovereignty than the meanest of themselves, to the end that by what Power they should create him, they might also annihilate him at their pleasure, and thereby banish all Monarchical Government( and Episcopacy they are sure must consequently vanish) out of this iceland for ever.  
For the Person they now pretend so much to idolize, they know is neither of parts sussicient to countermine their contrivances. nor of interest able to oppose their commands, whensoever they would be pleased to call him to an account, with a red rationem villications tuae, and cause him( as formerly they did to Richard cromwell) to come cap in hand to his Masters, and aclowledge their Sovereignty; in the interim, he must be reputed the onely Demi-god of the Fanatical Republicans, who, in Absolom's language, whispering in the Peoples ears, delude the short sighted Vulgar with a parturiunt montes of those golden days they promise them are near at hand.  
Postquam, Saturno tenebrosa in tartara misso,  
Sub Jove mundo erit.  
Vivat at ad multos Carolus Philadelphius annos.  
Yet against these and such other Serpentine suggestions, I think it is a sufficient Antidote for any man of commonsense, to call to mind what a deluge of miseries have since the Conquest happened in this iceland, by the means of some ambitious and aspiring Spirits. Surely it is a sufficient caution for all prudent men to consider, what an inundation of English blood, what cruel Massacres of innocent Subjects followed the Tyrannical Usurpation of King Henry IV. though grounded on his Predecessors Resignation, and confirmed by Act of Parliament, as the Learned Bishop of Carlisle judiciously foretold, and as magnanimously endeavoured to prevent. And to come to matters of later date, and no less to our purpose, certainly the dismal combustions occasioned in Scotland by the wicked Earl of Murray alone, should be warning enough for all ensuing Ages; this man, though but Bastard Son to King James V. yet alleged his Mother was married to the King, and thereby pretended a Title to the Crown, which to snatch from Queen Mary of Scotland's Head, first opened a sluice to the Genevesian Incendiaries, who upon a sudden so infected the People with Puritanism, and consequently with the spirit of Anarchy and disobedience, that they could never since be fully reduced to a due temper of Reformation, or firm Loyalty; and then he raised almost the whole Kingdom in open Rebellion against their Sovereign, though at last, through the just judgement of God, to his own ruin and destruction.  
Shall we therefore be so imprudent, as to connive or approve of the like proceedings now, contrary to his Majesties express will, contrary to the safety both of himself and all his Subjects, and withall contrary to all Laws both human and Divine? Shall we forsake the true Temple of God, and go worship the Golden Calf of Jeroboam? exclude the Right Heir to the Crown, and set up an Idol, chosen by Fanaticks, not for any love to his Person, nor his Policy or Prudence in State affairs, nor yet for his Zeal for Religion, but merely to make a Tool of him to drive on their own mysterious designs, and thereby undo both himself and the whole Nation before he is ware of their contrivances; to which purpose, the hypocritical Zealots do so applaud and extol him daily, as if he had been the spring of all our happiness,( God sand the Puritans make him not the contrary, to his own and others ruin) and the onely hopes of the three Kingdoms.  
But of his R. H. they give such strange and monstrous representations, that it is unconceivable to any, not acquainted with the Presbyterians, what the malice of man can do: Nothing but Queen Mary's days, nothing but Fire and Faggot must serve their turn, to frighten the poor people out of their little wits, and make them believe they are already at the Stake in Smithfield. And to what purpose is all this? Why, they know his R. H. is of that profound Wisdom, and heroic Spirit, that it is impossible for them to out-reach or out-wit him in any of their Antimonarchical undertakings, nor yet impose upon his Sacred Majesty, while his R. H. is near at hand to dissipate the Rebellious councils of such Abitophels. And because they perceive there is no aspersion more odious among Protestants, nor more difficult to be wiped off, than the imputation of Popery; this charge the Fanaticks most eagerly press against his R. H. purposely to bring him into an Odium with the people; nay, they must have it for granted, and he cannot be half reformed that will deny it, tho' grounded upon the most filly and most groundless suspicions imaginable, without any colour or appearance of prooff, besides the Presbyterians {αβγδ}.  
Because his R. H. to maintain his privilege and prerogative above ordinary Subjects, refused to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, as being never intended to betendred to any of the Royal Family, whose birth is a greater tie of their fidelity to the Crown, than any Oath the wit of man can invent, he must presently be reputed a Papist, and thereby exposed to the malice and hatred of the mobile. But do not the Presbyterians also reject these Oaths? how then can it be an argument of Popery in the D. to refuse them? Can it be reputed Popery in the one, and Puritanism in the other? Or if the Papists and Puritans have two distinct reasons to refuse these Oaths, why might not his R. H. have a third motive, distinct from both, to reject them?  
Oh! but he does not Communicate with the Church of England. And no more do the Presbyterians. Must we therefore conclude they are Papists too? We must indeed conclude they are infected with the very dregs of Papery, as Treason, Rebellion, and Kingkilling principles. And I am confident, the chiefest reason why they are so inveterate against the Papists, is not for any diversity of Religion, but rather because two of a Trade eannot agree. Figulus odit figulum, and so very often one traitor hates another.  
As for his R. H. tho' of late he communicates not with the Church of England, yet we cannot find that ever he communicated with the Church of Rome either in Doctrine or Sacraments. Upon what grounds then can we conclude him a Papist? And since Christianity commands us to think the best we can of all persons, and that it is undeniably batter to communicate with no Church at all, than with one confessedly erroneous; because the one is but to omit what is good, but the other is positively to commit what is evil; the one is against an affirmative precept, which doth not bind us for all times and seasons, the other against a negative which doth always oblige: Is it not more Charitable in us, to think his R. H. Communicates with no Church at all, than rashly affirm, without any grounds, he Communicates with the Church of Rome? Especially, since it cannot be denied, but that a man may for a time suspend his Communion as to the Sacraments, and outward Ceremonies from all vilible Churches, and yet be a true Christian still. Shall we be so mad as to imitate the profane Puritans, who spare neither the prerogatives of God, nor of Gods vicegerent but arrogantly presume to dive into peoples hearts( which are subject only to the divine omniscience) and without any appeal to their actions, pretend to know their most inward secrets?  
Let us rather endeavour to dive into the Presbyterians mysterys of iniquity, and by their outward actions we may easily guess their inward designs. Ex operibus eorum cognoscetis eos. There you shall plainly find, it is neither for any Zeal for the Protestant Religion, nor for any good they wish the Church of England, they charge his R. H. with Popery, or use such Virulent invectives against him, but merely out of their boundless malice and antipathy against Monarchical Government. And in proof hereof, I durst venture my life, had the matter been wholly left to the Presbyterians choice, they would rather wish his R. H. should openly protess the Romish Religion, than now declare himself to be, or rather still to have been of the Church of England: the former they know might be a specious Cloak for their Knavery, but the latter, would deprive them of their most plausible pretences. Besides, they cannot deny, but that his Majesty is as likely to survive his R. H. as otherwise: if therefore their design had been only to secure the Protestant Religion, as they pretend, to what purpose should they( had the D. been really a Papist) so much exclaim against a Popish Successor who is likely either not at all, or at least not long to survive his Sacred Majesty; and consequently, is not like to be able, tho' he were willing, in so short a time to suppress a Religion( to speak nothing of Gods providence) so unanimously professed, and so firmly established by Law?  
Their reason without doubt is, because they find themselves altogether unable to oppose his Majesties Prerogative and sovereign Authority, joined with the great Conduct and Resolution of his R. H. and therefore observing that machiavellian Maxim of the Jesuits, Divide& impera, what jointly they cannot overthrow, they labour severally to undermine. To this end they use all possible devices to possess his Majesty with jealousies and sinister apprehensions, thereby toalienate his affections from his only Brother, contrary to the ties not only of Nature, but also of common Gratitude to a person of his merits and services both at home and abroad; and whom God has joined together these Republicans labour to put asunder.  
How fatal this Stratagem proved in King Edward the th days to the great D. of Somerset and his brother the L. Admiral, our Historians can sufficiently testify. These two, while united amongst themselves, like a triple Cord, were so strong, and seemed so formidable to their adversaries, that it was concluded nothing but their separation could put a period to their so much envied greatness. Their enemies therefore by strange artifices prevailed at last with the Protector, who during the Kings minority had the chief management of affairs, to subscribe to his brothers execution, but thereby condemned his own head to the Block, as soon after he found too true by woeful experience For being thus left alone, he was presently exposed to the implacable malice of his blood thirsty adversaries, and not having now his brother to espouse his quarrel, he was at last sacrificed to their fury. A warrant( saith Baker, speaking of the Admiral's untimely death) was signed under the hand of his brother the Protector, to cut off his brothers head. Whereby( at it proved) he did as much as if he had laid down his own head to the Block: for whilst these brothers lived and held together, they were as a strong Fortress one to the other; the Admiral's Courage supporting the Protector's Authority, and the Protector's Authority maintaining the Admiral's Stoutness; but the Admiral once gone, the Protector's Authority, as wanting support, began to totter, and fell at last to utter ruin. Besides, there was at this time, among the Nobility, a kind of Faction; Protestants, who favoured the Protector for his own sake; and other of the Papal inclination, who favoured him for his brothers sake: but his brother being gone, both sides forsook him, even his own side as thinking they could expect little assistance from him, who gave no more assistance to his own brother. Hitherto Baker, page. 307.  
And we may be sure, this Stratagem proving then so successful, cannot but animate our Machiavels now to use the like contrivance, to carry on their hellish designs against our King and Kingdom. They have often declared of late years in their Clubs and grand Cabals, that if they could but once be rid of his R. H. they might make what they pleased of his Sacred Majesty: And truly, in my opinion, they had reason to expect no less: for surely, no man can be so blind, as not to see, that if the King should at any time give way to the Presbyterians unlimited malice against the D. and particularly to the Spirit of revenge which now agitateth their chiefest Demagogues, not one of all his friends but would immediately desert him, and for their own preservation leave him to the merciless mercy of the Antimonarchical Republicans; as formerly it happened to the D. of Somerset, Si licet exemplis parvis in grandibus uti.  
The reason is, because they could not in prudence expect any safety or security from him, who( to satisfy an unsatiable Faction, which as King James said, no favour or obligation can win) would not secure so good and so deserving a brother against so apparent a malice, which plainly tends to the utter subversion of all Government both Spiritual and Temporal.  
To this our Ahitophels will answer, That as for their part they never conspired against his R. H.'s life, neither did they aim at any thing else, but the preservation of the Protestant Religion, and the Property and Liberty of the Subject; and to this end tho' they endeavoured to disinheit his R. H. yet they never designed to take away his life. Yet this is but crambe recocta, and the old Canting of 41. and withal it is the Spirit of Popery under the Cloak of Presbytery. First, it is well known that by these very pretences the Godly Gospelers seduced the ignorant people from their Allegiance to the Father, as now they endeavour to incense them against the Son. It is the usual policy of these Machiavels( like him who often transforms himself into an Angel of light, 2 Cor. 11.14.) to make fair beginnings, but very foul endings. Their specious pretences are like the singing of Syrens, lulling the unwary into such a sleep, that he is not able to escape the snares of their malice. Secondly, this artifice exactly resembles that cunning distinction of some Papists, who say that the Pope may Authorize Subjects to depose, but never to kill or murder their sovereign; whereas it is manifest, that whosoever can justly depose, he may lawfully put to death any Prince whatsoever; and what cause soever grounds the one, must of necessity justify the other. Nay, a Prince is no sooner disinherited or deposed, but he is ipso facto allotted for a Sacrifice to his enemies. Private persons may, but it is impossible for Princes to survive their Dignity. K. Richard the 2d. having so freely resigned his Crown made( as he thought) firm conditions with H. the 4th peaceably to led a private life; yet this could not in the least secure him, or prevent his Tragical execution. The like happened to Edward the 2d. Henry the 6th and many others: nay, to see a Prince( if compos mentis) in safety after his disinherison or deposition, is Rara avis in terris, nigroque simillima Cygno.  
But suppose the D. might survive his disinherison, upon what grounds should he thus forfeit his Dignity, or be deprived of his Birth right? Is it, because he is a Non-Conformist? If so, then let all Puritans, who undoubtedly are Non-Conformists and Schismatical Sectaries, first be expelled out of their Lands and Livings, out of their places and employments, that so there may be some grounds to proceed against the D. Ay, but he is supposed a Papist, and consequently cannot be a good K. for Protestant Subjects. Why then, at least let all supposed Papists first forfeit their estates, and then we may once more strive for the Bishops Lands, and sand them to the Pope for a pension. Besides, if the Papists whether supposed or real be thus dealt withal, why should not the same measure be meted to other Sectaries also, as to Quakers, Brownists, Anabaptists, who are no less erroneous in their Doctrine, nay, and to the Presbyterians too, who are no less wicked in their practices, than the Papists themselves. And surely we have already found by experience, that it is far more impossible for Presbyterians to make good Subjects for any Monarch whatsoever, than for a Papist to make a good K, for Protestant Subjects. If therefore the D.( who is only supposed, but never proved a Papist) should forfeit his right, because of the repugnancy of Popery to the Protestant Religion; let the Puritans( who are known schismatics and rebels to the Church) first be deprived of all their Livings and Employments, because of the undoubted Antipathy of Presbytery, as well to true Religion, as to Monarchical Government. Is it not madness in the highest degree, that known Sectaries should be tolerated, and the suspected only be censured or condemned? that the son of our late sovereign, who dyed a Martyr for our Church, should be threatened to loose his right, and and the worthy Sons of his bloody Butchers be left in quiet possession of those Lands, which their Fathers villainies and their own Wickedness made them unworthy to enjoy? Shall we be again deluded by their specious pretences, to make the Crown a Foot-ball for Republicans? Is this our Oath to maintain the prerogatives of the Crown with the hazard of our lives, to leave it thus to the enemies of Monarchy to bestow it on whom they please? If we look unto former ages, we shall find that the Succession was then held so Sacred and inviolable, that it was counted a crime of the first magnitude for Subjects to meddle in such weighty matters.  
That glorious Princess Q Eliz. tho' a Woman, yet never heard the Succession debated, even against a professed Papist, either in or out of Parliament, but the actors must presently pack to prison to consider and amend their Folly: For( as Cambden saith in her Life, p. 73.) certainly, she never heard any thing more unwillingly, than that the title of Succession should be called into question. And therefore in the 8. year of her Reign, she sent Mr. Thornton Reader of Law in Lincolns-Inn to the Tower, because in his Reading he called the Q. of Scots title in question, Cam● page. 86. And it was alleged by the Earl of Leicester, as a great crime against the Lord Keeper Bacon, that he had intermeddled against the Q, of Scots in the matter of Succession, and was privy to a Book wherein Hales went about to derive the title of the Crown of England, in case the Q. should die without Issue, to the house of Suffolk. Whereupon Hales was committed to the Tower; But Bacon ( though he denied it) was by much ado restored to favour. Cambden page. 73. And likewise in a Parliament held 35. Eliz. Mr. Wentworth, Sir Henry Bromley and others of the House of Commons, moving for entailing the succession of the Crown, the Q was so much incensed against them, that Mr. Wentworth was presently sent to the Tower, and the rest to the Fleet. Tantae molis crat defendere Jura coronae.  
And had this course been taken in these times with some over-active Republicans, who out of their Antimonarchical Zeal endeavour to snatch the Crown from the right line, I doubt not, but in few days all these Storms might be allayed, and things brought to a firm fetlement; for it is certain, the more they are tolerated, the more insolent they will grow; and if ever they get the opportunity, they will no less bark against the Possessor, than the Successor of the Crown; for in truth notwithstanding all hypocritical clamours of Religion, their main design is to expel both Monarchy and Episcopacy out of this iceland for ever.  
The case therefore being such, and the Presbyterians specious pretences proving at last so pernicious to our Church and State, have we not reason to look about us, and timely beware of such dangerous creatures, who like Judas outwardly show us a great deal of kindness, but in their hearts contrive our ruin, and under the colour of securing the Protestant Religion, do labour to subvert our Laws and Government, and engage the three Nations in endless troubles? Is it not our interest, while we have the power in our hands, diligently to examine these specious pretences, and if possible dive into the bottom of their designs. remembering that pithy saying of the Roman Sage, Fistula dulce canit, volucrem dum decipit auceps. We see how through our carelessness they daily gain ground upon us, continually tampering with those of our Church, whose passions they find suitable or pliable to their pretences. Such as they find ignorantly Zealous, or in the least offended at any thing they misunderstand in our Ceremonies, by their hypocrisy and seeming Sanctity they are sure to win them to their party. And those they perceive to be of an ambitious and aspiring Spirit, they immediately gain by rewards aand promises of great preferments.  
But such as they find popular and eminent above the rest, or in a posture to do their country service, presently they insinuate themselves into their good liking, and if possible, insensibly steal them to their Puritan Faction. And so successful they have been in these cunning contrivances, that it is not imaginable what number of proselytes they have lately gained from our communion. Nay, these very Witnesses, who happily came in to discover the horrid Plot of the Popists, are so courted and caressed by the godly Brethren, that people make it a grand Quaere, whether these Discoverers be now more inclined to the Presbyterian interest, or to the good of the Church of England. As for my own part, I must confess, this Problem has for above this half year past, often put me to a Non-plus, and to a great confusion of mind, not well knowing what to conclude in these distracted times: For when I think of these Witnesses discovering the cursed Popish Plot, I cannot but praise the Divine Providence, which always frustrates the hellish designs of these sons of Belial against our Church and State. But when on the other side I consider, how the Presbyterians are the most intimat Privy-Council of these same Discoverers, their greatest sticklers, and chief, if not sole Admirers and Adorers; and withall when I bear of their discovering the Introducers, not onely of Popery, but also of Tyrannical and Arbitrary Government, and that I know the Church of England,( which, as the most Orthodox, so is now the most Loyal Church upon Earth) or at least all the Courtiers, and his Majesties chief Favourites, may, in the Puritans judgement, as well be charged with the later branch, as the Papists have been prosecuted for the former; yea, are in a great number already listed by our holy Brethren, some as Pensioners, others plainly as introducers of Arbitrary Government, and of Popery too: When I consider, I say, these strange transactions, I stand amazed not knowing what to say in such surprising circumstances. But, From Presbyterian contrivances, and the reviving of 41, Good Lord deliver us.  
The chiefest shield, under the Divine Providence, and our Gracious Sovereigns, that protected us in former times from the insolency of these seditious Sectaries, was the indefatigable diligence of our Layal and Orthod●x Parliaments, which, since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, have by good and wholesome Laws secured us from all our adversaries, until the fatal Apoplexy of 41, when the Presbyterians, by their secret contrivances, and deluding hypocrisy and pretence of Religion, gained so far upon the ignorant people, that few but Presbyterians were Elected Parliament-men. But if that Election proved then so fatal to our King and country, what shall we think of these present times? Do not we see how the Presbyterians are the most numerous and the strongest Faction now in England, far exceeding in Men, Money, and Resolution, not onely their own worthy Progeny, the ate sprung-up Fanaticks, but also the Episcopal Protestants of this iceland? Since therefore the Representatives of the Commons of England are Elected by the mayor vote of the People, how can we but suspect that the Presbyterians, notwithstanding the opposition of the Orthodox Party there, shall bear the sway in the House of Commons? What greater security then can we expect from such Members now, than from their Predecessors in 41? Can these make greater demonstrations of their integrity, or pretend more earnestly their Zeal for the true Protestant Religion, and their Loyalty to their Sovereign, than their Predecessors have done? Do not we remember how the Long-Parliament, in their Remonstrance, May 19. 1641. thus speak in their hypocritical Language? The services which we desire to perform to our Sovereign Lord the King, and to his Church and State, in proceeding for the public peace and prosperity of his Majesty, and all his Realms; within the presence of the same all-seeing Deity, we protest to have been and still to be the onely end of all our counsels and endeavours, wherein we have resolved to continue freed and enlarged from all private aims, personal respects, or passion whatsoever. Likewise in their Declaration, Aug. 1. 1642. We the Lords and Commons are resolved to expose our lives and fortunes for the defence and maintenance of the true Religion, the Kings Person, Honour, and Estate. And July 12. Resolved, That an Army shall be forthwith raised for the safety of the Kings Person, defence of both Houses of Parliament, and those who have obeyed their Orders and Commands, and preserving the true Religion, the Laws, Liberties, and Peace of the Kingdom. See these and many such other expressions, related by Mr. Fowlis in his History of the Plots and Conspiracies of the pretended holy Saints, Circa med.  
What more solemn Protestations than these could people device, to demonstrate their Integrity and Loyalty? and yet what destructive designs lay in Ambuscado under these specious masks of Presbytery, I think now the world can tell. What strange stratagems and cunning devices they used, until they got the power and strength of the Kingdom into their own hands? Then ending their Masquerade, they openly shewed themselves, and, like blood-thirsty Hell hounds, never restend, until they sacrificed their Natural Sovereign, and banished his present Majesty from his Crown and Dignity. And yet so cursedly impenitent were the Anarchical Rebels, that even when the Secluded Members were restored by the Noble General monk, and about the latter end of February, 1659/ 60, met in their full Parliament, so far they were from being touched with the least remorse of conscience, that in March following they approved of these inhuman transactions, and ordered, that no person should be admitted for an Officer in the Militia, till he protested as followeth, I do aclowledge and declare, That the War undertaken by both Houses of Parliament in their defence, against the Forces raised in the name of the late King, was just and lawful, and that Magistracy and Ministry are the Ordnances of God. See Bakers Chronicle, page. 716. Presbyterian Magistracy and ministry forsooth must be the Ordnances of God, and Monarchical and Episcopal Government the Ordnances of Man.  
And thus we see how miraculous his Majesties most happy Restoration has been, when by the over-ruling Providence of God, and the glorious endeavours of General monk, he was, notwithstanding all his opposers, in the latter end of May following, settled in his Fathers Throne, to the unspeakable joy of all his Loyal Subjects, and utter confusion of his Rebellious Enemies.  
But though the intolerable insolence of the Presbyterians makes people apprehended these fears and jealousies of some of their Representatives, yet we always hope better things of the prudent consultations of that Loyal and Honourable Senate. 'tis very surprising indeed, and I am afraid no less ominous, that notorious Rumpers should be the most earnest of the whole Kingdom for the sitting of the Parliament; that Arch-Rebels and Regicides, or at least their Sons and Heirs,( of whom we may justly say, Mali corvi malum ovum) should be the greatest promoters of Petitions to his Majesty for that purpose. For surely it can portend no good to the Protestant Religion, that Schismatical Sectaries, who in former times crept into holes, not daring to appear at the meeting of Parliaments, should now be so earnest for their sitting.  Tempora mutantur, nos& mutamur in illis. 
But, what may be the reason why the Presbyterians do now press with such vehemence the sitting of the Parliament, is indeed very hard and mysterious to conceive, yet divers do diversely guess and conjecture at it, as they are diversely inclined, for unus quisque judicat prout affectus est. Some think they have no other reason, but that being such restless spirits, and as it were naturally inclined to breed and foment troubles, they endeavour to be Ring-leaders in all tumultuous and seditious proceedings. Others are persuaded, that their great Engineers do apprehended the Parliament may chance smell out their wicked contrivances, and so reward them according to their deserts; and because they know they are for the sitting of the Parliament, the more his Majesty has reason to defer their meeting, knowing that from the Anarchical Presbyterians no good is to be expected; they endeavour to hinder the Parliaments meeting by their clamorous Petitioning for their sitting; even as the King of Spain's Drughter, hearing her Father swear he would do nothing that she then begged at his hands, hindered the execution of the Archbishop of Toledo, by begging of his Majesty to put him to death. But others are yet of opinion, their chiefest reason is, that they presume the Parliament, or at least the house of Commons, will stand for the Presbyterian Gospel, and again endeavour to erect the Genevesian Discipline in this Kingdom; and if they have but the house of Commons of their side, they doubt not, but by seditious Stratagems and continual clamours of their property and liberty, the great Diana of the Ephesians, they may force the house of Lords, and at last the King himself to subscribe to their demands. Deus omen avertat.  
Yet such is the assured confidence we always repose in the prudence and conduct of our Gracious Sovereign, and in the Religious Loyalty of his most Honourable House of Lords and Privy Council, that with the help of the All-seeing Providence of the Almighty, we shall have a most happy deliverance from all the contrivances of our enemies, whether Papists or Presbyterians. We are fully persuaded, that as the Noble Peers of this Realm do unquestionably derive all their Power and privileges from the Royal Fountain; so now they will not drain the Stream by forsaking the Source, as formerly their Predecessors have most imprudently done, to their unspeakable loss and discredit; but will constantly adhere to their Prince, and with their accustomend magnanimity second his Majesty in protecting and defending the Church of God, as by the fundamental Laws of the Land he engageth himself to do, from all the incursions of her adversaries.  
It has been King James his Aphorism, and lately verified by woeful experience, No Bishop No King; and now I think we may add, No King No house of Lords: for by the observation of so many ages we find most infallibly, how the interest of this human Trinity is so inseparable, that the one can never be preserved without the safety and welfare of the rest. Streams may as well keep their course after the Spring or Fountain is dried up, as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal can subsist without the Royal Fountain of their Sovereign: And an Eagle may as well fly without his Wings, as the King of England can preserve his Regal Authority, without his Lords as well Spiritual as Temporal. This Kingdom is like a Watch, the spring whereof is the Prince, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal the balance, and the Commons are the interjacent Wheels; the whole Frame is to be kept in due order, or else no regular motion is to be expected. We hope therefore, if peradventure the Presbyterians should at any time bear the sway in the house of Commons( which God in his goodness forbid) yet they shall never be able either to introduce Presbytery, or again abolish Episcopal Government, which has been one of the chiefest means of preserving this Kingdom in its due temper and motion these many hundred years. Otherwise, I think, we should incessantly pray, that no Parliament should meet in our days.  
But, Good God! what a pitty it is, that our Wise and Religious Law-makers, which through the extraordinary blessing of the Almighty, have established the Church of England in its Apostolical Purity, were so far overseen, as not to contrive some means, whereby to prevent all these dangers and troubles, and secure our Church from all future occurrences; which they might easily do, had they but made Sectaries and Non conformists uncapable of sitting in our High Court of Parliament.  
I must confess, had the Presbyterian Zealots been constant to their own Principles, our Law-makers have pretty well endeavoured to exclude them from Voting in the House of Commons, when they strictly enjoined all the Members of that Honourable House solemnly to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy; both which, at least the latter, the world knows is directly repugnant to the Genevesian Gospel. Such an Headship( saith Alexander Henderson, a notorious Ringleader of that Party) as the Kings of England have claimed, and such a Supremacy as the Two Houses of Parliament crave, with the Appeals from the Supreme Ecclesiastical Judicature to them, as set over the Church in the same line of subordination, I do utterly disclaim; in his second Paper to our Royal Martyr, in the Book entitled, Reliquiae Carolinae, page. 334. Yet so rare is the Zeal of these politic Religionaries, and such is the stoutness of their tender consciences, that to get themselves into that station, wherein they are capable of promoting the good old Cause, I do not think there is any Test or Oath imaginable, which they would scruple to swallow. Of them we may say with Horace, Sat. 3. lib. 2.  
— mill add catenas,  
Effugiet tamen haec sceleratus vincula Proteus.  
For we find by experience, they make no conscience of breaking, why then of taking any Oath whatsoever. Of Oaths they make politic Engiues to drive on their designs, and delude the Rabble with their dissembling Protestations; whence we may perceive with how much reason and truth the Learned Bishop of Chichester affirmed, That many be arrant Puritans in heart, that onely for preferment do comform; hold with the Hare, and run with the Hound; who, so they might vivere and valere, would as willingly have up the Presbyterian Anarchy, as would Thomas Cartwright were he living. In his Appeal to caesar, part 2. c. 1. p. 111. But surely since ficta sanctitas duplex est impietas; and as Seneca saith, Malus ubi bonum simulat, tunc est possimus; these counterfeit Protestants, as they are the wickedest of Christians, so they are to be counted the most dangerous to our Church and State. I wish therefore our wise Law-makers had then further Enacted, That whosoever should be proved to neglect the service of his Creator, or causelessly omit to hear the Word of God, and receive the holy Communion from his lawful Pastor, or could be found to haunt Schismatical Conventicles, and Illegal Meetings, should be counted unworthy to serve his King and country in our High Court of Parliament. In a word, I wish it had been ordained, that no Sectary or Non-conformist whatsoever should have the power either to choose, or be chofen, a Member of that honourable Senate. Had this clause been once Enacted, we might assuredly promise ourselves, that no Sect or Faction should ever prevail against us; that no discord or difference should across that loving and happy union, which has been always continued these many Ages past between our Gracious Sovereigns and their Loyal Subjects, until the Presbyterians, about the latter end of King James his Reign, most unfortunately crept into our Parliament, and infected others with the poison of their Anarchical Principles, which has been the fource and chief original of all those unspeakable miseries that befell this distracted Kingdom above these 50 years; the inexhaustible fountain, whence proceeded the deluge of all our former calamities, and present apprehensions; hence our Church became gradually vilified, and at last quiter rejected and suppressed as Superstitious and unreformed, our Bishops deposed as Popish and Antichristian, our Divines turned out of their Pulpits, Schools, colleges, and Universities, and deprived of all their benefice and Livings; our Loyal Nobility and Gentry thrust out of Parliament, and either cruelly murdered, or tyrannically deprived and robbed of their Lands and Means by an usurping Nero; and( to complete their unparalleled wickedness) our Gracious Sovereign most inhumanly murdered by these Monsters of Nature.  
But, to make an end of this endless subject, I shall put a period to this Discourse in the words of that Learned Writer, Mr. Foulis, in his foresaid History, page. ult. which now I recommend to the Readers serious consideration: To conclude,( saith he) if all things, according to the Poets, grow worse and worse, to what stupendious wickedness will the Presbyterians come? If Caligula sucked blood when a Child, they might suppose him to be a cruel Monster when a Man. If the Puritans at first rebel against, and imprison their King, murder and clap up the Bishops, seize upon their Lands, and those of the Loyal Gentry, bloodily destroy the best Subjects, and caress the wicked; if at their beginning of rule they multiplied Religion into so many Heresies, that every house seemed like that Family at the Hague in Holland, composed of Seven several Religions: If when they were inferiors, they durst Proclaim the Queen a traitor, call the King's actions Scandalous, Impudent, False, Wicked, Tyrannical, &c. Impose wicked Oaths upon the Nations, and Violate all Laws. Good God! what as yet unheard of villainy and Impiety will there be invented and found out to please the Disciplinarian palates, if ever they should obtain Superiority, or have the least sway in these Kingdoms? Which no Honest man can desire, all Good men are bound to oppose, and pray they may never have hopes of such Favour and Authority.  
FINIS.    

THE Presbyterians Loyalty AND ZEAL for RELIGION Demonstrated, &c.  
Good Sir Presbyter,  
YOur Letter I received, and have hitherto deferred to sand you a reply, as well because I could not certainly tell where to direct it, as also because I thought it altogether needless to spend any time in answering such frivolous impertinencies, and idle whimseys; yet forasmuch as the Wise-man adviseth us to answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, Prov. 26.5. I concluded at last to sand you these ensuing Lines as a New-years-Gift, and direct them to your Worship at Billingsgate, where I judge by your dexterity in scolding and railing rhetoric you are a Master of Art, if not chairman to that quick-tongu'd and unsociable Society.  
Truly, to be railed at by the Presbyterians, is so far from giving me the least distaste, that I count it the greatest honour they can place upon me, it being now the common Character of a faithful Patriot, and true Loyalist: And had I been in the least praised by such factious Spirits, I would undoubtedly suspect my own actions, and say with Socrates, What evil have I done, that these Antimonarchical Levellers should commend me?  
'tis true, you pretend to be a Son of the Church of England, and to colour your knavery, you most unfortunately make a Cloak of that holy Church, whose candour and sincerity is so transparent, that your pernicious designs are plainly seen through it, to the utter confusion of such hypocritical dissemblers.  
But since the world knows, a Protestant Jesuit can equivocate as well as the Puritan Papist, I think we have reason enough to believe, that by the Church of England you mean nothing else but your own Presbyterian Synagogue, which alone you esteem the true Church of Christ; for it is evident, a Son of that Church, which is now through God's Providence established among us by the Laws of the Land, you cannot pretend to be, unless such a Son as Nero was to Agrippina, who scrupled not to procure the death of his unfortunate Mother, to satisfy his own monstrous voluptuousness.  
You undertake to roll sisyphus his ston, or wash a gipsy, to vindicate the Presbyterians, and make us believe they are harmless Lambs, though all true Protestants hold them for ravenous Wolves, and now apprehended them most dangerous both to Church and State: yet so pitiful a defence you make in their behalf, that I cannot tell whether the Church of England has greater reason to detest your Schismatical intention, than your own Synagogue to curse your ill-manag'd undertaking; for since, as the Poet well observed,  
Causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit.  
What shall become of an ill Cause very ill defended?  
But however you fail in the rest, you are sure not to forget the old contrivances of your Predecessors, the Parliamentarian Rebels, and their worthy Progenitors, in charging all those with Popery, that presumed to make the least opposition against their bloody Zeal for the Genevesian Reformation: Which intrigue, as it proved most successful to the treacherous Rumpers, so it has been no less destructive and pernicious to the Church of England, it being one of the chiefest stratagems, whereby the Rebels brought our Royal Martyr and his trustiest Ministers into an odium with the blinded Rabble.  
I could instance here several passages of this Presbyterian policy, but I shall content myself with two or three, and will begin with one remarkable example, which was a praeludium to all our former distractions, as their present proceedings, if not timely prevented, do infallibly prognosticate the like revolutions to be near at hand. In the year 1632. King Charles the First, of glorious memory, took a journey into Scotland, and thought by degrees to settle there the English Liturgy, with its usual Ceremonies; which the Ring-leaders of the Presbyterian Faction in that Kingdom understanding, not onely exclaimed against our Liturgy as erroneous and superstitions, but also doubted not to traduce his Majesty for very strong inclinations to the Religion of the Church of Rome. By which contrivance they quickly possessed the shortsighted Rabble with such tears and jealousies, as afterwards broken out into a flamme of open Rebellion, to the utter ruin and destruction both of King and country. See Bakers Chronicle, Edit. anno 1674. page. 473.  
And so effectual a contrivance was this piece of policy counted by our brave Machiavilians, that in England also in the year 1641, when the Spirit within them moved the blind Zealots to join with the Scotch Rebels,( as it is recorded by the same Historian, page. 535.) in the dead of the night, the more to terrify the timorous vulgar, they used to cry in the streets of London, That all people should arise to their defence, for the King with his Papists were coming to fire the City, and cut their threats in their beds. Than which contrivance( saith the Author) though nothing were more false, yet found the effects of truth. Likewise in Novemb. 1642 Vicar, the Presbyterian Historian, in his Chronicle, Part 1. page. 212. speaking of the B●●ttle of Edge-hill, gives this relation of his holy Brethren, The Sabbath day after their arrival to London, the godly and well-affected Ministers( i.e. the Presbyterian Predicants) throughout the City preached and praised the Lord publicly, for their joyful and safe return home to their Parents, Masters, and Friends, exhorting those young Soldiers of Christs Army Royal still to retain, and be forward and ready to show their courage and zeal to the defence of Gods Cause, and their Countreys welfare: showing them the Plots of their adversaries, to have introduced Popery and Tyranny into the Kingdom; and assuring them, that this War on their parts was waged and managed by Papists, an Army of Papists being raised by the Kings command, contrary to his vows and protestations.  
It is needless, I suppose, to repeat here, how often most of our eminent Divines, and zealous Church men, ever since the Reformation, have been slandered in this manner by these hot-headed Enthusiasts, and compelled to make Apologies in their own vindication against such wicked aspersions. Was not the Learned Dr. montague, Bishop of Chichester, forced to writ a Book, entitled, Appello Caesarem, against the malicious Calumnies of the Puritan Party, where the godly man sheweth himself so far from being daunted with their bold attempts and bloody Menaces, that, with true Christian courage he openly exposeth to the world their mysteries of iniquety, and fully discovereth their pernicious contrivances to undermine our Church, and subvert our Government? and amongst the rest, he speaketh in this manner, The truth i● as with the Jesuit he is an heretic, that is not furloso more a Roman catholic, so with the Puritan he is a Papist that will not run a madding with them. It is not the first time( saith he) for this very cause I have been talked of, esteemed of, traduced as a Papist; which I can the better brook, because they have meted this measure to the Church of England itself, as sympathising with Papists in her Liturgy, Discipline, and Doctrine. In his Appeal to caesar, part 2. c. 1. p. 110.  
All true Protestants therefore, who prefer the Harmonious and Apostolical Order and Government of the Church of England, before the confused hodge-podge of the new-found Genevesian Discipline, have now( I think) sufficient reason to beware of such dangerous contrivances for the future, and not suffer themselves to be gulled again by such gilded pretences, which, like the apple of Sodom, are specious indeed and beautiful without, but base and filthy within. The Presbyterians, to our sorrow, have by this policy once deceived us, and the Lord forgive them; but if they deceive us again, then the Lord forgive us. Improbe Neptunum accusat, qui iterum naufragium facit. As for my part, I declare before God and the World, that I renounce with all my heart and Soul as well the Idolatrous Papists, as the Anarchical Presbyterians, whose blind zeal and transparent hypocrisy, with their appurtenances, abjuro, denego, detestor.  
I must confess, the Presbyterians are something beyond the Papists in matters of Religion, neither did I ever compare them together in that point; but I supposed with the most Learned of our Church, and particularly with Englands Solomon, King James of glorious memory, in his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, page. 19. That Papists were never persecuted in this Kingdom( if not by cromwell and his Rumpers) for matters of Faith, but for their wicked Principles, and destructive Practices against Temporal Government. And now I appeal to the judicious Reader, if I have not sufficiently demonstrated in my former Paper out of the prime Authors and Founders of the Genevesian Gospel, as Calvin, Beza, Knox, Buchanan, &c. that the Presbyterian Principles are altogether as dangerous and destructive, if not more pernicious to Temporal Government, than that of the Papists themselves. And if your Answer to this be not rather a plain confession of the crime, than any vindication thereof, let the Reader judge.  
First, you say, I am fain to go into other Countreys, as far as Scotland and Geneva, to prove the Rebellious Principles of the Presbyterians. But, good Sir Presbyter, is not that enough, or are not the Presbyterians every where of the same stamp and coin? And besides, why may it not be as good a way to prove the Principles of the Presbyterians, by alleging the Doctrine of the Pope of Geneva, and his chief Incendiarites, as it is to demonstrate the Principles of the Papists, by alleging the Doctrine of the Pope of Rome, and his approved Emissaries? But if neither of these reasons be sufficient in your phantasy, do but peruse Dr. Bancrost Archbishop of Canterbury's Book of dangerous Positions, and there you shall find enough even of English Presbyterians( though but Sucklings then) eagerly maintaining this Anarchical Doctrine; there you shall find a whole Chapter of that particular subject, with this Title, The Doctrine of certain English Ministers, which they learned at Geneva, and published of purpose to have procured the like course of Reformation in England to that in Scotland. Behold now, Sir Presbyter, your Genevesian gospelers, and those English too, and English that to promote the good old Cause, would not scruple to destroy that ancient and Apostolical Hierarchy of the Church of England, and inflame their Native country into a total combustion of Sedition and Rebellion. But let us see whether your second Answer be any thing less ridiculous or impertinent than the former. Yet admit( say you) the Presbyterians in England hold the same Principles, put the question whether were more Antimonarchical or unsafe to Government, an opinion, that Tyrants and opposers of God, might( propter id) be opposed by their Subjects, &c. or that a good King, one of the Reformed Religion, merely for being such, should be deposed, dethroned, and murdered,& c? But ( good Sir Phesbyter) what is more feasible, than for a Presbyterian to make a Tyrant of what Prince he pleases? We see now with what dexterity he makes Papists and Pensioners of the most zealous Protestants, and no less faithful Patriots; and we have lately seen with what Legerdemain he made a Tyrant of the best of Princes. What Sovereign then can be secure from these Presbyterians, if it lies in their breast thus to make him either a Titus or a Nero, a clement Prince, or a cruel Tyrant? or can he think himself a Sovereign, and not rather Tenant at will to his own Anarchical Subjects? Yet you would fain persuade us, your holy Puritans teach onely, that Tyrants may be opposed by their Subjects; whereas all the world can tell, how in our own days they have not onely opposed, but also deposed, dethroned, and cruelly murdered, not a Tyrant, but the most meek and Religious of Sovereigns, and that by a formality of Law too; a thing I never heard perpetrated by any Popish Subjects since the creation of the World, no, not by the most barbarous Heathens against the worst of Tyrants.  
As for a Kings being of the Reformed Religion, we know it signifies nothing to the Presbyterian Zealots, except he be of the Genevesian Doctrine and Discipline; the Church of England, say they, is neither but nor could, neither Popish nor Reformed. And therefore in the Year 1648, when the late King and Parliament were like to agree, the Presbyterian Incendiaries exclaimed against such proposals, until the Genevesian Discipline were first established by Law. This restitution of his Majesty( say they) to the exercise of his Royal power, before security had from him for settling Religion, your Lordships know by our eight desires, and otherwise, is conceived by us to be inconsistent with the safety and security of Religion.— The bringing of his Majesty to some of his Houses in or near London, before satisfaction and security had from him in point of Religion, and in such other things as are necessary for the safety of the Kingdoms, could not( as we conceive) but be an exceeding great discouragement and offence to the Presbyterians in England, who will conceive that the remedy is worse than the disease. In the humble Representation of the Commissioners of the General Assembly to the Honourable Estates of Parliament, April the 28. 1648. Likewise, in the year 1649. the Rebellious-Zealots would not submit themselves in Scotland to their natural sovereign, his present Majesty, except he would by solemn Oath under his hand and seal, allow the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of Scotland, England, and Ireland, and would prosecute the ends thereof in his Royal station. See Baker's Chronicle, page. 613. Tell me now, Sir Presbyter, are not these rare examples of your Presbyterian Loyalty to your natural Princes, and to Princes of the Protestant Church, and Reformed Religion too? But to set down exactly the true state of the question, admit( as you say, and cannot deny) the Presbyterians of England hold the same principles with the Genevesian-Gospellers; put you the question now, whether is more Antimonarchial or unsafe to Government, an opinion or rather a fundamental doctrine, that Tyrants and opposers of God,( i.e. any Prince that hinders the growth of presbytery) may propter id, be opposed, nay, deposed, dethroned, and cruelly murdered by their Subjects, as Presbyterians undeniably hold, and as undeniably have practised: or that it is heresy in any Christian to affirm, that a Prince may be slain or deposed by his Subjects for any disorder or default, either in Life or Government, as very Eminent Papists expressly teach; as( to omit those two swindging Authorities, as you call them, of the Rhemists Commentaries, and of the Council of Constance) it sufficiently appeareth by Alphons. à Castro. lib. de haeres. in verbo tyrant. Dominic. à Soto, lib. 5. de Just.& Jur. qu. 1. art. 3. and many others.  
Now do you if you can, produce such another Ecolesiastical Assembly or Synod, or such eminent writers of the Presbyterian party, thus declaring it Impious and Heretical to believe that Subjects may Lawfully depose or Murder their sovereign upon the account of any Tyranny or oppression whatsoever, and you will make the World have a better opinion of your Sect, than ever they had hitherto: otherwise, notwithstanding all your multiplied babblings, we must conclude, to give the Devil his due, that in matter of Temporal Government, the principles of the Papists are far Sounder and more Orthodox, than the Presbyterian Catechism. As for the practices of the one and the other, you tell me, could I prove my charge against the Presbyterians, as unexceptionably, as you can that of the Plot against the Papists, I would do something indeed. But I appeal to any man of common sense, if you be not as unexceptionably impudent in your bold assertions, as the Presbyterians are notoriously Treacherous in their pernicious practices. The blood of our late martyred sovereign, and the effusion of so much Protestant blood in the late Civil Wars,( you should say, Presbyterian Rebellion) you are so impudent as to plaster it upon the unfortunate Papists, without any colour or show of proof,( it being plain to all the World, that in the whole List of the Regicides, none is to be found but notorious Presbyterians) and withall to affirm, that the former are more evidently proved guilty of the present Plot, than the latter can be convicted of the Rebellious practices laid to their charge: whereas on the one side, we have but four or five persons to swear this horrid conspiracy against the Papists; but on the other side, all our Records, all our Histories, nay, our own memories, and all the World can testify the late Tragical transactions, as the inhuman Murder of our Royal Martyr, the effusion of so much innocent blood, the burning and pillaging of so many Cities, Towns and palaces, and in brief all the Massacres that have been committed, all the Miseries that have happened in this iceland of Great Britain these 50 years past, to have been wholly and solely perpetrated by these Monsters of Christianity the Anarchical-Presbyterians, as well dependant as independent, as well Scotch as English, the one beginning, the other ending the Tragedy, the one Selling, the other Killing their natural sovereign to the amazement of all the World.  
Oh! how happy would they think themselves now, had these villainies been as private, as the present conspiracy of the Papists? Had we been trusting to the discovery of Mr. Oats, Mr. Bedlow, or the rest, concerning these presbyterian treacheries, as well as the Popish Plot; Oh! how boldly the Puritan-Gospellers would outface our witnesses? with what black colours they would paint them, to extenuate the credibility of their informations? So far they would think the charge from being unexceptionably proved against them, that they would not doubt but they might easily persuade the World, nothing could be more unreasonable, than to believe it upon the credit of such inconsiderable witnesses, tho' now against the Papists they hold them for Delphian Oracles. What!( would they say) can it be Law, equity, or conscience, to take the oaths of some few despicable fellows, very obnoxious to be suspected of malice and corruption, against the lives of good and peaceable Subjects, men of worth and known integrity? to take the oaths of living Vagabonds, before the protestations of dying Christians? who can be safe, if this be admitted? or if this be justice, what can be termed injustice amongst us?  
In this manner, we may be sure, or rather in far higher terms, would our Supersanctified-Hypocrites rail against these very Persons, they now so much adore for Swearing against the Papists, had their crimes been so occult as to need a discoverer; and these, nay, people of greater credit, and much less obnoxious to exception, had come in to reveal their Mysteries of iniquity. The title of His Majesties Evidence could not in the least protect them from the snarling invectives of a Presbyterian. All that Papists now say of them, signified nothing to what the Presbyterians would then vomit against them. Witness their usage of Mr. Willoughby, alias Dangerfield, &c. who when he pretended to discover a Presbyterian Plot, was presently proclaimed in the Weekly Intelligences and other Pamphlets, the greatest Knave and Villain upon Earth, and called Knight of the Post, Newgate-Bird, and such other titles of Honour, nay, affirmed to have been actually upon the Pillory for his misdemeanours. The Title of His Majesties Evidence, or his pretending to witness for the King, could nothing avail him against these Sanstified creatures, tho' now he is reputed among them an Holy Proselyte newly inspired and illuminated by the Lord. 'tis true, he gave then( as himself confesses) but false informations against the Presbyterians, being put on that design either by the Popish party to turn the Plot upon their adversaries, or by some Presbyterian Politicians to gain the greater credit to their new Informer, or perhaps by himself to gain such maintenance and allowance for the future, as may keep him henceforth from the tried punishments of the Pillory, seeing those of the trade do thrive so well. There are now in the World a great number of Foolhardy Desperadoes, of no Fortune, but less Honesty, who think their only way to Preferment is, to run upon desperate courses, and rather than fail of an Advancement, to venture Neek and all for a Livelihood, according to that witty saying of the satirist: 
Aude aliquid brevibus Gyaris, ant carcere dignum,  
Sivis esse aliquid; probitas laudatur& alget.  For as Virgil saith,— Quid non mortalia pectora cogis Auri sacra fames?— In St. Pauls days, Godliness was great Gain; but to these, Gain is great Godliness: of whom we may justly say with the Poet, Unde habeat quaerit nemo, said oportet habere.  
As for Mr. Dangerfield, this only I say, altho' he gave but false Informations against the Presbyterians, yet this was not then known to the generality of the people; and tho' it is undeniable, that such a Plot might well be carried on by the Ring-leaders of that Faction, without communicating it to the Vulgar; nevertheless the Puritan-Rabble did so bark and snarl at Dangerfield, as if they had known by Revelation there was no such Plot at all.  
But to return from this digression to our intended purpose, since reason commands us to prefer the unanimous consent of the greatest and ablest men of our Country, together with all our Histories and Records, and our own experimental knowledge, before the oaths of four or five persons, tho' never so upright in their lives, or so positive and exact in their informations; and a fortiori, of people not so qualified, but obnoxious to several exceptions and suspicious circumstances, which mightily weakens their evidence, and leaves many judicious men in suspense, frustrated of their expected satisfaction of having the Plot cleared beyond all exception: surely, we cannot but conclude the late Rebellion to be far more unexceptionably proved against the Presbyterians, than the present Plot against the Papists. Not that I would in the least vindicate the Romanists from those horrid crimes laid to their charge, for I am fully satisfied they are as apt to commit any villainy to advance their Superstitions, as the Presbyterians are to promote the Good old cause; but to show that the late Hellish Rebellion of the one, is far more undeniable than the present Conspiracy of the other.  
And if your own Conscience did not accuse you of the known verity of this affection, or if you thought the Presbyterians have not really committed these Hellish abominations objected against them, to what purpose did you set the Act of Oblivion, to bring up the rear of your ridiculous Apology? Surely, things that never have been, could not have been forgotten. Oblivio est praeteritorum. Yet you very confidently bid me red over the several trials, and other pieces extant by Authority, concerning the present Plot, and see whether it be Presbyterians or Papists that murdered Sir Edmundbury Godfrey; that hired the Ruffians to murder his Sacred Majesty, and to ruin both Church and State. But I desire you to red over the late Narratives of the Rebellion in Scotland, and see whether Presbyterians or Papists murdered the good Bishop of St. Andrews; red over likewise the History of the late Rebellion in England, and see whether it be Presbyterians or Papists, that have( not hired Ruffians to murder, but themselves like inhuman Traytors, actually) murdered our late sovereign, and totally ruined both Church and State: and then see what you can get by the bargain, but that notwithstanding your ridiculous Apology the Presbyterians are still worse than the Papists, whereas the one did but design, the other have actually completed our ruin. You tell us for strange news, they are not concerned in the present Plot; and very strange it is indeed, that there should be any Plot or Conspiracy in this Kingdom, whereof the Presbyterians should nor be the chief Engineers. Yet, Sir Presbyter, in my opinion you have no great reason to brag of your Brethrens innocence of this Popish Plot, since the world knows, they have committed greater villainies, and that in the face of the Sun, and for Religion too. Besides, I advice you to observe the common saying. Lauda finem, and tho' your mysteries of iniquity be not yet revealed, yet beware least before the present discovery be at an end, your Presbyterians be not found as deeply concerned, as any Papist alive, either in this, or in another Plot of their own. for how can it be thought, that such politic and active Machiavels should let this occasion slip, or omit the fairest opportunity they could expect of over throwing their greatest adversaries, the one as Idolatrous Papists, the other either as Popishly inclined, or as introducers of tyrannical and Arbitrary Government? I omit here, that I have seen several reasons and arguments, very specious indeed to out. ward appearance, strongly insinuating that the Presbyterians are the primum mobile even of the present Plot, and the chief, if not the sole contrivers of all these troubles, fraudulently corrupting and suborning most of those witnesses, that came in to swear against tha Papists, purposely to draw the Kingdom into a confusion, and thereby restore the Cromwellian-Gospel and Government.  
In this assertion, I know, there is no impossibility or contradiction to be found; I believe it very feasible( and without doubt it has been often done) to corrupt and suborn men of better credit and reputation than these witnesses have been, that have yet appeared in this discovery; and withall I am sure, the Presbyterians are too apt to commit any villainy to promote the Good old cause: yet nevertheless, because we must not insist upon unprov'd, tho' probable suspicions, when we have enough even of plain demonstrations to prove our intended purpose of showing how dangerous our Puritan-Gospellers, if not prudently and timely prevented, are to our Church and State; the probability of this charge, I leave to be weighed and examined by the Judicious Reader. In the interim, tell me I beseech you, what may be the reason that the Presbyterians are the activest and most eager prosecutors of the Papists upon the account of this Plot, and also the greatest promoters and admirers of those witnesses, that appear against them. Are the Presbyterians the ablest men in the Kingdom? or do they only apprehended the danger of this Plot? Do they love their Religion Lives, or Liberties, better than Protestants love theirs? or were not Protestants to be made away, had this Plot gon on, as well as the Presbyterians? why then are not the latter as moderate as the former, or the former as mad as the latter? Truly, I have heard several Judicious Protestants affirm, they could never believe, that the Presbyterians should be so hot or eager in prosecuting this Popish Plot against so inconsiderable a party, as Papists now are in this Kingdom, except they had greater designs, or were more concerned in that Plot themselves, than they would have the World believe. But time will tell truth.  
Your ignorance tells you, I have affronted the Clergy of the Church of England, by calling them Dumb-dogs; but you should know before you appeared in Print, that a Dog, for his natural vigilancy, is the common Emblem of an Ecclesiastical Pastor; and if our Prelates now be less active than is necessary for to prevent your Treacherous designs, and countermine your pernicious contrivances against their Flock, they may attribute this application of Gods word, Isa. 56.10. not to any ill meaning of mine, but rather to their own unreasonable carelessness in such a desperate juncture of times, when our greatest, if not our only enemies, the Presbyterians and Papists, are equally, tho' severally, bent for our destruction; those brethren in evil,( as the Bishop of Chichester elegantly calls them) who looking and running two several ways, do like Samson's Foxes join together in the tail. in his appeal to caesar, part 1 c. 4. p. 48.  
Here I shall beg the favour of you, to ask that Reverend Prelate, who declared himself in the Parliament before the last, so favourable to your Sect, what does he think now of the Presbyterians, or whether in his opinion they took the Reverend Bishop of St. Andrews by the Lawnsleeves, or by the Throat? Ask likewise the rest of those learned Prelates, whether the Presbyterians have like waspish Curs barked at that holy man Archbishop Laud, or like your read Dragon utterly devoured him? Is it credible, think you, these eminent Divines should be of so short a memory, as to forget who so lately voted them out of the House of Peers, barbarously imprisoned them in the Tower, sequestered their Lands and Revenues,( which to an Englishman is worse then to lose his life) deprived them of all power and jurisdiction both Spiritual& Temporal, and in fine, quiter abolished the whole order and bierarchy of that Apostolical institution? or is it likely they would now Apologize for that faction which have lately so Antichristianly abused them? they know it is an old and true saying, Veterem ferendo injuriam, invitas novam: and I pray God, they may not find it verified in themselves, who through their excesive meekness and patience towards these ungrateful miscreants, I am afraid, will encourage them once more to attempt the suppressing of this Apostolical hierarchy; which we may plainly red in their libels and pamphlets; is their main design. Yet notwithstanding this, and all other eminent dangers, which daily threaten us from the Presbyterian party, you are so impudent, as to term yourself an Episcopal Protestant, and yet strain your empty noddle in apologizing for these Antiepiscopal Sectaries, and excusing their Schismatical separation from the Mother Church, thereby encouraging them to act over again their horrid villainies of 48. and sing the second part to the same tune.  
You tell us forsooth, they are our fellow-protestants, and therefore not to be reputed as enemies to our Church, but to be embraced as brethren of our Reformatoon. Protestants, 'tis true, they style themselves, but false ones they are always reputed by our Church, as Papists are false Christians; for( as the Apostle saith) they are not all Israel, which are of Israel, Rom. 9.6. Neither are they all Protestants, which are called Protestants; many do love the name, but hate the thing: and therfore why should not false Protestants be thought as dangerous to the true faith and worship of God, as false Christians, I could never yet understand. Papists are but false Christians, but the Presbyterians are false Protestants, and by consequence they are false Christians too: why then should the one be counted our Brethren, and the other our Enemies? or what can we gain by this our ill bestowed kindness to the presbyterians, but to draw upon us the charge of all their monstrous contrivances, and make ourselves accountable for their wickedness, as the papists are now commonly charged with the horrid practices of the Jesuits? Do not we see how as the Primitive Christians were grievously slandered, and most vehemently hated by the Heathens, because of the multiplied villainies of the gnostics and other profane Sects of those times, that professed Christianity; so true Protestants now are obnoxious to those manifold calumnies unjustly heaped by the Papists and other Sectaries, upon our Church and Doctrine, and the whole Reformation, because of theseditious practices and wicked treacheries of the Presbyterian party, who commonly style themselves Protestants and Reformed, yea, Refined Christians? Nay, I do verily believe, that as the monstrous wickedness of the aforesaid heretics was then a great bar to the timely conversion of the Idolatrous Pagans; so now the unchristian proceedings of the presbyterians do mainly obstruct the Papists from receiving the true light of the Gospel.  
O, but they are our weak Brethren, and we must bear their infirmities. Weak Brethren, say you? I pray God keep them so, and grant they be never stronger to ruin our Church and State, as formerly they have done. Now the Pharisaical Hypocrites allege the weakness and tenderness of their Consciences for this Schismatical disobedience to their lawful Pastors, and separation from the Mother-Church; though in 48 no tenderness of Conscience could hinder them from murdering their natural Sovereign in England, and in 79 their onely Primate and metropolitan in Scotland. O blind Guides,( as our Saviour said of the Pharisees) which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel, Matth. 23.34. Yet these blind Hypocrites you must hall in amongst Episcopal Protestants, and under the ridiculous name of dissenting Brethren, you endeavour to foster such Vipers in the bosom of our Church; a name so strange and self-contradictory, as if we had called them our odious Lovers, our loving Enemies, or the like; for if the Presbyterians obstinately dissent from our Church in Communion, or matters of Religion, as undoubtedly they do, how can they be our Brethren? or if they be our Brethren in Religion, how can they differ from us in Communion, or matters of Faith, which essentially is one and individual? for, as the Apostle testifieth, there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, Ephes. 4.5.  
Ay, but they do not dissent from us as much as the Papists do, not in so many, nor in so necessary points of Religion. But this is to no purpose; first, because Heathens dissent from us more than Jews, Jews than Turks, and Turks than Papists; yet we must embrace neither Jew, Turk, nor Papist, for our dissenting Brethren in Religion. Secondly, Because even as it is nothing material whether a man dies of one mortal wound, or of twenty; so it skilleth not whether a Christian obstinately errs in one necessary point of Religion, or in a dozen. For it is in the Christian Religion, as St. James saith of the Law, Whosoever offendeth in one point, he is guilty of all, James 2.10. Now it is evident to all the world, that the Presbyterians grossly err in three of the chiefest Pillars of Christian Religion, as Charity, Unity, and Obedience: It cannot therefore avail them much that they agree with us in so many points of the Superstructure, while they disagree from us in the very Foundation. Hear what St. Augustin saith of the Donatists in afric, who much resemble the Presbyterians in England; In many things( saith he) they are with me, in few not with me; but in these few wherein they are not with me, the many things wherein they are with me do nothing avail them; in Psal. 54. ver. 19. Thirdly because all true Protestants aclowledge the Presbyterians are schismaticaly separated from the Church of England, as well as the Papists; and on the other side, in the sentiments of all Learned Divines, both ancient and modern, Schism is so heinous a wickedness, that without repentance and reunion with the Church( unless perhaps invincible ignorance may lessen the crime) it wholly excludes the Party from eternal salvation, according to the express words of our Saviour, If be neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man, and a Publican, Matth. 18.17. There cannot possibly( saith St. Irenaeus) be made any reformation of such importance, as the mischief of Schism is pernicious, lib. 4. c. 62. For( as Dionysius Alexandrinus testifieth) It is a more grievous wickedness to divide the Church, than to sacrifice to Idols, ap. Euseb. lib 6 hist. c. 37. Which is yet further affirmed by the Prince of Divines, the great St. Augustine, The sacrilege of Schism( saith he) suprasseth all wickedness, lib. 1. contra ep. Parmen. c. 4. And lest we should not believe his own single testimony, this assertion he solidly confirms by the fearful punishment inflicted on Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, for their s●●ismatical disobedience to M●ses and Aaron. At what time( saith he) God would teach his People by new and fresh punishments to beware of their former transgressions, when an Idol was made and adored,( Exod. 32.) when the Prophets book was burnt by the hasty King,( Jer. 36.) and the schism was attempted( Numb. 16.) by Corah and his complices; the Idolatry was punished with the sword the burning of the book was revenged with wasting War and foreign Captivity; but the Schism was plagued with the sudden gaping of the earth, the Authors thereof having been sw●lowed up alive, and consumed with fire from heaven. Who now( saith this great Logician) will doubt but that was most wickedly committed, which was most grievoufly punished? 〈◇〉. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 6.  
St. Cyprian goeth yet further, and of all schismatical Separatists, giveth this general sentence, Such people, though they were killed in the confession of Christs name, yet that blemish even by blood is not washed away; the unpardonable and grievous crime of dissension is not purged even with death. He cannot be a Martyr that is not in the Church. He cannot attain to the Kingdom, that forsakes her which is to reign. Such an one may be killed, but cannot be crowned. The enemy of the Altar, rebellious against the Sacrifice of Christ, despising the Bishops, and forsaking the Priests of God, presumes to erect another Altar, and make other prayers by his unlawful speeches. Lib. de Unit. Eccles.  
Neither are our Modern Divines less plain in this particular; and to begin with Calvin, the great God of the Presbyterians, he gives his verdict in these following words. We profess the unity of the Church( such as is described by St. Paul) to be most dear unto us; and we accurse them that shall any thing violate it; lib. de necess. Reform. Eccles. And again, The Lord doth so highly esteem the Communion of his Church, that he holds him for an Apostate, and deserter of Religion, who insolently separates himself from any Christian Society, so it be such a one as hath the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments; lib. 4. Instit. c. 1.§. 10. Either therefore we have not the true Ministry of the Word and Sacraments in the Church of England, or else the Presbyterians are schismatics, nay Apostates and deserters of Religion, even in the judgement of their own Patriarch Calvin.  
Luther likewise in his explication upon the Creed, speaks to the same purpose: Neither gentle, nor Jew,( saith he) heretic, or any other sinner, is saved, unless he make Atonement with the Church, and in all things think, do, and teach the same. As for our own Divines, they are in this point both plain and positive: It is false( saith our Learned Whitaker) that Heretical and Schismatical Churches, are true Churches. controv. 2. q. 5. c. 9. And again: Whereas he proves, that heretics, Apostates, and Shismaticks are not Members of the true Church, it is nothing to us; for this none of us ever affirmed. controv. 2. q. 1. c. 4.  
And Dr. Fulk in his Treatise of the Succession of the Church, p. 390. saith: What skilleth it, whether one being drawn by heresy or Schism from the Body of Christ, be subject to Eternal Damnation?  
Mr. Casaubone also in his Letter to Cardinal Peron, written by the appointment of King James, page. 8. thus saith: The King doth condemn and detest those, who departed either from the faith of the catholic Church, and became heretics; or from her Communion, and became schismatics. And the same is taught by Dr. Humphrey, ad rat. 3. Campiani. p. 207. by Field, lib. 1. de Eccles. c. 7. Confess. Helvet. art. 17. Bulling. in compend, fidei. lib. 6. c. 11. Musculus in Locis, Tit. de Schismate, p. 621. and many others.  
Is it not evident therefore by the unanimous consent of so many Protestant Divines, so exactly concurring with the general vote of the Ancient Writers, and Gods express word, that Schism is so capital a crime, that it cuts off the party from the Church of God, and thereby from all ordinary means of obtaining eternal Salvetion? And is it not likewise certain, that Protestants and Presbyterians( notwithstanding your ridiculous cementing of them together) do mutually censure and charge each other with Schism, if not with impious and Heretical Doctrines. None I think, can be so ignorant, as not to know what a Cloud of Writers have given their verdict on both sides in this particular. To the end therefore you may not hereafter exclaim against me, or allege that I make it my business to breed dissension and division between Protestants, by calling the Presbyterians Schismatical Sectaries,( tho' indeed it is my design to separate the Wheat from the Tares, true Protestants from counterfeit Religionaries, and warn them not to trust again such Hypocritical Dissemblers) and that you may be convinced, this is no particular opinion of mine, but the general tenet of our Learned Divines; hear some of them speak their own minds at a time, when Presbytery was not near so monstrous in itself, nor yet half so dangerous or formidable to our Church, as it is at present. The Puritans( saith Dr. Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury) do pervert the true meaning both of Scripture and Fathers, to serve their own turns. In his Survey of the pretended Holy Discipline, c. 5. &c.  
And Mr. parks, in his book dedicated to the Archbishop, in his Epistle Dedicatory, thus saith of your holy Brethren: They are headstrong, and hardened in error; they strike at the main points of faith, and shaking the foundation itself, and calling into question Heaven and Hell, the Divinity and Humanity, yea the very Soul and Salvation of our Saviour himself. And again, ibid. The Puritans have Pestilent Heresies, they are Heretical and Sacrilegious.  
Mr. Powel likewise, in his Considerations, saith of them: They are notorious and manifest schismatics, cut off from the Church of God.  
And this is further confirmed by Mr. Casaubons excellent Rule,( taken out of S. Cyprian's 69. Ep.) in Exercit. 15. contra Baron. nu. 6. Where he saith: It is an undoubted verity, that whensoever the pious People adheres to their true and lawful Bishop, they are Gods Church; insomuch that whosoever separates himself from this Congregation, it cannot be doubted, but that he is not in the Church. Presbyterians therefore are not in the Church of God, who have Schismatically separated themselves from the pious and orthodox Protestants adhering to their true and lawful Bishops. To be brief, the Bishop of Chichester gives us a full and short description of these Holy and Sanctified Bretheren: I must confess( saith he) my dissent through and sincere from the faction of Novelizing Puritans; men intractible, insociable, incompliable with those that will not aedificare ad dissensiones; but in no one point more, than in their desperate doctrine of Predestination; in his Appeal to Caesar, page. 60. And again p. 320. he speaks to the Presbyterians themselves in this manner: I go no farther, but leave you to yourselves, and( if possible) unto more charitable conceits of those that deserve no other imputation, but, they are no Puritans: Which God of his Goodness keep out of this Church and State, as dangerous as Popery, for any thing I am able to discern: The only difference being, Popery is for Tyranny, Puritanism for Anarchy; Popery is original of Superstition, Puritanism the Highway unto profaneness; both alike Enemies to Piety.  
But lest you should think this learned Prelate any thing transported with prejudice or partiality in this his censure of your Sanctified Brethren, hear what your own Patriarch and first founder speaketh of those, who had the first Fruits of his Spirit, his holy Proselytes at Geneva: It is certain( saith he) that a man shall not see so horrible monsters in the Papacy, as where the Gospel is preached and professed; for they will say they are reformed, and yet they seem to be Devils incarnate, neither have we need to go far off to find such sights. Calvin serm. 10. in ep. ad Ephes.  
Now the Presbyterians on the other side are nothing behind in slandering and charging the Church of England with all imaginable corruption; Schism, they think, is too small a crime to be alleged against her, whilst Popish Superstition and the dregs of Antichrist do compose the chiefest part of her Liturgy, Doctrine and Government. The form of the Communion-Book( say they) is taken from the Church of Antichrist; as the reading of the Epistles, and Gospels, &c. the most of the Prayers, the manner of administering the Sacraments, &c. in Dr. Whitgifts defence, p. 474. And in their Book entitled, The Petition of 22. Preachers in London, they say: In the Communion-Book there be things of which there is no sense, there is contradiction in it, even of necessary and essential points of Religion. And also in their Book of Cannons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, printed Anno 1604. they say: The worship in the Church of England is corrupt, superstitious, unlawful and repugnant to the Scriptures. Likewise the great Presbyterian Alexander Henderson, in his first Paper to our Royal Martyr, in the Book entitled Reliquiae Carolinae, part 1. p. 314. thus speaketh: It is too well known that the Reformation of K. Henry 8. was most imperfect in the essentials of Doctrine, Worship and Government: And though it proceeded by some degrees afterwards, yet the Government was never reformed, the head was changed, Dominus non Dominium, and the whole limbs of the Antichristian Hierarchy retained. And for this cause( as our late sovereign well observes) their zealous Superstition thinks or pretends, they cannot do God and the Church a greater service, than utterly to destroy that Primitive, Apostolical, and anciently universal Government of the Church by Bishops; in his Eikon Basilike, c. 9. But to conclude, and if symmetry