THE MARGINALL NOTES OF M. POWEL upon the former Argument.

Answ.The word gospell signifiyng the preaching of the go­spell, the furtherance or hinderance therof maketh to purpose in this matter, or else nothing doth.

Answer.I acknowledge it with all thankes to God: and whatso­ever difference of judgment or practise there be, betwixt them and us in the present controversie, yet I loue and re­verence them for their giftes and paynes. But what then? Though there were ten times as many more, and every one as sufficient as the best, yet these tymes requyre all. Num. 11.29. 2 Tim. 4.1. 2 Tim. 3.1.

The note with c I passe by. When they shew our proofes not to proue our intent, we will either strenghten them, or bring better.

Double Sophistry. 1 Whereas the author saith, those Ministers that are so hated of the world etc: Answer. are the Mi­nisters of Christ, this answerer saith, they (not those Mi­nisters) that are so qualified etc. 2 He leaveth altogether out the last poynt taken from the successe of their Mini­stery [Page 33] whose arte it is so to clip words, I neede not to note.

Wee haue such ill neightours that as by their dayly false accusations and slaunders against us, Reply. doe urge us to pleade our owne innocency, as Moses, Samuell, Ieremy, Paule and Christ himselfe, having the like neighbovrs were vrged to justifie themselues. Usury cannot be so truely proved to be taught and practised by us, as all men see many con­formitans to be usurers, Symonists, non residents, gamesters, potcompanions etc. Yea, and to defend also some of these things.

Reply.It is needles. The namyng also of such Prelats as haue commended those whom they haue deprived, may per­haps purchase them as much ill will and hatred with their greater Prelats, as Nicodemus and some other had envy with the Pharises, for speaking any good word in behalfe of Christ.

Thus may the suffering of all Martyrs be eluded. Reply. For heretikes have suffered as much. etc. But marke heere his cunnyng. The author speaketh of suffering wrongs, indignities etc. M. Powel speaketh of suffering more, leaving out the substantiue of the comparatiue adjectiue more. Sophistry If he doe understand the former substantiue wrongs etc: then heretikes, Papists suffer not more. For they are worthy of whatsoever they suffer. If he vnderstand an other substan­tiue, then he doth sophisticate, and equivocat.

Reply.Such good words are litle worth, where there is such actuall unmercifulnes. Iames 2.16. We looke not backe, but they that call themselues our Fathers, haue beaten & driven us from the plough, except we would wound our soules by sinnyng against Christ.

Reply.You know the contrary. Paule may as well be said to hold this doctrine as we: because he spake much more of his labors & of the blessing of God upon them, then we haue done or can doe. 2 Cor. 11.23 The Pharisaicall comparison I leaue to them, that take upon them Pharisaicall authority.

Reply.To plead for sufficient Ministers that haue done good is not to disgrace other, but to haue all Churches the better provided for. Touching the ignorance, prophanes, ir­religion, contention etc: of many places where there are conformable Ministers either ignorant or idle, or scando­lous, I would there were not too lamentable experience thereof. Wherfore Sir, put up agayne your lying and maliti­ous censure into your owne sheath.

Reply.This is a jest, like as if a man should fall upon another & beate him that had an ague, and say, he beate not him, but his ague. Of innovation and schisme else where.

(c) and (d) I passe by as nothing worth.

Reply.1 The kingdome of heaven consisteth as well in the a­buse of outward thinges, as in other matters. 2 The Pre­lats most offend in that which is heere objected: in that they put men from preaching the kingdome of heaven, that will not yeld to theire outward things. To reproche [Page 35] vs with grose impudency or blind ignorance beseemeth not M. Powell, especially he supposing those arguments to be written by consent of all of our side: whereof some were preachers before he was borne,

A litle thing will make him laugh, Reply. that will laugh at this conclusion. They that haue put on Christ, are also his mē ­bers, flesh of his flesh etc: as likewise is expressed in the argu­ment at large, but sophistically omitted by the answerer: who were best to take heed he clip not the Kings coyne, as he clippeth mens words. If the godly be Christs mem­bers, doe not they spare speech for Christ, that spare spech for the godly. Call not therefore such conclusions ridi­culous, but make you graver if you can. The last note where, when, by whom, being rediculous, I dismisse with this merry answer, that the predicament quando is before vbi, and so is the answer of the Bedles questions in Cam­bridge. Solent quaeri questiones, quando, vbi, sub quo?

THE FVRTHER ANSWER OF M. POWEL to the first Argument.

Heere is a manifest contrariety. He that is refractary cannot be such a Minister of Christ. Reply. He that is in grace & favor with God, ought not to be disgraced and molested by men. The later parte of the answer we never denyed. But are not the gifts and sanctification of the Prelats also in part? May they not be, yea are they not in some things overseene?

Reply.1 As it is the duety of all to speake for common Chri­stians not onely in matters properly belonging to christi­anity, but also in matters of their outward estate, peace, liberty, liffe, and things belonging to their life etc: so it is the duety of all Christians, not to speake onely for Mini­sters in matters only properly, and necessarily concerning their ministery, but also in other matters. The liberty also of preaching necessarily (though not properly) concer­neth the ministery of the gospell (preachyng being the most principall parte of the sayd ministery) so also to preach without givyng offence to the weake, and with out disgrace to their ministery. For what hope can there be of comfortable successe where the ministery is joyned with offence or disgrace? These thinges are necessary though not proper: wherein the answerer committeth a great error, in confounding that that is necessary, with that that is proper. For many things may be necessary for every calling, which are not proper. Further for the whole ministery to be performed in all purity and sincerity, (as nigh as is possible) according to Gods word and practise of the Apostles, without inventions of men etc: this (I say) is also necessary (not proper) to the ministery, be­cause by inventions of men, the ministery of the gospell is corrupted & weakened, even as mixture of water with wine so weakeneth the wine, that in time also it doth cor­rupt and decay. These thinges are supplicated for to the Parliament: If Crosse and surplice be laudable Ceremo­nyes, then when or where, the Sacraments are celebrated without them, there wanteth some laudable ceremonies. [Page 37] This is absurd and jmpious. What would further follow heerof I need not to write, we may here also noate his cū ­nyng, in that he saith not that these thinges are for order and decency: but commaunded for order and decency. Many men weare long hayre, and commaund their sonnes to doe the like for order and decencyes sake. In like respect ma­ny husbands command their wiues to paynt their faces, thus and thus to attire themselues: Are these things ther­fore orderly and decent?

The marginall notes.

The first with (a) shalbe answerd afterward.

These words into which things the Angels desire to behold, Reply. 1 Pet. 1.12. must of necessity haue relation to the thinges before said to be shewed by them that had preached the go­spell. For there is no other antecedent to the relatiue, into which. Therefore the consequence is not to be so scorned by any that knoweth a consequence. Heere also the ans­werer abuseth his reader, by wrangling with the conclusi­on and leaving out the principall confirmation thereof, Ephes. 3.10. Where it is expresly sayd, that Paule had re­ceaved the ministery of the gospell, to the intent that un­to Principalityes and powers in the heavenly places now (not before in that manner) might be knowne by the Church (let that be also noted) the manifold wisdome of God.

The other two notes touching schisme and contenti­on haue been answered, and shall afterwards be answered more fully: yet here I ad, that he doth unjustly heere say, their contention. For we contend not with them, but they with vs. We seeke to take nothing from them: they seeke and take all from us. Abraham for peace with Lot (his yon­ger, and nepheu) was cōtent to part from his owne right: but these are such holdfasts of their rites and ceremonies, that for peace with us, they will not part with an inch, though they get nothing by the whole. No marveill: for they will not parte with that which is the right onely of Christ. Let it be therefore here noted, how unfitly in the title pag, the answerer hath prefixed the sentence of Abra­ham Gen: 13.18. Let there be no contention etc.

Further answer to the 2 Argument.

Reply.No paradox at all. Neither had the answerer any cause to make the two first questions, if he had considered the places alleadged. That which he opposeth to the third a­gainst knowledge of the wisdome of God by the gospell etc: may as well be opposed to mens knowledge of the wisdome of God by his word. For they are also taught the wisdome of God by his creatures and works. psa. 19.1 Rom. 1.1920. The further meanyng of this argument, in a­ny speciall manner differing from other, I leaue to the author himselfe: who is able (no doubt) to defend his mea­nyng, or ready to yeeld better reason to the contrary. But be it, that he had no other meanyng in this poynt then o­ther men haue, yet the common doctrin of the scriptures [Page 39] touching Angels in this behalfe, maketh the argument good. For the Angels of themselues, know not who be e­lect, and who be reprobat. This knowledge before calling is proper to the Lord. 2 Tim. 2.19. The election of men is made knowne to the Angels, by their calling and conver­sion, wherein it is sayd the Angels rejoyce Luc. 15.7. & 10. And so accordingly they glorifie God, in glorifiyng of whom consisteth their happines. The more therefore the word is preached, and men converted thereby, the more the Angels reioyce, and glorifie God: the lesse the word is preached, the lesse they rejoyce: yea, they may be sayd in some sort the more to mourne. In this respect therfore, the gospell may be said to be for the Angels. So this great paradox is unfolded. The substance of the second parte of this answer to this 2 Argument hath been answered before. Whereas he chargeth us to forsake our ministery for a fewe pety accidentall circumstances; therein he discovereth the nakednes of the Prelats, in inflicting so materiall and substantiall punishment, for a few pety accidentall circū ­stances. For justice requyreth a proportion betwixt the offence and the punishment. But we acknowledg no of­fence. For we may not purchase liberty of doing the grea­test good, with committing the least evill. He that saith doe good, first saith, eschew evill. psal. 34.14. These thinges being also proved evill in other bookes, they are not to be accounted pety and accidentall circumstances. The least sinne against the great God, is to be accounted a great matter.

In his third answer he proclameth agayne, but pro­veth not our error and faction. If we erre or be factious, let us in that respect be punished (so notwithstāding that the people be not punished with us) and let us be holpen [Page 40] as we are Ministers.

Reply.Indeede now you speake sure: and if alwayes you speak so, you shall not be trapt. If the Parliament iustly refuse etc. and if we be schismatiks and singular etc. then all is well on your side: But when will you proue us such? As I shall a­none proue the contrary, so in the meane tyme for singu­larity, it belongeth not to us, but to the Prelats, that are singular by themselues, differing from the word, and from more Churches reformed then we; both in judgment & also in practise. But to returne to your other words, thus I reason from them against you. The wise and iudicious Par­liament will not intermedle in the quarrell of Sdhismaticall mi­nisters further then onely to admonish them to desist from their singularity etc: all these are your owne words.

But the Parliament hath further intermedled for vs etc. ergo. We are not schismaticall. Either therefore recant your commendation of the Parliament, or else revoke yous reprochfull accusing vs to be schismatikes. Vtrum ho­rum mauis accipe. I suppose you will not charge the Parlia­ment, with any thing contrary to the commendation you haue before geiven of them; and which all wise and judi­cious men will acknowledge to be due vnto them. Ther­fore I hope you will de nobis palinodiam canere, and never heerafter charge vs as you haue done.

Here is one thing more to be noated as some what crossing my former supposall, for not revoking his former cō ­mendation of the Parliament, yea, & making me to feare [Page 41] that he will rather impute folly to them (according to the manner of some other Prelats) then revoke his reproches against vs. What is this that is to be noted? viz. That to proue, if they should take parte with vs, then they should provoke God and the whole host of heaven against us, that (I say) to proue this, he applyeth unto them, psal. 50.17.18. Whereby he insinuateth, that they having interceded for us, doe therefore hate to be reformed, haue cast Gods word behind them, haue runne with theeues, and taken part with adulte­rers. For these are the expresse words of the psalme, which he applyeth to the Parliament for dealing in our behalfe: so indeede accusing us as the principall offenders in those sinnes, that are mencioned in that psalme, but yet making the Parliament also accessary with us in them.

1 Marginall notes.

And agayne.

Reply.One reply shall serue to both these notes. Especially because (as it is noted before) all the answer is grounded upon a false principle, that we are schismatiks etc. and so worthy of all that hath been done unto us. To insist therefore upon this poynt, I say first of all, that this accusation of vs to be such, is a most beggerly begging of the question, most unjust, untrue, and uncharitable, never yet proved, neither able to be proved, vntill they proue the matters in controversie, to be meerely indifferent to such uses, as whereto they are imployed & urged by them, yea, good and laudable Ceremonies, matters of decency, and order in the Church: yea, that we also refuse to conforme our selues unto them, more of stomacke, then of conscience. Much lesse can they justifie their proceedings against & and punishing of us: yea not onely of us, but also of our people (a thing most unrighteous and odious to God & men) in such manner as they haue done, especially more for these things (which themselues call indifferent, small, pettie, accidentall, circumstantiall) then they doe other, for things expresly forbidden by God himselfe, & a thou­sand tymes more offensiue to other, and more reprochful and disgracefull to our Church, profession, and kingdom then these things. Yea it is to be observed, that notwith­standing all these proceedinges against us, all our bookes written against the ceremonyes, (onely to shew the righ­teousnes of our cause) and all their writtyngs against us, [Page 43] none of them haue ever yet, either in open consistory, or in privat conference (that I haue heard of) or in publike writing, made any one, (no not one) demonstratiue rea­son, necessarily concluding the lawfulnes, and the good and necessary use, of the things they so heavily impose vppon us. Some indeed haue written against some of our ar­guments, but no otherwise, then the witt of man may ca­vill against any principle of religion, though never so substantially proved by the best divine upon the earth.

But to returne to the poynt, there is nothing in these two notes and in the rest of the booke objected against vs, where with our auncients and betters, Our betters heretofore charged as we are now. haue not been charged in former tymes. Elia was charged with troub­ling Israell. 1 King. 18.17. Michaiah might haue been char­ged with singularity and schisme, for dissenting from all the 400 Prophets in Ahabs time. 1 King 22. Ieremy was ac­cused by the Preists and Prophets of his tyme, to haue spo­ken against the state of the City, and to be therefore worthy to dyc. Ierem. 26.11. Amos was charged by Amazia the preist, with such conspiracy against the King, that the land was not a­ble to beare all his words. Amos 7.10. All the Iewes was ge­nerally accused by Haman to Ahashuerosh, not to haue obser­ved the Kings lawes. Ester 3.8. Ezra and the Iewes with him, were accused by Rehum, Shimshay, and other beyond the river to Artashasht the King, as rebellious and wicked for building of Ierusalem: Yea, they were not only so accused for the time present, but also for the time to come, (as we are afterward in the 16 Argument in the marginall note with (r) that if they were suffered to proceed in building of the City, they would not pay toll, nor tribute: nor custome, yea, Ezra and his companions were not onely charged to be such, but the whole City of Ierusalem for former [Page 44] tymes was also charged to haue been a rebellious & noysom City vnto Kings and Provinces, that the inhabitants therof had moved sedition of old time, & that for that cause, that Citie had been destroyed. Therefore also the sayd Rehum and Shimshay and their companions, pretended regard of the Kings Ho­nor, in writing so against Ezra and the rest of the Iewes, Ezra 4.12. etc. The enimyes of Daniell framed the like accusati­on of him to Darius, Daniell 6. Our Saviour himselfe was blasphemed by the name of a seducer & deceiver of the peo­ple. Ioh. 7.12. Yea oft tymes as a blasphemer, profaner of the Saboth, a frend to publicans and sinners. Paule was accused to haue taught men against the law and the Temple. Acts 21.28. and to be a pestilent fellow, a mover of sedicion. Acts 24.5. yea to be an heretike verse 14.

Such also haue been the accusations of all Martyrs by the common adversaries the Papistes. It is therefore the more to be marveilled at, that our Prelats (professing, and sometime preaching the gospell) doe accuse vs in like manner. Yea, charge us to disturbe the sincere profession of the gospell, and worke of the ministery, and yet alleadge no reason heerof: or at least no other reason then such as for which all or the most part of those before named, were so char­ged as we haue heard. For besides traditions of men, anti­quity (not proved, at least not true antiquity) the com­maundements of Princes (procured by themselues, un­charitably misinformyng such princes) besids thes things (I say) what else haue they said, doe they say, or can they say? The Mini­sters not yelding to con­formitie, are no schima­tickes.

Doe we vary from the sincere doctrine of the scrip­tures? Nay, rather many of them doe much more swarue from the same: especially sithens their late strong patroni­zing and urging of these things: yea, they haue fallen frō [Page 45] that that heertofore hath been constantly, and generally held by our Church now teaching these thinges, which haue been accounted and are in truth, popish, or Lutheran errors: viz: touching generall grace, & the death of Christ for every particular person: against perticular election & reprobation: for images in Churches, Exceter both for remem­brance of history and also for devotion: touching the mā ner of Christs presence in the supper of the Lord: That the Pope is not the Antichrist, which is the next step to say, that he is Christs vicar, & wherby they hinder (what they may) the zeale of Christian Princes from executing that against him in generall, and against his members in perticular, which the word partly foretelleth, and partely commaundeth to be done: concernnyng also the necessi­ty of Baptisme: touching auricular confession: for igno­rance (according to the popish saying, that ignorance is the mother of devotion) that it is not necessary for the people to haue much knowledge, and that therefore not much preaching, but that it is sufficiēt, if they can say the Lords prayer, the ten cōmaundements, and the articles of faith: which is directly contrary to the scriptures. Ioh. 6.69. Ephe 4.13. Philip. 1.9. & 3.7.8. Colos. 3.16. Ephes. 5.17. 2 Pet. 3.18. Who can lay any such poyntes to us, or to any of vs? This poynt is not lightly to be regarded: yea, it is of great moment. For the Apostle describeth schismatikes, not to be such, as make division onely, but he addeth, contrary to the doctrine which they had learned. Rom. 16.17. Yea in the very next verse he describeth them further, saying, They that are such serue not the Lord Iesus Christ, but their owne bellyes, and with faire speeches, and flattering, diceaue the hearts of the simple. Doe we so? Nay rather we labour onely for the ordinances, which the Apostle hath taught vs. In this re­spect [Page 46] we serue not our owne bellyes, but rather for those ordi­nances sake, and to serue the Lord Iesus by them, and ac­cording unto them, we depriue our owne bellyes of that which otherwise they might haue; neither doe we vse faire speeches, and flattering, but by playne dealing for those ordi­nances of Christ Iesus, we procure the displeasure of all men against us. As therefore this place maketh for vs, and evidently sheweth vs to be no schismatikes, so likewise it doth as plainely proue them to be schismatikes that make division for humane inventions, either in doctrine, or o­therwise in practise in the worship of God, contrary to those things which they haue learned from the Apostle; who also therein, serue not the Lord Iesus, but their owne bel­lyes, vsing faire wordes and flattering in that behalfe to de­ceiue not onely the simple, but also if it be possible, them that are wise.

Agayne haue we made any departure from the Church? We are deprived of our Ministery, and so thrust out of our lyvinges, perforce against our wills, as any man lea­veth that which is violently taken away: but though we be thus put from our ministery and lyvinges by our Pre­lats, yet we do not forsake the cōmunion of the Church. The cause also why we are put out, is not for respect of our selues, but for feare of sinnyng against God, and of aggravating the burden of our owne conscience therby. We disturb not the sincere profession of the gospell, and worke of the ministery, but in all humilitie, and with the wordes of sobriety, we condemne the corruptions of our professi­on and of the ministery, most duetifully and by all law­full meanes (and no other) desiring both to be reformed, according to Gods word. So in like manner we desire to be eased of those cloggs, which hinder both us in the [Page 47] worke of the ministery, and also the people so, that they neither doe, neither can so edifie themselues in their most holy faith, as otherwise they and we would doe. On the contrary, the Prelats stoutly mayntaine and support the sayd corruptions, and in loue of them (or rather of some other matter depending upon them) they hate and mo­lest us.

Agayne haue we loytred in the worke of the ministery? Haue we heaped benefice upon benefice? Haue we eatē and drunke, and beaten our fellow servants? Haue we sought our owne, & not that which is Iesus Christs? Phil. 2.21. Haue we made our bellyes our God? Haue we minded earthly things? philip. 3.19. I speake not these things boastingly (as before we haue been charged) but onely to purge our selues of those crimes, which the former two notes did cast upon us, and to proue that we haue not been distur­bers but furtheres of the sincere profession of the gospell, and worke of the Ministery. Therfore let them that do so vntruely accuse us, take heed that he (whose checke no fleesh shall be able to indure) doe not charge them, rather to haue taken away the key of knowledge, and to haue shut vp the Kingdome of heaven before men, not goeyng in themselues, neither suffering them that would enter, to come in. Mat. 23.13. whereas also the word Schisme in the Greeke language signifieth a renting, and the word sedition in the latine tongue signifieth seorsim ire, to goe aside or, a going a side: as we haue proved that in these significations, we cannot be justly charged with them, so let them that doe charge vs in this behalfe see and consider well, whether them­selues may not more truely be sayde to haue rent them­selues, and to haue gone a side, first from the word (the rule of all Churches) in the poyntes of doctrine before [Page 48] mentioned, and in some other, as also in the observing & maynteyning of humaine Ceremonyes in the worship of God: 2 From other Churches of Christ Iesus: both the auncient Apostolicall Churches, and also the present Churches reformed in other Coūtryes: nether of which either held or doe hold such poynts of doctrine as before I haue named: or haue or doe obserue & maintayne such humaine Ceremonyes in the worship of God, as are here in question. We beyng charged with heresye & schisme by the Papists for renouncyng the doctrine and commu­nion of the present Romish Synagogue, doe truely re­turne the same charge upon the papists touching herisie and schisme, because they haue fallen away from the doctrine and auncient simplicitie in the worship of God, that at the beginnynge was in the Auncient Romane Church, and in other true Churches, planted by the A­postles. In like mannner therefore let our accusers in the feare of God consider, whither the blame of schisme doe not for the causes before expressed, more aptly belonge unto them, then to vs etc.

Let me yet also (though somewhat perhaps out of place) ad one reason more, to proue the Ministers pleaded for, not to be Schismatikes.

All Schismatikes are abomination to the Lord: The Ministers pleaded for: are not abomination to the Lord, but in grace and favour with him, Ergo: The Ministers pleaded for, are no Schismatikes. The proposition or first parte of the Argument, is Salomons, who among the sixe thinges which the Lord hateth, and the seven which the soule of the Lord abhorreth, he reckoneth him that ray­seth up contention among brethren. The assumptiō or second part of the former Argument is granted by the answerer [Page 49] answerer himselfe in his answer to the first Argument: yea it is manifest by the good successe of their ministery from God in the sayd Argument mentioned. Yea, and that this argument from the blessing of God upon their ministery, is of force, and much to be respected, appereth by the words of the blind man reported with commendation by S. Iohn. This is a mervelous thing that ye know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened myne eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doth his will, him heareth he. And verse 33. If this mā were not of God, he could haue done nothing. Was this argumēt good from the opennyng of the eyes of the body of one that was borne bodily blind, and is it not much stronger: from the openyng of the eyes of the minde of many that are borne spiritually blind?

The further answer of M. Powel to this third Argument conteyneth nothing, but that which is partely answered before, and partly to be answered afterward. Therefore I passe the same by and come to the 4 argument.

The marginall notes.

The author urgeth not this argument from Ionathan as from a like example, but from a comparison a minore ad maius, from the lesse to the greater. Therefore though there be not the like cause, yet there being greater, viz. From consideration of a spirituall deliverance there is no dan­ger therin. The author by this example moveth only the Parliament to be zealous for the saide Ministers, Is there danger now in the zeale, of so wise & judicious an assem­bly? It is also acknowledged by the answerer afterward, that the Israelits did justly rescue Ionathan. Is there any danger then by an example of them that did justly, to provoke the wise Parliament, to pleade with a wise and reli­gious Prince for the Ministers. Wherin then doth this an­swerer spare vs, that seeketh every corner, to find something for which he might (if he could) hang us?

Reply.Is it not a strange thing (I had almost saide, sinne) that it should be accounted sinne, superstition, and wilfull obstina­cy, yea, such as makes men vnserviceable in the Church, (in feare of sinnyng against God) soberly to refrayne from humane Ceremonyes, and yet swearing, swaggering, rio­ting, gamyng, dronkennes, whoredome, adultry, (even in the sight of the world) should not make men unservicea­ble etc? That such things are, in many suffred and counte­naunced in the ministry, is knowne to many of the Parli­ament house. If his Christian Majestie were also rightly informed thereof, I doubt not but that thinges would be otherwise ordered.

Further answer to the 4 Argument.

If men should alwayes be so answered, when in their necessities they should require some help and comfort, in regard of some former kindnes; would not men cōdemne such answerers of great ingratitude & in humanitie? viz. Thus to be answered, that which you haue done was but your duety?

See how wise the children of this world are in their kind? Reply. The author altogether wisely and purposely (as it seemeth) concealed the name of Saule in the argument; that he might reason from the comparison of the worke onely of Ionathan in a bodily deliverance, for the better regard of the Ministers now silenced etc. In respect of the spirituall deliverance of the people by them. This (I say) he doth without any mention at all of Saule, that so the worke might be generally and simply respected in it selfe; without any perticular eye unto Saule, out of whose hāds the people delivered Ionathan. He respected their thanke­fulnes in delivering Ionathan from death, without respect of the person that would haue put him to death.

Agayne, I know not why the answerer should thinke the author to meane rather our gracious King as answe­rable to Saule, then the Prelats, the cheife and principall actors, in all wrongs and injuries done unto the Ministers pleaded for: except that either he had rather impute all hard dealing to his Majestie than to the Prelats: or that hereby he would provoke the more wrath, against the au­thor and all by him supplicated for, whom before notwithstanding he seemed greatly to spare. Further if the Israelits justly rescued Ionathan as the answerer confesseth they did iustly) much more iust is it, that many ministers [Page 52] should be releeved in their troubles. If yet they presse the author further for meanyng Saule, and comparing our King unto him (as Saule was the Lords annoynted) what is the danger, wherein the answerer before should bragge of sparing his brethren? Can he gather any undutifulnes towards his Majestie? Or can he imagine, the author to haue intended any forcible meanes to be used by the Par­liament, that sitting to make lawes against force and vio­lence towardes any subject, must therefore much more themselues be farre from offering any force and violence towards their Soveraigne? Doe the words in the Argu­ment (to be Zealous and earnest) import any such matter? Force and violence of any, especially of subjects against their Princes, is rather of Popish fury and madnes, then of any Christian zeale and earnestnes. Besides, the often most Honorable mention of his Majestie in the Argu­ments, and his expresse pressing the Parliament to doe all in humility & modestie, (in the next argument) yea, that they should not onely use boldnes, but christian boldnes, yea, that they should put forth all their giftes and graces, of knowledge, Zeale, compassion, modesty and humility: yea, finally, that in the preface he petitioneth, nothing by him writ­ten, to be understood of any other meanes, then good, honest, law­full, peaceable, and agreable to every mans calling; All these things doe abundantly cleere the author from all undne­tifull intent and meanyng against his Majestie. That the Israelits did not in such humility speake for Ionathan to Saule as they should haue done, in regard that Saule was the Lords annoynted; this is not so much to be respected, as the consideration and reason, why they rescued Iona­than. Neither is the Argument, by that wherein they fay­led any weakened, but rather the more strenghtened. For [Page 53] if they so respected a bodily deliverance wrought by Ionathan, that they passed the bounds of their duty; should not the regard of a spirituall deliverance, moue such a christi­an assembly to speake what lawfully they may, with all modesty and humility.

Marginall notes.

Reply. G. PowelThis note is impertinent, as shall appeare by his answer afterward, and the reply therunto.

The substance of this note (touching schisme) being like the song of the Aprill bird that hath but one note, I haue often answered. Though we were such Schismatiks as the answerer chargeth us to be, yet we ought to haue that benefite of law which Paule claimed even in Nero his time, and was not denyed it. Acts 25.12.

These scoffes can hardly come from a pure mind, but doe rather beseeme prophane Angels of darknes, then the children of light: Reply. much lesse the Preachers of holines. Whether we that are depriued and silenced, are fitter for the worke of the ministery, then 5000. in the land that stand for ministers, and receaue the wages of Ministers; I will not say, let the whole High Court of Parliament iudge, but, let many of the Prelats and other conformitans judg.

Reply.Let all those that charge us with impudency, and ma­king our selues uncapable of the ministery, take heed that one day, they be not ashamed before the Sonne of God at his cō ­myng: and that then also the Sonne of God be not a shamed of them, before his Father and his holy Angels, and so pronoūce them uncapable of the kingdome of heaven; yea, least al­so the master of such a servant come in an houre, that he is not ware of, cut him of, and giue him his portion with hypocrites. Mat. 24.50.51. Michael the Archangell durst not blame the Devill with cursed speaking, but sayd, the Lord rebuke thee. Iud. 9. You know what is written by an orator, of an orator. Ex eius ore, verba magno impetu atque aestu erumpebant, non se­cus ac feruentes aque ebulliunt et exiliunt. That which is sayd of his words, may be sayd of the reproches, raylings, scof­fings etc: of this notary. But are we false Prophets? False Prophets runne before they are sent. They speake out of their owne hearts, they follow their owne spirit, and haue seene nothing. Eze 13.2.3. Ierem. 14.14. They flatter, & heale the hurt of Gods people with sweete wordes, saying, Peace, peace, where there is no peace. Ierem. 8.11. They are hypocrits, pretending great [Page 55] holines, commyng in sheeps apparell, but being inwardly ravenyng wolues. Math. 7.15. They are covetous and cruell like a roaring Lion, ravenyng the pray, devouring soules; taking riches and preciouss things etc: Ezech. 22.25. They are proud and ambitious, loving the prayse of men, more then the prayse of God.

Can we be charged with these thinges? Hath not the Lord sent us? Doe we speake any thing but that the Lord hath put into our mouthes? Our flattery consisteth in playne reprehending of sinne, and denouncyng the judg­ment of God against the same. Our covetousnes is inspendyng all we haue, and leaving nothing to our posteritie. Our cruelty is in suffering the manifold injuryes that are done unto us. Our hypocrisie is in a care of keeping a good conscience. Our ambition is in the abasing of our selues, beneath the parentage and education of many of us: and in bearing the scornes & reproches of the world, yea, in beyng accoumpted the skumme of the world and contemned by some, that haue been glad of the crustes that haue come from some of our tables. Why then doth this Notary call the author of those Arguments, or any other by him pleaded for in his Arguments, by this odious name of a false Prophet? If the Lord rebuke him for so calling us, I pray that it may not be in anger. Tou­ching our in capacitie of any place in the ministery, wher­fore are we so incapable? What be our errours in doc­trine? What are our vices in life? Is conformity the cheife and most cardinall virtue? Is it the soule of a minister, tota in toto, et tota in qualibet parte? Must all learnyng, all piety, all gravity, all soundnes giue place to conformity? So it seemeth. For learned men, godly men, graue men, and sound Divines (I speake not of my selfe, I confesse my [Page 56] selfe the meanest of many hundreds) such men (I say) are thrust out, and ignorant men, wicked men, young men, corrupt and Popish men, are put into the service of the Church. May we not say, Plead thou our cause O Lord etc? psal. 35.1. Yea rather may we not say, Arise O Lord, mayn­teyne thine owne cause: remember thy dayly reproches by the foo: man. psal. 74.22.

Reply.This is but a scoff and mocke. But though we be moc­ked, yet let this mocker remember, that God is not mocked. The author speaketh expresly of the ministery of the go­spell which is for instruction, this Notary saith, he mea­neth thereby, their Presbytery, which is for goverment. But more of this afterward.

Doe you gather this, because mention is made of re­movyng of the lets and impediments of the sincere mini­stery of the gospell? Reply. Then it seemeth that either you would haue a sharpe phisitian for the casting of waters, sith you can see such invisible things in a mans words, or else that your owne conscience told you that the Bishops are great lets and impediments to the sincere ministery of the gospell. If you be of that minde and shew the same, it wilbe no small let and impediment to your owne preferment with the Bishops, If you be not, then surely this your note is not worth the noting.

What an untruth is this? Where haue we denyed Christ here to be professed, Reply. and his gospell maynteyned? But though we professe Christ & maynteyne his gospell, yet we plead, 1 for the better continuance of the gospell [Page 57] where already it is: 2 That so it may the better be where it is not: 3 That it may be more glorified, and the better florish and fructifie in all places: all which thinges cannot be, if the proceedinges begunne be not stayd and mitiga­ted. 4 May not a kingdome in generall professe Christ and maynteyne his gospell, and yet haue some superflui­tyes, which obscure Christ and hinder his gospell; as also want some thinges belonging to Christ and his gospell, which may make Christ more glorious, and further his Gospell?

So cryed the High Preist, Reply. when Christ confessed him­selfe to be the Sonne of the livyng God. Math. 27.65. If it had pleased you notwithstanding, you might in charitie haue otherwise vnderstood the authors words. But let the meanyng be as you take it: haue you caught him in any trap? Nothing lesse. For what else can be gathered, but that in the profession of the gospell here in England, there are defects and wants? That the Church of Christ among vs, is in some sort defectiue? And although we haue Christ in his word and Sacraments, and in other exercises of re­ligion, yet we haue not whole Christ, in that we haue not all his ordinances? And that therefore some thing more ought to be added, that Christ may raigne more fully & absolutely over us? Neither is there any such ataxie in the Discipline by these wordes signified. For we desire nothing but the order, wherin the Apostle reioyced. Colos. 2.5. Whereof also we haue the rudera, and (as it were) the stumps yet remaynyng, in our Parishionall Church-war­dens and sidemen: though intituled with other names, and wanting that ordination and authority, which with [Page 58] the Pastors within there owne Parishes, Elders ought to haue. This Discipline (if we might haue equall hearing) we could casily free from all such imputations, as wherby it is commonly disgraced by the adversaryes therof with Princes and Nobles. Yea we could plainely and truely shew the same to be nothing prejuditiall, but very help­full both to all Royall authority, and also to Nobility: yea better agreeyng with the one and the other, then all other inventions of men for Ecclesiasticall goverment whatsoever. Touching the intollerable blasphemie, imputed in the end of this note to the author of the Argumēts by way of an exclamation, it lyeth upon them, that feare not openly to deny Christ Iesus to be law giver and King of his Church. How it can be cast upon us, for desiryng whole Christ Iesus (I meane all his ordinances) I can not discerne.

Further answer to the Fith Argument.

Reply.Now you pay home indeede. If Cardinall Wolsey were livyng, he could speake no more imperiously. For except by a frivolous quarrell, and a cause not iustifiable, you meane not the cause of the Ministers; you speake nothing to the purpose. If you meane that (as needes you must) then doe you not speake to vs poore Ministers alone, but also to the Parliament, and to all other (Noble men or gentlemen) that haue intermedled, M Powels censure of the Parlia­ment house. or shall intermedle in our cause. Yea, them you doe not cunnyngly, but openly & playn­ly, charge all such with rashnes and foolehardines. If you had been a man that in heart had not cared for the oppo­sition of any, yet this speech would scarse haue beseemed [Page 59] your person. One of us for halfe so much against the meanest Prelat, yea against the basest Chancellor, should haue payd full sweetly. But your side seeme to haue privilege of speake and writing what you please against any, yea a­gainst many: yea against the High Court of Parliament. Yea, against whole Churches and kingdoms For the rest if we cannot make our cause good and justifie the same, so that all your side shall not be able substantially to ans­wer, without scoffing, rayling, wrangling and sophistica­ting, then let our quarrell be accounted frivolous, and our cause not justifiable.

There should be such ods. Reply. For the author reasoneth not á similibus or paribus, from likes or equalls, but from the lesse to the greater.

I will not say your wordes are like to his wordes that boasted saying, I am rich and increased with goods, Reply. Revel. 3.17 and haue neede of nothing: but this I say, that all beyng granted that you say, doth not hinder but further the cause. The more the Church florisheth, the more easie it is to grant that, which the Arguments pleade for. Ministers also of the word, are as necessary for the preserving and increasing of the glorie of Churches, as for the procuring therof at the first. But alas I would God our Church did so florish as you pretend. Indeed it hath many rich mercyes, God be blessed for them; but he that seeth not what the Church wanteth, doth not rightly acknowledge that which it hath. Is this the glory of a Church for Prelates to florish [Page 60] and flant it out gallantly: and for their men to ruffle it out lustily? Nay rather, this is the glory of the world, and bet­ter beseeming the Courts of Princes, and houses of No­ble men, then the calling of orthodox Bishops, who should as well in their life as in their doctrine, preach humilitie, modestie, and contempt of the world. The more glori­ous that Prelats are outwardly, the lesse glorious (for the most part) they are inwardly. Yea it is to be observed, that the more the outward glory of Churchmen (as they are called) hath increased, the more hath true & inward glo­ry decayed. The more also, that the inward and true bew­ty of the Church hath decayed, the more hath the out­ward state and pompe of the officers thereof increased. When were the Preists of the law, of greater outward au­thority, and tooke more upon thē, then when the church of the Iewes touching true beuty, was in worst case? Serch the scriptures for they beare witnes heerof. Yea, were there e­ver so many degrees of dignitie in the Church, and doe we ever reade of so great state and pompe of the Preistes in the former tymes, as there was of the Preists, Scribes & Pharises at the first commyng of Christ? And were ever things in so bad case before, as thē they were? So also sinc that, the more that truth of doctrine, and puritie of Disci­pline decayed in the Church, after the golden and most glorious age of the Apostles, the more did the Church grow unto, and swell in outward riches, pomp and glory. Experience also teacheth, that the more glorious Prelats are in their outward state, the lesse benefite the rest of the Church hath by them; because they take the less paynes; at the least, such paynes, as are most agreable to the true Episcopall and ministeriall calling, described in holy scripture. Wherein then is the true glory of the Church? 1 in [Page 61] such ministers of the word and other officers; as Christ hath commended. 2 In the performance of such dutyes by them, as he requyreth, that is in preaching the word faithfully, in administring the Sacraments sincerely, in praying zealously and aptly according to the necessityes of the Church, and in executyng Discipline wisely, and justly: 3 In the effects of the former two, viz: in true knowledge, faith, loue, zeale, humility, patience, tempe­rance, righteousnes, peace, etc. Touching these thinges, the more we want som of those officers that Christ hath cōmended by his Apostles to the Church, and the more negligent those that we haue are in their duties, the more lamentable it is to see the carved pillers of the temple broken downe, and the faithfull workmen in Gods house to be cast out, by whose labors it had been before built & brought to some good bewty. Touching the last, what christian heart is so stony, that it doth not mourne? What eye so drye, that it doth not shead teares, yea rather, gush out with teares, to consider and behold, the mesery of our supposed glorious Church, by the spirituall nakednes, blindnes & poverty therof? I meane the great ignorance, the superficiall worship of God, the fearfull blasphemies and swaringes in houses, and streates, so also the direfull cursings, the open contempt of the word & Sacraments, the wicked profanations of the Lords dayes, the disho­nor of superiours, the pride, the cruelty, the fornications, adultryes, and other uncleannesses, the dronkennes, the covetousnes, the usuryes, and other the like abominati­ons, almost as grevous as either heertofore in the tyme, or now in the places of Popery, when, and where, there was no preaching at all of the gospell? O M. Powel, and yee my Reverend Fathers, and brethren in the ministery (even of [Page 62] the conformable sorte, flatter not your selues in this be­halfe, but behold and pity the wofull and lamentable stat of our Church in these things.

But to returne, heerin you erre not a litle, in that you confound the state of the Church, and of the common wealth of the Iewes. The Common wealth was indeed at that time, in much misery. But was the Church also a­mongst them, for such thinges as wheerin cheifely consi­steth misery, in as bad condition? Had they not those of­ficers that God had prescribed? Were the Preists and Le­vits either so ignorant, or so idle, or so scandolous, as ma­ny called Ministers amongst us? Were the faithfull and paynfull Preists and Levites, so urged to the observation of mens traditions and Ceremonyes in the worship of God, and otherwise so molested, as now many godly mi­nisters are? Were the people so blind, so irreligious, so un­righteous as now they are? Were the godly forced to heare dumme dogges, or corrupt teachers? Or restrayned from hearing of those that preached wholsome doctrine, or urged to communicate with the Preistes in humaine Ceremonyes, to the greife of their soules, and wounding of their consciences, as many now are? The Lord giue you all such consideration of these thinges, that yee may not so much labour for outward pompe, preferments, ho­nors, dignityes etc. As for the true felicitie of our English Ierusalem and Sion, that God may build up the walles ther­of, and still loue, and delight therin.

The ods that before he spake of, Reply. now he maketh likes. Is this to dispute ad idem, and to the purpose?

Touching his worthy Nehemiah (whom he compa­reth to auncient good Nehemiah,) let this be observed, that although he speake of the prayer and fasting of the auncient Nehemiah, yet he speaketh not of any prayer and fasting of his newe Nehemiah. What may be suspected or noted heerin, I leaue to the consideration of the wise and judicious reader, that remembreth what opposition ma­ny of the Prelats haue alwayes made to true fasting, and that also knoweth what be the thinges which men may safely commēd in prayer unto God, especially, for which they may humble themselues extraordinary in fasting before God. Touching the Tobiahs, Sanballats, and Geshems, (whom fayne he would haue to be those that he calles refractary ministers, as well as the Papists,) let him not de­ceaue himselfe heerin. For the wise & Christian readers, are able to discerne, thē to be most worthy of these nāes, that striue most for mens precepts, that study more to please men then God, that preach not themselues, and hinder them that would: whose cheefe worke, is not to encrease God his kingdome, but to uphold their owne, fearing nothing more then the downefall therof: which also feed not the Lords people, with the bread of eternall life, but their owne bodyes with the meate that perisheth and with all carnall delights: who care not to enrich the Lords people, with durable riches, that shall not be taken away, but plod day and night to enrich themselues in this world, and to build great house for their posteritie. Such are indeed the Sanballats, Tobiahs, and Geshems, that doe [Page 64] most oppugne the spirituall building of the spirituall Ie­rusalem. Now although this answerer, & other not much vnlike those before described, for a tyme reproch and scorne vs, by such odious names and comparisons; yea, plough upon our backes and make long furrowes, yet the righ­teous Lord, in the end shall plead our cause against them, and bring forth our righteousnes even as the mornyng Sunne; it may be in this world, that even those that haue been through their raylings, and suggestions against us, hardly perswaded of us, may at the last see and acknow­ledge our innocency: if not, yet in the world to come, when the longer the equity of our cause hath been ob­scured and disgraced, the more glorious it shalbe made, when some of our adversaries (without repentance in the meane time) shall be throwne into the place, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth: psal. 129.4, and where to be indeed, is more then only to dreame thereof. Yea, the same righte­ous Lord shall (certaynely one day) cut the cords of the wic­ked. They that hate Sion, shall be ashamed, and turned backward.

See how this man tumbleth up and downe, and how he contradicteth himselfe. Reply. Hath he not before expresly charged all of us, contradicti­on. to doe that which we doe for carnall respectes? Hath he not also in the same place (I meane in his pre­face) as expresly sayd, (speaking not particularly of some of us, but indefinitly of all) that it cannot be denyed, but that presumptuously; and wilfully, we contend with the Magistrate, impugnyng his authority. etc. How often else wher also doth he object unto us, wilfullnes, obstinacy etc? Yea in the very next Argument, the note with (d) chargeth us with [Page 65] wilfulnes and superstitious obstinacy: yet here, he sayth that most of us sinne of ignorance. If also he and other pra­yed in truth, that God would open our eyes, then let thē not plucke our tongues out of our heads: and so thirst for our bloud, as many speeches in this answer seeme to be­wray then to doe.

The whole Church of one place, Reply. and a whole king­dome, may fare the worse for the sinne of some one: yea, somtims long after the death of him, Iosh. 7:11. 2 Sam. 21. by whom that sinne was committed. All Israell for the cruelty of Saule to­wards the Gibeonits (who yet were not Israelits) were pu­nished, even in their bodily states, long after the death of Saule. May we then feare nothing to our whole Church and kingdom, for the hard dealing of the Prelats, towards the soules of many thowsands of our owne Nation? Let no man deceaue us with vayne words. Blessed is the man that fea­reth alwayes. There is danger in security, Ephes. 5.6 Pro. 28.14. there is much sa­fety in a godly feare. As for the spirituall danger of the Church, it appeareth by the decay of the spirituall bew­ty, and by the encrease of the spirituall deformitie, that is of ignorance & of impiety, in those places already, which are depriued of their good Ministers. How will these thinges increase in continuance of time? Yet it may be, that as the more the Aegyptians by oppression laboured to suppress the Israelits, the more they multiplyed: so the more that Prelats shall oppresse and silence us, the more God shall change the mindes of the conformitans them­selues, to dislike those thinges, which yet a litle they yeeld unto. If they shall hold their peace, yet God shall open [Page 66] the mouthes of children to giue him prayse, and to beare witnes unto his truth: If they also be silent, the Lord can make even the stones to crye.

Reply.The Argument speaketh of the honorable buriall of Christs body, the answerer onely of the buriall, leaving out honora­ble; Is not this sophistry? Though perhaps Pilate had no reason, to deny the buriall of Christ; yet Christ beyng put to death (in part) for supposed treason, Sophistry: he had carnall reason, to deny honorable buriall: the more because of the spite and mallice of the Scribes and Pharises against Christ. Iohn 19.12 For as before, when they sayd, he that maketh him­selfe a King, speaketh against Cesar, he made the more hast to judgment against him, so he had cause in feare of their like hatred and mallice, to be the slower in granting his body to them to be buryed, who he knew in respect of their honorable persons and places, would bury it in the most honorable manner they could. As Pilat had cause to feare the mallice of the Scribes and Pharises heerin, so al­so and much more, had Ioseph & Nicodemus cause to feare the same, by performyng the least honorable service vnto Christ: especially Nicodemus, being one of the same coate might feare it. If the Ministers request concerning Cross and Surplice, be not of such importance, as the buryall of Christs body, this weakeneth not, but addeth strenght to the Argument. For the lesse it is, the more easily it may be granted, and the more easily it may be granted, the more boldly it may be sued for.

Marginall notes.

We must so haue compassion one our sheepe, Reply. that we wound not our owne soules. We must (as hath been sayde) eschew evill, and doe good: not commit evill, to doe good. As gold may be bought to deere, so may the good of our people. That which is heere said against us touching crosse and surplice, may also be sayd touching images, if we were commaunded to worship them, Our yeelding also would be so offensiue, that we should not doe that good, that we intend by yeelding. We may also feare the hardenyng of our heartes by yeelding, as well as we see the hearts of other by litle sinnes, to be hardned for greater.

The note with (b) is often anserwred.

Absurd. Our Saviour speaketh not that of that womā, Math: 8, 10 but of the Centurion. Though the Notary were an Arch­bitshop, yet I might intreat him, better to read the place. [Page 68] But Christ sayd, Mat. 15.28. O woman, great is thy faith? What then? Though as shee was elect, she was also blessed: yet as she was out of the visible Church, the words of our Saviour might be spoken of her. Neither doth the author say, that she was a dogge: but that she was litle better then a dogg, & in that respect, that is, as she was a Cananit, & none of the children of Israell. Is ther no difference betwixt these words, & to say plainly, that she was a dog? Yet the words of our Saviour are playne. It is not meete to take the childrens bread, & to cast it to dogs, or whelps. Therfore this note reproveth our Saviour, Sophistrie. and not the author of the Arguments.

The two next scoffing notes with (d) and (e) haue been often answered. We leaue not our flockes in the playne field, but are driven from them by force, because we will not displease God, to please the Prelats.

Reply. A man should first cast out the beame that is in his owne eye, before he find fault with a mote in another mans eye. Math: 7, 5 As Christ is the onely Archbishop of the Church, so I acknowledg him also the onely husband of his spouse. For the one ti­tle, is as proper unto Christ, as the other. But heere the Notary falleth agayne, over head and eares, into the same sophistry, that in the former note with (c) he did. The au­thor sayth, that such Ministers had performed the duety as it were of husbands; Sophistry the notary cryeth out blasphemy, as if he had simply called them, the husbands of the chur­ches. The author therfore, did not blasphemously papize. But let other take heed of like papizing, that usurpe such names and authority, as are proper onely to Christ; and neither are, nor can be maynteyned by any other Argu­ments, [Page 69] then such as wherby the Papall dignity of the An­tichrist of Rome is supported. The latter part of the note is to lothsome for any Christian tongue to reade, or chast eares to heare: therfore I cast it out on the dunghill, as vn­worthy of any answer.

Then belike the Prophet Malachi, Reply (upon alleaging of whose words this note is grounded) used a lying hyperbole. Mala: 2.13:14 God that putteth up all the teares of his children into his bottle, knoweth and beholdeth this, and will one day, Rom 12, 15 Iob. 30, 25 Amos 6, 6 wype a way these, and all other teares from their eyes: when they that in the meane time scorne such teares of the godly ( so farr are they from mournyng with them that mourne, and be­ing sory for the afflictions of Ioseph) shall except they re­pent) haue more, then their bellyes full of weeping and way­lyng, and gnashing of teeth.

The Lord that searcheth the heartes of all men, Reply. kno­weth the affections of some of the Ministers now depri­ved, to be such towards their people, that if they might stay with their people with comfortable conditions, they had rather stay, (though their maintenance be but small) then accept of a thowsand pound by the yeare else where with as good conditiōs. Therfore hardnes of heart is not to be objected vnto them. Touching the rest of this note, it is strange, that in the question of depriving ignorant Ministers, according to the law & statute in that behalfe, this hath ben the principall objection, where, or how, wil you haue their places supplyed? Much like to the questi­on of the Disciples, whence should we get so much bread in the wildernes, as should suffice so great a multitude? Now the [Page 70] question being of our deprivation against law, and the paucity of sufficient Ministers being objected, reply is made, There is store, the Churches may be releeved otherwise. But let them be first releeved, that haue ignorant Mini­sters, not knowing the principles of religion themselues, much lesse able to teach other.

Further answer to the 6. Argument.

Reply.The substance of these wordes being the same with the former note, is answered before: yet here I ad, 1 that it is more cruelty for the Prelats, for litle or no cause to depriue such Pastors. 2 that this answerer seemeth still to account, sinnyng against God to be litle or nothing. 3. that a theefe by the like reason, may complayne of the hardnes of his heart, that had rather lose his Purse, then haue his throate cut.

Take away tautologyes and other superfluityes, and this answere it selfe would scarse haue been an obular or two farthing pamphlet. Reply. The first part of this answer, hath been removed before. Those that will not runne away, where are they to be found? What net may one haue to ketch them, what keepe to hold them? For doe not the Formalists dayly run away from their people? Doe they not take another lyving, and keep the former also, leaving one to some journyman, fit for all companyes? Yea, both Master & man, oftentymes leave both flocks to the Wolfe, yea, I knowe some that for sake their owne charges, and are curats else where under other. And to whome doe [Page 71] some of them leaue their owne? To one, that all the week long goeth to hedging, ditchyng, throshyng, and other day labor for his livyng: who on the Lordes day, is at Church, with a white Surplice to read service. In harvest also they take harvest worke, as ordinarily as other harvest men. I haue seene it, not long since with my eyes. Some also within a fortnight after they are possessed of a living, of good worth, let it out for divers yeares, and so take their leaue of the people, to serue a cure under another. O miserable condition of such a people. Whose heart melteth not to think of such wretched watchmen? What liklyhod therfore is there, that the Congregations depri­ved of their godly, loving & paynefull Pastors, shall haue other as faithfull, that will not run away from them? Touching the answer to the consequence of the former Argument, that the Pastors should rather returne to their people and comfort them, obeying the wholsome ordinances of the Church etc: I answer that we will so doe, when such or­dlnances are proved by Gods word to be wholsome.

The Marginall Notes.

1 Cosmographers in some Maps describe a bird called a Ruc, of such bignes, that she taketh vp an Elephant with her talants very high into the ayre, Reply. and then letteth him fall to be broken and bruised, for her to feed on. It seemeth, this Notary hath an hand as large as the foote or tallants of this bird, sith he maketh but an handfull of all the Ministers suspended, deprived, or like so to be, for these matters now in question. Secondly, As the loss of one of his Majesties shipps Royall, or of one of his stron­gest holdes, or of one of his most worthy warriors, may be sayde to weaken the whole Kingdome, especially in the time of great warre: and as the cutting in sunder of one principall post, or beame or piller of an house, doth weaken the whole house; so, and much more is the losse & cutting of of so many worthy ministers of the gospell, the weakenyng of the whole land. For is not Satan, and are not Papists, and all the rest of Satans army, so much the more strenghtned? 2 king. 2, 15 and 9.1. Elia was but one, and accounted (as we are) a troubler of Israell: and left Elisha behind him: and yet the Argument telleth you; how they were accoū ted, though in their tyme there were many other Pro­phets. O therefore, that the meanest able and godly Mi­nister, might not be lightly regarded, in these last and dan­gerous tymes. Howsoever they are esteemed of by the world, yet they are of more price, then great riches.

ReplyIf there had been no name set to this booke, these two [Page 73] notes, and many other the like, might haue brought it in suspition to haue been penned by some professed Atheist. For (who almost but smelling of religion,) would haue objected such things? Yea, who that had but tasted of lo­gike, would haue denyed the conclusion, not regarding the proofes and premises? The wicked doe indeed, some times in joye outward prosperity, either to molifie their owne hearts, or to harden them the more to be the fitter for Gods judgmentes, or to be scourges of God unto o­ther: or to make them the more in excusable: yet they haue no assurance, either of gettyng, or of holdyng such prosperity. Neyther can they haue any more comfort thereby: then the godly may haue discomforte by their afflictions: because indeed they haue no intrest thervnto from God. It is also a shamefull untruth, that the Persians, Romans, or any other, in outward prosperity excelled the Iewes, so long as the Iewes regarded the word, honored the Prophets and other Ministers thereof, and mayntey­ned the pure worship of God. All that while, they were even in outward things the glory of all the world. What people ever had the like victoryes? What Nation for all prosperity was comparable to Israell in the dayes of Salo­mon, and to the Iewes afterward, psal: 48:2:87:2: & 12: Lamēt. 1:1 and 2:1: in the time of many other Kings? Of what Citie are so glorious things ever written as of Ierusalem? Read the places in the margine. Indeed af­ter that they contemned the word of the Lord, abused his prophets, and neglected God his worship (and that e­specially through the fault of their Preists etc.) then the Lord forsaking them, made their enimyes the cheife etc. Lament: 1:5

The other notes upon this Argument, I passe by, as ei­ther answered before, or being of no moment.

Further answer to the 7 Argument.

Reply.The title refractary omitted, he is a sensles man, that can make nothing of that enthymem: especially these ministers pleaded for, being proved true and faithfull. For though the gospell and Ministers thereof be distinct, yet he that speaketh for one, speaketh for both, and he that speaketh for both, speaketh for the land, the safety wher­of dependeth upon both. But marke heere agayne, the answerers sophistry; Sophistry: For wheras the author saith, that the Parliament is to speake for the gospell & Ministery there­of, the answerer taketh the word gospell, and altogeather leaveth out, the other words, and the ministery thereof.

Reply.As there are some other faithfull Ministers, so there are not many thousands that are able, much lesse faithfull besides us. Generally throughout the land, there are Sixe reading ministers, for one preacher, at the least by practis. For there are some that are licensed to preach, that never did, are, or were able to preach. Many also that can preach seledome doe Preach. Some also that doe preach, (and that often) doe it so Popishly or otherwise so corruptly: so foolishly and ridiculously, to make sporte rather then to edifie: so vaynly and unprofitably, that it were better to hold their peace then so to preach.

That Ministers are called charets and horsmen for ga­thering [Page 75] the Saints, (viz: out of the power and holdes of the Devill) may be the truth in part: but yet, they being (in the places alleaged) called the charets and horsmen of Israel, not of the Saints, (and most of the Israelits be­ing then wicked) and these titles being acknowledged of Elisha by a wicked King, that respected not the gathering of the Saints, but the outward defence of his kingdome, by the prayers and preaching of Elisha: it cannot be the whole truth. That we are such sores as the answerer spea­keth of, is not proved. Indeed some conformitans so ac­count us, because we rub their sores so much, and desire so earnestly the healing of them, that so their soules may be the better saved. We are also eye-sores to them: but sure I am, that we are not so to the godly, many of whose sores, God hath cured by us, and to whom our ministery hath been the savor of life, unto life. Other thinges in this argument, haue received their reply.

The marginall notes upon the 8 Argument.

The first 3 notes I passe by; as note-les.

How shall we be answered? With words, and raylings, Reply. as before, not otherwise. To the oth Ex Officio, and to the Canons afterward.

Nay rather, Reply. would not the Prelats be glad to haue all persons and all causes subject to themselues? But more to [Page 76] this afterward.

ReplyA simple cavill, from the misplacing of a comma. The Notary might well haue perceived, that these wordes, (in matters of eternall life,) were to be joyned with the words goyng before, ambassadors of Iesus Christ, not with the words following, should be cast out of their freehold. This I say he might well haue perceived, because there had been no speech of our freehold of eternall life, but only of this life.

Reply.These two notes being in the margine contiguoe, and touching one another, I joyne together in my reply; the rather because (d) the letter of the second note, and the mention of the statute in the end of the sayd second note omitted, they may both in better sense and truth, be read thus togeather, Ecclesiasticall Iudges may proceed ex officio, di­rectly against the statute. For touching the former note with (c) let the best Civilian shew (if he can) by what o­ther law, the Ecclesiasticall judge may proceed ex officio, then by the Canon law abolished by statute. The second note with (d) shall be satisfied afterward.

The note with (e) of begging the question, is now too stale.

ReplyWhen the Prophet exhorteth the Church, to open her dores for the King of glory to come in: psal. 24, 7:9 Cant: 5:2: did he signifie that the Church had not before interteyned the King of glory? When Christ saith, Open unto me my sister etc. doth he meāe that his sister had him not at all before? Christ dayly knocketh [Page 77] by his word and Sacraments, Revel. 3.20 at the heartes of all the faithfull to be let in. Are they therfore altogether with­out Christ? Allthough therfore Christ be already presi­dent in the Parliament, yet by the propounding of any good cause, he desireth to be further interteyned amongst them. This the author hath acknowledged, by calling thē often a Christian assembly: by commending their Chri­stian zeale against the Papists etc. But this is the answerers sophistry before noted, Sophistry: to reason from the wāt of a thing in part, to the want thereof altogether. Therefore this is an vnchristian and simple collection.

Further answer to the 8 Argument.

Nay we haue piped unto you, and yee haue not danced. Reply. We haue mourned unto you, and yee haue not lamented. Mat, 11.19 Neither to evi­dent Argumentes out of holy scripture, will you submit your human ordinances, or your selues: neither by any gentle and humble petitions, will yee Prelats come to a­ny brotherly peace. Mildnes doth as much provoke you as bitternes. M. Nichols of Kent, writyng most mildly and humbly, was rewarded severely, with suspension, depriva­tion, degradation. Our most humble petition to the Con­vocation, at the first Session of this Parliament, received a most rough answer. We seeke peace, and when we speake there­of, ye are bent to warre. psal. 120 7. Iob. 31:8. As though yee sate in heavenly pla­ces, we haue been unto you more vile then the earth. I complaīe not thus of all the Prelats. I know that some are wiser, milder, kinder, and more curteous thē other. As the bramble tooke more upon it, then the Oliue tree, Iudg. 8.15 the vine or the fig tree, so sometyme it is among Prelats.

We neither prayed nor urged any thing to be doone, but with all humility and loyalty: G. Powel hoping that his most excellent Majesty vpon the sight of the reasons, why they had decreed or determined any thing (so farre as they might among themselues) would likewise in his Princely and christian regard, haue vouchafed his Royall assent to their such decrees and determinations: which although it haue not pleased his Highnes yet to doe, yet we hope that heerafter upon further cōsideration, some other may find further grace with his Majestie in the like behalfe.

Reply.Touching the former answer, may it please the reader, first to remember, that all the authors speech of the pro­ceedings of the Bishops against Ministers suspended etc: is only to be understood of such Ministers, as whom they suspend and depriue, onely for such causes as are menti­oned in the title of the Argumentes, not of other whom they suspend or depriue for any just cause. Now to pro­ceede, that such Ministers haue not yet in law (whereof the present question is) justified there cause, and declared that they are unjustly oppressed, nor can ever doe, is not for want of matter of justification, or for want of the truth of unjust oppression (I meane only by the Prelats) but because they haue not been admitted, to prosecute the iustice of the land, nor to call in question the procee­dings of their ordinaryes: who haue been hitherto both Agents and Iudges; both accusers and advocats in their owne cases against them. And especially because upon [Page 79] pretense of a Canon lately made, (repugnant to the lawes, statutes; and customes of the Realme) they be not suffe­red by the Archbishops Iudge ad quem, to plead and to prosecute their appeales, and to declare their innocency accor­ding to the auncient laudable, and common usage and iustice of the land: unto which grevance also many more exorbitant injustices (by the Prelats) heereafter mentio­ned may be added. Let the answerer therfore vnderstand, that som Ordinaryes in their publike sentēces, The Bishop of Lincolne against the the Mini­sters of Lei­cestershire. haue most uniustly charged some Ministers, with denyall of the oth to the Kings supremacy: which notwithstanding, divers tymes before, they had willingly sworne vnto, and which at the very instance of pronouncyng the sentence, they offred before their Ordinary to sweare unto agayne. And not onely thus lesingly, (to make the Persons of the sayd Ministers more odious to our most Christian King, his State, and all his people) in their publike sentences of de­privation, have som Ordinaryes traduced the good name and estimation of the Ministers, but also without any o­ther speciall crime worthy deprivation mētioned in their sentences, haue they stussed their sentences full, only with generall wordes of generall crimes, contrary to the right forme of judgment. For by right forme of judgment, the Ordinaryes ought not to haue impeached the Ministers, because of generall crymes, but they ought to haue sayd, and put in certeyne, in what thinges, and in what manner the sayd ministers haue done any thing worthy punish­ment of deprivation.

An other grevance & unjust oppression (by the sayd Prelats) of the sayd silenced ministers, is, that upon sen­tence of deprivation and appeales of the Ministers, the Ordinaryes haue given notice to the Patron of the voy­dance [Page 80] of the Church, and upon new presentation of the Patron, haue not onely instituted new clarkes; but also (to avoyd the possession of the Minister deprived and ap­pealing) haue suggested and intimated by their certifica­tory writ, under their publike seale unto the King, into his Court of Chancery, that the possession of the church was kept per vim laicam, Old natura brevium fol 33. Que breife ne ser grant, avant que leves­que de tiel lieu eit certifie en le Chā cerie per sō breit de tiel resistance. & withall haue prayed the Kings writ de la vi laica removenda. By vertue of which writ (up­on their suggestion & intimation) granted, (for without their suggestion and intimation it would not be granted) the party appellant, before the appeale finished, hath ben removed out of his possession by the Shiriffe of the Coū ty. Notwithstanding in truth, the Church, parsonage or vicarage house, had within the same, no manner of vi lai­ca at all: but was onely quietly and peaceably possessed, by the late derived spirituall person, and his poore family.

And that this manner of a possession of a Church, by a spirituall person and his family, by the law of the King­dome, is not to be holden vis laica, is playnly iustified, by a late judgment given by the Kings Iustices, touching the possession of the Church of Newton Valencoe in the Dio­cesse of Winton. For where as a spirituall person possessed of the same Church, by vertue of the Kings writ de vi lai­ca removenda, was removed out of his possession, and ano­ther spirituall person put in possessiō of the same church; the spirituall person dispossessed, upon the matter heard and examined, before the Kings Iustices, that he was a mere spirituall person, and that his Church was possessed onely by himselfe, and his domestikes, was by an other of the Kings writs restored into, and possessed of the same Church; and which Church unto this day, he peaceably holdeth and injoyeth.

A 4 grevance of the silenced Ministers, is that (ther be­yng a Canon made in the last Synod, that no iudge ad quem shall grant any Inhibition to the judge a quo, Bishop of Chichester & Salisbury unlesse he first see the originall appeale) sundry Ordinaryes upon appeales made before them, haue taken order with their Registers and Notaryes, not to deliver to the partyes appel­lant, any noate or copy of any act or sentence, made or gi­ven before them. Where upon not onely the party appel­lant is wronged, but the Notary also upon refusall of grā ­ting to the party appellant (demaunding and tendring to the Notary his fee) a publike instrument of the publike Acts and Records of the Court, cannot but incurre the infamy of corruption and perjury: in as much as he be­yng a publike Notary, is sworne faithfully to execute the office of a publik Notary; the execution of part of which office, consisteth (he being requyred thereunto) in his te­stimony and delivery of the publike acts made in his pre­sence.

A fith injustice or rather nullity is, because sundry sen­tences of deprivation haue been given a Iudicibus non suis, namely by such Ordinaryes, whose power and jurisdicti­on Ecclesiasticall at the time of giving their sentēces, was suspended, shut up and closed, by the Archbishop of Canter­buryes Commission and his Archiepiscopall visitation.

A 6 grevance or rather a nullity is, because the whole power and jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, touching causes criminall, without exception or reservation of the examina­tion and definition of the crimes of Ministers, by sundry Diocesans under their seale at armes, before that tyme was committed in solidum for terme of life & yeares not expired unto their principall Commissaryes, Officialls, or vicars generall: wherupon it consequently followeth, the [Page 82] same Diocesans having no power by the Kinges Ecclesia­sticall lawes, to resume at their pleasure their sayd Ecclesi­asticall jurisdiction, that the sentences given by the sayde Diocesans, in these cases are sentences voyd and of none effect in the law, as being given a Iudicibus iurisdictione in ea parte carentibus.

A 7 grevance or rather nullity is, that sentences haue been given nullo Iuris ordine servato: but omni iuris ordine spreto et neglecto.

An 8 injustice is, because some acts and sentences haue been made and given in some private chamber of some common Inne or Taverne, and not in publico et competente foro, in any publike or competent seate, of Ecclesiasticall justice. As M. Vinall and M. Warren, in the Diocesse of Chi­chester were deprived, in a common Taverne, viz. at the signe of the Ounce and Ivy bush in Greensteed.

The 9 injustice is, because some sentences, given by some Ecclesiasticall judges, for not use of rites and Cere­monyes, or not observing of the booke of Common pra­yer, haue not been given according to the tenor of and effect of the statute of the first of our late Queene, vpon in­quisition, information, or accusation, but only upon pro­ces ex mero officio. A thing if not directly, yet by conse­quence repugnant to the sayd statute; and therefore un­warrantable by the sayd statute. And therefore it is to be noted, that this marginall note (the Ecclesiasticall judge may proceed ex officio) in pag 37. and this parēthesis (which they may doe ex officio) inserted in the body of the statute pag 42. is but a begging of the question. Certain Mi­nisters in the Dioces of Oxford & Lichfeld etc.

An other injustice against some Ministers hath been cō mitted by some ordinaries, for that they haue deprived them for none other cause, then only for not subscribing [Page 83] to the 3 articles, mentioned in the 36. Canon. And this wrong hath been openly in Parliament acknowledged, to be a wrong by the Archbishop himselfe, and by the Iud­ges and advocats of his owne Courts.

These and many such like thinges being thus, may it not be truely sayd, that the Ministers pleaded for are un­justly oppressed? And being so oppressed and without re­leefe any other way, haue they not just cause to supplicat to the High Court of Parliament? And hath not the sayd High Court great reason, yea is it not bound to finde re­medy, and to releeue them?

The answer concernyng the person of him who is sayd abundantly to haue proved the unlawfulnes of the pro­ceedings against the deprived ministers, that he is no iudge nor any good Civilian or common lawyer, what reason haue you to be so resolut heerin? He may be a judge, a good Civilian, or cōmon lawyer for ought you knowe, though you seeme never so doubtles therof. But what is this ans­wer to the poynt in question? Seeing it mattereth not, what the person of the probator be, if his proofes be suffi­cient? And yet how meane so ever you thinke him, or his learning to be (if he be the party whom I ayme at) I shall doe no wrong (as I suppose to the cheefest judge, and best approved Civilian, of the now Archbishop of Canterbu­ryes courts, if (without flattering the party) I shall affirme that he was a student and an advocate, and a Iudge, yea, I may (as I thinke) say more, a reader of and a director in the practise of the civill law about 30 yeares passed, to sōe that be now Doctors of the same law.

But to let the person and learnyng of the probator passe, I resolutely and directly answer to the answerers 3. Queres (the same being partly fraught with equivocations, [Page 84] and partly childish and absurd,) that the one sorte can re­ceaue no resolute answer, before he haue resolved his in­trinsecall and mentall sense and understanding, and that the other without question, is a question questionles. His first Quere then being this, namely, Quere. 1 whether the Church un­der Christian godly Magistrats, hath any tribunall proper unto it selfe, for the decyding of controversies, and punishing of such persons as shall refuse the ordinances therof? Unto this Quere, when he shall distinguish and make his so many equivoca­tions (conteyned in the Quere) prespicuous and playne, Equivocati­ons. to the understanding of every simple & playne meanyng man, I shall (God willing) make him a simple, playne, re­solute, & direct answer. In the meane time let him under­stand, first that we may justly doubt, what he meaneth by the word Church: and namely, whether he meane the v­niversall Church, or a Nationall, a Provinciall, a Diocesā, an Archidiaconall, a Decanall, a Capitular, or lastly a Pa­rochiall Church. For all men (as usually and commonly we speake) doe vnderstand, that every of these Churches, hath her proper name, after which she is so called: as namly the Church dispersed throughout the world, is called the universall Church, the Church within England is commonly called the Nationall Church of England; the Church within the Province of Canterbury, the Provin­ciall Church of Canterbury, the Church of the Diocesse of London, the Diocesan Church of London, etc. And lastly the Church of great S. Ellens in London, the Paro­chiall Church of S. Ellens in London. And therefore I craue a resolute and direct answer, of what onely persons you meane that the universall, this Nationall, Provinci­all, Diocesan, Archidiaconall, Decanall, Capitular, and Parochiall Church consisteth? Who onely be the Chri­stian godly Magistrats, under whom every one of these [Page 85] Churches liveth? Whether the same christian godly Ma­gistrates may personally be present, giue their expresse consents, and haue their decisive voyces, to & in making all and every decrees of every of these Churches? What is the tribunall proper to it selfe, of every of these Chur­ches? What onely manner of controversies, by every of these Churches may be decided? What onely kind of or­dinances, every of these Churches may decree? What only kind of subject, and with what onely kind of punish­ment, and none other, every of these Churches may pu­nish the refusers of every their ordinances?

Our second mayne scruple, touching this first Quere, ariseth from these words (vnder Christian godly Magistrats) For if by these words (under Christian godly Magistrats) he understand that every of these Churches, livyng under the obeysance of such Magistrats, hath a tribunall proper unto it selfe, immediatly derived to the same by the holy law of God, wholly secluded from the Christian godly Magistrats presence (as was the Sanctuary divided from the Court) and wherinto the christian godly Magistrats may no more at this day enter, or no more giue their con­sents and decisiue voyces, in making the ordinances ther­of, then it was lawfull in times past for the Kings of Iuda to enter into the holy place, and to burne incense at the Altar: then must we frame him one kinde of reply: but if he shall informe us, his mentall vnderstanding to be thus, namely that the Christian godly Magistrats, haue none other power, by law divine or human, but only to assem­ble every of the sayd Churches, to ratifie the ordinances of every of the sayd Churches, or hath onely power to commaund the same ordinances to be put in execution under them, then unto this answer we must shape him [Page 86] an other manner of reply. Notwithstanding, in the meāe tyme this he must understand generally, that in right (though not alwayes in possession & practise) the church beyng distinguished from the common wealth, hath the same power under a Christian, and under an Infidell Ma­gistrat.

To dance after your Pipe, (I will not say, what a foo­lish and ridiculous question, Reply. but) what an od tune is this? For can a man dance after a pipe, before the Pipe be stri­ken up? So could acts done before Magna Charta, and o­ther lawes since made, be sayd to be contrary to them? This is as much, as one should aske, whether Adam not Circumcising Cain and Abell, did contrary to the law gi­ven for Circumcision, to Abraham many yeares after? Or whither Ishmael persecuted Isaack, before Isack was borne? Or whether stealing of horses an hundred yeares past, were punishable with death, before any law made for death in that behalfe? One thing cannot be sayd contrary to an other, that is not, neyther ever was extant in rerum natura. The Second part of this Quere, whether since the granting of Magna Charta unto this age, the judiciall acts of deprivation of Bishops etc: were ever held to be con­trary to the law of this kingdome, and Magna Charta, we shall answer (if God permit) more plentifully anone.

Reply.Though it were a sufficient answer to bid him goe [Page 87] looke, and himselfe to aske the opinion of every judge & learned officer, yet will I not altogether yeld him so short and cutted an answer. And though it be a principle in Philosophy, that forma dat esse rei, yet to the beyng of eve­ry thing there must be matter, to which the forme giveth being. And therefore in this case, besides due forme, there must be also due matter, inserted in due sentences. Wher­upon I craue a resolute and direct answer, whether by those words (passed in due forme) he meane passed for mat­ter and forme, in due forme? Or whether he meane, passed without due matter in due forme onely? For if he meane by passed, (for matter and forme,) in due forme, then is his question (without question) either a foolish question, or no question at all. For who would question, whe­ther any Iudge or learned officer, could doubt, that a sen­tence passed for matter, and forme in due forme, were a sentence contrary to any, much lesse to many statuts? As though there were any Statuts so ridiculous and absurd? On the other side, if he meane by passed in due forme, only due forme without due matter, then we answer that the same sentence may be unjust, for want of due matter, and yet be just by reason of due forme. And so on the other parte, we affirme, that a sentence may be iust, by reason of due matter, and yet unjust by reason of an undue forme. How many sentences therefore of deprivation soever, as haue been lately given without due and just matter, or without due and iust forme, we answer so many not to haue passed in due matter and forme, and so contrary to some lawes or statuts. But were this question wholly grā ­ted, what ease and advantage can the opinion of any iudg or learned officer yeeld to those Iudiciall acts of depriva­tion (wherupon the controversie is grounded) which are [Page 88] not passed in any due forme of any law, or Statute Eccle­siasticall whatsoever?

Furthermore touching this question, if the Prelats did intend that all their sentēces should be according to law, wherfore did they make a Canon against the ordinary pro­secution of appeales? Yea, what needed such a Canon? What benefite is there to any appellant by his appeale, from a just sentence? Or what danger to the Iudge a quo by such appeales? The whole danger is to the appellant himselfe. For the sentence beyng just, he shall be sure to get nothing, neither the Iudge a quo to lose any thing by the appeale.

Doth every one that desireth limitation of Ecclesia­sticall jurisdiction, Reply. and laboreth to restrayne it from all communion of forreyne lawes, seeke the subversion ther­of? If also the lawes Ecclesiasticall, be the Kings Ecclesia­sticall lawes, and the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, then is this place of Magna Charta, so farre from subverting the jurisdiction or law Ecclesiasticall, as that by that place, the same law and ju­risdiction is up held, and more throughly established. That the law & jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ever hath been, and yet is accounted the Kings Ecclesiasticall law and ju­ridiction shall be shewed anone.

ReplyAll sent ces of Ecclesiasticall Courts, are not so graue but that some are somtymes repealed by Higher courts, and sometymes revoked by themselues. Sometyme also [Page 89] they meddle with matters not belonging unto them, and therfore by ordinary course of Commmon law, they are prohibited to proceed. Finally in some case the Bishop giveth not Institution to a benefice, untill by a Iury of 12. men (whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy, and 6 of the Layity) the controversie de iure patronatus be decided. Yea sometyme the Bishop having instituted a clarke, is forced by writ from the common law, to admit of another clark presented by another Patrone, and so to displace him whom before he had instituted.

The Prelats should make sure worke indeed, Reply. if they could make, that no lawes were against their power. Thē might they take upon them without controlment, what they would under coloure of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction: as indeed they doe now pretily beginne to doe.

Then belike the Kings Majestie is restrayned by Mag­na Charta, but the Prelacy is not. Reply. Is not this good stuffe? The King shall weare the Crowne, but the Prelats will beare the sword. Whether now doe they that are falsely called Puritans, or the Prelats most encroch upon the Royall authoritye?

This is utterly false: Reply yea the falshood therof is evident by the testimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cooke, in the booke alleadged by the answerer. [Page 90] For he sayth expresely, that as in temporall causes, the King by the mouth of Iudges in his Courts of Iustice, doth iudge the same by the temporall lawes of England; lib. de jure regis Eccle. fol: 8 so in causes Ecclesiasti­call etc. (the connusance wherof doth not belong to the common lawes of England) the same are to be iudged and determyned, by Ecclesiasticall Iudges, according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes, etc.

fol. 39And againe, obserue good reader, (sayth S. Edward Cooke) seeyng that the determination of heresies etc. belongeth not to the Common law, how necessary it was for administration of Iu­stice, that his Maiesties progenitors Kings of this Realme, did by publike authority authorize Ecclesiasticall Courts under thē, to determyne those great and important causes, etc. by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes. The jurisdiction therfore, Courts, and lawes Ecclesiasticall, in the opinion of the Kings progeni­tors were thought & held to be their own Kingly lawes, Courts, and jurisdiction. The same is further proved by the sayd S. Edward Cooke: fol. 9 by the president of Renulphus, in discharging and exempting the Monastery and Abbot of A­binden, from the jurisdiction of the Bishops and granting also to the saide Abbot Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction etc: by the president of William the first, fol 10. 11: who made inpropriatiō of Churches with cure, to Ecclesiasticall persons etc. and by divers presidents of other Kings since the conquest.

That which in this parte of the answer, is afterward added of the necessary restitution of the right of Ecclesi­asticall jurisdiction, to the Crowne is also confuted by the same S. Edward Cooke, who plainely saith, that though there had been no such law of restitution made, yet it was resol­ved by all the Iudges, that the Kings and Queenes of Englād for the tyme being, by the auncient prerogatiue law of England, may make such a Commision etc. And therfore by the aunci­ent [Page 91] lawes of this Realme, this kingdome of England is and ab­solute Empire, and Monarchy, consisting of one head, which is the King, and of a body politike, &c. Also that the Kingly head of this body politike is furnished with plenary power. &c. to render iustice and right, to every part and member of this bo­dy. Thus farre S. Edward Cooke. From all which it follo­weth, that the restitution of the auncient right, howsoe­ver lawfully made (as being made by the whole body of the kingdome) was notwithstāding not necessarily made, as though without it, the King or Queene, for the tyme being, could not haue used their auncient right.

That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 answer to the consequence of this 8 Argument, doth not belong to the matter, because it doth nothing justifie the proceedings of the Bishops or other Ecclesi­asticall Iudges, in depriving of the Ministers pleaded for, in such manner and for such causes, as for which they haue depriveded them. The question is not whether ju­risdiction Ecclesiasticall by the lawes of the land doth be long (under the King) unto the ordinaryes: nor whether the Ordinaryes in the exercise of the Kings jurisdiction Ecclesiiasticall, and Consistoriall trialls, ought to proceed by vertue of Peeres, etc: but whether some Ordinaryes, ex­ercising the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, haue procee­ded in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories, against some Mini­sters, without authority of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law: & therfore in that respect, contrary to Magna Charta, which requyreth nothing to be doone without the Kings law.

Further, De jure Re­gis Ecclesi. fol. 9 although we grant (as S. Edw. Cooke instructeth us) all lawes Ecclesiasticall derived from other (which by and with a generall consent are approved and allowed here) to be aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiasti­call [Page 92] lawes of England: yet I deny that all lawes Ecclesiasticall, derived by the Kings progenitors, either before or since the Conquest from others, are now in this age our Soveraigne Lord King Iames his Ecclesiasticall lawes: and therefore howsoever many judiciall Acts of deprivation, of Bishops & Preists, from their benefices &c. according to the Ecclesiasticall law, which is called ius Pontificium, & which was derived, by the Kings Progenitors, from the Bishops of Rome, either before, or since the Conquest, unto Magna Charta, and since that, to the 25 of King Henry the eyght, were never, all held, to be contrary, but were ever all held, to be agreable to the lawes of this kingdome: yet notwithstanding, I affirme that all Iudiciall Acts and sen­tences, 25. Hen. 8 cap. 17 (how many soever, of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices) had made and given, by the Ecclesi­asticall Iudges, since the 25. of King Henry the 8. onely ac­cording, or onely by force, and vertue of the sayd ius Pon­tificium, or Bishop of Rome his law, (the sentences given in the time of Queene Mary excepted) are, and ought to be holden, not to be had, made & given, by the lawes of this kingdome, or by the Kings Ecclesiasticall law: And why? Even because the whole ius Pontificium, or Bishop of Romes law was altogether (excepting the tyme of Queene Mary) abrogated, adnulled, and made voyd, by an Act of Parla­ment; and consequently is but a meere Alien, Forraine and straunge law, and no municipall law of England, and there­fore not the Kings Ecclesiasticall law.

Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Iames, by this graunt of Magna Charta made by his progenitors, beyng obliged, to suffer no Free man of the Realme, to be taken or imprisoned, or disseissed of his Frrehold, or liberties, &c. Nor to passe upon him nor condemne him, but by [Page 93] lawfull judgment of his Peeres, or by the law of the land. We agayne assume from this statute of the great Charter, that sundry sentences of deprivation of Ministers, from their benefices, for causes before specified, are unlawfull; because such Ministers haue been condemned, and judg­ment hath been passed upon them, without lawfull judg­ment of their Peeres, or law Ecclesiasticall of the land. For heere we must giue the answerer to witt, by these words, (or law of the land,) that all the Kings lawes, of what na­ture or quality soever, whether Ecclesiasticall or tempo­rall, and not only the lawes temporall, (as he insinuateth) are included. As therefore no temporall Free man of the Realme, may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, and freehold, &c. in a temporall cause, and in a temporall Court, without lawfull judgment of his Peeres, or temporall law of the land. Even so likewise, no Ecclesi­asticall person, (beyng a freeman of the Realme) may be condemned, passed upon, or disseissed of his liberty, or frehold, but by lawfull Ecclesiasticall judgement, according to the law Ecclesiasticall of the land. And heereupon we graunt, if the King haue any law Ecclesiasticall of the lād, for the deprivation of a Minister, from his liberty and fre­hold, for not subscription, perjurie, contempt of Canonical (so called obedience, omission of Rites, and Ceremonyes, not precise observation of the booke of Common prayer &c. Then we graunt, that the Ordinaryes (being the Kings Iudges Ecclesiasticall) may rightly depriue a Mini­ster from his benefice, for these offences.

And yet still we deny, and shall be able to mainteyne, that sundry sentences of deprivation, made and given, by sundry Ordinaries, against svndry Ministers, be either un­just or unlawfull; or no sentences at all, for the reasons and [Page 94] causes before specified.

It is therefore erroniously alleadged, that that which was done by jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, when Magna Char­ta was granted, was not at that tyme taken to be done by the King, or by his authority, and that the lawes which Ecclesiasticall Iudges practised, were not then held, to be the lawes of the land, or the Kings lawes. For the Kings progenitors, did both thinke and held, that jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall did in right belong unto their Crowe, and therefore in fact, by right of their crownes, did they both exercise, and commaund to be exercised, in their Kingly names, their Kingly right, authority and jurisdiction Ec­clesiasticall within their Realmes. For how could those Kings, haue commaunded, and how could their subjectes haue obeyed, if the Kings themselues, had thought, and held, that the Ecelesiasticall courts, lawes or jurisdiction, were not in right, no more then in fact, at that tyme be­longing unto the Crowne as the answerer, vaynly, and childishly fancyeth? Which fancy also seemeth sufficiēt­ly confuted by the very title of S. Edward Cooks booke, de iure regis Ecclesiastico. For how could the Kings before and after the Conquest unto Magna Charta have been justly intituled to Kingly right of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, if the Kings had no Kingly Ecclesiasticall right, or juris­diction at all.

It is a most playne and cleere case, that neither the case of Cawdrie, Reply. is the case of sundry the late deprived Mini­sters; nor that the case of sundry the late deprived Mini­sters, is the case of Cawdrie.

Cawdrie was deprived, not by his Ordinarie, but by the Queenes Ecclesiasticall high Commissioners; not for not subscribing to the 3 Articles; not for the not use of rits and Ceremonyes; not, for the not exact, S. Edward Cook de ju­re regis eccl. Cawdries case fol. 3 and precise observation, of the booke of Common prayer: But as well, for that he had preached against, and depraved the said book, as also for that he refused to celebrate divine service, ac­cording to the sayd booke.

Agayne, in his cause, it being found before the High Commissioners, that he had uttered verba convitiosa and contumeliosa, convitious, and contumelious words, looke sent against Caw. against the boke of Common prayer; the case was not, whither his fact were punishable by the Statute, (for of that no man then doubted;) but whether his depravation, and preaching against the booke of Common prayer, beyng the first offence committed by him against the Statute; he was punishable by tenor of the statute, for the same his first offence, by depravatiō, yea or no? Lastly Cawdries offence was punishable as well before the Queenes Iustices by imprisonment, and losse of one whole yeares profites, of his spirituall promotions, as by deprivation before his Ordinary. None of all which things, were within the cō ­pass, of sundry the late deprived Ministers. For non of thē ever preached against the booke, nor depraved the same. They never refused to obserue the same booke, according to the proeme of the booke & tenor of the statute. They were so farr from claymyng any immunitie, from being depraved, for their first offence, as that they stood and yet doe stand, upon their innocencyes, not to haue commit­ted any offence at all, against the statute punishable with deprivation, by the statute they alleadge, that they were not punishable before the Kings Iustices by the statute, [Page 96] for these facts which they were charged by their Ordina­ries to haue committed against the statute, and for which they were deprived. Lastly, some of them were deprived not for any fact done, committed, or perpetrated: but for not promissing heereafter, to obserue the whole booke. And what an unconsiderate part therefore is it, to avowe the lawfulnes of the deprivation of all the late silenced Ministers, to be a playne case adjudged in open Court; when neither their case, nor any like case to som of theirs, was ever yet brought or argued before the Kings Iustices in any of the Kings open courts at all.

Touching the statut alleadged, 1. Elizabeth, it helpeth nowhitt at all the late deprivations of sundry Ministers, First, because such Ministers as haue been deprived onely for not conformyng themselues, to the use of the booke provided by the parishioners cannot truly be charged to haue refused the booke commaunded by the statute. Be­cause the same booke was never provided for them. Se­condly, the statute punisheth not every refuser, but wil­full and obstinate refusers. They then that upon consci­ence onely of Gods word, doe refuse to obserue al things conteyned in the booke, cannot be iustly called obstinate refusers, till their groundes out of the word, be by the word removed. Thirdly, the statute requyreth some Act, done, committed or perpretrated against the Statut: but some Ministers haue been deprived only for not pro­mising &c: as before was sayd. Fourthly, the statute ap­poynteth the Ordinaries to proceed by inquisition, accu­sation, or information: But many of us haue been depri­ved without any of these meanes, and onely upon Proces, Ex officio mero. Heerby therfore appeareth, how unjustly, and directly contrary to the words of the statute, you in­sert [Page 97] this Parenthesis, (which they may doe Ex officio,) as if they might by vertue of this Statute proceed Ex officio, wheras the Statute expresly requyres inquisition, accusa­tion, or information. Is this good interpretation? If you doe so interprete the scripture directly contrary to the wordes of scripture, in the same place you make but mad interpretations.

Touching that which is objected against all hitherto spoken in the poynt of the law, of the opinion of the Iud­ges to be against the same, may it please the reader to re­member the saying of an Honorable and most renowned Counseller in that behalfe, viz. that in such cases and all o­ther, men are not so much to respect what judges speake standing bare headed, 2 chro: 19:6 as what they say sittyng upon the judgment seate, representing the Kings person (yea not executing the iudgment of man but of the Lord) when all men stand bare headed before them.

Concernyng the oth Ex officio, of the othe ex officio we affirme that the law of the land is against the exercise of the same oath, by Or­dinaries and other judges Ecclesiasticall.

A The Common law of this kingdome which is groun­ded upon the law of God, and of reason doth hate and ab­horre it.

B First in respect of the fraylty of man who for the safitie of his life, libertie, credit, and good name, will not spare to prophane even that which is most holy, and by commit­ting sinfull perjury hazard his soule. which the subtle ser­pēt wel knew in generall though he were deceaved in the perticuler, in that he sayd unto God concerning Iobskinne for skinne, and whatsoever a man hath will he giue for himselfe and for his life, but stretch out thy hand (saith Sathan) and touch his bones, and his fleesh, and see if he will not then blas­pheme [Page 98] C thee to thy face. Secondly in respect of the feeble­nes of the judgment and sentence, that should be groun­ded upon the othe of such a party, being even then at his convention, aforehand defamed, and of suspected faith or credit. Bracton

D Agayne, it is against the common law which constāt­ly holdeth that, iudicium est in qualibet actione trinus actus trium personarum Iudicis, actoris, et rei. Secundum quod large accipi possunt huiusmodi personae, quod duce sunt ad minus in­ter quas vertatur contentio et tertia persona ad minus qui iudi­cet; alioquin non erit iudicium cum istae personae sunt partes principales in iudicio, sine quibus iudicium consistere non potest.

E BrittonAnd the renowned Prince King Edward the first saith by the penn of the learned Iudg Britton, that no judgmēt may be of fewer, then three persons, that is to say; a Iudge, a plantiefe, and a defendent, and in case (saith the King) that we be a party, we will that our Court shall be Iudge.

F Then if the party convented be constrained to accuse himselfe, he susteineth two of the said parties in judgmēt, viz. actoris et rei, which the law hateth, or else the Ordina­ry or Iudge susteineth two of the sayde partyes in judg­ment, that is both Iudge and Promoter, which the law doth also abhorre.

G Therfore true judgment cannot so consist.

H If it be objected that common bruite and fame may lawfully stand in steead of an accuser, and put a person cō vented to purge himselfe therof, and to deliver his know­ledge also of others by oeth; I answer that fame is tam fic­ti pravique tenax quam nuncia veri, and ought to haue no credit untill it be presented in course of law or proved, For the law is, that the Iudge himselfe (if he would of his owne knowledge affirme the party to be in famous) is [Page 99] not to be received or beleeved. For that the law will, quod secundum acta et probata iusticia ministretur.

I That which is often objected, that private relation made unto the Iudge, is sufficient to put the party convē ­ted to answer upon his oeth, is answered before; for that the parties in judgment must not be fayned persons but such as may stand upright in Court, and answer the par­ty convented his damages and costs if his prosecution be wrongfull, otherwise a man may be greatly wronged, his good name and fame unjustly brought into question, put to great chardges without any recompence and malici­ous backbiting maintained, and all by coloure of this pro­ceeding which the common law hateth.

K That which is objected (that if this course should not be taken by proceeding by oth Ex officio mero, vice would abound; for that accusation is daungerous, and odious,) is easily answered. That the commō law seeth this also, and therefore hath ordeyned common enformers to proceed against such as private persons will not deale with by wit­nesses and such legall courses, and allow them part of the penaltie for their labor, and yet alloweth the party wrōg­fully accused his damages and costs if the accusation be wrongfull and injurious. In so much as if the enformer will not, or be not able to render it, he shall receaue cor­porall punishment for his offence, and for the redempti­on of the defendant credit and reputation.

The Statute law also is, 9: H: 3: c: 29 that no fre man shalbe appre­hended or imprisoned, or to be disseased of his free hold, or liberties, or free customes, or to be outlawed or exiled, or any wise distroyed, nor we shall passe upon him, nor deale with him, but by lawfull judgment of his peeres or by the law of the land, that is by presentment, Indictmēt, [Page 100] witnes, verdict, voluntary confession, or process of utlary.

In so much as when the Popish Clergie would never­lesse be tampering with this oath ex officio, (as their prac­tise was to be medling for the advancment of Antichrist in all States) there was a writt of prohibition awarded, as warrented formerly by the Common law; to be directed to the Sheriff commaunding him that he shall not permit etc: and thereupon an attachment against the Bishop if he disobey:

After this in the height of the Popes pride in the dayes of King Henrie the 4. (who was willing to please him be­ing a King in facto, 2: H: 4: c: 15 but not de iure,) this oath crept in, as a Canonicall sanction, by the statute of 2. H. 4.

But the iniquitie, injustice; and repugnancy thereof to the Common lawes & statutes of the Realme appearing to the State, 25 h. 8: c. 14 23: H: 8: c: 9 it was by K. H. 8. by the whole Parliament a­brogated as injurious to the Crowne, and utterly against the common justice of the kingdome, and so it resteth cō ­dempned to this day. So that no Ordinary can practise it by any power under the Crowne.

Then it followeth that the use therof must needs be by colour of the Canon law, which being in that poynt de­rogatory to the Crowne, 25 h. 8. c. 19 repugnant to the law of this kingdome, and abolished by Act of Parliament, it conse­quently cannot be used, but by a forreine power and thē it is premunire.

wager of lawAnd to that which is alleaged by the Civilians, that the Common law alloweth it in that, which is termed the wager of law, or doeing of his law, it appeareth that they are therin utterly mistaken, which may easily arise out of their ignorance therof.

First the wager of law is voluntary for he that offereth it [Page 101] may be tried per patriam at his election; This is contrary viz. extorted and constreined.

2 The wager of law commeth from the certeine know­ledge of the deponent, who best knoweth whither he ow the debt or not: This is contrary, most uncertaine, what shalbe demaunded or interrogated

3 Againe, the wager of law maketh an end of the strife; but this is contrary viz: the beginning of strife: for it is not finall, but frō thence the Iudge gathereth the ground wherupon to proceed against the party convented.

4 The wager of law is in case meere and onely civill, for an honest man may be in debt; but this othe is ministred in case meere criminall, in which case the othe is so much the more odious to the Common law, by how much it is an apparant occasion of perjury: which carnall men will rather fall into, then to subject themselues to corporall punishment, or to lay open their owne turpitude or shāe?

Neither can this proceeding by othe ex officio be foūd in the Honorable Court of Starr chamber. For although the courts of Starr chamber and Chauncery proceed not by Iury, yet they obserue the due forme of justice, Starr cham­ber: and en­force no man to answer, but where he hath a knowne ac­cuser and perfect understanding of the cause or crime ob­jected, and therewithall is permitted to haue a copye of the bill of complaint or information, and allowed more over both time convenient and councell learned, well to consider & advise of his oth & answer, and if his adversa­ryes complaint, be either in sufficient in forme, or such as the Court hath no jurisdiction to determine, the defendant upon demurrer without othe is dismissed, and that with costs. And admtit the accusation be such as is every way aunswerable, yet if the interrogatoryes ministred be [Page 102] impertinent to the matter of complaint, the defendant without offence to the Court, may refuse to make answer to the same.

Therefore no similitude or likenes between this oth u­sed in these Honorable courts of Iustice & that constrey­ned oath ex mero officio Iudicis.

1 Since the former sort be orderly taken in courts of justice, the other without all course of judgement.

2 The one where the plantiff and matter of complaint are manifest, the other where neither accuser nor matter of accusation doeth appeare, unlesse the bare suspicion of the Iudge, fame unproved, or private insinuation, may be allowed for competent persons in judgement, against whom the party defendāt is deprived of all legall excep­tiōs, & is often, after great trouble dismissed and (though innocent) yet dampnified and slaundered and without recompence, there being no complanant found, but the Iudge himselfe.

3 The one made upon certaine knowledge and good advisment, the other soddenly without all discretion up­pon uncertaine demaunds.

4 The one wisely restreined to certaine limits & boūds the other foolishly wandring at the doubtfull will of a sly and subtill opposer.

5 Upon the one the deponent aunswereth to the accu­sation of his adversarye, by the other he is compelled to be his owne accuser and condemner.

6 The one requyreth an answer to matter in fact done either to the injury of some private person, or hurt of the publicke state, the other constreineth revealing of words, deeds, and thoughts though never offensiue to any.

That which is objected that the saide proceeding is [Page 103] warranted by the Canon law or Civill law, is answered ma­ny wayes; but breifely by the positiue law it selfe, that ba­nisheth all Canon Civill, or other law, or preheminence, or power whatsoever, which is contrary or repugnant to the common law of the land; But this proceeding by the par­tyes owne othe ex officio mero, is contrary and repugnant to the common law of the land. Ergo

Thus we see that this proceeding by oth ex officio was a meere straunger in England, Conclusion: and how it arrived heerein Anno 2. H 4. but yet as a masker, disguised, marching in the rowte of Cannonicall sanctions & obscured from the veiw of the State under that name; but after being discovered as an adder in the grass, was damned and expelled, by the Statute of 25. H. 8. as a traytor to the King and his lawes, and hath no lawfull or warrantable interteynment by the statute of primo Elizab, For that there by no jurisdiction excercised by the Bishop of Rome in this kingdome is an­nexed to the crowne, but that which was then lawfully vsed and excercised within this kingdome:

Then, for any Ordinary or Iudge Ecclesiasticall to enter­teine it and use it in their courts & proceedings; is a high misprision against the King his Crowne and dignity, and punishable by the Statute of the 16. yeere of K. R. 2.

Now to passe from the oth ex officio, to the Canons, of the Canōs and yet not to deale with those that are of indifferent sorte, but with those onely, that are either contrary to Gods word, or repugnant to the lawes of the land, neither also to say all of these in this place, that might be sayd, but on­ly (for brevities sake) to giue a tast, and to poynt at some; may it please the Christian reader, yea the answerer him­selfe, yea all our adversaries in this cause (that are not too much blinded with mallice) to consider, that all such Ca­nons [Page 104] generally as pronounce a man ipso facto excommuni­cate, for saying thus or thus, against the Canons themselues, against the Ceremonies, against the booke of Common prayer, and the strict observation thereof, etc: cannot be justified in this behalfe by the word of God. For as (to prevent an objection that might be made from the com­maundement for reading of them publikly in Churches) albeit the sacreed scriptures be dayly publikely read and preached, yet many things are both wittingly and unwil­lingly spoken, and actually committed, against the sayd sacreed scriptures, for which notwithstanding, such per­sons are not presently to be held ipso facto excommunicate: so certeinly (except the authoritie of the Church be greater then the authority of God, and the Canons of this last Synod more authenticall, then the holy scriptures given by in­spiration from God,) it must be acknowledged of these Ca­nons, and all other constitutions of the Church whatsoe­ver, that every word spoken, or act committed against thē (especially unwittingly) is not so heavily to be punished.

Agayne, wheras the sayd Canons, doe forbid any man by speech so offending, without publike revocation, of his sayd (pretended) wicked error, to be restored: sith the sayd offence may be committed as well privatly, as publikely, and sith the Canons speake generally (whosoever shall af­firme etc,) without any exception of private affirmations; how can the sayd Canons in this respect, be warranted by the word of God? 1 Tim: 5.1 If all offences against Gods word, (at least of man against man) be not publikely to be reprehē ­ded; much lesse are all affirmations in disgrace of any Ec­clesiasticall cōstitutions of men, to be punished with pub­like pennance.

Furthermore whereas divers of the sayd Canons, doe [Page 105] forbid many offenders by such affirmations, to be resto­red by any other meanes, then onely by the Archbishop: sith the sayd offence may not onely be unwitting & pri­vate, but also by a poore ignorant man, yea perhaps a lame impotent man, dwelling also it may be an hundred myles, or almost 200. myles from the Archbishop. What e­quity is there, that svch an offender, should be debarred from all restoring by any other? And so, for want therof, be deprived (perhaps all his life) from all publike commu­nion with the Church, and from all spirituall comfort for his soule therby? Is this the mercy that is better then sacri­fice? And wherby we doe represent our heavenly Father?

The 13. Canon commaundeth the celebration of holy dayes, as well as of the Lords day, and that as equally agreyng to Gods holy will and pleasure. I deny not, but that as Gods word is to be preached at all tymes, in season and out of season, so it is also to be heard as oft as men haue oppor­tunity: but yet that the holy dayes now commaunded to be celebrated, are as equally according to Gods holy will and pleasure, as the Lords day (especially so to be celebrated, as they are injoyned, with greater solemnities sometimes then the Lords day it selfe,) this is contrary both to the 4 commaundement, and also to many other Scriptures, Gal: 4.10: Coloss. 2. 16 which condemne such observation of dayes, and tymes. The holy dayes also now commaunded to be kept, may be abrogated by the Magistrate, as wel as other, that were wont to be observed. But I hope, that although some are bold to say as much of the Lords day, yet our Prelats will not publikly allow of any such rash & impious opinion.

The 14. Canon commaunding all divine service, pre­scribed in the booke of common prayer to be read upon the dayes appoynted, without any diminishyng in regard of [Page 106] preaching or in any other respect; is agaynst charity and con­sequently agaynst the word. For the weaknes of some mens body, at all tymes is such, that they are not able to reade all and to preach. At sometime also, the strongest man, may haue such an infirmity, that he may not be able to endure the performāce of both. In winter, many times the extremity of cold, will not permit the whole audito­ry, to continue so long at Church. Then (will some say,) let preaching by such persons as are so weake, or at such times, be omitted. This indeed is that which many would haue. But this is to performe bare reading before prea­ching: ignorance before knowledge: and the ordinances of man, before the commaundements of God.

The 18 Canon for bowing at the mention of the name of Iesus, is absurd in that respect: because the place whereon it seemeth to be grounded, philip. 2.10. is not literally so to be under­stood. First for that it speaketh of things not only in earth but also in heaven, and under the earth, in which places ther are no knees. 2. It speaketh not onely of men, but also of all other creatures. For it saith of all things. By the literall interpretation therefore, all creatures at the mention of the name of Iesus, should bend their knees. 3. By this interpre­tation, no man must sit whilst any thing is read, that hath that name, or else the must rise at the mention thereof to bowe their knee. 4. It is superstition, to giue more reve­rence, to the name Iesus then to the name Christ, God, Ieho­vah, or the Holy Ghost. 5. If the knee be so to be bowed, at the name of Iesus, why not also at the name Saviour? For what doeth Iesus signifie but Saviour? 6. The place spea­keth not of that which is due to the name, but of that which is due to the person of Iesus. So the Canonists are deceaved, with that fallacy, which is a rebus ad voces. 7. It [Page 107] speaketh of that which is due to him, as well in private, as in publike places: in our houses, at our tables, in our beds: as we sit, as we walke, as we ly: If then we sit at table, or ly in our beds etc: we must not speake of Iesus, but we must arise to make a legge. Lastly, this name Iesus, is no more then Ioshua, who therfore is called Iesus Act. 7.45. It is also the name of Iozadak. Zech. 3.1: compared with Ecclesiasti­cus 49.12: and Ezra 3.2: and of the Sonne of Syrach: and of one Iustus Coloss. 4.11. The common people therefore for want of preaching and by their owne negligence, be­ing so ignorant, that they cannot well discerne the name Iesus our Saviour from the same name of other, they may mistake themselues and bowe the knee, as well at the mē ­tion of other so named as of Iesus our Lord and Saviour, and so ignorantly they should commit blasphemy. That which is said for defence heerof by some, that we should the rather bowe at this name, to testifie our hatred against Arrianisme, is more dotage thē divinity: and therfore not worthy any answer. The Deitie of Christ is more mani­fest by other names, especially by the name Emmanuell, then by the name Iesus.

Touching the Canons for Coapes, Surplices, Crosse, and other Conformitie, as also touching the present Hierarchie, and manner of ordaynyng Archbishops, Bishops, Preists, Deacons, etc: and for Subscription; it is too long in this place, to set downe perticular reasons against them. Therfore I referr the reader to perticular treatises of those things, both her­tofore, and also lately written.

The 49. Canon, for no Minister to preach or expound any Scripture or matter of doctrine, without a speciall li­cence in that behalfe; is a most lamentable contrariety to the word, which commaundeth every Minister, both to [Page 108] be apt to teach, and to teach indeede. And I would gladly know of such Canon-makers, whither those that they call by the name of Ministers, be Ministers of the word or no? If they be Ministers of the word, shall they not haue power to expound and preach the word by vertue of the said Ministery? Yea, doe not they themselues, when they ordayne them Ministers, bid them take power to preach the word? It is yet more lamentable in the sayde Canon, that they commaund all Ministers (not specially licensed, to preach or expound in their owne chardges) onely to study to read plainely and aptly (without glozing or adding) the Homilies already set forth, or heerafter to be published etc. For doe not these words plainely import, that some Ministers are not able to read without studiyng for it, even after they be made Ministers? Yea, doe not the words (onely to study to read plainely and aptly the Homilies etc.) implye a precept against studiyng to read the scriptures, which are harder then Homileis: especially against studiyng to preach heerafter? O miserable condition then of such people, as haue such Ministers as must goe to schoole to learne to read the Homilies, not the scriptures, yea and which must not study at all ever to Preach.

The 53. Canon against confuting of any publike doctrine (how hereticall or dangerous so ever) before the Bishop be made acquainted with the said doctrine; is most preju­diciall to the salvation of the hearers of such erroneous teaching. For the soules of men beyng by nature as capa­ble of any errors, as their bodyes are of any infectious di­sease; and the Bishop of the same Diocesse, sometime per­haps dwelling or beynge an hundred myles from the Church, wherein such errors were delivered; and the life of man being most uncertaine; and Bishops themselues [Page 109] being sometime erroneous, and therefore not very hastie to haue errors confuted: may not many a soule be infec­ted with such error, yea, and dye in them, before any re­medy can be had against them?

This shall suffice for a tast of the contrariety of divers Canons, to Gods word. If I should perticularly runne over other, that haue like cōtrariety; this volume would much exceed, both my owne purpose, and also the likyng of all readers.

Before I proceed to the Canons repugnant to the lawes of the land; let me here interlace one reason in a word ge­nerally to proue, both the Canons and also the booke of Common prayer (now imposed upon Ministers,) not yet to be established by law, and so consequently all the procee­dings of the Prelats against the said Ministers for not sub­scribyng, observing the booke, conformity etc, to be with out law, and a gainst law. This one reason, is from the late Bill of the Bishops presented to the Parliament for the esta­blishing both of the booke of Common prayer, and also of their Canons. For if the said booke and Canons were alrea­dy good in law; what needed any new statute to esta­blish them? If they say that abundans cautela non nocet, plen­tifull caution is not hurtfull, they must also remember, that they haue likewise learned, frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora: It is in vayne to doe that by many thinges, which may be done by fewe.

Now to the Canons repugnant to the law.

We decree and appoynt (saith the Synod) that no iudge, ad quem, shall admitt or allow any his or their appeales (speaking as they call them of obstinate and factious appellants) un­lesse he haue first seene the originall appeale. But the King (say I) is a iudge ad quem. Ergo, the King (saith this Synod) may [Page 110] not admitt or allow any appeale etc. The liberty, and franchise then of the Kings will, and grace, after this unwonted manner, (by a Synodall decree onely) beyng thus blemi­shed, impeched, and restrayned; what dignity, prehemi­nence, superiority, or prerogatiue, hath the Kings grace, when the King himselfe is chardged, not to grant any in­hibition out of his Court of Chauncery, but conditionally and upon an unlesse etc.

And if by this Canon, the Kings will and grace, receiue let, hinderance, and prejudice; what should we thinke, but that this Canon also tendeth, to the weakenyng of the Kings arme and power? For how can his power be strōg, and his arme able to help, when his grace is bound, and his will, unable to will?

And then agayne, if these two mayne pillars of his Ma­jesties prerogatiue Royall (namely his grace and his po­wer) be thus shaken by this Canon, must it not necessarily follow, that the Lords and Commons in Parliament, are prejudiced therby? For the rights & prerogatiues, of the Kings Crowne, by the lawes of the Realme, be not inve­sted, and appropried, unto the Kings person, onely in re­gard of his Majesties owne Royall estate; but also for the good condition, and preservation of his body Politicke, which is the Common wealth. Which body also for the just, and necessary defence both of the head (which is the King) and of it selfe, hath such a proper clayme, and inte­rest, in, and to the grace, and power of the head, as the lest jote of the power and grace of the head, may not be ble­mished to the prejudice of the body, without consent of the body. viz: of the Lords & Commons in Parliament, who are the very image, and true representiue body of the Realme: yea and thus much in effect, haue the Kings [Page 111] progenitors, and the Auncestors of our Nobles, and Cō ­mons agreed upon in Parliament; when by their authori­ty and consent, it was forbidden, that any thing should be attempted, which should tend, to the blemishyng of the Kings prerogatiue, or to the prejudice of his Lords & Commons. And when also, by common consent, Acts & Mo­numents 4: Ed. 3 pag 422. 424: it was enacted in effect, that neither King Iohn, nor any other King, could bring his Realme and people in thraledome, and subjection, but by consent in Parliament.

Furthermore appeales beyng de iure naturali, and introduced into judgement seats, tam ob defensionem et presidiū innocentiae, quam ad deprimendam iniquitatem, et corrigendam imperitiam iudicis; as well for the defence and savegard of innocency, as for the depressing of the iniquity, and cor­recting the unskilfulnes of a Iudge, as they haue been e­vermore allowed by the lawes, & custōes of the Realme, so haue they been suffered, as freely to be prosecuted, as interposed. For otherwise, how should either innocency be protected, or the injustice of a judge reformed, in case an appeale being interposed, might not be prosecuted, frustra (saith S. Edward Cooke) expectatur eventus, de jure Reg Eccles. cuius ef­fectus nullus sequitur.

And according unto this naturall equity, hath it been specially provided by a Statute of the realme, that the Kings subjects, being greived, should not only haue liber­tie, to make, but also, to take, haue, use, and prosecute all manner of appeales, after such manner, forme, and condi­tion, as is limited, for appeales, to be had, and prosecuted. And for lacke of Iustice many Courts of the Archbishops of this Realme, it is lawfull for the partie greived, to ap­peale to the Kinges Majestie in his Court of Chauncery. And upon every such appeale, a Commission (saith the [Page 112] Statute) shalbe directed under the great Seale, to such persons, as shalbe named by the Kings Highnes, to heare and definitivly determine such appeales, with the causes, and all circumstances. It is therefore apparant, that this Canon, is contrary or repugnant to this Statute. For this Canon, and this statute thus repugnantly providing, and working divers repugnant effects, the statute simply, admitting the use and prosecution of all manner of appeales, the Canon not admittyng but conditionally the use and prosecuti­on of some appeales; can not stand together.

Agayne, some inferiour Ordinaryes having libertie, to take the bridle in their owne teeth, & to lay the reynes loose, on their owne neckes, may in tyme (beyng proud­ly pampred) wax wanton in their judgement seates; when they shall stand in no awe, of having, the nullitie or injquity of their process and sentences, weyed in the ballance of any superiour Iudge. By reason whereof, this Canon, can not but proue exceeding onerovs to the subject.

For let a man or woman, dwelling at Michaels Mount, be but once judicially, (though perhaps wrongfully) cited by the name of a factious or obstinat person, & cōtemner of ceremonyes, and from such wrongfull citations, let his, or her appeale, made to the Kings Majestie in his Court of Chauncery (if it be frō the Archbishop,) or unto the Arch­bishop (if it be from the Diocesan) be never so just, & equal, thereis no remedy in this case, before his, or hirs appeale, be admitted or allowed, but the same man or woman (by the letter of this Canon) must personally appeare, in the Archbishops Consistory, if the appeale be by the Archbishop, and if the appeale be to the King in the Kings Court of Chauncery, though the same should be at Barwicke. Yea, and though the party appellant be never so poore, aged, [Page 113] weake, and impotent. Nay not only personall appearāce, but personall subscription also, by this Canon is requyred, to the Kings Supremacie, to the Articles of Religion, to the booke of Homilies, to the booke of Common prayer, and to the booke of Consecrating Bishops, be the party ap­pellant, never so simple a laborer, or never so silly a spīster.

The 37. Canon disauthoriseth every Minister by what authority so ever he be admitted, to preach, or to read a Lecture in any place within the Realme, unlesse he be li­cenced, either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the Diocess, or by one of the two Universities under their hands and seale. Let the King then under his broad seale, graunt licence to any of his Chapleines to preach within his owne chapple, this licenc by this Canon, is of no value; then the which what can be more derogatory, to the So­veraigne dignity of the King in causes Ecclesiasticall?

Unto the mould of this Canon, agreeth the 47. Canon, (be­fore mētiōed) which cōcludeth, that no Minister not licē sed a Preacher, under the hand & seale of the Bishop of the Diocess, or Archbishop of the Province, or under the seale of one of the Vniversities, shall take upon him to expound, in his owne cure any scripture, or matter of doctrine, but shall onely study to read playnely, and aptly, without glosing or addyng, the Homilies already set forth, or heerafter to be publi­shed by lawfull authority. The King then by this Canon, may not licence, a Minister to preach or to expound any scripture, no not in his own cure, no though the ministers Cure, be the Kings owne houshold, or the houshould of the Prince, or any other of the Kings children. Nay by these two Canons and the Canon of subscription it is evi­dent, that the Prelats intended, that every Scotish Minister havyng renounced the Hierachie, and embraced the single [Page 114] forme of Goverment in Scotland, should be barred from preaching at any time before the King in England, unless he should subscribe to the Hierarchy of England. For with out a licence may none preach, and without subscription may none be licenced.

And not onely is this 47. Canon, derogatorie to the Kings prerogatiue, but it is also repugnant, to other the Kings lawes and statuts. For whereby that statute, made against Lolardy, and Heresie,, it was enacted, that none should pre­sume to Preach openly, or privily, without the licence of the Diocesan, first requyred & obtayned, yet by the same Act, Curats in their owne Churches, and Parsons privi­ledged were excepted, and by the Provinciall Constituti­ons, confirmed and ratified by Parliament, it is provided thus: We establish, that no secular, or regular, not authorised by written law, or protected by speciall priviledg, to preach the word of God, may take upon him the preaching or exercise of the same word, within any Church, or without any Church, unless first he present and submit himselfe, to the examination of the Dioce­san etc: But concernyng aperpetuall Curate, we understand such a one, by law and right to be sent to the place, and people of his Cure. And that we may understand whom the Canon meaneth, to be a perpetuall Curate the gloss sheweth us, that a Bishop in his Diocess, a Parson and Vicar in his Parish, and every other Person intituled, to any benefice whereunto apper teyneth cure of soules, is to be understood to be a perpetuall Curate, and that he may preach in his owne Cure, with­out the Bishops licence.

Moreover by the booke of ordering Bishops, Mini­sters, and Deacons, every one made a Minister, promiseth that he will giue all faithfull diligence alwayes, to minister the doctrine etc: as the Lord hath commanded etc: so that he will [Page 115] teach the people committed to his cure and chardg, withall dilli­gence to keepe and obserue the same. But how can a Minister instruct and teach the people committed to his chardge, according to his publicke vowe, if (as it is sayd in this Ca­non) he shall not take upon him to expound in his owne Cure, any scripture or matter of doctrine at all, but shall onely study to read plainely and aptly, (without glosing or adding) the Homilies etc?

Lastly, the wordes of the Bishops institution are these. Teque rectorem eiusdem, ac de, et ineadem instituimus canonice, et investimus, cum suis iuribus, et pertinentiis universis, curam­que et regimen animarum prochianorum ibidem in Domino cō ­mittimus per-presentes. And we (speaking of a Clarke to be instituted into a benefice) Canonically institute thee rec­tor of the same Church, and of, Cure & go­verment by law ought to go together in a minister and in the same doe in­vest thee, withall her rights & appertinances; and by these presents, we in the Lord commit unto thee both the cure and goverment, of the soules of the Parishioners in that place. The Clearke then instituted into a benefice, by these wordes of the Bishops institution, by the booke of ordering of Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, and by the Provinciall Constitutions, having not a private, but a publicke office, of cure and regiment of soules, committed unto him; how can it seeme reasonable, that he should be countermanded by reason of a Provinciall decree not cō ­firmed by Act of Parliament, not to excercise the same his publicke office, without a Bishops licence? For what if the Bishops refuse to grant him a licence? Or what if the Bishops and his officers see, for graunting, writing, & sealyng his licence be greater then the poore Minister is able to disburst, is it reason that his chardg by this meāes should be left uninstructed? Nay is it not, as if a Sergiant [Page 116] at law, called to the barr of the Common pleas, by the Kings writ, solemly created a Sergiant, and publickly ad­mitted to the same barr, should afterward be forbidden by the cheife Iustice of that Court, to pleade at that barr, without licence otteyned, under his hand and seale? Or is it not, as if a Doctor of Phisicke, solemnely created in the Vniversity, and publickly admited to practise artem medica, should notwithstanding, without a new faculty from the Doctor of the Chayre be inhibited, to minister any Pill, or Portion, to any pacient?

The 53. Canon, before also mentioned, viz. against publicke opposition between preachers, is not only repugnāt to the doctrine of levit 5.1 2 Tim. 4.2: holy Scripture, & cōtrary to the practis of the 2. Chron. 18.7 Ierem. 27.9 & 28:7 Acts 13.10. Galat. 2: 11 Prophets & Apostles, but also crosseth the Ministers vow solemly made at his ordination. Whose promise is that he wilbe ready, with all faithfull diligence, to banish, & driue away, all erroneous, and strang doctrin contrary to Gods word, and to use both publicke, and private motions, and exhortations, as well to the sicke as to the whole within his cure. But upon occasion given, by any false Prophet, publickly broaching false doctrine, in a Ministers chardg, how shall the Minister with all faithfull dilligence drive away the same false doctrine, and publickely teach the truth, if he may not teach, admonish, or exhort his peo­ple, without a licence first obtayned from the Bishop of the Diocess? For what if the Bishop be upon an embassadg in Denmarke? Or what if the Bishop himself be of the same judgment with the false teacher?

The 91. Canon entituled Parish Clearks to be chosen by the Ministers, is contrary and regugnant to the customes of the Realme, in many Parishes of the Realme. And in this regard, this Canon hath been blowen to peeces, at the barr [Page 117] of the Common Pleas, by the opinion of the whole bēch in Hylarie terme last: when upon a writt of prohibition, procured by certayne Parishioners, in the Countie of Hertford, the Iudges denyed a consultation, to the Mini­ster of the same Parish, who had convented the Parishio­ners, before the Ecclesiasticall Iudg, for gaynsaying his elec­tion of the parish clearke; which by vertue of this Canon, he had declared in the Ecclesiasticall Court, to belong unto himselfe a lone.

The 77. Canon entituled, none to teach schole without licence, is repugnant to a statute made the first Session of this Parliament in divers poyntse. First the statute permitteth a­scholemaster to teach, in any publicke free grāmer schole, without any licence of the Bishop of the Diocess; or Or­dinary of the place: but this Canon commaundeth, that none teach publicke schole, but such as shalbe licensed by the one; or by the other. Secondly, the statute permitteth any person, in any Noble mans or Noble womans; gentle mans or gētlewomās house, being not recusants, to teach without any licence of etc: but this Canon, commaundeth that no man shal teach in privat house, but by licence etc. Thirdly, the statute permitteth not any person to be a­scholemaster by any other licence, thē by the Archbishop Bishop, or guardian of the spiritualties. But this Canon per­mitteth a scholemaster to teach, if he be allowed by an Ordinarie of the place a lone. Which many tymes, and in many places, is neither Archbishop, nor Bishop, nor guardian of the spiritualties.

Lastly, this Canon commaundeth, that none teach in publicke schole, or private house, unless he first subscribe, to the first and third articles, mencioned in the 36. Canon simply, and to the two first clauses of the second article, [Page 118] wheras the statute requyreth no manner of subscription at all.

All these things before written considered, we may saf­ly affirme concernyng many of the said late Canons, that they be not to be put in execution within the Realme, unless they shall be confirmed by Act of Parliament: yea that we may also truely speake this in generalitie: that ei­all the Churcwardens and syde men throughout England sworne to present all offences committed against the said Canons, must be falsely perjured; or else that there is not one Minister which shall exercise his ministeriall functiō, nor any one man, or woman, which shall usually come to common prayer, and divine service, but they must stand continually at the Ordinaries mercy, for one offence or other. For the thinges commaunded, or forbidden, beyng innumerable, and impossible at all tymes to be kept, into what a servitude these Canons haue brought both Mini­sters and people, and what an excessiue chardg, is layd up on the purse of every person be he bond or be he free, be he yong, or be he old, for citations, Excommunications, absolutions, and dimissions, licences, faculties, and dispē ­sations, Who havyng but halfe an eye seeth not? Nay, that many, in many places, haue already borne the Yoke, and felt the burden of these Canons, cannot be denyed. Agayne, howsoever at the petition of the Prelats, his Ma­jestie hath been pleased generally to allow, ratifie and cō ­firme, the booke of Canons, under the broad seale of Eng­land; yet may no loyall and honest subject heereupon in­ferr, that his Majestie intended by the generall wordes of his confirmation, to authorize any perticular matter, de­vised and decreed, by the Synod, contrary to the holy scriptures, hurtfull to the rights, prerogatives, and dignities, of [Page 119] his Highnes Crowne; repugnant to any lawes, statuts, or customes of the Realme, prejudiciall to his Lords & com­mons in Parliament, or onerous to his people. The con­tents then of sondry the late Canons, in as much as the same be contrary to the holy scriptures, tend to the ble­mishing of the liberty and franchise of the Kings will, grace, & power, be cōtrariant, or regugnant, to the lawes, statuts, and customes of the Realme, be prejudiciall to the Lords, and Commons in Parliament, without whose consent, no new bindyng law, ought to be made, or be such, as may become very onerous to the people; it is a playne case, that every of the Kings liege & faithfull sub­jects, ought to defend the Kings right, Honor and digni­ty against all such Canons.

For heerby it seemeth that as all other the wisest and best Princes that ever haue been, haue in some things at some tymes erred, so we without offence (I hope) may say, that the King also veritate tacita, or falsitate exressa, was una­wares somewhat mistaken in his graunt. In regard where­of, such Canons, by the lawes, statuts, and customes of his kingdome be meerely voyd, and of none effect to all con­structions & purposes: whereupon also, that necessarily followeth, that the same can receive no beyng, by his, Majesties confirmation, Quod omnino, non est, confirmari non potest.

Marginall notes.

Thereis a secret contradiction in the first parte of this answer. Reply. For as a Mayor ovt of his office is no Mayor, so a Minister out of his ministery is no Minister. See the ans­werer at large. Secondly, Ministers violently thrust out without just cause, are not to be blamed. Touching di­sturbance, we say that not we, but the Prelats that plead for humane and Romish Ceremonyes (much hurtfull and no­thing profitable,) are they that trouble the Church. For the Church would otherwise be quyet inough.

The first part of this note beyng but a scorne I leaue to scorners. The other divinity of this note, is very deepe and profound. Reply. How shall I sound the bottome of it? Doth Christ speake of Iohn, in respect of his knowledge, or of his office? Did the people goe out into the wildernes unto Iohn, in respect of his knowledge, or in respect of his office, to be baptised of him? Math. 3.6.7 Doth Christ also aske whether the know­ledge, Math 21.25 or the baptisme, (that is the ministery) of Iohn were frō heaven or of men? Heerby it is manifest that Christ compa­reth Iohn with the Prophets in respect of office, not in re­spect of knowledge. Therefore also in the same respect he compareth the least in the kingdom of heaven with him, and preferreth the least Minister of the gospell for his mi­nisteryes sake as much before Iohn, as he had before pre­ferred Iohn before the Prophets.

Lastly, the ministery of the gospell is greater then the [Page 121] knowledge of the gospell, because it is both the end for which God giveth more knowledge to some then to o­ther, and also the cause that worketh knowledge in other. If therfore the least in the kingdome of heaven, be greater thē Iohn Baptist in respect of knowledg, which is the least, then much more is the least minister of the gospell grea­ter then Iohn Baptist, in respect of his ministery which is the greater. The note with (c) is not worth a Cee (as they speake at Oxford) of single beere.

Further answer to the 9. Argument.

What a multitude of conformable Ministers are quite overthrowne by this Argument? Reply. For doe not many of them otherwise then they ought? Yea, doe not more of them otherwise, then all thes now in question? Is not this so to stand in a gap, as that the gap is troden downe, and a dore opened, for all men to deny all duety to all Mini­sters? For who doth not otherwise, thē he ought to doe?

What is that dilligent and humble obedience etc? Reply. To put on a Surplice, to make a vanishing Cross, to read service, to acknowledge the Prelats to haue power to make ordi­nances against Gods word etc. How shall they supplicat? With an 100. or 200. in a bagge. Then perhaps if they a­rise betymes, and ryde a pase, they shall haue a payre of benefices; an Archdeconry etc: yea liberty also to goe whi­ther they will, & never to come at any of their benefices, but only in gathering time or if they lie at one of their benefices they shall haue leaue I to suspēd themselues from [Page 122] preaching as long as the list: yea to do what else they will without controllment, so it be not against conformity. Notwithstanding the Canon for halfe yeares residence at either of their livinges, they haue many quirkes to avoyd the danger therof.

Further answer to the 10. Argument.

Who doth so taxe them? Reply Doth every one that admo­nish other of that which God forbiddeth or threatneth, taxe them whom he doth so admonish of those faultes that are forbidden? Your selfe haue taxed them indeede before, of matters nothing beseemyng you: yea, and the Prelats doe dayly taxe (if not also threathen to excommunicate them) for dealyng so much for us: for opposing themselues so much to the Prelacy: for doeyng so much as they haue doone against non residency, the disorders of the high Commission, the abuse of citations, the horrible abuse of the great censure of the Church, Excommunication etc: yea for dealing at all in the matters of religion: yea, haue they not more stoutly then wisely sent out their Inhibition against them in that behalfe? Thus they may doe what they list, Psal: 12 as though their tongues were their owne, and there were no Lord over them: but we poore men oppressed by them, may not humbly petition to the Parliament, but that we are presently exclaymed of, as ungratefull and ungracious, & as undutifully and unchristiantly taxeyng them for uniust, cruell and merciles dealyng. Wherefore doe they thus charge us? Because they feare that we will lay the same thinges to their charge. But though they doe thus esteeme of our petition, yet we hope it is better accepted of the Honorable Courte, unto which it was directed.

Wheras in the rest of the answer to this 10. Argumēt, he sayth the refractary Ministers (as he calleth them) were never proceeded against for preachyng the gospell, or for apper­tune & sober executyng their Ministery, this is utterly untrue, for some haue been molested for preachyng any thinge tendyng against the present Hierarchy, or any other cor­ruptions: some also for confuting the Popish doctrine of [Page 124] other, though they haue doone it never so soberly: and some for other matters, which are poyntes of the gospell as well as other.

The Marginall Notes.

Reply.In divine matters, neither superstition must sit Iudge, neyther must things be pleaded by nature or reason, but all must be done by the word of God, the store house of divinity. They are superstitious, that stryue more for re­teyning and practising of humane Ceremonyes in the worship of God, (be the pretense what it will) then they regard the truth of God. The (answerer as a very pitifull man) cryeth out, Alas it is lamentable etc. But one of these poore Ministers, yea many of them by reason of their tro­bles, may come ten-tymes to some of his great Masters houses, and not be offred once, to drinke of a cupe: but the truth is, they haue forgotten Apostolicall hospitality, and they haue learned Lordly Episcopall hostility. Fur­ther marke here his contradiction, or oblivion. Before in [Page 125] his consideration of the preface to the Arguments, he hath expresly charged them with divers particular carnall respects, etc. Now he sayth, contradictiō that he knoweth not for what carnall respects they curry favour etc. As for currying of fa­vour; it belongeth rather to some hungry trencher chap­lines, then to those against whom he writeth. Yea, 2 Sam. 16 13 2 Sam: 19 18 as Shi­mei that cursed David when his kingdome was somwhat doubtfull, yet at his safe returne and reestablishing of the Crowne unto him, was as forward as any other, by creepyng and crouchyng, by flattering and fawnyng to curry favour agayne with David, so it is well if there haue been no such curryers of favor among the Prelats. The place of Timothy is abused. It might in like sort haue been applyed to all the Martyrs. We must not provide for our familyes by doyng any thing against Gods word. That we had ra­ther liue of our owne, then of other mens, is manifest in that we doe so earnestly sue to be restored to our places, the rather that we may not be chargable to other.

This is spoken more like an Archbishop that had power to preferre other, Reply. then like a young chapline that needed and wayted for preferment himselfe. I know not, who may more justly be charged with quarrelling, then they that beate and buffet their fellow servants: yea then they that smite Christs Syster, his loue, his Doue, his undefiled, yea, not only smite her, but also woūd her, and take her vayle from her. We would gladly liue in peace, (with holines) but we cannot be suffered.

Further answer to the 11. Argument.

The Argument doth follow the better, Reply. because of the [Page 126] similitude of instances (as the answerer speaketh) or rather because it is a minore ad maius, from the lesse to the greater. This inequality of examples, rather strenghtneth then weakeneth the Argument and the cause. But let us see his dissimilitudes.

Reply.As Pharao was in error touchyng the religion & obedi­ence of his Priests, so are our Prelats touching our refractariness and superstition, The obedi­ence of the molested ministers to his Majestie: as good as the best Conformitans: as hath been sheewed. Our obe­dience to his Majestie is as good, as of the best of their syde. That mans obedience to a Mayor of a towne or to any other inferior officer of a Prince, is alwayes the best, that is most agreable to the pleasure of the Prince him­selfe. In like manner, that obedience is best unto Princes, that doth best agree with the pleasure of the Prince of Princes, and King of Kings. To obey the inferior without due regard of the superiors pleasure, is but flattery and fawnyng, not good obedience. So to obey Princes, with­out due regard to our dutie to God. For it is more preju­diciall and hurtfull, then beneficiall or profitable to such Princes. See the words of Samuell to the Israelits. 1 Sam. 12.15. & 25: & the example of Ioab in numbring the peo­ple by the commaundement of David, whereupon follo­wed an exceeding plague.

Touching the serving of God and his Church, in the faith full and diligent function and exercise of the Ministery; we are unjustly charged to refuse it, for we humbly and earnest­ly desire it, aboue all maintenance: and for this desire we are thrust out of our livyng.

The more justly, that Monks and Fryars were put out, Reply. the stronger is the Argument for us to be provided for, that are put out unjustly: without objection of any such foule crymes to us, as for which they were put out. Yet it is false, that they were put out for heresie or Idolatry; though they were heretikes and Idolaters. For they were suffered still in their heresie & Idolatry, as well after their putting out as before. Neither also are we willingly, deprived, any othewise then Marriners, willingly throwe their goods over boord into the sea, Acts 27.38: to save their liues and the ship the better. Of superstition I haue spoken often; this now I ad, that many account carefulnes to keep a good conscience in smale matters as well as in great, to be superstition. And in the meane tyme, themselues care neither for great nor smal matters, any further thē there are lawes of man in that behalfe. As for superstition indeed, we are silenced and deprived because we will not yeeld to humā Ceremonyes, that haue been and are superstitiously abu­sed in the worship of God, and of Idols, amongst the Pa­pists, whatsoever they are amongst us. It is also as false, that we refuse to be conformable to Christian lawes.

I know no condition of submission offered to Monks etc: Touching the rest, we thanke you for nothing. Reply. This is the curtesie of Prelats, to make us pay decre for our ly­vings, even to buye them with sinnyng against God, (as some of them are sayd to doe,) with Symony, and other­wise. But we dare not accept them at the price. The rest [Page 128] haue been often answered. I haue not such leysure, to use tautologies as the answerer seemeth to haue had at the wri­ting of his answer, as though he were connyng a lesson by heart, in feare of beating for forgetting the same.

Marginall notes.

What man? Haue you unchristened us? Are we now Heathen and infidells agayne? It may be you will say we are worse; Reply. lib: de Adia­phoris: yea you haue already called us Apes. Before also in a note we haue been secretly compared to swyne. But how then doe you call us your brethren? He is certaynly of a strange stocke, that hath Schismatikes, falss prophets, heathens and infidells, Apes and swyne to his brethren. But it were good that some of the Prelats that made the Canons and doe execute the same, did consider, in what danger they are by the statute of Excommingment, for ma­king and executing Canons contrary to former laws, and statuts of this kingdome. Heere agayne behold, the admi­rable efficacy of conformity, as that wherein consisteth the life of the Church, and wherby men are members, yea Angels of the Church in England: & without which, men are not so much as members thereof.

Reply.So long as we keepe our selues to Gods word, we fall not from our rule or obedience. For we acknowledge no other rule or obedience. Luther left the rules and obedi­ence [Page 129] of Monks: so many other left other rules of Popery. Yet, I hope you will not deny thē to haue been faithfull, or call them schismatikes. As for your rule and obedience of Conformity in some perticulars, many of us haue not fallen from them: First because we never yelded to them. 2 Because to leaue Conformity, is not to fall, that is to goe downward; but to arise, that is to goe upward. Bittter rootes spring up, that is, come out of the earth frō beneath. Heb: 12:15 prov. 15:24 Iames 1.17. But the way of life is on high, and every good and perfect gift commeth from aboue. They that haue left conformity, are more ashamed and greived for having been Conformable, then for leavyng it, though they pay sweetly for it.

Further answer to the 12. Argument.

This answer consisteth of 3 parts, according as I haue noted the same. Concernyng the first, Reply. it is not much to be denyed if men be schismatikes indeed, and not only in name. Therefore touchyng that and the second, neither the answerer nor all the Prelats in the world: shall ever proue us schismatikes and refractaryes, as they unjustly terme us. For the third, albeit the High Court of Parlia­ment would doe nothing in our behalfe, yet we will say with Samuell, 1 Samuell 12:13 Genes: 20:7 Ezra: 6:10 God forbid that we should sinne against the Lord and cease praying for them. Notwithstanding it cannot be denyed, but that the more justice and kindnes we shall re­ceiue from them or by them, either at this Session or at any other heerafter, the more we should be both bound and quickened to pray for them. But the zeale of the Par­liament, in doeyng so much all ready for us as they haue doone, is worthy our remēbrance whilst we liue. Though [Page 130] it haue not that successe presently, that we haue desired, yet we know not what it may haue in tyme, upon further consideration thereof by his most excellent Majesty, and by his wise and most Honorable Counsell. No seed gro­weth presently: yea the best seed lyeth longest in ground (for the most part) before it appeare, especially before it yeeld fruit agayne. That that is doone also, shall be a good evidence for us, and for the equity of our cause, as also a­gainst the Prelats, to all posteritie; whatsoever reproches, and other indignityes in the meane time we susteyne ey­ther by their speeches, or by their vnjust writyng (vpon record) against us. Contradiction or cōtra­rietie. But here is further to be noted, the con­tradiction or at the least the contrariety of this answerer, even in this very part of his answer. For in the first parte therof he sayth, the prayers of Schismatikes are not much to be regarded. Where his meaning by comparyng these words with other his termes of being rent & cut of frō the Church, obstinat, wilfull etc: must needes be, that our prayers are of no regard. In the third parte notwithstanding, he sayth that we ought to pray for the Parliament, though they should doe nothing for us accordyng to our desire. Ought we to doe that which is of no regard, of no use, of no benefite, to no purpose? math. 12:23 Shall not we giue account of every idle word, much more of every idle prayer? Yea are not the prayers of all obstinat, wilfull, impudent, schismaticall and sediti­ous persons, and of all lyers, and false Prophets (such as he hath often called vs to be) abominatiō to the Lord? prov: 15:8 How then are we bound to pray for the Parliament, or for any other? Are we bound to doe that tnat is sinne, and wher­of we shall giue an account?

Behold what conscience these men make of subscripti­on, Cross, surplice, conformity, G. Powel and other perticular obe­dience; that make no conscience of preachyng: yea not of commyng to their flockes once in a yeare; yea some not once in 3. or 4. yeares. Is it not strange also, that surplice and cross should ad such efficacie to prayers? How merry then would it be with England, if all men in all places, were forced to were a red, blue, greene, white, or yellow cross, vpon their hats, sleeues, or brests etc? And if every man, woman and child might never pray privatly, or publikely, but in a surplice? Further I pray God, that such as make so light account of our prayers for them, doe not by their hard dealyngs with us, force us to cry for help from God against them, and then feele the virtue and ef­ficacy of our prayers in this behalfe, to their greife. For shall not God aveng his elect, which cry day and night unto him, Luc: 10:7: yea though he suffer long for them? I tell you he will aveng them quickly. Let not this be lightly thought on. In the meane tyme also, how vilesoever our prayers are in their judge­ments; yet let this answerer & all other our greatest adversaryes understand, that they are not so in the sense & fee­ling of those mercyes, that they doe dayly enjoye, as well by our prayers, as by their owne. For our consciences bearing witnes, our prayers are of faith, and in truth & loue, we doubt not, but that the King and whole kingdome, yea our greatest adversaryes doe dayly fare the better by them. And this I feare would too soone appeare, if they should or could suspend us from praying, as they haue doone from preaching.

Marginall notes.

Reply.Though you take your pleasure of us, yet take heed, take heed, you blaspheme not the ordinances of Christ. Such certainly are litle better thē mad men, who impute giddines to the Discipline of Christ, commaunded to be kept without spot and unrebukeable untill his appearing. 1 Tim: 6:13 It is no newe thing for them that stands for Gods truth to be ac­counted mad men, 2 King 9, 11 Acts: 26.24 Luc: 15:17: or besides themselues, and in these dayes, Protestants scared out of their wits. But let them that now offend this way, and especially that account Gods ordi­nances to be giddines, let them (I say) repent and come to [Page 133] themselues, lest the Lord strike them with a farre worse spi­rit of giddines then yet they haue, which will not be cast out by any meanes, no, not by prayer and fasting.

If you so call it, we do exclame as we doe, Reply that we may professe Christ and his word more sincerely, without a­ny traditions of men in Gods worship. The Churches of Ephesus, Pergamus and Thyatira, professed Christ and his word and had many excellent things in them; yet our Sa­viour himselfe exclameth, and calleth them to reformati­on of the few thinges amisse with them. So did Paule to the Churches of Corinth and Galatia.

Let scoffers and mockers take heede, Reply. Psal. 2.4 prov: 1:26 that he that dwel­leth in the heaven laugh not: yea that the Lord haue them not in derision: yea least he laugh at their destruction, and mocke when their feare commeth etc.

Further answer to the 14. Argument.

It hath indeed been sayd before: but by whom, when, Reply. or where hath it been declared and proved? Which of us hath ever sayde that we are Christ or his word? As the Church is called Christ. 1. Cor. 12.12. so both the Mini­sters & all true beleevers are the Ministers of Christ. Last­ly, they that striue against humane Ceremonyes in Gods worship, and for the ordinances onely of Christ Iesus, doe striue also for Christ and his word.

The Marginall Notes.

Reply.These things being repugnant to the purity and since­rity of ihe gospell, under which God will not be worshipped in any such Ceremoniall sorte, Iohn: 4:23: but in spirit and truth; Being also such, as for which the Ministery of the gospell is restrayned (upon the liberty wherof dependeth the sal­vation of the people and their reconciliation with God) [Page 137] There is no cause, why such scoffing and frumping out­cryes should be made against us, as here & else where are made. Yea, though the ministery of the gospell, were not for these thinges restrayned, yet being urged in the wor­ship of God, they are unlawfull: and men standing against them, and in all humility desiryng them to be removed by lawfull authority, may well be sayd to stand in Gods cause, and to plead for God.

Thanks be to God, Reply that you haue no other then Mar­tin to upbrayd vs with: who was unknowne what he was, and whose writing was never approved by us: and who also though he jested at some manners of your side, yet ne­ver wrote so bitterly as many of you now doe.

You haue not proved us to offend, Reply. in those thinges wherein you impute most offence unto us. If we doe of­fend, we are more then told of it: yea our punishment is greater then our offence, because it is greater both then the law appoynteth, and also then the punishment of o­ther whose offences are greater.

The first parte of this note is plentifully justified, not onely by the booke Scotish Genevating, Reply. by the most scurri­lous booke of The picture of a Puritan, and by the answerers owne booke De Adiaphoris, but also by this presēt answer, injoyned and allowed by authority: wherein (for ought I know) there are more rayling, scoffing, and untrue spee­ches, then are in all the bookes here unjustly termed pamphlets and libells. If any notwithstanding of us doe offēd in this kind, they are not iustified by the rest: yet this is [Page 138] not to be forgotten, that they that be the loosers, and goe away with the blowes, may be the better borne withall, in their words.

Reply.If the word conformitan be a disgracfull terme, is ther not disgrace in Conformity and being conformed? For are not these words Conformed, conformity, and conformitans coniugata? Why then are we urged to conforme? Eyther therfore you justifie vs in not conforming our selues (for who would disgrace himselfe?) or else you doe ill to say, we call you by a disgracefull name, when we call you conformitans.

Reply.It needeth no answer. All men know and dayly heare, how they galle us in every sermon, and how litle we deale with them.

Reply.Neither malicious, nor lye. All men, good & bade doe too well knowe, too many both ignorant and scandalous to be in the Ministery. If it might please his most excellēt Majestie, or his most Honorable Councell, to send out Commissions into all Countryes, and to appoynt indifferent Commissioners (neither Bishops nor any other Pre­laticall persons, because such are partyes, but religious Noble men and gentlemen) to inquyre of this matter, the truth would much better appeare to the everlasting [Page 139] reproch, of all those that doe so justifie the present state of the Ministery. For the rest of the former note, who kno­weth not, that one lewd person (how base and abject soe­ver) may, and dayly doth procure & worke more trouble to a good Minister, and doth more easily prevaile to his ejection, then twentie good men (though of never so good credit) yea, then somtymes the whole Parish besids (though never so great) can doe for the good and peace, of the best Minister? That also for a man, not to were a surplice, or make a cross in the ayre (or I cannot tell wher or how) etc: should be lesse tolerable, then many great sinnes expresly forbidden by God himself, is very strang, yea lamentable, yea fearefull to thinke: much more to speake and write: most of all to print, for all the world, yea for all posterity to behold. Especially, that a learned man, a divine and Minister of the word should so thinke, speake, write, and publish. If this be not to preferre the au­thority of mortall and frayle man, before the authority of the immortall and most mighty God, Mar. 7:13: yea to make the word of God of no authority by traditions which men haue or­deyned, I know not what is. As for false doctrine, or phana­ticall conceits, which of you all, can justly charge us with them, as many conformitans may be with divers poynts of Popery, with toyes in the pulpit (more fit for a stage, then for Moses chayre) with foolish allegoryes, and with such pleading for Ceremonyes, as that the people are not onely not edified, but also corrupted and infected: yea & the minds of those that are judicious, and haue any tast of goodnes, exceedingly wounded? The like commission, that before I spake of, would sheew the trueth of these things also.

What an exclamation and accusation is this, upon the Printers fault, in setting Conformitans for unconformi­tans? If mallice had not overswayed reason, he might easi­ly haue seen it to be so, by the scope of the author. I haue also seene (and so many other) divers copyes corrected heerin, with the authors owne hand.

The notes with (k) l) and m) are often answered. The Greeke word of the next note, the Printer for want of Greeke letters, was fayne to omit. For which reason also all the fallacies in the end of every answer, are left out: the rest of the note followeth.

ReplyThat no Ceremonyes being instituted by God him­selfe since the death of Christ whereby the former were abrogated, God is therfore now to be worshipped in spi­rit & truth; and that no man or Church whatsoever hath power to ordeyne Ceremonyes for the worship of God.

ReplyNot any. No Sacraments. No other Ceremonyes. For the Sacraments that now are, were ordayned before Christs sufferings, and before the abrogation of the Ceremoniall law upon his Cross. These words goe teach all Na­tions, Colos: 2:14: math. 28:19 Rom. 3.2: Psal. 1 47.19:26 baptissing them etc. doe but ratifie and confirme that which was before instituted: as also make for the commu­cating of the word and Sacraments to the Gentils, which be­fore had been peculiar to the Iewes. All other things now in the Church for the goverment thereof, differing from those that were under the law, were ordeyned by Christ (or at least he had given commaundement for them to the Apostles) before his passion, and therefore before the abrogation of the Ceremonyes. For Christ commanded [Page 141] his Apostles to teach onely such things, as he had commā ­ded them: Mat: 28:20: Ioh: 14:26. and the Holy Ghost was onely to teach them al­thinges, and to bring althinges to their remembrance, which he (Christ himselfe) had told them.

The (p) hath been answered in the marginall note with h) of the 5 Argument.

Then, where there is no Crosse and surplice, Reply. there is no society; or at the least but loose and weake society. But perhaps he meāeth no Lordly Episcopall society, because no Ceremony, no Bishop. He may also meāe society betwixt a Minister and his benefice. So some haue found it true. Touching the other uses for edification, we desire to see them.

As the newes of Christ birth at the first troubled all Ierusalem, Reply. so it troubleth all Papall Prelats to thinke of Christs cōmyng, in the Discipline that he hath ordeyned. These wordes, their Discipline and new Discipline, are but marginall Mathematicall fictions. None of us desire any thing of our owne, but onely the ordinances of Christ Iesus: which cannot be otherwise called newe, then his commandement for loving one another, Iohn 13.34 is called a new com­mandement.

This Discipline we haue never attempted to bring in, by any unduetifull meanes, but by all humble supplication to the supreame authority, to which we acknowledge the establishment thereof to belong. Therefore, that we will be more restles eyther before or after the obteyning ther­of then becommeth us, is but his owne imagination, frō [Page 142] the experience (perhaps) of the restlesnes of some Prelats, till they be Bishops, and afterward till they come to be Archbishops. Yea thē also, till they get some further honor, yea till they haue suppressed all those, that they think doe any wayes dislike of such places. If it might please his Majestie and the other States of this Kingdome, but to permit it in some places where it might be most conveni­ently, it should much more clearely appeare, both how we would content our selues with all humble thanks to his Majestie and to the other States in that behalfe: and also how much better this would agree with all Civill Magistracy, then their present Hierarchicall and Ecclesi­asticall goverment doth: yea how farre more beneficiall it would be to the Common wealth: and finally how un­true many other imputations are, whereby it is common­ly disgraced. If any should abuse the same, or himselfe in the execution therof, we never denyed, but that such of­fenders should be subject to the censure of his Majestie, or of any his inferior officers.

Reply.You must first proue us to be in a schisme and faction. In the meane time, sound and solid peace would a thow­sand tymes better be made by removing all humane Ce­remonyes, by a more free preaching of the gospell of peace: If all Ministers should conforme themselues, yet if the gospell should be sincerely preached, (though never any word should be spoken against the Ceremonyes, and o­ther thinges in controversie particularly) certeynly, the Ceremonyes and other matters now in question, would be as odious, and in as great disgrace as now they are. It is therefore a vayne thing to labor for peace, without remo­ving [Page 143] of those thinges. Touching obedience it can never be perfect to man, where it is not sound towardes God. The establishing of Gods ordinances, will teach & worke perfect obedience unto men, to whom obedience is due.

Further answer to the 16. Argument.

All this is often answered. Reply The least transgression of Gods word, and the least obedience to Gods word, is the cause of God, as well as the greatest. I wonder the answe­rer was not ashamed, so often to repeate the same things.

How doth the first poynt of this answer agree with that that some of the great Prelats hold, Reply that their autho­rity is Apostolicall, and the Ceremonyes matters of order and de­cency? Are not thinges Apostolicall and decent, common to all Churches? Or may our Church, alter that that is Apostolicall? Or why should these ceremonyes, be more necessary for our Church, then for other Churches? Or not decent for other Churches, and yet decent for ours? If also Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, be in vested into the crowne, except the King and with him the officers of the crowne, be only the Church; our Church hath no power to alter them, having no Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction resident in it selfe. The latter part of this answer is needles, our as­semblyes beyng already gathered. What a foolish & gross absurditie also is it, to insinuate that an invisible cross, or a smockish surplice, should be of any effecacy for gathe­ring of assemblyes?

ReplyWhat if they be commanded onely by the Christian Magistrate, not jmposed by the Church? Or jmposed by the Church onely, the Magistrat beyng an infidell, or a persecuter of the Church? Can payne of sinne also be without payne of damnation? Are not those things that are to be obyed, contradictiō under payne of damnation, necessary to salvation? Hence also it followeth, that things once commaūded by the Church or Magistrat (especially by both) are as holy, as the jmmediate commandements of God. The particular inconveniences and absurdities heerof are infinit. What also is heere sayd, that was not wont to be sayd by the Papists against the Martyrs?

Reply.Alas M. Powell, make not such account of your booke De Adiaphoris, then which, there never came more simple stuffe from any man reputed learned. You had neede to recant your blasphemous poynt therein, against the au­thority of Christ Iesus for making lawes in his Church. Uerily you might as well haue denyed him to be a King, and a redeemer. To the 5 part of this answer unto this 16. Argument, reply hath often been made. That thes things are become bones of contention, is onely the fault of the Prelats, that striue with might and maine for them. They acknowledge that they haue power to alter and remoue them, and the see great reason so to doe: neither can they giue any reasons but childish for continuance of them, and yet to the great dishonor of God, and to the greefe of thowsands of the godly, they reteyne them. For our [Page 145] parts, if we were not troubled for them, we would be so farre from contending about them, that we would never aske after them, neither would we care if we never saw them.

Marginall notes.

Reply.Nay, you haue forgotten your Logike, in mistaking the end for the efficient cause. The Gentils did not affirme themselues plagued, to the end the Christians might contemne their Gods, but because they thought they had contemned their Gods. This error is in all the answer fol­lowing. For the author tooke not upon him, to particu­larize the sinnes for which God had visited the land, but onely to shew what the Lord looked for from us, both by his works of Iustice, and also by his workes of mercy and goodnes amongst us. Therefore the notary and answerer in all that followeth, sitteth besides the cushion. Agayne, what doth this note else import, but a soothing up of thē ­selues and of all other in their sinnes, that they may not enter into perticular examination and judging of them­selues? When as euery man, and every state should perti­cularly censure and judge himselfe and his sinnes, to haue had a stroke in provoking the wrath of God so against us. And therefore happy had it been for the Prelats, if they had smitten themselues upon the brests, for their hard dealing with the Church, in restraynyng the Lords ser­vants, that would haue given every one in the Lords hou­should, his portion in due season. So happy also were it, if every other state and person, would doe the like touching their perticular sinnes.

The second note with (b) is nothing: because the schis­me is not yet proved against us. Though we deny not, but that for our sinnes, the Lord hath visited this land as well as for the sinnes of other, yet not for any schisme of ours. The like I say for the like cause, of the note with (c) And though it behoveth the Parliament, especially, to consider of the workes of God, (as representing the body [Page 147] of the land,) yet I wish all other likewise to consider of the same.

So the wise may consider, how foolish malice is, Reply for want of matter from words, to wrangle with a mans mea­ning, The example is good and holy. The Bee will gather hony, out of a stinkyng weede: but the Spyder sucketh deadly poyson, out of the fayrest and sweetest flower. The flatterer careth not what he say against one, so that he may please another.

I grant this; Reply it beyng understood of such schismaticall refractaryes, as in part rent themselues, both from the A­postolicall doctrine, and also from the auncient Apostoli­call Churches, as likwise frō all other Churches through­ly in doctrine reformed: and so stand in medio, betwixt such Churches, and the Romish Synagogues. Who also beyng admonished thereof, in duetifull manner by their brethren; yea by some speciall works of Gods loving seve­rity, doe persist in their sayd schisme, in a most refractary manner.

Reply.Let the reader be pleased to see, whereupon this note is gathered, and he shall see, that there is no ground therof. The author onely asketh a question upon former promi­ses, whether such and such thinges considered, the Parlia­ment would dissolue their meeting without doeyng any further matter in that behalfe (that is for the Ministers pleaded for) then they had donne. He doth not say, with­out doyng any good, but any further matter, insinuating [Page 148] thereby, that they had done something allready: agayne he speaketh not of all causes, but only sayth, in that behalfe. But this is the answerers sophistry, Sophistry. often detected. How­soever he say no good hath been done by Ministers whō he calleth refractary, yet thowsands that feare God can testifie, that the Church hath received more good by such Ministers, then ever it hath or will by any Papall Prelats, careles Non-residents, trencher chaplins and idle bel­lyes, that seeke their owne, and not the thinges that are Iesus Christs, and who are noted, in all publike meetings for re­formation of abuses, more to hinder then to further all good motions against the Papists, against swearing, & for the religious observation of the Saboths etc, then com­mon Christians, at the least then those, that they doe con­temptuously call laye persons.

Reply.None at all. But who doe more comfront the Magi­strat in all kingdomes, then Papall Prelats, that hold their owne jurisdiction to be iure divino by Gods law, and that therefore deny all Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be absolutly invested into the crowne of those kingdomes where they liue, that take upon them to deale withovt law, besides law, and directly contrary to law, and that many wayes oppresse the Magistrats subjects at their pleasure? As for us, I haue sayd before, I say agayne, and it is published to all the world in the booke intituled, A protestation of the Kings Supremacy, that we are so farr from confronting the Magistrat, that we attribute much more unto him, then all rhe Prelats doe. Touching repinyng at brethren, I know none guiltie heerof, except wishing that Christ Ie­sus [Page 149] may haue his owne, the Church her owne, the Magi­strate his owne, the Ministers of Christ, and the subjects of the Magistrat their owne, yea every Byrd to haue her owne feathers, I know none (I say) to repine, except wi­shing of these things, and that every mortall man would content himselfe with his owne, be to repine. The rest of this note hath been answered.

What? Reply To say that vnworthy persons are thrust out in­to some of their places that are deprived? A man need not to ascend into an high mountaine, or to ryde many myles out of London for proofe therof.

The next note with (b) after (h) and before ( a, (as though the Notary had forgotten his alphabet) is often answe­red. The next note also with ( a(after b) is not worthy of answer.

Are Coapes, Surplices and Crosse etc: Reply. proper to the true Church of God? If they be not, why is this noted upon the authors petition in this Argument, for removing of Popish ornaments? If they be, then either it is no Church, or an imperfect Church, that wanteth them.

Are no appurtinances of Romish religion to be hated, Reply. but such as proper thereunto? This is wonderfull. For what appurtinances are there of Romish religion, which agree not either with Iudaisme, or Paganisme? We are ther­fore to abhorre whatsoever appurtinance of Romish reli­gion, whereof there is no necessary use in the service of God, and which were better abolished, then reteyned. Thus much to the marginall notes, of this 17 Argument. [Page 150] In the rest of the answer he dealeth deceitfully, racking divers particular examples, applyed by the author, only for amplyficaton and illustration of this generall Argument, or of some perticular branch thereof, racking (I say) such perticular examples, and applying them to the maine conclusion and petition, as intended by the author for a seve­rall Argument to confirme the same. Wheras in like manner, he might haue done the like with divers other perti­culars in this generall Argument comprehended. But let us see what he sayth.

Further answer to the 17. Argument.

In these words, let the contrariety of the answerer, to almost in his whole answer written, Reply. be observed. For he being a scholler, his words must be schollerly interpreted. Because therfore we are not to doubt, but that the answerer remēbreth, as well what he hath learned in the Ethicks, as in the Elenchs of Aristotle, may it please the reader to vn­derstand, or (rather) to remember, that Aristotle in his sayd Ethnicks, maketh great difference, betwixt bonum & bene, good and well: iustum and iuste, that which is iust, and justly. For he teacheth, that good & just things may be done, by evill and ujust men, which haue not the habit eyther generally of goodnes, or perticularly of Iustice: but he sayth, that only good and just men, which haue the habit of goodnes and justice, Marc: 6:20: can doe things well and iustly. And this distinction is agreable to holy writ. For Herod is saide to haue done many thinges; viz. that were in themselues good: the like may be sayd of Saule and divers other. But certaine it is, that evil men can doe any good or just thīg, [Page 151] well and iustly. This commeth onely from the spirit of re­generation, and from a true faith wrought thereby, with­out which it is impossible to please God. For as much therfore, Heb: 11:6. as this answerer doth here testifie generally of the Suppli­cants, that they doe discourse in this Argument not onely of many worthy and Christian poyntes, but also worthily, and Christianly, yea very worthily and Christianly: contraritie yea also for as much as he setteth this downe for a certeynty, saying cer­teynly, how doth this, or can this agre, with all the reproch full termes before given by him unto them, of Schismatiks Refractaryes, wilfull contenders with the Magistrate, presumptu­ous censurers, wilfull and malicious confronters of the Magistrat, boasters, lyars, impudent, blind and ignorant persons, false Pro­phets, fowers of sedition, disturbers of the Church etc? For can it be sayd of such men, and that for a certeynty, that they discourse very worthily and Christianly of sundry things? Let it not be sayd, that to discourse, is but a matter of wordes. For their is the same reason of words and works. No man can say well and rightly that Iesus is the Lord, 1 Cor: 12:3. but by the Ho­ly Ghost. Though an evill man therfore may speake many good and Christian things, yet onely good men, speake good and Christian things, well and christianly.

I haue told you, Reply of your mistaking your Logike be­fore. The author disputeth not perticularly of the sinnes that moved the Lord to visite vs etc: but of the generall end wherfore he did both correct us, but also magnifie his mercy towards us. The which he applied to the particu­lar poynt of favor for the Ministers molested. Notwith­standing, to answer your question, though it cannot be denyed, that for other sinnes the Lord hath so heavily [Page 152] scourged us, yet why should the suppressing of the Mini­stery of the gospell be concluded? Was, not to receiue and heare the Disciples of our Saviour, which were sent out by two & two but for a time to prepare men for the gospell, so great a sinne, that our Saviour pronounceth, that it should be easier for Sodom and Gonorrha in the day of iudgement then for such a City, Mat. 10:14. 15: as should not so receyue and heare his Disciples, and shall the silencyng, and depriving of so ma­ny Ministers setled in perticular Congregations, and all ready blessed in their labors, be accounted no sinne? Yea not onely the silencyng of them etc: but also, providyng that they shall haue no other meanes whereby to mayn­teyne themselues, their wiues and children? God open your eyes to see, and moue your hearts so to cōsider here­of, that yee may not flatter your selues, but see your sinne herein. Yea, because your selfe speake of unthankfulnes, as one speciall sinne provokyng Gods indignation, what greater unthankfullnes can there be, then so to intreate his servants, whom he hath so graced and blessed? Iudge your selues yee Reverend Fathers (that are principall actors in this matter) that yee may not be iudged of the Lord. 1 Cor: 11.31 Take heed (I humbly beseech you, in the feare of God) take heed (I say) in time, least fire breake forth frō the Lord, and there be none to quench the same. In the destruction of Ierusa­lem by Nebuchadnetzer, 2 Chron: 36 16: and the carying of the people a­way captiue to Babell: and in the last desolation of the same City by the Romans, the like misusing of the Lords Prophets is set downe as one principall cause therof. Mat: 21.35:23:37: And who I beseech you, in such misusage of the Lords messengers, had alwayes a principall hand? Had not the Priests of the Lord, that should haue done the contrary? Serch the scriptures, and see if they bare not witnes in this behalfe. [Page 153] If God once set things in order before you, Psal: 50.12: shall it be sufficient to pleade, that the Ministers of his word, against whom yee haue so proceeded, were Schismatikes, refractaryes etc. Alas, alas this wilbe but a weake plea. Yee haue herd be­fore, that the Prophets were so termed.

Lastly, concernyng the particular sinnes by you men­tioned and other the like, from whence doe they more proceede, then frō the restraint of the word, by the Prea­ching wherof, they would be eyther repressed or restray­ned? If the libertie and free passage of the gospell, worke an holy feare, humility, and duetifull thankfulnes, yea, if the preaching of the word, doe restrayne the most wic­ked and reprobate themselues, that they bite in their lips, hold their hands, and refrayne from many sinnes, which otherwise they would commit, (as it cannot be denyed) doe not security, pride, unthankfulnes, & all other sinnes come from the restraint of the word?

The answer to the Second supposed Argument, in this 17 conteyned, hath in part been answered before, because it hath been proved, that we are no Schismaticall Mini­sters. Touching the rest of the sayd answer, we deny not but that there are other meanes wherby that Honorable Court, may testifie their thankefulnes, yet this hindreth not, but that this may also be one: yea if it be granted that there are other, then by vertue of relation, this also must be granted to be one. Yea, if mercy to the soule, be more then mercy to the body (as the soule is better then the body: and the misery of the soule greater then of the body; and cruelty to the soule worse then to the body) then it followeth that this is a speciall & principall meanes, wherby to testifie their thankfulnes.

His answer to the third supposed argument in the 17 [Page 154] Argument hath also been answered. The same I say of his answer to the 5 supposed argument. Onely therin the an­swerers censure of the Parliament if they should restore us, is to be observed, viz. that they shall not onely attract guilt and remorse of Conscience, but also preiudice their Honora­ble age, and make their names reprochfull to all posterity. This toucheth not only the Lords of the upper house, and bo­dy of the Commons in the Netherhouse, but also his most excellent Majestie, without whose Princely autho­ritie nothing can be done by the other. Let all Prelats that pleade more stoutly for superstitious Romish raggs, then they doe duly regard Gods holy ordinances, let such Prelats rather take heede, that such things as are here threatned to the Parliament by the answerer, doe not be fall unto them.

Whereas the answerer, in his answer to the [...]4 suppo­sed Argument betwixt the third and the first, reckoneth us up (in the bitternes of his spirit) with all Schismatikes, Heretikes, Papists, Athists, murtherers, theues, cutpurses, etc: therin he sheeweth his brotherly loue and kindnes towards us, Esa: 53:12 Mar: 15:27. and how well he spareth us. But sith Christ Iesus was coūted among the wicked; yea crucified betwixt two theeues. yea, and had also a murderer preferred before him; why should we his servants, wretched men, and great sinners be greeved or ashamed, thus to be reckōed with such vile persons? 2 Tim 2.12 Iohn 17.24 Yea rather we may the more comfort our selues, because if we suffer with him, we are the better assured that we shall reigne with him, who hath prayed the Father, that we may be with him, even where he is, to behold his glory.

Was not Sisera also the creature of God, Reply. and in that respect may it not be sayd, that he had no evill in him? And is not the Pope also an enimy to the people and Church of God, as well as Sysera was? Yea is he not much more, in as much as he is enimy to their spirituall state, and everlasting salvation? Moreover, touching the orna­ments of Popery mentioned in the Argument, doe we speake of them as they were the creatures of God, or as they were and are still by many Papists abused to Idola­try? What doth the answerer say for them, that might not haue been sayd for the covering of the images of silver, Isa. 30:22 which the Iewes (that should truely repent of Idolatry) were to pollute, that is to account as thinges polluted; and for the rich ornaments of the images of gold, which also they were to cast away as a menstrous cloth, Sophistry. and (with great dis­dayne) to say unto it, get thee hence. What fallacy this is, the answerer knoweth.

Are you sure, their is never a Surplice now in England, Reply that was abused to Idolatry publikely in Queene Maryes time, or secretly sithens that tyme? If it be true of surpli­ces, are you sure it is true of all Coapes? Nay rather, I scarse thinke, that there is not any Coape now, that was not in the time of Popery. Besides, haue you forgotten the di­stinction of idem specie, and idem numero? Ahas sent not the same Alter to Ierusalem, that was at Damascus, 2 Kings 16:10: but onely commanded the like thereof to be made. By this reason also we may erect new images in Churches, (as some all [Page 156] ready are in some places) and say that these images were never worshipped or abused. Exceter Here therfore behold agaīe your sophistry. Sophistry. Touchyng the substance of things abused to Idolatry, we urge not the destroying thereof, neyther doe we deny the restoring of them to any good civill, or naturall use from which they were first taken and implo­yed to Idolatry. But we deny that we ought to haue any such honorable use, as to haue any place in the service of God, Deut 12.31 who expresly forbiddeth to be so worshipped. I un­derstand this of such thinges as God hath not comman­ded, or wherof there is no necessary use. Such are the or­naments in question. The objections against this are plentifully answered in other books. The 11. chapiter of your booke wherunto you referre us, is not worth the reading of a learned man. It conteyneth objections of your owne making not of ours. Which of us, was ever so mad, as to say, que ad Dei gloriam fiunt, iis colitur Deus. For are not the dutyes of the second table performed for the glory of God? Is God worshipped by them? This is to confound both the tables. Who ever also saide, Quicquid fit ex fide et Deo placet, whatsoever is done of faith, and pleaseth God, is the worship of God? So our eating, drinking, and whatsoever else we doe, shall be the worship of God. I wonder you blushed not to impute such thinges unto us, and to cast your owne shame upon us.

The third objection indeede in that chapter, touching the proposition, is in part (yet not wholly) ours. But your answer thereunto maketh more for us then against us, as a child that hath well learned the principles of religion might easily shew. But I for beare answer of them, and leaue them to other to shew your childish weaknes there in, and in that whole booke. By the sight wherof I praye [Page 157] God you may see, what it is to write against the truth. In other things you haue written well, and we thanke God for your paynes: but in these causes your arguments are like fagots of thornes full of prickes without substance, bound with bonds of strawe, which by the fire of Gods truth, are quickly burnt up, though for a time they fill a­great roome, and seeme to make a great blaze: yea they are like to ignis fatuus, which terrifieth simple men, as if it were a spirit, but is in truth, but a litle fire of certeyne sly­mie exhalations: at the most they are but like a Comet or blazing starr, which though it seeme to ignorant men, to be aboue in the starrie heavens, with the fixed starres, yet for all that is but in the highest region of the ayre, and at the last is dissolved into winds.

Thus much for reply to the 17. Argument: yea to all. For to the conclusion of all (which the Notary & answe­rer unaptly call a distinct Argument) their is nothing an­swered requyring any further reply, then hath been already made. This therefore shall suffice, for defence of the former Arguments. In the answer whereof, though (per­haps) there be the more scoffes, reproches, cavils, bitter speeches, and uncharitable collections, to haue provoked us unto the like, that thereby some further advantage might haue been ministred unto them, against our cause and against our selues: yet as the author of the argumēts, used not any such word to provoke them, so I thought good to walke in the like stepes of modestie, that the de­fence of the Arguments might be the more suitable to the Arguments thēselues: that the author of them might haue no cause justly to blame me, for disgracing his work and the cause it selfe by a contrary course: and that the mindes of the Prelats may rather be molified towards vs. [Page 158] then any thing more exasperated against us. If it fall out otherwise, and that our mildnes doe still increase their ri­gor, God (I hope) shall giue us patience, to indure what­soever he shall suffer them to doe unto us: together also with such comfort, as all the world shall not be able to take away from us. For we are so throughly perswaded, from the evidence of Gods truth, revealed in his word: and sealed up in our hearts by his spirit, the cause wherein we stand, to be the cause of Christ Iesus, that we say with Paule, Acts 21.13: we are ready, not to be bound onely, (neither onely to loose our livings) but also (herein) to dye for the name of the Lord Iesus. I speake not this seditiously (and therfore let no man so wrest my words) but I speake, with that mind, and in that manner, that Paule spake the former words, to signifie our readines, for suffering any thing, which the Prelats shall do unto us: not for doyng any thing to resist them. Some of thē harpe much vpon this string, (as appereth by wresting of our words in most malicious manner in the former answer against us) yea, they seeme also to thinke long, for some law or other of this land to be wre­sted against us, to make some of us examples unto other, by sheading of our bloud; but if they should so fare pre­vaile (which I hope they shall never doe, in the dayes of gracious and mercifull King Iames, nor in the dayes of any of his most Royall bloud) let them remember the words of Ieremy in the like case, Ieremy 26:14:15 to the Priests and Prophets that sought his bloud, As for me, be hold I am in your hands, doe with me as you thinke good and right. But know you for certeyne, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent bloud upon your selues, and upon this Citie, and upon the inhabitants thereof: etc. For of a truth the Lord hath sent me to speake all these wordes unto you. Yea, let them not onely remember [Page 159] those words, but so also take admonition by them, that in the presence of God, they be not guiltie of high treason against our most Christian Soveraigne, against his Royall issue, and against the whole land, by provoking the Lord, to inflict such judgments upon all, as the wordes before mentioned doe insinuat. We are in their handes, 2 Chron: 24 22: ready without any resistance meekely to suffer any thing: but he that judgeth righteous iudgment, though he sit in the heavens, will looke upon it, and one day (as Zechariah in the like case sayd) will requyre it: as indeed then he did.

Not withstanding, I am so farre from Prophecying or wishyng any judgment to the whole land, (though I cannot but feare it) that I doe, and will earnestly pray, Ioel 2.17 Gen, 18, 26 spare (this) thy people ô Lord, and giue not (this part of) thyne heritage into reproch etc. Yea, I doe the more hope of mercy in sparyng us yet a while longer, because of the great mul­titude of the righteous in the land: and because perticularly of many that haue been and yet are (under Christ) dressers of this the Lords vineyard, that day and night (whiles many Prelats eate and drinke, and take their ease and pleasure) doe pray the Lord of this his vineyard, to let it yet alone, Luk. 13:8 and to spare it a while longer. But for all this, whosoever shall procure the bloud of the meanest of us to be shead, (un­der whatsoever pretence) let them know that such bloud, shall cry louder in the eares of the Lord of Hosts, for vengeance upon the procurers therof, then ever we haue cry­ed in the eares, either of our most gracious Soveraigne (whom God long preserue in person, and in vprightnes of heart) or of the High Court of Parliament for Iustice. If their shall be iudgment merciles, to him that sheweth no mer­cy, what shall the portion be of the cruell & bloud thirsty? Iames 2:13: Pro: 21:13 Verely, though they cry, yet the Lord shall not heare them.

As also they that put the Martyrs to death, missed of their purpose, so shall all bloud thirsty and ambitious Pa­pall Prelats. Epist: 243. Sanguis martirum, semen Ecclesie. The bloud of Martyrs is the seed of the Church: and foecundi (saith Calvin) sunt martyrum cineres. The very ashes of Martyrs are fruitfull. The truth may be oppressed, but it cannot be suppressed: yea the more it is oppressed, the more it shall bud forth & spring. If one of us in this cause should be put to death (though perhaps under colour of some other offence, by perverting of words, wresting of law or otherwise) yet for that on, the Lord can rayse up ten: yea, there is nothing that hath made, or doth make the cause of Papall Prelats more odious, and the reformation desired, more gracious and honorable (even with some that before the conside­ration of that which I now say, were of another minde) then the unjust, and especially the unmercifull procee­dings of such Papall Prelats, against the seekers of reforma­tion. Philip: 1:28 Therfore in this case (as the Apostle exhorteth the Philippians) we doe in nothing feare our adversaries, because as to be our adversaryes in such respects, is to them a token of perdition, (if they repent not) so also, to be hated and per­secuted by the Prelats, is a like token to us of salvation, and that of God. But beyng so confident, why doe we conceale our names to our writings? Because as Christ Iesus, not­withstanding all his heavenly fortitude without any de­fect, did for all that, oft tymes hide and with drawe him­selfe, from the furie and rage of the Priests, Scribes, and Pha­rises, till his appoynted time was come, so doe we by this meanes, hyde our selues from the violence of some of our Prelats.

To your conclusion I will answer litle, because it hath litle, that hath not been answered before. Wheras you say [Page 161] that wordes are to be numbred to so great states, I answer that words are not onely to be numbred, but also for the qua­lity, truth, modesty, sincerity, and equity of them to be weighed and considered; which if you had doone, your whole labor had ben spared. If you did greiue in your soule, to heare us complayne of our povertie, why doe you by bitter rayling, false accusations, and most unjust & vnreasonable wresting of your antigonists words against all other Mi­nisters of his sorte, ad affliction to our affliction: doe you not know, that by this circumstance, David amplyfied his cō ­playnts and deprecations against his adversaryes? Is this to iudge wisely of the poore? Psal. 69 and 109.16 Psal. 41.1. Whereas you wish us to be a sha­med of our feeding on shales, and huskes at other mens trēthers, you mistake your marke. For this belongeth not to us, but to trencher chaplins, that gape after dead mens shoes, or liue in miserable hope of the livings of their brethren better then themselues, to be unjustly deprived: and that in the meane time wayte at their Masters table, till they haue sayd grace, and then sit down (if there be any roōe) at the nether end, after all the meate served in. Who also are glad of ij s. vj d. or five shillings for examinyng some clarke presented, to a benefice, or that (which is worse) do now and then take a brybe, for allowing one to be suffi­cient for the Ministery, that is scarse fit to be a Ministers clarke, except onely to helpe on with the Surplice: who finally (for the most part) are every tawny coates compa­nion, to play at cards, tables (perhaps also at dyce) and at bowles etc: Yea sometimes to drinke, quaffe, and all most quid non. All your reasons out of Arretius, against popular contributions (as you call them) and for set stipends and tythes I passe over with silence, because the author of the arguments hath commenced no sute against you in this [Page 162] behalfe. Therefore I leaue you to fight herein, with your owne shadowe. Touching you M. Powell, as Iob sayd to E­liphaz, Iob. 16.3 What maketh thee bold so to answer? Or as some other read it, what provoketh you so to answer? So truely I cannot but admire the bitternes, sharpnes, and unrighteousnes of your pen (according as before I haue discovered the sāe) against one that hath used so great mildnes in all his Ar­guments. Notwithstanding remembring the fall of Peter, and the meanes therof, viz. His beyng in the high Priests Hall, and not forgetting his gracious repentance after­ward, testified by many a salt teare, I doe the more pity your present state, by cōsidering that provocation, which from other you haue had, so to write; and I doe the bet­ter also hope of your repentance. For though it be more advisedly to write an whole booke, then on the sodayne to speake a fewe wordes, yet in other respects, I will not compare your fault in thus wryting to the fall of Peter, as equall therunto: and if you had so fallen, yet would I not, neither might I, despaire of your risng. Only in unfained loue towards you, I do seriously exhort you, to take heed heerafter of any such service. Be not to readie, be not to ready, to be cōmanded such a worke by any Prelat what­soever. You may perhaps haue some reward in the end of such paynes: (such as men can bestowe upon you) but looke more to that reward, that is in the right hand of the great master of all rewards. Remember well, what Balaam a sorcerer refused at the hands of King Balak, beyng sent for by very honorable messengers, to curse Israel: yea, re­member what a worthy answer he made, though himself were a most unworthy man. Nūb. 22.18 If Balack would giue me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot goe beyond the word of the Lord my God, to doe lesse or more. Yea, remember (I say once [Page] agayne) how constant he was in the sayd answer. chap. 24.1 [...] For he repeated it afterward, when Balak was much provoked, because he would not satisfie him in cursing of the Israelits, and threatned as much evill against him, as before he had promised and offred preferment. If such a person made such an answer to a King, and were so constant therein, should the Ministers of the Gospell be so easily comman­ded by lesse then Kings, to revile, and (in some sorte) to curse, so many worthy Ministers of Christ Iesus, which haue been valiant captaynes of his armyes against Sathan himselfe, and all his forces? Whatsoever you haue in this booke written against them, yet I appeale to your owne conscience for the contrary: yea you haue expresly be­fore professed, that you hope they are the Ministers of Christ Iesus, and in grace and favor with him. Looke therfore heerunto in time, before you be too much hardened a­gainst him.

Touching the cause also it selfe, beware, yea, I say agayne beware, you sinne not for any worldly prefermēt, against your former knowledge. Pleade not better judgment now, then before you had. Psal. 4.4 Examine your owne heart (as it were) upon your bed, whether this plea be insincerity, or only from regard and hope of some prelaticall advancment. The more knowledge, the more dangerous it is to fall a­way. A litle disease is ofttymes the beginning of great sicknes. Small hurtes also at the first neglected, growe in the end to greevous and incurable sores. Remember Lots wife. Luc. 17.32 Revel 2. [...]. Fynally remember from whence you are already fallen, and re­pent, and doe your first works etc: and let not the precious promises made to them in the word, that indure to the end, be forgottē. Wherof he that hath made them; make both you and me partaker, for his sake in whom they are made: to whom be all prayse and glory for evermore, Amen.