SECT. I.

IF wee thought our silence would onely prejudice our selves, wee could contentedly sit downe and forbeare Replyes, not doubting, but intelligent men, comparing cause with cause, and reason with reason, would easily see with whom the truth rests: but wee fearing that many who have not either ability or lei­sure to search into the grounds of things themselves, [Page 2] would fearce thinke it possible, that so much confi­dence as the Remonstrant shewes, should be severed from a good cause, or so much contempt should bee powred upon us that are not the bad defenders of a cause much worse. Wee must discharge our duty in cleering the cause and truth of God, and that will cleer us from all the foule aspersions which the Re­monstrant hath been nothing sparing to cast upon us. Whose Defence in every Leafe terms us either igno­rant, lyers, witlesse, falsifiers, malicious, spightfull, slan­derous, violent, and subtill Machinators against the Church, and disturbers of her peace, &c. and this not onely in a cursory way, but in such a devout and reli­gious form,Pag. 1 [...]3. as we make question whether ever any man before him did so solemnly traduce, speaking it in the presence of God, that he never saw any Writer professing Christian sincerity so fouly to overlash. To the presence of God before whom his protestation is made, our accesse is equall, and at that Tribunall wee doubt not, through the grace of Christ, but to approve both our selves & our cause. And had we the same accesse unto our Sovereigne, wee should lesse regard those bitter invective accusations, wherewith hee hath so profusely charged us in his Sacred eares.

But our meanesse forbids us to make immediate addresses to the throne, which he hath made his re­fuge: yet may it please that Royall Majesty, whom God hath anointed over us, to vouchsafe an eye un­to these papers, wee have that trust in the Justice of our Sovereigne, the goodnesse of our Cause, the inte­grity of our consciences in all our Quotations, as we doubt not but his Majesty will cleerly see, that our [Page 3] Persons, cause, and carriage, have been misrepresented to him.

The cause our Remonstrant saith is Gods; it is true of the cause agitated, though not of the cause by him de­fended: and we desire (what ever he hath done) to manage it in Gods way; to love in the truth, and speak the truth in love.

The charity of our Remonstrant wee will not que­stion, though in the first congresse hee doth as good as call us Devils: because so often in his book he cals us Brethren. But that which hee calls truth, and the truth of God, we must crave leave to doe more, then bring in question, notwithstanding the impregnable confidence of this Irrefragable Doctor.

Our Histories record of Harold, Cupbearer to Ed­ward the Confessor, that wayting on the Cup, he stum­bled with one foot, and almost fell, but that hee re­covered himself with the other; at which his father smiling said, Now one brother helps another. The Re­monstrant calls us Brethren, and supposeth hee sees us stumbling in the very entrance of our answer, and what help doth our Brother lend us? Onely enter­tains us Sannis & Cathinnis, and tels us, it is an ill signe to stumble at the threshold. Yet not alwayes an ill signe Sir, wee accept this stumbling for such an O­men, as Caesar had at his Landing in Affrick, and our William the Conquerour at his first landing in Eng­land, which they tooke for the first signe of their vi­ctory and possession.

An what's this Stumble? The Answer menti­ons the Areopagi instead of the Areopagites, Grande nefas! Of such an impiety as this, did Duraeus once [Page 4] accuse our Learned Whitakers, from whom wee will in part borrow our answer:Bone habet his in [...]bus non ve [...]tuntur fortu­ne Ecclesiae. It is well the good of the Church depends not upon a piece of Latine.

But can our Remonstrant perswade himselfe, that his Answerers should have so much Clarklike igno­rance, as never to have heard of Areopagita? If he can, yet we are sure he can never perswade his ingenious Readers, but some one at least of that Legion, which hee fancies conjured up against his Remonstrance, might have heard of Dionysius Areopagita, that by a man that had not studied to cast contempt upon us, it might have beene thought rather a stumble in the Transcribers or Printers, then the Authours.

But what if there be no stumble here? What if the fault be in the Remonstrants eyes, and not in the Answerers words? What if hee stumble and not they? and what if it be but a straw he stumbles at? For though Areopagus be the name of the place, and Areopagitae the name of the persons; yet it is no such impropriety in speech, to signifie the persons by the place: had wee said the Admired sonnes of Iustice, the two Houses of Parliament, had this been such a So­loecisme? and will this Remonstrant deny us that li­berty, for which we have Natures Patent, and the example of the best Authors in other Tongues, To smooth, or square, to lengthen, or cut off Exoticke words, according as will best suit with our own Dia­lect? If we were called to give an account of this Syllabicall Errour before a Deske of Grammari­ans, wee could with ease produce presidents enough in approved Authors: but we will onely give an in­stance in the word it self from Ioan. Sarisburi. lib. 5. [Page 5] de Nugis Curialibus, cap. 9. Eum [Senatum] vero Athe­nienses Areopagum dicebant eo quod in illis totius populi virtus consisteret.

We hope our Remonstrant hath now recovered his stumble, and next we find him leaping, being as good at leaping over blocks, as hee is at stumbling at straws: it is his practice through his whole booke, what ever objection made by us, he finds too heavy to remove, he over-leaps it.

This course hee begins here, for wee having char­ged him with some words sounding to contempt in his Preface, he falls a quarrellling with our Logick, for calling that a Preface, which hee intended as one of the main pieces of the substance of his book. Which certain­ly, if Captatio Benevolentiae be the work of a Preface, he that reads the Remonstrance to the ninth page, will find that the preceding pages have been but by way of insinuation; and there he comes to the propositi­on and narration of his cause.

But if our Logick was bad, hee knew his Ethicks were worse: and therefore these misdemeanours which we justly charged upon him, and he knew not how to excuse or answer, his Politicks taught him to leap over. Counting all to the fourth page, as light froth that will sink alone; which seems to us a strange piece of Physik; and if we would cry quit with the Remonstrant, & make our Reader as merry with him, as he would make his Readers with us, wee could tell him a Tale in the margentA Gentle­man student in Philosophy, that was by chance present at the reading of this passage, tooke such a fancy to this rare mystery of light froath, sinking aloan, that he would take no nay, till he had entreated us to obtain so much of the Remonstrant, as to publish his receit of ma­king light froath sinke alone, that it may be added to the Secrets of Alexis, or the rare expe­riments of Baptista Porta.. But some thing it [Page 6] seems is of a little more solid substance, it is as scum that will not so easily sink alone; wherein you appe [...]l to indifferent eyes to judge whether we do not endevour to cast unjust envy upon you against the cleer evidence of any know­ing mans conscience. Content. Onely put the case right: you tell your Judges that you had said, That if Antiquity may be the rule, the Civill policie (as in gene­rall notion) hath sometimes varied, the Sacred never; the Civill came from Arburary Impos [...]rs, the Sacred from men inspired: now these gracious Interpreters would draw your words to the present and particular government of our own Monarchie, as if you implied that variable and arbi­trary; and are not ashamed to mention that deadly name of Treason. Our charge upon this is, that in the judge­ment of this Remonstrant, if any had dared to attempt the alteration of Monarchicall Government, they had been lesse culpable then in petitioning the alteration of Episcopall, and conclude, that if he had found such a passage in any of those whom he cals lewd Libellers, all had rung with Treason, Treason.

Now let the indifferent Reader, let the most Ho­nourable Parliament, let the Sacred Majesty of our King Judge whether we doe the man wrong. First, this we know, that one of the most confident Advo­cates of Episcopacie hath said it, [...]. 25. that where a Natio­nall Church is setled in the orderly regiment of certain grave Overseers, to seek to abandon this forme, and to bring in a forreigne Discipline, is as unreasonable as to cast off the yoke of just an [...] hereditary Monarchy, and to affect many headed Soveraignty: which wee thinke is an assertion insolent enough, that sets the Mitre as high as the Crowne: God blesse our sacred Monarchie from such friends.

[Page 7] But this Remonstrant rises higher, and sets the Mi­tre above the Crown. Telling us, that Civill Govern­ment comes from Arbitrarie Imposers, this from men in­spired, and is in that respect by the Remonstrant chal­lenged to be of divine right. If Civill Government here include Monarchie, as by the Remonstrants owne explication it doth, certainly this is to advance Epis­copacie above Monarchie, and to make it more sinfull and dangerous to alter Episcopacy, which, according to the Remonstrant, challenges God for the founder, then Monarchie, which saith this Remonstrant accor­ding to originall Authority had its foundation in the [...]ee Arbitrement of men.

Yet did we never say that this was Treason; know­ing such crimes to be above our cognizance; wee mentioned indeed the name of Treason, but as from your mouth, not our own. We said, If you had found any such in any, &c. the world would have rung with the loud cryes of treason, treason: it was our conjecture which you have now made good in this defence, For you that are so full of charity to impute it to us, as if that wee had vilified the judgement of King Iames, as you do pag. 23. whom we mentioned not, but as a most famous, and ever admired Prince, had any [...]ord faln from us (which through the grace of God we hope never shall) tending to the disparage­ment either of the Royall Person or power, What work would you have made with that? Be sparing, Sir, of charging your poore Neighbours so impe­tuously with malice and uncharitablenesse, till yee have taught your selfe to be more charitable, and lesse mali [...]ious.

[Page 8] To what wee alleaged in the instance of William Rufus King, and Pope Pius, to shew that Episcopall Government, which he calls sacred, naturally tends not onely not to depend upon, but to subdue the ci­vill authority to it selfe; His answer is, first, That William Rufus was a Prince noted for grosly irreligious. That those were tyrannicall Popish Bishops. That the Pope was Antichrist. That he answered so because hee was unwil­ling they should shew as good cards for their standing as hee pretended for his own. And lastly, all this makes nothing a­gainst our Bishops, who professe, notwithstanding the divine right of their calling, to hold their places, and the exercise of their jurisdiction wholly from the King.

So then here is no Falsification: all that was pro­duced is granted true, onely exception taken against the persons produced. King William hee was irreli­gious. Daniel observes that former times being un­happy in their compilers of History (the Scepter which rules over the fames of Princes) who for the most part were Monks, had all their Princes perso­nated either Religious or irreligious as they humou­red or offended the Bishops Rochet, and the Monks belly. No wonder then if so small a friend to Bi­shops be condemned as irreligious.

But then those Bishops were Popish, Tyrannous Bishops. But it was not their Popery, but their Epis­copall dignity that made them tyrannize; and it was their Tyranny and not their Popery that made them odious to their King, who was Popish as well as they. And it hath beene ever usuall to both former and latter Bishops to tyrannize over such as feare them, and to flatter such as they feare.

[Page 9] The Pope hee is Antichrist; wee are glad to heare you call him so; some thought a yeere agoe you would scarce have given him such a nickname, un­lesse you meant to have falne out with the rest of your brethren: and what if the Pope be Antichrist? may wee not bring the testimony of Antichrist a­gainst Antichristian Bishops? As Paul brought the witnesse of a Cretian Poet, against Cretian Liers. May not we alleage Beelzebub against Beliall without ho­nouring him?

But the Pope so answered because he was unwilling they should shew as good cards for their standing as he pre­tends for his own; grant it so, what will follow upon that but this? That Bishops clayming the same grounds for their standing that the Pope doth, aspire to be as independant from Princes as the Pope is, and that they have no more Divine Right, then the Pope: But whats this to our Bishops who professe, notwithstanding their Divine Right, to hold their pla­ces, and exercise of Iurisdiction wholly from the King? Surely ours have begun to affect the same Exemption from Secular power, to make large and haughty strides towards an independant Hie­rarchie. So that it is no envious upbraid to paral­lell ours with the former Bishops. For it hath well ap­peared that the Hierarchicall Episcopacie is full of such high and large principles of Pride, Ambition, Ty­ranny, as can be circumscribed in no moderate bounds: But is always swelling to the affectation of an Absolute Ecclesiasticall Monarchie. And it is worth the enquiring, whether the three last books of Hookers Ecclesiasticall Politie be not suppressed by him [Page 10] that hath them, because they give the Prince too much power in Ecclesiasticall matters, and are not for the Divine Right of Bishops.

But we shall be chid anon, and accused of spight for this, as wee are for the observation formerly made upon his comparison between the attempts of Alteration in our Neighbour Church by the Epis­copall faction, and that which is now justly de­sired by the humble Petitioners to this Honoura­ble House. This saith the Remonstrant, is a foule slander to charge the name of Episcopacie with a Fa­ction For a fact imputed to some few. Were they but a few that did attempt and prosecute that alteration? the more is our misery, that a few Bishops can put both Kingdomes into so dangerous a combustion, what stirre would they all make if they should unite their powers? And were they but a few that were the Factors for that Attempt? how then was it that one of the Episcopall Tribe in publike Court called the Scotch designe Bellum Episcopale? and where were the rest of the peaceable Orthodox Bishops the while? that might in love to peace & truth have op­posed those bold attempts, & not have suffered a few, upon whom you now leave the guilt of faction, to expose the deare and precious name of Episcopacie to that obloquie.

Let the Remonstrant never cry fie upon his bre­thren, that dare challenge Episcopacie of Faction: but fie upon his Fathers the bishops, that have subjected it to that challenge: had bishops done so in Cyprians time, we doubt not but the [...]e would have bin fonnd Presbyters who would have said as much, and need [Page 11] never have feared Gaoles nor Pillories, nor high Commissions, the holy Discipline wherewith the Fathers of the sacred Hierarchie have of late yeers vi­sited such offences.

SECT. II.

WEE are in this and the following Sections not to contend for words, but things, things precious to the Remonstrant, Liturgie, and Episcopa­cie, for which he fights, tanquam pro aris & focis.

The subject of this Section is the Liturgie, where first he fals upon us for the Alterations, and Additi­ons, mentioned by us, which hee calls such an envious and groundlesse suggestion as must needs cover our faces with a blush. Truly, Sir, If we were able to produce no fuller evidence of this then you have done of your Iewish Liturgie ever since Mosestime, we should blush indeed; but if wee can bring forth instances of such Alterations as shall prove this present Liturgie to be none of that, which hath beene confirmed by Parliamentary Acts; keep your blushes to make Live­ries for yourself and friends.

The Liturgie confirmed by our Parliamentary Acts is the same which was made and confirmed in the fifth and sixth of Edward the sixth, with one al­teration, and additions of certaine Lessons to be used upon every Sunday; and the forme of the Letany altered and [Page 12] amended, and two sentences onely added in the delivery of the Sacrament: And none other or otherwise. But this booke is so altered from that, that in it is left out,

First a clause in the Letany, From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us, &c. 32. Chapters of the Old Te­stament, a Prayer against death, a Rubrick, or decla­ration of the manner of the presence of Christs body and bloud in the Sacrament. Besides some o­ther things of lesse moment.

Secondly, added 26 Apocryphall Chapters, more to be read 47 Proper Lessons, The Prayers for Bi­shops and Curats, many Collects after the Com­munion, A Rubrick in the examination of private Baptisme. In the Calendar Fish dayes are now cal­led Fasting days. A Catalogue of Holidays.

Thirdly, many things changed; in the title of Confirmation, the words for imposition of hands are added. In the Epistle for Palm-sunday, in the Name of Jesus, turned into, at the Name of Jesus, besides such smaller alterations, which himselfe ac­knowledges. These are sufficient to evince that the Liturgie now in use is not that Liturgie that was e­stablished by Act of Parliament, and therefore that Act binds not to the use of this Liturgie, as we con­ceive. Now if to these we should adde the late al­terations in the use of the Liturgie, Bringing in loud Musique, uncouth and unedifying Anthems, a pompous, superstitious Altar-service, wee thinke any indifferent eye will say this is not the Liturgie established by Parliament: wee hope that these al­terations are so visible, as any, that will not fully [Page 13] shut their eys, will say it is with this misaltered Li­turgie as with the disguised Dames mentioned of old by Doctor Hall.

And we hope, nay we know wee have some Bi­shops of our minde in this, as well as you have some of yours; & how ever you slight the words of one of them, not inferiour to any of them that wee know, with an effut [...]it labiis: yet it is a subtile shift you have to pervert the Bishops words. For whereas hee said that the Service of the Church of England was now so drest, that if the Pope should come and see it, he would claim it as his own, but that it is in English, The Remon­strant would seeme to understand by this onely such an inoffensivenesse, in the devotion of it, as the Pope him­self could find no fault in it: whereas the Bishop meant such a symmetry and correspondency of our present devotion and service with the Popish, as was in his e­steem just matter of Humiliation to al the Bishops in the Kingdom, in a day of solemn & national Fasting.

Instead of bringing out those great applauses, that forreigne Divines and Churches have given to our Liturgie, hee falls (though more gently then hee is wont) upon Master Calvin for his Tolerabiles ineptiae, as if that hee did [...]. It seemes the Re­monstrant did not either consider the occasion of that Censure, or else his not Omniscient eyes never saw the Epistle that the Learned Calvin wrote to the dis­persed at Frankfort, which would tell him that the occasion of this Censure was the troubles raised up among the English Exiles then at Frankford, about the booke of Liturgie (which was then as since a spring of unhappy contentions in the Church) here­upon [Page 14] he writes a Letter to them, wherein hee useth that phrase of tolerable fooleries: and in a Christian way perswades both disagreeing sides to accord: which he puts not upon them by way of authority, but Christian advise: nay, he says more, that these fooleries were tolerable then, yet he doubted not if Religion flourished in England, many of these would be removed, and other things amended: and though they might begin with such weak rudiments, yet it was behovefull for the grave and pious Ministers of Christ to rise to a higher pitch, &c. So that here Master Calvin did not unwarrantably intrude in alie­nam rempublicam: Nor did any other then would be­come any of our grave and learned Divines, in the case of the Wafers, or Lords Day Markets of his Charge, if called unto that service, as Master Calvin was to this.

The Remonstrant leads us from the English Litur­gie, to a Discourse of Liturgies in generall: which wee call unparalleld, because no man that ever wee have seene drew the line of Liturgie so high as hee hath done, even as high as Moses time; to which his answer is, Perhaps there are some things our not omni­scient eyes have not seene, and perhaps this may be one of them: and perhaps there are some things which hee hath confidently avouched that his Lincean eys have not seen, and perhaps this is one of them; or else we should see it too. But that needs not saith the Re­monstrant for wee almost yield the question before wee argue it: the happier man hee to obain that by concession that hee never could by argumenta­tion: but how doe wee yield the question? in [Page 15] granting an order of divine administrations observed in Church Assemblies, but denying an imposition of set forms. Iust. Mart. Apolog 2. We find in antiquity, that when the Church met to­gether upon the Lords day, first the Scriptures were read of the old and new Testament, after the reading followed an Exhortation to the practice and imitati­on of what was read, then they all rose and joyned in Prayer: Prayer being ended, they went to the Sa­crament, in the beginning whereof the President of the Assembly powred out Prayers and Thanksgi­ving according to his ability, and the people said Amen; then followed the distribution of the Sa­crament: After that the collection of Almes, &c. this was Iustine Martyrs Liturgie. Will you now see Tertullians?

First, the Congregation meets,Tertull. Apol. cap. 39. and doe as it were besiege God with their prayers, wherein they pray for the Emperors, for their servāts, officers, &c? then they went to repeating the Scriptures according to the time and occasion, then they edified themselves in faith and hope by holy exhortations. There they had also the exercise of Discipline, there they had their Love-feasts which began and ended with pray­ers, and were celebrated with singing of Psalmes. This was Tertullians Liturgie. From these two Wri­ters of the purest times, it is evident that it was the custome or order of the Church in their Assem­blies to pray, read, and expound the Scriptures, ad­minister the Sacraments; but that there were set formes of Prayer prescribed and imposed upon the [...], that they were tyed to read such and such Scriptures, that the [...] had words of exhorta­tion [Page 16] put into his mouth, that hee must use without adding, or altering, or diminishing, all which are in a stinted Liturgy, this doth not appear, but rather the contrary, Tertullian saith, Coimus ad sacrarum litera­rum commemorationem si quid praesentium temporum qua­litas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoscere.

And now we hope our Remonstrant wil see how we will avoid our own contradiction. To say there was an order of administrations although there were no set and prescribed formes is no contradiction: You see it in the Churches practice. To say there was an order of prophecying given to the Church of Corinth by the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 14. and yet no stinted forms of prophecying imposed upon them, wee hope the Remonstrant himselfe will say is not contradictory.

But these quotations are blasted already; it is but a silly ostentation of antiquity, that these men bring against the Liturgie; so is all wee bring if the Remonstrant may be judge: but wee appeale to the learned Rea­der. And what can our Remonstrant accuse us of: First in our quotation of Tertullian, Wee mis-en­glish it, Sine Monitore quia depectore, without any prompter, but their own heart. Is this a mistranslation? what then will you say to that approved Glossator Zephirus? who thus expounds this place; Our Prayers are not dictated to us as are the Prayers of the Heathens, by their Priests, but proceed from the bottome of our hearts, &c. Is not this to pray without any other prompter but their own hearts? Nor doth Heraldus contradict this sence. If Zephirus his Glosse like not you, your English likes us, as well as our owne, and [Page 17] proves what wee desire. Sine Monitore: not being urged by any superiour injunction, though wee thinke Monitor may as well be translated prompter as injunction;Dictatas [...]sacri­ficulo preces non concipimus, sed ex ipsa sede A­nimi Spiritus (que) nostri cum suspi­riis gemituque, &c. but if no injunction, how could it be a Liturgy, a com­manded, imposed forme? and if neither of these, nei­ther Zephirus nor your own please you, then take Ni­cholas Rigaltius. Nicholl. Riga [...]. 1. C. in Tertull. Animad. Apud Ethunicos, Moni­tor praeibat pre­ces, ac de script. quidem ne quid verborum praete­ [...]iretur art prae­posterum dicere­tur, rursusque alius cust [...]s erat, qui attenderet, alius qui linguis favere juberet. The Heathens had a Monitor that led them along in their prayers, out of a writing, that they might misse nor mistake no words, &c. yet what is this to a prescribed forme? yes, if they prayed sine Monitore, it overthrows a prescribed forme, read it as you will; if you read it without a prompter it overthrowes a forme, if it be as you read it without any Superiour in­junction, it overthrows a prescribed forme.

But why may not we saith the Remonstrant, as well argue, that because our Ministers doe ordinarily in their pul­pits pray for the King in their own expressions, therefore there is no forme of Liturgie enjoyned? quite from the purpose; we shew you in Tertullian, where there were prayers that were not stinted and prescribed forms, shew us if you can in Tertullian, any such there were.

Our other testimony out of Terullian and Austine, is full to the purpose we intended; wee brought them to prove that it was free for Christians to pray as their occasions did require, without being limited to pre­scribed formes:The changing of orationes sua [...] in the text, in­to orationes no­stras in his margin is not over-much faithfulnesse. and though we will not say peremp­torily there were no publique Liturgies in Augustines time, yet we dare say the place hee brings proves it not, in which there is not one word of prescribed or publike forms.

The next place he quarrels with, is Iustin Martyr, [Page 18] the fault there is in the Translation, [...], is guiltily translated the instructer of the people, [...], falsly turned according to his ability. [...] We must quit our selves of both these crimes: First, [...], we render not the word but the person, the instructor of the people, be­cause the same Father but a few lines before told us, that was his proper work, and why should the Remon­strant cal this a guilty translation? Did he think we were affraid to use the word President or Bishop, for fear of advantaging the adverse cause? [...] No such matter, take it, translate it you, Bishop if you please, make this [...] to be the same with [...], in the Apoca­lyps, what will you gain by it? but this, that such a President or Bishop there was in every Congregati­on, whether in the City or Country.

But besides the supposed guilt, we are charged with false Translation for turning [...], according to his ability, if this be a false Translation, let the crime lie upon Langius, and not contradicted by Syl­burgius in his notes, who before us translated [...] quantum pro virili potest, [...] which wee know not how to conster better then according to his ability. And this Remonstrant grants they did pray according to their ability, and so (saith he) do ours, and yet we have a publike Litur­gie, and so had they. It followeth not, that they had be­cause we have; we would fain see better proofe of it.

The Remonstrant thinks it is proof enough to picke a quarrell with what wee have spoken, [...]ssander. and therefore scorns to trouble himself any further then to tell the Reader it is Magisterially said by these men that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pe­lagian Heresies did invade the Church, and as Clerkly they [Page 19] confute themselves by their own testimony. So then, if wee cite testimony, it is not Magisterially spoken, and how is it Clerkly confuted? Besides what wee have done our selves, he vouchsafes us the honour to bestow a marginall confutation upon us out of Conc. Laod. cap. 19. we will doe the Canon and the Cause right, and give you the full view of it. Oportere seorsum primum post Episcoporum Homilias Catechumenorum Orationem peragi, & postquam exierunt Catechumeni eorum qui poe­nitentiam agunt fieri orationem, & cum i [...] sub manum ac­cesserint & recesserint fidelium, preces sic ter fieri. Vnam quidem scilicet primam silentio, secundam autem & tertiam per pronuntiationem impleri; deinde sic pacem dari, & sic sanctam oblationem perfici & solis licere sacratis ad altare accedere & communicare.

We desire the Reader to remember that the que­stion is not about a set Order or Rubrick, (as the Re­monstrant calls it) of administrations, but about set and imposed forms of prayer. Now what doth this Canon require? that after Sermon, Prayer should be made first for the Catechumeni, Secondly, for the pe­nitents, Thirdly, for the faithfull. But doth it binde to set forms of prayer in all these? that the Reader sees it doth not, for some of the prayers required in that Canon are mentall prayers, therefore not stinted, nor prescribed praiers, as appears by that clause in the Canon,Vn [...]m quidem, scilicet primam silentio. which the Remonstrant (shuffling up with much lesse fidelity then we have done the Milevitan Coun­cell) leaves out in his quotation

But Clerklike wee confute our selves. First, in going about to prove that set and imposed formes were not introduced till the Arrian and Pelagian heresie did [Page 20] invade the Church, by the testimony of a Councell that was be­fore Arrianisme. Hee that is so quicke to take others in their self cōfutations, doth as Clerklike confute him­selfe, in granting that the Laodicean Councell was be­tween the Neocesarian, and the Nicene, and yet so long before Arrtanisme, as it seemes ridiculous to referre from the one to the other: Now the Neocesarian Councell was as Binius from Baronius computes in the yeer 314, and the Nicene was 325, or according to Eusebius, 320. And was the Arrian heresie just born at the period of the Nicene Councell? if not, why may not the Arrian Heresie invade the Church before the time of the Laodicean Councell, especially conside­ring that the heresie of Arrius did trouble the Church sometime before it borrowed Arrius his name; and under his name, some yeers doubtles, before the Nicen Councell. Yet our meaning was not, to affix the in­troducing of set formes into the Church upon that Councell; the Remonstrant if that he had pleased might have conceived, that speaking of the bringing in such formes, wee shew how it was done by degrees. And first as a step, the Laodicean Councell did forbid mens varying their prayers as they listed, and did enjoyn all men to use the same prayers: [...]. This Remonstrant saith, we said, was a forme of mans owne pre­scribing. No, we said of a mans own composing; and how wil the Remonstrant disprove it from the words of the Canon? To prove our assertion we brought the words of the Councel of Carthage, which our Remonstrant derides as a grosse absurdity to explicate the Councel of Laodicea, by that of Carthage, which is yet no more then Z [...]naras did before us. But as the Remonstrant re­lates [Page 21] it, the Fathers of Carthage will afford us little help. You shall heare themselves speak Reader, and then judge. Vt nemo in precibus, velpatrem pro filio, vel fi­lium propatre nominet, & cum [...]ltari assistitur semper ad patrem dirigatur Oratio, & quicunque sibi preces aliunde de­scribit non iis utatur nisi prius eas cum fratribus instructori­bus contulerit. Where it appears first, that this Canon was made for poore ignorant Priests that knew not the difference between the Father and the Sonne. Se­condly, that when this Canon was made, there was no set forme in use in the Church, for it cannot come under the possibility of imagination, that a man ha­ving a set form lying before him, should so grosly mi­stake as to name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father. Thirdly, that the limiting or circumscri­bing the liberty in prayer was such as did not tie him to a set Liturgie, but hee might use the help of any o­ther prayer, so he did conferre with the more learned of his Brethren.

The Milevitan Councell went something further,Quamvi [...] haec precum & aliarū orationum conscribendarum privata [...]bido imperitos homi­nes usque adeo invas [...]rit ut ne­cessum fuerit in Conciliis mo­dum aliquem huic rei constitui ne temere quae [...]is orationes in usum praesertim Ec­cl [...]siasticum ad­mitte [...]tur. wherein hee challenges our fidelitie in shufling up the Councell; our fidelity in citing of this Councell is no­thing inferiour to his in this, and far above his in the former. Let the Reader consider how much diffe­rence there is between what we speak, and what the Remonstrant reports from this Councell, and judge of the fidelity of both. If wee have for brevity sake given too short a representation of the Canon, it will appeare upon are view, to redound onely to our own prejudice. The Canon is this, Placuit etiam illud ut preces vel orationes, &c. quae prob [...]tae fuerint in Concilio sive praefationes &c. ab omnibus celebrētur. Castand. p. 30 [...] ubi cit. Conc [...] Carth. & Mil [...] Nec altae omni­no dicantur in Ecclesia nisi quae à prudentioribus Tractatae, [Page 22] vel à Synodo comprobatae fuerint ne forte, aliquid contra fi­dem, velper ignorantiam, vel per minus stu [...]ium [...]it compo­situm.

Where wee observe that this is the first mention of prayers to bee approved or ratified in a Synod and the restraining to the use of them.

Secondly, that the restriction was not such but there was a toleration of such Prayers as were tracta­tae à prudentioribus used by the wise and prudent men in the Church as well as of those Prayers that were approved by the Synod.

Thirdly, that the occasion of this restriction was the prevention of Errour in the Church, ne aliquid contrae fidem, &c. So that here the Remonstrant may see how that we have made it good, that liberty in Pray­er was not taken away,Concil. Milevit. cont. Caelest, & Pelag. and set formes imposed, till the Arian and Pelagian Heresie invaded the Church: his owne quotations would have told him this.

Next to these Testimonies, as a strong inducement to us to think that there were no Liturgies of the first and most venerable antiquity producible, wee ad­ded this consideration, that the great admirers of, and searchers after ancient Liturgies either Iewish or Christian could never yet shew any to the World. And now we verely thought that if the Sun did this day behold them, the Remonstrant whose eys are acquainted with those se­crets and rarities that wee cannot bee blest with the sight of, would have brought them to publique view for the defence of his owne Cause, but wee feare if there ever were any such, the World hath wholy lost them: he cannot serve you with a whole Liturgie, such fragments as hee found served in, wee shall anon tast off.

[Page 23] His miserable mistake in saying that part of the Lords Prayers was taken out of the Iewish formes, we par­don because hee doth halfe acknowledge it.The Seder Te­ph [...]ll [...]th to which hee now refers being 700 yeers af­ter Christ. So do wee, his prudent passing by in silence what wee ob­jected against his confident assertion of Peter and Iohns praying by a forme,Answ. pag. 8. and that which wee brought of the Publican and Pharise to make good what we ob­jected, because we know he cannot answere it.

Three things hee speaks of, The Lords Prayer, the Iewish Liturgies, and Christian Liturgies, for the Lords Prayer hee saith nothing can bee more plain then that our Saviour prescribed to his Disciples, besides the Rules, a direct forme of Prayer, we grant indeed nothing can be more plaine then that both our blessed Saviour and Iohn taught their new Converts to pray, yet the Remon­strant will have a hard task to prove from Scripture that either Iohn or our Saviour gave to their Disci­ples publique Liturgies or that the Disciples were tied to the use of this forme.

But though his proofe fall short in the Lords Prayer, yet it is sure he saith, that Christ was pleased to make use in the Celebration of his last and heavenly Banquet, both of the fashions and words, which were usually in the Iewish Feasts, as Cassander hath shewed in his Liturgica. Yet Cassander who is his sure proof saith but this, observasse videtur seemes to have observed. Secondly, the evidence of all this comes from no better authour then Maymo­nides who wrote not till above a 1000 yeers after Christ. Thirdly, though it were granted that our Sa­viour did pro arbitrio or ex occasione, use the fashion or words usually in the Jewish feast, it doth not at all fol­low that he did assume these words and fashions out [Page 24] of Iewish Liturgies; an Arbitrary custome is one thing a prescribed Liturgie is an other.

Yet to prove such a Liturgie, that he might (as far as he can) stand to his assertion, he brings something out of Capellus, the Samaritan Chronicle, and Buxtorfius his Synagoga Iudaica.

We begin with what he brings out of a Samaritan Chronicle, sometimes in the hands of the famously learned Ioseph Scaliger, out of which hee tels us of an imbezel'd book, wherein were contained the Songs & Prayers used before the Sacrifices: which although we might let passe without danger to our cause, and answer, that they were onely divine Hymnes where­in there was alwayes some thing of prayer; because the Remonstrant himselfe in his second mentioning of them names onely Songs: and were there any thing for set prayers, it is like hee would have put down some thing of them in the Authors own words, as well as hee hath burthened his margent with some thing which is nothing to the purpose.

But we shall make bold (under correction) to ex­amine the authority of his Samaritan Chronicle.De Emend. Tem [...]. Io­seph Scaliger had certainly but two Samaritan Chro­nicles (had he had any other he would certainly have mentioned it when hee undertooke to speake of all accounts & Chronicles) whereof that shorter is prin­ted in his Emendat. Temporum, lib. 7. which is so fond and absurd a thing, that hee calls it ineptissimum: and there gives this censure of the Samaritans in point of antiquity: Gens est totius vetustatis, etiam quae ad ipsos pertinet, ignarissima: They are a people most ignorant of all antiquity, even of that which doth most con­cerne [Page 25] themselves. And more he would have said against it, if he had lived to know how much it varied from the Samaritans owne Pentateuch, as it is since discove­red by that learned Antiquarie Master Selden in his Preface ad Marmora Arundeliana.

This wee know is not the Chronicle the Remon­strant means: there is another which Scaliger had, of which himself thus: Habemus eorum magnum Chroni­con ex Hebraica lingua in Arabicam conversum, sed chara­ctere Samaritano descriptum: is liber incipit ab excessu Mo­sis, desinit infra tempora Imperatoris Adriani, &c. Wee have also their great Chronicle translated out of the Hebrew into the Arabick tong [...]e, but written in a Samaritan character: which Book begins from Mo­ses departure, and ends beneath the times of Adrian the Emperour, &c.

Of which Book Scaliger his own censure is, that though it hath many things worthy of know­ledge, Yet they are crusted [...]ver with Samaritan devices, Commentis Sa­maritanis in­crustat [...]. and judge how much credit wee are to give to this Book for antiquity, as farre as Moses, which makes no mention of their own originall any other ways, then that they came out of Egypt by Mo­ses: doth not so much as speak of any of the ancient Kings of Samaria, nor the defection of the ten Tribes under Rehoboam, and doth onely touch the names of Samson, Samuel, David, &c. as Scaliger speaks in the beginning of his notes; and so will let your Samaritan Chron [...]cle passe, and give you leave to make the best of it.

But to this testimony, what ever it be, wee oppose the testimony of a learned Iew, who is rather to be [Page 26] heard, then a Samaritan. The famous Rabbi Moses Maymonides, who pleaseth to read part of his first, second, and eleventh Chapters, in his Mishneh of the Law, Halachah Tephillah, shall evidently finde, that from Moses his time to Ezra (above a 1000 yeeres) there were no stinted forms of prayers heard of in the Iewish Church, but every man prayed according to his ability. Se­condly, that in Ezra his time eighteene short forms of Prayers were composed for the scattered Iews, which had lost the use of the holy language; be­cause they thought it best to continue their Prayers and Worship of God in that sacred tongue. Thirdly, but not a word of any set forms which the Priests or Levits were to use, but only to helpe the ignorant Iews, to expresse themselves in prayer to God in the holy language; at the time or houres of prayer, Which the men of the great Synagogue had appointed: Peter and Iohn went up together to the Temple at the houre of prayer, being the ninth houre.

Though we alleage not this of Maymonides, as a testi­mony to command beliefe, yet wee conceive it farre more to be regarded then any Samaritan Chronicle.

Secondly, hee hath some scraps of Iewish Liturgies out of Capellus, concerning which a short answer may serve; first there is not one of the Iewish Liturgies now extant, which was made before the Iews ceased to be the Church of God: for besides the eighteene short formes before mentioned, there were no other made till Rabbi Gamaliel his time, who according to the judgment of learned Criticks is that Gamaliel mentio­ned in the Acts, (from whom Paul got such bitter principles against Christian Religion.) But whensoe­ver [Page 27] they began, Capellus would laugh, should he heare what a strange conceit this Remonstrant had gotten from him, that the Iewish Liturgies were as ancient as the time of Moses, merely, because he parallels some Iewish phrases which hee found in them with certaine phrases in the Gospell, which the Iews retained by Tradition from their Fathers, and put into their Li­turgies.Synag. Iudaiea, lib. 1. But Buxtorfius would fal out with him, that he should so much abuse him, as to say he had affirmed that Maymonides took his Creed out of the Liturgie; for the man is not guilty of any such grosse mistake: he saith indeed, that the Articles of the Iewish Creed are printed in the Liturgies, but withall hee tels the Remonstrant, that Maymonides was the first compo­ser of them, whence therefore the Iews put them into their Liturgie. Thus wee leave his Iewish Liturgie, which the Reader will easily see to be more Iewish, then hee could justly suppose our instance of William Rufus was, and that it affords him as little furthe­rance.

For Christian Liturgies, which the Remonstrant had affirmed to have been the best improvement of the peace and happinesse of the Evangelicall Church ever since the A­postles times, we challenged the Remonstrant, setting aside those that are confessedly spurious, to produce any Liturgie that was the issue of the first 300 yeers; in answer to which, he brings us forth the Liturgies which we have under the names of Iames, Basil, and Chrysostome: to which our Reply may be the briefer, because hee himselfe dares not vouch them for the genuine writings of those holy men. Onely, saith hee, we have them under their names: Secondly, he confesseth [Page 28] there are some intersertions spurious in them. Thirdly, all that he affirmes is, that the substance of them cannot be taxed for any other then holy and ancient: what censure the learned Criticks, both Protestants and Papists have p [...]st upon these Liturgies, we hope the Remonstrant knows; we will onely mind him of what the le [...]rned Rivetus speaks of the Liturgies of Iames, Peter, Mat­thew, Mark, has omnes profectas esse ab inimico homine q [...]i bonae semenii Domini, nocte super seminavit z [...]z [...]nia solidis rationibus probavit Nobilisque & illustris Philip Morneus lib. 1. de Missae & partihus ejus. Which because the Remonstrant so often finds fault with our misenglish­ing, wee leave to him to see if hee can construe these Zizania to be any other then these Liturgies, and this inimicus homo to be any other then the Devill.

Nor will his implication of the ancient▪ Councell of An­cyra helpe him, which forbade those Priests that had not sacrificed [...], Will the Re­strant say that [...], was to serve in the holy Liturgies, that is, reading set Litnr­gies, he may as wel say that [...] is the reading of set Homilies. Balsamon, Zonaras, Dionysius, Isidore, and Gentian Harvet doe all translate [...] aliquod munus sacerdotale subire.

And that the Remonstrant may not delude himself nor others with the ambiguitie of the word [...] & [...], as if every mētion of these did by implica­tion prove such a Liturgie, as for which he contends. [...], &c. [...] Let him know that the word [...] is variously used in Antiquity sometimes for all the Ministeriall Offi­ces, so Zonaras in Concil. Antioch. Can. 4. and so Concil. 4. Ancyra. Can. 1. quoted by himselfe, if hee would ei­ther [Page 29] have observed, or acknowledged it: [...] Chrysost. Psal. 41 sometimes only for prayer, so Balsamon in Can. 12. Concil. Sardic. 6. Sometimes singing of our Psalmes is tearmed by Chrysostome, [...]. The same Father expounds [...], Acts 13. by [...], Hom. 27. in Act. so that for the proof of such Liturgies as are the Subject of this question, it is not enough to shew us the word [...], or [...] in antiquity, let him shew the thing before he so Dictator-like condemne those for giddy heads that will not take his word for proofs, and believe it was the undeniable practice of antiquity to use Liturgies and formes of prayer, because he saith so.

His supercillious censure upon our passage about conceived prayer, is not worth the taking notice of, he saith,Quis tuler [...]s Grac [...]os. We are sullen and crabbed pieces, tecchy and quar­relsome men, and why? because we said his large pray­ses of conceived prayer, were but a vantage ground to advance publike forms the higher, how truly judg; what cause we had so to think wee declared from the cruell and ungodly practices of the late times which he will scarce take notice of.

Our arguing about the originall and confirmation of our Church Liturgie, he calls wrangling. For the o­riginall, the Remonstrant said it was taken out of the ancient Models, not Roman but Christian: here wee tooke notice of the opposition betweene Roman and Christian, because by the Remonstrant made Termi­ni sese mu [...]u [...] removentes: which we perceive now hee is not willing should passe for his meaning, hee will not have it meant of an opposition, but of a different mo­dification. Though his instances brought to exempli­fie it are not all ad oppositum.

[Page 30] We will not make digressive excursions into new controversies, though wee are not affraid of burning our fingers with his hot Iron. Only wee tell him, that the Suffrages of unquestionable Divines are not so unanimous, but that from some of them wee could fetch sparks to fling in the face of him that desired their suffrages, without burning our-own fingers. Compare what the booke called the Old Religion speaks of the Church of Rome, p. 6. where a speech imputed to Luther is justified as a charitahle and not too indulgent a profession, viz. That under the Papacie is all good, true Christianitie, the very ker­nel of Christianity, &c. Compare this with what the Bi­shop of Salisbury saith in his begged suffrage, who thus speaks, That the Church of Rome is no more a true Church than an arrant Whore is a true wife to her husband.

To disprove what he affirmed, that the Liturgy was taken out of Models not Roman but Christian, We produ­ced King Edwards Proclamation, to which he answers nothing, onely ownes that, and scornes us: thinking to wipe off all exceptions with the glorious names of Martyrs and Confessors that composed it. For whom (though wee dare not glory in man) yet wee blesse God as well as he. But with all if we should say there were some holy Martyrs and Confessors of the same reformed Religion that were Opposers of it, and suf­fered in opposition even to a persecution, the lives of some of them being pursued from City to City, (which he knows is most true, and so may any that will read the booke called the troubles of Frankfort) Would this be a sufficient argument in his judgment for the remo [...]all of it? But this is not the strength by which our Liturgie stands, it stands confirmed by Par­liamentary [Page 31] Acts, and King Iames his Proclamation; to which wee answered, that neither the King nor the Parliament intended such a rigorous pressing of the Liturgie as we have felt. Secondly, that neither our own Laws nor the Proclamation of that ever admi­red Prince are as unalterable as the Lawes of the Medes and Persians; this he cals a bold flout, of purpose to render us odious to our dread Sovereigne, and the Honorable house; as likewise in the next page seems to impute that language to us, which is his own: our loy­all hearts startle to think of a repetition of the words, they are in pag. 23. of the Defence, and are concerning King Iames, whom in the clause wee had last in hand, wee mentioned with the deserved memory of a fa­mous and ever admired Prince. We confesse in some passages of that booke, wee tooke liberty to use some cheerfull expressions, provoked thereto by the strange confidence, and little strength of our Remon­strant, Remembring that of Tertullian, It wel agrees with truth to laugh, because it is of a pleasant disposition, and to sport with her competitors, because it is secure, and feares not the wals of her bulwarks. But what ever we have done in other places, here (wee attest the great Searcher of hearts) it never came into our thoughts to use a light expression, much lesse to flout in so bold a manner as hee accuseth us. Nor doe wee thinke it possible that any charitable Reader could suppose wee aimed at any other then what we expresse more plainly pag. 20. of our answer, of the power of Princes and Parlia­ments in changing their laws.

His next business is with our queres, the first where­of was this, Whether it be not fit to consider of the alteration [Page 32] of the Liturgie, which we hoped had beene presented in such modest termes (speaking of an alteration, not an utter abrogation, of consideration of an alteration not prescribing the alteration, onely of a fitnes of such an alteration, not of the necessity of such an alterati­on as should never have occasioned such a sarcasticall Declaration, as he their makes.

The thing propounded is so equall that the Remon­strant who makes conscience to agree with us in as little as hee may: here is forced to confesse much a­gainst his will (for which we may thank the Honora­ble Parliament) there is some need of alteration, but this cōfession is joined with such a height of sco [...]n [...]t seems to threaten those who ever they are that should dare attempt it, & exprest in such away of diminution, as gives just cause to suspect, it is a meer designe to gain upon the Parliament, and by a pretended shadow of an alteration to prevent a reall and totall reformati­on; he tels us of wiser heads then our own, that will consi­der of the alteration: if here hee mean the Parliament, hee meanes the same to whom wee have presented these considerations, concerning whom wee doubt not, but they will make another manner of an altera­tion then the Remonstrant speaks of, consisting onely of a bare change of a few expressions, and that in the manner of them Onely.

But if these wise heads hee here speaks of, are such as his own, that it may be are complotting some kind of a castigation of the Liturgie, then wee feare that al­though the times will not serve to make such an alte­ration, as that of the English Liturgie sent into Scot­land: yet the alteration is like to be no better than in [Page 33] Queene Elizabeths time, when the Parliament having given order for the alteration and correction of the Letany, all the Alteration that was made in it, was onely the taking out of that one suffrage, from the Pope of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver us.

The Remonstraut tels us of a Martyr (whom he cals Silly and Ignorant, wee dare not) Doctor Taylor that magnified the Liturgy to Bishop Gardiner, as compleat; but where this story is you tell us not; wee could an­swer story with story, which would please you much lesse then this doth us: we could tell you of a Martyr that said it was the Mark of the Beast to receive from the Bishop a Licence to preach; Wee could tell you of that Doctor Tailor, who when hee was degraded, having his corner Cap, and the rest of his Priestly Robes put on, when they were taken off again, said hee, now I am rid of my fools coat.

That our proposition of entring into consideration about altering the Liturgie, might not seeme unreaso­nable, wee set downe our reasons enforcing such alte­ration; all which the Remonstrant brings under the se­verity of his censure. First, (wee say) it symbolizeth so much with the Popish Masse, as that the Pope would have approved it: which hee denyes not, if he had, we could have proved it from a man above suspition in this cause, Doctor Morton. Onely hee saith, If the Devill confesse Christ to be the Son of God, shal I disclaim the truth, because it passed through a damned mouth? but you know Sir, that Christ would not re­ceive such a Confession from the Devils mouth, nor Paul neither, Act. 16. and loth wee would be to go to [Page 34] the Devill to learne a confession. It is true, Gold in the impurest Chanell is not to be contemned, but what need we goe to the Chanell for gold, when wee can have it in the purest stream? or what need we goe to the Roman Portu [...]se for a Prayer, when wee can have one more free from jealousies in another place? Will a wiseman goe to the Stews to seek an honest woman to make his wife?

Our second Reason why wee propounded this quaere was, because this was composed into this forme on purpose to bring the Papist to our Chur­ches, which wee finde to bee with so little successe, &c. In answer to which the Remonstrant first commends the project as charitable and gracious. The nature of the project wee never intended to dispute, onely wee produced this to shew that there was not the same reason for the retaining of this forme, that there was for the first introducing of it,We know the Apostles gro [...]d, this [...] tole­rate the Iewish Ceremonies a while, but wh [...] th [...]y saw the I [...]ws remayning ha [...]d [...]ed still, they quickly purged the Church of them. because experience tels us it hath not prevailed to that end to which it was at first designed. Yes it did, saith the Remonstrant; for Sir Edward Coke tels us, till the eleventh yeere of Queene Elizabeth all came to Church, those times knew no recusant. Pardon us Sir, If we tell you that it was not the con­verting power of the Liturgie, but the constraining power of the Law that brought them thither; which afterwards not being pressed with that life and vigour that it had bin, gave incouragemēt to the Popish fact ō, to take heart: adde also, that at the same time the Pope negotiated to have her Liturgie to be allowed by his authority, so as the Queene would acknowledge his Supremacie, which when it grew hopelesse, then the Jesuitish Casuists begun to draw on the Papists to [Page 35] a Recusancie. But might the complying of our Papists be attributed soly to the inoffensivenesse of our Liturgie; Yet what credit is this to our Church to have such a forme of publike worship, as Papists may without offence joyne with us in, and yet their Popish principles live in their hearts still? How shall that reclayme an erring soule, that brings their bodies to Church, & leaves their hearts stil in error? And wher­as the Remonstrant would impute the not winning of Pa­pists rather to the want or weaknesse in preaching; Be it so, in the mean time, let the Bishops see how they will cleere their souls of this sinne, who having the sole power of admitting Ministers into the Church, have admitted so many weak ones, and have rejected so many faith­full, able Preachers, for not conforming to their beg­gerly rudiments. And when we said that this our Li­turgie hath lost us many rather then wonne any, Wee meant not onely of such as are lost to the Popish part. But let the Remonstrant take it so, it is neither paradox nor slander. For let an acute Jesuite have but this ar­gument to weild against a Protestant not well groun­ded in our Religion (as too many such there are in England) It is evident that the Church of Rome is the ancient and true Church, and not yours, for you see your Service is wholly taken out of ours, How would a weake Christian expedite himselfe here?Among the rest Master Abbot whom we quo­ted [...]n out an­swer but by a mistake it is referred to the fourth [...] instead of this

To the third reason, this quaere was grounded upon the many stumbling blocks the Liturgie lays before the feet of many. He tels us that these stumbling blocks are remov [...]d by many. We confesse, indeed, endeavours used by many, whether effected or no that we questi­on; [Page 36] wee know it is no easie thing, when a scruple hath once taken possession of the conscience to cast it out again. Among the many, the Remonstrant is pleased to refer us to Master Fisher (for himself will not vouch­safe to foule his fingers with the removing of one of those blocks we mentioned) whose book, among all that have travelled in that way, we think that any in­t [...]lligent Reader will judge most unable to give solid satisfaction to a scrupling conscience. Tell us wee be­seech you, is it enough for a conscience that scruples the Surplice, to say, That it is as lawfull for you to enjoyn the Surplice, and punish the omitting of it, as it was for So­lomon to enjoin Shimei, not to goe out of Jerusalem, and to punish him for the breach of that injunction? or, That the Surplice is a significative of divine alacritie and integri­tie, and the expectation of glory? Is it possible that a man that reads this should stūble at the Surplice after? The Cross is not onely lawfull in the use of it, but the removall of it would be scandalous and perillous to the State; Baptisme is necessary to salvation; Children dying unbaptized are in a forlorne con­dition, therefore Midwives may baptize, &c. Let the Rea­der judge whether this be to remove stumbling blocks from before the feet of men, or to lay more. But if this Remonstrant think Master Fisher so able and happy a remover of those occasions of offence, wee wonder how his quick sight could see cause of any alteration, so much as in the manner of the expression, knowing Master Fisher undertakes the defence not onely of the Substance, but of the very Circumstances and Syllables in the whole Book. But his last put off is this, that if there be ought in it that may danger scandall, it is under carefull hands to remove it. The [Page 37] Lord be praysed it is so: it is under carefull hands and hearts, more mercifull then this Remonstrant is, to remit troubled Consciences to No Better Cure then Master Fishers Book, who we hope will do by those as the Helvetians did by some things that were stumbled at among them; though they were none but Anabap­tists that stumbled at them, yet the State did by Au­thority remove them, and Zwinglius their professed adversary gives them thanks for occasioning the re­movall.

To the fourth, which was that it is Idolized and ac­counted as the onely worship of God in England, &c. At Amsterdame, saith hee; but hee knew wee spoke of such as adore it as an Idoll, not such as abhorre it as an Idoll, though it pleaseth him to put it off with a scoffe, retorting upon us, others say, rather too many doe injuriously make an Idoll of preaching, shall wee therefore consider of abandoning it? We hope, Sir, you are not se­rious, if you be, & that not a little your self is guilty of Idolizing the Liturgy. Dare you in cool bloodequalize this very individuall Liturgy with Gods Ordi­nance of preaching, and say there is as little sinne or danger in considering of the utter abandoning of prea­ching, as there is in the abandoning of this present e­stablished Liturgie? Cave dixeris.

The fift Argument was from the great distaste it meets with in many. This hee imputes to nothing but their ill teaching, and betakes himselfe to his old shifts of diversion, and saith, By the same reason, multi­tudes of people distasting the truth of wholsome doctrine, shall we to humour them abandon both?

It is a griefe to see this distast grow to such a height [Page 38] as tends to a separation; and it is as strange to us that this Remonstrant should have a heart so void of pity as that the yielding to the altering or removing of a thing indifferent (which stands as a wall of separati­on betwixt us and our brethren) should be presented to publike view under no better notion then the hu­mouring of a company of ill taught men, or as the Remon­strant elsewhere calls them brainsick men, or as another Booke, men that have need of dark roomes and Ellebore. For that ill teaching to which hee imputes this gene­rall distast, if there be any such, wee for our parts are innocent; our care for our part hath beene to informe our people, that such stumbling blocks as these are not sufficient causes of Separation. But wee thinke, nay, we know, that some few Prelats by their over­rigorous pressing of the Service-book and Ceremonies, have made more Separatists, than all the Preachers disaffected to the Ceremonies in England. Our last rea­son was from the difference betweene this and all other Churches. To which he answers, that difference in Liturgies will breed no dis-union between Churches. Se­condly, if it be requisite to seeke conformity, our is the more ancient Liturgie, and our the more noble Church: Therefore fit for them to conforme to us rather then we to them. It is true, every difference in Liturgies doth not neces­sitate a dis-union of Churches: but here the difference is too large to be covered with a few fig-leaves. It is too well known, our Ceremonies and other things in our Liturgies will not downe with other reformed Churches: to the second, it is not the precedencie in times that gains the Glory, but the exactnesse of the work.

[Page 39] Our first Reformation was onely in doctrine, theirs in doctrine and discipline too. For the third, that ours is the more noble Church. We desire not to ecclipse the glory of this Church, but rather to intreat the Lord to increase it a thousand fold, how great soever it be, and to ennoble it in this particular, in removing what ever is a stumbling block out of the way of his peo­ple. But why saith the Remonstrant should we rather conforme to the Liturgies of the Reformed Chur­ches, then those of all other Christians, Grecians, Arme­nians, Copths, &c. should we set down what wee have read in the Liturgies of those Churches, wee believe the Remonstrant would blush for intimating, there is as much reason to conform to their Liturgies as those of the Reformed Churches.

Our second quaere is not so weak as this Remon­strant supposeth; it is this, whether the first Reformers of Religion did ever intend the use of a Liturgie, fur­ther then to be a help in the want, and to the weaknes of the Ministers? In way of Answer he asketh, Whe­ther we can think that our Reformers had any other intenti­ons then all other the founders of Liturgies. No, indeed, wee thinke no other, and howsoever the Remonstrant according to his confidence tels us that the least part of their eare was the helpe of the Ministers weak­nesse, yet their words tell us it was the main drift of those that first brought prescribed forms of prayer into the Church (and therefore wee conceived it might possibly be the intention of our Reformers also) witnesse the 23 Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage, ut nemo patrem nominet profilio, &c. So the Composers of the Liturgie for the French Church in [Page 40] in Frankfort, He formulae serviunt tantum rudioribus, nullius liberiati praescribitur. These formes serve onely for the ignorant, not prescribing to any mans liberty. And were it so that the mayn drift of the Composers of Litur­gies were to helpe the d [...]votion of the people, yet (what a help to devotion many find it, though we dispute not) it will be hard f [...]r this Remonstrant to perswade ma­ny thousands who desire with devout hearts to wor­ship God, that the being constantly bound to the same formes, though in themselves neither for mat­ter nor composure subject to just exception, will prove such a great help to their devotion. But this wee are sure, that if the knowing before hand the matter and the words wherewith it should be clothed make people the more in­tent upon devotion, if this be an infallible argument, it pleads against the use of present conception, ei­ther in praying or preaching, or any other admini­stration either publike or private: and how contradi­ctory this is to what the Remonstrant hath professed of his reverent and pious esteem of conceived prayer, let himselfe see.

It is neither boldly nor untruly said, that all other re­formed Churches, though they use Liturgies, do not bind Ministers to the use of them: If we may trust the Canons and the Rubricks of those Churches we may both boldly and truly say it.Har. Synod. Belg. cap. 11. Ca [...]. 21.

In the Canons of the Dutch Churches, agreed upon in their Synod,Minister preces vel dictante spi­ritu, vel certa sibi propos [...]â for [...]ula conci­piet. we find a Canon enjoyning some days in every week to be set apart for preaching and pray­ing, and the very next Canon saith, the Minister shall conceive prayers either by the Dictate of the Spirit, or by a set forme. So in the first Rubricke of the Li­turgie [Page 41] of Geneva, the Minister is to exhort the peo­ple to pray, quibus ei visum fuerit verbis, in what words he shall think fit; and though that Liturgie containe formes of prayer for publike use, yet we doe not finde in all that Liturgie where they are tyed to the use of those forms, and no other; we finde, where they are left free, as in one place, in Dominico die mane haec ut plu­rimum adhibetur formula, Upon the Lords Day in the morning, for the most part this prayer is used; for the most part, then not alwayes. So in another, after the Lords Super,Peracta coena haec gratiarum aut aliqua ei si­milis adhibetur. this thanksgiving or some other like it is used; then they are not absolutely tied to the use of that: and by this wee have learned how to construe what he hath quoted out of Master Calvine. And in­deed any man that reads that Epistle may easily con­strue what was Master Calvines judgement about Liturgies, not that men should be so tied to words and forms, as to have no liberty to recede from them. For in the same Epistle hee doth advise to have a summary collection of doctrine which all should follow, and to the observing of which all, both Bi­shops and Ministers should be bound by Oath; Yet we hope the Remonstrant will not say that Calvine did advise that Bishops and Ministers should be bound by oath not to vary from that forme of doctrine? Calvine advises a set form of Catechisme, will the Remonstrant say that Calvine meant the Ministers should never va­ry from the syllables of that forme, provided they did dictate pro captu populi, in quibus situs sit verus Chri­stianismus? The very words by himself quoted shew what Calvins end was in advising a set Liturgie, viz. to helpe the simplicity and unskilfulnesse of some, to [Page 42] prevent the innovation of others, & that the consort of all Churches among themselves might more cer­tainly appeare, all which ends may be obtained with­out limiting all Ministers to the words and syllables of a set forme, provided they pray to that effect. Which is all that is required in the Liturgies of o­ther Churches.

Wee could name you many other Liturgies, wherein there are not further bounds laid upon the Minister then thus, Hae sunt formulae, quas tamen se­quitur Minister pro suo arbitrio, These are forms which the Minister follows according to his liking. And a­gain, Spiritus sanctus non est alligandus formulis, The Ho­ly Ghost is not to be tyed to forms. Minister concludit Orationem, quam pro suo arbitrio dicit. Haec esto formula nisi quid ille suâ sponie possit melius. The Minister con­cludes the prayer, which hee sayes according to his own discretion: let this be that forme, except of his own accord hee can doe better. In another, Minister ad precandum hisce aut similibus verbis invitat ad hunc mo­dum orat, in these or the like words.

And by this, (we hope) the Remonstrant seeth that what wee have said, was more truly then boldly spo­ken. As for the Lutheran Churches, though we blesse God for that truth, that is among them, for that glo­rious instrument of their Reformation, yet we think the Remonstrant will not say, that the Lutheran Chur­ches came out so perfectly in the first Edition, but that desiderantur nonnulla; nor can he be ignorant, that in the ordinary phrase of writing, they are called the Protestant Churches, the other the Reformed Chur­ches: and what if the Reformed Churches be as the [Page 43] Remonstrant calls them, out of his respect hee beares them, but a poore handfull? yet is this handfull in respect of purity, of truth, and worship among them, to be preferred before all the Christian World besides.

The Rubrick in the Liturgie of Edward the sixth, saith he, is misconstrued, Because it intends onely the peo­ples ease and more willing addiction to hearing. Two of the very ends for which wee desire a liberty; which if some Ordinaries (upon his certain knowledge) have often yielded, many now upon our certaine know­ledge have denied it, and ordered Sermons should rather be constantly cut short then any part of the Li­turgie omitted, why should it be a fault in us to de­sire that as a favour from this Honourable House, which the Remonstrant grants an ordinary may with­out offence yield at his own discretion?

3 The Homilies we say are left free, reason there­fore the Liturgie should: which argument he confes­seth might hold force, did they utterly abridge all Ministers of the publike use of any conceived prayers. We know some men have endevoured sacrilegiously, to rob all Ministers of the exercise of the gift of prayer, on what occasion soever: And our argument is as strong against limiting in prayer, as it is against li­miting in preaching, either in whole or in part, and he saith nothing against it, onely determines tanquam è Cathedrâ, that it is no lesse sacrilege to rob the people of a set form, by the liberty of a free expr [...]ssion, Then it is to rob them of the Ministers gift of preaching or praying. But the Remonstrant must prove that set forms and Liturgies stinted and enjoyned, are not onely lawfull, but Ordi­nances of God, and not only warranted but comman­ded, [Page 44] as well as preaching or praying, before he doe so peremptorily conclude the taking of set formes away by the liberty of a free expression to be sacrilege; and his bold closure of this Answer, how true it is let him look in what we have said before of the Liturgies of other Churches.

4 His fourth Answer, That it is a false ground, that the imposing of the book tyes godly men from exercising their gift in prayer, would have been condemned for heresie in some Consistories in England, within these few yeeres, by such as did, from the imposition of the one, forbid the other. Whether the liberty of prayer be infringed wholly, by a set Liturgie, wee dispute not. But it is beyond dispute, that the not binding to a Liturgie would endanger the liberty of prayer lesse.

5 Our fift Reason was, because many deny their presence at our Church-meeting, in regard of those imposed prayers, and we finde no better way to reco­ver them from that distance in which they stand, then by leaving the Liturgie free. The Remonstrant saith, There is no reason of such alienation from our assemblies up­on such grounds. The reasonablenesse or unreasonable­nesse of this we determine not; in the mean time wee are sure thus it is. For our parts we professe, that wee are not against a free use of a Liturgie, nor doe we count a Liturgie a sufficient ground of separation from the Church, we say with Augustine, Non putamus scinden­das esse Ecclesias, propter ea quae nos ex se, neque digniores, neque indigniores, coram Deo facere possunt.

Yet wee feare it is not the Remonstrants Dilemma that will reduce such as upon this ground are upon point of forsaking our Church assemblies. The Li­turgie [Page 45] (saith hee) is either good or evill, if evill it is not lawfull to be used, if good it is not unlawfull to be imposed. The persons of whom wee speake, and with whom in this argument he hath to deal will de­ny both, and tell him the Liturgie is neither good, nor yet may lawfully be imposed if it were good, it may be the Remonstram might have work enough to perswade some men of either: and whether it be ea­sier to satisfie the consciences of many thousands in England, that are troubled about this, by argument and disputing, or by loosing the bond of imposition, and taking away the cause of dispute and trouble, or to behold the confusion that will follow, if the Lord do not in mercy direct to some means of prevention, is not hard to determine.

The Remonstran [...] inclines to the third, and making it but a small matter, turns it off with O miserable mis­led people, whom nothing will reclaim but a perfect confusion! a perfect deformity, a more profitable nonsence! And so con­fident he is that this will be the issue, that though this confusion appeare in no other Churches who perhaps (hee grants contradicting himselfe) begun without a Li­turgie; yet with us it could be no lesse then what hee hath prophesied: yea, so resolute he is not to yield to a liberty in what is established, that whereas wee said that liberty in Liturgies could breed no more confu­sion then liberty in the Homilies, we evidently see by his answer, that had the reading of Homilies beene as strictly enjoyned as the Book of Common-prayer, the ablest Minister in England, were the Law in the Re­monstrants hands, must be held as strictly to them, as to this. Yea, lastly, whereas wee had said, that if en­joyned [Page 46] at all, it might be as a punishment upon the in­sufficient, thereby to quicken them up to more dili­gence and care: he scoffs at this as a singular project and unheard of mulct; and yet himselfe comes out with a project about preaching, never a whit better, and doth as good as confirme our saying in the latter end; Surely where God hath bestowed gifts, it is fit they should be imployed, and improved to the best advantage of his people: But where there is nothing but an empty, over-meening, and proud ignorance, there is great reason for a just re­straint. Let the ingenious Reader peruse the words, and consider how much they differ from that which he calls our singular project: and withall judge whether this conclusion of the Remonstrant after all his wrang­ling against our Queres, be not as like Bellarmines, tu­tissimum tamen, &c. This speech was spoken in the Lords house by a No­ble Peere, and had the appro­bation of ma­ny others. as if it had beene cast [...]n the same Scull? How this way that the Remonstrant hath cho­sen would speed, let the Reader judge: In the meane time we blesse God, who hath put it into the hearts of others, into whose hands hee hath concredited the work, to judge more wisely, and consider more mer­cifully; and to professe in the hearing of some of us, that they would willingly part with that which was indifferent to themselves, if they were but truly infor­med, it was offensive to others. According to that of Gregory, Greg. l. 6. epist. 6 ep. 64. Those customes which are knowne to bring any bur­thens upon the Churches, it becomes us to consider of the re­moving of them.

Thus we have vindicated the first part of our an­swer concerning Liturgie, Wherein we professe, as in the presence of God, that wee have written nothing out of a spirit of contention and faction, but onely as [Page 47] lovers of the Truth, and the peace of the Church, which is now miserably divided in judgement and affections, and like a young Hart upon the mountains of Bether; which rents and distractions,Cam. 2. 17. Bether in Heb. is division. wee are so far from fomenting, that wee would willingly goe over divers Seas (as Calvin once said) to finde out one uni­forme way of worshipping of God, in which all Chri­stians might happily agree. We well know that peace is the Helena, Pocem Ecclesie Martyrio prae­ferim [...]. Cypr. Pax sine verita­te est execrabile adulterium. Cyp. that all are suiters unto; and wee know as well, that peace without truth is as a painted Ieza­bell, and to be thrown downe by all those who are on the Lords side. And therefore it hath and alwayes shall be our chiefe care and prayer, that peace and truth may kisse & greet each other: And we hope that the Worthies of that Honourable Assembly, who are the great Patrons of peace and truth, will give a candid interpretation to these our endeavours, and will doe that for which present and succeeding gene­rations may justly record them as the Nehemiah's, E­zrae's, and Zorobabels, of our decayed Ierusalem.

SECT. III.

THe businesse of the third Section, is to extricate himselfe from those snares, in which his owne words have entangled him: his affection to his cause, had transported him to use some over-reaching expressions, lifting up the Antiquitie, and extending the Universalitie of Episcopall Government beyond [Page 48] truth, vilifying (as wee know his custome is) vvhat­soever hath been spoken or vvritten to the contrary. Those things we laid to his charge; Now see how mi­serably he excuseth himself: read the Remonstrance, our c [...]llections from it in this Section, and judge whether he hath sufficiently redeemed his credit, who hath neither made any one ingenious confession of an o­versight, nor yet made good what he had spoken; yet hee enters with his wonted confidence, perswading himself he hath blown away all the arguments of the former Section, and lays on us unmercifully, calling us Cavellers, Leasers, Slanderers, Calumniators, worthy to be spit upon, &c. Such let us be esteemed, if we be found deserving.

His first care, and almost his greatest, is, to cleere himself from that which we spake of but by the way; His condemning all, that either writ or spoke against Episcopacy, as weak, or factious, The God of heaven knows this (saith hee) never came within the verge of my thoughts. Sir, wee cannot parly with your thoughts, but certainly if it were not in your thoughts, your words mistake their errand: For this propositi­on, Episcopacie is cryed downe abroad either by weake or factious persons, We beseech you, let your Logick (the want whereof you upbraid us vvith) tell us, quae, quan­ta, qualis; if any man should say it grieves his heart to heare, how the pure Protestant Religion is cryed downe abroad, by either weake or factious persons, would this have been interpreted to concerne onely such as cry downe the Protestant Religion here in England? Certainly, abroad not being limited, as it was not in your Remonstrance, though now you would [Page 49] limit it in your Defence, is a vvord of such vast extent, as reacheth not onely beyond the bounds of the Par­liament, but of the Kingdome too.

But see how justly you deale with us, where you personate us as saying,Pag. 35. Sure the man is not in his right wits, hear how he raves, sure hee is in a deep phrensie: vvho ever spake of the Remonstrant so contumeliously? It is language more like his, vvho sends men to darke rooms, and to Ellebore. Wee said indeed,Episc. by divine Right, part. 2. p. 6. the Remon­strant was self-confounded, and vvee know as vvell as you can tell us, there is a self-confusion that is the effect of extream sorrow, such a sorrow as makes men speak they knovv not vvhat; and so did this Remon­strant: some of vvhich expressions hee yet justifies, some he minces.

This he justifies, and saith,Pag. 35. hee ever will; that hee is no peaceable, nor wel-affected sonne of the Church of Eng­land, that doth not wish well to Liturgie and Episcopacie. What? tell us novv once for all, whither the Parlia­ment doe not here come under the verge of your Pro­position? Whom before you vvere so carefull to ex­empt by one vvord abroad. For this is vvell knowne, if all those of the Nobilitie, Gentrie, and Communaltie, that at this time stand not vvell affected to the present Liturgie, and Hierarchie, are to bee counted factious and ill affected, the Reverend Fathers will have multi­tudes of disobedient sons to disple.

In the next page, he endevours to make good vvhat he had spoken in the Remonstrance, that Episcopall go­vernment, by the joynt confession of all Reformed Divines, derived it selfe from the times of the Apo­stles (vvithout the contradiction of any one Con­gregation [Page 50] gregation in the Christian World) unto this present Age. His Defence is first, he said nothing of Diocesan Bi­shops (then as good have said nothing at all) but spake onely of Episcopall Government: But vvas it not that Sa­cred Government vvhich some seek to wound? Pag 36. Bishop Hall saith expresly in Episcopacie by divine right, p. 29. that Timothy was a Dioce­san Bishop, and Ephesus a Dio­cesan Church; it seems you dare [...]ot say so. and vvhat is that but Government by Diocesan Bishops? vvhich he must prove to derive it selfe from the Apostles times, or else eat his vvords. Nay, more then so, hee must prove that the joynt Confession of all Reformed Divines acknowledge it; and not think to put the Reader and us off, with telling us, no true Divines ever questioned, whe­ther Bishops were derived from the Apostles or no, but what kind of Bishops they were; Wee know what kinde of Bi­shops the Remonstrant pleads for, and of them he said, by the joynt confession of all Reformed Divines, they were derived from the Apostles: prove this, or acknowledge your errour. It is this kind of Bishops you must prove hath continued in the Christian World unto this age, without the contradiction of any one Congregation. We tell you of Scotland without Bishops: you would put us off with China and Brasile, &c. but are they parts of the Chri­stian World, as Scotland is? You never meant that every place through the whole World hath had a con­tinued line of Bishops ever since the Apostles, we thought you had; for we are sure it is the assertion of Episcopall men:Episc. div. Right 2 part. p. 113. else what is the meaning of Doctor Halls sem­per and ubique? and what is the meaning of that irre­fragable proposition? no man living, no History can shew any well allowed and setled Nationall Church in the whole Chri­stian World, that hath been governed otherwise then by Bi­shops, in a meet and moderate imparity, ever since the times of Christ and his Apostles, unto this present age. And what [Page 51] means that other expression?Episc. div. Right part. 2. p. 110, 111. Turne over all Histories, seeke the records of all times and places, if ever it can be shown, that any Orthodox Church in the whole Christian World, since the time of Christ, and his Apostles, was gover­ned otherwise then by a Bishop, Superiour to his Clergie (un­lesse perhaps during the time of some persecution, or short in­terregnum) Let me forfeit my part of the cause. The instan­ces brought to prove the falsnesse of that Assertion, that Episcopacie had never met with contradiction in any Christian Congregation, Pag. 39. The one hee turns off with the evasion of a personall quarrell; whereas the Histories tell us it was an ancient custome; and adds an odious Marginall ill becomming his so deeply protested loy­alty to his Sovereigne, Pag. 39. as if it were no lesse crime to offer an affront to a Prelate, then to the King. The o­ther instances of the Reformed Churches, he puts off with this shift; that if wee did not wilfully shut our eyes, we might see he limited his time unto this present age. Good Sir, bethink you, take up your Remonstrance, read your own words, Mark the Parenthesis. Episcopall Govern­ment derives it self from the times of the Apostles without any interruption (without the contradiction of any one Con­gregation in the Christian World) to this present age. The li­mitation of time here, hath reference to the continuance of Episcopacie, not the contradiction of Episcopacie, that's hedged in with your parenthesis, which excludes your limitation. Just such another is your next, having said, Episcopall Government continued in this Iland ever since the plantation of the Gospel, without contradiction; and being here taken in the manner, to salve your credit, you would here alter your words and sence, and make it, that it cannot be contradicted, Pag. 40. that the forme of this Govern­ment [Page 52] hath continued in the Island ever since the first planta­tion of the Gospel; pray review your words, and see how well they admit this sense. Were this Ordinance meerly humane, and Ecclesiasticall, if there could no more be said for it, but that it is exceeding ancient, of more then fifteen hundred yeares standing, and that it hath continued in this Island since the first Plantation of the Gospel, to this present day, without contradiction. You would make the sense to goe thus, this proposition is true without contradi­ction, that Episcopall Government hath continued in this Island: we say the sense must be thus, that this Government hath continued without contradiction, or hath received no contradiction, during all the time it hath continued, untill this present day.

If any impartiall Reader would not take the words in that sence we did, rather then in the sence you have drawn them to, let us be counted slanderers. But in ex­cusing the last mistake, he would be a little more seri­ous. The Remonstrant had said; Except all Histories, all Authors faile us, Pag. 41. nothing can be more certain then this truth. Wee cry out here of such a shamelesnesse, as dares equall this opinion of his of Episcopall Government, to an Article of our Creed. This he doth seriously deny, professing he spake it only as an ordinary phrase in hour­ly discourse; and did Hee so too, that in Episcopacie by divine Righ, Part. 2. pag. 47. faith, That for his part, hee is so confident of the divine institution of the Majoritie of Bishops above Presbyters, that hee dare boldly say, there are weighty points of Faith, which have not so strong evidence in Scripture. And the same Author in the same place pro­fesseth, that men may with much better colour cavill at those blessed Ordinances of God, viz. (consecration and distribution [Page 53] of the holy Eucharist, and baptizing of Infants) then quar­rell at the divine institution of Bishops. God give the man lesse confidence, or more truth: is not this to e­qualize this fancie to an Article of the Creed? Wee would not have cast away so much time and paper upon this worthlesse businesse, but onely to cleer our selves from that uncharitablenesse, falshood, lying, and slandring, wherewith the Remonstrant here bespatters us. It is in his power to save himselfe and us this un­gratefull labour, if hee will give lesse scope to his lu­xuriant pen, speak more cautiously, let his words be more in weight, and lesse in number.

SECT. IV.

IN the next Section,Pag. 42. the Remonstrant according to his Rhetorick, saith, Now I hope, they wil strike; it is a Trope, sperare pro timere. He had pleaded for the esta­blishment of Episcopacie, the long continuance of it in the world, and in this Island: this we called Argumentum ga­leatum, quoting Hierom for that Epithite, for which his great learning scoffs us. Well, wee must put it up; an argument, or if you will an Almanack, (for it is growing out of date apace) and calculated for the Meri­dian of Episcopacie, &c. meaning the argument, though applyed to Episcopacie, might serve for any other Right, Custome, Order, Religion, that might plead antiquity, which hee denies not, but plainly grants, saying, it is calculated for whatsoever Government; if so [Page 54] long time have given it peaceable possession; in so much, that could the Presbytery plead so long continuance, hee should never yield his vote to alter it. No, should not? to bring in that Episcopall Government which (saith the Remon­strant) hath such a divine institution, as not only warrants it, where it is, but requires it where it may be had. How can these things consist? Surely if your grounds for the Divine Right of Episcopacie be Convictive and Irre­fragable, you must renounce that Government which is meerly humane, and Ecclesiasticall, be the Antiqui­ty of it never so venerable, if it stand in Competition with that which may plead a jus divinnm.

To divert that which he saw would overthrow this plea, intitling the Pope to as much strength in this ar­gument as the Bishops, he will needs add this: That long continuance may challenge an immunity from thoughts of alteration, uulesse where the ground of the change is fully Con­victive and Irrefragable. But first, Sir, you must not make a limitation in your conclusion, above what was in your premises; but since you are at a dead lift, wee will take it in, and yet tell you, that this helps you no more, then the Pope still: if he may judge, hee will say there is no reason for his abolition: may others judge, the ground is fully Convictive and Irrefragable. The Bishops being Judges, and the Remonstrant, they de­termine; no reason in the world for the change of Episcopacie; but what if others that must be Judges in this controversie see grounds Irrefragable, and Convi­ctive: where's your argument from the long standing of Episcopacie? The other things which hee refers to their more proper place we shall expect there. Onely for his confident challenge he makes to us, to name any [Page 55] man in this Nation that hath contradicted Episcopacie till this present age: Pag. 45. We must put him in remembrance, that in his Remonstrance his words were unto this present day. Which unlesse hee will have recourse to his Trope, is more then this Age, if by this age hee mean this last Century: but let it be this age, we can produce instan­ces of some (and that long before this Age) in this Kingdome that have contradicted Episcopacie; and our instances shall not be mean.

That blessed man Wickliffe ages ago did judge there ought onely to be two Orders of Ministers,Catolog. Test. verit. Tom. 2. and who these be hee expresseth in the following words,Tantum duos ordines ministre­rum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Diaconos. viz. Presbyters and Deacons, if there be but two Orders of Ministers in the Church Presbyters and Deacons, then where is your Sacred Order of Episcopacie? And if Wickliffe deny the being of that Order, doth hee not contradict it? In the following page he saith, Pauli, &c. That in the time of Paul, two distinct Orders of Cler­gie men were sufficient, Priests and Deacons: Neither was there in the time of the Apostles any distinction of Popes, Pa­triarchs, Archbishops; it was enough that there were Pres­byters and Deacons.

So,Wals. Hist. Aug. Rich. 2. p. 205. there is one in this Nation, who before this age contradicts Episcopacie.

Of him also Walsingham saith, That this was one of Wickliffs errours, that every Priest rightly ordained, hath sufficient power to administer all Sacraments (and con­sequently Orders and Penance) for they were then esteemed Sacraments.

Consonant to this of Wickliffe, was the judgment of Iohn Lambert, Fox Martyre [...]. who in his answer to Articles objected against him saith, thus, As touching Priesthood in the [Page 56] Primitive Church; when vertue bare (as Ancient Doctors doe deem, and Scripture in mine opinion recordeth the same) most room, there were no more officers in the Churches of God then Bishops and Deacons, that it Ministers; as witnesses, besides Scripture, Hierome full apertly in his Commentaries upon the Epistles of Paul. Though these were but single men, yet they were Martyrs, therefore wee hope their words will beare some weight. Wee could tell you further that Richardus de media Valla in 4. Sent. Dist. 24. quaest. 2. Non ordo qui est Sacramentum, sed potius quae­dam ordinis dignitas Episcopatus dicendus est: Episcopa­cie is not to be called order, but a kind of a dignity of an order.Catal. Test. T. 2.

Guli. Occam Anno 1330 Quod Sacerdotes omnes cujus­cun (que) gradus existant, sunt aequalis autoritatis, potestatis, & jurisdictionis institutione Christi: sed Caesaris institutione Papam esse Superiorem, qui etiam potest hoc revocare. That all Priests of whatsoever degree they be, are of equall authority, power, and jurisdiction, by the institution of Christ: but by Caesars institution the Pope is the Superiour, who may also recall this.

We could tell you further of one Gualter Mapes, a man whom History records famous for Learning, who flourisht in the yeere 1210, that wrote many books: among the rest, one called A Complaint against Bishops. Silvest. Gi [...]ald. in specim. Eccles. li. 3. c. 1. & 14. Balcent. 3. c. 61. Another against the Pope and his Court. Another to the wicked Prelats. In which he cals the Pope Plutonem & Asinum, Prelats, Animalia bruta, & stercora: Whether this man did contradict Episcopa­cie or no? let themselves judge. But we are sure, if any man a few yeers agoe should have so written or spoken, it had been a crime next L [...]sae Majestatis: we [Page 57] could tell them of many more, but the Remonstrant desired but to name any one, we hope we shall indif­ferently well satisfie his desire, by that time we have mentioned one more, Robert Longland, a Scholer of Wickliffs, who put forth a Book in English, called the Ploughmans Dream, which ends thus,

If single instances will not serve the turn, wee can give instance of a combination of learned and godly men in Oxford; who being called in question before the King,Math. Paris. l. 4. Anno 960. and the Bishops of the Kingdome, were condemned to be stigmatized and banished the King­dome (the fatall punishment of the Adversaries of Episcopacie) for saying that the Church of Rome was the Whore of Babylon, the barren fig-tree that God had cursed, and for saying, non obediendum esse Papae & Episcopis, that neither Pope nor Bishops are to be obeyed.

If this be not enough, wee can produce the com­bination of the whole Kingdome, Anno 1537 (some­what above an age ago) out of a Book called, The in­stitution of a Christian Man, made by the whole Cler­gie in their Provinciall Synod, set forth by the autho­ritie of the Kings Majesty, and approved by the whole Parliament, and commanded to be preach't to the whole Kingdome, wherein speaking of the Sacrament of Orders, it is said expresly, that although the Fathers of the succeeding Church after the Apostles, institu­ted [Page 58] certain inferiour degrees of Ministery, yet the truth is,Quod in novo Testamento nul­la mentio facta est ullorum gra­duū, aut dist [...]ncti onum in Ordini­bus, sed tantum Diaconorum vel Ministrorum & Presbyterorū sive Episcoporū. that in the New Testament, there is no men­tion made of any other degrees or distinction in Or­ders, but onely of Deacons or Ministers, and Presby­ters or Bishops, and throughout the whole discourse makes Presbyters & Bishops the same: from whence it is evident, that in that age the whole Clergy knew not any difference made by the Scriptures between Pres­byters and Bishops, and by this time (we hope) you have more then one in this Kingdome, who have con­tradicted your Episcopacie before this age. And if we should expatiate beyond the bounds of this King­dome, wee might with ease produce, not onely testi­monies of Schoolmen but of others, who acknow­ledge but two Orders in the Ministery; but seeing you required onely home-born witnesses weell trou­ble you with no other: and intreat you to make much of them. Onely we shall intreat the Reader to view, to his abundant satisfaction, Doctor Reinolds his Epi­stle to Sir Francis Knowls, who shews out of Chrysostome Hierom, Ambrose, Augustine, Theod. Primasius, Sedulius, Theophilact, that Bishops and Presbyters are all one in Scripture, and that Aerius could be no more justly condemned for heresie, for holding Bishops and Pres­byters to be all one, then all those Fathers with whom agree (saith he) Oecumenius, and Anselme Arch­bishop of Canterbury, and another Anselme, and Gregory, and Gratian: and affirms, that it was once enrolled in the Canon Law for sound and Catholike doctrine, and thereupon taught by learned men, he adds further that it is unlikely that Anselme should have beene Ca­nonized for a Saint by the Pope of Rome, and the o­ther [Page 59] Anselme and Gregory so esteemed in the Popes Library, that Gratians Works should be allowed so long time by so many Popes for the golden fountain of the Canon law, if they had taught that for sound doctrine, which by the whole Church in her most flourishing time was condemned for heresie, and concludes that they who have laboured about the Reformation of the Church, these five hundred yeeres (of whom he names abundance) have taught that all Pastors be they intitulated Bishops or Priests have equall authority and power by the Word of God, and by this the Reader may know Doctor Rei­nolds his judgment concerning Episcopacie.

There is one thing more belongs to this Section, as to the proper seat, and that is the establishment which he seeks to Episcopacie frō the laws of the Kingdom, to which we having answered, that Laws are repeala­ble, the Parliament having a Nomotheticall power, He answers though laws are repealable, Pag. 46. yet fundamentall laws are not subject to alteration upon personall abuses: Se­condly, that he speaks not against an impossibility, but an easinesse of change, which our guiltinesse would willingly o­verlook.

But consider, we beseech you, how fitly is Episcopal Government made a piece of the fundamentall Laws of the Kingdome? How did the Kingdome then once stand without Bishops, as in the very page, you had now to answer, you might have seen once it did? For doth not the Marginall tell you from Sir Edward Coke, or rather from an Act reported by him in the 23 yeere of Edward the first, that the holy Church was founded in the state of Prelacie, within the Realme of England, by the [Page 60] King and his progenitors, which your guiltinesse will needs overlooke, for feare you should see that there was a King of this Realme of England, before there was a Prelacie. And how then is Episcopacie one of the fundamentals of the Kingdome? And whereas you say you spake onely against an easinesse of change, read your words in the eighteenth page of your Re­monstrance, A man would thinke it were plea enough to challenge a reverend respect, and an immunitie from all thoughts of alteration: is this to speake against an easi­nesse, or rather against a possibility of change? For your conclusion, that things indifferent or good, having by continuance and generall approbation beene well rooted in Church and State, may not upon light grounds be pulled up, Good Sir, never trouble your selfe about such an in­different thing, as Episcopacie is. Never feare, but if Episcopacie be rooted up, it will be done by such hands as will not doe it upon light grounds.

SECT. V.

THey that would defend the Divine right of E­piscopacie, derive the pedigree of it from no lesse then Apostolicall, and in that right, divine institution; so did this Remonstrant. This we laboured in this Se­ction to disprove, and shew, that it might be said of our Bishops, as of those men, Ezra 62. These men sought their Register among those that were reckoned by Genealogie, but they were not found: therefore were they as polluted put [Page 61] from the Priestho [...]d. For the Bishops, whose pedigree is derived from the Apostles, were no others then Presbyters: this we evinced by foure mediums out of Scripture, but insisted onely upon two, the identitie of their name and office.

Before wee come to the Remonstrants answer, wee will minde the Reader of what the Remonstrant saith, That we have a better faculty at gathering then at strewing: Pag. 128. which if we have, we shall here make good use of our faculty, in gathering the choice flowers which himself hath scattered; yielding unto us the mayn Scripture grounds whereby the Patrons of Episcopacie have endevoured to uphold their cause. For himselfe confesseth the Bishops cause to be bad, if it stand not by divine Right, and compares the leaving of divine right,Pag. 125. and supporting themselves by the in­dulgence and munificence of religious Princes, The Author of Episc. by divine Right, affirmes the same part 2. pag. 49. unto the evill condition of such men, who when God hath withdrawn himselfe, make flesh their arme. And whether himselfe hath not surrendred up this di­vine right, judge by that which followeth. Our main argument was, That Bishops and Presbyters in the originall authority of Scripture were the same. Hee answers in the name of himselfe and his Party,Pag. 47. This is in expresse terms granted by us. We argue it further, That we never find in Scripture any other orders of Mini­stery but Bishops and Deacons. He answers, Brethren, you might have spared to tell mee that which I have told you before, And adds, That when wee alleage the Apostles writings, for the identity of Bishops and Presbyt [...]rs, we oppose not his assertion, Pag 47. 48. because he speaks of the monu­ments of immediate succession to the Apostolike times, but [Page 62] we of the writing of the Apostles. And for the two o­ther arguments drawn from the identitie of the quali­fications of Bishops and Presbyters for their Office, and Ordination to their office, hee answers Ne [...] quidem. And yet notwithstanding, that the Reader may not perceive how the Remonstrant betrayes his own cause, he deals like the fish Sepia, and casteth out a great deal of black inke before the eyes of the Rea­der, that so hee may escape without observation. But wee will trace him and finde him out, where hee thinks himselfe most secure. For first, he falsly quotes our answer. Whereas wee say, That in originall au­thority Bishops & Presbyters are the same, he tels us, we say, That Bishops and Presbyters went originally for the same, That is, saith he, There was at first a plain indentity in their denomination. Which two answers differ, Im­mane quantum! And yet howsoever this very identity of denomination in Scripture is of no small conse­quence, what ever the Remonstrant makes of it.

For the proper ends of Names being to distinguish things, according to the difference of their natures, and the supream wisdome of God being the impo­ser of these names, who could neither be ignorant of the nature of these offices, nor mistake the proper end of the imposition of names, nor want variety to expresse himselfe, the argument taken from the constant identity of denomination, is not so contemptible as the Remonstrant pretends. Espe­cially considering that all the texts brought to prove the identity of names prove as intrinsecally, the identity of Offices, which we did cleerly manifest, by that text, Titus 1. 5, 6, 7. Where the Apostle requiring [Page 63] Presbyters to be thus and thus qualified, renders the reason, because Bishops must be so. Which argument would no ways evince what the Apostle intended, if there were onely an idenditie of names, and not also of offices and qualifications When the names are the same, and the Offices distinct, who but one that cares not what hee affirmes, would infer the same offices as a consequent from the identity of their names? Who would say that the properties of the Constellati­on called Canis ought to be the same with the bruit creature so called, because they have both one name? And this we desire the Reader to take the more no­tice of, because the Remonstrant passeth it over in si­lence.

Secondly, the Remonstrant seemes to recant that which he had before granted, &Pag. 48. tels us that though in the Apostolike Epistles there be no nominal distinction of the titles, yet here is a reall distinction and specification of the duties, as we shall see in due place. But this place is in Vtopia, and wee shall finde it paulò post finem, for wee finde it no where in this book; but we hope in due place faithful­ly to performe the contrary to what hee hath delu­dingly promised, and also to shew how these words of his doe contradict what himselfe saith in other places of his book.

The testimonies brought out of antiquities, to shew that the names of Bishops and Presbyters were used [...], hee calls trifling, and challengeth us to name any one of his Writers that hath stood up in the cause of Epi­scopacy that hath not granted and proclaimed this which we contend for. Wee answer first, the better is our cause, when our adversaries are forced to grant us thus much.

[Page 64] Secondly, the Authours we alleage, doe as well hold the offices of Bishops and Presbyters, to be used in Scripture [...], as well as the names.

Thirdly, though we cannot name the man, yet hee who names himselfe the humble Remonstrant, in the 96 page of his Defence, doth impropriate the name [...], Acts 20. to Bishops in an imparity distinct from meere Presbyters, saying, If they were indeed Bi­shops, and not mere Presbyters as the word it selfe imports, &c. And wee thinke you should know the name of this man.

We mentioned Anicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, under the denomination of Presbyters. Pag. 48. You Answer we could not have brought a stronger argument against our selves. Why? They are called Presbyters as well as Bishops. Ergo, the names are used indifferently. Doth it not fully prove as much as we intended?Pag. 49. But they are famously known (say you) to have been in a height of ele­vation above Presbyters.

It is yet to be proved they were so: yet how ever, no such elevation as did advance them into an order above Presbyterie.

For Irenaeus speaking of the Successors to the Apostles saith,Irenaeus lib 4. cap. 44. Cum Prebyterio ordine sermonem sanum & conversa­tionem sine offensâ praestant, ad informationem & correctio­nem reliquorum, And our Remonstrant granting an iden­titie of names, and yet thinking to maintain a distincti­on of offices out of Irenaeus, comes neerer to the sence of the Popish Commentator Feuardentius, then of the orthodox Father Irenaeus. Pag. 49.

To Cyprian whom the Presbyters called frater, Hee replyes that though the Presbyters were so familiar with him [Page 65] as to call him brother, yet he did never so condiscend to them as to call them Bishops, but stifly maintains the eminencie of his superiority, and is sometimes honour [...]dutth the st [...]le of Beatissimus Papa. To all which wee answer, first, that as the Presbyters call Cyprian brother, so he cals them Brethren, Colleagues, Fellow-Presbyters, &c. And Augu­stine a Bishop, writing to Hierom a Presbyter, disdains not to write in this style, Domino dilectissimo, & Ep. 19. in Chri­sti vesceribus honorando, sancto fratri & Compresbytero Hie­ronymo. So to Praesidius, Domino beatissimo & merito ve­nerando fratri Consacerdoti Praesidio: Ep. 16. Yet was Praesidius but a Deacon as Hierome saith. For Cyprians maintai­ning his Superiority stifly, wee are sure he never main­tained it so stifly as this Remonstrant Answ. p 38. and our Bishops doe: for he (as we fully shewed in our Answer) never maintained any sole superiour power, but disclaimed it wholly, yet this is the thing our Bishops contend for, as you may read, Episcopacie by Divine Right, part. 2 pag. 16.

As for the glorious Title of Beatissimus Papa Cyprianus, we tell you, in that age, it was a title com­mon to Presbyters as well as Bishops, as appeares ex Bibliotheca Patrum, Primum, singulos habent Papas, Bibl. Pat. T [...]m. 15 [...]. 170 de Gcrae [...]o [...] rat [...]r Litur­gica. sic enim vocant Presbyteros vel Curiones, in singulis Parochiis, cum uno Diacono. It is therefore but a meere false supposi­tion of the Remonstrant, that the title Papa was ne­ver given to a meer Presbyter. And we hope the name Papa is as great, and Rome will say as incommunica­ble, as the Remonstrant would make the name Episco­pus, Pag. 49. out of Cyprian.

In the next Paragraph, the Remonstrant leaving the indentity of names, addresseth himself to the great que­stion [Page 66] about the distinction of the Offices of Bishops and Presbyters. And here we demanded, and now demand againe, What these men, that maintaine the office of a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter, make the Bishops proper office? Is it to edifie the Church by Word and Sacraments, &c.Pag. 49. Here saith the Remon­strant, They fall somewhat unhappily upon the very words of the branded Heretike Aerius. So said S [...]via of Hierom be­fore. Good Reader, compare the expressions, and see whether they be the very words: but had we faln upon the very words, how can that man that hath said so often, the Liturgie is never the worse,Pag. 24. because the words of it are taken out of the Roman Portuise, tr [...]duce either our persons or cause, for fal­ling unhappily upon the words of Aerius? But it seems he is very willing to take all advantages, to in­volve us in the crime of Heresie; For in this, and se­verall other passages, hee chargeth us with being the Disciples of that frantick Heretike Aerius, which makes us almost suspect, that great deserving Cham­pion of Episcopacy,Fran. Sancta Clara. Franciscus à Sancta Clara, had a hand in this Remonstrance, who hath driven the Di­vine right of Episcopacie so high,Apol. Epis. pag. 67. 68. as to charge all with heresie that deny it.

But how ever, the Remonstrant should have done well, to have given better satisfaction to our tenth Quere concerning Aerius, and taken away what wee spake, before hee cry out against him as a stigmatized Heretike. But if hee scorn to answer us, we would in­treat him to lend Bellarmine a lift in answering the fa­mous Doctor Whitakers, Whit. Contr. a [...] Quaest. 5. Who sayes, I answer, Aerius was not accounted by all for an heretike: Epiphanius indeed, and Augustine following him, reckon him among the here­tikes, [Page 67] but if he held nothing besides those things, he was not an heretike, for the Scriptures and Fathers themselves confirme all these: and Theodoret in his booke of the Fables of the Jews, doth not ranke him among heretikes, nor the Ecclesia­stical history, but rather Eustathius that did oppose him, &c.

If your greatnesse will not stoop to answer a single Doctor, we will subjoyn a second, Learned Doctour Willet Contr. Gen. 5. Quaest. 3. and a third, Chemnitius in Exam. Concil. Trid. parte 4. de Orig. Iejunii, and a fourth, Springlius de hodiernis haeresibus part. 1. l. 3. c. 2. which have spoken as fully in the justification of Aerius his opinion, as ever your answerers did.

But what saith the Remonstrant to this Aerian que­stion? Brethren, God speed you with your question. Sir, if you speak this cordially, and seriously, wee are glad of your ingenuity,2 Iohn 10. 11. that though you have called us Here­tikes, yet our heresie is not so damnable, but you dare bestow an Ave upon us. But if you speak this scoffing­ly, as we are verify affraid you do, then we beseech you in the feare of God, consider how you will answer this taking of Gods Name in vain, before that great tribunall, to which you make such bold appeals.

The office wee distributed into administring, Word and Sacraments, Orders and Discipline. For the first, administring the Word and Sacraments, Pag. 50. this the Remon­strant grants in common to Bishops and Presbyters without any difference but what our distance makes: Which ex­ception wee understand not, unlesse your meaning be that Bishops may preach as often, and as seldome as they please: and wee must preach no oftner then they give us leave.

The quarrell as he makes it (we called it controversie) [Page 68] lies especially in the power of Ordination and Iurisdi­ction; which say wee by divine Authoritie is common to all Presbyters, which yet our Bishops have impro­priated to themselves. To prove that the power of Ordination was in the hands of Presbyters, wee pro­duced the 1 Tim. 4. 14. to this he answers nothing of his own: onely tels us in an Hyperbole, it hath received answer, [...], and he gives but one, and that bor­rowed too from Calvine, who takes Presbyterium of the office, not of the persons.Pag. 51. Wherein saith the Re­monstrant he follows the judgment of Hierome, Primasius, Anselme, Haymo, Lyranus, Erasmus, and others, as Bishop Downham hath shewed. Wee doe believe that this is borrowed of Bishop Downham, for had he con­sulted with those Authours, hee might easily have seen how little they favour that exposition. For what saith Hierome, whom Primasius follows in his very words? Prophetiae gratiam habebat cum ordinatione Epis­copatus. Doth this prove that Presbyterium is there the name of the office? If so? You must grant Episcopa­cie and Presbyterie to be the same office, which is the verie question. But wee would faine know, why cum ordinatione Presbyterii or Episcopatus should bee under­stood rather of the office, then of the person: when, (in proprietie of phrase) if they had meant it of the office they would rather have said ordinatio ad Episco­patum, then Episcopatus. For Anselme, what saith hee? Impositionem manuum eam dicit, quae in ordinatione ejus fa­cta est, quae manuum impositio fuit presbyterii, quia per hanc impositionem accepit presbyterium, id est, Episcopatum, vel haec impositio manuum fuit presbyterii, qui Latinis dicitur Senior, quia ipse Apostolus, qui juxta hunc sensum presby­ter [Page 69] intelligitur, imposuit manus suas cap [...] ejus dum illum consecraret Episcopum. The comment is a sufficient con­futation of it selfe, for the first exposition wracks the text with a violent and unusuall hyperba [...]on. And there­fore hee recedes from that, and falls upon a second, Presbyterii qui dicitur Senior, quia Apostolus ipse, &c.

Now what an unlikely exposition is this? What Authour can these followers of Anselme produce, wherein Presbyterium is called Senior. For those other, Lira, Haymo, and Erasmus, we will oppose to them the Fathers of the Greek Church, who are likely to know best the genuine sence of the Greek Text.

The same Doctor Do [...]nham (from whom the de­fendant hath borrowed these interpretations) tels him that Chrysostome, Theodoret, and other Greek Fathers understand it of the persons, and not of the office.

As for learned Calvin, in his Institutions we grant he understands it of the office, yet in his Comments (wherein wee may more justly expect the full sense of the Text) he compares these two interpretations to­gether, and let any Reader judge, which he prefers, Presbyterium qui hic Collect [...]vum Nomen esse putant pro Collegio Presbyterorum posi [...]um, RECTE SEN­TIUNT MEO JUDICIO: Tametsi omnibus expensis, diversum sensum non malè quadrare fateor, ut sit nomen officii, Ceremoniam pro ipso actu ordinationis posuit. Itaque sensus, Timotheum cum prophetarum voce ascitus fuit in Ministerium, & deinde solemni ritu ordinatut, simul gratiâ Spiritus Sancti instructum fuisse ad functionem suam exequendam. Now which sence doth Calvin preferre? Of that which we give, hee speaks positively, Recte sentiunt. Of the other, he onely saith, Non malè quadrat.

[Page 70] And that this Text must needs be understood of the persons ordaining, and not of the office Timothy was ordained too, will appeare by these reasons.

For first, it cannot stand with the signification of the word [...]: The office or digni­tie (as le [...]rned Criticks observe) is rather called [...] then [...]. Nor can it well stand with the sence and construction of the words [...] What shall it be governed of? Would not any Gram­marian refer it to [...], immediatly preceding, rather then to the word [...], from which it is so farre dis-joyned. The words in the Greek lye thus. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by proph [...]cie and the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Now according to the sence the Re­monstrant strives for, it is thus. Neglect not the gift of the office of the Presbytery, which was given thee by the laying on of hands. Bishop Downham himselfe, without the bold foysting in (to use the Remonstrants words) of a Parenthesis into the Text, cannot make this interpre­tation good.

We thought we had sufficiently proved this inter­pretation in our answer, by producing all the Texts in the new Testament, in which the word [...] is used, and shewing that in them it signifies the per­sons, and not the office, and severall Texts out of Hie­rom, Ignatius, & Concil. Ancyr. to the same purpose. The Fathers and Councels hee is willing to passe by in si­lence. The Scripture hee pecks at, and tels us wee doe meerly delude the Reader; Pag. 51. For there it is meant of Elders of the people not of the Church Good Sir, do not you delude your self, & your reader too out of a desire to traduce [Page 71] us. Be they Elders of the people or of the Church, it is sufficient to prove that [...] signifies not the office of Presbyterie, but the persons in that office. And this also may answer that objection, which he makes from the 2 Tim. 1. 6. For though we grant indeed Ma­ster Calvin was more skilled in the harmony then our selves, (the Remonstrant might have let it passe so with­out putting it among his Errata, turning it to them­selves) yet wee must crave leave herein to dissent from Master Calvin, as well as Beza, Cameron, Chameir, and others since him have done before us.

And let not the Remonstrant call it boldnes in us, to say that power of Ordination is communicated to Pres­byters, because Hierome and Concil. Aquisgr. still ex­cept Ordination, we must rather marvell at his bold­nesse in putting that upon us which we spake not: wee say indeed, pag. 24. of our answer, it was in the hands of Presbyters. The Remonstrant would have us say Communicated to Presbyters, that wee might seeme to acknowledge the power of Ordination to be origi­nally in Bishops, and in Presbyters onely by derivati­on from them, which we never meant; and if we ever did use the word Communicated, it was onely to note a Community in that power, not a derivation of it: as for his authors which he alleages for sole Ordination, let the Reader please to view our answer, pag. 37. 38. wherein hee may receive full satisfaction, and the ra­ther because the Remonstrant passeth over it. The third part of that office which the Bishops call theirs, is ruling. To prove this to belong to Presbyters as well as Bishops, we cite Heb. 13. 17. Here the Remon­strant cryes out, Oh injurious imputation! do wee not give [Page 72] you the title of Rectores Ecclesiarum? And doe we not com­mit to you regimen Animarum? Pag. 53. So then you grant this place is rightly both interpreted and applied; but you give us, say you, the title of rectores Animarum, & regi­men Animarum. You give us? No,This Text is brought by a late Writer for Episcopacy, to prove that as yet there were no bishops o­ver Presbyters in the Church of the A­postles, And for this pur­pose he brings Hirome upon the same text, affirming the same thing. it is the Scripture gives it us: yet you would assume it to your selves, and perswad, that as the Pope communicates to his Bishops partem solicitudinis, so you to us Presbyters: but if the Scriptures gave us no more then you do, it would prove [...]. You make your selves the sole Pastors, us but the Curates; your selves, Chancellours, Officials, the sole Iudges, us but the executioners of your and their sentences, whether just or unjust.

The other Text 1 Thes. 5. 12. and those four things observed from thence for the confirming of this as­sertion, the Remonstrant passeth over: so hee doth our argument which was this, They which have the same name, the same Ordination to their office, the same quali­fication for their office, the same work, to feed the flock of God, to ordain Pastors and Elders, to rule and go­verne, they are one and the same. But such are Bishops and Presbyters, ergo. And thus deals hee also with the two quotations, the one of the Councell of Aquisgra. the other out of the writing of Smalcald; all which being to hard for the Remonstrant to e­vade, hee leaps over to a conclusion of such strange things, as hee never went about to prove in his Secti­on.

SECT. VI.

HAving from Scripture manifested the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters in their originall insti­tution; we applied our selves in this section to finde out the authors and occasion of this imparity which now appeares between them.

To expedite our selves from needlesse controver­sies, we laid downe three particulars, as consented to by both sides: First, that the first and best antiquity used the names of Bishops and Presbyters promiscu­ously; this the Remonstrant subscribes to. Secondly, that in processe of time some one was honoured with the name of Bishop, the rest were called Presbyters:Page 55. this the Remonstrant quarrels, and desires to know what was this processe of time, chargeth us either with error or fraud, confidently defends this time had no processe at all, but was in the very [...] of the living Apostles, and under­takes to make this good in the sequell. And how he doth that, you shall find in this very section page 59. where to that of Hierom, The Presbyters governed the Church by their common Councel, he answers, So they did doubtlesse altogether, till Episcopacy was setled, who dare deny it?

Here the Remonstrant grants a processe of time be­tweene the planting of the Church by the Apostles, and the setling of Episcopacy in the Churches Shall we say now this is the Remonstrants either errour or fraud, not to set downe how long it was before Epis­copacy was setled in the Church? let him take heed another time how he charge men with error or fraud, [Page 74] for affirming that which himselfe cannot but give his Suffrage to.

The third thing agreed upon was, that this was not nomen inane, an idle title, but attended upon with some kind of imparity: the question was digested into these tearmes. Whether the impropriation of the name, and the imparity of the place and power of a Bishop be of divine right? The Remonstrant for feare of mistaking, desires to explicate the tearmes of the question, and therefore tels, how fetching the pedegree of Episcopacy from A­postolicall (and therefore in that right divine institution,) he interprets himselfe to understand by divine right, not any expresse Law of God, Page 55. requiring it as of absolute ne­cessity to the being of a Church, but an institution of the A­postles inspired by the holy Ghost, warranting it where it is, and requiring it where it may be had; but, Nihil infelicius Retorico definiente: the Remonstrant if he would avoyd mistaking, or at least would not say that he was mistaken, should have dealt a little more clearely and punctually in the stateing of the Question.

For first he tels us, that it is an institution of the Apo­stles inspired by the Holy ghost: Def. p. 56. if the Remonstrant be not here mistaken why doth he page 47. in expresse terms grant us, that in originall authority of Scripture, Bishops and Presbyters were originally the same. For so were our words, not as the Remonstrant reports them, went for the same: and why againe, when we tell him we never finde in Scripture these three orders, Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons (we say not the names, but orders) why doth he grant that in the same page, and flie from the wri­tings of the Apostles to the monuments of their imme­diate successers? can we imagine that the Apostles did [Page 75] by inspiration from the holy Ghost, ordaine any thing in the Church of God as of perpetuall use; the record where of is not found in sacred Scripture, which was given by the same inspiration to the same men; if we may imagine it, sure we cannot beleeve it. And if it be an institution of the Apostles inspired by the holy Ghost, why must it be distinguished from the expresse law of God? doth he make it but an evangelicall counsell; not requiring it as necessary to the being of a Church; sure this is some opinion of a newer cut; for the last defendant of Episcopacy before this Remon­strant saies thus,Episcop. by di­vine right, part 2. p. 91. The power of Ordination hath beene ever held so intrinsecall to Episcopacy, that I would faine see, where it can be shewed that any extremity of necessity was ever acknowledged a warrant sufficient for others to or­daine. So that in his judgement, where there is no Bi­shop, there can be no lawfull ordination, let it be in the case of extreamest necessity; and where no ordina­tion, no ministery, and so consequently no Word and Sacraments, and no Church: and how then in the judgement of these men is Episcopacy not required to the being of a Church?

And if not requiring it to the being of a Church, how then? requiring it onely where it may be had: what a strange limitation is this? where is it that Episcopacy may not, must not be had, if it be an ordinance of Christ? where is it that the Churches of Christ may not have Word, Sacraments, Pastors and Bishops too, if they be his ordinance? It is true indeed, some there are that cannot have Lord Bishops, pompous Bishops, and once a Canon provides that they should not be in little Villages,Can. Sardic. can. 6. Ne vilesceret honos Episcopatus: but these [Page 76] himselfe acknowledgeth, are but the accessaries of Epis­copacy by the donations of Magnificent Princes. But what is the meaning of this, where it may be had? what doth he meane, where it may be had with the favour of the Prince? then the Primitive Church had never had any. Or where it may be had with the willing subje­ction of the people? then Episcopacy shall be an or­dinance, if the people will have it so. Where it may be had; what? with quiet and conveniency? then you make that which you call an ordinance of God sub­ject to mans convenience. Or what? with possibility? requiring that where Episcopacy may be had possibly, it should? what's this lesse than a command? yet saith the Remonstrant, here is no expresse law of God re­quiring it. Now we pray you review your worke, and see how well you have stated the question.

To prove that Episcopacy was not a divine, but a humane institution; we produced out of antiquity some places, that mention the occasion and authors of Episcopall imparity, which are not (as the Remon­strant absurdly) the onely countenance of our cause.

Our first was, that knowne text of Hiereme in the 1. Titus, Page 56. out of which we collected five things, which the Remonstrant summes up thus: First, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are originally one. Secondly, that the imparity was grounded upon Ecclesiasticall custome. That before this priority, the Church was governed by the common Councell of Presbyters, and that Bishops ought still so to governe. And lastly, that the occasion of this imparity was the division, which through the divels instinct fell among Christians: this the Remonstrant cals the summe of our collection. But if his Arithmeticke be no honester then thus, he shall [Page 77] summe no summes for us; for he leaves out one Col­lection which is indeed principally considerable, That this was not Hieromes owne opinion, but the opinion of the scriptures. This would have stopt the mouth of his satis imperitè. Wel what saies the Remonstrant?Beliar. de Script. Eccles. You look now that I should tell you the booke is of uncertaine credit. No indeed sir, we looked for no such matter; because we know that booke is approved by men both of as great learning and of as little affection to Hieromes opinion as the Remonstrant is, though his lesser commentaries on the epistles be questioned. Or else you look, that I should tell you Hierome was a Presbyter, and not without some touch of envy to that higher dignity which he missed. True­ly sir, this we looked for, and the rather because Doct. Hall in his Episcopacy by Divine right, part 2. page 122. saith, that as he was naturally a waspish, & a hot good man, so being now vexed with some crosse proceedings, as he thought, with Iohn of Ierusalem, he flew out, &c. but what a slender answer is this; Hierome was a Presbyter, what then? Hierome saith nothing here, but what he saith from Scripture; and is Scripture the lesse Scripture because produced by a Presbyter? Hierome was a Pres­byter, and pleads for his owne order; doth that make his argument the lesse creditable? the author of Epis­copacy by Divine right was a Bishop; is it sufficient con­futation of that booke to say hee was a Bishop that made it, he must plead for his own honour and order? Or you looke, say you, that I should tell you that wiser men then your selves have censured him in this point of Arria­nisme. No indeed, for feare you should thereby com­fort us against the same censure past so often upon our selves. If Hierome suffer under the name of [Page 78] Aerian, no wonder we doe: but if wisermen than we have condemned him for Aerianisme, wiser men then the Remonstant have quitted him of that crime.

But the Remonstrant thinkes to decline these com­mon waies, and set Hierome to answer Hierome; which yet is no more then Bellarmine did before him; and and puts us in mind that the same father passes a satis imperitè upon the same opinion in the Bishop of Hie­rusalem; but a satis imperitè doth not condemne the opinion, but the man; for it may be truth which a man speakes, though he speakes it imperitè: yet to make sure worke the Remonstrant will set Hierome to answer himselfe: Page 57. what saith Hierome? at first saith he, Bi­shops and Presbyters had but one title: No, Hierome said not so, nor did we. Idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus: How doth the Remonstrant construe this? Is this in English, a Bishop and a Presbyter is the same: or is it, at first Bishops and Presbyters had but one title? with what face can the Remonstrant charge us with infi­delity in quotation and mis-englishing, who useth no more fidelity himselfe? that which Hierome speakes of the office, he would restraine to the title; that which Hierome speakes in the present tense, as true in all the moments and fluxes of time, he would remit to the time past; They had but one title; This the Remonstrant passeth from, and slips from their Identity to their imparity; inquiring the time and occasion of that, and will needs force Hierome here to confesse Bishops in the Apostles daies: because then they began to say, I am of Paul, &c. but will take no notice at all of what our answer spake for the removing of this inference, unlesse it be to slight it, as a poore shift: nor will take notice of that [Page 79] which Hierome himselfe speakes. Haec propterea ut often­deremus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos & Episcopos: paulatim verò ut dissentionum plantaria evelle­rentur, ad unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam: inti­mating that Episcopacy was not presently invented as a cure of schisme, but paulatim: so that should it be granted, that the schismes spoken of here were those in the Apostles daies, yet it doth not follow, that Epis­copacy should be coaetaneous to these schismes, be­cause Hierome saith, Paulatim ad unum omnem solicitudi­nem esse delatam. Let the Remonstrant now aske Hie­rome, not us; why the remedy should be so late after the disease? and here we desire the reader to observe that the Remonstrant doth meerely abuse him in tel­ling him that Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians taxeth the continuance of the distractions raised in the A­postles daies: Def. 58. when it is apparent that Clement speakes of a new schisme different from that Paul speakes of, raised against ther Presbyters, and the former schisme mentioned in the Scripture was onely among the people. As for those Bishops whom Hierome names as made by the Apostles, at present we say no more, but this: Hierome, as a Divine saith, Bishops and Presbyters are the same; and to prove this produceth Scripture: but Hierome speaking as an Historian, mentions Bishops made by the Apostles, and brings no Scripture for the proofe of that, but onely the testimony of Eusebius his history, who alone had writ before him of that sub­ject: Now let the Christian Reader judge whether more credit be to be given to Hierome as an Historian quoting humane History,Ierom de Scrip­toribus Eccles. or to Hierome as a Divine quoting Scriptures. And yet what can be brought to [Page 80] prove that those Bishops were not the same with Presbyters?

For the diabolicall occasion of bringing in Episco­pacy into the Church: if there be any fault in the phrase, it is Hieromes, not ours: therefore the weaknes and absurdity is slung in the face of that waspish, hot good man Hierome, not in ours.

The institution of Episcopacy, Hierome saith, was rather by the custome of the Church then by the truth of the Lords disposition; to avoyd the stroke of which, the Remonstrant would faine perswade Hierome to owne that, which in the judgement of Belarm. Spalato, and almost as many as have writ before the Remonstrant, never entered into his thoughts; nor can be the pro­per meaning of his words; That by the custome of the Church, the father meanes the Church Apostolique, and by the Lords disposition, Christs immediate institution.

This were to make Hierome of their mind. How well this may be done, let their sworne friend Spalato give his verdict. Sunt qui Hieronymum in rect am senten­tiam vel invitum velint trahere; one of these must this Remonstrant be.

As for that passage of Hierome ad Euagrium, where he saies,Page 59. this superiority of Bishops above Presbyters is by Apostolicall tradition, Hierome in that Epistle sharpens his reproofe against some Deacons, that would equal­lize themselves to Presbyters; an opinion which the Remonstrant thinks more reasonable, then that Pres­byters should be equall to Bishops:In his defence, p. 125. to make this re­proofe the stronger he saith, Presbyteris ad est, Episcopis [...] and a little after, he doth out of the Scripture most manifestly prove eundem esse Presbyterum at que Episco­pum: [Page 81] and carries this proofe by Paul, by Peter, and by Iohn the longest surviver of the Apostles: then adde, quod autem postea unus electus qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum. The reason why afterwards one was elected, and set over the rest was the cure of schisme. It is hard to conceive how this imparity can be properly called an Apostolicall tradition when Hierome having mentioned Iohn the last of the Apo­stles, saith it was postea afterwards that one was set over the rest, yet should we grant it an Apostolicall tradi­tion in Hieromes sense, it would be no prejudice to our cause, seeing with him Apostolicall tradition and Eccle­siasticall custome are the same; witnesse that instance of the observation of Lent, which he writing ad Marcel­lum saith, is Apostolica traditio; yet writing adversus Luciferianos, faith it is Ecclesiae consuetudo; whereby it fully appeares that Hierome by Apostolicall tradition meant not an Apostlicall institution, but an ecclesia­sticall custome, and so much we granted Episcopacie to have.

Hierome saith toto orbe decretum est, and it was decreed all the world over (say you) in the time of the first divisions. Hierome said not so (say we) but after these divisions, not in the time of these first divisions. Is this faithfull translating? By what power, say you, besides Apostolicall could it be decreed so soone and so universally? But how if it were decreed neither soone nor universally? If we may believe Hierome, it was neither soone nor at once; but paulatim by little and little, not by Apostoli­call decree, but by the custome of the Church.

Hierome saith, the Presbyters governed the Church by their Canon Councell. So they did, saith the Remon­strant, [Page 82] altogether till Episcopacy was setled, who dare deny it? sure hee dares deny it, who in the 55. page of his defence, chargeth us with errour and fraud, for saying that though at first the name and office of a Bishop and Pres­byter was the same, yet in processe of time some one was ho­noured with the name of Bishop; and confidently defends that this time had no processe, but was the very [...] of the living Apostles: but how his [...] there without any processe of time, can stand with his donec here [...], and with Hieromes paulatim, postquam, postea, let him see to that. Hierome saith they ought so to governe still: so (saith the Remonstrant) say we also, Page 59. and so in some cases they do. Good sir, and why not in all cases? Church government, you say, is Aristocraticall. True, when it is in the hands of the best men, then it is [...]. But when the men in whose hands the government of the Church is, are bad; then it is [...], or Kakistocraticall. But our present Church government is not Aristocra­ticall, but Monarchicall: because not onely one Bishop Lords it over his Diocesse, but also one Primate ap­points to all other Bishops. Besides, if it were Aristocraticall, then ought every Minister to be a mem­ber of that Aristocracy; for certainely no man will account the Minister de plebe: in the judgement not onely of the ancient Fathers, but of reason it selfe, none can be accounted plebs but the Laicks; seing e­very Minister is elected optimatim, Iob 33. 23. and is as one of a thousand: Next you tell us there is no Bishop so absolute, as not to be subject to the judgement of a Synod. It is much he should not, when all the fixed members of our Sy­nod are the Bishops meere dependants, & such pack­ing used in the choice of the rest, as perhaps worse was not at the Councell of Trent.

[Page 83] Thus all the art the Remonstrant hath cannot per­swade Hierome to befriend our Bishops in his judge­ment; and is it not strange boldnesse to perswade the Reader that Hierome should against his judgement befriend them in his history?

After the allegation, we produced some reasons to shew, that though it should be granted these were in the times of the Apostles▪ yet the Invention of Bishops for the taking away of th [...]se schismes is not Apostoli­call: our arguments the Remonstrant,Page 60. according to his greatnesse cals poore negative arguments, which yet we entreat the Reader to view for his further satis­faction, and remember that in Sacrâ Spripturâ locus tenet ab authori [...]ate, negativè. And good sir, how doe we in them g [...]e about to Confute our owne Authors? what doe these reasons conclude more, but that Bishops were neither of Divine, nor Apostolicall institution, and what doth Hierome say lesse? Tell not us of striking our own friend, let him suffer as an Hieronymomastix, that when Hierome crosses his opinion, cals him a was­pish hot, good man.

In the next place you look'd for Ambrose: Def. p. 61. yet you might have taken notice that we spake but of the Cō ­mentaries that goe under the name of Ambrose; Down. def. 3. lib. cap. 4. pa. 80. which if you call a foyst, all your owne side are as guilty as our selves, that cite him as well as we, and some for Am­brose; how ever this is much lesse then your selfe did in point of Liturgie. Where we desiring to see some Liturgies not Spurious, you produced the Liturgy of Iames, &c.

For the persons that brought in this Imparity, we tell you, they were the Presbyters; and prove this from Hierome [Page 84] ad Euagrium. Page 62. The Presbyters of Alexandria did call him their Bishop, whom they had chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. This you call a faithlesse and a halved citation: Good sir, be not so harty, its neither false, nor halved: not false, because it fully proves the thing for which wee brought it, which was, that the advancing of one to an eminency and superiority a­bove the rest was not a divine, but a humane act; it was not God, but man that was the authour of this imparity; and doth not the place fully prove this? Presbyteri unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu colloca­tum Episcopum nominabant, and say we any more? Nor is it halved, though hee saith this was done a Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heraclam: yet this concerned not the purpose for which the text was quo­ted, and therefore might warrantably be omitted, especially having proved before that, which the Remonstrant would perswade his reader we are shie of here, that Bishops were not in the Apostles times: and if the leaving out a few words in a quota­tion, not pertinent to the question, be the halving of it, how will the Remonstrant cleare himselfe of this sinne, who citing the Councell of Laodicea p. 15. makes bold to leave out a great deale more then we did here: where a most materiall passage was omitted, as before we have observed. Neither did we leave out a Marco Evangelista, for feare it should prove that there were Bishops as earlie as the Corinthian schisme. Nor did our hearts tell us that Marke died many yeeres within the Apostles time; Page 62. for Irenaeus tels us lib. 3. Contra Haeres. that hee writ his Gospell after Peter and Pauls death. That which wee quoted proves abundantly that the [Page 85] Presbyters both chose and placed one of the Presby­tersin a higher degree, by their own authority, giving him both the degree and the name. Doe you (who brought in A Marco Evangelistâ to trouble your reader and to slander us) reconcile if you can, Authors about the time of his death.

But the last place he bringeth out of Hierom, Page 63. is a most rare place, and may well make any man wonder with what face we can say, Hiero me ever spake against Bishops: and why so? because Hierome saith, Episcopacy is Gods owne worke: where is it? in Isa. 60. 17. what are the words? Hierome reading that text according to the 72 transla­tion, saies: Ponam inquit, Principes tuos in pacem, & E­piscopos tuos in justisiam, in quo, saith Hierome, Scripturae sanctae admir anda Majestas, quod Principes futuros Ecclesiae Episcopos nominavit, quorum omnes visitatio in pace est, &c. herein the majesty of the Scripture is to be ad­mired, which hath named the future Princes of the Church, Bishops; all whose visitations are in peace. Good reader, consider this mighty mouth-stopping ar­gument. God hath promised the Princes of the Church shall be as Bishops. Ergo, Bishops in imparity are Gods owne worke: good sir, yourPage 77. Baculus in angulo take to your selfe against you walke to finde texts againe in Hierome to prove Bishops to be of divine institution.

The rest of your quotations out of Irenaeus, Tertulli­an, and Chrysostome, they are places have beene oft al­leaged, and as oft answered: wee will be briefe with you. For if you had not lyen hid under the equivoca­tion of the word Episcopi, you might have spared your selfe and us a labour. These Episcopi were Pres­byteri, you your selfe grant that their names were [Page 86] common in the daies of Linus, Polycarpe, and Ignatius, which are the men you here cite for Bishops. And therefore unlesse you can shew that they had a supe­riority of power over Presbyters, such as ours have; you doe b [...]t delude the Reader with a grosse Homo­nymie, whom we referre to a passage in learned Iu­nius. controv. 3. lib. 2. c 5. not. 18. In which he labours to remove the contradictions of Historians concerning the order of succession of the Romane Bishops, Linus, Clemens, Anacletus &c. And he saith, That these or some of these were Presbyters or Bishops of Rome at the same time, ruling the Church in common. But the following writers, fancying to themselves such Bishops as then had obtained in the Church, fell into these snares of tradition, because they supposed, according to the custome of their owne times, that there could be but one Bishop in one Church at the same time: which is quite crosse to the Apostolicall times.

To that of Ambrose calling Iames Bishop of Ierusa­lem, we gave a sufficient answer in our former Booke page 51. out of Doct. Raynolds; and shall (God willing) adde more in due place.

Our slip as you tell us,Page 64. talkes of a councell; No more ours then yours, for your party can, when hee speakes for them, vouch him with much more con­fidence then we doe. But what saith this slip? he talkes of a councell as false as himselfe. Why? because the Ni­cene was the first generall Synod: but yet there were provinciall Councels before. And the Commentaries mentioned before doe not say it was done by a gene­rall Councell, but onely by a Councell; though you by subtle coupling this Councell and Hieromes toto or be [Page 87] decretum erat, would faine force him to this sence: which toto orbe decretum est implies no Apostolicall act, nor act of a generall Councell neither, as we have shewed before. And yet this we tell you, the Nicene was the first Councell, in which toto orbe decretum erat that there should be but one Bishop in a City.

As for Saint Austin his phrase,Page 64. that the originall of Episcopacy above Presbytery was onely secundum usum Ecclesiae, you say it was but a modest word, and it is a just wonder that we dare cite him. Well, let us put it to the triall; Hierome having taken distate at Augustine, writes two sharpe Epistles to him,Epist. 11. 13. in both which Epi­stles be doth extoll Augustine ironically as a great man, because hee was in pontificali culmine Constitutus ad­vanced to Episcopall dignity, and speakes of himselfe as a poore, contemptible underling: to which Augu­stine answering among other things saith thus: Rogo ut me fidenter corrigas, ubi mihi hoc opus esse perspexeris: quanquam enim secundum honorum vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopatus Presbyterio major est: tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor. This was Augustines modesty say you. Well, and had not Augustine beene as modest, if he had left out that phrase quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit? his modesty appeares in these words, tamen in multis Augustinus Hieronymo minor; not in the former. In the diminution of his person, not of his calling. S. Paul knew how to speake humbly of himselfe, yet highly of his office,Rom. 11. 13. and so might Austin; and if he had known that the majority of Bishops above Presbyters had beene of Divine, or Apostolicall institution, he might have said so much; and not have beene the lesse modest, but the more; nay hee would have said so much. Quis [Page 88] enim est humilitatis fructus ubi detrimentum est verita­tis? August. contra Maxim. Arian. Episc. Lib. 3. August. de verbo Ap. sec. 29. What profit is there in humility with the losse of truth. And he that could tell another non accipiet Deus men­dacem humilitatem tuam, God will not accept of your lying humility, could tell himselfe as much. So then though it be in humilitate personae that he saith, Augustinus Hie­ronymo minor est, yet it is in veritate rei that hee saith Secundum honourm vocabula quae Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Ep. scopatus Presbyterio Major est. Thus much for Augu­stines modesty. And as for the Herauldry in blazoning Aerius for an heretick falsely objected ad nauseam usque & usque, We referre to former answeres.

The Remonstrant will put us and the Readers to more trouble in the next place,Page 65. because he calles our fidelity into so deepe question about the quotation of Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 28. Where the father is mustering up the armies of evils that might seeme to threaten him, shewing the invincible magnanimity of his Spirit more then conquering, contemning all: A­mong those evils he reckons his ejection out of his Episcopacy: which what ever others would esteeme, he counts as nothing,Suidas tels us [...] was a principall place [...], aliis studio est princeps locus, & he cals him [...] qui primam tenet sedemet [...] est sedibus primis vel honoribus primis dignari. and held it a principall part of wisedome in that age to shunne it, and then wishes [...] utinam nulla sit princeps dignitas, that there were no principall dignity (to wit, in the Church) of which he is speaking. Secondly, he wishes [...], that there were no dig­nity or tyrannicall prerogative of place, that they might be knowne onely by vertue: to which belongs that Dextrum & sinistrum, those challenges of places of which the Remonstrant speaks. All which he speaks upon supposall of the losse of his Episcopacy. And for [Page 89] that Dextrū & sinistrum, Balsamon saith it was the man­ner of their distinguishing of the place of Bishops,Balsam. in Can. 89. Conc. Car­thagin: ac­cording to their seniority and this occasioned those competitions among Bishops of which he speakes. The Series of this discourse is long, we must not insert it all: but let the learned reader vouchsafe to view it at larg, and if it doe not appeare that wee have alledged the place according to the genuine sence of the Authour, let us in his thoughts lie under all the reproaches, which our virulent Remonstrant labours to cast upon us in his whole book. However the Remonstrant hath little cause to reproach Nazianzen with that scoffe of his Egyptian adversaries [...], as if he had out of an ambitious humour changed his seat: when he that peruseth his life shall finde, it would be an ea­sier matter to remove an English Bishop from one Bishopricke to another till hee come to Canturbury, then it was to remove Nazianzen from one place to another. And as little reason with open mouth to fall upon us, and bid us eate our words, for saying that if our Bishops will deduce their pedegree from the Apostles time in an uninterrupted line unto this day, Page 66. they must draw the line of their pedigree through the loynes of Antichrist: we tell him againe, let him take it never so angerly: What ever Bishops have beene in other places besides Rome, if our Bishops will draw their pedegree from the Apostles, they must draw it through Antichrists loynes.

SECT. VII, VIII.

IN this seventh Section the Remonstrant hath cut us out little worke: so much of our answer as he is loth to meddle with, he balkes under the tearmes of idle words. The rest concerning the election of former Bishops, hee seemes to consent to in opinion and opti­on: onely that the shortest Section may not be closed without more frumps then one, he tels us we are besides the Cushion. The objection was, Page 68. that the Apostles Bishops, and ours were two in respect of mannaging their functions. The Remonstrant will give us leave (we hope) to forme our owne objection. He makes it indeed of the Apostles Bishops. We having proved no Bishops (ut nuncu­pantur as they are now tearmed) Apostolicall. Bring it downe to the Bishops of inferiour times. He (as here he tels us) spake onely of the difference betweene the one and the other in managing of their function. We intending to present the differences betweene ours and former Bishops fully to view; instance not onely in the managing of their function, but in their election and accessories; and is this to be beside the Cushion? This first point of difference our Remonstrant grants, that our Bishops and former differ in their election.

And he makes halfe from hence to follow us into the execution of their Episcopall office. Page 69. We make as much haste to meet him, and make good what we formerly layed downe, that our Bishops and the Bishops of for­mer times are two: First, in the sole jurisdiction they assume to themselves, which former Bishops never did, [Page 91] nor durst; which jurisdiction (being taken here in a large sense for the execution of all Episcopall power) we distributed into the administration of orders and censures, which (saith the Remonstrant)And yet the wise writer of this Defence did not contra­distinguish them in his defence, p. 78. where he ex­presses ordi­nation under spirituall ju­risdiction. in all wise writers were wont to be contradistinguished. Distinguished they are we grant, and so did we distinguish them, page 24, 25. of our answer, which the wisedome of the Remonstrant might have taken notice of and for­borne this scorne. Yet not so contradistinguished, but that the power of ordination may be reckoned as a part of Episcopall jurisdiction; taking that word jurisdiction (which was unknowne to first antiquity) for the whole execution of Episcopall power, as the Remonstrant here takes it.

The first of these, the sole power of ordination; and the sole exercise of that power, which was a stranger, and a mon­ster to former times. This our Bishops assume to themselves, and herein differ from the former Bishops. The latter of these he grants, That Bishops of former times did not as­sume to themselves the sole exercise of ordination. Onely he cannot let us passe; without his usuall curtesie. But the former he denies,Page 70. the ordination is (he saith) the Bishops, but the sole in that sence we use it, is ours. Bishops did never challenge it nor practice it, we will wash off all this; and shew first that our English Bishops have challenged to themselves this sole power, and have practised this power, and then make good our quotation: and when this is done, let it be tryed not who can blush, but who hath more reason to blush; the Remonstrant, or his answerers.

For the first: that Bishops challenge to themselves sole power of ordination. We did never thinke that in these [Page 92] knowing times we should have beene put to prove the Snow is white, or the Crow blacke. But seeing the Remonstrant will have it so, we will shew first out of Episcopacy by Divine right, part 2. Sect. 15. the title of which Section is this, power of ordination is ONELY in Bishops: and in the beginning of the Section he saith, This was one of the Acts that was APPROPRIATED to Bishops ALONE: and is not this to challenge sole power of ordination? afterwards in the same Section, he saith, Ordination is one of the things so Intrinsecall to Episcopacy, that in the judgement of the Church, no extremity of Necessity was sufficient warrant to dif­fuse it into other hands. The same power of ordina­tion doe Bishop Bilson, Andrewes, Davenant, Mountague, &c. challenge to Episcopacy. Now Reader judge, is the sole theirs by challenge or no?

And what they challenge, that they practise: we doubt not but the Remonstrants conscience can tell him, there are many instances in England to be produced of men ordained in England without the hands of any Presbyter. The Remonstrant is as unhappy as peremptory in his challenge he makes. I challenge them to shew any one instance in the Church of England.

Sir, the instances are without number. Some of us are ocular witnesses of many scores at severall ordi­nations ordained by a Bishop in his private Chappell without the presence of any Presbyter, but his owne domesticke Chaplaine, and without any assistance from him save onely in reading prayers. But alasse what should we fall to instances! Put case an Irish or Welsh Bishop ordaines one at London in his cham­ber, or some Chappell, and admits him which com­mends [Page 93] the person to him to joyne for fashion sake in the gesture of imposition of hands, be hee of what place or Diocesse he will: how little doth this differ from sole ordination, and how much from that Regu­lar and ordinate ordination of former times? Sir, these are poore toyes to mocke the Church withall, if not God himselfe too. Could such a Bishop say, as well as Cyprian, Ego & Collegae? You tell us our Bishops may say no lesse then Cyprian did. But doth the stile of your Letters of orders speake any such thing? Let the Rea­der judge by a copy, Tenore praesentium nos N. N. Pro­videntiâ Divinâ Episc. notum facimus universis quod die mensis Anno in Capella. Nos praefatus Episcopus sacros or­dines dei praesidio celebrantes, dilectum nobis &c. E. B. de vitâ sua laudabili, &c. a nobis examinat: & approbat. ad sacro sanct. Presbyt. ordinem ad misimus rite & Canonicè ordinavimus & promovimus. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum nostrum Episcopale praesentibus apponi fecimus. Construe you this, Ego & Collegae, brethren?

But you tell us, Cyprians phrase, Ego & Collegae, Page 70. was in the case of Aurelius made a Lector, much to your ad­vantage. If a Reader could not be ordained by a Bishop alone, doe we thinke a Presbyter could? As for Cypri­ans 58. Epist. we produced it not as a proofe of ordi­nation in the hands of Presbyters, much lesse for the concurrent act of the people, as the Remonstrant would intimate, but onely for the explication of the word Collegae. But it seemes the Remonstrant was re­solved to picke some quarrell, and rather to play at small game then stand out.

And if it be the order of the Church of England as well as of the Councell of Carthage, Page 71. that when a Presbyter is or­dained [Page 94] all the Presbyters that are present shall lay hands, &c. if there be such an order, the more blame worthy the Bishops, who being such severe censurers of the breach of Church orders in others, are themselves in the same crime, for though you set a stout face upon the busi­nesse, and tell us that this order is perpetually and infalli­bly kept by you; Yet the world knowes it is no such mat­ter unlesse you meane that all the Presbyters present doe infallibly and perpetually lay on hands in ordination, be­cause our ordinations are so carried, that for the most part there is but one, sometimes not one Presbyter there besides the Bishop.

But why doe you take notice here of one Canon of the Councell of Carthage,Page 71. and not of the other? ut E­piscopus sine, &c. that a Bishop should ordaine none of the Clergie without the Counsell of his Clergie, unlesse it be, because here is such a manifest deflexion in the pra­ctise of ours from former times, as all the wit and Rhetoricke the Remonstrant hath cannot cover.

Your next evasion is a plaine leaving the question; we are to prove that Bishops in ancient times did not ordaine without Presbyters. You challenge us to prove a Presbyters Regular ordaining without a Bishop; which is not the point in question. Who doth here most abuse the Reader, let himselfe judge: but wee are accused not onely of abusing our Readers, but our Authours too. And the Remonstrant hopes he hath us here at such a vantage, as shall try what modesty is in us. Three foule scapes are laid to our charge. First, we abuse Firmilia­nus, in casting upon him an opinion of Presbyters ordai­ning, which he never held; let us once againe view the place. Firmilianus speaking of the true Church, saith, [Page 95] ubi Praesident Majores natu, qui & Baptizandi & manum imponendi & ordinandi possident potestatem: the con­troversie is, who these Majores natu be? Bishops saith he. Bishops and Elders say we. To prove it, we expli­cate Firmilian by Firmilian, calling a little before those whom here he cals Majores natu, Seniores & praepositi. Which are not so farre from that clause but that they may be brought without wire drawing or foysting; Page 72. and are not so remote from that place, as those words which himselfe produceth, which we desire the cour­teous Reader to consider, because we are charged by him, for foysting in and wyre drawing the words of the Authour: and also because the very words there cited by the Remonstrant speake of a power of remitting sinnes, which we hope he will not ingrosse to Bishops, excluding Presbyters. Pamelius himselfe is with us: who understands by Seniores & prepositi, the Presby­ters and Bishops.

Our next scape, is but grosse ignorance, in translating Ambroses Presbyteri consignant by Presbyters ordaining. Every Novice knowes consigning signifies confirmation, and not ordaining. Sir, we appeale from your Novices to judicious Readers, and intreat them to peruse the text: and wee doubt not but upon due consideration they will conclude for our sence: let us then plead the case, and tell you first,In Arnob. li. 3. That your Desiderius Heraldus shewes both the word signare or consignare in the phrase of antiquity to be as much as consecrare, and so doth Cyprian Epist. 2. and therefore it is not incapa­ble of such a sence as we have put upon it.

2. If the Reader please to view the place in Ambrose, he shall finde that Ambrose there is speaking of or­daining [Page 96] men to publique offices in the Church; and not of confirmation.

3. Though it should be taken for confirmation, yet you gaine nothing; for the same Canon, that put power of ordination into the hands of Bishops, places the power of confirmation also in their hands. And they among us that challenge the sole power of ordi­nation,Episc. Di. Right, part. 2. p. 91. challenge also sole power of confirmation. If any man object that confirmation is not so appropria­ted to Bishops as ordination is, because (as some of you say) confirmation is onely reserved to them honoris gratiâ ordination they have necessitatis gratiâ this objection we have satisfied in our answer page 38. wherein we have shewed not onely from Loo, that the power of ordination was reserved to them onely authoritate canonum: but also that it was appro­priated to them for their credit and authority. Au­gustine speakes almost in the same words:Quaest. de utro­que mixtim. 101. Nam & in Alexandria, & per totum Aegyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter: that which in Ambrose is called consignat, is here called consecrat; and albeit the authors of both these bookes be questioned, yet both of them are acknowledged ancient, yea Doctor Raynolds af­firmes the last of them from the 44. question was written above 300. yeeres after Christ: this is enough to us, that in antiquity consignat is expounded by con­secrat; which cleares us of that imagined guilt of a solae­cisme, that hee would fasten upon us: and this may satisfie (if this man be satisfiable) that bold challenge of the former page: shew us but one instance of a Presby­ters regular and practized ordaining without a Bishop, and carry the cause.

[Page 97] Our third charge is double, first of skill not too much: secondly, Page 72. of lesse fidelity. Our want of skill is, in not distin­guishing of Chorepiscopi (whō we brought as instances of Presbyters ordaining without a Bishop) some of whom (saith the Remonstrant) had the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes: and therefore might well, by the Bishops licence in his owne charge impose hands. Now, we may returne it to the Remonstrant, that he discovers not too much skill in saying that some Chorepiscopi had both the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes, and yet might not ordaine in his own charge without the Bi­shops license. For what needs a Bishops licence to inable a Chorepiscopus in his owne charge to doe that, for the doing of which hee had before the nature and power of Episcopacy to all purposes. This is just as our Bishops are wont to do, who give a full power to a Presbyter at his ordination to preach the Gospell, with a charge also to do it, and yet will not suffer him to preach, no not in his own Cure, without a licence. But how doth the Re­monstrant make good his distinction of his two sorts of Chorepiscopi from antiquity? Here we have ipse dixit and no more. The peremptorinesse of Pythagoras the master in affirming, & the silence of his schollars when he comes to prove. Bellarmine indeed tels us that some Chorepiscopi were ordained by more Bishops then one, and these had power to ordaine. Others were ordained by one Bishop, and those were meere Presbyters and might not ordaine. But with how much fidelity Bellarmine, and after him the Remonstrant doth thus distinguish,De Clericis, l. 1. c. 17. let the Councell of Antioch determine: [...]. Let the Chorepiscopus be ordained by the Bishop of the City, to whom hee [Page 98] is subject. From which Councell wee gather that the Chorepiscopi were meere Presbyters, and that there were but one sort of them. First, because the Chore­piscopus was to be ordained by one Bishop, ab Epis­copo, not ab Episcopis: whereas by the Canons a Bishop was to be ordained by many, or two at least. As for Bellarmine, his Chorepiscopus ordained by more Bi­shops then one; wee leave it to him to make good: indeed we finde in the same Canon, the Chorepiscopi in the plurall number had the imposition of the hands of Bishops, but when Chorepiscopus in the singular number is mentioned, then onely one Bishop is said to ordaine him.

2. Because the Chorepiscopus was to be subject to the Bishop of the City, ab Episcopo civitatis cui subjici­tur: now we read no where of the subjection of one Bishop and his charge to another: Cyprian pleads the freedome of Bishops: telling us that each of them hath a portion of Christs flocke assigned to him, for which he is to give account to God.

3. Because he could not, nay he durst not exercise the power of Ordination without the leave of the Bi­shop: the Councell of Antioch sayes, non audeat absque urbis Episcopo: Conc. Ancyr. sayes, non licere nisi cum literis ab Episcopo permissum fuerit. None of this would have beene said, if he had beene a Bishop, as we have in part shewed in our answer, page 36.

We deny not, but that this power of ordaining was afterward taken away from the Chorepiscopi by the same authority of the Canons, and Ecclesiasticall rules, by which it was first appropriated to Bishops them­selves, as Leo. ep. 88. witnesses, which to us is a 4^th argu­ment [Page 99] to prove that they once had it, and that they had it as Presbyters: for if they had it as Bishops, the taking of it away would have beene a degradation of them.

5. We might bring an argument ad hominem, to prove the Chorepiscopi to be but Presbyters, because they are sayd Conc. Naeocaesar. Can. 14. to be after the manner, or in imitation of the seventy: now accor­ding to the opinion of Hierarchicall men Bishops suc­ceed the Apostles, not the seventy.

To all that we have said in this point, we might ad that not onely Damasus in that Epistle which goes un­der his name, ep. 4. but also Leo ep. 88. proves them to be but meere Presbyters, to whose sentence conc. 2. Hispal. can. 7. subscribes.

Now leaving the Chorepiscopi we will give the reader a hint to prove, that not onely the Presbyters of Alex­andria, and the Chorepiscopi, but further, the Presby­ters of the City with the Bishops leave might ordaine, which we prove from cenc. Ancyr. can. 13. named be­fore: where it is said, It is not lawfull for Chorepiscopi to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons: nor for the Presbyters of the City without the Bishop his letters in an other parish: from which it appeares, that Presbyters of the City had the same power to ordaine which the rurall Bi­shops had. Because the restraint is layed equally upon both: this is not onely our construction of the Canon, Bishop Bilson, Doctor Downam. def. lib. 1. cap. 8. say the same,Perpet [...]gon. c. 14. and Doctor Downam gathers from thence, that Presbyters in the City might doe more then rurall Presbyters.Lib. 2. c. [...]. 52, 53. So doth Spalatensis, who endeavouring to elude the text hath no other way but by foisting in a passage, which is not in the Greeke text. And by this [Page 100] time we hope we have cleared our fidelity in quoting of the Councels of Antioch and Ancyra: both which the Remonstrant thought his bare word enough to blast. Now we appeale to equall judgements whether the labour of this section were meerely cast away or no. The Remonstrant grants sole ordination was in regard of the exercise not challenged by Bishops in the Primitive times, Though he would perswade the reader we cannot but confesse it out of Hierome and Chrysostome. Yet let the reader consult the 37. page of our answer which the Remonstrant leaves unanswered, and judge betweene us, how farre we are from such confession: his onely shift now is to say our Bishops neither challenge nor exercise any such power. We have evidently proved they doe both, manet ergo inconcussum, our Bishops and the Bi­shops of former times are two.

SECT. IX.

HEre saith the Remonstrant,Page 73. we beat the aire. And yet not the aire, but the Remonstrant too into the confession of that which would not be confest heretofore by such of thē especially as have contended for such a Bishop as exercised spirituall jurisdiction out of his owne peculiarly demandated authority. If iurisdiction exercised from an authority peculiarly demandated, how not solely? Episc. Di. Right, part. 2. p. 10. Well, now it is granted that this sole is cryed downe by store of antiquity. So then here we doe not fal­sifie, Page 74. and it is granted that Presbyters have and ought to have and exercise a jurisdiction within their owne charge. But here the Remonstrant will distinguish againe, it [Page 101] is in foro conscientiae. But consider Reader, whether this be the jurisdiction here under dispute. Whether that store of antiquity which he confesseth to cry downe sole jurisdiction, speake of a jurisdiction in foro consci­entiae, as his false Margent saith, Clem Alexan. (whom we cited) doth. But indeed this distinction of the Re­monstrant of a jurisdiction in foro interno and in foro externo, is like that distinction of Reflexivè and Archi­podialiter. For all humane jurisdiction is in foro externo. If preaching the word (which is especially aim'd at by the Remonstrant, be an exercise of jurisdiction, Then he that hath the Bishops licence to preach in the Dio­cesse, hath power to exercise jurisdiction through the Diocesse, and an University preacher throughout the whole Kingdome. Away with these toyes. He grants againe, that Presbyters ought to be consulted with in the great affaires of the Church, but doe our quotations prove no more? Bishops had their Ecclesiasticall Councell of Pres­byters, with whom they did consult in the greatest matters: and was it onely in the greatest matters? Is this all that Cyprian saith? All that the Councell of Carthage saith when it determines ut Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentia Clericorum; alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi, nisi Clericorum praesentia confirmetur. In our former booke senten­tia was by a mistake prin­ted for presen­tia, the whole Canon not be­ing quoted▪ Doth this speak onely of great matters; when it saith Nullius causam audiat? Is this onely of a jurisdiction the Pres­byters had in foro conscientiae? Were Bishops with their Consistory wont to sit to heare▪ and judge causes in foro conscientiae? good Reader judge of this mans truth and ingenuity, who not being able to divert the stroke of that Antiquity we brought to manifest a difference betweene ours and the former Bishops in the exercise [Page 102] of their jurisdiction, would cast a mist before his Rea­ders eyes, and perswade him he grants the whole se­ction, when indeed hee grants nothing, onely seekes to slide away in the darke.

But our Bishops have their Deanes and Chapters (say you) and the lawes of our Church frequently make that use of them. Yes you have Deanes and Chapters, but who knowes not that they have a jurisdiction distinct from the Bishops, in which the Bishop hath nothing to doe with theirs, nor they with his. And the Bishops also de­rive the exercise of jurisdiction to others (we know it too well) to Chancellours, Commissaries, Officials, and other of their underlings, even to the commanding of Christs Ministers to denounce their censures without any discerning what equity is in the cause. And what advise or assistance of Ministers is required, appeares by the very stile of your excommunications. G. R. Doctor of Law, Commissary, &c. to all Rectors, &c. For as much as we proceeding rightly, &c. have adjudged all and every one whose names are under-written to be excommu­nicated. We doe therefore commit to you, &c. to denounce openly under paine and perill, &c. Given under our Seale such a day, &c. Let any footsteps of such a power be shewed in antiquity.

Presbyters he grants had their votes in Provinciall sy­nods: we from good authority say more, they had their votes in all ordinary Iudicatures.

But after all these grants,Page 74. which are as good as no­thing; now he comes to plead his owne. We justly say that the superiority of jurisdiction is so in the Bishop, as that Presbyters neither may, nor did exercise it without him? to what purpose is this? if the Remonstrant [Page 103] speake of Scripture times: We have proved there was no superiority in them: if of latter times, it is not to the question: wee are proving Bishops never exercised jurisdiction without their Presbyters, as ours doe. He puts us to prove Presbyters exercised jurisdiction without Bishops, quam iniquè?

But the exercise of externall jurisdiction is derived from, by, and under the Bishop: No, neither from, by, nor under the Bishop, but from God, who hath made them over­seers and rulers, and by the same Ecclesiasticall au­thority that hath made you Bishops: and under Bi­shops not in respect of divine power, but (if at all) in respect of Ecclesiasticall Canons onely. Your Timothy and Titus we shall meet in due place. Your Ignatius and the rest of your testimonies you could produce would (as you say truely) but surfeit the readers eyes,Page 75. unlesse you could bring them to prove, that Bishops did and might exercise sole jurisdiction. Onely because you so triumph in our supposed scapes; let us intreat you, or the reader for you to looke upon your cited Councell of Antioch 24, 25, Canon; where you say the Bishop hath power of those things that belong to the Church, Page 75. and see whether that speakes one word of jurisdiction: or be not wholy to be understood, of the distribution of the goods of the Church, as both the instance given in the Canon, and Zonaras on that place manifest.

One shift yet the Remonstrant hath more: and that is to tell us, that this joynt government was but occasionall and temporary in times of persecution. Page 76. But when a gene­rall peace had blessed them, and they had a concurrence of soveraigne and subordinate authority with them, they be­gan so much to [...]emit this care of conjoyning their forces, as [Page 104] they supposed to finde lesse need of it. Doctor Downham to whom hee referres in the page before, assignes other reasons. Namely Presbyters desiring their ease and Scho­lasticall quietnesse (which he saith and proves not) and also the Bishops desiring to rule alone: Down. Defen. 1. lib. c. 8. which we finde to be the true cause by experience. For if the Bishops be of the Remonstrants mind, perswaded that the more fre­quent communicating of all the important businesse of the Church, whether censures or determinations with those grave assistants, which in the eye of the Law are designed to this purpose, were a thing not onely unprejudiciall to the honour of Episcopacy, but behovefull to the Church. Why should not the Bishops doe it? save onely, that their ambitious desires of ruling alone swayes them against their owne judgement, and the determinations of the law. But indeed if this communicating of all the im­portant businesse of the Church with those grave as­sistants you speake of or with the Presbyters of the whole Diocesse, if you will, be onely an assuming them into the fellowship of consulting and delibera­ting without any decisive suffrage, leaving the Bishop to follow or not to follow their advise; this is but a meere cosenage of the reader, and doth not hinder the sole power of Episcopall jurisdiction. And this is all that Downam grants lib. 1. c. 7. p. 161. where he saith that Bishops doe assume Presbyters for advise and di­rection, as a Prince doth his Counsellors, not as a Con­sull doth his Senators who are cojudges with the Consul. And this we perceive the Remonstrant well likes of, as that which makes much for the honour of their function.

And now sir,Page 76. you see that we have not fished all night, [Page 105] and caught nothing: wee have caught your sole jurisdi­ction: and might have caught your selfe, were you not such a Proteus, such a Polypus to shift your selfe into all formes and Colours. Having proved that Bishops in all times, succeeding the Apostles, had Presbyters joyned with them in the exercise of their jurisdiction; and that our Bishops have none, is more evident then that it needs proofe. This is more to you then Baculus in Angulo: it cannot but be Spina in oculis, & Sagittain visceribus, a thorne in your eye, and an arrow in your heart, convincing you to your griefe, that the Bishops you plead for, and the Bishops of former times are two.

SECT. X.

OUr next Section the Remonstrant saith, runs yet wilder; Page 77. it is then because we prosecute a practice of the Bishops more extravagant then the former: And that is the delegation of the power of their jurisdictiō to others; w^ch the Remonstrant would first excuse, as an accidentall errour of some particular man, not to be fast­ned upon all. But we desire to know the man, the Bishop in all England who hath not given power to Chancel­lors, Commissaries, Officials to suspend, excommunicate, absolve, execute all censures, but one: and doth the Remonstrant thinke now to stoppe our mouthes with saying, it is a particular error of some men? whereas it is evident enough that our English Episcopacy cannot possibly be exercised without delegating of their power to a multitude of inferiour instruments. Can one Bishop having 500. or a 1000. Parishes under him, [Page 106] discharge all businesses belonging to testamentary and decimall causes and suites, to preach Word, and administer the Sacraments, &c. to take a due o­versight also of all Ministers and people without the helpe of others.Page 77. Nor will that other excuse doe it, That it is but an accidentall error, and though granted, concludes not, that our Bishops challenge to themselves any other spi­rituall power, then was delegated to Timothy and Titus, Sir we abhorre it, as an unworthy thing, to compare our Bishops with Timothy or Titus; the comparison is be­tweene our Bishops and Bishops of former times.

But to please you this once, we will admit the com­parison and shew howeven in this particular that you count so monstrous, our Bishops challenge a power never delegated to Timothy nor Titus. Page 78. And we prove it thus:

Timothy and Titus never had a power delegated to them to devolve that power of governing the Church, which God had intrusted into their hands upon per­sons incapable of it by Gods ordinance. But our Bi­shops doe so. Ergo.

The Remonstrant thinkes by impleading other re­formed Churches, as guilty of the same crime; to force us either to condemne them, or to acquit him. But the reformed Churches, if they doe practise any such thing, are of age to answer for themselves. Our busi­nesse is with the Remonstrant and the persons and practices which he hath taken the tuition of. Whom we charging as in a generality with wholy intrusting the power of spirituall jurisdiction to their Chancellors, and their Commissaries: Page 78. their good friend tels us we foulely overreach. The assistance of these creatures they use in­deed, [Page 107] but they neither negligently or wilfully devest them­selves of that, and wholy put it into Laicke hands. This is a meere slander: that Bishops devest themselves of their power we never said. That they doe either negligently or wilfully decline that office which they call theirs, we need not say, it is so apparent. And as apparent it is, that they doe intrust the power of jurisdiction wholly into Laicke hands: for their Chancellors; and Commissa­ries having power of jurisdiction by patent setled upon them, and exercising that jurisdiction in all the parts of it, conventing, admonishing, suspending, excom­municating, absolving without the presence or assi­stance of a Bishop or recourse to him: we thinke im­partiall Judges will say wee are neither slanderers nor over-reachers.

In our former answer we fully cleared from Cyprian, Page 79. how farre hee was from delegating his power to a Chancellour, &c. This he sleights as a negative autho­rity, yet it is sufficient to condemne a practice that ne­ver had being in the thoughts of primitive times. And we beleeve it satisfies all others, because the Remon­strant saith it is very like it was so: Though according to his old way of diversion he tels us,Page 79. as Cyprian did not referre to a Chancellor, so neither to the bench of a Laicke Presbytery: yet he that is but meanly versed in Cyprian, may easily see that it is no unusuall thing in that holy martyr, to referre the determinations of causes ad Clerum & Plebe [...].

But the Remonstrant thinkes to patronize the pra­ctice of our present Bishops by Silvanus the good Bi­shop of Troas. And what did Silvanus to the coun­tenancing of this practice? perceiving that some of his [Page 108] Clergie did corruptly make gaine of causes (civill causes, causes of difference betweene party and party, or as you phrase it, page 91. unkind quarrels of dissenting neighbours) he would no more appoint any of his Clergy to be Judge, but made choice of some faithfull man of the Laity. Now this is as much to the purpose (good sir) as Posthumus his pleading in Martiall. Lisest mihi de tribus capellis: Tu Cannas, Mi­thridati cumque bellum, Magra voce sonas Iam dic Post­hume, de tribus capellis. Mart. l. 6 We are confuting the practice of our Bishops in making over their spi­rituall jurisdiction to Laymen, and he brings in a story of a good Bishop, that having a bad Clergy, intrusted ho­nest men with civill judicature rather then them.

As full to the purpose is that of Ecclesiae ecdici, Page 80. or Epis­coporum Ecdici, to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors and Commissaries. Balsum. in Can. 78 Concil. Car­thag. in can. 100. Zonar. in can. Concil. Carth. 81. & can. 108. For their Ecdici were men appointed to be the advocates of the Church, to plead the Churches cause before the Emperours against the tyranny of their potent adversaries. But we never read that the Bishops did put over the government of the Church to them: we could with all our hearts give this honour to Civilians to be the Churches advocates, but not the Churches Judges, which the Bishops give them leave to be: to defend the Church against the tyranny of others, but not to tyrannize over the Church: Doctor Downeham was more ingenuous in this, then this Re­monstrant; who grants that till about 400 yeeres after Christ, Bishops had no ordinary Vicars that were not Clergy men; No, say we, nor Clergy men neither: the office was not knowne in those times: neither can they pro­duce any instance of any, either of Laity or Clergy that ever those times saw in that office. This saith the Remonstrant, is a poore brave. Page 79. But till he can produce such instances, our challenge will stand strong enough [Page 109] notwithstanding his great words. But his put off is poorer;Page 73. to fly from officers intrusted with spirituall jurisdiction unto such inferiour instruments, (Secreta­ries and Atturneys) as are of necessary service in all Courts of judicature, whether Civill or Ecclesia­sticall.

To make all sure, the Remonstrant referres his Reader to Sir Thomas Ridley (whose Treatise he stum­bled upon in an ill houre for the maine of his cause: for he tels us page 116. that Chancellors are equall, or neere equall in time to Bishops; as both the Law it selfe and stories shew. So that while the Remonstrant is over studious to prove the Antiquity of Chancellors, he over­throwes the Antiquity of Bishops: incidit in Scyllam, &c. As for that he spake of the Ecclesiae Ecdici, that they were the same in former times that our Chancellors are now: If there be more credit to be given to his Papias and Gothofred, then to the originall Canons themselves (where they are called not [...], but [...]) we yeeld the cause.

SECT. XI.

HAving entered upon the differences betweene ours and former Bishops in point of jurisdiction: we descended into a discovery of this in three particu­lars. First, in the sole jurisdiction ours assume. Second­ly, In that delegation they make of this power. Thirdly, in their execution of that jurisdiction: and here wee fall upon that unchristian and unnaturall proceeding of theirs, by oathes Ex officio; which the Remonstrant is very [Page 110] angry at, and that hee may still approve himselfe the [...] or advocate of the worst causes, engages all his strength and wit for the maintaining of that, which hath beene the ruine of so many persons, the racke of so many consciences, the worst part of the Spanish Inquisition ‘—quo siculi non invenere Tyranni Torm [...]ntum majus.’

To defend this, he cares not how he abuseth us, Mr. Calume, the Lawyes, the Scriptures; So that he may but uphold this oath, that is now sinking under the weight of its owne guilt.

First,Page 81. he abuses Scriptures in producing, Exod. 22. 10, 11. Num. 5. 19. as presidents for the oath. Truly sir, the onely text that would best have fitted your purpose, is that of Caiphas the High Priest adjudging our Lord in the name of the living God. Matth. 26. 63. Which how tyrannous an adjuration it was will easily appeare to any that con­sults interpreters upon that place. Your alledged texts helpe you not a whit; that of Exod. 22. 10, 11. speakes to this purpose: A man commits goods to his neighbour, they miscarry under his hand; it is knowne he had them, how they miscarried it is not knowne; in this case the man is to cleare his innocen­cie upon his oath: what is this to the compelling of a man in cases criminall to betray himselfe by an oath? The other text Numb. 5. 19. availes you lesse, for if such an oath were now lawfull,Your Bishop of the Church of Thyatira, might have given his wife lezabel (as you call her) this oath. then oathes Ex officio might be ministred in causes of death. It is knowne, Adultery was death by Moses his law; and it is as well knowne that this Law of the water of jelousie was not morall, but judiciall, peculiar to the policie of the [Page 111] Jewes, and that upon particular causes, to wit, the in­vate jealousie of that Nation which could no other­wise be appeased. As for your instance out of Master Calvins Epistle, wherein you would make your reader beleeve that the Consistory of Geneva did give such an oath to Camperell whereby he and the rest should be tied to discover their purposes and intentions; Calv. ad Farel. No such thing appeares in the Epistle. We finde indeed that two of that company having confes [...]ed the wicked­nesse wherewith they were charged, and the rest im­pudently denying it, Calvin thought it fit to make them confesse the truth upon oath. Corneus, who had confessed all before, pressing them not to forsweare themselves, prevailed so, as that they confessed all; and the dancing also above what was charged upon them. All that we can collect is, that an oath was thought meet to be given, to make them confesse to Gods glory, what was proved by two witnesses, but that they were bound to confesse their intentions here is no syllable of it in the epistle. And therefore to what purpose you bring in this to warrant your oath Ex officio, unlesse it be for want of better instances, we know not.

The Acts of Dioclesian Maxim. Page 83. (Let them be bla­med that called him Maximilian: poore men cannot have their Presse wayted on, as your greatnesse may:) You doe as good as passe by, so doe you the practice of the ancient times, and which is a greater jeofailer then our Maximillian; and think it is enough to tell us, this hinders not but in case of a justly grounded suspition and complaint of a halfe approved offence, a man should ma­nifest his innocency by oath. Page 84. When as we produced these [Page 112] testimonies to shew that of old no party was put to his oath upon halfe proofe, nor proceeded against, but upon apparent testimonies of more witnesses then one, which might be conceived to be impartiall.

Whereby it is manifest that the proceedings in ju­dicature, for which you contend herein, differ from them of old. So hot is the man in the quarrell of his oath, that he strikes his own friends, to reach a blow at us; charging his good friend Gregory with a plain contra­diction (for the words are his not ours) in which he saith we contradict our selves. Page 74. This is the poore all hee hath said in defence of the oath Ex Officio; and could he have said more, it is like we should have heard it. If the reader desire to see further how abominable this oath is, how cryed downe by learned men, how contrary to the Word of God,By Bishop Hall, in his Episco­pacy by divine right. the law of nature, to the civill and and Canon lawes, and to the statutes of our kingdome, he may finde it in that proud braying schismatick Master Parker; Parker on the coss e, part. 2. c. 8. sect. 2. for so he is called in print. For our parts, we shall need to say no more about this oath, God in mercy to his afflicted having put into the hearts of our Worthies to condemne it to hell from whence it came.

SECT. XII.

OUr next Section the Remonstrant tels us, he is re­solved to neglect: we should have as soone be­leeved him, if he had said so of all the rest: we beleeve the neglect springs neither from a desire to ease us, nor to anger us; but because he knowes not what to say a­gainst [Page 113] it. If he did intend to anger us he is much mis­taken, for it pleaseth us well to heare him give so full a testimony, that secular imployments are unsuitable to the Ministers of the Gospell. Vnlesse in those two excepted cases of the extraordinary occasions and services of a Prince or State. Page 90, 91. And the composing of unkind quar­rels of dissenting neighbours. We take what he grants us here so kindly, that we pardon his unfit comparison betweene S. Pauls Tent-making to supply his owne necessi­ties, that he might not be burthensome to the Church, & the State imployment of our Bishops. And should in this Section fully have joyned hands with him, but that we must needs tell him at the parting, that had our Bi­shops never ingaged themselves in secular affaires; but ex officio generali Charitatis and had beene so free from ambition as he would make the world beleeve they are (neither should wee have beene so large in this Section, nor so aboundant in our processe, nor would the Parliament have made that provision against the secular imployment of Clergy men as they have lately done.

SECT. XIII.

THe best Charter pleaded for Episcopacy in for­mer times was Ecclesiasticall constitution, and the favour of Princes. But our latter Bishops suspect­ing this would prove too weake and sandie a founda­tion to support a building of that transcending lofti­nesse, that they have studied to advance the Babell of Episcopacy unto, have indeavoured to under-pinne [Page 114] it with some texts of Scripture, that they might plead a Ius divinum for it: that the consciences of all might be tyed up from attempting to pull down their proud Fabricke; but none of them is more confident in this plea then this Remonstrant, who is content that Bi­shops should for ever be hooted out of the Church, and be disclaimed as usurpers, if they claime any o­ther power then what the Scripture gives them, espe­cially bearing his cause upon Timothy, and Titus, and the Angels of the 7. Churches.

Now because one grain of Scripture is of more effica­cy & esteeme to faith, then whole volumes of humane testimonies; we indeavoured to shew the impertinency of his allegations especially in those two instances.

And concerning Timothy and Titus, we undertooke two things: First, that they were not Bishops (in his sence) but Evangelists, the companions of the Apo­stles in founding of Churches, or sent by them from place to place, but never setled in any fixed pastorall charge, and this wee shewed out of the story of the Acts, and the Epistles. The other was, that granting ex abundanti they had beene Bishops, yet they never exercised any such jurisdiction as ours doe.

But because the great hinge of the controversie de­pends upon the instances of Timothy and Titus, before we come to answer our Remonstrant, we will promise these few propositions granted by most of the patrons of Episcopacy.

First, Evangelists properly so called, were men ex­traordinarily imployed in preaching the Gospell without a setled residence upon any one charge.Def. p. 94. They were Comites, & Vicarii Apostolorum, Vice-Apostles, who [Page 115] had Curam Vicariam omnium Ecclesiarum, as the Apostles had Curam principalem. And did (as Ambrose speakes) Evangelizare sine Cathedra.

Secondly,Page 100. It is granted by our Remonstrant, and his appendant Scultetus, and many others. That Timo­thy was properly an Evangelist, while he travelled up and downe with the Apostles.

Thirdly, It is expressely granted, that Timothy and Titus were no Bishops till after Pauls first being at Rome. Page 97. That is after the end of the Histories of the Acts of the Apostles.

Fourthly, The first Epistle to Timothy, and the Epi­stle to Titus, from whence all their grounds for Epis­copacy are fetcht,Vide Lud. Capell. hist. Eccles. p. 66. 74. were written by Paul before his first going to Rome. And this is acknowledged by all in­terpreters and Chronologers, that we have consulted with upon this point, Baronius himselfe affirming it. And the Remonstrants owne grounds will force him to acknowledge that the second Epistle to Timothy was also written at Pauls first being at Rome. Page 60. For that second Epistle orders him to bring Marke alone with him, who by the Remonstrants account died five or six yeeres before Paul. Which could not have beene,Estius in Arg. in secundam ep ad Tim. if this Epistle were written at Pauls second comming to Rome. Estius also following Baronius gives good reason that the second Epistle to Timothy was written at Pauls first being at Rome.

Fiftly, If Timothy and Titus were not Bishops when these Epistles were written unto them, then the maine grounds of Episcopacy by divine right sinke by their owne confession. Bishop Hall, in his Episcopacy by divine right, part 2. sect. 4. concludes thus peremptorily. That [Page 116] that if the especiall power of ordination and power of ru­ling and censuring Presbyters be not cleare in the Apostles charge to these two Bishops, the one of Creete, So Bilson. the other of Ephesus, I shall yeeld the cause, and confesse to want my sences. And it must needs be so; for if Timothy were not then a Bishop, the Bishops power of charging Presbyters, of proving and examining Deacons, of rebuking Elders, and ruling over them, and his im­position of hands to ordaine Presbyters, &c. doe all faile. And Bishops in these can plead no succession to Timothy and Titus by these Scriptures more then other Presbyters may. For if they were not Bishops, then all these were done by them as extraordinary Officers, to which there were no successors.

Sixtly, By the confession of the patrons of Episco­pacy. It is not onely incongruous,Vide Episc. by Di. Right, p. 2. but sacrilegious for a Minister to descend from a superiour order to an inferiour, according to the great Counsell of Chalcedon.

Seventhly, In all that space of time from the end of the Acts of the Apostles untill the middle of Trajans raigne there is nothing certaine to be drawne out of Ecclesiasticall Authours about the affaires of the Church, thus writeth Iosephus Scaliger. Thus Tilenus when he was most Episcopall,Prolegum. in Chron. Euseb. and Eusebius long be­fore them both saith, It cannot be easily shewed who were the true followers of the Apostles, no further then it can be gathered out of the Epistles of Paul.

If the intelligent Reader weigh and consider these granted propositions,Euseb. lib. 3. c. 4. he may with ease see how the life-blood of Episcopacy from Timothy and Titus is drayn'd out: for if they were not Bishops till after [Page 117] Pauls first being at Rome, then not when the Epistles were written to them according to the fourth propo­sition, and then their cause failes: if any shall say they were Bishops before Pauls first being at Rome, con­trary to the third proposition, then they make them Bishops, while by the story its apparent they were E­vangelists, and did Evangelizare sine cathedra, and so clash against the second.

In a word, the office of an Evangelist being a higher degree of Ministery then that of Bishops,Ephes. 4. 11. make them Bishops when you please, you degrade them contrary to our sixt proposition: whiles the Remonstrant tryes to reconcile these things, we shall make further use of them in our scanning his allegations in this section, to which we now proceed.

Where first the Reader may please to observe that the Remonstrant slideth by our marginall wherein we shewed the delineation that Eusebius makes of an E­vangelist, and desired the Reader to judge thereby whether Timothy and Titus were not Evangelists.Page 92. One­ly he chargeth us with boldnesse for calling them so, though himselfe afterward confesseth it, page 98: p. 100. But why must this be boldnesse? Forsooth, because though Timothy be expressely called an Evan­gelist, yet there is no text, no not the least intimation, no not so much as the least ground of a conjecture, that Titus was an Evangelist. And if so, why doe you afterwards grant it? But whether you doe or no, that it was so we have proved sufficiently in our answer. But let any indifferent man here consider the iniquity of the Remonstrant that challengeth us for calling Titus an Evangelist without a text for his name; and yet thinks [Page 118] himselfe much wronged if wee grant him not, that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Church were Bishops, though he hath no text for the name, nor for the office? Secondly, To our text, 2. Tim. 4. 5. [...] [...], doe the worke of an Evangelist, saith he,Page 93. rather intimates he was no Evangelist, then that he was: as if it were no more, then for the Remonstrant to desire his friend to doe the worke of a Secretary or Sollicitor for him, this implies he is neither. A very cleare glosse. Paul doth not here intreat, as we conceive, but charge. He speakes Imperative, not Impetrative. Compare this, not with the phrases of the Remonstrant, but with the phrases of the sam Apostle: and then judge. In the same Epistle 2 Chapt. 3. The same Apostle saith to the same person, endure hardnesse as a good souldier of Christ: doth that imply Timothy was no souldier of Christ, but onely so imployed for the time? So a­gaine, in the 15. verse of the same Chapter, when the Apostle saith, study to approve thy selfe a workman that needs not to be ashamed: doth this prove that Timothy was not a workeman but onely for the time? When Paul saith, 1 Cor. 16. 13. quite your selves like men, doth that shew they were not men? but onely so imployed for the time. How would the Remonstrant have tri­umphed over such a high peece of ridiculous learning in our answer? had we turned off all these texts which use to be produced as proofes of Episcopall authority in Timothy and Titus with such a shift as this? this doth not shew it was their worke, but onely they were so imployed for the time.

Wee adde further, That when you acknow­ledge Timothy was to doe the office of an Evangelist [Page 119] (for so your comparison of your friends doings the office of a Secretary warrants us to interpret you) you must necessarily meane the extraordinary Evangelist (for you scoffe page 94. at an ordinary Evangelist, as a new fiction) which if so, then consider how absurd a thing it is to bid the inferior doe the worke of a su­perior. Superiours may be intreated to doe the worke of inferiours, because they come within the spheare of their activity, and comprehend either virtually or for­mally what the inferiours are to doe. As Apostles have power to doe all that Evangelists, Presbyters and Deacons can doe; and Evangelists all that Presbyters, &c. but not è converso. Would it not be absurd to bid a Curate doe the office of a Bishop? Or a Presbyter the office of an Apostle? From all this we conclude, That when Paul bids Timothy, Doe the worke of an Evangelist: he bids him goe on with speed to execute his Vice-Apostolicall office in watering the severall Churches in Asia, &c.

But saith he, if he were an Evangelist,Part 2. p. 2. An Evangelist in the naturall sence of the words is he that preacheth the glad ti­dings of the Gospell. he may be that, and a Bishop too. For wee doe but dreame when we distinguish of Evangelists. Truely sir, this dreame was the fruit of our reading, the fancy of the Authour of Episcopacies divine right, and there we finde our or­dinary guifted Evangelist, under which name indeed we comprise all preachers.

The other branch of that distinction; Evangelists of extraordinary guifts and employments we finde in Scripture: and in this defence too, Truth is, their ordi­nary Evangelists are a new fiction. Page 94. True, if we speake of the office of the Evangelists, but to give the title of Evangelist, according to the naturall signification of [Page 120] the word to ordinary preachers of the Gospell, is nei­ther new nor fiction.

Well, our argument we raise upon this ground is slight. Paul besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus, 1. Tim. 1. 3. which had beene a needlesse importunity, Page 95. if he had had the Episcopal charge of Ephesus, for then necessarily he must have resided there. But what's his answer to this argument? Nothing, onely saith it is slight.

And that other argument brought from Timothies perpetuall moving from place to place, to prove that he was never fixed in an Episcopall station, is of as little force with him. The necessities of those times were such, as made even the most fixed Starres planetary, calling them frequently, from the places of their abode to those Services that were of most use for the successe of that great worke: yet so that after their err [...]nds fully dome they retur­ned to their owne charge. Let us once professe as much confidence in our cause as the Remonstrant doth in his: We challenge him to shew in all the new Testament, any one that was appointed overseer of a particular Church, whose motion was as planetary as wee have shewed that of Timothy and Titus to have beene. Or if that faile, let him but shew that after Timothy or Titus went abroad upon the Service of the Churches, they did constantly or ordinarily returne either to Ephesus or Creet, and not to the places either of the Apostles present abode or appointment. And let them take Timothy and Titus as theirs, the patrons and presidents of Episcopacy. But till they can shew this, we must beleeve and affirme Timothy and Titus are Evangelists and no Bishops.

Our next argument, from Act. 20. is but a Reed. [Page 121] Happy Remonstrant that deales with such impotent adversaries; our first argument is slight,You cannot shake it out so easily. our second is of no force, our third is but a reed. Yet let us tell you, Haeret Lateri Lethalis Arundo. We affirmed, & upon cer­taine grounds, Acts 20. 4: (though the Remonstrant know it not) that Timothy was with Paul at the meeting at Miletum, and from thence argued that had Timothy been B. of Ephesus, Paul would have given him a charge of feeding the flocke, and not the Elders, but would have given them direction for their carriage, at least, would not so have forgot himselfe as to call the Elders Bishops, before their Bishops face.

In all which the Remonstrant saith,Page 96. we goe upon a wrong ground: But sure sir, you are not so ignorant of our meaning, as by your questions you would seeme to be. We grant that these assembled persons, were Presbyters or Bishops in a parity, but neither in impa­rity, neither under Timothy nor any other Bishop. And to this purpose is our argument, from the want of di­rections to them as inferiour: yet notwithstanding the Remonstrant would be glad to picke what holes he can in our argument; yet in part he grants what wee conclude: That they were all Bishops, onely with this addition, they were not meere Presbyters: but upon what ground? The word it selfe imports they were Bishops [...]. And doth not the other word▪ [...] im­port as strongly they were Presbyters? And the truth is they were Presbyters, whom the holy Ghost had made Bishops. Foreseeing how his owne words would snarle him, if he should grant them all Bishops, he must grant there were more Bishops then one in Ephesus; he puts by that blow telling us that though they [Page 126] were sent for from Ephesus, yet they were not said to be all of Ephesus Thither they were called from divers parts, which seems to be implyed in these words ye all amongst whom, &c. This is but a poore evasion: For first the holy Ghost tels us, that Paul did now study expedition, and did decline Ephesus of purpose because he would not spend time in Assia: Now if Paul comming to Miletum had sent from thence to Ephesus, for the Elders of that Church, and they had sent for the rest of the Asian Churches, & Paul had stayed at Miletum till they could assemble to him, this would have beene such an ex­pence of time, as Pauls haste to Ierusalem could not ad­mit. Secondly, these Elders were all of one Church made by God, Bishops over one flocke; and therefore may with most probability be affirmed to be the El­ders of the Church of Ephesus. For the Apostles were alwaies exact in distinguishing Churches; that of a City, they alwaies called a Church; those of a Province, Churches; Churches of Galatia, Churches of Macedo­nia, Churches of Iudea, &c. And that evasion which you use, page 12 [...] ▪ that they might be all called one Church because united under one government, makes your cause farre worse. Because notwithstanding this union you speake of S. Iohn joyning them all together in one Epistle, [...] 1. calls them the Churches of Asia, and now here the Church▪ Besides this, the Syriack translation (thought by some to be almost as ancient as the Church of Antioch) reads it, the Elders of the Church of Ephesus, not onely the Elders of the Church. Thirdly, you say they were Bishops or Superinten­dents of other Churches as well as Ephesus. But your selfe grants in this very page, that Timothy was not [Page 127] yet Bishop of Ephesus, and yet you all say that he was the first Bishop that ever Ephesus had. And that Ephesus was the Metropolis of all Asia. How then came the Daughter Churches to have Bishops before their mother as you call it. Lastly, that we may cut asunder the si­newes (as your phrase is) of your far-fetched answer, borrowed from Bishop Barlow and Andrewes. Where­as you lay the weight of it upon those words, Ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdome of God. Collecting from thence, that there must be some Su­perintendents present from all those places, where he had travelled preaching; Your selfe would quickly see the weakenesse of it, were you not pleading your owne cause. Should any man speaking with three or foure of the members of the late convocation, say, you all who had your hand in the late oath and Ca­nons are in danger, &c. would it imply a presence of all the members of the Convocation because the speech concerned them all? you know it would not. But if this doe not suffice, then tell us, Why must his (All) be meant as such superintendents as you plead for, except because they were called Bishops, and so you would raise an argument from the name to the thing; which kind of argument if it may prevaile, you know your cause is lost.

But the Acumen of this answer by which he makes account to cut asunder the sinewes of all our proofes, is this; That it is more then probable, that Timothy and Titus were made Bishops after, Pauls first being at Rome. Page 97, 98. Truely sir, here you desert your old friend, Episc. by Div. right, (out of whom you have hitherto borrowed a great part both of your matter and words.Epist. 2. part. p. 39. He saith, Timothy [Page 124] was at this time a Bishop and present, and Pauls assessor. You it seemes thinke otherwise. Agree as well as you can; we will not set you at variance. We thinke hee was as much bishop before as after; onely we desire to learne when, where, and by whom Timothy recei­ved his ordination to Episcopacy: The first Epistle to Timothy tels us of an ordination which he had re­ceived to another office. And Chronologers tell us, that that Epistle was writ many yeeres before Timothy was made Bishop of Ephesus, according to your computa­tion: and we leave to you to tell us when, and where he received ordination to your Episcopall office: we have perused the Chronologicall tables of Lud [...]vicus Capellus, whom you call Iacob Cappellus, and have com­pared him with Ba oniu [...], & from thence have learned that the Epistle was writ to him before Pauls going to Rome, but cannot learne from their Chronologie that ever he was made Bishops afterwards.

The same answer (say you) may serve you for Titus; and the same reply serves us:Page 98. onely whereas you accuse us of guilt for our translating [...] (every variation from the ordinary translation must be guilty) know that [...] will be translated things that remaine, Page 99. when you and we are dead and rotten▪ And if our translators did not render [...] so, yet so they ren­der [...] Revil. 3. 2.

Your second quarrell is to these words (for a while) to which because our margent allots the space of be­tweene five or six yeeres, you thinke you have us at a great advantage. If wee had said he tarried there but a little while, you might have had some what whereon to fasten; but we spake of a while, not in respect of [Page 125] the shortnesse of his residence at Creet, but as it stands in opposition to residence for terme of life. He was left there but for a while. Ergo not fixed there during life.Chrys. in Tit. c. 1. Hom. 2. The end why the Apostle left Titus at Creet was to ordaine Elders or Bishops in every City, and not to be Bishop there himselfe. For as Chrysostome saith, Paul would not commit the whole Iland to one man, but would have every man appointed to his charge and Cure. For so he knew his labour would be the lighter, and the peo­ple that were under him would be governed with the greater diligence. For the Teacher should not be troubled with the government of many Churches, but onely intend one, and study for to adorne that. Therefore this was Titus his worke, not to be Bishop in Creet himselfe, but to or­daine Elders in every City, which was an office above that of a Bishop. For Creet was [...]; Now you know sir, that i [...] is above the worke of an ordinary Bi­shop to plant and erect Churches to their due frame, in an hundred Citties. Bishops are given to particular Churches when they are framed to keepe them in the Apostolicall truth, not to lay foundations, or to ex­aessifie some imperfect beginnings. This service Titus did in Creet, (the same worke which the Apostle did when he visited the Churches of Asia, Acts 14. 23.) which being finished, the same Apostolicall power which sent him thither, removed him thence againe for the service of other Churches, as we have former­ly shewed from Scripture. And though the Remon­strant tels us this calling away could no whit have im­peached the truth of his Episcopacy; We must crave leave to tell him, that though it may be one journey upon some extraordinary Church service might [Page 130] consist with such a fixed station as Episcopacy is. Yet an ordinary frequent course of jornying, such as Titus his was cannot; unlesse he will grant that Timothy might be a Bishop and an Evangelist at the same time. But this is contrary to the Remonstrants one defi­nition of an Evangelist, page 94. And therefore he chus [...]th rather to say Timothy was first an Evangelist when he travelled abroad, and afterward a Bishop when he setled at home. Page 100. This is more absurd then the former. For if ever Titus were a Bishop; it was then when Paul left him in Creet to ordaine Elders in every City: And after that time was the greatest part of his tra­vels, as we have shewed in our answer.Ans. p. 51. All these jour­neys did Titus make after he was left in Creet, nor doe we finde any where record of his returne thither: Therefore according to this rule, Titus should be first a Bishop, and afterwards an Evangelist. Or if the grea­test part of Titus his travels had beene before his de­legation to Creet, yet it had beene no lesse absurd to say that afterwards he did descend from the degree of an Evangelist to the station of Episcopacy. We hope the Remonstrant will not deny but an Evangelist was as farre above a Bishop as any Bishop can fancy him­selfe to be above a Presbyter. [...] And if for a Bishop to quit his Episcopacy and suffer himselfe to be reduced to the ranke of a meere Presbyter, be a crime so hain­ous, so odious,Epis. Div. Rig. part 2. that it had beene much better to have beene unborne then to live to give so hainous a scandall to Gods Church, and so deepe a wound to his holy truth and ordi­nances, a river, an ocean can neither drowne nor wash off the offence. What is it to reduce an Evangelist to the forme of a Bishop?

[Page 131] We had granted that some Fathers call Timothy and Titus Bishops; the Remonstrant replies, some, nay all, Be it so, as long as himselfe hath granted the Fa­thers did use the titles of Bishops and Presbyters [...], But there is a Cloud of witnesses of much anti­quity which avers Timothy and Titus to have liv [...]d and died Bishop of Ephesus & Creet. But this cloud will soone blow over.Centur. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. The Magdeburgenses tell us, That there is nothing expressely or certainely delivered by any approved writer to shew how, or how long Timo­thy was Doctour or Governour of the Church of E­phesus. Therefore we cannot certainely affirme that he suffered martyrdome at Ephesus, being stoned to death for reproving the idolatry of the Ephesians at the porch of Dian [...]s Temple, which yet the most have reported. Let the Reader further know that his cloud of witnesses, who averre Timothy and Titus to be Bi­shops, have borrowed their testimonies from Eusebius, of whom Scaliger saith, and Doctor Raynolds approves of it. That he read ancient Histories parum attente, which they prove by many instances. And all that Eusebius saith, is onely sic scribitur. It is so reported. But from whence had he this History? even from Cle­mens fabulous, and Hegesippus not exstant. [...] And there­fore that which is answered by our learned Divines concerning Peters being at Rome and dying there (which is also recorded by Eusebius) That because Eusebiu [...] had it from Papias an Author of little esteeme: hence they thinke it a sufficient argument to deny the truth of the History, though asserted by never so many Authours relying upon one of so little credit. The same answer will fully serve to all the authorities [Page 128] produced for Timothies and Titus being Bishops from antiquity. And that which Thucidides saith of the ancient Greeke Historia [...]s, may as truely be said of Eusebius Irenaeus and others: Quae a majoribus accepe­rant Posteri, [...] securi examinis suis item posteris tradiderunt.

We further shewed how the Fathers called Timothy and Titus Bishops viz. in the same sence which learned D. Raynolds saies, they also used to call the Apostles Bishops, even in a generall signification, because they did attend that Chu [...]ch for a time. &c. This the Remonstrant will not give us leave to doe, but without his leave we shall make it good. We say therefore further: That when the Apostles or Evangelists (perhaps Iames at Hieru­salem, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Creet) did stay longer at one Church, and exercised such a power, as the Bishops in succeeding ages did aspire unto: when the Fathers would set forth this power of an Apostle or Evangelists long residing in one Church, they (labou­ring to doe it in a famil [...]ar way) did similitudinarily call them Bishops, and sometimes Archbishops or Patriarcks, which all confesse were offices not heard of in the Apostles times; not meaning they were so formally, but eminently: neither could they call them so properly, for the power they exercised was in them formally Apostolicall or Evangelicall, reaching not only to the Church where then they resided, but to all neighbouring and bordering Churches, as farre as was possible for them to oversee, or the occasions of the Church did require; they having no bounded Dio­cesses, but had the care of all the Churches. In this sence they might call them so, but for either an [Page 129] Apostle or Evangelist to be ordained a Bishop or Pres­byter had beene both unnecessary and absurd: unne­cessary, because the higher degree includes the infe­riour eminently, though not formally; and absurd to descend lower, that after they had been Apostolically or Evangelically employed in taking care of all the Churches, they should be ordained to a worke which should so limit them, as to make them lesse usefull to the Church of God.

But, saith he, all this discourse is needlesse, whether Timothy or Titus were Evangelists or no; sure we are, here they stand for persons charged with those offices and cares which are delivered to the ordinary Church-governours in all succeeding generations: Here first you give us no ground of your surenesse, nor can give us any other then what may be said of the Apostles, for they also stand as persons charged, &c. Secondly, it is true the substance of those cares and offices, which belong to Apostles and Evangelists is transmitted to the ordi­nary Church-governours, as farre as is necessary for the edification of the Church, else the Lord had not sufficiently provided for his Church: all the question is, whether these Church-governours are by way of Aristocracy the common Councell of Presbyters, or by way of Monarchy Diocesan Bishops? Now unlesse you prove that Timothy and Titus were ordinary offi­cers (or as Doctor Hall cals them, Diocesan Bishops) to whom as to individuall persons such care and offices were individually intrusted, you will never out of Timothy and Titus defend Diocesan Bishops. Thirdly, though the substance of these cares and offices were to be transmitted to ordinary Church-governours, [Page 130] yet they are not transmitted in that eminency or per­sonall height, in which they were in the Apostles and Evangelists: an Apostle where ever he lived might governe and command all Evangelists, all Presbyters &c. an Evangelist might governe all Presbyters, &c. but no Presbyter or Bishop might command others, onely the common Councel of Presbyters may charge any or many Presbyters, as occasion shall require. In a word, these ordinary Church-governours succeed the extraordinary officers, not in the same line and degree, as one brother dying, another succeeds him in the inheritance; but as men of an other order, and in a different line. Let the Remonstrant therefore take Timothy and Titus as he findes them, that is, Evange­lists, men of extraordinary dignity and authority in the Church of Christ: Let him with his first confidence maintaine that our Bishops challenge no other spirituall power then was delegated to them. We shall upon better grounds maintaine with better confidence, that if they chalenge the same, they ought to be disclaimed for usurpers.

But much more challenging such a power as was never exercised by Timothy and Titus, as we demon­strated in our former answer in severall instances; which are so commonly knowne as our Remonstrant is ashamed to deny them: onely plaies them off, partly with his old shift, the abuse of the person, not of the Cal­ling. But we beseech you sir, tell us whether these persons doe not perpetrate these abuses (though by their owne vice, yet) by vertue of their place and Callings. Partly by retorting questions upon us; when, or where did our Bishops challenge to ordaine alone; or to [Page 131] governe alone? we have shewed you when and where already, when or where did our Bishops challenge power to passe a rough and unbeseeming rebuke upon an Elder? Page 102. Sure your owne conscience can tell that hath taught you to apply that to an Elder in office which we onely spake (in Scripture phrase) of an Elder in generall. It was your guilt, not our ignorance that turned it to an Elder in office. Where did, say you, our Bishops give Com­mission to Chancellors, Commissaries, &c. to rayle upon Presbyters; to accuse them without just ground, &c. where have not Chancellors done so? and what power have they but by Bishops Commission to meddle with any thing in Church affaires? And where is the Bishop that hath forbid it them? Qui non prohibet facit. Onely there is one practice of our Bishops he is something more laborious to justifie: That is, their casting out unconforming brethren, commonly knowne in their Court language by the name of schismatickes and heretickes, which Timothy and Titus never did, nor had any such power delegated to them; heretickes indeed the Apostles gave them power to reject: but wee had hoped the refusall of the use of a ceremony should never have beene equalized in the punishment either to heresie or schisme. But the Remonstrant hath found Scripture for it. Loth not the Apostle wish that they were cut off that trouble you? but sure it is one thing to wish men cut off by God, and another thing to cut them off by the censure of the Church. Besides this was written to the Galatians; and they that trou­bled them, were such as maintained doctrines against the foundation, i. Justification by workes of the Law, &c. which we thinke are very neere of kinne to here­tickes. [Page 132] I am sure farre above the crime of the Re­monstrants unconforming brethren, who are unsetled in points of a meane difference, (which their usuall language knowes by no better termes then of schis­matickes and factious) yet even such have fallen un­der the heaviest censures of suspension, excommuni­cation, deprivation, &c. which the Remonstrant un­able to deny would justifie, which when he shall be able to doe, he may do something towards the patro­nizing of Bishops. But in the meane time let him not say they are our owne ill raised suggestions, but their owne ill assumed and worse mannaged authority, that makes them feare to be disclaimed as usurpers.

The second Scripture ground which the Remon­strant is ambitious to draw in for the support of his Episcopall cause, is the instance of the Angels of the seven Churches, which because it is locus [...] and cried up as argumentum verè Achilleum, we did on purpose inlarge our selves about it. And for our paines the Remonstrant, as if all learning and acute­nesse were lockt up in his breast (Narcissus like in love with his owne shadow) professeth that this peece of the taske fell unhappily upon some dull and tedious hand, &c. Which if it be so,Page 103. it will redound the more to the Re­monstrants discredit, when it shall appeare that he is so shamefully foiled and wounded by so dull an ad­versary. He objects Colemorts oft sod, when he cannot but know that the whole substance of his owne booke is borrowed from Bishop Bilson and Doctor Downham. And that there is nothing in this discourse about the Angels, but either it is [...] of if [...], it is [...]. But before we come to answer our Remonstrants par­ticulars, [Page 133] we will premise something in generall about these Asian Angels.

It may seeme strange that the defenders of Episco­pacy lay so much weight of argument upon the word or appellation of Angell; which themselves know to be a title not impropriated to the chiefe Ministers of the Church, but common to all that bring the glad ti­dings of the Gospell; yea to all the messengers of the Lord of Hosts. We conceive there are 2. maine reasons that induce them to insist so much on this: First they finde it the most easie way of avoyding the dint of all the Arguments brought against them out of the Hi­story of the Acts and Epistles, by placing one above the rest of the Presbyters in the period of the Apostles times. And so finding in the Revelation (which was written the last of all the parts of the Scripture, except peradventure the Gospell written by the same penne) an expression which may seeme to favour their cause, they improve it to the utmost. Partly because here­by they evade all our arguments which we bring out of the Scripture. Doe we prove out of the 20. of Acts, Presbyters and Bishops to be all one? Doe we prove the Bishops described in Timothy and Titus to be one and the same in name and office with a Presbyter? Doe we prove that their Churches were all governed Communi Consilio Presbyterorum? All shall be granted us, and yet the Divine right of Episcopacy be still held up by this sleight, by telling us, that before the Apostles left the earth they made over their authority to some prime men. Demand where this is extant? The Angels of the seven Churches are pleaded pre­sently. And partly because we have no other Scripture [Page 134] of latter inspiration and edition, whereby to prove the contrary.

Another inducement is, because the writers neere the Apostles times make frequent mention of a Bi­shop, and as they would have us beleeve, some waies distinguished from a Presbyter. Some of them men­tioning the very men that were the Angels of these Churches; as Polycarpus of Smyrna & Ignatius (who is said to have beene martyred within twelve yeeres after the Revelation was written,) wrote letters to the severall Churches, wherein he mentioneth their Bishops distinct from their Presbyters.Episc. by Di. Right, 1 pt. 35. Now (saith the author of Episcopacy by divine right) the Apostles immediate successors could best tell what they next before them did. Who can better tell a mans pace then he that fol­lowes him close at heeles? And this hath so plausib [...]e a shew, that all are condemned as blind, or wilfull, who will either doubt that Episcopacy was of Apostoli­call institution, or thinke that the Church of Christ, should in so short a time deviate from the institution of the Apostles. But now how insufficient a ground this is for the raising up of so mighty a Fabricke as Episcopacy by Divine right, or Apostolicall institu­tion wee desire the Reader to judge by that that followes.

First, the thing they lay as their foundation is a meere metaphoricall word, and such as is ordinarily applied to Presbyters in common.

Secondly, the Penman of those seven Epistles did never in them nor in any of his other writings so much as use the name of Bishop, he names Presbyters fre­quently; especially in this booke, yea where he would [Page 135] set out the office of those that are neerest to the throne of Christ in his Church, Revel. 4. And whereas in Saint Iohns daies some new expressions were used in the Christian Church, which were not in Scripture: As the Christian Sabbath began to be called [...] and Christ himselfe [...]. Now both these are found in the writings of S. Iohn; and it is strange to us that the Apostle should mention a new phrase, and not mention a new office erected in the Church, as you would make us beleeve.

Neither thirdly, in any of his writings the least in­timation of superiority of one Presbyter over ano­ther, save onely where he names Diotrephes as one am­bitiously affecting such a Primacy. Nor is there any one word in these Epistles whence an Episcopall au­thority may be collected. So that did not the testi­monies that lived soone after make the argument plausible, it would appeare ridiculous. But alas the suffrage of all the writers in the world is infinitely un­able to command an Act of Divine faith without which divine right cannot be apprehended.

Suppose we were as verily perswaded that Ignatius wrote the Epistles which goe under his name (which yet we have just cause to doubt of, as knowing that many learned men reject a great part of them, and some all) as we can be perswaded that Tully wrote his: All this can perswade no further that the Apostles ordained and appointed Bishops as their successors, but onely by a humane faith: but neither is that so. The most immediate and unquestionable successors of the Apostles give cleare evidence to the contrary. It is granted on all sides that there is no peece of an­tiquity [Page 136] that deserves more esteeme then the Epistle of Clement, For the further high commen­dation of Cle­ment and this his peece, See Epil. by div. right part [...] [...]ct. 10. p. 59, 60. Whom yet he hath wronged in his quotations. lately brought to light by the industry and labour of that learned Gentleman Master Patricke Young. And in that Epistle Bishops and Presbyters are all one, as appeares by what followes: The occasion of that Epistle seemes to be a new sedition raysed by the Co­rinthians against their Presbyters, page 57. 58. (not as Bishop Hall saies, the continuation of the schismes amongst them in the Apostles daies:) Clemens to remove their present sedition tels them how God hath alwaies ap­pointed severall orders in his Church, which must not be confounded; first, telling them how it was in the Jewish Church; then for the times of the Gospell, tels them, that Christ sent his Apostles through Coun­tries and Cities, in which they constituted the first fruits (or the chiefe of them) unto Bishops and Deacons, for them who should beleeve afterward, p. 54. 55.

Those whom hee calls there Bishops afterwards throughout the Epistle he cals Presbyters, pa. 58, 62, 69. All which places doe evidently convince that in Clement his judgement, the Apostle appointed but two officers (that is Bishops and Deacons) to bring men to beleeve: Because when he had reckoned up three orders appointed by God among the Jewes, High-priests, Priests, and Levites, comming to recite orders appointed by the Apostles under the Gospell, hee doth mention onely Bishops and Deacons: and those Bishops which at first he opposeth to Deacons, ever after he cals Presbyters. And here we cannot but wonder at the strange boldnesse of the author of Epis. by divine right, who hath endevoured to wire-draw this Author (so much magnified by him) to maintaine [Page 137] his Prelaticall Episcopacy: and that both by foysting in the word withall into this translation which is not in the Text, that the Reader might be seduced to be­leeve that the offices of Episcopacy and Presbytery were two different offices. And also by willingly misunderstanding Clement his phrase [...]: for by the word ( [...]) he would have us understand Episcopacy as distinct from Presbyterie: whereas the whole series of the Epistle evidently proves that the word Episcopus & Presbyter are [...]: And so also by the word ( [...]) hee would have us to understand that the contention then in Corinth was only about the name: whereas it appeares by the Epistle it selfe, that the controversie was not a­bout the name, but dignity of Episcopacy: for it was a­bout the deposition of their godly Presbyters, p. 57, 58. And the word [...] is thus interpreted by Beza Eph. 1. 21. Phil. 2. 9. & Heb. 1. 4. and Mead in Apoc. 11. p. 156. In which places [...] is rendred by [...], so here [...] is put for [...]. By all this we see that the most genuine and neerest successor of the Apostles knew no such difference.

Lastly, it is worth our observation, that the same wri­ters who (as they say) testifie that these 7. Angels were in a superiour degree to Presbyters, do likewise affirm that the Apostle Iohn sate many yeeres B. of Ephesus, and was the Metropolitan of all Asia, in which we sup­pose the Remonstrant will allow his readers a liberty of beleeving him, and allow us a liberty to tell him that D Whitakers saith, Patres cum Iacobum Episcopum vocant aut etiam Petrum, non propriè sumunt Episcopi no­men, Whitak. de Pon­tif. qu. 2. cap 15. sed vocant eos Episcopos illarum Ecclesiarum in qui­bus aliquamdin commorati sunt. And in the same place, [Page 138] Et si propriè de Episcopo loquatur, absurdum est Apostolos su­isse Episcopos. Nam qui propriè Episcopus est, is Apostolous non potest esse▪ quia Episcopus est unius tantum Ecclesiae. At Apo­stoli plurium Ecclesiarum fundatores & inspectores erant. And againe, Hoc enim non mul [...]um distat ab insaniâ, dicere Petrum fuisse propriè Episcopum, out reliquos Apostolos.

Now we returne to our Remonstrant. Our answer to his objection from the Angels was: That the word Angell▪ is to be taken collectively, not individually, which he cals, pro more suo, a shift and a conceit which no wise man can ever beleeve. Page 104. And yet he could not but take notice that we alleaged Austin, Gregory, Fulke, Per­kins, Fox, Brightman, Mede, and divers others for this interpretation: which will make the world to accuse him for want of wisdome, for calling the wisedome of such men into question. Before he addresseth himself to answer our reasons, he propounds two queres.

1. If the interest be common and equally appertaining to all, why should one be singled out above the rest? Page 104. A very dull question, which is indeed a very begging of the cause. For the question in agitation is, whether when Christ writes to the 7. Angels, he meant to single out 7. individuall persons above the rest, or else writes to the 7. Angels collectively meaning all the Angels that were in all the Churches.

The second question is as dull as the first. If you will yeeld the person to be such as had more then others, a right in the administration of all, it is that weseeke for. But he knew we would not yield it. And therefore we may justly use his owne words, that those questions are tedi­ous and might well have beene spared. And so also the instances of a letter indorsed from the Lords of [Page 139] the Councell to the Bishop of Durham, concerning some af­faires of the whole Clergy of his Diocesse: No man will deny but that the Bishop of Durham is an individuall Bishop. This example supposeth the Angell about whom we dispute to be meant individually, which you know is the [...] betweene you and us. Quid haec ad Rhombum? We will give you instances more suitable to the purpose. Suppose one in Christs time, or his Apostles had indorsed a letter to the Chiefe-priest concerning the affaires of the Sanhedrim, and another letter to the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue concerning the affaires of the Synagogue, and another letter to the Captaine of the Temple, concerning the businesse of the Temple; could any man imagine but that these indorsments must necessarily be understood collectively? considering there were more Chiefe-priests then one in Ierusalem, Luke 22. 4. and more chiefe Rulers of the Synagogue then one, Math. 19. 18. compared with Acts 18. 8. 17. And more Captaines of the Temple then one, Acts 4▪ 1. compared with Luke the [...]2. 4. and so also semblably more Angels and Mi­nisters in the seven Churches then seven. But stay sir, we hope you are not of opinion, that any of your Asian Bishops had as much spirituall and temporall power as the Lord Bishop of Salisbury, and the Lord Bishop and Palatine of Durham, Cave dixeris.

At last you come to our proofes, which you scof­fingly call invincible. You should have done better to have called them irrefragable, like your good friends irrefragable propositions.

Our first argument is drawne from the Epistle to Thyatira, Revel. 2. 24. But I say unto you (in the plurall [Page 140] number, not unto thee in the singular) and unto the rest in Thyatira. Here is a plaine distinction betweene the Governours, and the governed. And the Governours in the plurall number; which apparently proves that the Angell is collective. The Remonstrant hath no way to put this off,Page 105. but by a pittifull shift to use his owne words. He tels us he hath found a better coppy; which is a very unhappy and unbecoming expression, apt to make ignorant people doubt of the originall text, and so in time rather to deny the Divinity of the Scriptures, then of Episcopacy. But this better coppy is but lately searcht into, for we finde that Bishop Hall, in his Episcopacy by Divine right, reads it as we doe. But I say unto you, and the rest in Thyatira. But what is this better Coppy? It is a Manuscript written by the hand of Teela; which if it be no truer then Itinerarium Pauli & Teclae, it will have little credit among the Learned. But that which makes you to magnifie it the more, is that doughty argument which it helped you to against us, concerning the same Church of [...]hyatira, in which the Angell is charged for suffering that woman Iezabel. And now you say, in that memorable copy of Tecla, it is [...], which you interpret, thy wife Iczebel. And just as Archimedes, you come with an [...], And call upon us to blush for shame. What say you in a different character, shall we thinke she was wife to the whole company or to one Bishop alone? Page 106. But for our part we doe thinke you have more cause to blush for ma­king such a Translation,The memora­ble copy of Tecla [...]s may be translated, Thy woman Iezeb [...]l, or That woman of thine Iezebel. We see no sha­dow of reason why the Re­monstrant should tran­slate it, Thy wise Iezebel. In the Arabick it is, Quod sivi­sti muli [...]rem [...]o­catam Iezebel, according to our ordinary Greeke copies. and rather then you will not prove the Angell of Thyatira to be an individuall Bi­shop, you will un-Angell him, and make him an other Ahab, to marry a cursed Iezebel. We wonder that ne­ver [Page 141] any protestant writer had the wit to bring this text against the papists to prove the lawfulnesse of Priests marriages; no not Doctor Hall himselfe in his defence of the married Clergy. Give us leave here to use your owne words, page 108. Forbeare Reader if you can, to smile at this curious subtilty, what Cabalisme have we here? judge Reader what to expect of so deepe speculations. And also to repeate what you say, page 110. If you please your selfe with this new subtilty it is well from us you have no cause to expect an answer: it can nei­ther draw our assent, nor merit our confutation. We be­leeve it to be as true that Iezebel was the wife of the Bishop of Thyatira, as that Tecla was the wife of Paul. But to returne to the former text: Let any judicious reader survey the latter part of the 23. verse (which is the verse before that out of which we bring our rea­son) there he shall finde Christ speaking to the Church of Thyatira, saith: And I will give to every one of you (in the plurall number.) And then followes, But I say unto you and the rest in Thyatira. And he will not onely con­ [...]esse that though the 24. verse should faile, yet the 23. would prove the same thing, as effectually as the 24. but also will grant that from the co [...]erence it is evident that the old copies are better then that which this Remonstrant cals the better coppy of Tecla. But besides this text, let the Reader cast his eye upon what Christ saith to the Angell of the Church of Smyrna, Revel. 2. 10. feare none of those things which thou shalt suffer, behold the divell shall cast some of you into prison, (of you in the plurall number:) that yee may be tryed (yee in the plurall number) and you (in the plurall againe) shall have tribulation ten daies; be thou faithfull [Page 142] unto the death, and I will give thee a Crowne of life. Ob­serve here how our Saviour Christ changeth the num­ber. Be thou faithfull. And the divell shall cast some of you, &c. to shew unto us, that the Angell is not meant of one singular person, but of all the whole company of Presbyters that were in Smyrna. So also Christ wri­ting to the Angell of the Church of Pergamus saith, verse 13. in the beginning of the verse, I know thy workes, in the singular number; but in the latter end, who was slaine among you, in the plurall number. We expect that the Remonstrant will when best at lea­sure bring tidings of another better coppy, to avoyd the dint of these texts that doe as we thinke demonstra­tively prove the thing in question.

Our second argument is drawne from the like phra­ses even in this very booke of the Revelation, where it is usuall to expresse a company under one singular person; as the civill state of Rome, as opposite to Christ, is called a beast with ten hornes: and the Ec­clesiasticall state Antichristian, is called, the whore of Babylon.Page 106. To which you answer. 1. That if it be thus in visions and Emblematicall representations, must it needs be so in plaine narrations? But good sir consider, this very thing we are about was seene by Saint Iohn in a vision: and you your selfe confesse in the next page, that the word Angell is metaphoricall. How then is it a plaine narration? Secondly, you say because it is so in one phrase of speech, must it be so in all? We answer,Page 106. that this argument was not brought to prove that the word Angell must needs be taken collectively, but onely that it might be so taken, and that it was the likeliest inter­pretation, especially considering what was added out [Page 143] of Master Mede (who was better skilled in the mea­ning of the Revelation then your selfe) that the word Angell is commonly (if not alwaies) in the Reve­lation taken collectively. Thus the seven Angels that blew the seven trumpets, and the seven Angels that poured out the seven vials, are not literally to be ta­ken, but Synecdochically, you reply. Perhaps so, but then the Synecdoche lies in the seven, not in the Angels, and so you grant the word Angell to be metaphoricall, but we are never a whit the neerer to our imagined Synecdoche. But this is but a meere fallacy. Let but the reader ex­pect, till we make good our fourth reason, and then we shall see our imagined Synecdoche made reall. For the present it is sufficient, that it is the ordinary custome of the holy Ghost in the Revelation, by Angell to meane Angels; by seven Angels, not seven individually, but collectively. But whether the Sy­necdoche be in the word seven, or in the word Angel, that is nothing to the purpose in hand.

Our third argument, is drawne from the word An­gell, which is a common name to all the Ministers and messengers, &c. And surely had Christ intended to point out some one individuall person by the Angell, he would have used some distinguishing name to set him out by: he would have called him Rector, or Pre­sident, or Superintendent; but calling him by a name common to all Ministers, why should we thinke that there should be any thing spoken to him that doth not asmuch concerne all the rest who are Angels as well as he? All that you answer is, that Christ knew this well enough, and if he had meant it, had it not beene as easie to have mentioned many as one? Page 107. But here wee humbly [Page 144] desire the Reader to consider two things. 1. The un­reasonablenesse of this answer: we brought three rea­sons why Christ when he meant divers Angels, spake in the singular number Angell, not Angels. These rea­sons the Remonstrant passeth over with a scorne, (the commonest, safest, surest way of answering, the Re­monstrant hath:) and yet he demands page 104. why should one be singled ou [...] above all, if the interest be com­mon? And here, why doth not Christ say to the Angels? But let [...]im first answer our Therefores, and wee will quickly answer his Wherefores. Secondly, how justly we may retort this answer upon the Remonstrant and say, If Christ had meant by the seven Angels seven Bi­shops, how easie had it beene for him to have written to the Bishop of Ephesus (as he was lately called at the Spittle by a Bishop) to the Bish. of Smyrna, instead of the Angell of Ephesus, and the Angell of Smyrna. But this Christ doth not doe, and not onely so, but Saint Iohn also in all his bookes makes not any mention of the name Bishop. And therefore it seemeth strange to us that Episcopacy by divine right should be fetched out of his writings. I but saith the Remonstrant,Page 107. it is written [...]. And therefore the denoted person must needs be singular. For surely you cannot say that all the Pres­byters at Eph [...]sus were one Angell. Yes sir, wee can say they were all one Angell collectively, though not indi­vidually And we can shew you where Christ speaketh in the singular number, and joyneth the Article with it also, and yet meaneth Synecdochically more, for one, as Iohn 4. 37. Iohn 10. 11. [...], which must be all meant indefinitely, not individually. You suppose againe, that if that [Page 145] Christ had said, To the Starre of Ephesus, no body would have construed it but of one eminent person. But herein also you are much mistaken, for the word Starre is as common a name to all Ministers as the word Angell, as we have shewed in our answer.

The fourth argument you account ridiculous, and in a proud scorne passe it over with a jeere. But you will see in the conclusion you your selfe to be the ridicu­lum caput, not we. Our argument stands thus: Our Saviour saith, The seven Candlestickes which thou sawest are the seven Churches: but he doth not say, the seven starres are the seven Angels of the same Churches. But the Angels of the seven Churches omitting not with­out mystery the number of the Angels, least wee should understand by Angell one Minister a­lone, and not a company.Page 108. To omit your scoffes, you answer it is plaine that every Church hath his An­gell mentioned, and there being seven Chruches, how many Angels (I beseech you) are there? This answer is as easily blowne away, as the wind blowes away chaffe. It is true, every Church hath his Angell men­tioned, but whether Angell individually or Angell collectively, that is still the question, and therefore for ought you say, though there were but seven Chur­ches, there might be seven, and seven times seven An­gels in those Churches. But you intimate that Christ saith, the 7. starres, though he doth not say the seven Angels. Now here give us leave to put our Remon­strant in mind of the imagined Syneedoche. For we just­ly conceive that these words, The seven Starres are the Angels, are figurative, and that there are two figures in them, a metaphor in the word Starre and Angell, [Page 146] and a Synecdoche in the word seven. For we doe not thinke that the seven Starres signifie seven individuall Angels, for then indeed the reader might have justly smiled at our curious speculation, but we thinke them to be taken collectively. Thus Revil. 8. 2. Iohn saw se­ven Angels which stood before God, by which seven An­gels Doctor Reynolds doth not understand seven indi­viduall Angels, but by a Synecdoche all the Angels. For there are no seven particular Angels that doe stand before God, but all doe so, Dan. 7. The words of Doctor Reynolds are these,Censura lib. Apo­oryph. prael. 64. Quare cum commune sit omnibus electis Angelis Dei stare coram throno, videtur nomine septem Angelorum significari universos Angelos Dei Item, Ita numero septenario saepe significari omnes, numeruni saltem infinitum numero finito docent, septem columnae Pro. 9. septem pastores Math. 5. septem oculi Zach. 3. sed imprimis in istis mysteriis Apocalypseos, septem Can­delabra, septem lampades, septem phyaelae, septem plagae. And now let the Reader judge whether this argu­ment be so ridiculous as the mocking Remonstrant would make it.

But that you may see how dull the answerer him­selfe, is whilst he accuseth others of dulnesse let us a lit­tle consider what pittifull shifts he useth in his answer to our last reason.

Our last argument is; Though but one Angell be mentioned in the forefront, yet it is evident the Epi­stles themselves are dedicated to all the Angels and Ministers in every Church, and to the Churches them­selves: and if unto the whole Church, much more un­to the Presbyters of that Church. To this you answer.

1. By granting the argument which is to grant the [Page 147] cause, as will appeare to any judicious Reader: For the reason doth not onely say that the whole Church is concerned in the Epistles, and spoken unto in them, but that they are dedicated to all the Ministers as well as one, & to all the Churches as well as to the Angels, as appeares Reuel. 1. 11. send it to the seven Churches: and also by the Epiphonema of every Epistle, he that hath an eare to heare, let him heare what the Spirit saith to the Churches, not onely concerning the Churches, but to the Churches. But then you argue secondly,Page 109. if every Epistle be written to all the Churches, then we must say that every of these seven Angels must be the whole company of all the seven Churches, which were a foule nonsence. But you must understand that though every Epistle be written to all the Churches, yet not eodem modo. As for exam­ple; the Epistle to Ephesus was written primariò, pro­prie & formaliter to the Church of Ephesus, but to the other Churches onely, reflèxive & per modum exem­pli. And therefore we returne your nonsence upon your selfe. For we doe not confound the Angels and the Churches (we know there is a distinction betweene the Starres and the Candlestickes) but we affirme that the Epistles are written to the Churches as well as to the Angels, and to all the Angels as well as to any one.

Thirdly,Page 109. you say we might have saved the labour both of Ausbertus and the rest of our Authours, and our owne. But surely unlesse you meant to yeeld the cause, you would never say so. For we proved out of Ausbertus, that according to his judgement, by Angell is meant the whole Church. And out of Perkins, Brightman, Fulke, Fox, Austin, Gregory, Primasius, Hamo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, &c. That the word Angell is to be taken not [Page 148] individually, but collectively. And further we shewed that in these seven Epistles where one person is singled out and spoken unto in particular, either by way of praise or dispraise; that such places are not to be un­derstood of one individuall person, but of the whole company of the Ministers in all things equall with that our Angell: which are proved by such reasons, which because you knew not how to answer, you say we might have saved our labour; and in that indeed we should have saved your credit, but have done the cause much prejudice.

Lastly, you say satis Magisterialiter (for you prove it not) That there are such particularities both of commen­dations and exceptions in the body of the severall Epistles as cannot but have relation to those severall overseers to whom they were indorsed, as you have elsewhere specified. But whom you are, and where this is specified you re­fuse to tell us.Page 110. Onely you put us to answer: Had all the Presbyters of Ephesus lost their first love? Had each of them tried the false Apostles? Had all those of Sardis a name to live and were dead? Were all the Laodicean Mini­sters of one temper? You say, no doubt it was otherwise. But this is [...]. We say, No doubt that not onely the Presbyters of Ephesus, Sardis, Laodicea, but that the whole Church had lost their first love, and were be­come lukewarme, and had a name to live and were dead, (wee say all that is genera singulorum, not singula generum) and this wee prove. Because the punishment threatned by Christ is threatned not onely against that one Angell, but against all the Church, Reuel. 2. 5. I will remove thy Candlesticke. Revel. 2. 16. 24. Now we have no warrant in the word [Page 149] of God to thinke that God would remove his Gospell from a Church, because one Angell in that Church hath lost his first love, when all the other, and the whole Church also are [...]ervent and zealous in their love to Christ. Or that God would spue out a whole Church out of his mouth, for the lukewarmenesse of one man, when the Church it selfe and all the other Ministers are zealous. This is the reason that makes us beleeve that though one Angell be sometimes spo­ken unto in particular, yet it must necessarily be un­derstood in a collective sence, not in an individuall sence, which we hinted in our answer. But the Re­monstrant comes with his Index expurgatorius, and answereth us onely with a Deleatur. And thus he serves us also in the following reasons, why Christ did not write To the Angels in the plurall number; but To the Angell in the singular. And this he doth throughout the whole booke, passing by unanswered those things which are most materiall. Vas vitreum lambens, pultem non attingens.

As for that tedious discourse that followeth in foure leaves (about our overliberall concession, that, suppose the word Angell be meant Individually, yet it made nothing for the upholding of a Dioce san Bishop with sole power of ordination, and jurisdiction, as a distinct order superiour to Presbyters) we will be very briefe in our answer to it, to prevent surfet, and because it is more then we need have yeelded, and also because so little is said of it to the purpose by this Remonstrant. And here let the Reader observe: 1. That of the foure Authors cited in the upholding of the individuall Angel, Doctor Fulke is falsely alleged, [Page 150] and the other three, Master Beza, Doctor Raynolds and Pareus, though they interpret the word Angell [...], for one singular person, yet we are sure none of them held Episcopacy by divine right. For D. Raynolds his letters to S. Francis Knowles now in print will witnesse: and for Beza and Pareus, it is well knowne that they were Presbyterians. We expected many of the ancient Fathers to make good this interpretation; but we see he is beholding to those for it who are none of the lest enemies to the Hierarchall preeminency, and therefore we may be the more secure that no great prejudice can come to our cause by this interpretation, if taken in the sence of these Authors.

2. That the great question is: what makes this in­terpretation for a Diocesan Bishop, with sole power of ordination and jurisdiction, as a distinct order above Presbyters? But the Remonstrant cunningly conceales halfe the question, and answers, much every way. And why so? Because if there were many Angels in each Church, and yet but one singled out and called The Angel of that Church, Page 111. it must needs follow that there was a superiority, and inequality. But what is this to the question in hand? The thing to be proved is, not onely that this Angell had a superiority, but a superiority of jurisdiction over his fellow Angels; but of this altum silentium. Doctor Reynolds will tell you that this was onely a superiority of order; and that all jurisdiction was exercised in common. Beza will tell you, that this Angell was onely [...], and that he was Angelus Praeses, not An­gelus Princeps. And that he was Praeses mutabilis, and ambulatorius, just as a Moderator in an assembly, or as the Speaker in the House of Commons, which is onely during [Page 151] the Parliament. Both which interpretations may well stand with the superiority and inequality you speake of.

Our first argument to prove that though the word Angel be taken individually, that yet nothing will hence follow to uphold a Diocesan Bishop with sole power of jurisdiction as a distinct order Superior to Presby­ters was, because it was never yet, nor never will be proved that these Angels were Diocesan Bishops; considering that parishes were not so numerous as to be divided into Diocesses in Saint Iohns daies. And the seven Starres are sayd to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes, not one Star over divers Candlesticks. And Tindall together with the old translation calls them seven congregations. And because we read that at Ephesus, that was one of those Candlestickes, there was but one flock, for the answer of all which we ex­pected a learned discourse to prove that the seven Churches were Diocesan, and so consequently the Angels Diocesan Angels. But the Remonstrant baulkes his worke as too great for his shoulders, and instead of solid Divinity turnes criticke, and playes upon words and syllables Domitian like, catching at flies, when he should have beene busied about greater matters.

First, he tels, us, That if Parishes were not united into Diocesses (or were not so many as to be divided into Diocesses which we thinke all one notwithstanding your parenthesis) in Saint Iohns daies, Page 111, 112. and therefore no Diocesan Bishop; by the same reason we may as well argue, that there were no parochiall Bishops neither, since that then no parishes were as yet distinguished. Which we [Page 152] grant to be very true. But if there were no Parochiall Bishops in the Apostles daies, much lesse Diocesan. The Apostolicall Bishops were Bishops of one Church, and not of one parish (as we meane by parish) till many yeeres after. But not to quarrell at the word parish, or diocesse; let but the Remonstrant shewe us that these Angels were Bishops over divers setled Churches, or divers fixed congregations, & nobis erit alter Apollo. For our parts we are sure that at first the number of beleevers, even in the greatest Cities, were so few, as that they might well meete [...] in one and the same place; and these were called the Church of the City, and therefore to ordaine Elders [...], & [...], are all one in Scripture. And it cannot be demonstratively proved that they became so nume­rous in the Apostles daies in any great City, so as that they could not meet in one and the same place. But yet we confesse that it is very probable that it was so in Ierusalem, if you compare Acts 2. 41. 4. 4. 5. 14. And whether it was so also in these severall Asian Churches we know not; but however, this is agreed upon on all parts. That beleevers in great Cities were not di­vided into set and fixed congregations or parishes till long after the Apostles daies. And that therefore if when they multiplied, they had divers meeting pla­ces, that yet notwithstanding these meeting places were frequented promiscuously, and indistinctly, and were taught and governed by all the Presbyters pro­miscuously and in common, and were all called but one Church, as is evident in Hierusalem, Act. 8. 1. Act. 15. 6. 22. 16. 4. 21. 18.

So also in these seven Churches, where the belee­vers [Page 153] of every City are called but one Church, and were governed in common by divers Angels, or Presbyters; as we see plainely proved in the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 28. Hen [...]e it follow­eth that there were no sole-ruling Bishops, nor one Bishop over divers Churches, or set Congrega­tions in Saint Iohns daies.

Secondly, according to his wonted language,Page 112. he tels us of making Bulls and Solecismes, because wee say that the seven Starres are said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes, whereas these Starres are said to be in the right hand of Christ, as if these two were [...]. Know sir, That in regard of their protecti­on they are said to be in Christs right hand, but in regard of their [...]unction and Office they may be truely said to be fixed in their seven Candlestickes. But instead of picking quarrels at words, you should have done well (if you could) to prove that these Candlestickes were diocesan Churches. We say each Starre had its Candlesticke, not one Starre over divers. And wee thinke that this Candlesticke was but one particular Church, or one set Congregation (though happily when they multiplyed, they might meete indistinctly in divers, under divers Angels equally governing▪) For this we alledged Obiter Tindals translating the seven Churches seven Congregations. All you answer is,Page 113 onely to shew that in other places of the Scripture by Congregation in Tindals sence cannot be meant a parishionall meeting. But what if it be not so in other places, how doe you make it appeare [Page 154] that it is not so in this place? We are sure it is so taken in twenty other places of Tindals translation, and may very properly be taken here also. We alledge also, that in Ephesus which was one of these Candlestickes, there was but one flocke. You de­mand whether this flocke were Nationall, Page 114. Provinciall, or Diocesan? And why doe you not demand whe­ther it were not Oecumenicall also? that so the Pope may in time come to challenge his flocke universall. But you are sure, you say, that this flocke was not a parochiall flocke, because it cannot be proved, that all the Elders to whom Paul spake, were onely belonging to Ephesus. But can this Remon­stant prove that there were more Elders or Bi­shops then those of Ephesus? This is to answer Socratically, and in answering not to answer. How­soever it is not so much materiall. You your selfe confesse that the Elders or Bishops of Ephesus had but one flocke. And if divers Bishops were over one flocke in the Apostles daies, where is your in­dividuall Bishops over divers flockes in the Apo­stles daies?

Our second argument is also drawne from the Church of Ephesus, which was one of the seven Candlestickes, in which we are sure in Saint Pauls daies there were many Angels, and those called Bishops, Acts 20. 28. And to one of those in all likelyhood was the Epistle to Ephesus directed, if the direction be meant individually. But yet wee read not a word of any superiority, or super­intendency of one Bishop over another. To them [Page 155] the Church in generall is committed, without any respect to Timothy who stood at his elbow. But to all this ne [...] quideu [...], onely he tels us it is an­swered in answering the first. But how true this is, let any Reader judge.Page 114. At the end of this reason, wee produce Epiphanlus affirming that in ancient time it was peculiar to Alexandria, that it had but one Bishop, whereas other Cities had two. Here our Remonstrant takes a great deale of paines not to confute us, but to confute Epiphanius. All that we will reply is this; to desire the Reader to con­sider that this Epiphanius was the first that (out of his owne private opinion) accused Aerius of mad­nesse, and (as this Authour saith) of heresie, for denying the superiority of Bishops over Presby­ters. And if this Remonstrant thinke it no dispa­ragement to himselfe to be a confuter of Epipha­nius, why should we be cryed downe so heavily for not agreeing with Epiphanius in his judgement concerning Aerius?

The third argument the Remonstrant cuts off in the midst. For whereas wee say, that there is no­thing sayd in the seven Epistles that implyeth any superiority, or majority of rule, or power that those Angels had over the other Angels that were joyned with them in their Churches: the answerer makes it runne thus,Page 116. That there is nothing said in the seven Epistles that implies a superiority; which in­deed is to spoile the argument. For wee grant there is something said to imply a superiority of the Ministers over the people, but the question is [Page 156] of a superiority of power of one Angell over the other Angels which were joyned with him in his Church. But this he conceales, because hee knew it was unanswerable. Onely he tels us; First, that the Epistles are superscribed to the Angell, not Angels. This is crambe millies cocta. But what is this to a majority of rule or power? Secondly, he tels us it will appeare from the matter of the severall Epistles. For hee askes;Page 117. Why should an ordinary Presbyter be taxed for that which hee hath no power to redresse? That the Angell of Pergamus should be blamed for ha­ving those which hold the doctrine of Balaam, or the Nicola [...]tans, when he had no power to proceed against them. Or the Angell of the Church of Thyatira for suf­fering the woman Iezebel (if it must be so read) to teach and seduce when he had no power of publique cen­sure to restraine her? This discourse is very loose and wild, Vt nihil pejus dicamus. Doth not the Remonstrant plead here for sole power of juris­diction (which hee doth so much disclaime in o­ther places of his booke) when hee would have the singular Angel of Pergamus and Thyatira, to have power to proceed against offendors, either he doth this or nothing. For our parts we answer without lisping; That it was in the power not of one Angell, but of all the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira, to proceed against those that held the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. To restraine that woman Iezebel, or the Bishop of Thyatira his wife (if it must needs be so read) wee doe not thinke that one ordinary Presbyter (as you call [Page 157] him) was to exercise censures alone, nor one ex­traordinary Bishop neither. We find the contrary Matth. 8. 1 Corinth. 5. And therefore we referre it to the Minister or Ministers of each Congrega­tion with the advice, and consent of the Pres­byters adjoyning which we are sure, is more con­sonant to the word then to leave it to the Hie­rarchicall Bishop, and his Chancellor, Commissary, or Officiall.

In the next paragraph, wee challenge you to shew us what kind of superiority this Angell had, if he had any at all? We require you to prove that he had any more then a superiority in parts and abilities, or of order. Where is it said that the Angell was a superiour degree or order of Ministery above Presbyters? Or that he had solepower of ordination and jurisdiction? But you flie from those questions as farre as from a Snake that would sting you, and disdaining all that we say (which is your accustomed way of answering) you tell us that you are able to sh [...]w who were the parties to whom some of these Epistles Page 117. were directed, and to evince the high degree of their superiority. Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Alas sir, you tell us but what we told you before, and what others have ingeminated [...]. You say,Page 118. That Ignatius and Tertullian tell us that Onesimus was now the Angell or Bishop of E­phesus, and Polycarpus of Smyrna. But marke what we answer.

First, we doubt of the truth of the story. For [Page 158] others tell us that Timothy was Bishop (as they call him of Ephesus when Christ wrote this Epistle: and this opinion Ribera, Lyra, and Pererius follow. Others leave it in medio, and say it is uncertaine. But suppose the story were true, we answer

Secondly, it doth not follow because Onesimus was Bishop of Ephesus in Saint Iohns daies, that therefore he was the onely party to whom Christ wrote his Epistle. For Saint Paul tels us that there were many Bishops at Ephesus besides Onesimus, and he may very well write to him, and to all the rest as well as him. That Christ wrote not one­ly to Polycarpus (if hee were Angell of Smyrna) but to all the other Angels that were at Smyrna, appeares by what we said before out of Reve­lation 2. 10.

Thirdly, you know sir, that by your owne con­fession Bishops and Presbyters had all one name in the Apostles daies, and long after, even in Ire­naeus his time. And therfore what though Poly­carpus be called the Bishop of Smyrna; and O­nesimus Bishop of Ephesus: still the question re­maines, whether they were Bishops phrasi Apo­stolica? (that is Presbyters) or phrasi Pontificiâ? Whether Bishops Antonomasticè and [...] so called, or whether Bishops in a generall sence, as all Presbyters are called Bishops. And sup­pose they were Bishops properly so called (which we beleeve not) yet still it lies upon you to prove that these were Hierarchicall Bishops. That they had such power as our Bishops assume to them­selves. [Page 159] That they were a distinct order superior to Presbyters. And that they had sole power of ordination and jurisdiction. We are confident that you are so farre from being able to prove that they had a sole power, as that you cannot prove they had any superiority of power over their fellow Angels. For ought of any thing said by you in this large discourse, This indivi­duall Angell may be nothing else then a Moderator of a company of Presbyters, having onely a superio­rity of order, and this also mutable and change­able, according as Paraeus and Beza hold, whom you follow in this interpretation.

In the shutting up of this discourse concerning the Angels, the Remonstrant as if he were very angry, spits out nothing but scorne and contempt against his adversaries. We bring one example and two testimonies to prove that the Angels of the seven Churches were not superior one to a­nother, and he cries out as one much displeased, Away then with these your unproving illustrations and unregardable testimonies which you as desti­tute Page 118. of all antiquity shut up the Scene withall. But though you fling them away in your anger and fury, yet we trust the ingenious Reader will ga­ther them up, and consider also that this Re­monstrant (that like another Champion against Doctor Whitaker bragges that all the Fathers, and all the Councels are of his side and yet he) brings neither Fathers nor Councels for to prove that these Angels are to be understood [Page 160] vidually: and so wee take our leave of this dis­course.

In the next place we come to the two postscripts (which indeed were post-scripta after the booke was made, and inserted to avoyd an hiatus) which all the defenders of Hierarchy cite for the averring of Episcopacy by divine right. To this you reply:

First, That you are no waies ingaged to defend these postscripts: It is true, not as you are a Remonstrant, but as you are juratus in verba Magistri, sworne to maintaine any thing that may uphold Hierarchi­call Episcopacy.

Secondly, you confesse ingeniously they are not canonicall; yet you say they are of great antiquity; but you durst not set downe how ancient. For wee have good reason and authority to thinke that they are not ancienter then Theodoret who lived 435. yeeres after Christ. We brought many arguments to prove not onely the Apocryphalnes, but the falsenesse of these subscriptions. To all which you subscribe by your silence. Onely you would faine (if you could) justifie that clause in the subscription to Titus written from Nicopolis; and the rather because you finde it so in that famous ancient Manuscript of Tecla sent by the late Patriarch of Constantinople. Page 121. It seemes then you have seene that Manuscript. And if so, why doe you not deale faithfully with your Reader, and discover what you finde in it; for we are credibly infor­med in that copy there is no mention of Titus his [Page 161] being Bishop of Creet, or of Timothy his being Bi­shop of Ephesus. But this is your constant course, to conceale whatsoever makes against you, and to magnifie whatsoever hath but a shadow of ap­pearance for you, that all men may perceive you seeke victory rather then truth.

But before we leave the Postscripts we will an­swer to your two questions. First,Page 119. you would faine see any pretence of so much age against the mat­ter of these subscriptions, the averred Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. For reply, we referre you to what is said before at large in answer to this demand. Onely we will put you in minde of a speech of Bishop Barlows: We are not unwilling to be judged by antiquity, so it be such an antiqui­tie to which Ignatius appeales. [...]. Nothing more acceptable to us then Histories, if such as are written by him who stiles himselfe, The ancient of daies. And for the Fathers, none more wel­come to us then him whom Iustin Martyr cals Pater Patriae, and that is Saint Paul. Now Saint Paul, when he wrote his first Epistle to Timothy, and purposely undertooke in his third Chapter to set out the Office of a Bishop, mentioneth no­thing in that Office which is not competent to a Presbyter; and therefore omits the Office of a Presbyter, including it in the Office of a Bishop; which hee would never have done, if hee had at the same time made Timothy an Hierarchicall Bi­shop, with a power to doe that formally which was unlawfull for a Presbyter to doe. And be­sides [Page 162] we have proved that this Epistle was writ­ten before Pauls first being at Rome, and so be­fore the time that you say Paul made him Bishop. As for his Epistle to Titus, he directly confounds the Offices of Presbyters and Bishops, and makes them one and the same, Chapter 1. Verses 5, 6, 7. Which he certainely would not have done if he had made them at that time distinct Orders with distinct Offices. The ancient Fathers indeed some of them call Timothy and Titus Bishops in an improper sense, because they staid longer in Ephesus and Creet then Evangelists ordinarily did. And did preach, and ordaine, and doe those things which Bishops in their time used to doe, which notwithstanding they did not for­mally doe as Bishops, but virtually and eminent­ly as Officers of an higher degree. Hence Sal­meron himselfe saith in his first disputation upon Timothy, Videtur ergo quod fuerit plusquam Epis­copus, eti [...]si ad tempus in ea civitate ut pastor praedicaverit, & sacros ordines promoverit. Vnde quidam vocant eum Episcopum. Ambrose saith one while he was a Deacon, another while a Prethy­ter. Others a Primate, and others a Bishop. Lyra proveth him to have beene an Archbishop, and Titus a Priest. Beda calleth him an Apostle. Aquinas thinkes that Titus was Bishop of Dalmatia, be­cause when Paul, wrote his second Epistle to Ti­mothy hee was at Dalmatia, 2 Tim. 4. 10. Thus you see the Fathers agree not amongst themselves, and therefore helpe you little in this point.

[Page 163] Your second question is:Page 122. Whether ever we have beene urged to subscribe to any other cerem [...]nies then have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme and Church? And why these Ceremonies are the Bi­shops more then Ours? We answer: First, That to our knowledge some have beene urged to subscribe to other ceremonies then have beene established by the Lawes of this Realme, and Church, and to promise obedience editis & [...]dendis. Secondly, that this very urging of us to subscribe to the ceremonies established, is more then the Lawes require; For the Lawes require to subscription onely to the thirty nine Articles. Thirdly, We cannot but justly dislike your di­stinction of, The Lawes of this Realme and Church. For we know no Lawes of the Church obliga­tory, but such as are established by the Lawes of the Realme, as both Houses of Parliament have lately determined. And whereas you aske, Why these Ceremonies are the Bishops, more then ours? We answer: First, because it is ordina­rily said, No Ceremony, no Bishop, But it was ne­ver said, No Ceremony, no Presbyter. Secondly, because in the Convocation (which you here terme the Church) the Bishops, or rather the Archbishop swayes all. And there are five or six which are there, Ex m [...]ero Officio, and for the most part are the Bishops creatures, and hang their suffrages upon his lippes: and but two Clerkes for the Presbyters, which also for the most part are forced upon them by the Bishop, [Page 164] and his Officers. Thirdly, because they are ours, if ours as a burden. But theirs, as their crowne, and glory, for which they fight as for a second Pur­gatory, to uphold their Courts and Kitchins.

In the next place we propounded an objecti­on framed by Bishop Andrewes and divers others from the inequality in the Ministery appointed by Christ himselfe, betweene the twelve Apo­stles and the seventy Disciples. To which wee answered: First, that it cannot be proved that the Apostles had any superiority over the seventy, either of ordination, or jurisdiction. S [...]condly, suppose it could; yet, That superiority and in­feriority betweene Officers of different kindes, will not prove that there should be a superio­rity and inferiority betweene Officers of the same kinde. To which you reply; first, That the Apo­stles ordained the Deacons, Page 123. that Paul laid hands on Timothy. But this is no solution of the objection, unlesse you can prove the Deacons and Timothy to have beene amongst the number of the se­venty Disciples, or Paul to have beene one of the twelve Apostles. Secondly, you answer, That Bishops and Presbyters differ toto genere, Page 124. and are Offieers of different kind, as much as the Apostles and the seventy Disciples. Which is an assertion not onely contrary to the Fathers (who accounted the Bishop to be but Primus Presbyter; and as Hierome saith,Aquin. Aureol. Capreol. &c. Vnum ex se electum celsiori gradu colloca­tum.) But also more unsound then most of the Papists who freely acknowledge that Presbyteratus [Page 165] is the highest order in the ministry, and that E­piscopacy is but a different degree of the same or­der, and not a superior order from Presbyters. An order may be reputed higher, either be­cause it hath intrinsecally an higher vertue, or because it hath an higher degree of honour and dignity. Now we deny not but the latter anti­quity did by their Canons make Episcopacy an higher Order in regard of dignity and honour, [...] or [...] (as a Councell speakes) but did never account it an higher power by di­vine right. This last branch the Remonstrant would faine prove (if he could) by an argument drawne from succession; because (saith he) the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters the seventy Disciples. And we are challenged, page 158. to shew whether ever any Father or Doctor of the Church till this present age held that Presbyters were the successors to the Apostles, and not to the seventy Disciples rather. But here is nothing in which the Remonstrant shewes more wilfull ig­norance then in this. For the ancient Fathers doe make the Presbyters successors of the Apostles as well as Bishops. Thus Irenaeus liber 4. cap. 43, 44. Quapropter & eis, qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyte­ris obedire oportet, his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus qui eum Episcopatus suc­cessione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt. So also cap 44. and lib. 3. cap. 2. Thus also our Ierome (as you call him) in his Epistle ad Heliodorum, Clerici dicuntur Apostolico [Page 166] grad [...]i successisse. So Origen in Matth. 16. saith, all Presbyters succeeded the Apostles in the power of the keyes. And Ignatius ad Smy [...]nonses saith the same. Yet still like (as you say you have heard) page 125.) some beaten cocke, you dare erow, and tell your Reader, that all antiquity hath acknowledged [...] three severall rankes in the Church Hie­rarchie. Page 124. But where will you begin your antiquity? We say with the Father, i [...] verum quod antiquis­simum. Shew us your three degrees in Scripture. You confesse page 47. that these three orders are not there to be found. We read in Scripture, the Deacon to be a step to a Presbyter, but not a Presby­ter to a Bishop. And wee deny that ever it was ac­counted in antiquity, that a Bishop did ever differ from a Presbyter, as a Presbyter from a Deacon. For these differ Genere proximo (No [...]erint Diaconi se ad ministerium, non ad sacerdotium vocari.) But a Bishop differs from a Presbyter as from one who hath that power of Priesthood no lesse than him­selfe; and therefore the difference betweene these Priests be circumstantiall, and not so essenti­all as betwixt the other. Thus Bishops and Arch­bishops are divers orders of Bishops according to some Canons of the Church: not that one excel­led the other, as a power of higher vertue, but of higher dignity then the other. Indeed of late yeeres Episcopacy hath beene a [...] to prefer­ment, and a ladder for all pious and conscientious men to be suspended upon, as Mordecai upon Ha­mans gallowes; but now is in danger to become [Page 167] (like Hamans ladder) their owne ruine and downe-fall.Page 125. Iam sumus ergo pares.

In your transition to your next Paragraph, that you might disparage the opposets of the Hierar­chicall Episcopacy by divine right, you endeavour to make them the Disciples of none but Ierome. But here in you cannot but know how injuriously you deale with them, considering the number­lesse number of Authors, both ancient and mo­derne, that assert that, which you would fasten upon him alone. In the Paragraph it selfe, you confesse what we undertooke to prove; That the ancient Bishops and others differ in regard of their Accessories, dignities, titles, and maintenance. But onely whereas among other instances we told you of golden Chalices and wooden Priests; You tell us, That if in time we should see wooden Chalicer, Page 127. and wooden Priests, we may thanke our selves; Truely sir, we may thanke you, and not our selves; for the Lordlinesse and in solent carriages of some Bishops under the great revenues and the multitude of wooden Priests which they have made, who have beene intoxicated with the Golden Chalice of the whore of Babylons abominations, hath so aliena­ted the affections of people from them; as that what doome so ever they are sentenced unto, it is no other then what they have brought upon themselves. As for our part, we are still of the same mind, that honourable maintenance ought to be given to the Ministers of the Gospell, not onely to live, but to be hospitable. Indeed we instanced [Page 168] in many that did abuse their large revenues. But you are pleased to say, That in this Ablative age the fault is rare and hardly instanceable. We thinke the contrary is more hardly instanceable. And as for your Ablative age, if you meane it of poore Pres­byters, who have beene deprived of all their sub­sistance by the unmercifulnesse of Bishops, whom they with teares have besought to pitty their wives and children, we yeeld it to be too true. Or if you meane, in regard of the purity of the ordi­nances, the frequency of preaching, the freedome of conceived prayer; We denie not but in this sence also it may be called the Ablative age. But if you relate it to Episcopacy and their Cathedrals (with whom it is now the Accusative age) We hope that the yeere of recompense is come, and that in due time for all their Ablations they may be made a gratefull ablation. We have done with this section, and feare not to appeale to the same ju­dicious eyes the Remonstrant doth, to judge to whose part that Vale of absurd inconsequences and bold ignorance which hee brands us withall doth most properly appertaine.Page 128.

SECT. XIV.

IN this Section hee comes to make good his an­ [...]wers formerly given to some objections by him propounded,Remonst. p. 26. and by us further urged: The first ob­jection was from that prejudice which Episcopacy challen­ging a divine originall doth to Soveraignty, which was wont to be acknowledged, not onely as the conser­ving but as the creating cause of it in former times. The Remonstrant thinks this objection is sufficiently re­moved, by telling us, there is a compatiblenesse in this case of Gods act and the Kings. Pag. 129. And what can wee say to this? Sir, you know what we have said already, and not onely said but proved it, and yet will confident­ly tell us you have made good by undeniable proofes, that (besides the ground which our Saviour layd of this im­parity) the blessed Apostles by inspiration from God made this difference, &c. Made good? when? where? by what proofs? Something you have told us about the Apostles, but not a word in all the defence of any ground laid by our Saviour of this imparitie; yet the man dreams of undeniable proofs of that whereof he never spake word.

Wee must therefore tell you againe, take it as you please, that if the Bishops disclaime the influence of Soveraignty into their creation, and say that the King [Page 174] doth not make them Bishops; they must have no be­ing at all. Nor can your questions stop our mouthes: Where or when did the King ever create a Bishop? Pag. 130. Name the man and take the cause. Wee grant you Sir, that so much as there is of a Presbyter in a Bishop, so much is Divine: But that imparity and jurisdiction exercised out of his own demandated authority, which are the very formalities of Episcopacie, these had their first derivation from the Consent, Customes, Councell, Con­stitution of the Church, which did first deman­date this Episcopall authority to one particular per­son; afterwards the Pope having obtained a Monar­chie over the Church, did from himself demandate that authority that formerly the Church did, and since the happy ejection of the Popes tyrannicall usurpations out of these Dominions, our Princes being invested with all that Ecclesiasticall power which that Tyrant had usurped, that same imparity and authority, which was originally demandated from the Church, succes­sively from the Pope, is now from the King. Looke what influence the Church ever had into the creation of Bishops, the same the Pope had after; and looke what influence the Pope had heretofore, the same our Laws have placed in the King which is so cleere that the Remonstrant dares not touch, or answer.

There was a Statute made the first of Edward the sixth, inabling the King to make Bishops by his Let­ters patents Onely: Hence all the Bishops in King Ed­wards the sixt time were created Bishops by the Kings Letters patents ONELY; in which all parts of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction are granted them in precise words, praeter & ultra jus divinum, Besides and beyond [Page 175] divine right, to be executed onely, nomine, vice, & Au­thoritate nostri Regis, in the Kings royall stead, name, and Authority, as the patents of severall Bishops in the Rolls declare.

But besides the Kings Letters, the Bishop is solemnly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the Metropolitan, Pag. 130. and other of his brethren, & these as from God invest him in his holy calling. As from God? Good sir prove that; prove that the Metropolitan and Bishops in such imposition of hands are the instruments of God, & not the instru­ments of the King: prove they doe it by Commission received from God, and not by command of the King onely. Produce one warrant from Scripture, one pre­sident of a Bishop so ordained by a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops, and without more dispute take all. Shortly, resolve us but this one thing; what is it that takes a man out of the ordinary ranke of Presby­ters, and advanceth him to an imparity and power of jurisdiction? is it humane authority testified in the Letters of the King, or is it divine authority testified by the significative action of imposition of hands by the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops? if the former, you grant the cause, if the latter, consider with what good warrant you can make a form of Ordination (by the hands of a Metropolitan and fellow Bishops) which is a meer humane invention, to be not onely a signe, but a mean of conveying a peculiar and supe­riour power from Divine Authority, and of making a Presbyter a Bishop Iuredivino.

Finally, Sir, make as much as you can of your Or­dination by a Metropolitan, slight as much as you please your unworthy comparison between the King and our [Page 176] Patrons, yet did the Kings Conge d'eslire give you no more humane right to Episcopacie, then the hands of the Metropolitan and fellow Bishops give you of right Divine, you would be Bishops by neither. It is not your confident re-inforcing of your comparison that shal call carry it, till you have first proved it from Scripture, that God never instituted an order of Presbyters or Ministers in his Church, as wee have proved, God never instituted an order of Bishops. Secondly, that by the Laws of the land as much of the Ministeriall power over a particular Congregati­on is in the patron, as there is of Episcopall power in the King. Till then (wee beseech you) let it rest un­determined whether your self, or we may best be sent to Simons Cell. We say no more, lest you should think we flout your modesty with an unbeseeming frumpe, which whither our answer be guilty of, as you here charge us, let the Reader compare the 28 and 29 pages of your Remonstrance, and our Answer to those pages, and determine.

The second objection was from that imputation which this truth casts upon all Reformed Churches which want this government; this the Remonstrant must needs endevour to satisfie, that hee may decline the envie that attends this opinion. But what needs the Re­monstrant feare this envy? Alasse, the Reformed Chur­ches are but a poore handfull! Rumpantur ilia, need the Remonstrant care? Yet is it neither his large prote­station of his honourable esteeme of those Sister Churches, nor his solicitous cleering himselfe from the scandalous censures and disgracefull termes cast upon them by others (under whose colours he now militares) that will divert this envie, unlesse he either [Page 177] desert his opinion, or make a more just defence then he hath yet done.Pag. 132. The Defence is, That from the opinion of the Di. right of Episc. no such consequence can be drawn, as that those Churches that want Bishops are no Churches. Epis­copacy though reckoned among matters essential to the Church, yet is not of the essence of a Church, and this is no contradi­ction neither. If you would have avoided the contra­diction, you should have expressed your selfe more di­stinctly; knowing that things essentiall are of two sorts; either such as are essentiall constitutivè;, or such as are essentiall consecutivè, You had done well here, had you declared whether you count Episcopacie essenti­all to a Church constitutive, or consecutivé; if consti­tutivè, then it is necessary to the being of a Church, and it must follow, where there is no Bishop, there can be no Church: If essentiall onely consecutivè, wee would be glad to learne how those officers which by Divine institution have demandated to them pecu­liarly a power of ordaining all other officers in the Church (without which the Church it selfe cannot be constituted) and such a power as that those officers cannot be ordained without their hands, should not bee essentiall to the Constitution of a Church, or tend onely to the well be­ing, not to the being of it? Either you must disclaim your own propositions, or owne this inference, and not think to put it off with telling your Reader. It is e­nough for our friends to hold discipline of the being of a Church, Pag. 133. you dare not be so zealous. If heat in an Episco­pall cause may be called zeale, you dare be as zealous as any man we know. Your friends wee are sure are as zealous in the cause of their Episcopacie as any of ours have been in the defence of discipline. Did ever [Page 178] any of our friends in their zeale rise higher then to frame an oath, whereby to bind all men to maintaine their discipline? You know some of yours have done as much: but them wee know you will leave to their owne defence, as you doe your learned Bishop of Norwich,Pag. 134. now he is dead. It is work enough for you to defend your selfe, and give satisfaction to the que­stions propounded.

First, we demanded the reason why Popish Priests converted to our Religion are admitted without new ordination, when some of our brethren flying in Queen Maries time, and having received Ordination in the Reformed Churches were urged at their return to re­ceive it again from our Bishops? This shamelesse and partiall practice of our Prelats hee could not deny, but frames two such answers of which the second confutes the first, and neither second nor first justifies their practice. In the first he denies a capability of ad­mittance by our laws, and yet in his second, he con­fesseth many to be admitted without any legall ex­ception, which how well they consist, let the Reader judge.

The second question was, whether that office which by divine Right hath sole power of Ordination, and ruling of all other officers in the Church, belong not to the being, but onely to the glory and perfection of a Church? The Remonstrant is so angry at this question, that before hee can finde leisure to answer it, he must needs give a little vent to his choller: Can we tell what these men would have? (saith he) have they a mind to go beyond us in asserting that neces­sity and essentiall use of Episcopacie, which we dare not avow? What is that which you dare not avow? is it that E­piscopacy [Page 179] hath sole power of ordaining and ruling all o­ther Officers in the Church? But this wee are sure you will avow, That imposition of hands in ordination and confirmation have ever been held so intrinsecall to Episco­pacie, that I would faine see where it can be shewed that ANY EXTREMITY OF NECESSI­TY was by the Catholike Church of Christ ever yet ac­knowledged for a warrant sufficient to diffuse them into other hands. Episc. div. Right part. 2. p. 91. Is not this to say that the sole power of ordai­ning Officers is in the hands of the Bishop? And dare not WE avow this now? Blessed be they that have taken downe your confidence. And where you are witty by the way,Pag. 135. you tell us we still talke of sole Ordina­tion and sole Iurisdiction, we may if we please keep that paire of soles for our next shooes. Good Sir, wee thanke you for your liberality, but wee doubt you either part with them out of fear you shall no longer keep them, or they will prove no longer worth the keeping. But consider one thing, we beseech you, if you make this donation not onely in your own name, but in the name of the whole Episcopall order, you and they may turn Fratres Mendicantes, and go bare foot, if you part with these paire of soles, and what will become of your Quid facit Episcopus, quod non facit Presbyter exceptâ ordinatione? You doe not contend (say you) for such a height of propriety, &c. that in what case soever of extremity and irresistable necessity, this should be done onely by Episcopall hands. You do not? It is well you doe not, but did you never meane to affirme it none of you? Consider (we beseech) that forecited place Episcopacie Divine Right, part. 2. pag. 91. weigh the words and then speake, and tell the Authour your judgement.

[Page 180] Our third question was, There being in this mans thoughts the same jus divinum for Bishops that there is for Pastors and Elders, whether if those reformed Churches wanted Pastors & Elders too, they should want nothing of the essence of a Church, but onely of the glory and perfection of it? The answer (saith he) is ready, which is indeed no answer, it is in sum but this, that it would be better with them if they had Bishops too. But how it would be if they wanted Bishops and Pastors and Elders too, of that he saith nothing.

The Remonstrant had presumed to know so much of the mind of the Reformed Churches as to averre, that if they might have their option, they would glad­ly imbrace Episcopall government;Pag. 136. a foule imputation saith the Remonstrant: we say so too; a foul imputati­on to charge the Reformed Churches of a secret in­clination to Apostatize from their owne confessions, which doe not onely maintain a justifiablenesse of their present government, but a necessity of it as the only go­vernment appointed by GOD in his Church, as wee shewed in five Corollaries drawn out of those confes­sions, which the Remonstrant slides over, wherein they doe not onely defend the condition they are in, but tell us by consequence they would not change it for any other forme in the World: Because they tell us Theirs is the form God hath set down in his Word, the forme Christ hath appointed in his Church, the forme by which the Church ought to be governed. Can we think the Chur­ches that thus professe and believe, can ever look for a better form? Or would accept another though pro­pounded to them as better, when they professe this is that form by which they ought to be governed?

The testimonies of particular Divines must not be put in the ballance against the confessions of whole [Page 181] Churches. God forbid, that all that hath flowed from the pens of Divines of great Learning and place in England should passe for the Doctrine of the English Church abroad. Wee will beleeve you it is possible many eminent Divines of the Churches abroad have wished themselves in your condition, Pag. 137. that is in Episcopall Govern­ment, not in our condition under Episcopall Govern­ment. And as easily we believe, they have magnified our Church as the most famous exemplary glorious Church in the whole Christian World. It better a great deale becomes them then Laodicean like to say (as you say, pag. 26.) their own is the most glorious and exemplary Church, the rest are but a poore handfull, and reason they should con­forme to it, not it to them. But whether it be the beautie, perfection, and glory of Episcopall govern­ment, or the powerfull and lively preaching of the World, the powerfull and lively practice of piety, which through the speciall grace of God are found in this Church (then which there hath been nothing more hated or persecuted under Episco. government) that hath made them magnifie the Church of England, there is the question, which is not hard to determine.

To induce the Reader to believe the Reformed Churches would change theirs for our government, the Remonstrant hath told us that there is little difference betweene their government and ours, save in perpetuitie of moderatorship and exclu­sion of Lay-elders. This saith the Remonstrant, You say is a passage of admirable absurdity. Sir, wee said ad­mirable; the absurdity is your own. To mend it, you would perswade your selfe to feare, wee know not what you speak of: You speake not onely of the next Churches of France and the Netherlands. Sir, you spake if we re­member [Page 182] of the Neighbour Churches, and wee con­ceive, between our Neighbour Churches, & the next Churches of France and the Netherlands, there is not much distance; sure any common understanding, by Neighbour Churches, would a great deal sooner un­derstand the next Churches of France, and the Ne­therlands, then the Churches of Germany, Weteraw, Anhault, &c. Especially considering your instance in those Churches, from whose Moderators our Bishops differ onely in perpetuitie of Moderatorship: Which perpetuitie the Lutheran Superintendents have as well as our Bishops.And even in these Churches of Germany, the Superintendents are nothing like our bishops. They are of the same degree with other Ministers, they are onely Presidents while the Sy­nod lasteth; when it is dissolved, their prerogative ceaseth: They have no prerogative over their fellow Ministers, They are sub­ject to their Presbyteries. The Synod ended, they returne to the care of their particular Churches, Zepper. lib. 2. cap. 10. This made us instance in the Geneva forme, as knowing no Churches whose [...] is not fixed, but such as follow their patterne, be­tween which [...] and our episcopa­cie wee shewed a sixfold difference: all which the Remonstrant wisely passeth; that hee may not be forced to acknow­ledge the difference greater then hee pretended. Onely tels us with what au­thority Master Calvin and the depu­tati Synodi carried the affairs of the Church; which if the personall worth of the one or the other did procure, what is that to carrying all the affairs of the Church ex officio, by vertue of their own peculiar­ly demandated authority, as our Bishops do, and chal­lenge right to doe?

You put us in minde, that you said the difference between them was little, and we need not put you in minde of what our answer was, Manet aliâ mente re­postum: nor do we intend to change. You tell us our note [Page 183] is the note of Babylon, down with it, downe with it. Yet as long as neither we are Edomits, nor speak of Sion, but of Sions enemies, the note is not Babylonish. As Babylon had her time to cry against Sion, downe with it, down with it even to the ground, so the time is comming when Sion shall shout with as strong a cry against her enemies, and the God of Heaven, whose promise is to arise for the sighing of the poore, we doubt not will vin­dicate his Church from those proud adversaries that have so long time tyrannized over her, and Judge betweene the Sheep and the Goats.Ezek. 34. 16, 17, 18 Even hee Judge, whether wee that plead the truth against Bi­shops, or the Bishops whose cause the Remonstrant ple [...]ds, have by violent and subtill Machinations most disturbed Sions peace, and advanced Babylons power.

SECT. XV.

THe Remonstrant had said that Lay Presbytery ne­ver had footing in the Christian Church untill this age. Wherein, said we, hee concludes so fully with Doctor Hals irrefragrable propositions, as if he had conspired to swear to what the Bishop had said. The Remonstrant, that it seems knows both better then wee, will phrase it thus; how like the man looks to Doctor Hall: And answers,Pag. 140. As like him as wee are like [Page 184] our selves, insolent and scornfull. Truly Sir, wee could scarce conceive this likenesse by the Remonstrance, and we can lesse conceive it by this defence. For besides the flat contradictions which this Defence gives to Episcopacie by Divine Right (for which wee doubt the Doctor will give the Remonstrant little thanks) the very language of the Defence inclines to the con­trary. For though we acknowledge the Defence, for the substance of it wholly, and for the phrase of it in a great part, borrowed from episcopacie by Divine Right, yet the extream disdainfulnesse that breaths in every page and line pleads with us, to thinke that it is not his, especially if he have made that vow of leaving his insolent and scornfull language, which an ancient acquaintance of his hath put the world in hope hee would. Your Errata bids us pag. 33. Read Invectives, truly we may read in every page Invectives: and if to be scornfull and insolent be to be unlike Doctor Hall, you have done the Doctor exceeding wrong to say the Remonstrant looks like him.

But be the Remonstrant who hee will, we hope hee will not take it ill, if comming into publique nameless, he receive par pari, remembring especially the saying of Hierom concerning Domitius a Senator to his scorn­full Consull, si non vis me habere ut Senatorem, cur ego te habeam ut Consulem? Why should wee use him as a Father, that doth not use us as Brethren? Make sport with our poore wit, triumph over it. It is truth, not wit wee contend for; yet Ridentem dicere verum quis vetat.

You might have done as wisely to omit the flourish of your wit in scorne of ours; Pag. 140. as you say wee did to omit those [Page 185] three knowne texts which we omitted, because the question betweene us was not whether ruling Elders are an ordinance of God and founded in the word or no, But whether ever they had existence in the Christian Church before this present age. For the determining of this question, (being de facto, not de [...]ure) it is more proper to produce the practice of the Churches then texts of Scripture; this doth not please him. Alpatrons of Layeldership before us would not, Pag. 141. after the rakings of all the channells of time, have forborne the utmost urging of those Testimonies, if they had not knowne them so far from being convictive that they are unprooving. Is this the man whose chief plea for his divine right is the monument of suc­ceeding ages and Testimony of Antiquity, and will he now vouchsafe the search after the footsteps of anti­quity,Pag. 141. no better name Then the raking of the Channell of time? had we spoken so much in the vilification of An­tiquity it would have beene accounted hatefull and in­tolerable insolencie in us.

But our evidences are not proving and convictive. Let us put them to the tryall. Our testimony from Origen cannot (you say) but shame us if yet we can blush; belike you remember you have so often without just cause put us to the blush, you beginne to feare the colour is spent; you charge us with willing concealing the Chap. on purpose that we might not be discovered.

Were this a fault and worthy of blame, yet little reason hath the Remonstrant to quarrell with us, it is but this one place in which the Remonstrant chargeth us, wee are punctuall in our other quotations. How-many quotations are there in this defence in which the Remonstrance hath not cited so much as the Book, onely thinks it enough to name the Authour?

[Page 186] But here we are not so culpable as the Remonstrant makes us. The translation of Origen which we followed did not distinguish the booke into Chapters, No more then the Originall doth, Nor other translations with which we have consulted; Nor are wee yet so happy as to meete with that edition where the Chapters are distinguished: so here is no just cause of suspicion ei­ther of fraud or feare.

For the text it selfe, whether your collection or ours be most according to the sence of the Authour, let the learned reader judge from the text it selfe, which wee heere set downe translated faithfully according to the Originall.

Videamus an non Christiani magis & melius istis populum ad bonam frugem excitent, nam Philoso­phi quidem, qui in publico disputant, discrimen audi­torum adhibent nullum, sed quisquis volet, adstet licet, at (que) audiat. Christiani vero, quoad possunt, eorum, qui ipsos audire cupiunt, animos prius explorantes, eosdem­que privatimerudientes, cum videbuntur illi qui audi­tores sunt futuri, priusquam in publicum processerint, usque eò profecisse satis, ut velint benè vivere, tum demum eos introducunt, sive admittunt, separatim quendem ordinem constituentes eorum qui initiati recens, introductique sunt, signumque expiationis nondum acceperunt: alter autem ordo est eorum qui pro virili studium suum repraesentant, non aliud velle se, quam quae Christianis recta videntur. Apud quos [Page 187] (vel supra quos) sunt quidam constituti, qui in vitam & mores advenientium inquirant, ut qui flagitiosa perpetrant, illos à communi eorum coetu prohibeant, qui verò istiusmodi non sunt, eos ex animo amplexan­tes, indies reddant meliores. Cujusmodi quoque insti­tutum habent in eos qui peccant, maximèque si pro­tervè se gerant, quos à suo coetu ejiciunt illi, qui Celso judice, similes sunt iis qui inhonestissimas quasque res in foro ostentant. Et Pythagoreorum quidem schola illa gravissima, illis qui ab ipsorum philosophia desci­verant sepulchra inania conficiebat, eosque perinde aestimans ac si demortui planè essent. Hi autem quasi pereuntes & mortuos Deo, qui petulantiae aut gravi cuipiam facinori obstringendos se tradiderunt, tan­quam mortuos lugent, & tanquam è mortuis excita­tos, si non spernendam modo oftenderint resispicen­tiam, longiori temporis spatio, quàm qui primo intro­ducti sunt, tandem recipiunt, neque ad ullum guber­nandi munus in Ecclesiâ Dei quae dicitur, eligimus eum qui priùs fuerit lapsus, postquam ad verbum ac­cesserit, &c.

The sence of this place, saith the Remonstrant, is this, That those which were newly admitted into the Church,Pag. 142. 143. who by reason of their late acquaintance with such as were left behind them in Pagan superstition, might be fit Monitors to know and notifie the condition of such Candidates as did offer to come into the Church, were designed to that office of Monitorship.

[Page 188] Here we desired the Reader to consider: first that the scope of the place is to vindicate the Christian as­semblies from the imputations unjustly cast upon them by Celsus, as if they were a confluence of base and worthlesse people. To cleer this, hee divides all Christians into two Orders: the first were Catechume­ni, or beginners; and first he shews the care they took about them, before they were baptized. The other or­der comprehends all such as were baptized, whom he describes in these words. There is another order of such who according to their ability expresse their endevours to de­sire nothing but what seems right to Christians, which two orders are in antiquity distinguished in Catechumenos & Fideles. Austin. Serm. 14 de verb. A­post. Now that this same alter ordo might be kept to live acording to there profession; [...], there were some designed or constituted, who should look to the manners of all such as come to them; (that is to their meetings) that they that lived wickedly might be banished their assemblies, and heartily embracing such as lived well, they might make them better.

Those persons here spoken of, the Remonstrant grants to be lay persons (as we terme them) and doth not so much as once goe about to affirme them Presbyters. Onely the question is, who those so constituted were? He saith Novices newly added to the Church. Secondly of whome they had the inspection? hee saith onely of such as were comming out of paganisme and offered themselves to be added to their Assemblies. Thirdly, what their power was? hee saith, onely to notifie the lives of such: to be as it were Monitores, and no more.

For the two first, we conceive it impossible for him to shew in all antiquity that ever the Church did appoint Novices over Novices to be overseers of their manners, [Page 189] and much more impossible to collect it from this place, since Origen speaks indefinitely of any of this order (to wit of Fideles) and punctually of such who had at­tained such a measure of grace as they were able to ex­presse endevours to do that which is right, and were fit and able by their acquaintance to better others, and therefore these could not be Novices.Pag. 142. 143. For the second, to wit, over whom they had power? they were not onely such as were lately admitted: for Origen speakes gene­rally of all wicked or scandalous livers among them, who were to be inhibited their assemblies. For the third, the power they had, (which saith hee was onely to be Mo­nitors) it appeares from the text, that they had power ei­ther to keepe back from their assemblies, or to receive into their assemblies, according as the lives of men were good or bad, and were of that ability, as that they could better them daily with their good counsell. And if any were froward or contumacious, what course was further to be taken with them the following words declare; and although it is true, the acts of casting such out of the Church is attributed primarily to the teachers; yet who dare exclude those former [...] from all interest in this act? when Origen himselfe saith, [...], &c. the like custome they have about offenders, and chiefely such as are incorrigible.

But this great Corrector of Translations cannot let us passe here without a castigation, for translating [...] Praepositi sunt. Vnfaithfully, deceitfully saith he. Sir it would have become you to spare your censure till you considered better; if you had but looked in your Lexicon you might have found that [...] signifies [Page 190] not onely constituor, but praeficior, and betweene Praefecti and praep [...]siti certainly there is no such great difference as might deserve the censure of unfaithfulnesse for using the one instead of the other; besides Turrianus transla­ted it thus before us, who, we perswade our selves, was as able to understand the language of Origen as our Criti­call Remonstran [...], if wee may judge of him as hee here discovers himselfe; would any man so confidently charge unfaithfulnesse upon the translation of others, and himselfe go & translate [...],Pag. 142. They do privatly ex­amine such as are bewitched with Paganisme? it is true [...] signifies incant [...] as well as frequenter admoneo, to inchaunt as well as to instruct or admonish, but heer it must of ne­cessity be rendred in the latter signification, because it is here the participle of the active voice, and the case agrees n [...]t with [...], but with [...], Wch is put in the begin­ning of that clause: so again [...] he t [...]anslates, the rest that are like themselves they may gladly Receive, whereas it should be thus, but receiving those that are not such (that is) as those wicked persons last spoke of.

These are poore Grammarpec adillio's not worth t [...]e taking notice of, but that our Remonstrant is so busie with his Ferula, that no sooner can he thinke we trip, but he is presently upon us, Corrig [...] Magn ficat.

The rest of our testimonies produced in this cause, hee thus answers, First, he could double our files, and pro­duce many more. Pag 143. But secondly, in sadierms, we do nothing herein, Pag 144. but abuse our Reader: For all the places are nothing at all to the purpose in hand. For the first, The numbers he could adde to our forces, are no more then our own, except one onely place out of Gregory Turonen, is: all the rest were urged by us, Even that which he saith is more [Page 191] pregnant then any we have brought. Did ever poore man make so great a brag of nothing? Truly, Sir, you have much enriched us by paying us with our owne colne. Onely here wee are beholding to you for your testi­mony of the pregnancie of some of them, when as you said before, All of them were nothing to the purpose in hand: it seemes your second thoughts correct your former. For his second answer, hee tels us, all these pla­ces are nothing to the purpose. And why? because those Seniors, are Civill Magistrates, such as wee call Alder­men, whose advice and assistance was used in all great occasi­ons of the Church. To prove this he brings the African Canons, Can. 100. where [...] are mentioned, and expounds it by the 91 Canon of the African, which he cals a Commentary upon this point, Debere unumquem (que) no strum in civitate sua cōvenire Donatistarum Praepositos, aut adjungere sibi vicinum collegam, Pag. 145 ut pariter eos in singulis qnibusque civitatibus per Magistratus vel Se­niores locorum conveniant.

To which we answer, That this his Commentary corrupts the text; For in this 91 Canon there is no mention of [...], The words are [...]. By the Magistrate, or those that are of chief authority in those places: these wee grant were as it were our Aldermen, men of civill power and authority, but they were not as those Elders mentioned in the 100 Canon. And why should the Remonstrant choose rather to follow Iustellus, in rea­ding [...] Seniores locorum, then Balsamon, and Zonaras, who read it, Quiprimas ferant, unlesse it were to deceive his credulous Reader, and induce him to thinke there were no other Elders in the [Page 192] Church, then such as were Civill Magistrates; where­as his own Iustellus in his exposition of the 100 Ca­non saith, Erant Seniores, Laici, extra Ecclesiam, de qui­bus supra ad Can. 91. Erant & Seniores Ecclesiastici; There were Lay-elders out of the Church, of whom wee spake, Can. 91, and there are Ecclesiastick or Church-elders: To prove which hee brings forth the very testimonies which wee produced from Baronius, and others. And certainly, he that compares the two Canons quoted by the Remonstrant, will see how ab­surdly the [...] in the one Canon are drawn to expound the [...] in the other. For the former were the Magistrates, who having a co­ercive power, might compell the Donatists to meet for conference and disputations, if they did refuse it: The other were not Magistrates but Seniores, sent by the Church to accuse their Bishop. Now how well is the one expounded by the other?

But if the Seniors were not Aldermen, yet they were (say you) but as our Churchwardens and Vestry-men, onely trusted with the Viensils, Pag. 146. Stocks, and outward affaires of the Church; businesse of seats and rates, &c. This the Remon­strant will, if you will believe him, evince out of our owne testi­monies, and yet meddles not with that, which is the most pregnant testimony to prove that the power of these elders did reach to things of a higher nature then seats and rates, and that is the Letter of Pu [...]purius, which gives to the Seniors a concurrent power with the Clergie, to enquire about the dissentions which troubled the Church, that by their wisdome and care peace might be setled in the same. These dissentions were not about seats or rates, but a contention betweene Silvanus the Bishop, [Page 193] and Nundinarius the Deacon, in a matter of a high na­ture, too high for our Church Wardens, Gest Purgationis [...] & Faelicis. or Vestrymen to meddle in; The Bishop being accused, that hee was Traditor & fur rerum pauperum. Did ever Church­wardens, or Vestry men among us, heare, inquire, judge, compose such differences as these are? What should John a Nokes, and John a Stiles,To answer your margine in a margine: why may not Presbyteri be as truly transla­ted Elders as Seniors? and Smug the Smith, meddle with a businesse of Bishops? saith Episcopacie by Divine Right, part. 3. pag. 32. But how doth hee prove they were but as our Churchwardens, or Ve­strymen? First, because Deacons are named before these Seniors where ever they are mentioned. Secondly, because Optatus reckoning up quatuor genera capitum, mentions not Elders. Pag. 147.

For the first, though the order of reckoning them be not so much to be insisted upon, yet wee can tell you (if here your confidence had not beene greater then your consideration) that you might have observed, that in some places they are mentioned not onely before Deacons, but the whole cleargie; For so Gregories let­ter cited by us; Tabellarium cum consensu Seniorum, & Cleri memineris ordinandum: Are not Seniors here men­tioned before the cleargie?

His second proofe, that these Elders were no better then meere Churchmardens and Vestry men was, because Optatus mentioning foure sorts of men in the Church men­tions not these Elders. But is this the man that hath with such height of scorne vilified poore negative argu­ments, though drawn from sacred Scripture? And will he now lay such weight upon a negative argu­ment? Surely, if all the truth and practice of the pri­mitive times were bound up in one Optatus, (as all Di­vine [Page 194] truth is lodged in the sacred Volume of the Scriptures) the Remonstrant might have made much of his negative argument, yet hee scornes to heare us reasoning, that because we do not read that the holy Ghost did by the Apostles appoint Bishops, in reme­dium Schismatis, therefore we cannot believe Bishops are of Divine or Apostolicall institution, but of hu­mane. Away (saith he) with this poore negative argument. And because the Apostle, Ephesians the fourth, recko­ning the Officers whom Christ hath given and gifted for the edification of his Church, reckons up onely Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, & Teachers, if wee should conclude, Ergo, there were no Bishops, The Remonstrant would cry out again, Away with these negative arguments, yet such an argument frō Scripture may be valid, though from no other authority. As for Optatus, First, though in these places he mentions not Elders, yet that other place which wee brought out of the same Author doth, which the learned An­tiquary Albaspinaeus (though a Papist) with us acknow­ledgeth.

Secondly, these places produced by the Remonstrant crosse one another as much as they crosse us, for Mi­nistri are left out in one as well as Seniores in both. Thirdly, these Seniores are included in turba fidelium, as the Apostle, Rom. 10. 14. comprehends all the Church under these two, hearers and teachers, and so again, Heb. 13. 24. Rulers and Saints.

Yet the Remonstrant is resolved to hold the con­clusion. Elders in a ranke above Deacons in a setled power of government with the Pastors,Pag. 147. shall be damned by [Page 195] him for a new and unjustifiable opinion. Yet this is the man that would by no meanes be thought to con­demne the Reformed Churches, Though hee fall as unhappily neere the very words of their profest ene­mies, the Netherland Remonstants, as ever we did the words of Aerius. Quod attinet Praxin antiquitatis ex [...]â videlicet id demonstrari posse idoneis argumentis (ut Cen­sor asserit) audaciae & temeritatis est: and again, Tota an­tiquitatis Praxis ei repugnat: but oh that our Remon­strant would once learn to take the counsell he gives! And he that adviseth us to give glory to God in yielding to undoubted and cleere truth, would do so himselfe! For if it be not more cleere, that there were elders anci­ently in the Church, then that there were none, and that these elders were not civill Aldermen, but ecclesiasticall Officers, Not meere Churchwardens and Vestry men busied about inferiour things of seats and rates, but employed in matters of higher nature, let the Remonstrant never renounce episcopacy. But if it be, let him take heed he do not renounce his word, which he utters, pag. 147. I doe here solemnely professe that if any one such instance can be brought, I will renounce episcopacy for ever.

SECT. XVI. XVII. XVIII.

THe rest of our Answer (you say) is but a meere de­clamation. And good Sir,Pag. 148. what was your whole Remonstrance but a declamation? And what is your Defence but a Satyre? But ours is worthy of no other answer then contempt and silence. You are very dex­trous and happy in those kind of Answers, your whole Defence is full of them. It is true you say, The reli­gious Bishops of all times have strongly upheld the truth of God against Satan, and against his Antichrist. And it is as true that we told you, that others have upheld the truth as strongly as Bishops ever did; Yea, & at some­times when there was never a Bishop in the world to appeare for the truth. And therefore never impro­priate all the glory to Episcopacie. It is also true that wee told you, that some irreligious Bishops have up­held Satan and his Antichrist against the truth of God, and what can you say to this? What is this to their calling? Sir, their upholding Antichrist makes as much against their calling, as their upholding the truth makes for their calling. If you fetch an argu­ment from the one for their calling, we may as Logi­cally fetch an argument from the other against their calling with as much concluding strength; but you can tell us of Presbyters wicked and irreligious, shall the functi­on [Page 197] it self therefore suffer? Like enough. And we could tell you that they find more co [...]ntenance from Bishops then the painfullest Ministers. But if Presbyters should be as generally corrupted as Bishops now are, have as much strength to suppresse the Gospell, and promote Popery, as the Bishops by their supreame power have, if they can bring no more evidence of Divine institution then Bishops can, and are of no more ne­cessity to the Church then Bishops are, let the Functi­on suffer.

We told you what an unpreaching Bishop said of a preaching Bishop; this say you is our slander not their just Epithite, and challenge us to shew any unpreaching Bi­shop in the Church of England this day. Sir, pardon us if we tell you that you put us in minde of a poore Sir Iohn that because he had made one Sermon in 40. yeeres would needs be counted a preaching minister: if you speake of preaching after that rate, then indeed you may call all the Bishops in England preaching Bi­shops. But the people of England can so well tell who deserves the name of a preaching Bishop, that it is not the preaching of a Sermon once a yeere, or a quarter, or a month, that will bee sufficient to merit and main­tain that name. Some indeed have taken some paines heretofore; But there are so few of them now, that sure the Remonstrant intended this booke for posteri­ty: The present Age will never beleeve that England is so full of preaching Bishops, that there is not an un­preaching Bishop to bee found. But what if we should challenge the Remonstrant to shew any preaching Bi­shop in England, such a preaching Bishop as Chryso­stome, Augustine, and the rest of those ancient worthies [Page 198] were [...] who if they had preached no oftner then our Bi­shops, Chrysostome had never mentioned his [...] so of­ten, nor his Nudi [...]tertius, Nor his cras and peren­die, Nor Austin his Nudius tertiani & hes [...]erni Sermones, Nor Cyprian his Quotidiani Tractatus.

Indeed of old, one saith, Bishops gloried of their chaire, and teaching, as the flowre of their garland; preferring it far before government; but when they were faln from spirituall felicity, and inf [...]cted with Secular smoake, then they commen­ded the labour of teaching to Presbyters, then the Iurisdiction and Consistory did carry all the credit; Every Office in the Church being counted a dignity as it had more or lesse juris­diction annexed to it, & this dignity hath almost crow­ded out the duty.

The scandall of inferiour Ministers hee professeth to bleed for, Pag. 149. but saith, we blazon: No Sir, as we told you before, and tell you again, they have beene the trumpets of their own shame, that like Hophne and Phineas made the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred. But wee be­seech you, what is the English of your desires to have had the faults made lesse publike? Doe you mean you would not have had them medled withall in open Parliament? or that you would have had the Parlia­ment doe by all Petitions brought in against such seandalous persons, as Constantine did by those Papers that the proud contentious Bishops gave one against another, commit them to the fire? if so, then as you are Christian tels us, whether you doe not think this had been the onely way to involve the whole Parlia­ment, and Nation in the guilt of those sins; and ex­pose them to that wrath and vengeance that would from heaven pursue them?

[Page 199] Bethink your self how you will answer this at that great Tribunall to which you make so many rash and bold appeals, as also your prophaning the glorious title of the God of peace, that you might under the sweet name of peace perswade an impunity for sin. Sir, we nothing feare but wee shall answer our oppo­sing the unerring rule of the Word of God (which texts you never went about to answer) against that example of Constantine (who as a man, though good, was subject to errour) ten thousand times better then you will doe either of these.

In our next Section, saith our Remonstrant, we spit in the face of our Mother. Pag. 149. Good Reader please to review our Answer, Section 17. and judge. The Remon­strant will deny presently, that hee and the Bishops are the Church of England, and yet here, that which is spoken against them and their Perseus-like practices is spoken against our Mother the Church. Well, be what you please, Fathers, and Mothers, and Sonnes, and all.

Onely we desire the Remonstrant if hee can, to tell us what the Church of England is.Pag 149. For it doth not please him here that we should call the Convocation the Church of England, much lesse the Bishops, or Archbi­shops. Yet if we be not mistaken, you your self call the Convocation the Church of England, pag. 122.In the late Ca­nons the Bi­shops Consi­story is called the Church. And the Canons and Constitutions made in the Convo­cation are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England, which the Convocation alone ex­cluding the Parliament cannot be so much as a re­presentative of, unlesse you will count the whole Lai­ty of the Nation represented in Parliament none of the Church of England. Yet this is the Church so cryed [Page 200] up, These Canons are the commands of the Church, so rigorously urged, Who ever breaks a Canon espe­cially in point of Ceremony is no dutifull sonne of the Church; Indeed, in point of Morality, Drinking, Swearing, Gaming, there is more indulgence. Nay, how many Bishops in England are there that have ur­ged their owne private paper-injunctions as the com­mands of the Church, and proceeded against such as would not observe them, as disobedient or refractory against their Mother the Church? That Sir, upon the point there will appeare to be more Churches in Eng­land then one. For tell us, we beseech you, when the Church of England at Norwich forbade all prayer before and after Sermon, but onely in the words of the 55 Canon, forbad all preaching in the afternoons, all expounding of Catechisme, or Scriptures, the Church of England in London forbad none of these things; when the Church of England in London en­joyned rayling in Communion Tables, and all com­municants to make their approaches thither, the Church of another Diocesse went further, and enjoy­ned setting of them Altarwise. And all these were the commands of the church of England. The trans­gression of any one of these,No [...]e the six­teenth of the new Canons. the omission of any other thing enjoyned, was condemned as disobedience to the church. Now how many churches of England were there at this time?

But you will play off all this as merriment with a Ridiculum caput. Pag. 150. To deal with you therefore seriously; Because you make so strange a thing of hearing of more churches of England then one, and distinguish so deeply between Churches of England, and Churches [Page 201] in England, wee beseech you consider whither the Scripture doe not speak as properly, when it speaks of the Churches of Iudea and of Galatia, as if it had said the churches in Iudea, and in Galatia? And what difference between Saint Iohn when hoe writes to the Church of Ephesus, of Laodicea, and the church in Sardis, in Thyatira? Yet, we are not ridiculous enough: therefore the Remonstrant will help the matter, and to make his jeere will corrupt our words. For where­as we had said, if the bounds of a Kingdome must needs be the limits of a Churth, Why are not England, Scotland, and Ireland all one church? to make it non-sence, hee adds of England; are not England, Scotland, and Ire­land, all one Church of England? Hee that made it, let him take it.

This discourse of Churches of England, cannot end without a descent into the Prelaticall and Anti-prelati­call Church. We said, We acknowledge no Anti-prela­ticall Church. The Remonstrant tels us if wee make and condemne the Prelaticall Church, what shall be the other part of the contradistinction. Our reply must be, that not we, but themselves make the Prelaticall Church, wee doe but shew it; and we shew also the other part of the contradistinction which the Remonstrant pleaseth to call the Antiprelaticall Church. The Remonstrant had upbrayded the Divisions of that part, wee made our just defence, and therein declared that the Prela­ticall party were the chiefe Authours and Fomentors of those divisions, which the Remonstrant directly doth not deny, onely bids us lay our hands upon our hearts, Pag. 151. and consider whether our fomenting of so unjust and deep dislikes of lawfull government have not been too much guilty of those [Page 202] wofull breaches. Sir, wee have considered it, and can be­fore the great heart-searching God plead not guilty. The dislike of present Church government, which its own exorbitancy hath caused, we have not fomented, but have smothered our thoughts and griefs even untill this present, wherein the gracious hand of God hath inclined the heart of our gracious Soveraigne to call a Parliament, that hee and they might together con­sult of the pressures and grievances of his people, and conclude their removall. And now we cannot, wee dare not hold our peace, but declare our judgments, that if it shall seem good to our dread Sovereigne, and this Honourable Parliament, upon the many complaints brought in against Bishops and their Hierarchicall government, to remove the Hierarchie, This Act of State may appeare to all to be farre from sinne; this not being a government appointed by Christ, nor stamped with a Ius Divinum, though some will make that their protection.

As One that loves the peace of the Church, Pag. 152. which wee (you say) are willing to trouble, You aske after the Boun­ders, &c. Are you one that loves the peace of the Church? Wee pray of what Church? Sure that Church that is called Prelaticall, and no other, Where of we give you the boundaries and characters, which it seems please you not.

The bounders we shewed from your late Canons, which (say you) are too narrow: let them see to that that first made them. It is apparent, that the Canons made by Archbishops, Bishops, Deanes, and Arch­deacons, in their Convocation, were never consented [Page 203] to, much lesse confirmed by Parliament, and yet those are called the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England. And therfore sure, though wee doe not exclude Bishops, Deanes, &c. from being members of the Church, yet They have excluded all the rest of the Nation.

For distinction wee brought bowing to the East, to Altars, &c. Now these (say you) are not fit distinctions whereon to ground different Churches. Yes Sir, if it be true that some have held,Pag. 153. that the outward Formes of worship, and ceremonies attending it are the characters whereby one Church is differenced from another; but especially when such as will not pra­ctise these, shall be disclaimed by such as doe them, as none of the sonnes of the Church. When men shall be forced to subscribe to the practice of these things, or else they shall not bee admitted either into Livings, or Cures, (as in the instanced particulars wee have knowne it) then they make a difference of Churches. And who are the authours of such differences, but such as thus urge them? Next wee brought their Creed and instanced in Episco­pacie by divine right: Hee replies, Did ever man make this an Article of Faith? Judge you by what Bishop Hall saith in his Episcopacie by Divine right part 2. pag. 47. I am so confident of the Divine institution of the Majority of Bishops above Presbyters, that I dare boldly say, there are weighty points of faith that have not so strong ground in Scripture. Is this to make it an article of Faith or no? And if not an Article of Faith, yet we are sure it is made an Article of the Church. For whereas by the orders of the Church of England, a [Page 204] man upon the admission to his ministry is to be exa­mined upon no other Articles then the Articles of Re­ligion established in the Church of ENGLAND, we have knowne more then one, whose first que­stion hath been, what doe you thinke of Episco­paice?

We added, absolute & blind obedience to all com­mands of the Bishop & Ordinaries: you bid us blush. But alas Sir we are not such strangers in England, nor your selfe neither, we believe, as not to know but that this hath been the common doctrine, and almost the sole Doctrine preached by prelaticall men these ma­ny yeeres together. And the blinder the better. This we have heard, nor is it your limitation of the Oath of ca­nonicall obedience, in Omnibus licitis & honestis, will help you: when some in stead of that have put in, In omni­bus editis & edendis?

We added Election upon faith foreseen. The Re­monstrant cries What? nothing but grosse untruthes. Pag. 153. Is this the Doctrine of the Bishops of England, have they not strongly confuted it? Yes sure some few have, we know it. And doth not the Remonstrant know that these few have been had in suspicion, as no true friends of the Church, much lesse sonnes of the Church, more puritanicall then prelaticall, And we would none of them had said, They have beene labouring these twelve yeeres to get off the name of Puritan, and yet tt will not doe, and because of this have beene printed Tantum non in Episcopatu Puri­tani. And the same Authour in an other booke after that, Dico iterum iterumque dicam, Tantam non in Episco­patu Puritani.

[Page 205] As for the Scriptures of Prelaticall men, we men­tioned Apocripha and unwritten traditions: meaning that that generation lay as much weight almost up­on traditions and Apocrypha, as upon a genuine text, and are more observant many of them of a custome, and tradition, then of the command of God. For Sacraments, we instanced, a Baptisme of absolute necessity, an Eucharist that must be admini­stred upon an Altar. What are these (say you) to the Church of England? Nothing, but to the Prelati­call Church they are. Call them if you will, Popish fooles, and addleheads, that maintaine these opinions yet we know the number of them is not small, that have declined into these popish waies: we acknow­ledge also that these are men, if not that chiesly sup­port the Prelacy, yet such as have beene chiefely suppoted and countenanced by it. We acknow­ledge there are many men learned and orthodox, that have in their judgments approved of Episco­pall government; but what little incouragement these have had from the Prelates, especially, if la­borious in their ministery, or any way opposing the Prelaticall innovation, in respect of the incourage­ments of those popish fooles and addle-heads as the Remonstrant cals them, a man may see with halfe an eye.

You demanded what Christ the Prelaticall Church had? Our answer is, a Christ that hath given the same power of obsolution to a Priest that himsefe hath: which answer, you say, is neere to blasphemy: truely an opi­nion so neere to blasphemy can hardly be delivered in a language much distant from it: but this (you [Page 206] say) is a slanderous fiction: no Christian Divine ever held Priests power of absolution was any other then ministeri­all. Page 155. If we know the man bring him forth that hee may be stoned. Truely sir, we knew the man that said the Priests power in absolution was more then Ministeriall, it was judiciary; [...] Montague. but he is past stoning, hee is dead: and we know another said as much; but he sung Agags song long agoe, surely the bitternesse of death is past. For when he was brought forth to be stoned, hee was rescued by Prelaticall power, and his Sermon for which he was questioned, printed with licence, and in print presented to the Consistory. We know a third that in a Commencement did openly affirme Absolution by a Priest to be absolutely necessary to salvation.

Their Heaven we said was a receptacle of drunkards, swearers, adulterers; and surely justly wee might say so, for when did your Consistories, that pretend to have the keyes that open and shut Heaven, so shut the gates of Heaven against such sinners, as that a sil­ver key could not open them againe? and though your charity keepe them in Heaven while they live such, yet our charity shuts them not out of Heaven, if they did not die such. But it may be you thinke confession to a Priest, when they lie a dying shall infallibly save them, what ever their lives have beene; and thats the reason you slide by that prela­ticall opinion and doe not question us who hold it?

We professe still wee had rather goe on in our owne waies, then theirs, and thinke it our duty to separate from these waies and opinions, rather then embrace them: yet farre we are from any thoughts [Page 207] of separating from the Church of England; nor did we ever intend to affixe those exoticall positions of unsound teachers (as you call them) upon her: but on the faction who hath held promoted, counte­nanced them, and sheltred themselves all the while under the name of the Church. But if the Remon­strant hate these opinions as much as our selves; we are glad, if he know others doe (because he speakes in the plurall) it is well. But wee would be glad to know in what Pallace that Prelate lives, that hath drawne out his assumed sword of discipline against these unsound teachers? Or if he hath drawne, hath strucke, or if strucke, hath not strucke with the backe; while the poore Non conformists hath beene slaine with the edge? or where hee lives that hath opposed these exoticke positions so farre as to haz­zard the Archprelates froune in the opposition.

Having given sufficient answer to the Remon­strant, wee thought it not unfit to subjoyne some Quaeres about Episcopacy, for the Remonstrant, (if he pleased) to answer. Which though he saith are made up of nothing but spite and slaunder: Page 156. yet sure­ly his owne conscience tels him, there is much truth and strength in them; else why doth he conclude we put so much trust in them? (when we never told him so.) And why doth he not else apply himselfe to answer? but like a Socraticall disputant put off the question with question; knowing it is safer and easier to propound new questions, then to an­swer ours.

1. Your first Quere is, who ever held the Lordships of Bishops to be jure Divivo? if no body, whether this be not [Page 208] to falsifie and slander? you might have considered that we spake not of the Lordships of Bishops in ab­stracto; but of Lordbishops in concreto: And who holds them to be jure Divino, is sufficiently knowne. But you aske why it is a greater fault in one of our Do­ctours to hold the Lords day to stand by humane right (and is there but one of our Doctors of that opini­on?) then it is for Master Calvine, (whom for honours sake no doubt you name here as else where, sel­dome through your whole defence mentioning that worthy, but in some disgracefull passage.) But did Master Calvin ever hold Bishops to be jure Divino, or did Master Calvine ever as one of our Lord-bishops, who having received a letter from a Gentleman of his City, against the publication of the Booke of sports, returned no other answer then a sharpe censure of his zeale as giddy and in­discreet? Or did Master Calvin ever cry up Altars instead of Communion Tables, or Priests instead of Ministers? yet in these termes our Quere was pro­pounded, and what ever Master Calvin doth in his institution, yet in his Comment upon Deutero­nomy hee stands for the strict observation of the Lords day?

2. Whether it were any other than King Iames him­selfe, of blessed memory, Quaere 2. that said, No Bishop no King, &c. King Iames of blessed memory, never spake this of Bishops by divine right, which are the Bishops now contended for. And if King Iames of blessed memo­ry said, no Bishop, no King: it was not hee, but others that added, no Ceremony, no Bishop; nay some have risen higher, and said; if neither Bishop, nor a King, how a God?

[Page 209] 3. Whether since it is proved that Bishops are of more then meere humane ordinance, and have so long continued in the Christian Church to the great good of Church and State, it be not fit to establish them for ever, and to avoyd a dangerous motion of innovation? sure if the Re­monstrants words may goe for proofe it is proved, else not; that Bishops are of more then humane or­dinance, and so long continuance, and how advan­tagious to the good of Church and State, Acta pro­bant, and though motions of innovation may be dangerous, yet motions of Renovation are not. Non est pudor ad meliora transire, Ambr. its no shame to amend.

4. Whether these Answerers have the wit or grace to un­derstand the true meaning of the Divine right of Episco­pacy? We will not impute it to want of wit, or grace in the Remonstrant; but sure himselfe doth not clearely understand it, hee is so unconstant to his opinions: but whether the Remonstrant or his an­swerers understand the right of Episcopacy better, let the Readers to whose censure both in this con­troversie must stand or fall, determine: for our parts wee hope, wee understand what jus divinum meanes, but doe ingenuously confesse we have nei­ther wit nor grace to understand the jus divinum of Episcopacy.

5. Whether there be any question at all in the fifth que­stion? Page 157. yes certainely, if the Remonstrant would not have baulked that which he knew not how to take away; the distinction of Apostolicall right, which say we, is either such as is founded upon the Acts, or Epistles of the Apostles, and is (we grant) divine: or such, as is not recorded in their writings, and is [Page 210] onely of things reported to be introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living. Now if the Remon­strant hold Episcopacy to be of Apostolicall right in the first sence, why doth he then grant us in ex­presse tearmes that in originall authority of Scripture Bishops and Presbyters are originally the sam [...]? Def. p. 47. and why doth he in the same page make his retreat from the writings of the Apostles, to the monuments of succeeding times? If he hold it in the latter sence, these two things yet remaine to be done: First, he is to prove that Bishops in a superiority of power over Presbyters, were introduced into the Church the Apostles yet living, and answer his friend Cas­sander, and our other testimonies produced to the contrary. Secondly, to prove, that such things may be of Divine right, whereof no record is found in Divine writings.

6. Whether Master Beza have not heard soundly of his distinction of the three kinds of Episcopacy in the full and learned answer of Soravia? Yes, and Soravia, and o­thers that have borrowed from him, have heard as foundly of their defences of Episcopacy, both by domesticke and forreine Divines, who have suffici­ently declared how well our story of the Painter suits with your Discipline: but i [...] that please you not, we can [...]it you with an other of the Painter, mentioned in Plutarch; who having drawne a cocke very un­skilfully and rudely, could not indure any cocke to stand within view, for feare of discovering the de­formity of his picture: So our Bishops having drawne a forme and line of government, which they propose to the world as divine; will not indure [Page 211] the true divine government to come in view, for feare of discovering the irregularity of theirs.

7. Whether it were not fit that we also should speake as the ancient Fathers did? Sir,Page 158. by your leave it is safe to speake in the language the Scripture speakes, but you should have done well to have spoken to the reason upon which our Quere was grounded, and what further reasons we then had, and still have to make this Quere may appeare by what wee have sayd before in vindicating Timothy and Titus from such like objections.

8. Whether Presbyters can without sinne arrogate unto themselves the exercise of the power of publike Church-government, &c. to say nothing what honour here you give to your deare Sister-Churches: Our answer is, Yes they may take the exercise of that power without sinne, though not without danger, if your High-Commission were standing. For our Saviour Christ when he gave to Peter the promise of the keyes, made in one undistinguishable act, a donation of the power both of preaching and go­verning; and therefore if Presbyters may without sin publickly exercise the one by vertue of that do­nation, they may by the same charter as warrantably exercise the other. The last branch of your quere; Whether any Father or Doctor till this age held that Pres­byters were successors to the Apostles? &c. We wonder that any man who hath but the repute of learning should [...] make such a quere. And for the answer, we re­fer you to what we have said before in this booke.

9. Whether ever any Bishops assumed to themselves power temporall to be Barons? &c. Our answer is: [Page 212] You shew better writts for your temporalties, then you have done yet for your spiritualties. And our quaere was directed to shew the spirituall power of Bishops to be of more dangerous consequence then their temporall; to which purpose we produced five reasons, which wee perswade our selves you scarcely read over (for in the third there is a fault in the printing, which had you seene, your charity would scarce have let passe without an observa­tion) which remaining unanswered, wee conclude as before; it concernes all those that have spirituall eyes, to endeavour to abrogate their spirituall usurpations [...] as well as their temporall. As for the latter part of this Quere, it is a begging of the whole dispute, Et eadem facilitate rejicitur, quâ affirmatur.

10. Whether the answerers have not just cause to be ashamed of patronizing a noted hereticke Aerius, &c. To this we answer: That if Aerius was accounted an heretique for denying Bishops to be all one with Presbyters by divine right, we are not ashamed to patronize him, till you have answered our allegati­ons for his defence which are brought in this quere, and in divers places in this Booke. But you could not be so ignorant but to know how Bellarmine and divers others doe say. That Aerius was accounted an hereticke, not for denying the inequality of Bi­shops and Presbyters by Scripture, but by the Canons of the Church. But wee wonder how we escaped the brand of the heresie of the Audiani, who by the same Epiphanius are called heretiques (though men of a blamelesse conversation) because they did not without just cause) freely and boldly re­prove [Page 213] the vices of the Bishops of their daies.

11. Whether the great apostacy of the Church of Rome doe, Page 160. or did consist in the maintaining the order of go­vernment set by the Apostles themselves, &c. Sure no: wee never sayd, nor thought it. But that a great part of the Apostacy of the Church of Rome consist­ed in swarving from the discipline of Christ and hi [...] Apostles, as well as from the doctrine and setting up and maintaining a new Hierarchicall forme, which cannot enter into our hearts to thinke the A­postles did ever set up: and which the most part of the Churches in the Christian World, that are professedly opposite unto the Church of Rome doe oppose, as much as they doe Rome it selfe; though you beare the Reader in hand, they all maintaine it no lesse constantly then Rome it selfe doth; which no man but he that hath captivated reason, & modesty to his cause, and will, would have so confidently and untruly spoken. Once againe let us aske you, whether by this bould speech all the reformed Churches of Christ be not now shut out of the num­ber of Churches?

12. Whether if Episcopacy be (through the m [...]nifi­cence of good Princes) honoured with a title of dignity, &c. it to be ever the more declined?

Since the time that Episcopacy has bin honored with dignity, and revenues, the office hath not bin declined; but the Bishops themselves haue bin declining. Yet our Quere was not whether this were a ground of declining the place, but rather of desiring the place. As for our crying up the Presbytery, because wee hope to carry some sway in [Page 214] it. We acknowledge our selves unworthy to beare any part in it; but we heartily desire that Christ may rule, and wee shall most willingly subject our selves to his government.

13. Whether there bee no other apparent causes to be given for the encrease of popery and superstition in the Kingdome, besides Episcopacy (which hath strongly la­boured to oppose it) &c. We deny not but there may have bin other causes, but none so apparant as Epis­copacy. But whereas in a parenthesis which you might well have left out without any detriment either to your sense or the truth, you say that, Epis­copacy hath strongly laboured to oppose popery: we an­swer Quid verba audimus cum facta videmus? you aske againe whether the multitude of Sects (you should have added which the tyranny of Bishops hath made,) And professed [...]lovenlinesse in Gods service have not bin guilty of the encrease of prophanenesse. We an­swer againe, not so much as the forbidding of preaching and Catechising, as the countenancing of sports on the Lords day, as the scandalous lives of too too many episcopall men, and the libertinisme of the Bishops houses and Courts.

14. Your 14. Quere consists of a Paradox, and a Sol [...]cisme. A Paradox in saying, That all Churches throughout the whole Christian world have ever obser­ved, and doe constantly and uniformely obserue and maintaine Episcopall government. When as you know all your deare sisters of whom you professe a tender care, doe disclaime it. Of a Bull and sol [...]cisme in saying That all Christian Churches doe constantly and uniformely observe it. And yet confessing, that [Page 215] there are lesse noble Churches that conforme not unto it.

15. In your next Quere you contradict your selfe and the truth as a selfe confounded man. For here you say, That the name of Bishop hath bin for this 1600 yeares appropriated (in a plaine contradistinction) to the governours of the Church. But page 48 where we bring Iren [...]us calling Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, &c. Bishops of Rome Presbyters, And others also using the name [...]; You cry out with a loud voyce, Is this al? that your trifling may appeare to all the World. Name but any one of our writers, who have hitherto stood up in the cause of Episcopacy, that have not granted and proclaim­ed this which you contend for. In the latter end of this quere, you thinke to stop our mouthes with Ba­laams wages, and demand. Whether if we will allow you to be Bishops, all will not be well? Wee are scripture Bi­shops without your allowance. As for to be Hierarchi­call Bishops, since God will not allow it, we care not for your allowance. But what Patent or Monopoly have you among all the multitude of late Projectors ob­tained, that without your allowance a Presbyter may not be admitted into a Bishoprick?

16. To your last Quere we answer. That if God had set your episcopall government in his Church; wee know it could not bee lawfull for us to deny subjection unto it. But we have proved the contrary in this dis­course. Neither have the Lawes of this land so firmely established it; but that it may be repealed by the same Lawes, and suffer a just period for its matchlesse pride, and insufferable oppressions. Which for the present we perceive is out of feare a little aba [...]ed, and that [Page 216] makes you aske; Whether it were not most lawfull and just to punish our presumption and disobedience, &c. Time was when the High commission and other Epis­copall Courts would have made both our eares more then tingle for such a question without enquiring ei­ther the lawfulnesse and justice of it.

Thus we have answered his 16. Queries, but be­fore we end our booke, we cannot but take notice of what the Remonstrant addes in the conclu [...]ion. For there he tells us, That he hopes he hath given a suffi­cient answer to our bold and unjust demands: And yet notwithstanding he doth not vouchsafe to give any answer at all, but only propounds new questions, insteed of answers: which if the Reader will con­ceive a sufficient way of answering; we doubt not but we shall quickly give satisfaction to all that ever hath bin written for Episcopall government, either by Bishop Bilson, Bishop Downham, Bishop Hall, or any other whatsoever.