G. G. 1 IN my former answer vnto these your articles which ye call A breefe sum of your profession, I kept the same order in which they stand. But now I begin first with your heauy accusation of the foure heinous transgressions for which ye condemne and abandon all the assemblies as they generally stande in England: and come after vnto those former articles, which conteine your association, wherein ye conioyne your selues, and enter into couenant with God (as ye say) to set vp all the ordinances of Christ, for I take this to bee the fittest order. Your syxt article which now must be first, being expressed in these words. And now that our forsaking and vtter abando­ning these disordered assemblies, as they generally stand in England, may not seeme strange or offensiue to anye man, that will iudge or be iudged by the word of God: we alledge and affirme them heinouslie faultie, and wilfullie obstinate in these foure principall transgressions. To this I answered: That Elias did sée outward idolatrie practised, and saw none [Page 3] which did mislike, and therefore complained of all. It was an error, but whereas Gods word is imbraced, and multitudes abhorre Idolatrie, and labour with sorrowfull teares to bee purged from their sinnes, it is an intollerable pride and pre­sumption of men, to set themselues in Gods iudgement seat, and to condemne all of wilfull obstinacie. Let it be shewed where euer any, led by Gods spirit haue dealt in this sort, and especially in charging them most falslie, as shall appeare.

G. G. All such as take vpon them to iudge and condemne whole assemblies, that professe the Gospell, and that with slanderous accusations, as▪ you do, may right well be charged with intol­lerable pride, presumption, and intrusion into Gods iudge­ment seate, séeing the Scriptures do cleerely warrant it. For he that iudgeth one man to be no true Christian, which holdeth the place of a brother, and laboureth to please God, professing the faith soundly in all fundamentall points, either for some errors in iudgement, or frailties committed in life, proudlye aduanceth himselfe into Gods office, who alone searcheth the heart, and trieth the raines of the children of men. What shall we say then of those which condemne whole multitudes, a­mongst whom there be many vnspotted with grose errors and offenses? But the ground of your dooing is from hence, that such as commit principall transgressions, and be wilfullye obstinate in the same, the word of God dooth condemne them. And then yée say, that the assemblies in England be heinously faulty, and wilfully obstinate in foure principall transgressi­ons. Ye boldly alledge and affirme, but ye make proofe neither [Page 4] of the transgressions, nor of the wilfull obstinacie. Touching the transgressions, what meane ye by principall? If yée vn­derstand great faults and grosse errors, and holde withall that there is no faith nor regeneration among those which erre grosely, & commit great faults, ye maintaine heresie, which is conuinced by infinit places and examples of the Scriptures. The best that euer were, did know but in part. 1. Cor. 13. The godliest were regenerate but in part. Rom. 7. Of the strongest it was said, who can tell his errors, Psal. 19. and in manye things we sinne all, Iam. 3. If Noah, Abraham, Lot, Dauid, Solomon, Samson▪ and other holy men, greatly replenished with the holy Ghost and with faithe, did sometime fall into great sinnes: howe many will be the errors, the diuisions, the frailties, and offenses among the multitude in the church, where, with the stronger, and such as haue the greater know­ledge and godlinesse, there are heaped vp together multitudes of weake, and such as be carnall, and but babes in Christ, be­sides hipocrites, and countersait brethren? If by principall transgressions, ye meane onely such as be fundamentall, then ye doo most falsely accuse the Church of England, which hol­deth not any heresie or blasphemie against any one ground or principle of the holy Christian faith. Yée must then either mainteine this heresie, which is, that where the true faith is, there can breake foorth no great faults, errors, and abuses: or this absurd manner of spéech which afterward yée vse, that all errors and deformities in religion, be heresies, blasphemies, and abhominations, or els confesse that with intollerable pride presumption, and intrusion into Gods iudgement seate, yée haue taken vpon yée to iudge and condemne whole assem­blies, which professe the faith of Christ sincerely in all funda­mentall points, among whom there be many particular per­sons which study earnestly to please God, mourning for their owne sinnes, and are like iust Lot, 2. Pet. [...]. vexed and tormen­ted to behold the wickednesse of others? And now touching wilfull obstinacie, how will yée prooue that to be in all the as­semblies, and in all members of the assemblies of England? If ye say there be apparant transgressions in which they con­tinue, [Page 5] and therefore they be wilfully obstinate, and so to be vt­terly abandoned. I answer, that your conclusion doth not fol­low, because the continuance in all sorts of errors and offen­ses, in such as professe the faith, doth not warrant men vtterly to cast them out as Heathen: but where after admonition and conuiction, the censure of the Church is despised. The rule of discipline giuen by our Sauiour Christ, maketh this verye cléere. If thy brother sinne against thée, tell him of it betwéene him and thée alone▪ If he heare thée, thou hast wunne thy bro­ther: if he heare thée not, take one or two with thee, that by the mouth of two or thrée witnesses, euery word may be con­firmed: If he heare not them, tell it to the Church: if he heare not the Church, let him be as an Heathen or as a Publican. Math. 18. We sée that priuate members may not vtterly a­bandon and cast foorth any one brother, that is one which pro­fesseth the true faith, and for his profession hath the place and dignitie of a Christian: nor iudge him so wilfully obstinate, that he must be accounted as an Heathen, vntill the Church haue so iudged and cast him foorth. The same orderly course and rule of discipline is to be obserued, in admonishing, accu­sing, conuincing, condemning, and vtter abandoning any par­ticuler assembly, which hath the dignity of a Christian church, and doth offend so gréeuously, and shew such obstinacie, that it deserueth so heauy a censure. In a particular Church there be errors and sinnes, I will not saye in many, but in all, in as much as euery one hath his blindnesse and corruption, erreth and sinneth continuallye one waye or other. From hence it commeth, that of necessitie there be alwaies in the Church di­uersities of opinions, discord, diuision, and dissention, with ma­ny corruptions and abuses. For if it be most manifest, that the learnedest and godliest that liueth, doth carrie with him his errors, defects, and corruptions: what shal we looke for where the multitude is of learned, vnlearned, strong and weake, al­together, how innumerable will the frailties and corruptions now among all be: wherevpon it followeth, that the vniuer­sall Church cannot rightly cut off and vtterly abandon anye particular assemblies, vnlesse it be for errors & abuses which [Page 6] ouerthrow the faith, & destroy true Christianity. The precept of S. Paul, in that whervnto we are come, let vs procéed by one rule, to be like minded, Phi. 3. is héer to take place. I will now procéed more particularly. The church of England, euen as it generally standeth in the publike assemblies, among al godly Churches which know the faith which she dooth openly pro­fesse and maintaine, hath the place & dignity of a sister: They all giue vnto her the right hand of fellowship, acknowledging her for a mother in Israel, in as much as she hath not béene barren, but hath brought foorth many deare children to God, and not a few of them crowned with martyrdome. Behold then the inordinate dealing, and arrogant presumption of you Brownists. Yea behold euen the top of your pride, against God and man, which professing to set vp discipline, and glorying that you suffer for it, do breake and vtterly abolish the rules thereof giuen by Christ, by your vtter forsaking and abando­ning all the assemblies in England: for let it bee confessed, that the errors, the sinnes, the imperfections, the spots, and de­formities of our Church be many, so that she is not in her ge­nerall estate, so faire as the fairest of her sisters: yet hath she héeretofore had, and now hath, many noble children, richlye adorned with heauenly iewels, and pretious gifts of learning knowledge, faith, and godlinesse. And howsoeuer the Papists one way, and the Brownists another way, do aggrauate her crimes with pestilent slaunders, yet shall they neuer prooue, that either in doctrine or manners she is guilty of any funda­mentall crime, which separateth from Christ, and destroyeth the life and being of a true Church: yet you Brownists, not obseruing the rule giuen by Christ, doo vtterly abandon and cast foorth from their dignitie, all our assemblies in England. For ye haue condemned al of wilful obstinacy, euē to particu­lar members: & who hath giuen you this authoritie to thrust them out of Gods familie, which the whole vniuersall Church cannot rightly doo? Who could euer imagine, that vnder the pretence of setting vp discipline, the diuell should breath such pride into rotten flesh, as vtterly to ouerthrow the whole sub­stance of it: for whereas all the Churches of Christ in these [Page 7] parts of the world, doo know the estate of our Church, and be able to discerne the gréeuousnesse of our errors: yet doo they all acknowledge and reuerence our assemblies as holye sisters. And you Brownists, men voide of knowledge and discretion, without authoritie, without any calling or warrant, euen vp­on a frantike brauerie, and without obseruing any rule giuen by Christ Iesus, take vpon ye most presumptuously contrary to the iudgement of the Churches, to cast foorth and vtterly to abandon the same. What Pope hath dealt more proudly in vi­olating the discipline? If there were but this one thing against you, it were sufficient to declare your cursed dealing, but your furies are many, first in your slaunderous accusations, which now we come vnto.

To this I did answer, that our worship is the imbracing of the holy Bible: by the doctrine thereof, we séeke to beléeue in God, to call vpon him, and to doo all good workes, &c.

G. G. To the intent that mine answer and your accusation may stand the cléerer to be séene into, and the better to be iudged of, I draw your words into a syllogisme thus.

• Whatsoeuer assemblies worship the true God after a [Page 8] false manner, their worship being made of the inuention of man, euen of the man of sinne, &c. the same are not the true Churches of God.
• But the assemblies as they generally stand in England, doo worship the true God after a false manner, their worship being made of the inuention of man, &c.
• Therefore the assemblies in England be not the true chur­ches of God.

I did not, nor doo not deny the first part of this argument, the proposition, so that we vnderstand by false maner of wor­ship, and the same made of the inuention of man, such a false manner as dooth ouerthrow the very ground and foundation of faith, and make an vtter seperation from the Lord Iesus Christ. Such as the worship is in popery, where they teach and doo many things contrary to the principles of faith, pla­cing holinesse and the worship of God in their owne inuenti­ons, and séeking remission of sinnes, and the merite of eternall life, in euery beggerly supersticious obseruation and ceremo­ny. But if by false manner of worship, yée vnderstand euery error, fault & corruption, in matters of religion, which though they be euill and to be condemned, yet ouerthrow not the faith nor the very essence of Gods true worship, but be in circum­stances, or in parts that may be maimed, and yet the life re­maine: then I deny the proposition as most erronious, false, and hereticall For king Dauid with the princes, the Préests, the Leuites, and people, erred, and that grosly, contrary to the expresse law of God, Numb. 7. vers. 9. when they carried the Arke vpon a Cart: yet were they euen then the true Church of God. It was a great offence, that in the dayes of some good Kings of Iuda, the people sacrificed in the high places, but on­ly to the Lord▪ 2. Kings. 11. &. 14. 15. They should by Gods appointment haue doone it at Ierusalem onely: yet were they neuerthelesse Gods people. The Passouer was a princi­pall part of Gods worship, but they kept it not so precisely ac­cording to the law, of a long time, as they did in the 18. yeare of Iosias. 2. King. 23. 2. Chron. 35. The Preachers at Corinth did very euill in building Timber, Straw, and Hay, vpon the foundation: and so did the people which sorted themselues [Page 9] as it were by seuerall companies to follow them. But yet be­cause they held Christ the foundation in the true doctrine, S. Paul saith, their workes should burne, they should suffer losse, neuerthelesse they themselues should be saued as it were by fier. 1. Cor. 3.

Now to come vnto the second part of your argument, the assumption, which is, that the Church of England dooth wor­ship the true God after a false manner, their worship being made of, &c. I did deny that, by affirming that the worship of our Church, is the imbracing the holy Bible, by the doctrine thereof, &c▪ Ye say, I beg the question, and prooue not our wor­ship by the Bible. And I say (if yée call it begging) you beg the question, & would haue that graunted vnto yée as true, which is most false. For excepting imperfections, wants, spots, ble­mishes, & faults, which destroy not the true worship of God, our Church dooth worship the Lord aright, without heresie, blasphemy, or idolatry. The doctrine of our Church is publi­shed: if yée can take exception against any point, to be heresie or blasphemie, bring it foorth that it may be tried by the Bible. Then next yée complaine further, that I do not answer one of those 4. apparant reasons which yée bring, why it is false and contrary to the Bible. Well then they may now be conside­red. Thus yée haue noted them with figures ouer the head, our worship being made of the ¹ inuention of man, euen of the ² man of sinne, ³ erronious, and ⁴ imposed vpon vs. I know not for what cause they should be called apparant, vnlesse by a farre fetched trope of Metonymie, because they manifest and make apparant your vanitie, and Anabaptisticall error. For the first thrée be no more but one bare affirmation of that principall transgression which yée charge vs withall. For all false worship is mans inuention, whether it be the inuention of the man of sinne, or of any other man, it is all one before God, who respecteth not persons, but the wickednesse of the sinne. Also to be mans inuention in Gods worship, and to be erronious is all one. For whatsoeuer man inuenteth in Gods worship, is erronious: and whatsoeuer in the same is erro­nious, hath béene inuented by man. So that the thrée first are [Page 10] all one bare affirmation, and the very same with your article. Your Anabaptisticall error is in the fourth: for yée challenge such a fréedome to the Church, as that nothing may be impo­sed vpon the flockes, no not any thing that the Church gouer­nours shall decrée by the word, which dooth ouerthrow the dis­cipline in a great part. Then yée procéed and say, for further manifestation of our worship in particular, let the booke of Common prayer be examined by the word of God: which yée terme a great pregnant idoll full of errors, blasphemies, and abhominations. If the booke stand to be tried by Gods word, there is no doubt, but as all things done by men, euen the best, it shall be found vnperfect. He that will haue it to be no true worship of God, in which there be errors and spots, holdeth the heresie of perfection, which is very foule and detestable: for it is as farre beyond our power, to bee perfect in Gods wor­ship, as to performe perfect obedience in the second table of the lawe. And touching the booke of Common prayer, let the rea­der consider, it is not the question betwéene vs, whether there be faults in it, great faults, or how many: but whether it be a great pregnant idol, full of heresies, blasphemies, and abhomi­nations? I confesse that all men ought with vtter detestati­on, to shunne our worship, if it be such as you accuse it. But indéed your accusation is false, your slaunders are foule and impudent. This shall appeare by following your words as they be set downe, where yée name those blasphemous abho­minations, which yée charge the booke withall, in their seueral rankes▪ Yée aske vs where we find in the new Testament our Romish fasts, our Ember daies, Saints éeues, and Lent. I am indéed out of all doubt, and most assured, that if a man read o­uer, not onely the new Testament, but also both old and new, from the very beginning to the end, he shall neuer finde any allowance of Romish fasts. I say likewise of the Booke of Common prayer, that there be no Romish fasts in it: and that yée doo most iniuriously slaunder and belie vs in matching our Church in this point with the blasphemous synagog of Rome. For that Antichristian Church, de rogating in all things from the Crosse of Christ, hath vpon certaine daies, and at certaine times, [Page 11] times, appointed an abstinence from meates, placing therein the worship of God, remission of sinnes, and the merite of e­ternall life. The Church of England dooth vtterly condemne this as the doctrine of Diuels, 1. Timoth. 4 pronouncing them enimies to the crosse of Christ, which maintaine meritorious fasting. We teach that the kingdome of God is not meat and drinke, but righteousnes and peace, and ioy in the Holy-ghost. Rom. 14. And that there is no holinesse in eating or not ea­ting, but an abstinence whereby we may humble our selues, and be more feruent in prayer. The politike lawes of this land, which appoint that vpon certaine daies men shall not eat flesh, doo it in respect of the common-wealth, as to maintaine Nauigation so much the better, by incouraging men to fish, and for the spare of the bréed of yoong cattle: appointing moreouer a penaltie for such as shall take the daies to be ob­serued as meritorious Romish fasts. Therefore let all men héere at the first consider, how sophistically yée doo argue: that the Church of England dooth absteine from flesh vpon ember dayes, Saints Eues, and in Lent: therefore the Church of England dooth maintaine and obserue Romish fasts. Thus dooth one cracke of your great ordinance, vanish onely into smoake. Then yée say, your idol feasts, your Alhallowes, Candlemas, seuerall Lady dayes, Saints dayes, and dedica­ting Churches vnto Saints. Héere also yée thunder out terror, as if the Church of England did worship idols, and celebrate feasts in the honour of false gods: and yet all is but a starke lie, and a wicked slander. And I would wish all men to ob­serue the boldnesse and eloquence which yée haue in this vaine. For whereas the synagog of Antichrist, denying the onelye mediation of our blessed Lord Iesus, did set vp the Saints as mediators, did praye vnto them, worship them, celebrate ho­ly dayes in their honour, and dedicate churches vnto them: the Church of England for these and such like abhominati­ons, hath separate her selfe from them, teaching by the ho­lye Scriptures, that there is one God, and one mediator be­twéene 1. Timoth. God and man, the man Iesus Christ. That the same only true God is to be worshipped alone, and called vppon [Page 12] through the only mediation of his beloued Sonne, in whome [...]ath. 4. [...]al. 51. [...]ath. 3. he is well pleased. That Saincts are not to be worshipped, neyther the blessed Virgin, nor any other, nor no dayes to be celebrated in their honour, nor Churches dedicated vnto thē: how bitterly then do you sclaunder? Ye will reply, that the Saincts dayes be kept in our Church: yea but ye must shewe that they be kept in their honour, which ye shall not be able to doo, séeing the contrary is manifest, the Statute expressing that our Church doth call thē Holydayes, not for the Saincts sakes, but for the holy exercises vsed vpon them in publike assemblyes. Diuers Churches also among vs are called by the names of those Saincts which they were dedicated vnto, but to say that we do therefore dedicate Churches vnto them, is very ridiculous. In the City Athens there was a place of Iudgement which bare the name of Mars, S. Luke cal­leth [...]s. 17. it by the same name, doth he therefore dedicate it also vn­to that heathen God of battaile? When we call S. Peters Church, or Paules Churchyard, it is but to distinguish them by the names by which they are commonly knowne and cal­led. Then follow our Comminations, Rogations, Purificati­ons. Touching Comminations, they be a part of the Cano­nicall Scripture which is to be read in the Church. Rogati­ons, I take to be the compassing in of the limits and bounds of Parishes, which is commaunded only to auoide contention and strife that might growe, and there is nothing in the booke of Common Prayer touching these, that euer I could finde. Purifications are annexed, only to make vp your riming fi­gure: for neither the booke, nor the doctrine of the Church of England, doth speake of any Purification, but only in the bloud of the Lambe. There is a Thanksgiuing prescribed for Women after Childbirth, but neyther for Iewish Purifi­cation, or Popish Superstition, & therefore not in such sort to be condemned. After comes in our Tithes▪ Offerings, Mor­tuaries. For the Tithes and Mortuaries, I do not finde them once named in the booke, the Offrings in déede are. But ye will say that is no great matter, séeing they be in our Church. That is true, but yet they are but for maintenance of the [Page 13] Ministerie, & not as a matter tyed of necessitie vnto a Priest­hoode, as in the time of the Lawe: and if they were, the error could not be fundamentall. In the next place are brought in, our manner of visiting the sicke, and howsling them with the Sacrament, our Absolution, blasphemous Dirges, and Fu­nerall Sermons ouer and for the dead. There is prescribed a manner of visiting the sicke, and so is there in the leiturgies of some other Churches that professe the Gospell, but where haue ye séene it practised, or the practise vrged by those that haue the gouernment of our Church, at their hands which are able and diligent Pastors? Whereby your iniurious dealing may appeare, in charging all the assemblies as they generally stand in England with matters which the greater part do not practise, nor yet are required. For if the sicke man be by the Minister of the word instructed, exhorted, comforted, and strengthened in faith and repentance, yea euery way prepa­red to depart ioyfully in the Lord, it is that which the booke aimeth at, neither is there any more required, although he vse no prescript forme set downe. By your phrase of howsling with the Sacrament, ye would make the simple beleeue, that the Popish Howsling is retained among vs. This is but a false kind of packing, seeing our Church vtterly condemneth all the wicked blasphemous corrupt doctrine of the Papists touching the Lords Supper: and also denyeth that a man is of necessitie to receiue this Sacrament at his death. If yes replie, that howsoeuer we teach, yet the booke implyeth a ne­cessitie, which appeareth by that it doth appoint a priuate Communion. I answer, that euen the booke doth denie it to be a matter of necessitie, and doth appoint it but to relieue the trouble which might arise in weake consciences through the want thereof, for these be the words of the booke: The Cu­rates shall diligently from time to time, but specially in the Plague time, exhort their Parishioners to the often receiuing in the Church, of the holy Communion of the bodie and bloud of our Sauiour Christ, which if they doo they shall haue no cause in their suddaine visitation, to be disquieted for lacke of the same. And if any sicke person that would receiue this [Page 14] Sacrament, hath any impediment that he can not, the Booke willeth the Minister to instruct him, that if he do truly repent him of his sinnes, and stedfastly beléeue that Iesus Christ hath suffered death vppon the Crosse for him, and shead his bloud for his redemption, earnestly remembring the bene­fites he hath thereby, and giuing him hartie thanks therefore, he doth eate and drincke the Bodie and Bloud of our Saui­our Christ profitably to his soules health, although he do not receiue the Sacrament with his mouth. How maliciously then do you charge the assemblies in England with howsling the sicke with the Sacrament, when all the learned, faithfull, diligent Pastors do, as the booke requireth, exhort those that be of their flockes to the often receiuing of this holy Sacra­ment in the publike assemblie, as the due place for publike seales, and the people by instruction being growen so strong, that they do not in their sicknesse require it, and so in the most Congregations which are well taught, the thing is not pra­ctise [...]? The Sinagog of Antichrist deuised a purgatorie which is blasphemous against the bloud of Christ. They had indéed their Dirges, euen blasphemous prayers for the dead. That Purgatorie do we vtterly deny as a wicked inuention, we condemne prayer for the dead, and therfore, where ye tearme those prayers which are read at burials blasphemous Dir­ges ouer and for the dead, yee are more then impudent in lying. Funerall Sermons I finde not inioyned by the booke, nor commaunded by any Lawe. Ye adde further, our corrupt manner of administring the Sacraments, the Font, the Crosse in Baptisme, Baptisme by women, Gossippings, the blasphemous Collects that we vse vnto this Sacrament, Byshopings, with all the hereticall Collects of the Booke, which, as ye say, is a wearines vnto ye to repeate, though not to vs both to tollerate and defend. When ye shewe some rea­son, why the Font is an abhomination, I shall knowe what to say. Touching the Crosse, it must needes be confessed that it was blasphemously and horribly abused in Poperie, they ascribing vnto it power to driue out and expell Deuils, and worshipping it with deuine honour. In my iudgement also, [Page 15] the holy Church of God, within short time after the blessed Apostles, and the reuerend godly Pastors, did offend, in taking ouermuch libertie to ordeine Ceremonies Symbolicall, as that and such like, yet no doubt very reuerend godly learned men, led by the example of those holy Fathers of olde, haue iudged it lawfull for the Church to ordeine such Ceremonies. Touching the Baptisme by women, it is condemned both by the chéefe gouernours in our Church▪ and others, and is not practised vnlesse it be among the popish and supersticious ig­norant sort. By Gossyppings, I suppose yée meane the wit­nesses at baptisme, a thing vsed in the best reformed churches, and thought to be expedient: so that yée doo not heerein con­demne the Church of England, but all Churches▪ Bishoping of children is little practised, for vnlesse the people require it by offering their children few Bishops doo vrge them thervn­to, onely this excepted, that they be taught and instructed in the Catechisme. The blasphemous collects which we vse in the Sacrament, and all the hereticall collects of the booke, doo trouble yée very sore, and weary yée to repeat. But if it plea­sed God, I would ye were as weary of lying and slaundering, as ye should be in séeking in all the collects of the booke, if yée were bound to séeke and to finde, I will not say some faultes, séeing all things framed by the best men, may haue imperfec­tions and faults: but some blasphemies or heresies. If yée haue any regard at all what ye say, gather your wits toge­ther, consider what is blasphemie, and what is heresie, and then note the collect where it is, and what it is▪ There shall neuer any man be able to prooue, that the Church of England dooth tollerate, much lesse defend, either blasphemie or heresie. Yet you, as if your words were true as the Gospell, clap your wings, and crowe, saying, but this candle may not be lighted, least the people should sée into the abhominabl [...] ingredients, which you their Antichristian ministers doo giue them, or ra­ther sell them, in the whore of Babilons cuppe. All this is but your foule toong, which is no way so eloquent, as in rowling out slaunderous accusation of blasphemies, heresies, and abho­minations, with such like. Moreouer, whereas the case stan­deth [Page 16] thus in the church of England: that there is controuer­sie about the Booke: and that one part dooth approoue all things in the same as good and alowable, or at least as tolle­rable, the other condemne certaine things as corruptions, and such as néede reformation. I would know how ye could abandon all the assemblyes? to this ye make a double answer, first, that vsing a part, they do homage to the whole. This is a foolish answer, void of all reason, for can we not praise the good things in a man, but we shall allowe his faultes and im­perfections? Your second answer is this: Neither can the cunningest of ye all make the best part of it other then a péece of Swines flesh, an abhomination to the Lord. Who could imagin that such a frensie might take hold of any, that in mad furie they should not spare after a sort to strike at God, and to blaspheme that which is most holy? for ye knowe right well▪ that there is in the booke of Common Prayer, much of the sacred Canonicall Scripture, there is the Lords prayer, the tenne Commaundements, with many other partes and sen­tences, there be the articles of the Christian faith, are all these become Swines flesh an abhomination to the Lorde? Let not simple men wonder that ye are bold to proclaime all the Ministers of the Gospell within this land, to be the marked seruants of Antichrist, when ye dare presume to set your stincking brand of pitch vpon the most holy things of God. Ye will héere cry out of iniurie, and say that ye estéeme all those parcels of the sacred Canonicall Scriptures, in thē ­selues to be holy and pure. What is it then which turneth them into Swines flesh, and maketh them an abhomination to the Lord? is it because they be bound together, and make one booke with the hereticall Collects? then take you héede, least being in prison, and fettred with heretikes, ye be turned also into Heretikes. If ye say, it is our abuse which turneth so holy things into Swines flesh, I aunswere, that the abuse of holy things is abhominable, but the things themselues re­maine vndefiled: and ye must remember that we deale tou­ching the partes of the booke, but abuse is no part thereof. When ye say the best part thereof is no other then a péece of [Page 17] Swines flesh, it can not be transferred from the partes vnto the abuses. If it were graunted vnto ye, which yet is to be denied as most fantasticall, that all read prayer offred vp vnto God as a sacrifice, is Idolatrie: neuerthelesse your saying is wicked and blasphemous, seeing that the reading is not any part of the booke, neither doth it peruert or defile the things themselues which are read. Thus your first accusation, that we worship the true God after a false manner, is with false sclaunder, and furious outrage of spéech, crying out of Idola­trie, blasphemies, and abhominations, when as ye can shewe no one ground of the holy Religion and worship of God, which is not holden sound and entire among vs, only ye rippe vp corruptions and spots in Ceremonies, orders, and circum­stances, which touch not the foundation, but are such as men may erre in, and yet be Gods déere children, and true woor­shippers.

G. G. Read prayer is one chiefe thing for which yee condemne our worship as Idolatrous and most detestable, and for that cause to be annexed vnto this first accusation.

To condemne and ouerthrow read prayer, yée bring, as the ground or foundation of all your matter, this sentence▪ God is a spirit, and to be worshipped in spirit. Iohn. 5. This scrip­ture indéed is cléere and strong, to cut downe all carnall wor­ship as disagréeing from the nature of God. And if any doo maintaine, that the very bodily action of reading prayer, is the worship of God, it may fitly be alledged against them. But to apply it in that manner which you doo against red praier, is friuolous, vnlesse (as I say) yée could prooue, that a man can­not pray by the spirit of God, with sighes and grones procée­ding from faith, when the praier is read vpō the booke, or vtte­red after a prescript forme. To this you reply with diuers arguments. The first is, that if the sighes and grones were of faith, it would minister matter of praier without a booke. This reason by a connection is drawne from, and dependeth wholy vpon the force and effect of faith, to minister matter of prayer. It is to be framed thus. If the prayer with sighes and grones were of faith, it would minister matter without a booke: but the matter of their prayer, with sighes and grones, is not ministred without a booke, therefore it is not of faith. to make this argument strong and sufficient from the connec­tion of faith, and the liuely efficacie thereof to vtter prayer, yée [Page 22] must adde two things, the one, that faith is perfect vnto this efficacie, to minister matter of praier, and néedeth no helpe. The other, that the effect and power of faith, to minister mat­ter of prayer, cannot stand nor be ioyned with any outward helpes. Vnlesse I say yée adde these two, with the cupling to­gether faith and the effect, which are both of them hereticall, there can be no necessarie consequence. To make it yet more manifest, let it be drawne into an other forme of syllogysme▪ thus. That which hath power and efficacie of it selfe to mini­ster matter of prayer▪ néede not any outward helpe, nor cannot touching the vtterance of matter in prayer, stand with any outward helpe: But faith hath force and efficacie in it selfe to minister matter of prayer: Therefore faith néeds not the helpe of a booke, nor cannot stand with any outward helpe, touching the vtterance of matter in prayer: And so consequently, the sighes and grones in prayer red, cannot be of faith. This con­sequence shall neuer be brought in, vnlesse yée frame your ar­gument after that sort. So that both these fantasticall errors be included in your spéech, the one, that faith touching the effi­cacie to minister matter of praier is so absolutely perfect, that it néedeth no outward helpe, the other, that it cannot touching prayer stand with any outward helpe. I doo acknowledge that there be no sighes nor grones, nor any praiers that can be regarded of God, but such as come from faith. I doo also hold, that faith is not in any, without some efficacie and power to vtter some matter of praier. But now we must consider the degrées thereof: for doubtlesse if there were in men a perfecti­on of knowledge, of faith, and of quicknesse, there should néed no outward helpe: but the best come farre short of that. Such as approche néerest there vnto, néed so much the lesse any out­ward helpe. But the most are ignorant, weake, short of me­mory, dull and slow, and néed all helpes to stirre them vp, and to direct them, euen as children, that are to be stayed vp and led by the hand. Praier indéed is a spirituall worke, procéeding from faith, which is a spirituall gift, but yet it doth stand with outward meanes and helpes. The Holy-ghost alone dooth worke faith in man, but yet it commeth by hearing, Rom. 10, [Page 23] Faith bringeth foorth prayer, but we must consider, that as the same faith commeth by hearing, and is grounded vpon the word, so is it cherished, supported, increased, continued, and quickened in efficacie, and made more forcible vnto euery good worke by those helps of outward meanes. For further confirmation ye adde, yea no doubt, a troubled minde is the penne of a ready writer. Let it stand in forme of syllogisme thus. That which is the pen of a ready writer, néedeth not the helpe of a booke. But a troubled minde is the pen of a rea­dy writer: therefore it néedeth not the helpe of a Booke. The proposition is true, if by the pen of a ready writer yée vnder­stand an absolute perfection of knowledge, chéerefulnesse, di­rection, memorie and vtterance. But that was not in Moses, Daniel, Paul, or any other. Therefore héere againe yée runne vpon the rocke of an hereticall opinion of perfection. Your as­sumption, where yée say: no doubt, a troubled minde is the pen of a ready writer, is vtterly false, and your bold affirmation without scripture is not enough, séeing there be many so per­plexed and confused in the trouble of their minde, and oppres­sed with ignorance, that they cannot pray, nor know not what to vtter: which, when they haue instruction and consolation ministred vnto them by some godly man, or if that chéefe help faile, by reading vpon a booke, poure foorth teares and suppli­cations.

Your next reason is in many words, which yet I will re­peate. ‘To worship God ( say you) in spirite, is when the in­ward faith of the heart bringeth foorth true inuocation: and it is then in truth, when it simply agreeth with Gods word. But you would teach men in steed of powring foorth theyr hearts, to helpe themselues vpon a booke, yea to fetch the cause of their sighing and sorrowing from an other mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand.’ I will also drawe it into a syllogisme, to the end it may the bet­ter be iudged of. None worship God in spirite, but they which from the inward faith of the heart bring foorth true inuocati­on, that is, such as simply agréeth with the word of God. But all such as read vpon the booke the prayer which they pray, [Page 24] fetch the cause of their sorrowing from an other mans wri­ting in the time that they pray, and doo not from the inward faith of the heart, bring foorth true inuocation. Therfore none that reade their praier vpon the booke, doo worship God in spi­rit. The proposition I assent vnto as sound and good: for it is no true inuocation except it agrée with Gods word. It is not to worship in spirit, vnlesse it procéed from faith out of the heart. But your assumption, which is, that all that reade the praier which they pray, doo not from the inward faith of the heart, bring foorth true inuocation, I cannot allowe, séeing yée bring nothing for proofe thereof, but that which is most friuo­lous. For whereas yée say in the first part of your confirmati­on, that we would haue men in stéed of powring foorth theyr hearts, to helpe themselues vpon a booke, yée speake vntruly and foolishly. For we wish men to vse the helpe of a booke that they may the better poure forth their hearts to God. Be­ing such as are not otherwise throughly able.

The next part of your confirmation, is euen to as great purpose, when yée say, ‘We would haue men fetch the cause of their sighing and sorrowing, from an other mans writing, euen in the time of their begging at Gods hand.’ For how fondly doo yée make that to be the cause, which dooth but ma­nifest the cause? for the cause of all sighing and sorrowing, is the sinne and miserie which is within vs: which we may the better behold and expresse by instruction. I haue gréeuous sinne, and wrath belonging therevnto, which I doo partlye know, and can make some moane therein, and praye: I come into the publike assembly, where I heare the minister preach the word, which dooth more fully laye open and display my sinne and misery: I am héereby driuen into déeper sighing and sorrowing, with vehement praier in my heart vnto God: shall it be saide, that I doo now fetch the cause of my sorrowing from an other mans spéech in the time of my begging at Gods hands? If not, then why should I be said to fetch the cause from the booke, which also dooth instruct me? the like may be said, when the congregation dooth pray with their pa­stor: they fetch not the cause of their sighing from him: but are stirred vp by him. Your next words stand thus. ‘The reasons [Page 25] why we disalow of read prayers, in steed of spiritual prayers, that though they may be read for meditation, as any other mens writs▪ yet is it Idolatrie, to offer vp to God such man­ner of sacrifices, either priuately, or in the publike assemblies.’ Yée are very angrie, that I termed your reasons, by which yée oppose read praier vnto spirituall praier, spirituall fantasies. But take you héed that they grow not to be worse. Yée are al­so gréeued, that I call them your stuffe, but how good stuffe it is, let the pure word try. I said it is false doctrine to make read prayer serue only for meditation. My proofe was this, that Christ saith not, when ye meditate, but when ye pray, say thus, Our Father which art in heauen: and héere ye fling a­bout as if ye had Béez. For first ye exclaime that I make smal conscience to sclaunder ye, because I said ye make read prayer serue only for meditation, which is false doctrine. Meditation (as I take it) comprehendeth all that is done in studying and musing when one readeth, the praying is another. If ye can shew a third vse when one readeth prayer, I will confesse an error, otherwise, though ye haue not expressed the word only, yet ye haue in effect vttered so much, when ye say read prayer is not to be prayed. Secondly, ye charge me to deny that read prayer serueth for meditation at all, which is in deede false doctrine: because I said Christ saith not when ye meditate, but when ye pray say thus, Our Father which art &c. Do I not say truly that Christ saith not when ye meditate, but when yée pray, say thus, Our Father which art &c. How can you then but like Spiders sucke that poyson from thence? Thirdly, ye accuse me, that I make no difference betwéene our owne Leiturgies and the Canonicall Scripture, which is a most friuolous cauill, séeing our question is about reading of prayer, whether it be Canonicall Scripture, or framed from thence according to the rules of godly prayer. Thus haue ye answered nothing at all vnto that commaundement which I alleaged giuen by our Sauiour, to vse that prescript forme of prayer, but only by shift and cauill. Then ye goe about to proue that euery sinne against the first Table of the Lawe is Idolatry, but with no shewe of reason. And heere ye scoffe because I sayd, if euery sinne that is against the first Table [Page 26] be Idolatry, who shall be saued? and ye demaund who is frée from Idolatry? an absurd spéech: for the Scripture doth not call the godly either murtherers, théeues, idolaters, or such like. I thought we had not reasoned about the reliques of sin which remaine in the best so long as they liue héere, but of such grosse idolatry as a Church is to be condemned and for­saken which is defiled therewith. But séeing ye confesse that all men be idolaters, that is, touching the remnants of sinne, it must néedes followe that there is no Church frée from all spottes, for if all the partes and members be defyled, the whole can not be cleane. This doth ouerthrowe all the ar­guments which yée bring to condemne the Church of Eng­land, which haue no force vnlesse yée will maintaine a per­fection: for if a Church and euery member in it can not but of necessitie be spotted and defyled with some remnants of idolatrie, euen by your owne confession: then can ye not rea­son thus, this is a fault, it is idolatrie, therefore this or that assemblie which is spotted is no true Church, but to be for­saken. But ye must stand to prooue that the idolatrie is so grosse, that it destroyeth the faith, ouerthroweth Gods true worship, and so destroyeth the verie life & béeing of a Church. Thus much about your preface, now follow your argumēts.

In my first answere I did deale only with the assumption or second part of this Argument, affirming that I could not sée how it can be proued, and shewing sundry absurdities that would follow; as namely, that a prayer of the Canonicall Scripture being read when one prayeth, should become apo­crypha, &c. But you replyed that those absurdities grow from my mistaking your words, and I sawe it was so, for our que­stion being about the reading of prayer, and not about the matter it selfe, I tooke it, that although yee hold the Lords prayer, and other prayers in the holy Scripture to be Cano­nicall in themselues, yet being read to become apocrypha, be­cause ye say all read prayer is apocrypha, and did not expresse it with this restraint, all read prayer framed by men, is apo­crypha. [Page 27] I must now take the Argument as you say your meaning is, and deale with both the parts thereof. First then touching the proposition, no apocrypha is to be brought into the publike assemblies, what can be more false? Apocry­pha is opposed vnto Canonicall, if nothing may be brought into the Church but the Canonicall Scriptures, then the Ser­mons and prayers of the pastors and teachers are to be bani­shed. I knowe your meaning is not at all to exclude these, although your words (taking apocrypha as it is in vse among vs) do in déede shut them foorth, and not only them, but any paraphrase vpon the Scripture, as the Psalmes in Metre▪ Now to your assumption, which saith, all read prayer is apo­crypha: first, it is false touching the Psalmes and the Lords prayer, which be Canonicall when they be prayed. Then fur­ther, I sée no fitnesse in applying the name apocrypha vnto our spéech to God, though it be vsed for that which is not his vndoubted word to vs. For by what name opposite to apo­crypha, will ye call those prayers which ye do allow? ye will not call them Canonicall, this Argument therfore is false and friuolous.

To this I answer at the first, that it is great audacitie to af­firme, that there is no warrant of the word for read prayer, whē there be sundry testimonies to warrant the same, vnlesse ye will make a difference betwéene that which a man readeth vpon the booke, & that which he hath learned out of the booke. Further I said, I do not remember that euer I haue read in the holy Scriptures, that God commandeth the prayer shall be read vpon the booke: for he commendeth this dili­gēce in all his people, that they should throughly learne to vnderstand, not only the matters, but also the sentences and phrases, which his spirit taught his holy Prophets and seruants to vtter in their prayers, and that this is the rea­son why there be so many prayers prescribed in the booke [Page 28] of the Psalmes, and in other bookes of the Scriptures: that whatsoeuer thing befall a man, wherein he is in the feruent affection of his heart to pray vnto the Lord, if he haue in me­morie the spéeches which holy men in such distresse vttered, it is a great help vnto him, if not, he may help his memory with a booke. To this you reply, that touching the vse of sentences and phrases of scripture, you could easily consent, but that ye perceiue I would not agrée with ye in certaine points, the first, that this is required only at the hands of Gods children, with promise to be heard and accepted. I wonder with what eyes ye can sée that I would not agrée with ye in this thing, I put ye out of doubt, I hold assuredly, that none haue promise to be heard and accepted but Gods children, though they vse neuer so much the sentences of Scripture in their prayers. The first hinderance of your consent is remoued. The second is, that ye sée I would not agrée with ye, that the same spirit doth now teach Gods childrē to pray, which taught the Pro­phets & holy men in other ages. I professe vnto ye, that I hold it a wicked opinion, to deny that the same spirit doth nowe teach Gods children to pray, which taught the Prophets, &c. and so the second let is remoued. In déede héere you and I dissent, that I hold, that as our faith is wrought by the word of God, so is it nourished and quickned vnto prayer, and euery good work by the same, and that the holy Ghost hath not only taught matters by the Prophets & Apostles, but also spéeches and phrases sit for to vtter y ^e same. And you hold that because the same spirit now teacheth to pray, which taught the Pro­phets & Apostles that either we may not, or we néede not vse their▪ spéeches. The third stop remaineth, which is, that I take it, God should be delighted with words and sentences. You greatly mistake it and do but cauill: for I shewed my minde, not that God would regard words & sentences, but we should be holpen and comforted by them. Thus the third and last hinderance is also remoued, and now you may consent that in our prayers we may vse the prescript formes, senten­ces, and phrases of the word of God. To my next wordes, where I sayd, the reason why there be so many prayers [Page 29] prescribed in the booke of the Psalmes, is: that whatsoeuer distresse befall a man, &c. you reply: yée thinke I halt greatly, that our question being about Idolatrous leiturgies, I séeke to shrowd my selfe vnder the vse of Canonicall scripture. In­déed this would be a learned question, whether idolatrous lei­turgies be idolatrie? or whether it be not idolatry to pray an idolatrous praier? who would looke for so childish a shift? you know our question is about the reading of a praier when one prayeth? And if it be not idolatry to vse the praiers of the scrip­tures, euen in their prescript forme, then all read praier offred to God as a sacrifice, is not idolatrie. I reason thus: it is not idolatry to pray the Lords praier, or any other prescript forme deliuered in the Canonicall scriptures: therefore it is no ido­latry to vse a prescript forme of praier, which is framed after the rules of true praier: as to aske of God alone, through the onely mediation of his sonne, and for no matters, but such as he hath promised to giue: Yée say it is not true doctrine, that those Psalmes and Scriptures were written that we should vse in our praiers the words there set downe. Your reason is because there be other vses. I doo confesse there be other vses, but that might yet be a speciall reason, why there be so many praiers prescribed. Then yée say yée do not disalow the speak­ing, according to the word of God, but that we might not affect so much the phrases of spéech, as the true féeling of our wants, He that hath not the féeling of his wants in praier, but affec­teth phrases, is but an hypocrite. But ye are in a vaine opini­on, if ye thinke the vse of the phrases and sentences of scrip­ture, being fitly applied, is any hinderance either to the féeling or opening our wants, because where skill or memorie faileth I would haue them vse the helpe of a booke. I am, you feare, papistically affected vnto words and sentences. I haue alrea­dy shewed, that this is not to affect the words and sentences, but the instruction, the support and quickning which our faith receiueth by those words & sentences. And this doctrine is not as you charge it, disagréeing from the counsell of the Holy ghost, which willeth vs to continue in praier, to striue in prai­er, nor contrarie to Dauid, which said, O my soule, &c▪ nor to [Page 30] Paul, who teacheth that the spirit helpeth our infirmities, and maketh request for vs. But your doctrine, which saith, we must continue in prayer, therfore we may not vse such helps: the spirit dooth helpe our infirmities, and maketh request for vs, therefore we may not be holpen by the praiers, or by the words of the holy scripture, is phantasticall, for the Holy ghost doth helpe our infirmities, and teach vs to pray, by the writ­ten word. You thinke it were hypocriticall worshipping of God, to take helpe by a booke, when we know not what to aske. If a man know not what to aske, he shall be able to vn­derstand little by the booke. But a man may know what he should aske, and yet not so well able to expresse the same with­out helpe, both for memory and feruencie. Stinted praiers (yée say) are as Cushions for idle papists, hypocrites, and Atheists. I graunt that such people doo abuse all the best things, shall the godly therefore be debarred from the vse? I doo teach, that whether a man of himselfe pray without a booke, or vpon a booke, if he pray not in spirit with faith, he dooth but offer the sacrifice of fooles, his praier is abhominable. Therfore it is but your lauish spéech, when ye say I giue libertie to the lame sa­crifices: on the contrary, if a man pray in faith vpon a booke, or without a booke, it is true praier, and such as God heareth. God will haue no strange fire put vpon his Altar, say you. I graunt it is so: but praiers framed by the rules of scripture, and offered vp in faith, are not strange fire. Yée wish all men to take héed of this craftie doctrine, and I wish all men not to be to hastie in receiuing new phantasticall opinions▪ Your an­swer vnto those two Psalmes, which I noted, were giuen as a prescript forme of praier to be vsed of the Church, and the forme of blessing prescribed to the Préests to blesse the people withall, Num. 6▪ is more then friuolous. For touching the first, which is 92▪ appointed for the Sabaoth, yée graunt it was at their méeting to magnifie the praises of God, & many other Psalmes. But yée demaund, what this maketh for stin­ted leiturgies, papisticall and erronious, imposed, &c. I say, it maketh nothing at all for that which is papisticall and erroni­ous. But it prooueth that all read praier is not idolatrie, and [Page 31] that it is no stinting of the spirit, to vse a prescript forme of praier. These fantasies of yours are first confuted thereby. Then next I argue thus. If I may vse a whole praier of the scripture, and no idolatrie, then a praier that is composed by the rules of the scriptures may be vsed, and no idolatrie. You deny, that the argument drawne from the vse of the Psalmes dooth follow, because praiers composed by men, are not equall to the Canonicall scripture: and so shut out all praiers, if yée marke well what yée say, that are framed by the Preacher, For let them be holy and good, yet yée may not set them as e­quall with the Canonicall scriptures. Againe yée deny the ar­gument, by affirming, that singing of Psalmes was no part of praier, but onely for instruction and meditation: ye take vpon ye to prooue this a little after, and when I come to that, ye shall haue answer. The Psalm. 102. ye say was not a praier of the Church, because it is said, O Lord heare my prayer, and not, O Lord heare our prayer: a poore shift, when vsually the church speaketh of her selfe in the singular number. Touching the blessing: ye say, that forme of words was not to tie them to vse those words, but after that manner, which is manifestly false.

Touching the orders of singers appointed by Dauid, I al­ledged it to no such end, as you séeme to drawe it vnto. But that in singing the Psalmes, they did read them vpon the booke. Héer now ye do not onely deny, that singing of psalmes was any part of praier, but also ye will prooue it by the testi­mony of S. Paul to the Ephesians, and to the Collofs. where he exhorteth thē to speake vnto themselues in psalmes & hymnes and spirituall songs. It is a foule audacitie, contrary to the manifest word of truth, to affirme that the Psalmes were not sunge to God, séeing that not onely the speeches be directed in a multitude of places vnto him: but also the Holy-ghost doth call vpon men in this wise. Sing vnto God, sing a new song vnto him, sing praises vnto the Lorde. But beside this you go further, for in both places by you cited, ye leaue out the lat­ter part of the sentence, which is, that they should sing vnto the Lorde with grace in their hearts. Let the reader peruse [Page 32] the places, and iudge what kinde of tricke this is. It is most cléere, that they did reade the Psalmes vpon the booke when they did sing them. It is also out of controuersie, that they did sing them to the Lord, vnlesse we will deny the flat word of the Holy-ghost, and also affirme, that albeit the spéech be di­rected to God, yet they did not in singing speake vnto him. It cannot be denied, but that many of the Psalmes be full of pe­titions. Also praise is a part of prayer, and a spirituall sacri­fice: this was offered vp to God, in reading vpon the booke, for it is saide. Sing praises to the Lorde: therefore I con­clude, that read prayer hath warrant by the word, and the reading dooth not make it idolatrie, or contrarie to spirituall praier. Héere yée complaine againe▪ that this argument dooth not follow, because praiers composed by men, are not to be matched with the Canonicall scriptures. I haue answered this poore stale shift already▪ that the praiers composed by men are no further lawfull, then they be framed by the rules of Gods word for prayer.

Thus haue I not, as you charge me, laid aside the question to make new questions: but haue disprooued that your olde question, by shewing, that reading the praier which is godly, dooth not make it contrary vnto spirituall praier, nor idolatry.

To the assumption of this argument, I answered at the first which I particularly rehearsed, how can yée then with any shew of truth, say my words import a deniall of the An­tecedents, assumption and all. My words are these: The third argument saith, that the forme of praier is a bondage and breaking our libertie with, &c. The prooues which I bring do onely ouerthrow the assumption, for I did and doo acknow­ledge the proposition, which you say my words import a deni­all of. I would wish yée to vse more simplicitie, I say it is vn­godlye and néere vnto blasphemy, to affirme that prescript [Page 33] forme of prayer, is a tradition, bringing our libertie into bondage, and a changing the worke of the spirit into an idoll. My reason was and is, that the Lord by Moyses prescribed a forme of blessing which the Préests should vse Nomb. 6. The Prophets, as in the Psalmes, prescribed many formes of prayses and prayers, to be vsed of the Church. Our Sauiour Iesus Christ prescribed a forme, and sayd, when yée pray say Our Father, &c. If the verie reading, or vsing the pre­script forme commaunded, were a bondage, breaking Chri­stian libertie, or a changing the worke of the Spirit into an idoll, then the Lord God, Moyses, the Prophets, and our Sauiour Christ, are charged with a great fault. Your reply is with some roughnesse of spéech, which I omitte, because it is but your fashion. But for proofe, that read prayer is mans inuention, and thrust vpon the Church by constraint, ye say England knoweth by wofull experience. There hath béene I graunt in the Church of England variance about some matters to be read, which are commaunded in the Leitur­gie, but not about the commaunding a prescript forme of prayer to be vsed: for therein our Church doth agrée with all godly Churches, that a prescript forme of publike prayers is conuenient, yea, the reformed Churches haue and do practise the same.

Héere therefore I would wishe the Reader to obserue, that you Brownists, doe not only condemne the Church of England, but all the reformed Churches whatsoeuer, and can be none other but méere Donatists. For héere in this your third argument ye affirme, that prescript forme of pray­er commaunded, is the changing the worke of the spirit into an idoll, a tradition breaking Christian libertie, and there­fore most detestable. In your fift Argument, ye say, it is a dead letter which doth quench the spirit. But all reformed Churches doo by commaundement receyue and vse prescript forme of prayers. Consider then what sentence yee haue giuen against all the visible Churches of our time, and of former ages, for it will come to passe, that as the Donatists tooke themselues to be the only true Church in earth, so must [Page 34] you Brownists of necessitie, if your spéeches be weighed, séeing all Churches haue and doo things which you affirme to be most detestable idolatry: but let the matter come into que­stion to be debated among the Churches, and you will be found Anabaptists for imagining such a Christian libertie and fréedome in the Church, that nothing is to be receyued which is imposed by commaundement. Then ye say, that it breaketh our libertie, S. Paul proueth most plainely to the Ga­lathians and Colossians. I pray ye then that we may sée such plaine proofe, which as yet none but your selues can espy: note the sentences that will prooue the matter. You take it, there is no warrant to set foorth any prescript forme of prayer, be­cause Christ hath prescribed a forme. Ye thinke I might more safely reason thus, Christ hath prescribed a forme of prayer, therefore neyther Pope, Byshop, or Prelate, ought to impose any other vpon Gods children, vntill they can shewe some warrant from Gods word so to do. I am fully of your minde, that none ought to impose any other forme, vntill they can shewe warrant from Gods word. But nowe marke how the Argument will followe: Moyses, the Pro­phets, and our Lord Iesus gaue prescript formes of prayer and praysing God, to be vsed by the Church: therefore the reading of a prescript forme of prayer when one prayeth or offreth vp the sacrifice of prayse to God, doth not change the worke of the Spirit into an idoll, nor is not a breaking Christian libertie, nor idolatrie, for the holie Scripture is farre from appointing any idolatrous thing. Then I reason further, that if the Prophets and our Sauiour gaue prescript formes to be vsed, the Church may take order to sée them v­sed. And from hence it doth followe, that the Church may impose prescript forme of godlie prayers, which are framed aright.

If any thinke this a strange consequence, let them con­sider that the Lords prayer in generall conteyneth in it mat­ter touching the substance and summe of all prayers which haue béene made, or are to be made aright. The Psalmes, and other prayers in the Scriptures, doo expresse particu­lars, [Page 35] with sundrie sentences, and phrases, most fitte to ex­presse the same.

Nowe the Church hath power and authoritie, not onely to expound these prayers, but also to applye them vnto eue­rie seuerall vse and necessitye. This I adde withall, that the Church hath no authoritye to bring in any one thing in prayer, which is not conteyned in those prayers of Gods word: but when the prayers be composed and framed of nothing but the doctrine of the Scriptures, and after the rules of true prayer, nothing is brought in which God hath not commaunded. Lay aside therefore all your shiftes tou­ching Apocrypha, mens writings, and inequalitie with Canonicall Scriptures, and bring your Arguments against the prescript forme and the reading, to prooue that they make a prayer holie in it selfe, to become abhominable, and contrarie vnto spirituall prayer.

That yee say, our Sauiour neuer vsed the words of the Lords prayer, when he prayed, neyther commaunded his Disciples to say ouer these words, neyther doo we reade that the Apostles did euer vse, or enforced others to vse certayne words, &c. ye speake vntruly, for the Disciples desired him to teach them to pray as Iohn taught his disciples to pray, and he commaundeth, when yée pray, say thus: Our Father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name &c. Luke 11. and S. Mathew an Apostle, with S. Luke the Euangelist, hath deliuered the same to the whole Church, if we reade not any where that they did vse the Lords prayer, or commaunded others to vse it? Will ye reason thus, we do not reade that the Apostles, or the Church in their time, did baptize Infants, therefore Infants were not baptized? or will ye reason thus, we neuer read that the Apostles did pray eyther before or af­ter they preached, therefore they did not? your argument is the very same with these two former, yet from hence ye will néeds conclude, y ^t we will impose vpon whole Churches cer­taine words, euen our own words, stinting the spirit of God.

I haue alreadie shewed, that the Church hath not autho­ritie to bring any forme of prayer into the assemblies, but [Page 36] such as is agréeable to the rules appointed for prayer by the word of God. And where ye call it a stinting of the Spirit, I aunswere, that the Spirit of God is not stinted, but some men are furthered by prescript formes, their infirmities re­quiring such an eye, as I haue shewed before.

These thrée I ioyned together as hauing no waight. Ye say I answere by playne contradiction, without Scripture, or proofe. In déede you quote Scripture to prooue those things which are not doubted of, as, that true prayer must be of faith, vttered with hart: that to worship God after an other manner then he hath taught, is idolatrie: that we must striue in prayer with continuance. But what scripture do ye bring to prooue that it is presumptuous ignorance to vse the help of a booke, that those which reade vpon a booke come not with faith and contrite hearts, &c. but stand reading a dead letter which quencheth the Spirit, and that a booke is no helpe for continuance in prayer, what Scripture I say, bring yee to prooue any of these? is not my bare denyall as good as your bare affirmation, and in this farre better that I haue before proued the vse of reading by y ^e word of God. Dauid (say you) would prayse the Lord with hart and doyce, therefore not vpon a booke. S. Paule would pray with the spirit, and with vnderstanding, therefore not vpon a booke. Dauid and Paule had not so much néed of the booke as other men. But whē they will other to sing prayses to God, as in Psalmes, & Himnes, [Page 37] and spirituall songs, did they not send them to the booke, or to the prescript formes, wherein others might praise God toge­ther with them, although they binde not men alwaies to the booke. Then yée adde a reason, why praier read, cannot be true praier: which is, that in reading we fetch the matter from the booke which mooueth the heart. In true praier we fetch the matter from the heart, which causeth the mouth to speake: as, I beléeued, and therefore I spake. This is a most ridiculous vanitie, for tell me this, when we bring foorth in true praier, matter from the heart which causeth the mouth to speake, hath not the heart béene first mooued with the word of faith? why may not the heart be mooued againe with hearing or reading the word, and so vtter true praier? the heart is moo­ued when one heareth the praier of the minister, and present­ly sendeth forth praiers together with him. Do ye imagine that the heart cannot both be mooued and pray at the same in­stant? Is it not possible for one to pray in singing a Psalme?

To this I answered, approouing the proposition, and in the assumption I did distinguish of matters to be praied for, as that there be things necessarie to be praied for at all times, and of all men: of these a prescript forme may be vsed at all méetings of the Church. There be matters not at all times néedfull to be praied for: touching these, there can be no pre­script forme to be vsed continually, yea some things fall out so rare, that it were hard: for, as it is a fault to omit that which néedeth continually and of all men to be praied for: so is it a grose babling to pray for things whereof there is no néed. And if yée obserue the prescript praiers of all Churches, yée shall find the regard of these two things, that nothing necessary be omitted, y ^t no praier be for such things as fall out sildome, but they are limited to the time. And further, that which falleth out beside the prescript formes, the ministers of the word are to supply. And in the Church of England, the Preachers are not limitted touching the matters of their praiers. But if I [Page 38] meane by the things which be necessary to be prayed for at all times, the Sacraments or any such thinges as Christ hath set foorth in his word, wee should thinke our Sauiour Christ, you say, to haue forgotten himselfe, that when he did com­maund them to preach and baptize, that he did not prescribe some forme of wordes for their praiers, before their doctrine and Sacraments.

To this I aunswer, I doo not holde that for the admi­nistration of the worde and Sacramentes, it is of necessitie there should bee a forme of praier prescribed: for the Mi­nister may conceiue the prayers at the administration of the Sacraments, as well as at the preaching of the worde. But prescript forme, is for conueniencie. Neither am I of the minde, that one precise forme is of necessitie. There­fore yée reason verye fondlye, in saying wee might thinke our Sauiour forgat himselfe, that he did not prescribe a forme of wordes for their prayers, before their doctrine and Sa­cramentes. Your nexte wordes, that then I must further saye, that all things necessarye in the worship of GOD, are not conteined in the Canonicall Scriptures, and so e­uerye waye vpholde the Papists, are euen as farre wide. For all things necessarye and conuenient in Gods worshippe bee conteined in the Canonicall Scriptures. But are you ignorant of this, that there be many thinges conteyned in the Scriptures, which are not in particular expressed, but to bee gathered from the generall groundes and rules of doctrine. What if one should obiect vnto yée, there is no commaundement nor example of the Apostles in the scrip­tures, for anye prayer to bee made at the Preaching of the worde, and administration of Sacraments. Therefore it is not conteined in the Scriptures, that there should bee anye, and so a thing not necessarye. Would yée not flie to this, that although it bee not expressed by anye commaunde­ment, that there should bee such prayers, yet is it to bee ga­thered out of the doctrine conteined in the Scriptures? How grosse are yée then, in saying that this dooth vpholde the Papists?

[Page 39]But yée saye, it were well I set downe what it is, that may bee fitte at all times, and for all persons to craue? I maruaile anye should be so babling, as to propound such a matter, making doubt. For can yée be ignorant, that going through the whole Lords praier, and opening the particulars▪ there is no one petition, but almost all branches of it are ne­cessary to bee craued at all publike méetings and of all per­sons.

When will there bee a time, and an assemblie, in which it shall not bee fitte for all to make supplication, that the name of the Lorde may bee sanctified: that they may re­ceiue the giftes and graces of the Holy-ghost, to imbrace the true light of the Gospell, to increase in knowlege, faith, and repentance: to praye for Princes, for the whole Church, and for the ouerthrowe of Christes enimies? to haue grace to o­bey, and to walke worthy of the Gospell. To craue all be­nefites for our necessary sustentation, and the pardon of our sinnes, with deliuerance from the deuill. They bee all con­teined in the Lordes praier, but wee as children néede to haue them particularly expressed, in that manner which may best helpe and guide vs.

And touching praiers at the Sacraments, they may verye well be the same, séeing the thinges doo euer remaine the same which we are then to craue. Vnlesse yée will main­taine, that there bee thinges in administration of Sacra­ments, at sometime to be prayed for, and not at other. Then so farre as prescript forme of prayer dooth fullye and fitlye expresse our néede, it is no babling, and so this your argument dooth not condemne it.

Antichrist deuised manye blasphemous wicked prayers. But to say that the reading or following a prescript forme of praier was his deuice, is most false: for there were leitur­gies in the Church of olde, before Antichrist was set in his throne. And moreouer, the prescript formes deliuered in [Page 40] the scriptures to be vsed, and which were vsed and practised by the Church, shewe that the thing is allowed by God. Yée say, I haue confessed, that I neuer read in the scriptures any warrant to reade praiers vnto God: and then it must néedes follow that it is antichristian. I say, you know that yée doo fal­sifie my spéech. For I said and haue prooued, that it is great audacitie to affirme, that there is no warrant in Gods word for prescript forme of praier. But I doo not remember that e­uer I read in the scriptures, that God dooth commaund a man to reade the praier vpon the booke. My reason is rendered, that God dooth commend such diligence in all his seruants, as to haue in memorie, &c. Will ye gather thus, it is not expressely commaunded, therefore there is no warrant? it is not expres­ly commaunded that euer I read, that the Minister shal make praier before and after his sermon. Will yée charge me héere­vpon, that I say there is no warrant for it in the word? There would sundrye inconueniences growe for want of prescript forme of publike praiers. I did onely mention this, that e­uery frantike spirit, of which sort there may bee some in the Ministrie, will not onely be vnlike themselues, but vary from others. You reply, that the Papists haue not so weake reasons for their idolatrous leiturgies, rubrikes, and Canons. It ap­peareth by all your arguments, how méete men yée are to iudge of the waight and sufficiencie of reasons, alledged by the Papists or others. Ye say, if it be but in phrases of spéech, that they differ, it is no sufficient cause to ordaine leiturgies. I graunt that is true: then yée say, if it be in doctrine or conuer­sation, the censures of the Church are to helpe that. I confesse that the censures of the Church are to redresse such things. But your reason yet hath two defaults. The one, that ye de­uide differing in administration of Sacraments and publike praiers, but into two members, difference of phrases, and difference of doctrine. When as there be sundry other diffe­rences, as in order and ceremonies, which the Church is to haue regard of, and not to leaue arbitrary. Your experience in these matters, is not so great as your boldnesse. The other fault is, that because the censures of the church should redresse [Page 41] defaultes, therefore there néedeth no prescribed order. It is a world to sée, how many men talke of the Censures and gouernment of the Church, which knowe not what it mea­neth.

The Church hath this power, to ordeine according to the word of God, and to appoynt such Orders in matters of cir­cumstance about publike prayer, preaching of the word, and administring of the Sacraments, as shall most fitlie serue for edification. And then these Orders béeing establi­shed by publike Authoritie, the Discipline and Censures of the Church are to driue men to the obseruation of the same. Who is able to imagin the innumerable diuisions and of­fences which would arise in the practise of your Anabap­tisticall fréedome, in which, yee denye the Church to haue power to ordeyne and to impose any orders? I would the Ministerie of England were better then it is. If by tear­ming it a franticke Ministerie, you meant but to speake against vnlearned and vngodlie men, you should haue leaue for me: but you comprehend all the learnedest and godly, whiche you could not bée bolde to doo, vnlesse yee were ta­ken with a frensie, séeing there bée many whome yée are neuer lyke in any measure of giftes and graces, eyther for knowledge, or Godlynesse, to approch néere vnto. Well, now yée fall to your sober reasoning agayne. Paule com­maunded the Colossians to admonishe Archippus, you would haue a Leiturgie for your Ministers, not onely to tell them what they should doo to men, but also to God himselfe: this is your last reason, and hauing before spent your strength, it is as a weake childe of your olde age. If yee had no better, I would neuer haue set this last. For I meruayle, vnlesse yee did it to mocke, to what ende yee shoulde bring it in. Archippus was to bée admonished by the Colossians, the Pastors are to bée admonished by theyr flockes, therefore there ought to bée no prescript forme of publike prayer. Or is your meaning, that the Leitur­gies goe too farre in telling the Ministers what they shall [Page 42] say, not only to men, but to God himselfe. Then I aun­swere, that the Colossians were to admonish Archippus, to looke to his whole dutie. Set Archippus aside, for he doth not strengthen, but weaken your argument, and take these words only, which séeme to carrie a great absurditie, name­ly, that the Minister should be told by a Leiturgie what he is to speake both to God and men. I aunswere, that the Leiturgie is not to teach Ministers, which otherwise can not tell what to say: it is not to maintaine an idoll Ministe­rie. But to auoyd those inconueniences which I haue before mentioned, and such lyke, you may sée in the reformed Churches, they haue Leiturgies, and yet all theyr Mini­sters are able, and knowe what to speake, both to God and men. I propounded this question, that if read prayers, and imposed Leiturgies bée Idolatrie, where shall wée fynde a visible Churche? You aunswere, that in this poynt they might erre of ignorance, and yet be the true Church. This is some fauour yet: the Church came nowe vnto yee in a lucky houre, but yee may continue thus gratious, least the poore Churches of England craue the like at your hande. Haue yee not set downe, that to reade a prayer vppon the booke, is to woorship hym with a woorship disagréeing from his nature? haue yee not sayd, it is the deuise of Antichrist, a dead letter, quenching the Spirit, stinting the Spirit, not of Faith, Idolatrie, a changing the worke of the Spirit, in­to an Idoll, a tradition and bondage, breaking our libertie which Christ hath purchased for vs, and therefore a thing most detestable? Doo yee not denye that to bée the Church of Christ which hath any thing imposed? and yet yee saye touching Leiturgies imposed vppon all Churches, they might erre in this poynt, of ignorance, and yet bée a true Church. Your spéeches doo condemne all the visible Chur­ches in the worlde, wherein, yée bée rancke Donatists. But you woulde hide this, and make shewe as though yée con­demned only the Churches of England. But if read pray­ers and imposed Leiturgies bée such as you affyrme in those [Page 43] spéeches which I haue mentioned, how could ignorance ex­cuse them? And why may not the Church of Englande bée excused by ignorance? let the Reader héere obserue the pride of ignorant blinde Scismatikes, which imagine they knowe more, then all the Churches of God in the earth. You take it that I vse the Popish Argument of vniuersalitie and An­tiquitie, and so wonder what I will say against the Pa­pists traditions, séeing I fight with their weapons agaynst the truth. Nay, if yée could sée your owne blindnesse, it would make ye meruaile in déede.

I reason thus: It is manifest by the word of God, that there should bée a true visible Church in earth: but if impo­sed Leiturgies be such as you make them, that could not bée so, there could bée no true Church, in as much as all Churches that are and that haue béene for many hundred yeares, haue had imposed Leiturgies.

The Papists doo drawe theyr Arguments of Antiquitie and Vniuersalitie not from the Scriptures, as you may sée this reason that I alleadge is, but against the Scriptures. And nowe how truly yée conclude touching this question of read Prayer, and prescript forme of Leiturgies, let the Reader iudge: and whether the Scriptures that I haue brought, doo not ouerthrowe your fantasticall and Anabap­tisticall errors.

There were ioyned with these Arguments against read Prayer, two other: the first is this. The Prayers of such Ministers and people as stand vnder a false Gouernment, are not acceptable, not onely because they aske amisse, but because they breake Gods commaundement. The other is, The Prayers of such as bée subiect to Antichrist, are abho­minable. Those Ministers which haue no power with theyr people to receyue in, and to cast out, hauing come in by the windowe, are Antichristian, and subiect to Antichrist, therefore the prayers of &c.

These doo concerne the third and fourth accusation, and therefore the Aunswere is included in the Aunswere to [Page 44] them. Yet I tooke exception against the first, that the Church may be holden by force from executing Gods commaunde­ment touching externall Gouernment, and yet be the true Church of God. And for example, I alleadged the Church that was held captiue in Babylon.

You according to your vsuall manner, extend this to a wilfull violating of Gods commaundement. And further, you deale in that which yée demaund, as if all your accusati­ons against the Churche of Englande were true, touching Idolatrous worship. You should aunswere directly, whether they be not the Church of God which are by force, being willing, kept backe from executing Church Gouernment? You take your selues to be the true Church, and yet yée are restrayned from setting vp those Orders which yée pro­fesse ye would. I would knowe whether this bée not some bondage. If yée say yet this is not to be subiect to any false gouernment. To prooue that the Church may of ignorance and frailtie bée in some bondage of a false gouernment, and yet bée the true Church, I indeuored to shewe, that Ieru­salem from aboue is not in this world so fullie possessed of her fréedome, but that shée, and euerie one of her children, bée in some spirituall bondage. For proofe, I alleadged that Saint Paule sayeth, He sawe in his members a lawe, rebel­ling against the lawe of his minde, and leading him cap­tiue to the lawe of sinne Rom. 7.

You cry out and say, yée will thinke me a carnall Liber­tine, if I recant not this doctrine. What Atheist (say you) would thus haue defended his grosse sinne? I doo not mer­uayle that yée are moued so sore at this doctrine, for if it bée prooued that the true Church, and euerie member of the same, is tyed in some spirituall bondage in this world, it breaketh the mayne piller of Brownisme, which they erect out of this sentence, Ierusalem from aboue is free with her children, and so their whole frame commeth downe: this maketh you so hastely to thrust vnder a rotten proppe, euen as it came to hand. Ye say, that Saint Paule neuer continued captiue vnto [Page 45] sinne after regeneration, neither gaue place vnto euill thoughts: no more doo any of you. S. Paul saith, that the law in his members did lead him captiue to the lawe of sinne. He saith I do the euil which I hate. I my selfe in my minde serue the law of God, and in my flesh the lawe of sinne. Was not Dauid regenerate, and yet gaue place to euill thoughts, so farre as to commit adultrie and murther. If the regeneration and fréedome of Brownists from all spirituall bondage be such, that they giue not place vnto euill thoughts, they shall neuer haue any great company, vnlesse it be of ranke hypocrites, of such indéed there may be stoare. Ye looke that I should recant. But I say, either you or S. Paul must recant: for that which you say, is flat contrary and opposite to that which hee saith. Looke well to it, for I tell ye, he is too constant to recant. If it please God to bestow his grace, you may. Ye say, what Atheist would thus haue defended his grosse sinne? And I say, what Heretike could more bouldly speake flat contrary to the bles­sed Apostle, and to the manifest doctrine of the Scriptures de­liuered euery where, then you doe? it may be ye stand chéefe­ly vpon the words of our Sauiour, which yée alledge: that no man can serue two maisters. If the regenerate be held captiue in any part vnto sinne, they serue two maisters. This needeth to be opened.

We are most sure that Saint Paul in that hée saith, dooth not differ from our Sauiour Christ, and yet in shewe hee sée­meth to speake quite contrary. For where the one saith: No man can serue two Maisters. The other saith: I my selfe in my minde serue the lawe of God, and in my flesh the lawe of sinne. How shall this bee reconciled? is there no waye but to fall vpon the rockes of Brownisme, and to imagine that the regenerate are so fréed, that they be in no captiuitie vnto sinne, nor giue place vnto euill thoughtes? Yes verelye: The regenerate doo fall into sinne, not onelye in thoughts but in déedes: not onelye of ignorance, but euen against theyr knowledge, as Dauid, Peter, and manye other in the holye Scriptures.

[Page 46]And therefore they may be said to serue sinne in the flesh, that is in the corruption yet remaining in them, not extinguished by the law of the minde, that is the grace and worke of rege­neration▪ Yet the doubt remaineth, for all is but one man, so farre as he is regenerate, and so farre as he is corrupt: and therefore when in the flesh he dooth serue the law of sinne, the whole man may be said to serue the lawe of sinne. S. Paul dooth deny that, and saith: I doo the euill that I hate, I con­sent to the lawe of God that it is good, I delight in the law of God concerning the inner man, it is no longer I that sinne, but the sinne that dwelleth in me. We sée then the same man sinneth, and in some respect is saide to be in captiuitie, and to serue sinne, and in an other respect he is accounted with God, not to serue sinne, séeing he is by tyrannous forcing drawne to doo that which he hateth. How standeth the fréedome then of Ierusalem, and her Children? I say, her perfect fréedome with all her children is in the remission of sinnes. Touching that she hath in this world, it may thus be compared. As if a man lye bound in chaines, so that he cannot stirre any member, and after his chaines be loosed he can rise and walke: but yet his chaines hang vpon him, and are a burthen, hee cannot cast them off. For by nature we are so fast chained, that we haue no moouing at all in vs, being dead in sinne. But through the worke of regeneration we are borne, we are raised, our bands and chaines are loosed and broken: we can rise, we can stand, we can walke, though faintlye, our chaines, euen a lumpe of corruption in the flesh, pressing vs downe so sore. Then I con­clude, that seeing the Church in this life is in some bondage to sinne, and yet the true Church. And séeing there may be the true visible Church vnder some yoake of outward bondage: let the Church of England haue that fauour which other chur­ches haue had, and not bee so rigorouslye condemned. Thus much touching the first accusation▪ together with your argu­ments against read prayer.

I did confesse, and doo still with gréefe, that in very manye G. G. assemblies in England, all are admitted to the Table of the Lord, which offer themselues, euen the most prophane and grosse sinners. I shewed also, the reason of this gréeuous of­fence, namely that the ministers which should repell such o­pen offenders, are many times the worst, or at least negligent in that behalfe. And moreouer, that the Church of England dooth neither approoue such admission of prophane men to the Sacrament, nor yet suffer it in practise wholy. For touching practise, there be many congregations in the land, where sun­drie for ignorance, and open wickednesse, are by the ministers kept backe, and not suffered to communicate, vntill they shew repentance. And for not approouing such admission, I said, the booke of Common prayer dooth prescribe and commaund the repelling of notorious wicked offendours: and also that some are excommunicated iustly, & not admitted to publike praier. This was the first part of mine answer: wherein I prooue your accusation false. The other is, that the godly are not pol­luted [Page 48] by the companye of the wicked, which are suffered to communicate with them in Gods worship, and the thing not in their power to redresse. And for example I alledged the Church of the Iewes. By which I prooue, that if your accusa­tion were true, yet it destroyeth not the Church. Now let vs examine how you ouerthrowe this by your replye. Yée aske whether there were no more prophane in the parish besides those twenty or thirty which are repelled? And whether those other prophane were not admitted? I answer, If there were, yet the repelling of twenty or thirty in a flock, dooth shew that you accuse falsely, when yée say, all the prophane, without ex­ception of any one person, are reteined in the body and bosome of our Church: But to prooue your article at once, as yée say, by a more direct course, yée bring an argument. And yée de­mand if I know anye in all the realme of England vnbapti­zed. Is not Baptisme (say you) a Sacrament belonging to the Church, by which all the faithfull and their séed doo enter into it? Wherevpon yée argue thus? All being baptized, it follow­eth that all are receiued into the body of your Church. Now being once receiued in, they can no way be cast out but by ex­communication. And it is manifest, that the Parson and all his parish, hath not the powre which Christ hath left vnto his Church, to excommunicate any offender, be he neuer so obsti­nate or notorious, &c. This being the onely reason by which ye stand to prooue the truth of your accusation, I must bestow the more paines about it. Thus it must be set in forme. Where all are receiued in by Baptisme, and no power to cast foorth any by excommunication, there all the prophane multitudes are without exception of any one person, receiued into, & retei­ned in the bosome and body of the Church: But in the Church of England all are receiued in by Baptisme, and there is no power to cast foorth any by excommunication: Therefore in England, all the prophane multitudes, without exception of any one person, are receiued into, and reteined in the bosome and body of the Church. In your proposition there are to be excepted such as are repelled from the Sacrament, who are in some sort, for the time, remooued out of the bosome of the [Page 49] Church. And also such Papists, Heretikes, and Scismatikes, as depart out of themselues. It is further also to be conside­red in it, that all the baptized, continuing outwardly obedi­ent, they cannot be iustly called the prophane multitudes. Your presumption, in which ye charge the Church of Eng­land with a principall transgression, for receiuing in all by Baptisme, and hauing no power to cast foorth any by Ex­communication, is with foule error and falsehood.

Touching the Baptisme of Infants, this appeareth to be your iudgement, that the children of prophane men which re­mayne in the Church, and professe the faith of Christ, belong not to the couenant, and therefore ought not to be Baptised. No doubt the Church doth offend, when open notorious sin­ners are not Excommunicate, and brought to repentance, or at the least to such a shewe of repentance, as that men can not further iudge them but as Brethren. It is also an offence, where such not being cast foorth, their children are receyued vnto Baptisme, and that without care to sée them brought vp and instructed in the Christian Religion, and to leade a God­ly life agréeable to the same. But to say, that the children of prophane men, taking prophane men as you doo, which pro­fesse Christianitie, and remayne in the Church, are not to be Baptised, is a very wicked iniurie to Gods people, and con­trarie to the manifest doctrine of the holie Scriptures, and can not without Heresie be mayntayned.

First, touching prophane people, it is certayne that all Heathen Heretikes, all Scismatikes, open contem­ners of the holie Religion, and all obstinate wicked men whiche despise the censure of the Church, that hath passed vppon them, may be called prophane. But you Brownists go further, and condemne them all as Infidels and prophane, which professe the faith of Christ, because notwithstanding they doo it in some weakenes and infirmities: which is a wic­ked presumption, and intrusion into Gods seate, and in which (as I haue shewed before) yée breake the rule of discipline giuen by our Sauiour Christ, by which, no brother, that is, [Page 50] none which professeth the true faith, is for his sinnes and im­penitencie to be iudged as heathen, vntill he haue despised the admonition of the Church, and so be cast foorth. You take vppon yée to plucke vp all the Darnell: yée are commaunded the contrarie▪ least yée plucke vp the Wheate Math. 13. You dare, and that in most sauage and desperate manner, rend and teare vp the weake plants: yée doo it vnto whole assemblyes, in which there be many that vnfaynedly sorrow and mourne for their sinnes, and studie to please God: all that feare the Lord, may tremble at this your intollerable wickednes. But now to procéede. Ye will not allowe the children of pro­phane men the Sacrament of Baptisme. And what is your reason? they bée not the séede of the faithfull. In déede in this yée say true, that none are in theyr infancie to be admitted to this Sacrament, but the séede of the faithfull: but when yée take it that the children whose next parents are hypocrites, or wicked and prophane persons, which yet remayne in the Church, and professe Christ, be not the séede of the faithfull at all, and in any respect, and so within the couenant, and to be baptized, yée are farre wide: for let it be that their next parents before haue béene hypocrites and vnfaithfull, yet may they bée the séede of the faithfull: for their interest in Gods couenant doth (as béeing the seede of the faithfull) not depend vppon theyr next parents, but vppon the auncient Christians theyr fore-fathers: for when he sayth, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seede, the promise is made to a thousand generations, Exod. 20. It is sayd, that Leuy payd Tithes vnto Melchisedech because he was in the loynes of Abraham, when he met Melchisedech, and gaue Tythes, Hebrewes 7. ver. 9. 10. Abraham begat Isaake, Isaake begat Iaakob, and Iaakob begate Leuie, and yet of Leuie it is sayd, that he was in the loynes of Abraham: yea, it must néedes be confessed, that all the whole Nation of the Iewes were in the loynes of Abraham. Our Sauiour Christ according to the fleshe, was in the loynes of Abraham. For this cause, Saint Peter calleth all the Iewes the children of the Pro­phets, [Page 51] and of the couenant Acts. 3. ver. 25. So doth S. Paule Rom. 9. and in that respect, they be all called holie, Rom. 11. If the first fruites be holie, so is the lumpe: if the roote be holie, so are the boughes. Abraham, Isaak, and Iaakob, are the first fruites, and the roote: all the Israelites the lumpe, and the boughes: but were they all faithfull, no nor yet the greater part? for Esayas cryeth, that if the number of the children of Israell were as the sand of the sea, yet but a rem­nant should be saued, Esay. 10. How often doth the Lorde complayne euery where of the greeuous infidelitie and re­bellion in the greatest part of that Nation? Why then are they called holie, and the holie people, being many of them reprobates? Is it not because they be Abrahams seede, and were in the Church by outward profession, adding this with­all, that the elect of God, euen the right holie seede, were in theyr loynes: for Gods chosen did not spring only from the sanctifyed, but also from other, who touching the outward profession, and touching the holy seede which was in theyr loynes, were esteemed as members in the Church, and were all of them, euen the whole nation, called the holy people. It is not disalowed, that in the times of idolatrie openly maintained, their children were circumcised. Nay further, the Lord calleth the children of those wicked idolaters, his children, Thou hast (sayth he by Ezechiel) taken thy sonnes and thy daughters which thou broughtest foorth vnto me, and sacrificed vnto them, to be consumed. Thou hast slayne my sonnes, and giuen them, by causing them to passe through to them, Ezech. 16. ver. 21. These Idolaters did offer their children to Deuils, euen to the Idols of Canaan, and shead innocent bloud, euen the bloud of their sonnes and daughters, when they caused them to passe through the fire, Psal. 106. If the promise to Abraham and his séede had not béen so effectual, as that the holy chosen séede was in the loyns of these Idolaters, how could they be said to bring foorth Sonnes & Daughters to the Lord? How could it be sayd, thou hast slayn my sonnes? or how could they rightly haue béen cir­cumcised? If ye say, these Idolaters should not haue remained [Page 52] in the Church, but if not by the Ciuill power put to death, yet by the censure of the Church cast foorth. Yea, but there was so generall a declining, that neyther of these was per­formed: and so they remayned styll in the Church, and brought foorth children vnto God, euen such as the couenant made with Abraham did belong vnto, they were in his loines, they were his séede, and not cut off by the wickednes of theyr next parents. If yée obiect that the Iewes nowe at this day are the seede of Abraham, and by that reason should be still the visible Church▪ I aunswere, that although there be Gods elect among them, whome eyther he taketh away in their infancie, or else calleth them to knowe Christ when they come to mans estate: yet the Iewes can not now be cal­led the visible Church, nor the Church, in as much as they haue reiected hym in whome the Couenant was ratifyed, euen the Lord Iesus Christ, and therefore he sayde vnto them, the Vineyard shall be taken from those Husbandmen, and let foorth vnto other. And then expounding himselfe, he sayth, the Kingdome of God shall be taken from yee, and giuen to a nation, that will bring foorth the fruite thereof. The Vineyard was not taken from those naughtie Hus­bandmen that killed the seruants of the Lord of the Vine­yard which came for fruites, euen the Prophets, vntill they had killed the sonne and heire himselfe. Now the naturall braunches are broken off, and the wilde oliues, euen the Gentiles, are graffed in, Rom. 11. They are nowe the chil­dren of Abraham, and heyres of the promise, as it is sayd, I haue made thée a father of many Nations. And in thy séede all Nations of the earth shall be blessed. Our fore-fathers, many of them declyned in the Apostasie, and worshipped Idols: but as the Idolatrous Iewes, so they remayned still in the Church, and brought foorth children to God, that is, such as were within the Couenant, to be accounted the holie séede, and so of right were to haue the seale of the couenant set vpon them, euen Baptisme. We can not say therefore that the Couenant was disanulled, and that the Churche vtterlie fayled, no not euen in the most horrible confusion [Page 53] of popery, but Antichrist did sit in the temple of God, 2. Thes. 2 Those idolaters were in the Church, and the heirs of promise in their loines, for we and all the Churches are sprung out of them, sealed with the signe of the Couenant, as of right be­longing vnto vs from our holye auncestors. But you Brow­nists as Catabaptists, denie that we haue the signe of the Co­uenant: for yee say we haue no Sacraments. If we bee not within the Couenant from our ancestours, what are you? who hath béene sent from God to call yée vnto a Couenant, which yée were not within before? Who hath giuen yée the signe of the Couenant? or haue yee receiued a couenant without a signe? How will you indure this terrible voice of Almightie God: yée haue rooted vppe and cast foorth my sonnes and my daughters? For if it were said to idolators, yée haue slaine my sonnes? how much more vnto you, which in a most proud fu­rie, with intollerable boldnesse and crueltie, roote vp and cast foorth the infants of whole assemblies, which haue renounced idolatry, and professe the Gospell, because yée doo account them prophane? Let it be, they are many of them nothing such as they ought to be, but sinners, and such as should by the Cen­sures of the Church bee brought into better order, yet profes­sing Christ, and remaining in the Church, their infants are not by their vngodlinesse cast foorth of the Couenant. I con­clude therefore, that the Church of England, or at the least many of the teachers and guides doo offend, in not executing the discipline vpon vngodly men, to bring them to repentance▪ but in receiuing their children to be baptized, they doo not of­fend, so they sée them taught in the faith, and to liue a godlye life, as our Church hath established, yea in refusing them the infants should receiue great iniurie.

But to make this matter yet more cléere, the question is to be answered, whether the Church of Rome be the Church of Christ. For the Brownists doo hold, that our auncestors were not the Church of Christ in the time of poperie, and that we now are confused multitudes, not rightlye entered into coue­nant with God, to become a Church, séeing wee were not of Gods true Church before, neither orderly entered into coue­nant. [Page 54] Indéed if we were not within the couenant before from our auncestors, nor entered orderly to become a Church, the matter would séeme strong against vs. Let it therefore be exa­mined. I know this is the vsuall spéech of the learnedest De­uines, the church of God is in the Papacie, but the Papacie is not the church. And it may be, the sense will differ little or no­thing, but I take it a fitter spéech to saye, the Papacie is in the church, then to say, the church is in the papacie. For Antichrist dooth sit in the Temple of God: his lawes, his worship, and all his abhominations, were brought into the church. All the men which receiued his marke, and worshipped him, were in the church, yea euen the whole Apostasie was in the churche. The church was before, and that commeth after, and entreth into or ariseth in it. Then to the question, if by the church of Rome we vnderstand the Pope, his lawes, his worship which hath béene deuised by himselfe, his adherents, and all that worship him or receiue his Marke. I answer, that this is that which may properly be called the church of Rome, which is, the papacie, the apostasie, and seduced to damnation, and not the church of Christ, otherwise then thus, that the Pope, the Cardinals, and all that worship the Beast, be false Christians by profession, bred in the Church, and continuing in it, their séede not excluded from the couenant. But if by the Church of Rome, we vnderstand all those companies of people, ouer whome the tyrannie of the Pope hath heeretofore extended it selfe, or dooth at this day: or those things which were giuen by Christ, which remaine in the same. I say, this is not the church of Rome, but the Church of God. First, if we respect the holye doctrine of God, in all those points which were and are kept sound among them, and the holye Sacrament of Baptisme. Then secondly, if we consider the kingdoms and people them­selues, all did not fall from Christ, but many held the founda­tion, the most of them lying scattered and hid in the desolati­ons and ruines. Thirdly, if we regard that the infants not on­ly of these faithfull, but euen of the wicked Apostates which worshipped the beast, were still within the couenant as the holy séed: we shall see that the papacie was, and is, in the [Page 55] Church, which is the Temple of God, and not the synagog of Rome. The Church of Rome then is not the true Church of God: but the Church of Rome is the Apostasie in the church. Let vs come then more particularly. The church of England in the time of poperie was a member of the vniuersall church, and had not the being of a church of Christ from Rome, nor tooke not her beginning of being a Church, by seperating hir selfe from that Romish synagog: but hauing her spirites re­uiued, and her eyes opened by the light of the heauenly word, did cast foorth that tyrannie of Antichrist, with his abhomina­ble idolatrie, heresies, and false worship: and sought to bring all her children vnto the right faith, and true seruice of God: And so is a purer and more faithfull church then before. Ido­latrie was openly set vp in the church of Israel, at sundrye times. It did not, as I haue shewed, disanull the couenant of God with them, nor debarre their children from the holy signe of circumcision, but all the Iewes are called the children of the couenant. Then let the Brownist shew some reason, why it should bee otherwise in this case with our churches, then it was with the church of Israel.

Thus much for the one part of your assumption, wherein ye blame the church of England, for receiuing in all by bap­tisme. Now touching the other part of it, in which ye affirme that there is no power to cast foorth any by excommunication, yée speake very falsely. For the church of England hath some power to excommunicate. But you reason thus: the person and all his parish hath not the power to excommunicate anye one offendor, therefore the church of England hath not powre to excommunicate. Is it possible, if a man would study to rea­son absurdlie, that he should excell yée? Will yee argue thus: euery seuerall part by it selfe hath not power to excommuni­cate: therefore the whole together hath not the power? It is not méete indéed, that the Parson and his parish should haue the power to excommunicate, vnlesse it bee such a Parish as hath the Consistorie of Pastors, Teachers, and Gouer­nours. It séemeth yée haue great skill in the discipline of Christ.

[Page 56]The seuerall flockes about Geneua without the Citie haue e­uery one a Pastor, and two Elders: but yet they haue not the power to excommunicate, but that is referred to the Consisio­rie which is within the Citie, Maister Beza, Epist. 20. Will yée say those seuerall flockes cannot be the Churches of Christ, vnlesse their pastors and they together haue power to excom­municate? They are members of that church which hath power to excommunicate. But yée will say, that the excommu­nication of the Commissarie is no excommunication, and ther­fore our parishes be no members of a church, which hath pow­er to excommunicate.

The like yée will say of the excommunication by the Bi­shop himselfe, and by the Archdeacon. I aunswer, that if it should bée graunted ye, that their excommunication dooth not binde in heauen, yet it is of force to remooue, and dooth re­mooue from the societye of our assemblies, which prooueth your accusation false, because we reason about this outward remoouing. But what if the Bishop, together with sundry o­ther Ministers of the Gospell, doo excommunicate duely an obstinate wicked man, is he not excommunicate before God? If there be an heretike conuinced, and found obstinate, and the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England assembled, or some competent number of them, as in the conuocation, or such synod do duely excommunicate him, is it no excommuni­cation? Will yée reason after this sort, that because euery Minister with his flocke seuerally, hath not the power to ex­communicate, therefore the Ministers of the Church of Eng­land are vtterly without this power? You confesse that it is the Church of Christ which hath this power, though it fault much by negligence in executing the same. I would all Brow­nists could consider, what it is to excommunicate, or to cut, not onely particular persons, but whole assemblies from Christ, it would abate their horrible presumption.

Then for the suspension from the Sacrament, by which the vnworthy, either for ignorance, or open wicked life, are seperated from the néere fellowship of the Church, I said yée might demaund by what right the minister dooth it? Yée say, [Page 57] that indéede would be knowne, adding moreouer, that if it be in the nature of Excommunication, it were no small pre­sumption in the Minister to arrogate such absolute authori­tie to himselfe. I hold it somewhat in the nature of Excom­munication, in such, as haue béene before admitted, but yet not to be compared as any thing néere so great as Excommu­nication: and neuerthelesse, I déeme it no presumption for the Minister, to repell the vnworthy from the Sacrament. He is to take héede to himselfe, that he giue not holie things to dogs. He is to beware of that which may giue publike of­fence, and bring the holie mysteries into contempt. It is in déede no small matter to debarre from the Sacrament. The Minister therefore may easily offende in this case diuers wayes: as namely, if he be carried with euill will for pri­uate respects toward any, and so aggrauate their offences, and make that heynous which is not: or if he doo not make the matter apparant so much as he can, that the flocke may sée there is iust cause to repell them, and no iniurie offered, the crimes for which they are remoued being notorious.

Now because I sayd, the booke of common Prayer doth warrant this, héere yée set vp your bristles, and first it may not be let passe, but noted, that euen the best of our Churches stand vnder this Idoll by our owne confession. This is a spe­ciall note, and well marked. Why, did ye not knowe that we vse the booke in publike prayer, and administration of Sacraments? Then yee aske if the booke be Christs newe Testament, that we must fetch our warrant and direction from that Idoll? I might aske you a question, whether ye be in your wits? for doo we dispute héere, whether a Mini­ster is warranted in conscience before God to repell any from the Sacrament? I thought that you Brownists whiche take vppon yee to iudge, and vtterly to abandon and cast foorth whole assemblyes which professe the Gospell, and which are estéemed of the godly Churches as Sisters, had made no doubt, but that by Gods word the Minister is warranted to repell a notorious wicked man from the Sacrament. But I [Page 58] supposed yee would obiect, that by the established order and gouernment of our Church, all power to keepe the Sacra­ments from wicked prophanation, is taken away from the Ministers, and for this I alleadged the booke. Let the Rea­der now iudge, how fitlie yee clap your wings and crowe, saying: In déede it is a fit Portesse for such Priests, and the suspension ye vaunt of, a fit toole for such workemen, euen the instruments of that foolish Shepheard. If the iudgement of God (you say) were not vppon our right eye, we might sée how our Lords the Byshops doo dresse vs, and perceyue how this weapon that they allowe vs, wanteth both edge and poynt &c.

You speake, as if the Byshops did take vppon them, and we submitte our selues vnto them, as Lords ouer our faith and consciences, and as though we were at theyr allot­ting, when as in déede they bée but ministers to sée those or­ders kept which bée alreadie established, and haue not autho­ritie to take from any Minister that power which the booke doth giue him: much lesse can one word of maister Commis­saries mouth heale the greatest wound (as you say) we can make with it. Yee say, not one in the Parish setteth a flye by it. Yee speake so confidentlie, and with such shewe of ho­nestie, that I should beléeue yee in these things, if I had not for sundrie yeares tryed and séene your words false by ex­perience. I sayd, such as be iustly Excommunicate, as some are, be not admitted to the publike prayer. Héere yee bid sée how God insnareth me in mine owne words, and how hard a bad cause is to defend. What is the snare which I am héere caught in? Forsooth I doo héere openly iustifie Excommuni­cation by the Commissarie, because we haue no other power or meanes, and our Church wardens doo stand sworne to that Court. But how shall I get out of your snare? I must be fayne to breake it, if it be not loose of it selfe. What if when I say some are Excommunicate iustly, I haue respect, not to those which Excommunicate, but to the desert of them that be Excommunicated. Againe, it is vntrue that ye say, our [Page 59] Church hath no power, but the Commissaries Court (as I haue alreadie shewed.) Touching your next spéech, where­in yee charge vs, that we thincke to heale, or at the least, to couer enormities with these two drie withered figge leaues, the one, that we can not remedie the matter, the other, that priuate men are not to reforme: the aunswere shall be more fitte, when wée come to shewe what priuate men may doo.

Now let vs come to the other part of mine Answer which denyed the consequence, though your accusation were true, which is this: Wicked prophane men are receyued in, and retayned in the bosome and bodie of their Church, therefore the Couenant is disanulled with them, and they are no longer Gods people, but a false Antichristian synagog. To disprooue this, I did alleadge, that there were but a fewe true wor­shippers that frequented the Temple among multitudes of prophane and vngodly men. To which ye reply, that compa­ring our Church to the Temple of God, and still begging the question, I frame my Arguments as though our people were faithfull, and our prayers holie. I pray yee what is the question which I begge? This say you, is the questi­on, whether the assemblyes in England be the true Church of God? and then yee woulde beare the Reader in hand, that I reason in such sort as I would first haue this graun­ted, that it is a true Church of faithfull people, and holie worship. You should haue done well to haue shewed how I frame my Arguments from the Question graunted. But the truth is, yee can shewe no colour héere of any such thing.

Nowe may I charge you, and that iustly, which I wyll also make apparant to all which will not shut theyr eyes, that in stead of answering, yee doo not onely cauill, but most sottishly with a blinde shift. For our question heere is this, the Church of England doth receyue in and retayne in her bosome the prophane multitude, therfore the Church of Eng­land is not the true Church. To disproue this, I reason thus, [Page 60] the Church of Israel retayned the multitude of wicked ones in her bosome, for there were but fewe true worshippers frequented the Temple among multitudes of prophane vn­godly men. Therefore this fault doth not destroy the béeing of a true Church, neyther is the worship and prayers of the faithfull polluted by the company of the wicked which wor­ship together with them, especially when they can not reme­die the matter. To ouerthrowe this Argument, you must of necessitie prooue one of these two things, eyther that the Church of Israell did not retayne the prophane multitude in her bosome, and so the good and the bad worshipped toge­ther: or else that they were not Gods Church when this was suffered, but all that came so together fell from God. You shift from this, and speake of Idolatrous times, in which it is most certayne that the godly did not mixe themselues with the wicked in idolatrous worship. We doo not argue whether the godly did ioyne with the wicked in idolatrous worship, for it is most cléere they might not, nor did not. But whether the wicked were suffered, and did ioyne with the godly in the true worship? and whether they were polluted by communicating with them, and that so gréeuously, as to disanull the Couenant? let the Scriptures be iudge in both these. If I should stand to recite all the testimonies, and all the complaints which are made by the Prophets against the multitudes of wicked which worshipped together with the godly at sundrie times, it would be long, some fewe may suffice in a matter so euident. He that readeth the bookes of Moyses touching the state of the Church for the space of for­tie yeares in the wildernesse, what shall he finde in the most but multitudes of prophane rebels, against whome, the Lord sware, that they should not sée his rest, whose carcasses also he ouerthrewe in the desert, and yet they were not cast out of the assemblie, nor separated from the rest so long as they liued, nor their seede reiected? If yee will see an epitome of their rebellions for that space, and for the time of the Iudges, looke vppon the 106. Psalme.

[Page 61]Afterward, when the Kings of Iuda raigned euen vntill the captiuitie, what gréeuous complaints are made against them? A great part which came to worship in the Temple, were as Sodom and Gomorrah, Iesay. 1. & 3. Being the Lords Vineyard, they brought foorth stinking grapes. Iesa. 5. Hauing committed thefts, adulteries, periuries, and other ab­hominable sinnes, they came together with the godly to wor­ship in the Temple, in so much that the Lord demaundeth, if they tooke his house to be a Denne of théeues, Ierem. 7. The Préests themselues were not frée from this horrible polluti­on, for it is written, they are all dumbe Dogges that cannot barke, they loue to sléepe, they are gréedy, and giuen to Wine, Iesay. 56. The Prophets prophesie lies, the Préests exercise dominion by their hand, the people loue to haue it so. Ierem. 5. ver. 31. The Préests conspire together, they are like a roring Lion, they deuide the pray, they doo violence to the law, pro­phane the holy things, and put not difference betwéene the ho­ly and prophane. Ezech. 22.

What horrible things are these, by which the wrath of the Lord was kindled? But were they not still the daughter of Sion? Reade for this the Lamentations of Ieremie. After they were returned from the captiuitie, the print of the rod being yet in their skrinne, they were not fréed from such pol­lution▪ for Malachi accuseth both Préests and people, and that heinously. They mixed themselues by Mariage with the Hea­then, and prophaned the Sabbaoth by kéeping market vpon it. Esra. 9. Nehe. 13. From the time that God raised them vp no mo Prophets, vntill the comming of our Sauiour Christ, their state grew woorse and worse, not onely by Sects, but al­so, that the Préests prophaned the Temple, Iohn. 2. Math. 21. The Teachers which sat in Moyses chaire, did expound the law corruptly in sundry points, they mixed their leuen, they were hypocrites, blinde guides, couetous, and ambitious. Matth. 5. and 15. and 16. and. 23. These resisted Christ, and would excommunicate those that should confesse him. Iohn. 9. And yet the godly did not onely worship together with them in the Temple, but also our Sauiour dooth will they should [Page 62] heare them teach. Math. 23. If they had béene polluted by worshipping together with them, he would haue commaun­ded to separate themselues. This were enough to shew the grosse heresie of the Brownists in this point: but yet I will adde somewhat of the Churches founded by the Apostles. In the Church of Corinth, Saint Paul reprooueth many things. There were factions and schismes among them. The Prea­chers did set foorth the Gospell with humane wisdome. The Pastors and Gouernours did not execute the discipline, but suffered the incestuous person. They straue one with an other in the law before Heathen Iudges. They feasted in the idol Temples, at the feasts which were kept in honor of the idols, and so were partakers of the cup of Deuils. They prophaned the holye Supper of the Lorde, they abused spirituall gifts. There were among them which denied the resurrection of the dead.

A Brownist will héere replye, that this Church did repent being reprehended by Saint Paul, as he witnesseth of them, 2. Cor. 7. I aunswer that they were Gods true Church be­fore they repented, 1. Cor. 1. and also that they did not all shew repentance, as that second Epistle which he wrote vnto them dooth declare, and especially, these wordes: I feare, least when I come, I shall not finde yee such as I would, and I shall bee found such as you would not: least there bee strife, emulati­ons, wrath, contentions, backbitings, whisperings, rumors, tumults: least when I come againe, my God abase me among yee, and I shall bewaile many of those which haue sinned before, and not repented for their vncleanesse, fornication, and wantonnesse which they haue committed, 2. Corin. 12▪ vers. 20. 21.

The seauen Churches of Asia, Reuel. 1. were not in euery respect commended: for in some of them the Nicholaitans were suffered, and they that taught the doctrine of Balaam, and a wicked woman, which made her selfe a Prophetisse, was suffered to teach and to seduce the seruants of God. One Church neither hote nor colde. Another had but a fewe in it which had not polluted themselues, Reuel. 2. and 3. Yet are [Page 63] these named the Churches. I conclude therefore, that the not seperating of some wicked ones out of the Churche, although it be euill, yet is not such an euill as destroyeth the Church, and that the godly are not polluted by the wicked, which come together with them vnto the publike exercises of the holy re­ligion.

Thus haue I prooued your article, or your accusation, part­ly hereticall, and partly false. I haue also made manifest, that if yée did accuse rightly, yet the consequence is to be disalowed as hereticall, in as much as we sée, that very often it hath come to passe, that heapes of vngodly men haue worshipped toge­ther with the godly, and they not polluted by them. It may be some will thinke hardly that I account it hereticall, that the Brownist concludeth after this sorte, they haue open sin­ners, and men prophane in life, which doo worship together with them, as members of their Church, therefore the coue­nant is disanulled with them all. I will therefore prooue that I haue said by strong arguments: the first shall be this. Who­soeuer maintaineth, that where any grosse sinnes breake forth and appeare, there is not any true faith in the parties which offend, he doth contrary to the expresse word of God, maintaine flat heresie: for we are taught euery where, that regeneration which consisteth in putting of the old man, and putting on the new, is by degrées wrought in Gods elect. Whervpon the ho­ly Ghost compareth the spirituall birth with the naturall. A man is borne a poore weake babe, not able to go alone, or yet to stand vpright: hee is nourished and fed with milke, and so in continuance, dooth growe vp by degrées vnto mans estate. We are borne againe, not of mortall but of immortall seed, e­uen the word of God which indureth foreuer, 1. Pet. 1. where­fore he willeth, that laying aside all maliciousnes, deceipt, hy­pocrisie, and such like, we couet the sincere milke of the word, that we may grow thereby, 1. Pet. 2. ver. 1. & 2. The regene­rate are in many places exhorted to put off, and to mortifie e­uill and vncleane lusts, & to forsake their wicked sins, Rom. 12. Ephes. 4. Colos. 3. Iam. 1. And if in many things we sinne all, Iam. 4. Yea euē such as are grown vp in Christ to mans estate. [Page 64] How many, shall we then suppose, are the falles of poore new borne Babes? if Dauid, Solomon, Samson, and many other, replenished with great grace, did fall gréeuously, how shall we looke that other shall be frée? Let the Church of Corinth be for an example in this point, euen the teachers and people to­gether, vnto whom S. Paul writeth thus: I could not speake vnto yee brethren, as vnto spirituall men, but as vnto carnall men, as vnto babes in Christ. I gaue yee milke to drinke and not meate, for yee could not beare it, neither can yee now: for yee are yet carnall: for when as there are among yee e­mulation, contention, and discords, are yee not carnall and walke as men? when one saith, I am of Paul, an other I am of Apollo, are yee not carnall? 1. Cor. 3. ver. 1. 2. 3. 4. Is not the matter as cléere as the Sunne, that he calleth them carnal, burthened with the flesh, and in that respect prophane, as their open sinnes did declare, and yet babes in Christ, rege­nerate through faith, and the déere children of God? It is said of our Sauiour, Hee will not breake the brused reed, nor quench the smoaking Flax Math. 12. ver. 20. Saint Paul fol­lowing the steps of his Maister, in care, in loue, in mercie, and compassion, toward the poore weake babes in Christ, behaued himselfe in the Churches, as a nursse vnto hir little infants. 1. Thess. 2. ver. 8. But the fierce Brownists doo maintaine con­trary to this manifest doctrine of the Scriptures: that where corrupt manners breake foorth in those that professe the Gos­pell, they be not onely vtterly voide of faith which offend, but also, that all they which worship together with them, though neuer so much gréeued at their sinnes, are fallen from the co­uenant most cruelly by this meanes, thrusting downe all the weake, and casting foorth all poore babes. I may say the strong together with them: therefore the Brownists doo maintaine heresye. Euery faithfull man is to follow the example of bles­sed Paul, in that which he dooth testifie of himselfe, how he for­gat the things which were behinde, and pressed forward to­ward the things which were before, euen towards perfection, Phil. 3. ver. 14. But yet it followeth in the same place, neuer­thelesse, in that vnto which we are come, let vs procéed by one [Page 65] rule, to be like affected. Shall the strong, when all are to take the iourney together, runne away, and leaue the babes and the féeble behinde them? nay, rather let them leade them by the hand, carie them in theyr armes, and vpon their shoul­ders. Let the Brownists alone, who, as if they were ayrie spirits, disburthened of all lumpe of the flesh, mount vp a­loft, and leaue poore heauie loden sinners crawling vppon the earth. The other argument by which I prooue them to main­taine Heresie in this their second accusation, is this, Whoso­euer maketh the stablenesse of Gods couenant towards his people, and with his Church, to depend vppon the works of men, he mayntayneth flat Heresie: for albeit the words of the Couenant be these, I will be your God, and you shall be my people, which implyeth a true sanctification required to glorifie God, and to be thankfull, yet the Couenant is wholly and altogether of mercie, yea euen of the riches of his frée grace, who hath promised and sworne vnto vs to declare the stablenesse of his counsell, that we might haue strong conso­lation, Hebrewes 6. vers. 17. We are saued by grace, and not by works, Tit. 3. As the Couenant was made vnto Da­uid in some particular, so was it to Abraham and his séede in generall. Then thus it is written: I will make him my first borne, higher then the Kings of the earth. I will keepe my mercy for him for euer, and my couenant with him shall be stable. I will set his seed for euer, and his throne as the daies of heauen. If his children shall forsake my lawe, and not walke in my iudgements. If they shall prophane my Sta­tutes, and not obserue my commaundements: I will visite their defection with the rod, & their iniquitie with plagues. But I will not disanull my mercy towards him, nor falsifie my faith. I wil not prophane my couenāt, nor alter the thing which is gone out of my lips. I haue once sworne by my ho­lines, I wil not lie vnto Dauid, Psal. 89. v. 28. If the couenant made with Abraham and his séede, did not stand after the same sort stablished vppon the frée promise of grace, and vp­pon the oath of God, how could it be said after all the defe­ctions and rebellions of the Churche of Israell reckoned [Page 66] vp, and after hée had chastised them, that hée remembred his couenant with them, and he repented through the multi­tude of his compassions, if it be sayd, they repented, and so re­turned agayne into couenant with him, and obteyned mer­cie. I answere, they repent not but by his mercie and grace which he bestowed vpon them, because they were within his couenant. Now the Brownists in affirming that by open grosse sinne committed by any, if they remayne still in the Church, the couenant is not only disanulled to them, but vn­to all that doo communicate with them, and so make the stablenesse of Gods couenant, not to depend vpon mercie and frée grace promised and bound with an oth, but vppon our works, yea, and in a more tickle estate, euen vppon the woorkes of other whome we must iudge. Therefore the Brownists mayntayne verie wicked heresie, when they crye out, that those assemblyes where any open sinners are not cast foorth, they be no longer the true Church of God, but the Couenant is disanulled with them all that doo ioyne together in that societie. I might héere make an ende tou­ching this second principall transgression, but that there bée certayne particular reasons, by which they stand to mayn­tayne theyr opinion. First, to this effect many doo speake. If there be wicked men suffered to come to the Table of the Lord, the Minister and Ecclesiasticall Gouernours doo com­mit so grieuous a sinne, that they can not but be vtterly voyde of the true feare of God. Then, he which is a wicked man, can not be a Minister of Christ, and béeing no Minister of Christ, there is no Sacrament of Christ deliuered, how then shall a man communicate with that assemblie? I haue shewed before, that there be great sinnes and great neglect of dutie oftentimes where there is the true faith in weake­nesse, and so they sinne damnablie, which take vppon them to iudge them no Christians. The faithfull in Corinth were blinded in theyr owne faults, and verie securely did the Pa­stors and Gouernours suffer the incestuous person to conti­nue among them. And whereas they say, that if the Mini­ster [Page 67] be vngodly, he can be no Minister of Christ, it is false: for the man touching his owne person may be a reprobate, and yet touching his ministerie, a Minister of Christ. Iudas was a Minister of Christ, and baptized, Iohn. 4. ver. 2. they were as truly and effectually baptized by him, as by Peter, and yet in himselfe a Deuill, Iohn. 6. vers. 70. The two Sonnes of Ely were horrible wicked men, 1. Sam. 2. ver. 12. 22. and yet they are called not only Priests, but Priests of the Lord, 1. Sam. 1. vers. 3. Ely himselfe did offend, and was sharply punished, that being not only their Father, but also high Priest and Iudge, he did not put them from the dignitie of the Office, but did honour them with the same, not regar­ding Gods honour, 1. Sam. 2. vers. 29. The Scribes and Pharisies who were not all of the Sonnes of Leuy, for Saint Paule was a Pharisie, and the Sonne of a Pharisie, but yet of the Tribe of Beniamin, were Ministers of the Church, for Christ sayth, They sate in Moyses Chayre, and willed men to heare them, notwithstanding, they were blinde guides, hypocrites, prowde, couetous, ambitious, and verie reprobates, Matth. 23. Then, next they alleadge, that a little leauen doth leauen the whole lumpe, 1. Cor. 5. There­fore where one open notorious Sinner is admitted to be a member of the Church, all are leauened and polluted, all doo fall from God. I aunswere, that Saint Paule rebuketh the Corinthes, that they were puffed vp, and did glorie when they should haue sorrowed: for as many as had the power of the Discipline in theyr hands, and did neglect, were par­takers of his sinne, and not only they, but of priuate mem­bers, all that did not mourne and lament to sée such a foule matter wincked at. As the Lord himselfe doth cléere all those which mourned for the abhominations of Ierusalem, Ezechiel. 9. so were they frée and not leauened, which did mourne at Corinth for such abuses. Moreouer, it is verie false to say, that whole Church was leauened, or polluted with the sinne of that wicked man, therefore they were not the Church of God. For béeing giltie not only in that fault, [Page 68] but in many other, hée giueth them the honour of Gods Church, writing to the Church of God which is at Corinth, 1. Corinth. 1. Then are obiected the words and commaun­dement of the Lord by Saint Paule: If any that is called a brother be a fornicator, or couetouse, or an Idolater, or a rayler, or a drunckard, or an extortioner, with such see that yee eate not, 1. Cor. 5. Some hold, that this commaunde­ment is giuen only against the eating with an open sinner at the Lords Table, séeing we may eate common bread with such as be verie wicked. Others doo argue thus: If it be not lawfull to eate common bread with a wicked man, how much more vnlawfull shall it be to eate with him that holie bread of the Lords Table? as the Anabaptists lighting vpon these words of our Sauiour Christ, but I say vnto ye, Sweare not at all, Matth. 5. do gather, that it is vtterlie vnlawfull in any respect or at any time to take an oath, and erre, in not considering the circumstances whereby the words vttered in generall, are to be restrayned vnto the particular abuse, and rash swearing. Euen so the Brow­nists, taking the words as they stand, and not waying the circumstances, doo mayntayne absurdities. They drawe theyr Argument of comparison from things in which the sinne or pollution is not: for the sinne is not in the eating of the common bread, neyther in eating the bread of the Lord with the wicked, but in circumstances. For I may eate bread with open sinners, and offend thereby, and I may eate bread with notorious wicked men, and not offend there­in, yea, I may grieuously sinne, in refusing to eate with them. I will expresse how. If there be open grosse offenders, and my familiaritie with them, or my eating with them, can not be, but I shall eyther be partaker of their sinne, or coun­tenance and harden them in the same, I offend, if I doo not shunne their companie. If any brother in the Church be con­uict of foule sinne, found obstinate▪ and so Excommunicate▪ e­uery member of the Church euen by the commaundement of God, is to haue no fellowship with him, that he may be asha­med, [Page 69] 2. Thes. 3. v. 14. But yet we are willed in the same place, not to account him as an enimie, but to admonish him as a Brother. For if men should now in familiaritie, receiue him to their table, or go to his table, it would harden him in his ob­stinacie, and bring the censure and power of the Church into contempt. This is that S. Paul dealeth about. The wife of this man, his children, and seruants may eate with him, or a­nye other, where it cannot be eschewed, for then it dooth not countenance him. Now if I be in a ship vpon the sea, among a company of vild wicked men, or in a prison, or in an armie, and can haue no meate, vnlesse I eate with them, if I refuse, I famish my selfe to death, and so offend gréeuouslie. We sée then it is not the very eating with them that dooth defile, but the circumstances. Euen so is it at the Lordes table, where wicked men be admitted. For such as doo admit them, hauing power to repell, do offend in eating there with them, because they countenance them in their sinne. But nowe a priuate member which is gréeued at this, and dooth what lyeth in him to haue it redressed, dooth not offend, nor is not polluted by ea­ting with them. But as he, that among the wicked in the ship, in the prison, or in the Campe, doth offend in refusing his bo­dely sustenance: so shall he, if he refuse that heauenly foode of his soule, for all the wicked cannot corrupt the same vnto him.

This man hath no fellowship with the vnfrutefull works of darkenesse. This man dooth obey the Commaundement, come out from among them, separate your selues, and touch no vncleane thing, &c. For he toucheth not their sinne, but the holy things of God: for the seperation from the wicked, can­not be alwaies in body. Where there is idolatrie practised, and the faith and true worship ouerthrowne, we must depart both in minde and bodye: but from wicked men in the Church, we cannot depart in bodye, vnlesse we will also de­part from Christ.

If it were otherwise, how should the faithfull, without pollution, worship as they did in the Temple, among so ma­ny prophane men? and how should those few at Sardi, Reuel. 3 [Page 70] haue kept their garments vnpolluted, among that heape of vngodly men? Now let the reader iudge, whether I haue in a frantike manner, as you accuse me, blasphemed the name of Christ, by comparing yée vnto Anabaptists, and Donatists, in this your condemning and forsaking the Church for the euil men which be in it. I would to God both you and others could consider that which is written of King Saul, when as the holy Ghost saith, he was zealous for the Children of Israel and Iu­da, 2 Samuel. 21. and would roote out the Gybeonites. Did not the Lorde declare by the thrée yeares famine, and by causing some of the house of Saul to be hanged, how curssed his cruell zeale was, which yet hee had some colour of from the lawe, which willed them to roote out the Heathen? The cruell zeale of Brownists, which séemeth to bee for the Church, is more without excuse, when they will néedes roote vp the naturall plants, as now they may be called, yea euen the whole assem­blies, both old and yoong.

The third fault is an Antichristian ministerie imposed and G. G. maintained. Héere is no reason rendred, why it is a false and Antichristian ministery which is imposed. If yée be Prophets raised vp of God, then wee must beléeue that which you say: but they did not lie in any matter, but euery man may sée that you haue in the former article lyed, wee may not therefore giue, &c.

What reasons yée haue brought in your two former accu­sations, G. G. or in this third, to prooue the Ministerie of England Antichristian, let all wise men iudge. Indéed if we will admit false accusations, and hereticall opinions, for reasons, then haue yée said somewhat, for in them yée are prompt and plen­tifull. The shame yée speake of, that I am like to sustaine by mine aunswers, I doo not feare at all. It appeareth plainely by your words, it dooth not please yée, that yée are not encoun­tred in disputation by some famous learned men, so desirous yée are of that glory. But is it méete, or is there any reason, that presumptuous, bold, and rash ignorance, should not be in­countred but with great learning: Sophisters, nay poore arti­ficers and Husbandmen, are the euenest matches to dispute with yée? If I had counselled with my learned brethren, yée say, they would haue counselled me not to write. You haue put on the Lions skinne, and so imagine, that all the learned doo tremble at yée, and the truth is, they haue espied your long eares: (But rather to haue vsed my discretion in the Pulpit, as they doo, where wee may saye what wee lust without con­troulement, for they consider an euill matter is to bee raked in,) &c. If I did not know the contrary, yée are so confident in your spéeches, that I should almost beléeue yée. But now that I know, as sure as anye thing may be knowne, that you doo impudently slaunder and belie the learned, who though they disdaine to deale with mad frensie, yet they like well, in re­spect of the poore people which are ready to be seduced, that your matters should be aunswered, how will yee perswade me, or others, that yée are not without care what yée speake? And if there be any sparke of modestie leaft in yée, I will not say, make some due proofe, but euen a colourable shew, that the learned of this land, if I had conferred with them, would haue giuen that counsell vnto me▪ which you affirme, and for that cause which you mention. Now come your reasons, you are perswaded by the worde of God, that a true minister of [Page 72] Christ, cannot be a minister of idolatrous and false worship. Yee are rightly perswaded, and I am fully of your minde in this point. But where yée say ye haue prooued our worship to be such, therein yée faile, for ye haue falsely accused, but not prooued. Then yee were also perswaded by the word of God, that a true Pastor cannot stand an heard to the Lords Goates and Swine, blessing them with the blessing of the faithfull, and deliuering to them the holy things of God, as the Sacra­ments, &c. I haue shewed also in that your second accusation, how presumptuously and heretically yée haue dealt, in iudging Christian men to be Heathen and Swine. In this third accu­sation, your reason is in the word imposed. That ministerie which is imposed vpon the flockes, is Antichristian, because they be not fréely chosen by the Lords faithfull people, &c. But the Ministrie of the Church of England is imposed, &c. I take exception against both the proposition and assumption of this argument. For the proposition, albeit the imposing of a mini­ster vpon the flocke, may carry an iniurie to the Church depri­ued of hir priuiledge and right: yet it dooth not followe, that the same minister or his ministery is Antichristian. Our Sa­uiour in the place ye alledge, Iohn. 10. speaketh onely of He­retikes and false Prophets, which clime ouer into the shéepe­fold, he speaketh not of any which lead the shéepe to the doore, that is to Christ, whether their calling to the office haue béene such in all respects, or not as it ought to be. Secondly, if by frée choise of the faithfull, you meane that in the choosing of a Pa­stor, the people or priuate members of the flocke are to giue their voices, or else the minister is imposed and Antichristian: then doo yée condemne all the Ministers of France, of Gene­ua, and other Churches. For they are not chosen by the voices of the people, neither doe they hold that way the most conue­nient, for the people to declare their consent, but rather theyr silence, as yée may sée in diuerse Epistles of Maister Beza, and namely in the last. But when a flocke is destitute of a Pastor, their choise is after this sort: The Prebyterie or Senate of Pastors and Teachers, doo examine and make triall, and choose him whome they shall finde euery way qualified for so [Page 73] worthy a function. The matter being made knowne to as many as may be, and especially to that flocke ouer which he is to be set, that if any can alleadge iust cause why he is vn­worthy of such an office, they be heard, otherwise after a due kind he is ordeyned and put into possession of his Ministerie. Then touching your assumption, the Ministers of the Church of England (as ye say) be imposed: If ye vnderstand by im­posed, that they be all thrust vppon the flockes against theyr will and liking, or that the flockes haue no power to take ex­ception, yee speake vntruly. For there be many flockes in England, which haue those Pastors and Ministers of the Gospell whome they haue desired to haue, and made choyse of, I meane by suite, both to the Patrones, and to the parties whome they desire to haue: and if any of the people can shew iust cause against the partie which is to be ordeined, the By­shop may not admit him. There follow now many boasting words, with which yee march in tryumph, it is pitie to put them out of their array. You require one reason at the least to confirme our Ministerie: I confesse it is a reasonable re­quest, but first, I must answere that which ye bring for to o­uerthrowe it. To proue our Ministerie not to be of Christ, but to haue his negatiue: Yée say, yée finde not in his Testa­ment the names we carry, the offices we beare, the manner of our entrance and administration, our support and mainte­nance. Touching our names, we are called Ministers of the Gospell, Pastors, and Teachers, which be the Tytles giuen in Gods word. The names of Parsons and Vicars, are not to make any distinction of the Ministerie, but of the state of maintenance annexed vnto the same. The Offices we beare, are to teach and instruct our flockes by the wholesome word of God, to administer the Sacraments, and to make publike prayers. And I am sure, these are prescribed in Christes Testament, and if your eye were not malignant, yee might espy them there. Our entrance is not by intrusion, but by cal­ling, and that in many, by the desire of the flockes, as I haue shewed before: and for the manner of our administration, it hath béen dealt in at large in the first accusation. Our support [Page 74] by Tythes and such like, is not mayntayned as a matter of necessitie, but as the most conuenient. The word of God hath giuen the generall rule, that the Minister of the word is to be liberally mayntayned: the manner touching circum­stances, is to be ordered for most conueniencie by the Church, and power of the Christian Magistrate. For many things are lawfull, and in the power of the Church to ordeyne, which are not particularly named in Gods word, but con­teyned in generall rules. Your next words are farre shar­per, and cut more déepely, yea, euen so déepely, that wo bée vnto vs all, if you haue not the venemous toong of liers and false accusers. Yée vse a gradation to set foorth our pedigrée, for we are (yée say) the children of the Byshops: The By­shops are the creatures of the Pope: The Pope is the eldest sonne of Satan, and his vicar generall in earth. Now, as yée haue set vs héere vnder a verie honorable parentage, so doo yée shewe vs great kindnesse, in setting vs foorth not to be degenerate, but to beare the image, the marke, the power and life of the Pope: and together with him, to growe, liue, raigne, stand, and fall, as the branches with the trée. Héere is the verie bottome of your gall, héere is your poysoned sting thrust as déepe as is possible. But let your words be exami­ned: and by the stepps that you ascend, I will descend. The highest is the Deuill, the father of lyes: Next vnto him, the Pope his eldest sonne, and vicar generall in earth. In déede I am resolutely perswaded, that the Pope is the Beast, vnto whome the Dragon gaue his power, his Throne, and great authoritie, Reuel. 13. of whome it is sayd in the same place, that all the world wondred and followed the Beast. They worshipped the Dragon which gaue power to the Beast, and they woorshipped the Beast, saying: Who is like to the Beast, who is able to warre with him? This no doubt is that man of sinne, who hath exalted himselfe aboue all that is called God, or that hath imperiall maiestie, sitting in the Temple of God, and boasting himselfe as God: whose com­ming should be by the effectuall working of Satan, with all lying signes and wonders, 2. Thess. 2. He hath set vp the ve­rie [Page 75] worship of Deuils, with all abhominable Idolatrie, and blasphemous heresies and lyes. He hath not only vsurped and challenged a ciuill power and Lordship ouer Kings, but also a spirituall Dominion ouer the consciences and faith of man, to make Lawes at his pleasure contrarie to Gods word, to binde the same: this is the vicar generall of the Deuill. Then to come to the next steppe, where there is no question nor doubt neyther to be made, but that all Popish Byshops be the creatures and children of the Pope, in as much as they haue their calling, and consecration, and po­wer deriued from him; in as much as they sweare obedi­ence vnto him, to mayntayne his dignitie, his tyrannie, his doctrine, and his lawes: and in as much as they challenge together with him a Lordship and tyrannie ouer the consci­ence. But the Byshops of the Church of England haue not their calling, consecration, or power frō the Pope, but frō our Church, which hath forsaken the Church of Rome, as the Si­nagog of Satan. The Byshops of England acknowledge no subiection to the Pope, but by an oath renounce his vsurped power & tyranny. The Bishops of Engl. are not ordeined to maintain or defend y ^e religion & lawes of Antichrist, but quite contrary, they promise and professe to aduance the Gospell of Iesus Christ, & by the liuely word, to cut downe all idolatrie, heresies, and popish abhominations. Finally, the Bishops of Engl. do not vsurp a Lordship ouer the faith & consciences of men; for the power which they haue peculiar in the Church, is only in the administration of externall gouernment. It is therfore with manifest & wicked sclander, that ye tearme the Bish. of Engl. Antichristian, the creatures of the Pope, and such as haue his power & life in thē, yea such, as whosoeuer is ordeined by thē, hath his ministry frō Antichrist, and from the Deuill. There is controuersy about the state & gouernmēt by Bishops, whether y ^e Church of Engl. hath not erred in cōmit­ting into their hands the execution of discipline, which is the matter to be handled in your fourth accusation: but to ga­ther from hence a pedegrée from the Pope, is verie foolishe. Let vs come then to the lowest step, which is in the ministers. [Page 76] We haue laboured in studie of holie things, to be fitte for the Ministerie, and so furnished and instructed to the Kingdome of Heauen, as to be lyke Householders that bring out of theyr Treasures things new and old. We desire to call men that wander in ignorance and sinne, vnto the light, and so to build the Church of Christ. We know, no man is to be Iudge of his owne sufficiencie, nor to intrude himselfe into pub­like office, but to be tryed and ordeyned by the Church which hath that power committed into her hands from Christ. The supreme Magistrate, and Church of England haue committed this trust vnto the Byshops, iudging it the quie­test and safest way. We are presented vnto them to be exa­mined and tryed, to be ordeyned and put into possession of our Ministerie by them, and from them to receyue the po­wer to execute the same, not as theirs, but the Churches, which hath put it into their hands. It is the ordinance of God, and not the deuice of Antichrist, that Pastors and Tea­chers shall be tryed and ordeyned by Elders, Pastors, and Gouernours, and set ouer his people. We receyue only this Ordinance, and such as haue any vnderstanding may sée, that the question can not be whether the power it selfe bée from Antichrist, but whether there be not error and defects in ad­ministring the same, to the hurt and dammage of the Church? Now further, hauing receyued this authoritie, we Preach the holie Gospell of Iesus Christ, and by the pure doctrine of the same, we conuince and ouerthrowe Idolatrie, superstiti­on, and Heresies. We correct and reprooue all manner of vi­ces, informe and exhort vnto true Godlines. In performing these things, we drawe men out of Poperie, by letting them vnderstand, that the worship of Poperie, is the verie wor­ship of Deuils, and that the Pope is Antichrist.

This Romane Antichrist and his adherents doo féele, that the ministerie of the Gospell in England doth destroy hys kingdome, and therfore stirred vp by the Deuil they rage, and by all diuelish meanes, séeke to destroy our noble Quéene and Countrie. Except therefore you Brownists had euen let loose all the raynes of your toong, and after a shamelesse manner [Page 77] to lie and slaunder, how could ye pronounce, that the ministery of England is Antichristian, and of the Deuill? or that it is in the life and power of the beast, to liue, to raigne, to stand, to fall together with him, as the branches with the trée? In the next place, yée haue whet & filed your cankered toong, to vtter verye vile reproche, against the nurseries of all good learning and holy religion within this land, the two Vniuersities. I know not how idlely, and in what heathen vanitie yée spent your time there your selues: but this I dare avow, and make the challenge, and let triall be made, I will beare the shame for euer if it be not found true: that there be many in the V­niuersities, and not aboue the degrée of Bachelour of Arts, vn­to whome the principall Maisters of Brownisme are inferior: if wee respect either the Liberall Artes, or the knowledge of toongs, as of Hebrew, Gréeke, and Latine, or a sound iudge­ment in Diuinitie. If this can be attained in fewe yeares, with more then Moonkish idlenesse, the Brownists may in some thing be beléeued. Some do abuse the liberall Arts: but to condemne Logike, Rhethorike, and the rest as vaine and curious, as you doo, is a very beastly error. Saint Luke, from whom yée draw your phrase of spéech, Act. 19. dooth not speake of these, but of Magicall science. I doo not maruaile, that blind Schismatikes doo so bitterly iuueigh against learning, séeing it is their bane. For they séeke victorie, triumphe, and glorye ouer all the learnedest, and if there were no learning to disco­uer and to lay open their nakednesse and shame, they would much preuaile, and be had in greater reputation. Thus do the Brownists labour to bring in sauage barbarisme. But yet héere, vp goeth your saile againe, and yée haue winde at will, and neuer so much sea roome, as when with bitter slaunders and reproches yée rowle away. Ye wrappe vp altogether for the offences of some. Yée reckon vp certaine things of circum­stance, and in themselues indifferent and yet vpon your credit we must take them to be odious enormities. Ye are vp with perfidi, tyrannie, and the statutes of Omry. Your frensie is great, I did aduise, that men would suspend their iudgement, and enquire of the Churches touching the Ministerie of Eng­land. [Page 78] Against this yée crie out, and aske, if it be the best counsell I can giue them? I answer, it is the best, being that which God hath ordeined. Haue yée not read, that the Préests lippes shall kéepe knowledge, men shall enquire at his mouth, for he is the Angell of the Lord of Hostes? By this it is cléere, that whensoeuer Heretikes and Schismatikes doo raise doubts, it is Gods will that the people shall enquire for resolution out of the word, at their mouthes whome he hath raised vp, and set as the greatest lights in his Church. Yet sée how sottishly you cauill against this. Yée take it I would haue them doo things which they doubt off, and my wordes are but to haue them suspend their iudgement, vntill they enquire, and not to be too rash in following the call of blinde, presumptuous, and hereticall schismatikes. Then yée say, I send them ouer the sea we wotte not whether, &c. They make doubt of vs, we are the men whose Ministery is in question, we send them therefore vnto those of whome they can haue no doubt, and that is to the worthy instruments and seruants of God, the Pastors of o­ther Churches. I do no not send them ouer the Seas, for there be diuerse godly Churches of strangers within the land, as the French, the Dutch, the Italian: there be the churches of Scot­land, and no sea to passe, nor diuersitie of language so great as to hinder: we haue also the writings of all the worthiest. Yée say I send them vnto the word of man: which is false, for I doo send them vnto the learned pastors, to be resolued by the word of God. These haue the calling vnto this office from God, and his blessing vpon those which séeke it with humility and reue­rence. It is not to vse old popish worne arguments, but yours is the course of all arrogant proud heretikes & schismatikes, which couet to draw the people to depend vpon them, that they may haue fame, & to forsake their Pastors, which take it grée­uously, that they should séeke resolutiō any where but at their hand. Whether shall we iudge the godly learned ministers of the Churches aboue named, which haue their calling from God, or the vnlearned & rash Brownists, intruding themselues without calling, and run before they be sent, fittest to enquire at for resolution? It were a pretie thing, to heare the Harlots [Page 79] in the stewes, euen in good earnest to boast and glory of their chastitie. Who is more fierce and outragious, more vncharita­ble in condemning, then yée Brownists? And yet ye bragge of such patience and charitie, as cannot be ouercome. Then yée turne your selues to those poore soules as yée terme thē, whom we, like miserable Physicians séeke to cure: and your Coun­sell you giue them. I doo allow it, for it is the same in effect, if you could sée, that I gaue them before. I would to God the people did follow it: we should not then haue one Brownist, The Deuill counterfaiting Christs voice, in hereticall schis­matikes, should not be able to allure and call away the shéepe from their shéepeheards. Now remaineth the last point one­ly, that I shew some reason to prooue our Ministery to be of Christ.

The ministery of the Gospell, which bringeth the worde of faith and reconciliation betwéene God and the worlde, is the true ministerie of Christ, for the Deuil and Antichrist ordeine no such ministerie. Nowe the ministerie of the Church of England, doth bring no word nor doctrine, but the sacred scrip­tures. It preacheth faith in God through Christ, and the doc­trine of repentance, deliuering the holy sacraments, as seales to confirme the same. Let all the schismatikes in the world barke against it, and say we haue no word nor Sacraments: yet this is the holy word: God so loued the world, that hee gaue his onely begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish, but haue life euerlasting. It may be sayde, that many ministers in England, doo not, nor cannot preach the Gospell, how then is their ministery the ministery of reconciliation? Héere note, that as we must distinguish be­twéene the ministery and the man himselfe which is the mini­ster: for the man may be of the Deuill, and yet his ministery of God: so must we also distinguish betwéene the function it selfe, and the execution of the same. For when one is called to bee a minister of the Gospell, which is able, and dooth not preach, the defect is not in the function, but in his negligence about the execution. Likewise when the office or function is layd vpō him that cannot preach, the function it selfe is entyre, [Page 80] the defect is in the execution thereof, through his disabilitie. I say therfore, that the Ministerie of England is the Ministerie of the Gospell, though some doo not, and some cannot Preach. Then further, such as haue the calling and ordination of the Church, haue the Ministerie of Christ: for it is giuen to the Church, to haue power to call and ordeine Ministers. Now if the Church doo falt and breake, either by error or negligence, in some rules which are to be obserued about this calling and ordinatiō, yet the power is not disanulled, nor the function de­stroyed, vnlesse we will hold, that where there is transgression either of ignorance, or otherwise, the whole is ouerthrowne: and so conclude, that there is no praier nor worship of God, nor any true seruice doone vnto him vnder heauen, because all is with errors and faults.

In England the Ministers haue their calling and ordina­tion by the Church of God. For that people which hath forsa­ken heresies, and false worship, and imbraced the doctrine of the Gospell, hath in it the true Church, which hath the power. And the Ministers intrude not themselues, but haue the pow­er giuen them by the hands of the Bishops, who doo it not by their owne authoritie, nor by any authoritie from Antichrist, but as committed to their trust by publike authoritie. More­ouer, that is the Ministerie of God, which is to bring men to the faith, and to build vp the body of Christ. The Ministerie of England is to none other end. For the whole drift, the whole scope, and burthen laid vpon them, is to féede with wholsome doctrine, and to guide in the waye of godlinesse, the shéepe of Christ, walking before them in godlye conuersation. The Brownist will not take himselfe héere conuinced, but will say, these causes are but pretended, and are not in truth. I will therefore now reason from the effect, together with that which is properly adioyned to the Ministerie of Christ. That Mini­sterie, with the execution whereof there is ioyned the effectu­all grace, power, blessing, and operation of the Holy-ghost, to the true conuersion of mens soules, is not a Ministerie of the Deuill, nor of Antichtist, nor commeth not in the life and power of the beast, but is indeed the true Ministerie of Christ. [Page 81] I thinke the Brownists will not be so beastly as to affyrme that the grace and operation of the holy Ghost to the conuer­sion of mens soules, is ioyned to that, and worketh by that which is of the Deuill, and commeth in the life and power of Antichrist. Then it remayneth only, to shewe that there hath béene and is this grace and worke in the execution of our function. If the Brownists will deny that euer they felt that maiestie and power in the preaching, which can not be in the words of man, but only in that word which is sharper then any two edged sword, and pierceth so déepe, as to be a discer­ner of the thoughts and secret intents. Or if they will denie that euer they haue béene driuen by it vnto hatred, sorrowe, and remorse for sinne, and raysed vp with comfort and hope of forgiuenesse, and with the promises of eternall glorie: Yet vnto many other which by it are conuerted vnto the Lord in déede, which vnto feare and trembling doo féele the power and swéetnesse of the liuely word, it may be sayd, as S. Paule spea­keth to the Corinths: for when his aduersaries did denie him to be an Apostle, the Corinths by his Ministerie were begot­ten in Christ: wherevpon he sayth, If I be not an Apostle vnto others, yet am I vnto you, for you are the seale of mine Apostleship in the Lord▪ 1. Cor. 9. ver. 2. Euen so, if the Mi­nistery of Englād, be not the Ministery of Christ vnto others, yet you can not doubt of it: your faith, your repentance, your ioy in the Lord, are the seale of it. You can not but sée and knowe, that they be vile blasphemous wretches, which beare ye in hand, that it is not the word of God, nor the grace of his spirit which worketh in ye, but the power of the Deuill, and the spirit of Antichrist. You knowe it is the direct way which the Deuill taketh by his ministers to bring in flat Atheisme, to disgrace and throwe downe the credite of the ministerie. But doth it not make against the Ministerie of England, that many of the Brownists confesse they haue béene greatly mo­ued at sometimes with the power of the preaching, and at the administration of the Sacraments? for may it not bée sayd héerevpon, that it is but a deceyuable shewe of grace and power, for if it had béene in truth, it would haue continued? [Page 82] I answer, it is sufficient to proue the Ministerie, and that the power of the holy Ghost goeth with it, when men haue bin so moued, although they do not continue, séeing the reprobate do féele the power, and taste the swéetnes of the word for a time, Hebr. 6. He that hath therefore felt the power of God in his soule by the preaching of the word, and now doth not, the falt is in himselfe. If the Brow. do further reply, that they be not true Christians which yet are moued by the preaching, the motions are deceiptfull. Then I wil frō that which they con­fesse, shew that such people are truly faithfull. For they con­fesse, that they were blessed and holy Martyrs that suffred in the dayes of Quéene Mary: and I say they were conuerted by the same ministerie which we haue now. They had but the same motions at the preaching of Latimer, Howper, Taylor, Bradford, and others, which our people haue nowe. If the people at this day then féele the same effect in their soules at the preaching and Sacraments, touching faith, repentance, and resolution to dye with ioy for the testimonie of the Lord if he shall require it, let the Brownists, and all other wicked Scismatikes barke that we haue no Ministerie, we haue no Word, we haue no Sacraments, nor true Church, yet the godly wise shall be able to discerne the voyce of Christ from the voyce of the Deuill, and perceyue that the power of our Ministerie is not of the Deuill, but of the holy Ghost, whom they haue most wickedly reproched.

The fourth fault is, in the subiection to an Antichristian G. G. gouernment. If it were admitted that there is some yoake of Antichristian gouernmēt, vnder which, the poore Church may grone, as it is her lot to be oppressed with outward bondage, to be made to kéepe the Vineyard which is not her owne, to be beaten of the watchmen, to haue her vayle taken from her: is she therefore no longer the Spouse of Christ?

To this fourth accusation, my answere was very short: G. G. for I did only propound this question, whether it be no lon­ger the Spouse of Christ which is oppressed, and doth groane vnder some yoake of Antichristian gouernment? and shewed my iudgement, that it is the lot of the Church to be oppressed with outward bondage, alleaging for proofe some what out of the Song of Solomon. At this ye are striken with such won­derment, that as men caried almost beside your selues, you be­gin with a vehement exclamation: and thrée things there are in my spéech which haue cast ye into this agonie: the first, that (as you say) our Churches stand vnder an apparant heauie yoke of Antichrist, and I speake of the true Church oppressed with some yoke of Antichristian gouernment: the second, that I say it is the lot of the Church to be oppressed with outward bondage. This ye tearme a blasphemous error, because as ye say, bondage is the badge of Antichrist, the marke of the Beast, whereby his souldiers are discerned frō the souldiers of Christ, &c. The third, that I falsifie & peruert the places of Scripture which I alleadge to prooue that Gods Church may be oppressed with some outward bondage: where you will redéeme the places from such violence and corruption, and giue such a glimse, that simple men of vnderstanding shall discouer and search out the false dealing of such watchmen, and the greatest clarke of vs all shal be taught héereafter how [Page 84] to abuse the scripture for a cloake to couer our sinnes. O what valiant fellowes you be, who shall be able to stand in your hands? the greatest clarks in this land are but babes to such mighty gyants: how shall I do then? I must now defend my self in these particulars aboue named. I will let the question about the heauy apparant yoake of Antichrist alone, vnto the last place, vnder which ye falsely charge our Church to stand, and deale with that first which I set downe. Where the first question is, whether the true spouse of Christ may be vnder some yoake of Antichristian gouernment. The second, whe­ther it be her lot to be oppressed with outward bondage. The third, whether those places by me alleadged be rightly apply­ed to proue the same. I will not deale seuerally in these, but in all together, because they be all but one in effect. Now to speake precisely and strictly, the yoke of Antichrist is only spi­rituall & inward, where the faith & conscience are burthened, and be in subiection, to receiue his lawes and worship. This can not be borne, without falling from the fréedome we haue in Christ. But in a longer sense, we call it Antichristian, whē the pastors of the Church, or any of them, do vsurp more then they ought, in external gouernment, or tyrannously abuse the power committed into their hands. This is that which I cal­led some Antichristian yoke. Now the very point of the que­stion is, whether the true spouse of Christ hath euer béen op­pressed in this by any of her gouernours, as her lot in some outward bondage? I hold that she hath, and for proofe, I allea­ged those sayings out of the Song, against which you take ex­ception, as places wrested, which shall be considered, af­ter other testimonies shewed. Then I demaund of ye first, whether it was not the spouse of Christ, whom the Lord cal­leth Israell, his shéepe and his flocke? The pastors of Israell did not only scatter these, but ruled ouer them, and exercised dominion by violence & tyranny, Ezech. 34. v. 4. What say ye to this, the Prophets prophesie lies, the Priests exercise do­miniō by their hand, & my people loue to haue it so, Ier. 5. v. 31. Was there no true Church vnder this ruling of y ^e priests? Pa­shur a chief priest in the temple, stroke Ieremy the Prophet, & [Page 85] put him in the stockes, Ierem. 20. ver. 1. will yée affirme that there was no true Church then? Come to the time in which our Sauiour liued vpon the earth: for as yet the kingdome of God was not taken away from them, which is threatned, Matth. 22: but the high Préest, with the other Préests, with the Pharisies and Elders of the people, had the Ecclesiasticall power, which they tyrannously abused, and by it oppressed the faithfull, as appeareth in diuerse places of the Gospell, and namely in Iohn. 7. ver. 13. and Iohn. 9. ver. 22. Diotrephes ambitiously abused the power of gouernment, when he with­stood S. Iohn, as he testifieth in his third Epistle written vn­to Gaius. I wrote (saith he) vnto the Church, but Diotre­phes, who loueth to haue preheminence among them, recei­ueth vs not. Therefore if I come, I will declare his deeds, rai­ling at vs with malitions words: and not content therewith, neither he himselfe receiueth not the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, & casteth them out of the church. ver. 9. 10. Dooth S. Iohn tell the Christians, that this tyran­nous oppression by Diotrephes, did make them to be no lon­ger Christes Church, which remained vnder him? Did he will them to seperate themselues, and not to obey him any longer in any thing? Our Sauiour saith, the time will come, that they shall excommunicate yée. Iohn. 16. ver. 2. Antichrist himselfe sitting in the Temple of God, seduced the reprobate, but could not destroy the Church, which yet he did gréeuously oppresse, and kéepe in some bondage. Whereby it appeareth, that Solo­mon speaketh of that which should fall out often, and be euen as it were the lot of the Church, to be iniuried, oppressed, and kept in some outward bondage, euen by those, at whose hands she should finde most comfort, holding the places of Pastors and Gouernours: as we haue séene in the Church of Israell before our Sauiour came, at the time he liued, and also in the Church vnder the Gospell.

You bring in diuerse scriptures, which prooue, as you ima­gine, that an outward oppression of the Church in externall gouernment, dooth make an vtter deuorse betwixt her and Christ: but he that considereth those things which I haue be­fore [Page 86] noted, and the sundry oppressions of the Church, by her Pastors, shall easily perceiue that Anabaptisticall fréedome which yée glory of. For howsoeuer the Church with her Chil­dren are frée with God, and receiue no yoake vpon their faith and conscience: yet in outward things they may be oppressed. You could abide well enough that phrase of spéech oppressed, but to say, the Church of Christ may be in anye bondage, yée terme a blasphemous error. Because bondage yée say, is the badge of Antichrist, the marke of the Beast, &c. Take héede of the saying that is written, 2. Pet. 2. ver. 19. That the seducers promise libertie, and are themselues the bend seruants of corruption. For you imagine and glorye of such a full and perfect libertie, as that yée account it a blasphemous error, to say the Church may be oppressed with outward bondage. It is strange that there should be such a bolde spirite in rotten flesh, as flatly to contrary the spirit of God. For the Lord sayd to Abraham: Thy seede shall bee in bondage, and they shall oppresse them. But the nation whom they shall serue, will I Iudge, Genes. 15. He saith, he brought them out of the house of bondage, or of bond men, Exodus 20. Will ye affirme that the Church was not oppressed with outward bondage in Egypt? will ye deny that they were led captiue, and held in outward bondage in Babilon? cannot this word bondage, which the ho­ly Ghost vseth, be allowed of yée? must bondage of necessity be the badge and marke of Antichrist? when the Lord threat­neth by his Prophets, that his people should go into captiuity, and that there should be a yoake of bondage layd vpon them, dooth he giue them ouer to weare the badge of Antichrist? or so to be seruants vnto men, that they could not also be his ser­uants? Indéed the Anabaptists do holde, that wee cannot be seruants vnto men in any outward bondage, & yet be the ser­uants of Christ, grounding their heresie vpō the places which you alledge. If all maner of bondage be the marke of the beast, and the badge of Antichrist, and a loosing of Christian liberty, as you and the Anabaptists would haue it: then how could S. Paul say, Art thou a bond man, care not: thou art the Lords free man, 1. Cor. 7? Let no man suppose that I charge ye ouer hardly, with this grosse point of Anabaptistrie, because our [Page 87] question is about Church gouernment, and I speake of ciuill bondage: for ye speake generally of outward bondage, and de­nie that it can be the lot of the Church, or of any member ther­of. The worde bondage, though it▪ be outward, cannot in anye sense be allowed by you, to agrée with your fréedom. Now for the places in the song, My mothers sonnes were angrye with me, they set me to keepe the Vines, mine owne Vine I haue not kept. In this place the Church willeth: first y ^t they should not looke scornefully vpon her, because she is somwhat blacke. Then she sheweth, that it is not her natiue colour, but she is sunne burnt: the sunne (saith she) hath looked vpon me. There followeth the occasion, that her mothers sonnes were angrye with her, set her to kéepe the Vines. Who these be whome she calleth her mothers sonnes, is the greatest difficultie to finde. Tremellius (whose interpretation in that point ye follow) doth expound it of originall sinne, & the lusts which she hath frō the wombe: other take it, & more fitly, of false brethrē, which boast thēselues to be true worshipers, & children of the church, which she calleth her mothers sonnes, because they descended frō the ancient mother church, & were the degenerate children of holy forefathers, for I take it somwhat hard to cal sins or concupis­cences her mothers sons. But take it whether way ye wil, ei­ther of original sin & concupiscences, or of degenerate children, among whom there were many, euen of the Pastors & gouer­nors, yet ye cannot auoid, but y ^t there is a violence, an oppressi­on▪ & some bondage: for she saith, they set her to kéep the vine­yards. Howsoeuer you would slily insinuate, that it were but negligence, & that when she repenteth, she is so cléered, that she is in no bondage vnto sinne at all. But when ye haue cauilled what ye can, it standeth cléere by the scriptures, y ^t the Church in her perfectest repentance, euen with all her children, is held in some spirituall bondage vnto sin, but yet she is not obstinat I grant, for she hateth the euil she doth, & laboureth against it. I doe not gather from this, that the Church either did or may, kéepe Antichrists Vine, as you demaund, what a bolde falsi­fiyng of the place this is? But I saye: what a bolde impu­dencie is this in you, so to falsifie my wordes? For I al­ledge it, to prooue, that the Church is subiect to bee oppressed [Page 90] [...]bable so much of Antichrist and his yoake. Then let hym prooue that euery error, abuse, and great fault in discipline, doth ouerturne it, and make it become Antichristian, yea, Antichrists yoake, so farre as to make it no Church which is subiect to such oppression. It is most cléere that a Church may erre in sundrie poynts of Doctrine, and not be Antichristian, but the true Spouse of Christ. And an error in Doctrine, if it be foule, doth approch néerer towards the ouerthrowe of faith, then an error or an abuse in externall gouern­ment.

Moreouer, if the execution of discipline by Byshops be the yoake of Antichrist, and if all the Churches which doo stande vnder the same, doo worship the Beast and be no Christians, it must néedes followe, that such as did euer execute this po­wer, were Antichrists, and no children of God at that time, or before they repented. But this is false euen by your owne confession, which acknowledge, that those woorthie seruants of God which sometime executed that power, and after suffe­red death for the Gospell in the dayes of Quéene Mary, were blessed Martyrs. I conclude therefore, that the Brownists can not but with heresies, and most heinous iniurie, and in­ordinate dealing, condemne a Church as quite diuorced and separated from Christ, for such imperfections and corruptions in Gods worship, as be not fundamentall, nor destroy the substance: for that wicked men come with the godly to the publike exercises of religion: for some wants in calling, and ordeyning Ministers, and in Ecclesiasticall discipline.